STAY FREE, STAY INFORMED, STAY IN THE FIGHT……….. FAILURE OF AUSTRALIA TO INVESTIGATE DEATHS OF CHILDREN FOLLOWING COVID SHOTS Substack of Dr. Maryanne Demasi 11 January JAN 10
READ IN APP
Below I reproduce Maryanne Demasi’s important Substack of 11 January in full. I could not cross-post as Substack prevented this.
Every Australian should understand that the vast majority of reported Covid jab deaths are not being properly investigated to determine the probability that the injections caused the deaths. Why not? What is the government covering up?
This is serious…….we deserve answers.
Share
Thankfully, we have a handful of dedicated politicians such as Senator Alex Antic trying to find the truth. Listen to bureaucrats obfuscating when questioned on why we have not had answers.
The Prime Minister promised us a Royal Commission into Covid. He has failed to fulfil this promise. One of the questions in any Royal Commission would be “why the Australian Government has failed to properly investigated reported deaths linked to the Covid vaccine injections”.
START DEMASI POST
Australian senate forces answers on why Covid vaccine deaths were not investigated
After US regulators linked child deaths to Covid-19 mRNA vaccines, an Australian senator has demanded to know why reported child deaths in Australia were not escalated for expert causality assessment.
MARYANNE DEMASI, PHD
JAN 11, 2026
GUEST POST
Dr Julie Sladden is a retired medical doctor in Australia committed to truth and transparency in healthcare.
When the US drug regulator announced it was investigating deaths linked to the Covid-19 vaccine, an Australian senator turned to our own regulator, the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), to ask why the same scrutiny had never occurred here.
The answer, it turns out, is deeply unsettling.
Australia’s surveillance system had logged reports of deaths after Covid-19 vaccination — including deaths in children — yet almost none of those cases were referred for expert causality assessment.
Nearly three years would pass before Australia withdrew its recommendation to vaccinate healthy children.
Australia’s vaccine safety data
In September 2025, the National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance (NCIRS) uploaded a report summarising Australia’s spontaneous surveillance data for adverse events following immunisation (AEFI) for Covid-19 vaccines administered in 2022.
Although dated March 2025, the report covers the second year of the Covid-19 vaccine rollout — including the first year the vaccines were offered to children aged 11 years and under.
The figures are stark.
In 2022, Australia recorded 18,398 adverse event reports following Covid-19 vaccination. Of these, 160 involved a fatal outcome. Six of the reported deaths occurred in children aged 0 to 17.
The report takes pains to clarify that “reporting a death to the TGA does not mean that the vaccine caused the death, or that the individual completing the report considers that the death was caused by a vaccine” and concludes that “safety monitoring continued to demonstrate a reassuring safety profile.”
However, the timing of these deaths complicates that claim.
Among children, the median interval between vaccination and death was 4.5 days. For young adults aged 18–29, it was just three days.
This is an important point. When an adverse event occurs shortly after exposure - within a timeframe consistent with known biological mechanisms - it strengthens the plausibility of a causal link and makes coincidence less likely. This principle underpins widely used causality frameworks such as the Bradford Hill criteria.
The overwhelming majority of the 160 reported deaths in the NCIRS Report occurred within a median of less than two weeks following vaccination. This fact casts doubt on the “reassuring safety profile” asserted by the report.
Surprisingly, the report states, “Only one death following a Covid-19 vaccine administered in 2022 was assessed by TGA as likely to be causally linked to vaccination.”
At first glance, that conclusion seems remarkable. It becomes less surprising once one learns that only two of the 160 reported deaths — and none of the six child deaths - were referred to the Vaccine Safety Investigation Group (VSIG) for expert causality assessment.
Senator Antic questions the TGA
Why, then, were none of the reported child deaths escalated for expert investigation?
The TGA was asked this exact question by Senator Alex Antic during the December 2025 round of Senate estimates.
Senator Alex Antic Responding on behalf of the regulator, Dr Daniel Dascombe, acting principal medical adviser in the TGA’s pharmacovigilance branch, explained that the VSIG had been convened during the early phase of the rollout for specific conditions such as myocarditis and thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome.
At that time, he said, the risk–benefit profile of Covid-19 vaccines was still being characterised, and the potential impact of serious adverse events on that balance was unknown.
