Dear Nicola Spurrier: Why Do You Spout So Much Alarmist & Anti-Scientific Hogwash?

A week ago, I wrote about NSW's terribly poor excuse for a health minister, Brad "The Health Hazard" Hazzard. In that article, I reprinted a letter I'd emailed the uber-arrogant Hazzard on 22 July 2021. The letter asked Hazzard a serious of straightforward questions about his fallacious COVID-19 claims, and presented a raft of scientific studies and official statistics showing his claims to be sheer nonsense.

The thin-skinned Hazzard, as evinced by his numerous press conferences, is not a man who likes to be criticized. He also seems to consider himself something of a medical grandmaster, taking every opportunity to belittle the scientific and health qualifications of others (ironically, Hazzard is a lawyer-turned-politician, one of the most anti-scientific backgrounds imaginable).

Despite this, my letter to Hazzard has been met with silence. So has my letter to SA MP Frank Pangallo, who loudly called for mandatory vaxxxination a couple of weeks back.

Seems these guys aren't too keen to discuss the actual science behind the abundant BS they spout.

So I thought I'd try sending a letter to South Australia's chief health busybody, Nicola Spurrier.

Spurrier, aptly dubbed "The Nutty Professor," has been an especially prolific disseminator of unbridled hogwash ever since the COVID stupidity kicked off in early 2020.

Despite the outright absurdity in almost everything she says about COVID-19, the highly gullible SA population and compliant media have lapped it up, awarding her the utterly undeserved moniker of "Saint Nicola."

The alarmist absurdity of her claims, and the obnoxious manner in which she shuts down uncomfortable questions from reporters, should make her a prime target for the press. But, as a leaked video of Daily Mail Australia editor Barclay Crawford confirms, journalists are being instructed to support the official COVID-19 narrative. Crawford was caught calling critics of the dangerous new COVID pseudo-vaccines "anti-vaxx weirdos" and telling reporters not only to keep filing "anti-vaxxer" stories, but to make sure they are "dismissing" and "rubbishing their ridiculous claims."

In addition to this pressure, local SA reporters seem reluctant to attack Spurrier and her carefully crafted "Saint Nicola" image. As "one of Adelaide's most respected journalists" told InDaily writer Kevin Naughton, "No bastard wants to be seen attacking Nicola."

Well, the bastards in media should grow some balls, because Spurrier is far from saintly and thoroughly deserves a truckload of scorn. Not only does she routinely spout nonsense with absolutely no basis in scientific reality, but her draconian COVID restrictions are causing immeasurable harm to the physical, mental and economic health of South Australians.

One reporter who refuses to participate in the prevailing emperor-has-no-clothes-charade is Chris Kenny from Sky News. At a 30 June 2021 press conference, Kenny asked Spurrier whether the SA government's 80% 'vaccination' target was necessary given "the very mild health threat this disease poses to anyone outside those vulnerable groups."

Kenny asked the question in a calm, non-belligerent tone. It was a straightforward question, but Spurrier's response was anything but.

Her first tactic was to try and evade the question by feigning indignance and surprise. Her head wobbling in trademark Spurrier fashion, the Nutty Professor responded, "Look I, I really um just find it quite surprising really to be at a press conference and have somebody, uh, suggest that there are very minor consequences to COVID-19."

But that's the plain truth. And when Kenny interjected "that's a fact," Spurrier suddenly dropped her usual dainty, nerdy "Saint Nicola" shtick, vanquished the fake smile, and promptly revealed her true colours. Not used to having her nonsense called out publicly, she loudly raised her voice and rudely talked right over the top of Kenny.


But Kenny persevered, reminding Spurrier "You know there's not been one community transmission that's led to death in this country all year..."


Carrying on like there is a flesh-eating virus on the loose, urging all South Australians to get injected with dangerous pseudo-vaccines, and imposing tyrannical restrictions on people in response to what is really a mild virus is hardly a "minor point."

