The 'COVID Response' reads as a horror story. And Liberal senator Alex Antic predicts Australian's will be doomed to poor health and forced injections of experimental substances if we don't act now.
It will be more difficult once the WHO authorities dominate our health care system as they did during covid.
Click below for a copy of the paper “What Lessons can Be Learned From the Management of the COVID-19 Pandemic?”
Click below for video of two of the key scientists who co-authored the paper, lead author and microbiologist/immunologist Dr. Gerry Quinn and computational chemist Dr. Ronan Connolly
The article “What Lessons Can Be Learned From the Management of the COVID-19 Pandemic?” (Quinn et al., Int J Public Health, 2025) is a comprehensive, multidisciplinary review that critiques global COVID-19 responses and offers seven key recommendations to avoid repeating the same errors. Below is a concise summary:
Overview
The authors argue that the global response to COVID-19 (2020–2023) was deeply flawed, relying too heavily on model projections, non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs), and new vaccine technologies, while dismissing alternative scientific viewpoints, neglecting cost-benefit analyses, and overlooking potential harms.
Four Major Policy Problems Identified
1. Over-reliance on Models Without Empirical Evaluation
Epidemiological models (like SIR/SEIR) were widely used but poorly validated.
These models exaggerated risks by ignoring seasonality, heterogeneity, and realistic population dynamics.
Counterfactual projections (what might have happened without interventions) became the basis for justifying extreme policies, yet these scenarios were rarely falsifiable.
Sweden’s actual outcomes showed many model projections were wrong.
2. Insufficient Critical Evaluation of Non Pharmaceutical Interventions (NPIs)
Most NPIs (lockdowns, school closures, mask mandates) were not part of pre-pandemic plans and lacked strong evidence.
Once implemented, their efficacy was rarely re-evaluated.
Studies showed COVID-19 waves often peaked independently of NPIs.
Harmful effects included physical, mental, economic, and social damage, especially to children, elderly, and disadvantaged communities.
3. Inconsistent Assessment of Pharmaceutical Interventions (PIs)
Repurposed drugs (e.g., ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine) were ridiculed and suppressed despite safety and prior use.
mRNA/DNA vaccines were heavily promoted without clear public understanding of their novel nature.
Effectiveness was overstated (based on relative risk reduction, not absolute benefit or transmission data).
Safety concerns were minimized, and informed consent was undermined.
Natural immunity and traditional vaccines (e.g., Sinovac) were often discounted.
4. Suppression of Legitimate Scientific Dissent
Alternative expert perspectives were labeled "misinformation".
Critiques of NPIs, vaccines, and models were excluded from decision-making and public discourse.
The scientific process was politicised, and multidisciplinary input was sidelined.
Key Recommendations
Restore scientific openness and debate.
Avoid excessive reliance on models without real-world validation.
Implement rigorous cost-benefit analyses for future interventions.
Reassess how pharmaceutical interventions (especially novel ones) are evaluated and approved.
Protect freedom of speech in scientific and medical contexts.
Diversify expert consultation across disciplines.
Prepare public health policy grounded in resilience, balance, and evidence—not fear.
Bottom Line
The article calls for urgent reform in how public health crises are handled—emphasizing empirical evidence, scientific humility, transparency, and genuine informed consent. The authors view the COVID-19 era not as a triumph of public health policy, but as a cautionary tale of groupthink, overreach, and institutional failure.
Ian Brighthope
The piece below is a copy of a circular from Australia’s Senator Alex Antic warning of the hell of a future we will suffer if we remain in the WHO. Australia should exit the WHO and retain control over our health sovereignty.
Dear Supporter
On May 20th, the 78th World Health Assembly voted to adopt the ‘Pandemic Agreement.’ This comes after three years of negotiation between the various World Health Organization member states that make up the Assembly.
Sadly, as expected, the Australian Government voted in support of the Agreement.
While the Pandemic Agreement might contain overtures about protecting member states’ sovereignty, the practical reality is that the Pandemic Agreement and the WHO’s advice and recommendations will invariably shape the decisions sovereign nations make during the next “global health emergency”.
This is particularly concerning given that the preamble to the Pandemic Agreement purports to recognise “the importance and public health impact of growing threats such as climate change”.
Will sovereign nations simply follow WHO recommendations if a “climate emergency” is declared?
The Pandemic Agreement will allow for the transfer of decision-making responsibility away from local decision makers, and into the hands of unaccountable globalist bureaucrats, because captured member states will be readily able to take drastic “health” measures, while purporting to rely on the Pandemic Agreement and the WHO’s advice as the justification for their decision.