“As time progressed,” he told Senator Antic, “the safety profile of these vaccines has become better established, and the grounds for establishing a VSIG to look into specific case reports have changed over time.”
However, that explanation did not address the question being asked by Senator Antic.
The deaths recorded in 2022 did not occur years down the track once safety was settled. They occurred during the early stages of rolling out a new vaccine program to children using a novel technology, at a time when “the potential impact of these adverse events on the risk–benefit balance… was unknown.”
Yet the VSIG was not convened in response to any of the reported child deaths, even though healthy children were known to be at minimal risk from Covid, and that death as an adverse event clearly “has the potential to change the favourable benefit–risk balance of the vaccine,” a stated criterion in the VSIG work instruction.
Notably, the VSIG can only be convened following agreement between the TGA and the Office of Health Protection and must adhere to clearly documented criteria and guidance outlined in the WHO’s Global Manual on Surveillance of Adverse Events Following Immunization.’
A possible explanation for why so few deaths were escalated for causality assessment lies in a recently released TGA document obtained under freedom-of-information (FOI) laws.
The document outlines a “pilot” AEMS Preliminary Fatal Case Assessment process, used by TGA staff to screen fatal cases before referral to the expert panel.
It instructs staff to avoid “burning out” the VSIG panel by not referring cases that do not meet defined criteria, or where essential documentation — such as finalised autopsy reports — is not yet available.
The document attributes this approach to guidance from the WHO.
But that attribution is false — the WHO guidance contains no reference to avoiding panel “burn out,” nor does it advise restricting referrals for that reason.
On the contrary, the guidance stresses that causality assessment of serious adverse events requires specialist expertise and explicitly recommends that countries lacking sufficient in-house capacity should seek assistance from the respective WHO country or regional office.
Is this why only two of the 160 reported deaths, and none of the six reported deaths in children, were referred for expert causality assessment – to avoid “burning out” the panel?
A policy reversal, three years too late
On 27 March 2025 the recommendation for healthy children to receive Covid vaccines, was quietly withdrawn. There was no political announcement, no press conference and little media attention.
The change came via a brief statement by the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation (ATAGI) advising that recommendations for healthy children under 18 had been revised.
Two months later, the Australian Immunisation Handbook was updated to reflect that the “risk of severe illness is extremely low in this cohort over the course of the pandemic, and benefits of vaccination are not considered to outweigh the potential harms.”
This assessment was not new. The minimal risk posed to children from the disease had been known since 2020.
From the first reported child death to the policy reversal, it took nearly three years.
During that critical period, reports of death — an adverse event with the potential to overturn a favourable benefit-risk balance — were filtered out rather than escalated and investigated.
This was a failure of the process in real time.
The VSIG framework exists precisely for rare, serious, and uncertain safety signals - especially in low-risk populations. That it was not invoked in response to reported child deaths raises unavoidable questions about how safety thresholds were interpreted, how WHO guidance was applied, and whether institutional caution gave way to bureaucratic paralysis.
If vaccine safety surveillance is to restore public trust, these decisions and the internal instructions that shaped them, must now be examined with the same rigour that regulators so often claim, but have applied so selectively.
Acknowledgement: The author thanks Dr Melissa McCann for her input.
MD REPORTS is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support this work, consider becoming a paid subscriber.”
