ACT: #PlasmidGate - Australians sue Pfizer & Moderna. "Vaccines" are GMOs

Support this legal case and team.

VST launched in 2021 stating that COVID gene therapies had been deliberately miscategorised as vaccines and therefore subject to entirely the wrong regulatory pathway. Throughout 2022, VST made multiple references to genetic engineering as a primary issue and root cause of the pandemic and corollary issues.

Since the pandemic started, amongst anti-narrative voices, how loud are the calls for:

• fundamental control of genetic engineering?

• re-classification and re-regulation of COVID gene therapies as such?

Who is taking action on the above fundamentals? Do you want someone to act?

Thankfully, there are others who understand the above and have embarked upon an appropriate course of action.

We have no choice but to directly support those people.

Australia is now the battleground where the fight for humanity’s future is playing out.

“We are suing Pfizer and Moderna”

A small group of Australian lawyers including Julian Gillespie, Katie Ashby-Koppens, Peter Fam and others have been working for years, largely unpaid and unrecognised, on cases in the COVID field. Gillespie has designed and is leading a current action against Pfizer, Moderna and the Australian Office of Gene Technology Regulation (OTGR) and its regulatory equivalent to the US FDA, the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA).

Canaries in the Human DNA Mine

Gillespie’s peer reviewed paper, “Canaries in the Human DNA Mine”, was published in the Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research. If you are looking for a single document that brings together key issues in the regulation of the science and medical technology upon which the pandemic hinged, look no further. Gillespie provides a succinct, heavily referenced, unifying view of how we got here or rather, how certain people who knew exactly what they were doing got the rest of us here. Some of us have known and understood enough or all of it for a long time and have been ignored not because there wasn’t proof, documentation or logic. It was because the true meaning of this is horrific and the scale dwarfs any previous medical crime, including WW2 , any subsequent war or known acts committed by government agencies e.g. CIA’s MKULTRA et al. Gillespie’s paper serves as a key reference that underpins the anti-narrative position taken by VST and others.

When new drugs constructed with the elements of our genes are introduced seemingly out of nowhere, and within months are scaled-up for a global population told “everything is fine, just take it, or else”. . . the failure to acknowledge over four decades of science speaking to the genetic risks associated with the drugs was never an oversight . . . It must have involved concerted planning and intentionality, a criminal avoidance of the real science at all costs. The implications are staggering and the canaries in our DNA mine are dying.

Julian Gillespie LLB, B Juris

This case is about genetic engineering and #plasmidgate

Gillespie and Dr. Julie Sladden also published an article, “The Vax-Gene Files: An Accidental Discovery” discussing Kevin McKernan’s work on shot contamination on his “Science and Freedom” website, providing another angle and run down on #plasmidgate.

With Dr. Julian Fidge having agreed to act as plaintiff against Pfizer, Moderna, OTGR and TGA, a case was filed on July 6th 2023, alleging that they have committed criminal violations of Australia’s Gene Technology Act 2000 (GT Act) and been criminally negligent and/or reckless in various ways.

P.J. O’Brien & Associates of New South Wales is the legal firm. The initial case documents and letters are available on Maats Method, followed by a statement by Gillespie about the case. VST replicates the statement below¹ to get it into the searchable substack system and for further publicity/SEO.

Key points

The case is based on the fundamental challenge that COVID gene therapies contain and act via genetically modified organisms (GMOs) that should have been treated and regulated as such. By being improperly categorised, regulated and used, criminal acts have been committed by Pfizer and Moderna, and the OTGR and TGA by way of “Complicity and common purpose under section 11.2 of the Criminal Code Act 1995”.

Affidavits have been submitted by Fidge, his lawyer Catherine Ashby-Koppens, Dr Angela Jeanes and Kevin McKernan.

Letters of demand have been sent to Pfizer, Moderna, OTGR and TGA calling for a total withdrawal of the products.

The application clearly relates mode of action to product classification and subsequent regulation. Thus it directly challenges the use of COVID gene therapies on the exact grounds of what VST has said all along, and demands the products’ immediate withdrawal:

The matter concerns an application for an injunction pursuant to section 147 of the Gene Technology Act 2000 (the Act) seeking that the First and Second Respondents immediately cease dealing with their respective Monovalent and Bivalent Covid-19 products (Products), on the grounds that they are or contain genetically modified organisms (GMOs) as defined by the Act, and neither Respondent has applied for, nor received, the appropriate GMO licences from the Gene Technology Regulator to deal with genetically modified organisms within Australia for these Products (et al).