How many times during COVID did you hear health officials and politicians tell you they were following “the science”, or acting on “health advice”? I asked to see the health advice underpinning decisions being made in South Australia about how people must live their lives during the pandemic – none was provided!
Over the past three years I have been calling for Australia to oppose this Pandemic Agreement. I have also gone further, suggesting Australia follow the path taken by the United States in withdrawing from the WHO altogether.
The COVID period made it abundantly clear how hazardous it is for democracies to defer their decision-making responsibilities to unelected bureaucrats, especially at the international level.
Decisions about a country’s emergency response are best left to the people of that country, without pressure from globalist bodies.
If Australia is to remain the author of its own future, we must withdraw from the WHO.
Yours sincerely,
Alex Antic
Liberal Senator for South Australia
If you've been forwarded this email, and are not yet on my mailing list, you might like to sign up to receive my future e-news updates directly at the link below:
Sign up here: https://www.alexantic.com.au/join
About Senator Alex Antic is a Liberal Senator representing South Australia in the Federal Parliament.
Connect Email: alex@alexantic.com.au
I'm a fan of Alex Antic. He is one of the very few politicians that stands for freedom and a democratic society.
It is not just our health that is being eroded away by wolves in sheep's clothing... After reading the following written recently by Alex Antic I have again been informed that the Government are coming for our land. It looks obviouse to me that the homeless epidemic has been deliberately orgastrated to strengthen the governments case to take our land. We can't house our own people yet we continue to allow an enormous number of immigrants into Australia. People need to take their lazy brains out from underneath their fruit loop bowls and stop these Bills from being passed.
There is nothing more evil than the orgistration of a plan that enslaves a society by ensuring its people are too sick to fight or ensure they have nothing left to fight for. That is exactly where Australia is heading if people don't open their eyes now.
Alex wrote in his newsletter....
The South Australian Legislative Council recently passed the Planning, Development and Infrastructure (Use of Vacant Land) Amendment Bill 2022.
Introduced by the South Australian Greens and "not opposed" by the Labor government "in principle", this Bill seeks to allow the government to take control of privately owned land it deems to be “primarily vacant” and “not being sufficiently used or developed” without paying compensation provided “reasonable steps” have been taken to negotiate with the owner.
The Bill contains no guidance in relation to what constitutes underdeveloped land, nor does it specify how long a landowner has before the government may intervene, yet it provides sweeping powers to seize control of land for loosely defined “public purposes,” including temporary housing.
Worse still, the Bill explicitly exempts the government from paying rent or compensation to landowners.
This socialistic, Big Government approach is typical of Labor and the Greens, and South Australians who are concerned about the future of property rights in this state ought to keep a close eye on how this Bill’s debate in the House of Assembly plays out.
Far from solving the housing crisis, the Bill would have a chilling effect on private investment and development. As the Urban Development Institute of Australia rightly put it, this is “an assault on South Australian property rights.”
Read their response here.
Meanwhile, Labor and the Greens continue to support record-high migration levels, which are placing unprecedented pressure on housing supply.
Rather than address this imbalance with sensible reform, their answer is more government control. It’s strange how problems that the government creates need to be solved with more governmental power.
I will continue to stand up for Australians who believe in the right to own and use their land free from state coercion.
Thank you, as always, for your support.
Yours sincerely,
Alex Antic
Liberal Senator for South Australia
"Australian's will be doomed to poor health and forced injections of experimental substances"
Absolutely not.
As has been made clear across the Tasman, in this grand Oceania social experiment of control, by the National Ethics Advisory Committee to the NZ Ministry of Health, with the NZ Medical Council lurking in the background, both co-opted and sponsored by numerous supra-national entities, the emergent and brutal reality of Realpolitik will eventually become their deserved hill to die on, when the withdrawal of social license and submission to government takes place. People with nothing left to lose, having nothing left to lose.
Politicians, bureaucrats and medical authorities may carry on down this road. It is one that surely leads to civil war; may be that is even the idea.
Furthermore, the invalid, case-based nonsense that is dependent on a methodologically bankrupt theory is become a pretence that has already been sidelined. Lip service appears largely all that remains to the ad hoc in silico construct of a contagious, obligate intracellular parasite. 'Shots' are now being okayed without any authentic recourse to ethics or science.
The name of the game seems clear; 'Net Zero'.