An honest answer to Kenny's question would have sounded something like this:

"Chris, you're absolutely right. The actual infection fatality rate of COVID-19 is only 0.15%, which hardly justifies the relentless hysteria and a rollout of dangerous drugs. So far in Australia this year, 280 times more people have died from traffic accidents than with COVID-19. But we have to keep scaring the bejesus out of the public, because there's a greater agenda at play here, one organized by people far more cunning and powerful than me. I can't reveal any details of that agenda, because I might find myself in a wee spot of bother."

"In fact, I'm probably already in deep shit for what I just said. So listen Chris, just be like the rest of the press robots here and stop asking difficult questions, OK? My job is to issue propaganda, and your job is to uncritically soak it up and pass it on to the unthinking sheeple of South Australia."

Spurrier's "thou shalt not question me" outburst was a textbook classic example of the conceited, contempt-based nature of Australian governance. South Australia's Chief Health Officer is also a living example of another truly bizarre phenomenon: Prematurely-aged people who do not look particularly healthy, declaring themselves health 'experts' and ordering other, far healthier people to follow their absurd edicts. Spurrier doesn't seem too keen to share her age, but Wikipedia cites her year of birth as "1966/1967." That would make her similar in age to yours truly, yet she looks old enough to be my (Anglo) mother (Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison is also the same age as me and looks old enough to be my Anglo nonno).

In fact, if you were to gather together the key players in Australia's COVID charade - the politicians, health bureaucrats and police commissioners - you'd be faced with one of the most physically-uninspiring and unhealthiest-looking groups imaginable. These are people who themselves look to be in dire need of some sound health advice, yet they get to issue health edicts to much fitter and healthier people.

They are even dictating what doctors can tell their patients, using threats of deregistration against any medical practitioner with the temerity to say something negative about the dangerous new pseudo-vaccines. The Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency denied doctors were being gagged, saying “medical practitioners can discuss the respective merits of different vaccines.” In other words, they're free to say what they want about the COVID 'vaccines,' so long as it's positive.

As with Chris Kenny, evasive bullshit doesn't have any currency with yours truly. So, as a tax-paying citizen whose liberty has been curtailed by the unelected Spurrrier, I decided to email her a number of direct and highly pertinent questions.

As you might expect, aside from the obligatory automated email reply, I've yet to receive a response.

Quite frankly, I don't hold high hopes of receiving any answer of substance from Spurrier. As others have pointed out, she seems unlikely to possess the intellectual capacity to even understand what I've written, let alone field a coherent response. And even if she did possess the requisite brain power, to provide honest answers to the questions I've posed would be to open a hundred hornet's nests.

Below is the letter I sent to Spurrier on 28 July 2021, reprinted in full.

Subject: Your Scientifically Untenable Claims About COVID-19

Dear Ms Spurrier,

I am one of the many people adversely affected by your COVID-19 edicts.

The fundamental rights and liberties of innocent, law-abiding people in South Australia have been severely restricted under the pretext of eradicating a virus with an infection fatality rate that is measured in fractions of a percent. Healthy, asymptomatic people are being treated like criminals if they try to resist the scientifically unfounded (and unlawful) surveillance and control measures enforced throughout the state.

I am seeking the science that underpins this Orwellian charade. I further wish to know why you are such a prolific disseminator of false and misleading commentary on COVID-19. As I will demonstrate, pretty much everything you have said to date about the dangers of COVID-19, and the alleged efficacy and safety of the COVID 'vaccines', is scientifically untenable nonsense.

Right from the outset, you have claimed COVID-19 presents a dire threat to the safety of South Australians. You repeatedly use emotive and unscientific language like "catastrophe" and "tinderbox" to describe what is indisputably a mild virus which, just like most influenza strains, poses its primary threat to vulnerable, immunocompromised patient groups.

As of this writing, 918 out of 26,000,000 Australians have allegedly died with - not necessarily because of - COVID-19.(1)

The average age of those whose deaths have been attributed to COVID-19 is 86 years.(2)

United Nations Population Division data puts the estimated Australian life expectancy at 83.94 years, while OECD data cites a life expectancy of 82.8 years.(3)

In other words, people dying with COVID in Australia are living 2-3 years longer than average.