The failures by the Respondents to obtain several GMO licences constitutes serious criminal offences under the Act.

Urgency is required because when administered:

1. The Products transfer genetically modified material in the form of nucleoside-modified messenger RNA (modRNA) encapsulated in Lipid Nanoparticles (LNPs), which together form LNP-modRNA complexes, which are GMOs.

2. The Products also transfer genetically modified material in the form of nucleoside-modified DNA (modDNA) encapsulated in Lipid Nanoparticles (LNPs), which together form LNP-modDNA complexes, which are GMOs.

3. The LNP-modDNA complexes within the Products are biodistributed throughout the human body, delivering the modDNA inside cells throughout the human body including the cells of the brain, heart, liver, kidneys, ovaries, testes; once inside human cells the modDNA has the capacity to:

a. enter the cell nucleus; and

b. upon entry into the cell nucleus become replication competent, meaning it self-replicates independently of any chromosomal replication; and

c. all subsequent copies of that modDNA (replications) are able to transcribe further modRNA for the translation of further quantities of synthetic Spike protein; and

d. able to integrate into chromosomal (natural) DNA, where: further transcription of modRNA for further synthetic Spike protein can occur; integration near oncogenes and other genes can occur (eg tumour suppressor gene P53, threatens to stimulate cancerous tumour growth); with significant probability of being inherited by offspring.

4. The LNP-modRNA complexes within the Products are biodistributed throughout the human body, delivering the modRNA inside cells throughout the human body including the cells of the brain, heart, liver, kidneys, ovaries, testes; once inside human cells the modRNA has the capacity to:

a. enter the cell nucleus; and

b. reverse transcribe and integrate into chromosomal (natural) DNA, where: further transcription of modRNA for further synthetic Spike protein can occur; integration near oncogenes and other genes can occur (eg tumour suppressor gene P53, threatens to stimulate cancerous tumour growth); with significant probability of being inherited by offspring.

5. The Products contain cell-substrate modDNA contamination (the same modDNA in 2 and 3 above), where the cell-substrate modDNA contamination grossly exceeds per dose limits published by the Therapeutic Goods Administration by orders of magnitude; the modDNA contamination is encapsulated in Lipid Nanoparticles (LNPs) and is biodistributed throughout the human body, delivering the modDNA contamination inside cells throughout the human body including the cells of the brain, heart, liver, kidneys, ovaries, testes; once inside human cells the modDNA contamination has:

a. the capacity to enter the cell nucleus; and

b. upon entry into the cell nucleus become replication competent, meaning it self-replicates independently of any chromosomal replication; and

c. all subsequent copies of that modDNA (replications) are able to transcribe further modRNA for the translation of further quantities of synthetic Spike protein; and

d. integrate into chromosomal (natural) DNA, where: further transcription of modRNA for further synthetic Spike protein can occur; integration near oncogenes and other genes can occur (eg tumour suppressor gene P53, threatens to stimulate cancerous tumour growth); with significant probability of being inherited by offspring; and

e. transfect into oocytes and sperm-producing cells leading to:

i. altered transgenic offspring;

ii. interference with early intrauterine development;

iii. induction of miscarriages and malformations.

The contingencies and ramifications of the case are monumental. This is why it MUST be supported as it goes up against the entire big pharma landscape and every global governmental and corporate interested connected to it.

Letters of Demand explain more about the means by which crimes have been committed and reference an action taken by AstraZeneca that sets a potential evidentiary precedent against which Pfizer and Moderna’s actions (or lack of) can be compared:

4. Pfizer and Moderna know the Products contain GMOs and are therefore in breach of sections 32 and 33 GT Act.

5. In order to deal with GMOs in Australia, Pfizer and Moderna were required to apply for the necessary licences from the Gene Technology Regulator under section 40 of the GT Act (as AstraZeneca did for its Covid-19 vaccine).

6. The GT Act defines a GMO as an organism that has been modified by gene technology where an 'organism' means any biological entity that is capable of transferring genetic material.

AstraZeneca set an important precedent and demonstrated its understanding that it was required to and did apply for licences from OTGR because its product was a GMO. Why then does the same not apply to Pfizer and Moderna? Yes, there is a difference between an adenovirus viral vector and a LNP-mRNA payload, but modes of action of both are consistent with definitions cited in the case.

The mode of action of the primary payload of the COVID gene therapies and the presence of another now detected secondary payload of GMO contamination in the form of plasmid dsDNA, is then demonstrated.

