Jab Ingredients

Read the Ingredients to the jab – look below for how to detox if you have had it. The reality of graphene oxide. And another article about evidence of graphene oxide in vaccines.

The Supreme Court (pdf) have ruled that you are no longer human. Here is the direct Supreme Court Link  

An article regarding the Supreme Court ruling.

A video in regards to your children getting jabbed from Dr. Charles Hoffe.

Dr. David Martin speaks on rumble.

Dr. Sherry Tenpenny speaks.

Varying Styles of Templates

I am vaccinated within an inch of my life, I have travelled and lived all over the world, with yearly flu shots for the clients I worked with In California but now after this year - I am a total anti vaxxer. Thank you Conjob 19 !!!

Templates for Employers

There are a couple of different directions of defence here, not declining but wanting fully informed consent, there is also a privacy issue with them asking you for proof of your vaccination status – 16B of the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth).

Common Law Style Employer Vaccination Administration Letter

Other points to make to any corporation attempting to mandate any experimental mRNA poison.

  1. The Right to Work:

Article 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights clearly states: “Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment; everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work; everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection; everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests”.

Article 6 of the International Covenant on Social and Cultural Rights states that “the States Parties to the present Covenant recognise the right to work, which includes the right of everyone to the opportunity to gain his living by work”.

Although Article 4 of the same instrument allows rights to be limited in a state of emergency, these limits must have time frames and review dates, stating: “the State may subject such rights only to such limitations as are determined by law only in so far as this may be compatible with the nature of these rights and solely for the purpose of promoting the general welfare in a democratic society”.

Article 7 ensures that certain rights to work and a fair wage cannot be suspended.

The Australian Human Rights Commission affirms the obligation of States parties to assure individuals their right to freely chosen or accepted work, including the right not to be deprived of work unfairly. This definition underlines the fact that respect for the individual and his dignity is expressed through the freedom of the individual regarding the choice to work, while emphasising the importance of work for personal development as well as for social and economic inclusion.

It is unlawful to discriminate against someone based on their medical history or current record.

Employers may face discrimination claims.

At the time employees signed their contract, there was never consent on the employees’ part to be mandated or to have any form of injection or vaccine at any time after entering into the employment contract. It has been without the consent of the employee to which these new provisions and terms of employment were introduced.

In fact, if an employer is unable to demonstrate conditional changes to employment arrangements were a “reasonable instruction”, the employee may pursue damages for constructive unfair dismissal against the employer.

Employees are left with some critical key medical, ethical, legal and human rights questions, which employers may be held liable for into the future.

  1. The Efficacy of an Experimental Vaccine

According to the Australian Law Reform Commission‘Informed consent’ refers to consent to medical treatment and the requirement to warn of material risk prior to treatment. As part of their duty of care, health professionals must provide such information as is necessary for the patient to give consent to treatment, including information on all material risks of the proposed treatment. Failure to do so may lead to civil liability for an adverse outcome, even if the treatment itself was not negligent.”[1]

The vaccines, which as per the email below require Rio Tinto employees to take, are experimental in nature and have not been tested in the required clinical trials to ensure it is full safety and efficacy. According to the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), all four COVID vaccines available in Australia have only provisional approval status with the TGA, and the COVID vaccines do not minimise an individual’s chances of getting COVID.

The Biosecurity Act 2015 (Cth) prohibits the use of force for vaccinations under section 95, stating: “Force must not be used against an individual to require the individual to comply with a biosecurity measure”.

The Biosecurity Act 2015 (Cth) also prohibits vaccination or treatment without meeting the stringent requirements of an individual Human Biosecurity Control Order under section 92.

There is a serious question as to the efficacy, safety and quality of these specific vaccinations, which is evidenced by the Therapeutic Goods Administration’s own data as to the fact that these vaccines are untested, do not prevent infection, do not eliminate COVID symptoms and do not stop transmission. The same government body has recorded thousands of adverse health reactions to the same vaccines, including deaths.

I attach a letter written by Chief Health Officer Dr Andrew Robertson dated 14 October 2021, acknowledging the occurrence of adverse events following immunisation. The WA Health department are admitting that they know people are being injured by / dying from this injection and these events are not being reported. The Government are not pausing to consider the serious short- and long-term implications of this campaign.

