🔥 Burn Fat Fast. Discover How! 💪

Informed Medical Options Party (IMOP)

Logo of telegram channel imoparty — Informed Medical Options Party (IMOP) I
Logo of telegram channel imoparty — Informed Medical Options Party (IMOP)
Channel address: @imoparty
Categories: Politics
Language: English
Subscribers: 4.62K
Description from channel

The Informed Medical Options Party (IMOP) resists the push to legislate compulsory vaccination and fluoridation.
Authorised by Michael O'Neill, Bellbrook NSW.

Ratings & Reviews

2.50

2 reviews

Reviews can be left only by registered users. All reviews are moderated by admins.

5 stars

0

4 stars

0

3 stars

1

2 stars

1

1 stars

0


The latest Messages 16

2021-10-20 15:25:01 *CALL OUT TO NSW RESIDENTS!!*

Urgent assistance required!

The IMOParty is registering for the NSW State Election March 2023. But we need to apply NOW!

To members and non members, if you are enrolled to vote and live in NSW, we are asking for your assistance in getting us across the line to be able to run candidates for the NSW state election. Conditions apply. Please refer to our website for more information:

https://imoparty.com/NSWReg

Thank you!
The IMOParty Team
5.3K views12:25
Open / Comment
2021-10-20 09:29:35
1.7K views06:29
Open / Comment
2021-10-20 08:42:48

Victoria lockdown: Daniel Andrews ordered to reveal secret Covid-19 documents |
Anthony Piovesan for Daily Telegraph

Secret documents that informed the Andrews government’s controversial decision to plunge Victoria into lockdown must be released, a state privacy watchdog has ruled.

In a bombshell decision, the Office of the Victorian Information Commissioner (OVIC) ordered the release of 176 Department of Health documents that guided the government’s decision to enforce stage 4 lockdown restrictions across the state on February 12.

At the time, chief health officer Brett Sutton and Premier Daniel Andrews enforced the five-day “circuit-breaker” shutdown to try to suppress the UK variant of Covid-19.

It would be the first time such sensitive briefing material has been made publicly available.

The Department of Health tried to block the release of the material, saying the files revealed “high-level deliberative processes of government” and risked jeopardising trust between public officials and a Minister.

It also argued releasing the material “could mislead members of the public”.

But in a ruling seen by NCA NewsWire, OVIC deputy commissioner Joanne Kumm­row disagreed, saying: “I consider members of the public are capable of understanding the role and powers of the chief health officer to make decisions and issue directions under the public health and wellbeing act.”

She also ruled that details in the documents “contained a substantial amount of publicly available information”.

Ms Kumm­row said one document held important information about the Victorian government’s Covid-19 response, including a rationale for public health orders.

“I consider there is significant public interest in providing members of the comm­unity the ability to part­icipate in such processes and to hold governments to ­account for the decisions it has made,” she said.

“The documents describe the reasons for placing restrictions on the movements of members of the community, including in relation to sensitive matters, such as hospital visits. These decisions have a profound effect on the lives of Victorians.

“In these circumstances, members of the community have a right to access documents that describe the background information con­sidered, the reasons, the legal basis for, and documents that record those decisions.”

The Department of Health has 14 days to appeal against the decision with the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal.

OVIC upheld a decision not to release five documents due to legal privilege.

Victorian upper house opposition leader David Davis has been calling for the release of the documents since the February lockdown was enforced.

He said Victorians deserved to know the reasons why they were locked down.

“The Andrews Labor government through its health officers has clamped down families, school kids and businesses on the basis of ‘health advice’ it says, yet it has never once released the formal written briefs relied on by the chief health officer or delegate,” he said.

Mr Davis called on Mr Andrews “to come clean” and provide the documents in full.

“The failure to release this critical advice can only result in further reduction in the credibility of him and his government,” he said.

“It’s a scandal these documents have been kept secret all the way through the pandemic.”

Mr Andrews was absent at Wednesday’s Covid-19 briefing, but Creative Industries Minister Danny Pearson appeared instead and was questioned about the documents.