Pfizer, Moderna and regulators knew the mode of action of these products were genetic and chose not to categorise them as GMOs. That’s one issue that needs to be addressed. But it is Kevin McKernan’s detection of plasmid dsDNA in the vials that proves the presence of another definite GMO. The existence of regulatory limits on those GMOs proves that the regulators and the manufacturers knew that such GMOs could be present in the products, hence the establishment of a regulatory limit for them. Even if the contamination was present at or below the regulatory limit, there’s still a GMO in there that all parties knew about.

These are global products made against universal specifications, so something made outside of Australia has to comply with Australian law to be deployed there. Uniformity of production and the presence of non-Australian regulations that recognise and limit the presence of GMO contamination still proves that Pfizer and Moderna knew that GMO contamination could end up in the products shipped into Australia.

An absence of explicit research into the effects of the plasmid dsDNA contamination on human health specific to these products means any claim that it is harmless and has no means or mode of action is unproven. One cannot make such a claim under present knowledge and circumstances.

Regulators implicated

Regulators work in concert and consultation through ICMRA, which raises questions about the knowledge shared between them and their subsequent co-ordinated and separate actions, including the establishment of regulatory limits of COVID gene therapies’ ingredients and dosing.

Regarding the primary mRNA payload of the Pfizer and Moderna products, the OTGR and TGA “received sworn affidavit evidence of these LNP-modRNA GMOs during High Court proceedings S162/2022 on or about 21 December 2021, and chose not to act on that information,” which made them aware of the information about the products’ ingredients and their mode of action, and need to subject them to regulation as GMOs.

Also, “The subsequent peer reviewed papers of early 2022 to date informed the TGA, OGTR, the GTR, the GTTAC, Pfizer and Moderna, and confirmed the Products contain GMOs.” Regarding the presence of plasmid dsDNA, “It was criminally reckless and/or criminally negligent for Pfizer and Moderna to not be aware before or at the time of the applications; and it was reckless and/or negligent for the TGA to not be aware before or at the time of the applications, or the TGA knowingly allowed these products to contain GMOs (LNP-modDNA)”.

Pfizer, Moderna and regulators are all on the hook for criminally reckless and criminally negligent behaviour in their failure to both conform to and enforce the regulatory requirements around GMOs in the products.

Australian Secretary of Health implicated

The lawyers for Fidge (Ashby-Koppens and Gillespie who discovered and created the case) highlight that, in relation to the products’ primary and secondary GMO payloads Australia’s Secretary of Health “was first required to give written notice to the Gene Technology Regulator under section 30C(2), seeking advice from the Gene Technology Regulator, as the Products contain a ‘genetically modified organism’ (LNP-modDNA) under section 30C(1)(a). The Secretary of Health failed to give written notice under section 30C(2)”.

Kevin McKernan’s #plasmidgate sequencing work is key

McKernan’s work is fundamental for having detected the GMO contamination, but also by being “simple, cheap, and quick testing” that “clearly sets forth the methodology involved and only requires less than 2 hours to perform and validate”.

By bypassing formal, establishment peer review and instead self-publishing his method and results then having his work experimentally validated and reproduced by competent third parties, McKernan has managed to circumvent any suppression power that the establishment could exert and quickly bring his findings into this legal case.

McKernan’s approach and results present a major problem to Pfizer, Moderna, the OTGR and TGA, all of whom should have been capable of and willing to do this fundamental work as part of the quality control and regulation of these products:

Pfizer and Moderna failed to undertake simple, cheap, and quick testing necessary for quality control and quality assurance of the Products, or knowingly allowed these products to contain variable and publicly unspecified contaminants; and the TGA failed to monitor the Products generally using simple, cheap, and quick testing, or knowingly allowed these products to contain variable and unspecified modDNA contaminants.

Finally, Pfizer and Moderna:

are required to provide to the TGA information it becomes aware of that:

a) contradicts information already furnished by it in respect of therapeutic goods which are registered to Pfizer (ss 29AA(2)(a));

b) may have an unintended harmful effect (ss 29AA(2)(b));

c) indicates that the quality, safety or efficacy of the goods is unacceptable (ss 29AA(2)(c)).

If Pfizer and Moderna did comply with the above and notified the regulators of any contradictions of previous information or of contaminants, then the nature of those notifications and contaminants must have been examined by the regulators. Failure of the regulators to act or their justifications for a lack of action would be contingent upon that manufacturer notification, putting many issues (presence of out of spec contaminants, evidence of harm from the primary payloads or contaminants) back in the regulators’ court who may again be negligent. If Pfizer and Moderna failed to notify, they may have committed additional offences.