END DEMASI POST
Thanks for reading Phillip Altman BPharm(Hons), MSc, PhD! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
Subscribed DISCLAIMER:
The information and personal opinions presented in this post is based on or derived from sources which I believe are credible and usually reliable. Any inadvertent errors or inaccuracies in my posts which come to my notice will be corrected as soon as possible. I endeavour to reference any relevant published information and provide links to websites so readers can do their own research. The opinions expressed are not intended nor should they be interpreted to be medical advice. I do not accept any liability for comments placed on my posts and my failure to respond to any potentially defamatory or contentious comment should not be taken as passive or otherwise approval by myself. I neither seek nor receive any financial compensation for my writings. 保持自由，留意，留在战斗中.........。澳大利亚失败调查儿童的死亡人员在Covid Shots博士的博士博士中，1月10日在下面的应用程序中阅读了Maryanne Demasi的重要家族 我不能交叉邮寄，因为重塑阻止了这一点。 每个澳大利亚人都应该理解，绝大多数报告的Covid刺戳死亡未得到适当调查，以确定注射造成死亡的可能性。 为什么不呢？ 政府掩盖了什么？ 这是严重......。我们应该得到答案。 谢天谢地分享，我们有少数敬业的政治家，如参议员Alex Intinator试图找到真相。 聆听官僚机会，在质疑为什么我们没有答案时。 总理向美国致力于Covid的皇家委员会。 他未能履行这一承诺。 任何皇家委员会的问题都是“为什么澳大利亚政府未能妥善调查报告与Covid疫苗注射相关的死亡”。 澳大利亚参议院的开始Demasi部队答案在美国监管机构将儿童死亡联系在Covid-19 mRNA疫苗后未调查Covid疫苗死亡，澳大利亚参议员要求知道为什么澳大利亚的儿童死亡未被升级 Maryanne Demasi，博士11月11日，2026届顾客帖朱莉·斯拉德登博士是澳大利亚的一名退休医生致力于医疗保健的真理和透明度。 当美国药物监管机构宣布调查与Covid-19疫苗相关的死亡时，澳大利亚参议员转向我们自己的监管机构，治疗货物管理局（TGA），要求为什么同样的审查从未发生过。 结果答案，结果深深令人不安。 澳大利亚的监督系统在Covid-19疫苗接种后已经记录了死亡报告 - 包括儿童的死亡 - 但几乎没有那些案件被提到专家因果关系评估。 在澳大利亚撤回其推荐健康儿童的建议之前，将通过近三年。 澳大利亚的疫苗安全数据于2025年9月，国家免疫研究中心（NCIR）上传了一份报告，将澳大利亚自发监测数据汇总对Covid-19的免疫（AEFI）后的不良事件 这些数字是鲜明的。 在2022年，澳大利亚在Covid-19疫苗接种后记录了18,398个不利事件报告。 其中，160名涉及致命结果。 六名报告的死亡发生在0到17岁的儿童。该报告澄清“向TGA报告死亡并不意味着疫苗导致死亡，或者完成报告的个人认为死亡是由疫苗造成的 然而，这些死亡的时间使得索赔复杂化。 在儿童中，疫苗接种和死亡之间的中位间隔为4.5天。 对于18-29岁的年轻人来说，这只是三天。 这是一个重要的观点。 当曝光后不久发生不良事件 - 在与已知的生物机制一致的时间内 - 它加强了因果关系的合理性，并且不太可能变得巧合。 这一原理是广泛使用的因果关系框架，如布拉德福德山标准。 160人报告的大多数据报道的疫苗报告报告的死亡是在疫苗接种后不到两周的中位数发生。 这一事实对报告主持的“令人放心的安全型材”表示怀疑。 令人惊讶的是，报告说明，通过TGA评估2022年施用的Covid-19疫苗之后只有一次死亡，可能与疫苗接种有任何因果关系。“ 乍一看，结论看起来显着。 一旦有人学会，只有160例报告的死亡中只有两个 - 六个儿童死亡中只有两个 - 六个儿童死亡人员都没有被提到专家因果关系评估的疫苗安全调查组（VSIG）。 参议员接收到TGA的问题为什么，那么，报告的儿童死亡均未升级专家调查？ 在2025年参议院估计的12月，参议员Alex Intin询问了TGA的确切问题。 参议员Alex INTER代表TGA的Pharmacovilance ARCH中的担任监管机构博士丹尼尔·达克斯博士解释说，VSIG已在卷展览的早期阶段进行召开，例如 他说，他说，Covid-19疫苗的风险福利概况仍在表征，严重不良事件对该平衡的潜在影响是未知的。 “随着时间的推移，”他告诉参议员，“这些疫苗的安全性曲线已成为更好的建立，以及建立VSIG的理由随着时间的推移而改变了改变。” 但是，解释没有解决参议员接触者所要求的问题。 一旦安全定居，2022年记录的死亡将在轨道上没有发生。 他们在利用新技术向儿童推出新疫苗计划的早期阶段发生，当时“这些不良事件对风险效益平衡的潜在影响......尚不清楚” 然而，对于任何报告的儿童死亡而言，VSIG没有召集，即使已知健康的儿童是从科米德的最小风险，并且作为不良事件的死亡明确“有可能改变疫苗的有利福利风险平衡，”一位规则 值得注意的是，VSIG只能在TGA和卫生保护办公室之间协议召开，并且必须坚持在免疫后世卫组织全球手册中概述的明确记录了概述的标准和指导。“为什么死亡的原因是一个可能的解释 该文件概述了“飞行员”AEMS初步致命病例评估过程，由TGA员工用于筛选致命案件，在推荐专家小组之前。 它指示员工通过不符合规定标准的情况，避免“烧毁”VSIG面板，或者必要文件 - 例如最终确定的尸检报告 - 尚未提供。 该文档将这种方法属于谁的指导。 但这归属是假的 - 世界卫生组织的指导不包含避免面板“烧坏”的指导，也没有建议限制这一原因的推荐。 相反，指导强调严重不良事件的因果关系评估需要专家的专业知识，并明确建议缺乏缺乏充足的内部能力的国家应该寻求各自的世卫组织或区域办事处的援助。 这是为什么160人报告的死亡中只有两个，以及儿童的六名报告的死亡中都没有被提到专家因果关系评估 - 以避免“焚烧”小组？ 一项政策逆转，三年三年来为时已晚于2025年3月27日，健康儿童接受Covid疫苗的建议悄悄地撤回。 没有政治公告，没有新闻发布会和小媒体关注。 该改变通过澳大利亚技术咨询小组关于免疫（ATAGI）的简要说明来提出，建议18岁以下的健康儿童的建议已修订。 两个月后，澳大利亚免疫手册已更新，以反映“在大流行过程中，这种队列中严重疾病的风险极低，并且疫苗接种的利益不被认为超过潜在的危害。” 这个评估并不是新的。 自2020年以来，从疾病中提出给疾病的儿童的最小风险。从第一个报告的儿童死亡到政策逆转，所以花了近三年。 在该关键期间，死亡报告 - 具有推翻有利益处风险平衡的可能性的不良事件 - 被筛选出来而不是升级和调查。 这是实时过程的失败。 VSIG框架正恰当地存在罕见，严重和不确定的安全信号 - 尤其是低风险群体。 由于报告的儿童死亡，没有援引它，提出了关于安全门槛如何解释的不可避免的问题，如何应用指导，以及机构谨慎是否让位于官僚瘫痪。 如果疫苗安全监测是恢复公共信任，则必须使用与经常要求的监管机构相同的严格来检查这些决定和塑造它们的内部指令，但是选择性地应用。 致谢：作者感谢Melissa McCann博士的投入。 MD报告是读者支持的出版物。 要接收新员额并支持这项工作，请考虑成为一名已付费订阅者。“ 结束Demasi Post感谢阅读Phillip Altman Bpharm（Hons），MSC，PHD！ 订阅免费接收新帖子并支持我的工作。 订阅免责声明：本篇文章中提出的信息和个人意见是基于或来自我认为可信并且通常可靠的来源。 我的帖子中的任何无意中的错误或不准确的错误都将尽快纠正。 我努力参考任何相关的发布信息，并提供网站的链接，因此读者可以进行自己的研究。 表达的意见并非打算被解释为医疗建议。 我不接受对我的职位上的评论的任何责任，并且我未能应对任何潜在的诽谤或争议性评论，不应被自己作为被动或以其他方式批准。 我既不寻求也没有收到任何对我的作品的财务补偿。
保持自由，留意，留在战斗中.........。澳大利亚失败调查儿童的死亡人员在Covid Shots博士的博士博士中
The death cases of healthy children after vaccination have been downplayed and deleted: Australia’s failed investigation.
为健康儿童注射疫苗死亡案例被淡化并删除 澳大利亚失败的调查
https://open.substack.com/pub/phillipaltman/p/failure-of-australia-to-investigate
STAY FREE, STAY INFORMED, STAY IN THE FIGHT………..
FAILURE OF AUSTRALIA TO INVESTIGATE DEATHS OF CHILDREN FOLLOWING COVID SHOTS
Substack of Dr. Maryanne Demasi 11 January
JAN 10
READ IN APP
Below I reproduce Maryanne Demasi’s important Substack of 11 January in full. I could not cross-post as Substack prevented this.
Every Australian should understand that the vast majority of reported Covid jab deaths are not being properly investigated to determine the probability that the injections caused the deaths. Why not? What is the government covering up?
This is serious…….we deserve answers.