As of this writing, 685 of Australia’s 918 “COVID-related” deaths (75%) have occurred in aged-care facilities.(4)

Ninety-one percent of people admitted to an aged care facility in Australia will die there. The average duration between admission and death for these folks is a mere 2.8 years.(5)

The True Fatality Rates of COVID-19 and the Delta Variant

To get a realistic picture of COVID-19's true lethality, we need to ignore dishonest authorities and sensationalist media outlets, and instead defer to genuine and respectable scientists.

In the world of science, they don’t come much more respected than Dr. John Ioannidis, Professor of Medicine, Health Research and Policy, and of Biomedical Data Science at Stanford University School of Medicine.

After scrutinizing studies from around the world, Dr. Ioannidis concluded the best estimate average global infection fatality rate (IFR) for COVID-19 is around 0.15%.(6)

Not 1.5%, but Zero. Point. One. Five. Percent.

In Europe and the Americas, the likely IFR is around 0.3-0.4%. When institutionalized people are omitted and the analysis confined to community-dwelling folks, the IFR estimate for those regions is ~0.2%.

All available evidence indicates the true death toll from COVID-19 is on par with that of a milder influenza season.(7)

As for the Delta strain that has been the subject of patently absurd scaremongering by you and your interstate cohorts, the most recent UK Government Technical Briefing on the subject quietly acknowledges the case fatality rate is a piddling 0.2%. This firmly positions the Delta variant as one of the least deadly COVID-19 strains.(8)

I must reiterate, that's the case fatality rate, which is always much higher than the overall infection fatality rate, because CFR only involves cases serious enough to warrant medical attention; IFR encompasses all infected people, including those who are asymptomatic.

Because of relentless and rampant exaggeration on the part of you, your interstate cohorts, and shameless mainstream media outlets, the typical Australian now earnestly believes the Delta variant confers, on average, a 38% death rate!(9)

So could you kindly answer the following questions:

Why do you repeatedly use alarmist language to describe a virus whose true fatality rate is measured in fractions of a percent?

Why do you grossly exaggerate the Delta strain, claiming it poses an “extreme” threat when its case fatality rate is in fact a piddling 0.2%?

Why have you never shared the true infection fatality and case rates in any of your press conferences?

Why do you issue commentary designed to instil fear and hysteria instead of calm and reason?

Why do you and you and your accomplices, Premier Steven Marshall and SAPOL commissioner Grant Stevens, repeatedly impose tyrannical restrictions on healthy, asymptomatic people of all ages to allegedly fight a virus overwhelmingly associated with deaths in frail aged care residents?

Could you please share with me the scientific rationale for causing widespread economic hardship, a mental health crisis, and an increase in family violence and sexual abuse(10,11) that affects people of all ages, in order to allegedly prevent deaths associated with a novel influenza primarily in people who have already lived past the national life expectancy?

The Parafield Cluster Debacle and Your Subsequent Hypocrisy

On Wednesday 18 November 2020, you, Marshall and Stevens declared one of the strictest lockdowns the world had yet seen. People were not even allowed to exercise outdoors or walk their pets. The impetus for these new and totalitarian restrictions was the so-called Parafield Cluster.

You claimed - without presenting any evidence whatsoever - that this so-called cluster was the work of a new “super strain," a “fourth generation” variant of COVID-19 with an unusually short “incubation period” of 24 hours.

Interstate virologists quickly pointed out that your claims were "Rubbish."(12) The harsh lockdown conditions also attracted international attention and commentary, none of it complimentary.

In the face of all this negative press, you, Marshall and Stevens quickly eased the restrictions, using the utterly unconvincing excuse that a man from Spain told contact tracers he was a customer at a Woodville pizza bar, instead of a worker there.

But while you backed down on the restrictions, you would not let up with your alarmist language. You insisted a "second wave" had been averted but warned the "sneaky" virus was still on the loose. South Australians, you said, needed to be extra vigilant and remain on high alert.