CALL TO ACTION: What we must do/know

1. Provide financial support. Law costs money. This case is taking on two of the biggest, most embedded pharma entities on the planet who will use any and all resources and efforts in this and other fights. Please donate financial support to the case via this GiveSendGo page if you find the case and the cause worthy. Funds will help pay for further expert assistance, lab costs, publicising the case, for instance, as well as dealing with legal curve balls, extensions and subsequent appeals.

2. Publicise this case by any means in all channels and networks. Take anything from this article, share this article entirely or share direct links to Maat’s Method and Gillespie’s articles. Please help make the world aware of this case and the fundamental issues within.

3. Follow the proceedings in open court. Here are the proceedings listed in the Federal Court. When substantive hearing dates are confirmed the Federal Court will update details, and hearing days will be televised on the court's website.

4. Replicate this legal challenge in your jurisdiction.

   1. The legislation identified in Gillespie’s Canaries paper (above) is found in many other jurisdictions. The paper gives finer detail on the European and Australian legal definitions and shows how they are satisfied with the LNP-modRNA complexes in the Pfizer and Moderna products (pages 942-945).

   2. There appears to be international consensus with respect to the legal definitions. This webpage sets out the basic legal definitions found common to most GMO legislation.

   3. People in other countries should locate their own Gene Technology or GMO legislation, and the legal definitions for what constitutes being a GMO, which will likely reflect that seen in Australia and the EU. If there is sufficient similarity or fit, then look to whether a failure by Pfizer/Moderna/AstraZeneca to first obtain GMO licenses in those countries constitutes an offence. Then look at whether there are stated remedies like an injunction available if you can show defendants failed to first get a GMO license, as is seen under Section 147 of the Australian legislation.

5. Provide subject matter expertise. If you are or know any subject matter experts who could support the case in any way, including evidentiary and testimony submissions, please contact the legal team via katie@pjob.com.au

6. Consider donating human tissue for testing. Work is underway to begin testing human tissue samples to investigate the in vivo effects of COVID gene therapies. It is critical to remember that while the manufacturers own the COVID gene therapies and thereby control access to and scrutiny of them, they do not and cannot own human tissue. More information on this will follow in due course.

7. It would be useful if vials of monovalent and bivalent COVID gene therapies that were/are in use in Australia and New Zealand were made available for testing and analysis.

Julian Gillespie LLB, B Juris kindly reviewed a draft of this article and confirmed that VST’s summary characterisation of the legal case was accurate and correct but exerted no editorial or content control over it. Thanks go to Mr. Gillespie for his time.

1. To paraphrase a line about the devil:

.. the greatest trick Pfizer and Moderna ever pulled was to convince the world their products don't enter the nucleus, and alter chromosomal DNA, forever

With a heavy heart I can now share with you the new legal proceedings we launched on 6 July, naming Pfizer and Moderna as the Defendants; our planet's new IG Farbens producing a more subtle Zyklon B (said with respect to those affected by the latter).

A more detailed overview is further down the page. The attached Letters of Demand we sent to Pfizer, Moderna, the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator, and the TGA, contain an abundance of references referring to the long established science surrounding the real dangers these transfection products were always known to pose to humanity.

In a nutshell: the LNP-modRNA complexes produced by Pfizer and Moderna satisfy Australian legal definitions for being properly deemed Genetically Modified Organisms, or GMOs. Almost identical legal definitions are found in many other countries, including the EU. There are over four decades of science acknowledging how easily synthetic and natural RNA can integrate with genomic DNA.

The subsequent discovery by Kevin McKernan of grossly excessive synthetic DNA contamination in the vials of both companies only makes a very bad situation much worse, as that modDNA also satisfies the same legal definitions for being yet another form of GMO, while possessing superior traits for effectively undergoing genomic integration, and DNA disregulation.

In Australia it is a serious criminal offence to 'deal' with GMOs without a GMO licence first being granted by the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator.

Neither Pfizer nor Moderna knocked on the door of the OGTR; and our OGTR failed to pull them up before they went knocking on the door of the TGA for provisional approval.

This constituted a gross and heinous failure by Australia's Gene Technology Regulator, assisted by the Secretary of Health not pausing to ask whether these drugs were not always meant to be first regulated by the OGTR, prior to being possibly cleared to proceed to apply for provisional approval with the TGA.