He refused to explicitly say if the documents would be released publicly.

“These documents are not my documents,” he said.

“As I understand it, the Department of Health will consider this.”

In a statement, a Department of Health spokesman said: “The Department of Health will take the appropriate time to properly review OVIC’s decision before any further action is considered.”

https://www.news.com.au/national/victoria/politics/andrews-government-ordered-to-reveal-secret-documents-that-justify-victorian-lockdown/news-story/4954176823fbf13b4e3e2c6ae1d56d98
2.8K viewsedited  05:42
Open / Comment
2021-10-20 01:14:07
https://calihotel.com.au/
2.4K views22:14
Open / Comment
2021-10-19 02:14:10 Time sensitive - cut off date Wednesday 27 Oct!

Our friends at Vaccine Choice Australia have taken the hard work out of writing to your MP’s regarding the Trusted Digital Identity Bill. Don’t forget to to check your emails to confirm your admission.

For more information and to Have your say on Australia's Digital Identity legislation (Consultation on Phase 3 of Australia’s Digital Identity legislation is open until Wednesday 27 October 2021)
https://www.digitalidentity.gov.au/have-your-say/phase-3

OUR CURRENT TRUTH DAY QUESTION (12 October 2021):
In 2015, the Australian Government took the first steps to develop a digital identity system after a financial inquiry highlighted the benefits of digital identity for the economy.

On 1 October 2021, Minister for Employment, Workforce, Skills, Small and Family Business Stuart Robert released the exposure draft of the Trusted Digital Identity Bill and related legislative instruments for public consultation. The exposure draft stage is the third opportunity to provide feedback on the legislation.

One problem with the Trusted Digital Identity Bill is the absence of ‘no-impediment to service’ opt-out provision. If a routine government service could not be accessed without access to personal biometric data, this would preclude the exercise of free and informed consent about the use and sharing of such data.

Do you support a ‘no-impediment to service’ opt-out provision to be explicitly stated in the proposed Bill? If not, why?

Another problem with the Trusted Digital Identity Bill is the lack of clarity regarding ownership rights over the unique personal information contained in our bodies. Biometric information could plausibly be used to covertly modify, control or counterfeit our conscious agency, be used to access personal accounts, and be commercially exploited.

Do you agree that we must have clarity regarding legal ownership of the unique personal information contained or extractable from our unique biological characteristics? If not, why?

How will this Bill affect those who don’t have access to technology devices that support digital identity, such as the elderly? Will they effectively be cut off from society?

How does this Bill relate to the Privacy Act? What happens to those who choose not to consent to digital identity? Will they also be cut off from society?

​As a member of parliament, do you support the Trusted Digital Identity Bill that takes us one step closer to the social credit system of communist China?

Link https://www.vaccinechoiceaustralia.com.au/current-mp-letters.html
4.3K views23:14
Open / Comment
2021-10-18 15:40:27 It's very concerning that natural immunity is not being acknowledged as it's likely many people may be protected by cross-immunity from infection with other coronaviruses, and that children are protected by their strong innate immunity. See for example this article: Pre-existing immunity to Covid-19 - Marc Girardot of PANDA unpacks its evolution.[5]

In regards to natural immunity, it was recently reported an unvaccinated truck driver in South Australia was diagnosed as 'positive'. According to the report in The Advertiser, Nicola Spurrier "said she was "disappointed" the driver was not vaccinated and urged him to get vaccinated when he is over his illness". On what medical basis is Nicola Spurrier urging a person diagnosed as COVID-19 positive to 'get vaccinated'? If this truck driver has already had a natural immune response to SARS-CoV-2, what is the benefit to him of COVID-19 injections?

Fast-tracked experimental COVID-19 injections have been implemented, wrongly in my opinion. We have no idea what lies ahead with potentially multiple shots with these injections, to purportedly protect against a disease it was known from the beginning wasn't a serious risk for most people, see for example: Protection, immune response fall after Pfizer COVID vaccine, data show. CIDRAP News, 7 October 2021.

Again, we have to live with the virus, we should have been doing this all along...