A week later, on 27 November, you and a couple of assistants stood in a busy Rundle Mall handing out masks to Black Friday shoppers. Video footage captured by Channel 7 shows you and your assistants repeatedly breaching your own COVID-19 prevention guidelines.(13)

You repeatedly breached the 1.5 metre social distancing yardstick that features so heavily in SA Government propaganda and signage. The footage even shows you badgering and following a young lady to take a mask despite her polite refusal, repeatedly breaching social distancing guidelines as you did so.

The footage also showed you standing directly in front of a stranger, mere inches away, as you helped him put a mask on. The individual in question appeared to be one of the numerous individuals who sells copies of The Big Issue while standing in public. While I wholeheartedly commend his work ethic, I find your hypocrisy mind-boggling. During a 'pandemic,' street vendors in busy precincts would be at elevated risk of coming into contact with the COVID-19 "aerosols" and "droplets" you repeatedly speak of. If either of you had COVID-19, this physical contact - by your very own definition - would have constituted high-risk behaviour.

So one moment you were insisting a "sneaky" "super-strain" of COVID-19 was on the loose, one that required people to be extra vigilant and on high alert, the next you were mingling with complete strangers in a busy shopping precinct and repeatedly touching the mask and face of a stranger.

Could you please furnish me with the following:

The scientific evidence underpinning your claim there was a new “fourth generation” “super strain" variant of COVID-19 with an unusually short “incubation period” of 24 hours on the loose in South Australia.

A coherent explanation as to why you felt it acceptable to repeatedly breach social distancing guidelines and flagrantly ignore mask hygiene guidelines if you earnestly believed this allegedly uber-deadly “fourth generation” “super strain" variant of COVID-19 was on the loose in South Australia?

Your "Do Not Touch that Ball!" Advice

When asked why, in the midst of a so-called pandemic, authorities were allowing an AFL football game in a large stadium with tens of thousands of screaming Crows and Collingwood fans, you replied:

"If you are at, um, Adelaide Oval and the ball comes toward you, my, err, advice to you is to duck and just do not touch that ball!"

COVID-19 has been incessantly portrayed as the deadliest and most virulent human-to-human transmissible virus in history, but according to you, when tens of thousands of humans are packed together in a stadium, the real threat is a wayward egg-shaped leather ball!

Your bizarre comment, quite justifiably, attracted immediate and widespread ridicule. At a subsequent press conference, you and Marshall attempted to explain away your absurd advice, but succeeded only in further demonstrating why you are wholly unsuited to the role of Chief Public Health Officer. In your disjointed response, you told the press:

"I'm not a football player and whenever a ball comes towards me, whatever sort of ball, whether it's a basketball or a football, my inclination is to duck ... regardless of COVID, this ball has been touched by many sweaty men out there on the field, just go and sanitize your hands before you start eating your chips."

Heaven help the people of South Australia when this is the level of wisdom imparted by the state's penultimate health officer.

Since when did your own personal aversion to balls constitute a sound platform for issuing public health advice? I believe I'm stating the perfectly obvious when I point out public health advice should be based upon the best scientific evidence available, not on someone's fear of wayward balls.

Could you also furnish the science showing that a leather ball handled by a bunch of "sweaty men" running around on a field at some distance from spectators, poses a greater threat of COVID-19 transmission than tens of thousands of spectators in close proximity to each other?

Your Irresponsible 'Vaccine' Propaganda

Like most Australian politicians and health bureaucrats, you are a vocal and unabashed proponent of the new and poorly-tested COVID-19 'vaccines.'

The two 'vaccines' currently available in Australia are the AstraZeneca viral vector drug and the Pfizer mRNA drug.

Both AstraZeneca and Pfizer are serial corporate felons.