It can be said with certainty that COVID vaccines are experimental by definition, as data as to the effects of the vaccines are still being collected in ongoing, Phase 3 clinical trials, scheduled to conclude in early 2023.

In fact, Reports such as the “Operation COVID Shield – A Public Interest Report” as well as The Vaccine Death Report lay out the statistics, data and concerns in relation to the adverse health effects of this experimental vaccine.

It is a fact that no long-term safety data exists for these vaccines.

The Australian Charter of Rights in Healthcare, the National Safety and Quality Health Service Standards, the National Framework on Advance Care Directives, publications on communication with patients, the ‘General Guidelines for Medical Practitioners on Providing Information to Patients’ – National Health and Medical Research Council, 2004; the ‘Communicating with Patients: Advice for Medical Practitioners’ – National Health and Medical Research Council, 2004, and the national codes of conduct of health practitioners all enforce employee’s rights.

In relation to the efficacy and safety of the vaccine, the following questions may, and should be asked and answered:

  1. Can you please advise the approved legal status of any required drug and confirm that it is not experimental?
  2. Can you please provide details and assurances that the required drug has been fully, independently and rigorously tested against control groups and the subsequent outcomes of those tests were publicised for consideration?
  3. Can you please advise a full list of the ingredients of the drug employees are required to receive, and if any are toxic to the body?
  4. Can you please advise of all the known adverse reactions of the injection since its introduction?
  5. Can you please confirm that the is not experimental, synthetic mRNA technology?
  6. Can you please confirm that I will not be under any duress from yourself, as my employer, in compliance with the Nuremberg Code?
  7. Can you please advise me of the likely risk of fatality, should I be unfortunate enough to contract COVID-19 and the likelihood of recovery?
  8. Has a risk assessment been completed for the specific scenario of requiring staff to be vaccinated vs allowing staff to remain in the workplace unvaccinated?
  9. If the non-vaccinated staff are considered a risk to the vaccinated staff, given the precedent set during past lockdowns where staff were able to work from home, are you willing to provide alternative working arrangements for your employees?

The Australian Government Immunisation Handbook is clear: “[vaccines] must be given voluntarily in the absence of undue pressure, coercion or manipulation”.

The Nuremberg Code, an ethics code (1947) has as its first principle the willingness and informed consent by the individual to receive medical treatment or to participate in an experiment: “The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overarching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision”.

  1. Liability – who’s is it?

The Occupational Safety and Health Act 1984 in Western Australia, under the duties of employers in Section 19 clearly states that: “An employer shall, as far as is practicable, provide and maintain a working environment in which the employees of the employer are not exposed to hazards”.

A mandated experimental vaccination of any sort may fit into the definition of “hazard”, if any side effects that ensue after an employee takes the vaccine.

Can employees be guaranteed that they will not be harmed by taking this experimental vaccine, and, should something go wrong, is Rio Tinto willing to be held liable?

Section 35A of the Occupational Safety and Health Act in WA, prevents employers from discriminating against a worker for raising safety concerns or carrying out their role as a health and safety representative, stating: “An employer or a prospective employer must not cause disadvantage to a person for the dominant or substantial reason that the person is performing or has performed any function as a safety and health representative; and detrimentally alters the person’s employment position; or detrimentally alters the person’s pay or other terms and conditions of employment”.

Being put into a position to choose between taking a medical intervention which may not be safe or losing a job directly fits into the description of economic coercion.

I am concerned as to the lack of liability that both the pharmaceutical companies and our politicians are taking for this experimental drug. Will Rio Tinto be taking the liability, should anything go wrong? Will Worker’s Compensation be available to anyone who is injured or dies as a result of taking the injection?

Compensation and damages are a legal right of all those experiencing adverse health effects from medical experimentation.

  1. Medical Human Rights

Employee’s inalienable rights are reserved.

Employees have a right to bodily autonomy and informed medical consent.

There is strong legal precedent which protects bodily autonomy, protects your employee from coercion and duress, and protects their right to make an informed medical decision with full consent.

The Siracusa Principles on the Limitation and Derogation of Provisions in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights produced by the United Nation’s Economic and Social Council explicitly state that:

“No State party shall, even in time of emergency threatening the life of the nation, derogate from the Covenant’s guarantees of the right to life; freedom from torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and from medical or scientific experimentation without free consent; freedom from slavery or involuntary servitude …. The right to recognition as a person before the law, and freedom of thought, conscience and religion. These rights are non derogable under any conditions even for the asserted purpose of preservation the life of the nation.”