Share
Thankfully, we have a handful of dedicated politicians such as Senator Alex Antic trying to find the truth. Listen to bureaucrats obfuscating when questioned on why we have not had answers.
The Prime Minister promised us a Royal Commission into Covid. He has failed to fulfil this promise. One of the questions in any Royal Commission would be “why the Australian Government has failed to properly investigated reported deaths linked to the Covid vaccine injections”.
START DEMASI POST
Australian senate forces answers on why Covid vaccine deaths were not investigated
After US regulators linked child deaths to Covid-19 mRNA vaccines, an Australian senator has demanded to know why reported child deaths in Australia were not escalated for expert causality assessment.
MARYANNE DEMASI, PHD
JAN 11, 2026
GUEST POST
Dr Julie Sladden is a retired medical doctor in Australia committed to truth and transparency in healthcare.
When the US drug regulator announced it was investigating deaths linked to the Covid-19 vaccine, an Australian senator turned to our own regulator, the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), to ask why the same scrutiny had never occurred here.
The answer, it turns out, is deeply unsettling.
Australia’s surveillance system had logged reports of deaths after Covid-19 vaccination — including deaths in children — yet almost none of those cases were referred for expert causality assessment.
Nearly three years would pass before Australia withdrew its recommendation to vaccinate healthy children.
Australia’s vaccine safety data
In September 2025, the National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance (NCIRS) uploaded a report summarising Australia’s spontaneous surveillance data for adverse events following immunisation (AEFI) for Covid-19 vaccines administered in 2022.
Although dated March 2025, the report covers the second year of the Covid-19 vaccine rollout — including the first year the vaccines were offered to children aged 11 years and under.
The figures are stark.
In 2022, Australia recorded 18,398 adverse event reports following Covid-19 vaccination. Of these, 160 involved a fatal outcome. Six of the reported deaths occurred in children aged 0 to 17.
The report takes pains to clarify that “reporting a death to the TGA does not mean that the vaccine caused the death, or that the individual completing the report considers that the death was caused by a vaccine” and concludes that “safety monitoring continued to demonstrate a reassuring safety profile.”
However, the timing of these deaths complicates that claim.
Among children, the median interval between vaccination and death was 4.5 days. For young adults aged 18–29, it was just three days.
This is an important point. When an adverse event occurs shortly after exposure - within a timeframe consistent with known biological mechanisms - it strengthens the plausibility of a causal link and makes coincidence less likely. This principle underpins widely used causality frameworks such as the Bradford Hill criteria.
The overwhelming majority of the 160 reported deaths in the NCIRS Report occurred within a median of less than two weeks following vaccination. This fact casts doubt on the “reassuring safety profile” asserted by the report.
Surprisingly, the report states, “Only one death following a Covid-19 vaccine administered in 2022 was assessed by TGA as likely to be causally linked to vaccination.”
At first glance, that conclusion seems remarkable. It becomes less surprising once one learns that only two of the 160 reported deaths — and none of the six child deaths - were referred to the Vaccine Safety Investigation Group (VSIG) for expert causality assessment.
Senator Antic questions the TGA
Why, then, were none of the reported child deaths escalated for expert investigation?
The TGA was asked this exact question by Senator Alex Antic during the December 2025 round of Senate estimates.
Senator Alex Antic
Responding on behalf of the regulator, Dr Daniel Dascombe, acting principal medical adviser in the TGA’s pharmacovigilance branch, explained that the VSIG had been convened during the early phase of the rollout for specific conditions such as myocarditis and thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome.
At that time, he said, the risk–benefit profile of Covid-19 vaccines was still being characterised, and the potential impact of serious adverse events on that balance was unknown.
“As time progressed,” he told Senator Antic, “the safety profile of these vaccines has become better established, and the grounds for establishing a VSIG to look into specific case reports have changed over time.”
However, that explanation did not address the question being asked by Senator Antic.
The deaths recorded in 2022 did not occur years down the track once safety was settled. They occurred during the early stages of rolling out a new vaccine program to children using a novel technology, at a time when “the potential impact of these adverse events on the risk–benefit balance… was unknown.”
Yet the VSIG was not convened in response to any of the reported child deaths, even though healthy children were known to be at minimal risk from Covid, and that death as an adverse event clearly “has the potential to change the favourable benefit–risk balance of the vaccine,” a stated criterion in the VSIG work instruction.