Since its formation in 1999, AstraZeneca has been hit with over $1.8 billion in fines for dishonesty offences, including fraud, illegal marketing, false and misleading advertising, rorting Medicare/Medicaid, and sexual harassment and discrimination.(14)

From 1991 through 2017, in the US alone, Pfizer paid $4.7 billion in federal and state criminal and civil penalties. Again, these penalties were for any alarming array of dishonesty offences, including Medicare/Medicaid fraud and illegal marketing.(15)

None of this is a secret - the malfeasance of the pharma giants is well-known, and any health authority conducting its due diligence would have come across this freely available information in a preliminary Internet search. So the next obvious question is:

Why are you recommending dubious drugs made by companies with decades-long histories of egregious dishonesty offences?

As SAPOL breaks down doors to arrest people for producing drugs of dubious quality, you are emphatically recommending drugs of dubious quality made by companies with criminal pedigrees the average meth cook could only dream of!


And why are you using nonsensical data to do so?

Your excuse for this most recent draconian lockdown is the so-called Modbury cluster of 19 cases. You are also using the Modbury cases as an opportunity to promote the COVID-19 'vaccines.'

According to the Advertiser, "checks by officials show six of the 19 cases had received one (AstraZeneca) shot while 12 had not had any shots; this includes four who were too young to be vaccinated."

The Advertiser further states: "Prof Spurrier repeated her call for eligible people to be vaccinated as soon as possible, saying the Modbury cluster was a prime example of why it was important."(16) (Bold emphasis added)

The Modbury cluster demonstrates no such thing. Your comment evinces a very poor grasp of the most basic fundamentals of epidemiology - an especially regrettable display for someone with a graduate diploma in epidemiology.(17)

The completely uncontrolled data you have cited is wholly unsuitable for determining whether COVID-19 'vaccines' are effective or not. To exuberantly shill these drugs on the basis of the Modbury figures is pure quackery.

Nonetheless, let's humour your claims for a moment and take a closer look at the revelation that ‘only’ six of 19 people in the so-called Modbury cluster were partially vaccinated.

Six constitutes 31.5% of 19. If we remove the four ineligible youngsters, that leaves six partially vaccinated people out of the 15 who legally qualify for 'vaccination, which increases the portion of partially-vaccinated people to 40% of ‘vaccine’-eligible cases.

Now, let's look at the proportion of South Australians over 16 (the current legal age threshold) who have been ‘vaccinated.’ Many South Australians have not yet been able to have their second ‘vaccine’ shot; only 17% have received both injections.

But as of this writing, 39.2% of South Australians over 16 years of age have received 1 dose of a COVID-19 vaccine.(19) This is almost identical to the proportion of ‘vaccine’-eligible cases in the Modbury cluster who had received a single dose.

How on Earth can this be construed as an endorsement of COVID-19 vaccines? These figures suggest that not only does a single dose of the AstraZeneca vaccine fail to provide a meaningful degree of protection against COVID-19, but that it provides no protection whatsoever.

Which leads me to my next question.

Why are you recommending ineffective drugs with appalling safety records?

The Advertiser quotes you as saying, “I will be absolutely thrilled the day we can say everybody from 16 and up can be vaccinated” and “We need to get as many people vaccinated as possible.”


Why are you so keen to get everyone injected with drugs that, in less than eight months, have already established themselves as the most dangerous 'vaccines' in history?

As of 16 July 2021, the CDC VAERS database has received 5,467 reports of death in the US and its territories after administration of COVID-19 'vaccines.'(21)

Please don't tell me there is no causal link and that this is all just a coincidence. During the 2018-2019 flu season, 169.1 million doses of influenza vaccines were distributed throughout the US. VAERS received just 22 death reports for these vaccines during that season.

The corresponding figure for the 2019-2020 season was 174.5 million, and 17 death reports.(22)

That’s some coincidence.