The United Nations Human Rights Committee has explicitly emphasised that the restrictions that the Covenant places on Courts such as Australia’s “underlines the great importance of nonderogable rights”.[2]

The fundamental importance of protecting these inalienable rights to boldly autonomy and full medical consent is affirmed by international and national courts.

Article 6 of the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights (2005) states: “Any preventative, diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention is only to be carried out with the proper, free and informed consent of the person concerned, based on adequate information”.

According to the Australian Human Rights Commission, “if there is no specific law requiring that a person be vaccinated, employers should be cautious about imposing mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policies or conditions on staff. The need for vaccination should be assessed on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the nature of the workplace and the individual circumstances of each employee.

There are medical reasons why some people may not be able to receive a COVID-19 vaccination, or may choose not to in their circumstances, including because of protected attributes such pregnancy or disability.  

The Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) (SDA), the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) (DDA) and the Age Discrimination Act 2004 (Cth) (ADA) make it unlawful to discriminate on the grounds of pregnancy, disability and age in many areas of public life, including in employment. ‘Disability’ is broadly defined in the DDA and includes past, present and future disabilities, as well as imputed disabilities.

A strict rule or condition that mandates COVID-19 vaccinations for all staff, including people with certain disabilities, medical conditions or who are pregnant, may engage the ‘indirect discrimination’ provisions in the SDA, the DDA and the ADA.

In Australia, our Constitution ensures that vaccines cannot be mandated.

This has been settled in case law.

Civil conscription was first considered by the High Court in 1949 in British Medical Association v Commonwealth[3], with Justice Webb noting: “When parliament comes between patient and doctor and makes the lawful continuance of their relationship as such depend upon a condition, enforceable by fine, the doctor shall render the patient a special service, unless that service is waived by the patient, it creates a situation that amounts to a form of civil conscription”.

Chief Justice French and Justice Gummow, in the Hight Court case Wong v Commonwealth; Selim v Professional Services Review Committee[4] held that civil conscription is a “compulsion or coercion in the legal and practical sense, to carry out work or provide [medical] services”.

Willingness and the exercise of choice has been defined in case law clearly in Australia.

In the matter of Bowater v Rowley Regis Corp[5], Lord Justice Scott notes: “…. A man cannot be said to be truly ‘willing’ unless he is in a position to choose freely, and freedom of choice predicates, not only full knowledge of the circumstances on which the exercise of choice is conditioned, so that he may be able to choose wisely, but in the absence from his mind of any feeling of restraint so that nothing shall interfere with the freedom of his will”.

The highest Court in Australia has recognised that Parliament cannot lawfully or indirectly create a situation where vaccines are mandated:

Justice Webb in British Medical Association v Commonwealth noted: “If parliament cannot lawfully do this [mandate vaccines] directly by legal means it cannot lawfully do it indirectly by creating a situation, as distinct from merely taking advantage of one, in which the individual is left no choice but compliance”.[6]

The High Court has acknowledged equality of all persons under the law before the courts.

JJ Dean and Toohey in Leeth v Commonwealth (1992) 174 CLR 455 at 8 referred to the Preamble to the Constitution to support their view that the principle of equality is embedded in the Constitution. They argue that “the essential or underlying theoretical equality of all persons under the law and before the courts is and has been fundamental and generally beneficial doctrine of the common law and a basic prescript of the administration of justice under our system of government”.

On this basis, those choosing not to take the vaccine cannot be discriminated against.

Australian courts have acknowledged that treatments are subject to choose and consent, and are to be respected, and that doctors have no right to object to such a response.

Lord Justice Mustill in Airdale National Health Service Trust v Bland [1993] AC 789 at 889 stated: “If the patient is capable of making a decision on whether to permit treatment and decides not to permit, his choice must be obeyed, even if on an objective view it is contrary to his best interests. A doctor has no right to proceed in the face of objection, even if it is plain to all, including the patient, that adverse consequences and even death may ensue”.