Notably, the VSIG can only be convened following agreement between the TGA and the Office of Health Protection and must adhere to clearly documented criteria and guidance outlined in the WHO’s Global Manual on Surveillance of Adverse Events Following Immunization.’
A possible explanation for why so few deaths were escalated for causality assessment lies in a recently released TGA document obtained under freedom-of-information (FOI) laws.
The document outlines a “pilot” AEMS Preliminary Fatal Case Assessment process, used by TGA staff to screen fatal cases before referral to the expert panel.
It instructs staff to avoid “burning out” the VSIG panel by not referring cases that do not meet defined criteria, or where essential documentation — such as finalised autopsy reports — is not yet available.
The document attributes this approach to guidance from the WHO.
But that attribution is false — the WHO guidance contains no reference to avoiding panel “burn out,” nor does it advise restricting referrals for that reason.
On the contrary, the guidance stresses that causality assessment of serious adverse events requires specialist expertise and explicitly recommends that countries lacking sufficient in-house capacity should seek assistance from the respective WHO country or regional office.
Is this why only two of the 160 reported deaths, and none of the six reported deaths in children, were referred for expert causality assessment – to avoid “burning out” the panel?
A policy reversal, three years too late
On 27 March 2025 the recommendation for healthy children to receive Covid vaccines, was quietly withdrawn. There was no political announcement, no press conference and little media attention.
The change came via a brief statement by the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation (ATAGI) advising that recommendations for healthy children under 18 had been revised.
Two months later, the Australian Immunisation Handbook was updated to reflect that the “risk of severe illness is extremely low in this cohort over the course of the pandemic, and benefits of vaccination are not considered to outweigh the potential harms.”
This assessment was not new. The minimal risk posed to children from the disease had been known since 2020.
From the first reported child death to the policy reversal, it took nearly three years.
During that critical period, reports of death — an adverse event with the potential to overturn a favourable benefit-risk balance — were filtered out rather than escalated and investigated.
This was a failure of the process in real time.
The VSIG framework exists precisely for rare, serious, and uncertain safety signals - especially in low-risk populations. That it was not invoked in response to reported child deaths raises unavoidable questions about how safety thresholds were interpreted, how WHO guidance was applied, and whether institutional caution gave way to bureaucratic paralysis.
If vaccine safety surveillance is to restore public trust, these decisions and the internal instructions that shaped them, must now be examined with the same rigour that regulators so often claim, but have applied so selectively.