Here in Australia, the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) writes in its most recent safety update of 22 July 2021 that it "has received and reviewed 399 reports of deaths in people who have recently been vaccinated" with the COVID drugs.(21) The TGA – which receives 96% of its funding from industry(23) - laughably claims only "six were linked to immunisation" but provides no further explanation for the remaining 393 deaths. We are apparently supposed to take the TGA’s word for it - just like the TGA took the serially dishonest Pfizer’s word that Comirnaty was safe and effective, without bothering to scrutinize the patient level data for itself!(24)

As if these unprecedented death figures are not troubling enough, most adverse events are never reported. Even a CDC study estimated that, for influenza vaccines, only 12-13% of serious adverse reactions involving anaphylaxis and Guillain-Barré syndrome ever find their way on to the VAERS database.(25)

Here in Australia, where doctors are being intimidated into silence and threatened with deregistration if they dare say anything negative about the COVID 'vaccines', there is little to reason to expect things are any different.

This means there is every likelihood the true Australian death rate associated with COVID-19 vaccines is far higher than that of deaths associated with COVID-19 itself.

I am also most curious as to why you and your cohorts insist on referring to the new COVID-19 drugs as 'vaccines' when they are in fact no such thing. Is it to assist the propaganda effort by aligning them with a more traditional drug class, instead of identifying them for the novel and poorly tested compounds they actually are?

A vaccine is an inoculation in which you receive a weakened or inactivated version of whatever pathogen you're trying to protect yourself against. None of the Brave New World drugs at the centre of the 'vaccine' rollout fall into this category. The Oxford-AstraZeneca concoction does not contain attenuated Sars-Cov-2; rather, it's a chimpanzee adenovirus encoded with the protein sequence for the COVID-19 S-protein.

The Pfizer mRNA drug, Comirnaty, contains messenger RNA also encoded for the COVID-19 S-protein. The alleged mechanism of this (and the Moderna) drug is, quite frankly, disturbing. While a true vaccine prompts the formation of antibodies, the mRNA drugs first prompt the body itself to manufacture the Sars-Cov-2 spike protein. In other words, they trigger your own cells to manufacture part of what we are repeatedly being told is the deadliest virus in history!

This is unprecedented. And incredibly reckless.

Have you done any research into mRNA technology? If so, you should be well aware that mRNA technology has repeatedly proven a dismal failure in drug development trials. In fact, until this COVID farce, no mRNA drug had even made it to the Phase III stage of clinical testing - which, under normal circumstances, must be successfully completed before a drug can be submitted for regulatory approval.(26)

Or have you and SA Health not bothered to perform due diligence on these drugs? Have you instead mimicked the industry-funded TGA, which did not bother to conduct its own independent analysis of patient level data for the Pfizer drug, instead simply taking the dishonest company's self-interested submissions at face value?(27)

The 'Vaccines' Do Not Work

"Chief public health officer Professor Nicola Spurrier said it made her 'sad' that more people were not vaccinated as it was 'a lifesaver,'" wrote the Advertiser.

Don't be sad, Nicola, because the COVID-19 drugs are not lifesavers. They are useless junk.

The 67-95% efficacy figures the ever-sleazy mainstream media has bombarded the public with are misleading rot.

To concoct these headline-worthy figures, the drug companies and their obedient researchers had to ignore the overall infection rates in drug and placebo groups. Instead, they resorted to the time-honoured "relative risk reduction" ruse, which involved ignoring the tens of thousands of trial participants who remained infection-free in each group (I explain in detail elsewhere how this scam works(28)).

Back in April, a group of researchers publicly called out the relative risk charade and calculated the actual difference in infection rates between drug and control groups in the 'vaccine' trials.(29)

They ranged from a pathetic 0·84% for the Pfizer–BioNTech mRNA drug, to a similarly pathetic 1·3% for your beloved AstraZeneca–Oxford 'vaccine.'