In addition to these rights and liberties afforded to me under the law, please be advised that in the matter of Jennifer Kimber v Sapphire Coast Community Aged Care Ltd (C2021/2676), Deputy President Dean expressed her dissenting judgment by ruling for the applicant by acknowledging the validity of medical exemptions for the flu shot for staff working in an aged care facility at 81-82, and related its application to the COVID vaccine, noting that mandatory COVID vaccinations impinges on other laws, liberties and rights that exist in Australia at [102].

Fair Work Commission Deputy President Dean related the significance of her ruling to the COVID vaccine noted that mandatory COVID vaccinations impinges on other laws, liberties and rights that exist in Australia at [102]. She goes on to note: “Consent is required for all participation in a clinical trial. Consent is necessary because people have a fundamental right to bodily integrity, that being autonomy and self-determination over their own body without unconsented physical intrusion. Voluntary consent for any medical treatment has been a fundamental part of the laws of Australia and internationally for decades. It is legally, ethically and morally wrong to coerce a person to participate in a clinical trial.

Coercion is not consent. Coercion is the practice of persuading someone to do something using force or threats. Some have suggested that there is no coercion in threatening a person with dismissal and withdrawing their ability to participate in society if that person does not have the COVID vaccine. However, nothing could be further from the truth.

All COVID vaccines in Australia are only provisionally approved, and as such remain part of a clinical trial.

“All COVID vaccines in Australia are only provisionally approved, and as such remain part of a clinical trial” [at 116] The Nuremburg Code (the Code), formulated in 1947 in response to a particular cohort of doctors performing medical experiments on people during WWII, is one of the most important documents in the history of the ethics of medical research.

The first principle of the Code is that “The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential”. The Code goes on to say that “This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision….”

Informed and freely given consent is at the heart of the Code and is rightly viewed as a protection of a person’s human rights.

Deputy President Dean also states in her dissenting judgement at 110 that “COVID vaccinations, in accordance with the Australian Government’s policy, must be freely available and voluntary for all Australians” … and that “Mandatory COVID vaccinations, however, cannot be justified in almost every workplace in Australia” [at 111].

  1. Government Powers as to Mandated ‘Orders’ or ‘Directions’

In the case of Patrick v PMC AAT 5 August 2021, the National Cabinet, which is the entity making decisions in relation to COVID was deemed unlawful. Therefore, all decisions made by the National Cabinet in relation to COVID, lockdowns, quarantines and vaccines are unlawful and violates parliamentary due process and delegated authority as to Federal and State powers.

Therefore, the decisions made within the National Cabinet are null and void.

 Yesterday, Tuesday 2nd of November 2021, the Public Health Order was signed in effect for Resources Industry Workers, which only refers to persons working at or visiting a rural or remote resources industry site or remote operating centre as listed in Schedule 1. 


This Order has been triggered by the Public Health Act 2016 WA sections 157 (1)(e) and 157(1)(k) as well as sections 180 and 190(1)(p).

Section 180 deals with powers relating to movement and evacuation.

Section 190(1)(p) gives rise to public health incident powers.

Section 157 deals with serious public health incident powers, and subsections (e) and (k) speak about requiring information for the purposes of investigations and to take actions to prevent, control or abate a serious public health risk respectively.

It is actually section 157(j) which directs a person to undergo a medical treatment or be vaccinated. This is not listed within the Orders as one of the powers used.

The State Government is also failing to correctly apply the WA Public Health Act 2016, such that; public health orders can only be made to an individual for the purposes of vaccination. Government cannot make generic public health orders on groups of individuals for the purpose of vaccination.

Therefore, the Order to ‘mandate’ vaccines are null and void.

Section 83.4 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) realties to interfering with political liberties states: “Any person who, by violence or by threats or intimidation of any kind, hinders or interferes with the free exercise or performance, by any other person any political right or duty shall be guilty of an offence”.

Any government mandates that allow forced vaccinations are unconstitutional under section 51(xxiiiA) of the Australian Constitution, despite any purported authority under Commonwealth, State, or Territory Laws.

The above provides the legal, human rights and other evidence and provisions to support employees from not complying with vaccine mandate ‘orders’.



[1] Rogers v Whitaker (1992) 175 CLR 479

2 Human Rights Committee General Comment No. 24; Issues Relating to Reservations Made Upon Ratification or Accession to the Covenant or to the Optional Protocols Thereto, or in Relation to Declarations under Article 41 of the Covenant, 52nd sess, Un Doc CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.67 (4 November 1994), para 10.