This utter failure by GMO regulators occurred about the globe when the C19 drugs were hustled to the front of approval ques, where now thanks to their transparent failures we can thank them for ensuring the Human Genome has been irreparably poisoned.

.. Welcome to Humanity's new Transgenic Era

In the coming week we will be seeking urgent hearing dates for getting the Federal Court to understand and acknowledge the evidence, and requesting Injunctions against Pfizer and Moderna preventing them from any further 'dealings' with their products in this country, which will effectively stop any further shots being administered. If we can achieve that we can then start asking the real questions of what Brendan Murphy and his army of highly paid PhDs knew when Pfizer and Moderna first 'came a knockin', while also asking what Australia's Gene Technology Regulator, Raj Buhla, was doing when these drug manufacturers turned up seeking approvals, where there has been two decades of established science showing these transfection products being perfectly suited for targeting and altering genomes. There is no room for pleas of ignorance; the actions of Murphy and Buhla amount to an intentional dereliction of duty rising to some form of criminal culpability. Please share far and wide. And for the international readers here, may i suggest you get some of your local legal minds looking into this outrageous scandal. You will find your GMO legislation was ignored as well. Together with Katie Ashby-Koppens and Peter Fam, I extend our sincere thanks and gratitude to the several significant donors who have financed this matter to date; and thanks to Dr Julian Fidge for agreeing to become the solitary Applicant for the proceedings.

---

Australian Federal Court proceedings brought under the Gene Technology Act 2000 Case File Number: VID510/2023 Julian Fidge v. Pfizer Australia Pty Ltd & Anor Case Summary: An injunction is sought against Pfizer and Moderna on the basis that they have failed to apply for the necessary licences to deal with Genetically Modified Organisms in Australia, pursuant to the Gene Technology Act 2000 (GT Act). It is alleged that Pfizer and Moderna’s Covid-19 vaccines (both monovalent and bivalent products (C-19 Products)) satisfy the Australian legal definitions for being deemed Genetically Modified Organisms, pursuant to section 10 of the GT Act. Namely, the C-19 Products are, or contain, GMOs as:

1. Synthetic LNP-modRNA complexes; and

2. Synthetic LNP-modDNA complexes found as excessive contamination (recently discovered).

The relevant definitions are applied in the context of the C-19 Products containing 'LNP-modRNA complexes'. Relevantly, the 'LNP-modRNA complexes' fulfil the definition of organism, namely: "organism" means any biological entity that is: (a) viable; or (b) capable of reproduction; or (c) capable of transferring genetic material. (emphasis added) First, the LNP-modRNA complexes fulfil being 'any biological entity'. Secondly, the LNP-modRNA complexes do and are 'capable of transferring genetic material', insofar that the LNP encapsulating the modRNA bio-distributes throughout the human body, and directly assists to transfer (transfect) the modRNA across cell membranes and into the cytoplasm of cells of all organ types and classes, including the brain, heart, kidneys, liver, testes, ovaries, and unborn children. This encapsulation, transport, and transfection using LNPs involves the physical 'transferring of genetic material' throughout the body of recipients. Having satisfied the above, it then follows, a:

"genetically modified organism" means: (a) an organism that has been modified by gene technology;

Where:

"gene technology" means any technique for the modification of genes or other genetic material.

The degree of genetic modifications involved in the creation of the modRNA is beyond question and well settled. The finer details of the genetic modifications involved are a matter of evidence to be presented and explained to the court.

The above definitions are not controversial and can be found under European Union legislation, and similar GMO legislation in place in many other countries.

Both Pfizer and Moderna have long been aware of these legal definitions but chose to ignore them when seeking to introduce their C-19 Products to the Australian market.

AstraZeneca on the other hand did not seek to avoid its legal obligations and properly sought a GMO License (DIR 180) from the Australian Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR) prior to seeking provisional approval from the Australian TGA. 'Dealing' with a GMO in Australia without a licence is a Serious Criminal Offence: see section 32, section 33, and section 38 of the GT Act. Most other jurisdictions have similar legislation.

Pfizer and Moderna in failing to obtain GMO Licences in Australia prior to seeking provisional approval from the TGA for their C-19 Products, means both companies continue to commit the Serious Criminal Offences described above. The grant of provisional approval by the TGA never cured these ongoing Serious Criminal Offences.

Indeed the TGA should have first consulted with the OGTR (pursuant to section 30C Therapeutic Goods Act 1989) about the LNP-modRNA complexes before granting provisional approval. The TGA was instead willfully blind to this issue.