In all likelihood, even these paltry figures are an overestimate, because the trials were an easily-manipulated farce. Most of the AstraZeneca trial arms were single-blind, with researchers knowing who got the ‘vaccine’ and who didn't. The one trial arm that was double-blind (South Africa) failed to find any protection for the 'vaccine.'(30)

The data from the supposedly double-blind Moderna trial was in fact openly available to a team from Moderna.(31)

And the Pfizer trial gives all indications of having being heavily manipulated. Among the numerous suspicious anomalies present was an inexplicably largely number of 'vaccine' subjects that were excluded from the trial for unnamed reasons. It's a glaring anomaly that demands an explanation, but Pfizer is stubbornly refusing to share the raw data until the trial is over in 2023, when it will already have made tens of billions of dollars from the sale of Comirnaty.(32)

The Unflattering Epidemiology

If the COVID-19 'vaccines' were really 67-95% effective in preventing COVID-19 infections and COVID-related deaths, then countries with aggressive ‘vaccine’ rollouts should be experiencing marked reductions in COVID-19 case numbers and deaths. Furthermore, the overwhelming majority of those cases and deaths should be occurring in people who have not been 'vaccinated.'

But the opposite is happening. All around the world, the vaccine rollout is being accompanied, not by plummeting COVID-19 case numbers, but a sharp spike in cases.

An especially illuminating example is Iceland, one of the most heavily 'vaccinated' countries in the world. As the Iceland government's website shows, the overwhelming majority of the population has been fully 'vaccinated.' In the older age groups, there are near total 'vaccination' rates.(33)

So, if the ‘vaccines’ are 67-95% effective, COVID-19 should be a non-issue in Iceland, right?


Iceland's mass-injection program has in fact been followed by a sharp spike in COVID-19 cases.(34)

The tiny portion of non-jabbed residents cannot be blamed, because the overwhelming majority of new cases are in ‘vaccinated’ folks!(35)

‘Unvaccinated’ foreigners can't be blamed for the increase, either, because most of the infected arrivals to Iceland have also been 'vaccinated.'(36)

Now let's look at Singapore, which has already vaccinated 49% of its population and is aiming to fully 'vaccinate' two-thirds of its population by around National Day on 9 August 2021.(37)

Again, this high level of 'vaccination' should herald a marked decline in COVID cases, but the Singapore Ministry of Health website instead reveals a recent spike in cases.(38)

Again, the overwhelming majority of cases are in those who have received a COVID-19 ‘vaccine.’ In those over 40, the overwhelming majority of cases are in those who have been fully 'vaccinated.'

Remember the recent UK Technical Briefing I referred to earlier? Well, not only does it show that the Delta variant is a featherweight strain, but it also contains some very interesting ‘vaccination’ data. Table 5 of the briefing shows that, of those presenting for emergency care between 1 February 2021 to 19 July 2021, Delta infections were less common in under-50s who had been ‘vaccinated’ (63,990 versus 119,063), but far more common among over-50s who had been ‘vaccinated’ (18,873 versus 2,337).

The death tally told a similar story. In the under 50s, ten ‘vaccinated’ Delta patients died within 28 days of returning a positive specimen, compared to 34 ‘unvaccinated.’ But in the over-50s, 279 ‘vaccinated’ Delta subjects died, compared to 131 ‘unvaccinated.’

Overall, 289 ‘vaccinated’ Delta patients died, compared to 165 ‘unvaccinated.’(39)

This all leads to the obvious question: Why do you persist in claiming these drugs are effective when there is no reliable clinical trial or epidemiological data to support this claim? The epidemiological data, in fact, tends to show the opposite.

Ms Spurrier, in June 2019, you boasted: "I am an analytical, grounded thinker with confidence in absorbing complex information in order to make well informed, timely decisions ..."(40)

I submit that all available evidence indicates otherwise. Most of what you have said about COVID-19 to date falls into the distinctly non-scientific categories of alarmism, pseudoscience and outright nonsense.

If you believe I am incorrect, then I am more than happy to stand corrected. Could you please forward to me, at your earliest convenience, answers to the questions I have posed above (the ones presented in bold italic type). As one of the many people whose life has been greatly disrupted by your actions, I believe I deserve answers to these questions. I know for a fact that many other people living in South Australia, or with family and friends in the state, would also like answers.

Please note I am not interested in PR-style rhetoric, vague references to 'expert advice' that fail to divulge the actual science behind said advice, or threats of legal action.