3 (1949) 79 CLR 201 [at 295].

4 (2009) 236 CLR 573 at 62.

5 [1944] KB 476 at 479.

6 (1949) 79 CLR 201 at 293.


My position has always been that I believe everyone has the right to decide what is/is not injected into their body without discrimination.

Should a person make the decision to accept this injection, with fully informed consent, that is of course their right to do so.



More Employment Ammunition

Fair Work Anti Bullying Benchmark

As of October 4 Employers are now liable. NSW Public Health Amendment.

Research articles to attach to your employer correspondance.

Pfizer public assessment report auspar-bnt162b2-mrna-210125 (1)

SARS-CoV-2 Delta.Study (2)

DeltaViralSheddingStudy.full (1)

COVID-19 Vaccines Supporting Research Paper

“My Religion, Sexuality and Medical health is PRIVATE”

Privacy is key, your health status is private. Never disclose.

This is all protected under the Privacy Act 1988

Fill out the AIR form supplied and take to Medicare in person or send registered mail.
Whilst we appreciate your gratitude, there’s no need to reply ‘Thank You’ as our inbox is very busy.
Privacy is your first line of defence, here’s some pointers:
1. Ask for time to consider their request (never REFUSE)
2. If asked about your vax status say, ‘I’m not comfortable discussing my personal medical information’ (NEVER disclose your status or personal position on jab etc) ‘My religion, sexuality and personal health is private’
3. Ask for time to get information from your doctor (fully informed consent)
4. Ask for your employer to provide written information  stating that their direction is:
a) Fit for purpose (they can show evidence of the covid 19 virus has been isolated, the vaccination stops transmission, is fully approved
b) In accordance with all laws and legal requirements
c) Without risk of harm to you
d) Offered without duress or threat of penalty
e) Offered with full and complete liability for any adverse event suffered until death. 
5. Request all this written information from the employer before you consider their offer.
6. You can then DECLINE their offer as you consider it unlawful and unreasonable to demand you to SELF HARM as a requirement of your employment, “I decline your offer”
7. Never refuse at any time
8. Never resign
9. If they terminate you, you claim financial remedy for unlawful termination

To all staff who have been given a deadline to supply medical information to their employer to update electronic central data records, please make sure you have sent a note negating this PRIOR to attending next duty.
When you sign on, you generally are acknowledging you have ’complied’ with all requirements etc… this way you are bringing it politely to your managers attention that the request cannot be complied with as the company is
1) not a State or Federal government entity
2) IF they WERE a State or Federal Govt entity, they MUST HAVE YOUR CONSENT and you do not consent to the collection, storage, or disclosure of your personal medical information.

Email manager as below

Dear “Name “

I am writing to let you know your requirement to disclose personal sensitive medical information to you is unlawful
Are you aware it is a breach of my privacy under the Privacy Act 88?  I have included the Acts below for your reference.

Under Federal Privacy Act 1988 No. 119, 12 March 2014 statute law ONLY a Federal or State government Australian Privacy Principles (APP) entity, may collect, use or disclose ANY personal private medical information of an individual, AND no other organisation, party or entity has this lawful authority.

Furthermore, under Australian Privacy Principle 3 Part 2 — Collection of personal information, 3.3 An APP entity must not collect sensitive information about an individual unless: (a) the individual consents to the collection of the information. I do not consent to the collection of any sensitive information and instruct ANY personal private medical information on file to be removed and destroyed immediately.

Kind regards
Full Name
Staff Number

Detoxing From the Jab

Spike Protein Removal Eliminating graphene oxide


nano soma

Energetic Responses to jab

Energetic Responses to the Jab

  • Chakras filled with mucus and miasma
  • Chakras 1,2,3,4,6,7 are still or have very limited movement
  • Chakra 5 spins anti-clockwise
  • Loss of intuition
  • The soul detaches from the body
  • Miasma and mucus in the brain

Physical Symptoms 

  • Pain or swelling at the injection site
  • Feeling tired or fatigued
  • Menstrual cycle irregularity
  • Headache
  • Muscle aches
  • Chills
  • Joint pain
  • Fever
  • Nausea
  • Autoimmune diseases
  • Myocarditis