I again ask what exactly is 'the emergency' that has kept South Australia and Australia under emergency laws, and restrictions and lockdowns, for the past 19 months, and why are restrictions still in place in South Australia?

I look forward to your response on this matter.

Elizabeth Hart
Independent person investigating the over-use of vaccine products and conflicts of interest in vaccination policy

See Elizabeth’s website for more information
https://over-vaccinationepidemic.net/
1.6K views12:40
Open / Comment
2021-10-18 15:40:27 Elizabeth Hart sends off another ripper of a letter. This time to the SA Police Commissioner. Full letter including references linked here https://vaccinationispolitical.files.wordpress.com/2021/10/what-exactly-is-the-emergency.pdf

For the attention of:
Grant Stevens
Commissioner of Police South Australia
State Coordinator COVID-19 Emergency Response

Grant, can you please clarify for me what exactly is 'the emergency' that has kept South Australia and Australia under emergency laws, and restrictions and lockdowns, for the past 19 months...because this is not adding up for me...

Despite all the fear-mongering in the mainstream media, the reported deaths for COVID-19 globally do not support the hysterical response. Over the past 19 months 4.8 million deaths have been attributed to COVID-19 globally.[1] This is in a global population of 7.9 billion, where around 60 million deaths would be expected annually[2], so around 95 million deaths would be expected over 19 months. Seen in this context, 4.8 million deaths, most likely in elderly people with comorbidities, is not a great number, and even this figure is highly questionable in regards to deaths 'of' covid, or 'with' covid. Also see the PANDA article: COVID-19 deaths: Underreported or overestimated? 28 July 2021.

Retrospective critical analysis is now required to investigate deaths attributed to COVID-19, and the basis of this so-called 'pandemic', which has been used as the excuse to disrupt global societies and economies, and to steal the free movement and association, and bodily autonomy, of billions of people.

Decades of pandemic planning have been disregarded in the response to COVID-19, including the Australian Health Management Plan for Pandemic Influenza that was abandoned by the Morrison Government in 2020, as discussed by Emma McArthur in her letter to Scott Morrison, 16 July 2021. These plans recognise that it's not appropriate to shut down society for a respiratory virus like SARS-CoV-2, and that fundamental rights must be upheld. It's past time to return to long-established principles of public health, and we must 'learn to live with the virus'.

It was known from the beginning that COVID-19 wasn't a serious threat to most people. For instance, the World Health Organisation acknowledges "Most people infected with the virus will experience mild to moderate respiratory illness and recover without requiring special treatment".[3] John Ioannidis et al report that "People <65 years old have very small risks of COVID-19 death even in pandemic epicenters and deaths for people <65 years without underlying conditions are remarkably uncommon. Strategies focusing on protecting high-risk individuals should be considered in managing the pandemic".[4] (My emphasis.)

Operation COVID Shield currently reports that 57.4% of people over the age of 16 are fully vaccinated in Australia, and that 51.7% have had the double dose in South Australia. (Data as at 4 October 2021.) Presumably people in the vulnerable groups have taken the opportunity to have the covid injections if they choose. The fast-tracked experimental covid injections apparently don't prevent infection nor transmission, and the duration of 'immunity' is unknown - consequently there appears to be little justification for vaccinating anyone outside of the vulnerable groups.

Personally, I remain unconvinced that a global vaccine response should have been implemented, and we are now in unknown territory with these 'leaky vaccines' which are being pressed upon the global population. I'm still pursuing transparency and accountability for the processes that instigated the vaccine response globally and in Australia. In my opinion natural immunity should have been pursued, as raised in my BMJ rapid response in March 2020: Is it ethical to impede access to natural immunity? The case of SARS-CoV-2.
2.1K views12:40
Open / Comment
2021-10-18 13:31:50

1.8K views10:31
Open / Comment
2021-10-17 02:38:32
63 views23:38
Open / Comment
2021-10-16 14:51:26 https://www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au/blog/morrison-pushes-laws-to-bury-national-cabinet-covid-crisis-documents/
888 views11:51
Open / Comment