Please don't pretend to take the moral high ground and feign surprise and indignance, as you did with journalist Chris Kenny when he recently - and correctly - pointed out to you that COVID-19 was of little consequence outside of vulnerable patient groups. The fact that you assiduously avoided giving him a direct answer and instead rudely talked over him suggests you knew full well he was right.

Please concentrate your response on actual scientific data that supports your claims.

Could you also refrain from the disingenuous tactic of trying to deflect my query by insisting I submit a request via South Australia's highly obfuscatory and glacial FOI system. Your statements and actions are having a direct impact on all South Australians, and causing many of them severe hardship and distress. You are a professor, and a person who boasts of being a grounded, analytical, quick-thinker. As such, it should be of little difficulty for you to answer my straightforward questions. Someone in your position, being paid hundreds of thousands of dollars annually courtesy of taxpayers, should have long ago assembled a constantly-updated dossier of science that can be given upon request to anyone questioning your highly-questionable COVID claims.

I intend to publish this letter at my website,, by Friday, 30 July 2021. If you wish to furnish a reply that will be published concurrently with this letter, I suggest you do so before 5pm, Thursday, 29 July 2021. Any reply received by you after this date will also be published, in due course.

Yours sincerely,

Anthony Colpo.


  2. Ibid.
  3. and
  6. Ioannidis JPA. Reconciling estimates of global spread and infection fatality rates of COVID- 19: An overview of systematic evaluations. European Journal of Clinical Investigation, 2021; 51: e13554.
  8. See Table 4 in: SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern and variants under investigation in England: Technical briefing 19. Public Health England, Jul 23, 2021.
  10. Newby JM, et al. Acute mental health responses during the COVID-19 pandemic in Australia. PLoS ONE, 2020; 15(7): e0236562.
  11. Australian Bureau of Statistics. Media Release: Family and domestic violence sexual assault up 13%. Jun 24, 2021.
  15. Public Citizen. Twenty-Seven Years of Pharmaceutical Industry Criminal and Civil Penalties: 1991 Through 2017. March, 2018.
  24. Pfizer Vaccine Authorised, Data Sight Unseen. Doctors for COVID Ethics, Jun 8, 2021.
  25. Miller ER, et al. The reporting sensitivity of the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) for anaphylaxis and for Guillain-Barré syndrome. Vaccine, Nov 3, 2020; 38 (47): 7458-7463.:
  27. Pfizer Vaccine Authorised, Data Sight Unseen. Doctors for COVID Ethics, Jun 8, 2021. and
  29. Olliaro P, et al. COVID-19 vaccine efficacy and effectiveness-the elephant (not) in the room. Lancet Microbe, 2021; 2 (7): e279-e280
  30. See and Voysey M, et al. Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK. Lancet, Jan 9, 2021; 397 (10269): 99-111.
  32. Doshi P. Pfizer and Moderna’s “95% effective” vaccines—we need more details and the raw data. BMJ, Jan 4, 2021.
  34. Ibid.
  35. Ibid.
  36. Ibid.
  39. See Table 5 in: SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern and variants under investigation in England: Technical briefing 19. Public Health England, Jul 23, 2021.

If You Found This Article Helpful, Please Consider Leaving a Tip

This site is self-funded and relies on reader generosity. Researching and writing articles like this takes a lot of time, so any and all tips are greatly appreciated!

Send a Tip via PayPal

The Mandatory “I Ain’t Your Mama, So Think For Yourself and Take Responsibility for Your Own Actions” Disclaimer: All content on this web site is provided for information and education purposes only. Individuals wishing to make changes to their dietary, lifestyle, exercise or medication regimens should do so in conjunction with a competent, knowledgeable and empathetic medical professional. Anyone who chooses to apply the information on this web site does so of their own volition and their own risk. The owner and contributors to this site accept no responsibility or liability whatsoever for any harm, real or imagined, from the use or dissemination of information contained on this site. If these conditions are not agreeable to the reader, he/she is advised to leave this site immediately.