In reply to correspondence raising concerns about the C-19 Products being GMOs, the OGTR has stated that it: “has never regulated those vaccines, or been required to. Accordingly the GTTAC has never considered or advised OGTR with respect to them.”

This position is untenable and ignores the science that was provided to the OGTR by an Australian law firm in 2022 seeking to inform the OGTR and its advisory body, the Gene Technology Technical Advisory Committee (GTTAC), showing specifically the LNP-modRNA complexes are involved in: Nuclear localisation (entry into the nucleus): Sattar et al 2022. Once within the nucleus, reverse-transcription with chromosomal DNA: Alden et al 2022. Reverse-transcription involving genomic integration and inheritance in offspring: Qin et al 2022.

The above papers demonstrate modes of action consistent with the worst possible threats to genomic (natural) DNA that GMO legislation is meant to protect the public from being exposed to. Both Pfizer and Moderna due to their declared expertise, at law, are understood to have known all of the above. In the event either company seeks to now assert that it was an oversight, is no excuse. At criminal law both companies have also been 'reckless' and/or 'negligent' about properly investigating and verifying the above legal definitions, and the subsequent peer reviewed papers confirming the destructive effects of their products on the human genome. Where recklessness and/or negligence is shown in experts in a field, those experts are deemed to have always possessed 'knowledge' of their conduct. In short, Pfizer and Moderna always knew their C-19 Products are, or contain, Genetically Modified Organisms. DNA Contamination Compounding the above is the recent discovery by genomics expert Kevinn McKernan of dangerously excessive DNA cell-substrate contamination. This discovery has now been independently verified by other internationally recognised laboratories using different vials, evidencing gross, pre-existing, and continuing global supply contamination by Pfizer and Moderna. The synthetic DNA (modDNA) contamination is anywhere between 18-70 times above legal limits. However, this contamination is much worse than contemplated by outdated regulations, as the modDNA is also encapsulated in LNPs, thus ensuring bio-distribution throughout human bodies, and transfection into cells of all major types of organs, including the brain, heart, ovaries, testes, liver, spleen, eyes, and unborn children. For the purposes of the GT Act, this excessive contamination also fulfils the legal definitions for being correctly deemed Genetically Modified Organisms, and perhaps the worst type of GMO, as genomic integration with chromosomal DNA does not require reverse-transcription, and some of this modDNA (by Pfizer) has the opportunity of becoming 'replication competent' (self replicating) in certain persons known to be infected with SV40 related viruses. Perversely, and as a strict matter of law, both Pfizer and Moderna were/are required to possess GMO Licences to 'deal' with their LNP-modDNA contamination in Australia, though any organisation responsible for such licensure (the OGTR in this instance) would never allow any product into their country that contains this form of GMO contamination. This form of GMO contamination alters the course of humanity, and what it means to be human. By these proceedings the Applicant (Dr Julian Fidge) together with the legal team who discovered and created the proceedings (Julian Gillespie, Katie Ashby-Koppens and Peter Fam), now seek to present the above facts to the court. In the event the court follows and accepts the evidence that the C-19 products contain GMOs, and as a consequence both Pfizer and Moderna are seen to be committing ongoing Serious Criminal Offences by dealing with GMOs in Australia without a licence, the court should find itself compelled to issue an Injunction under section 147 preventing Pfizer and Moderna from any further dealings in Australia, which outcome would also require the halt of any further use of the Pfizer and Moderna C-19 products in Australia. The attached documents begin to further detail the above facts:

1. Letter to the Registrar, Federal Court of Australia, Re Urgency (sealed)

2. Originating Application (sealed - to be amended to correct paragraph 4(c) and (d) to reference instead ‘4.a.i. - iii. and 4.b.i. - ii’ NOT ‘5.a.i. - iii. And 5.b.i. - ii’)

3. Letter of Demand, Pfizer - served 4 July 2023 (response - reject GMO allegations - failed to address modDNA contamination)

4. Letter of Demand, Moderna - served 4 July 2023 (no response/reply: correction required to footnote 10, should read ‘Supra n 12 in paragraph 23’)

5. Letter of Demand, TGA - delivered 4 July 2023 (no response/reply; correction required to paragraph 17(a)(ii), should read ‘on or about 21 December 2022’)

6. Letter of Demand, OGTR - delivered 4 July 2023 (no response/reply)

Julian Gillespie, LLB, B Juris