Acknowledgement: The author thanks Dr Melissa McCann for her input.
MD REPORTS is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support this work, consider becoming a paid subscriber.”
END DEMASI POST
Thanks for reading Phillip Altman BPharm(Hons), MSc, PhD! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
Subscribed
DISCLAIMER:
The information and personal opinions presented in this post is based on or derived from sources which I believe are credible and usually reliable. Any inadvertent errors or inaccuracies in my posts which come to my notice will be corrected as soon as possible. I endeavour to reference any relevant published information and provide links to websites so readers can do their own research. The opinions expressed are not intended nor should they be interpreted to be medical advice. I do not accept any liability for comments placed on my posts and my failure to respond to any potentially defamatory or contentious comment should not be taken as passive or otherwise approval by myself. I neither seek nor receive any financial compensation for my writings. 保持自由，留意，留在战斗中.........。澳大利亚失败调查儿童的死亡人员在Covid Shots博士的博士博士中，1月10日在下面的应用程序中阅读了Maryanne Demasi的重要家族 我不能交叉邮寄，因为重塑阻止了这一点。 每个澳大利亚人都应该理解，绝大多数报告的Covid刺戳死亡未得到适当调查，以确定注射造成死亡的可能性。 为什么不呢？ 政府掩盖了什么？ 这是严重......。我们应该得到答案。 谢天谢地分享，我们有少数敬业的政治家，如参议员Alex Intinator试图找到真相。 聆听官僚机会，在质疑为什么我们没有答案时。 总理向美国致力于Covid的皇家委员会。 他未能履行这一承诺。 任何皇家委员会的问题都是“为什么澳大利亚政府未能妥善调查报告与Covid疫苗注射相关的死亡”。 澳大利亚参议院的开始Demasi部队答案在美国监管机构将儿童死亡联系在Covid-19 mRNA疫苗后未调查Covid疫苗死亡，澳大利亚参议员要求知道为什么澳大利亚的儿童死亡未被升级 Maryanne Demasi，博士11月11日，2026届顾客帖朱莉·斯拉德登博士是澳大利亚的一名退休医生致力于医疗保健的真理和透明度。 当美国药物监管机构宣布调查与Covid-19疫苗相关的死亡时，澳大利亚参议员转向我们自己的监管机构，治疗货物管理局（TGA），要求为什么同样的审查从未发生过。 结果答案，结果深深令人不安。 澳大利亚的监督系统在Covid-19疫苗接种后已经记录了死亡报告 - 包括儿童的死亡 - 但几乎没有那些案件被提到专家因果关系评估。 在澳大利亚撤回其推荐健康儿童的建议之前，将通过近三年。 澳大利亚的疫苗安全数据于2025年9月，国家免疫研究中心（NCIR）上传了一份报告，将澳大利亚自发监测数据汇总对Covid-19的免疫（AEFI）后的不良事件 这些数字是鲜明的。 在2022年，澳大利亚在Covid-19疫苗接种后记录了18,398个不利事件报告。 其中，160名涉及致命结果。 六名报告的死亡发生在0到17岁的儿童。该报告澄清“向TGA报告死亡并不意味着疫苗导致死亡，或者完成报告的个人认为死亡是由疫苗造成的 然而，这些死亡的时间使得索赔复杂化。 在儿童中，疫苗接种和死亡之间的中位间隔为4.5天。 对于18-29岁的年轻人来说，这只是三天。 这是一个重要的观点。 当曝光后不久发生不良事件 - 在与已知的生物机制一致的时间内 - 它加强了因果关系的合理性，并且不太可能变得巧合。 这一原理是广泛使用的因果关系框架，如布拉德福德山标准。 160人报告的大多数据报道的疫苗报告报告的死亡是在疫苗接种后不到两周的中位数发生。 这一事实对报告主持的“令人放心的安全型材”表示怀疑。 令人惊讶的是，报告说明，通过TGA评估2022年施用的Covid-19疫苗之后只有一次死亡，可能与疫苗接种有任何因果关系。“ 乍一看，结论看起来显着。 一旦有人学会，只有160例报告的死亡中只有两个 - 六个儿童死亡中只有两个 - 六个儿童死亡人员都没有被提到专家因果关系评估的疫苗安全调查组（VSIG）。 参议员接收到TGA的问题为什么，那么，报告的儿童死亡均未升级专家调查？ 在2025年参议院估计的12月，参议员Alex Intin询问了TGA的确切问题。 参议员Alex INTER代表TGA的Pharmacovilance ARCH中的担任监管机构博士丹尼尔·达克斯博士解释说，VSIG已在卷展览的早期阶段进行召开，例如 他说，他说，Covid-19疫苗的风险福利概况仍在表征，严重不良事件对该平衡的潜在影响是未知的。 “随着时间的推移，”他告诉参议员，“这些疫苗的安全性曲线已成为更好的建立，以及建立VSIG的理由随着时间的推移而改变了改变。” 但是，解释没有解决参议员接触者所要求的问题。 一旦安全定居，2022年记录的死亡将在轨道上没有发生。 他们在利用新技术向儿童推出新疫苗计划的早期阶段发生，当时“这些不良事件对风险效益平衡的潜在影响......尚不清楚” 然而，对于任何报告的儿童死亡而言，VSIG没有召集，即使已知健康的儿童是从科米德的最小风险，并且作为不良事件的死亡明确“有可能改变疫苗的有利福利风险平衡，”一位规则 值得注意的是，VSIG只能在TGA和卫生保护办公室之间协议召开，并且必须坚持在免疫后世卫组织全球手册中概述的明确记录了概述的标准和指导。“为什么死亡的原因是一个可能的解释 该文件概述了“飞行员”AEMS初步致命病例评估过程，由TGA员工用于筛选致命案件，在推荐专家小组之前。 它指示员工通过不符合规定标准的情况，避免“烧毁”VSIG面板，或者必要文件 - 例如最终确定的尸检报告 - 尚未提供。 该文档将这种方法属于谁的指导。 但这归属是假的 - 世界卫生组织的指导不包含避免面板“烧坏”的指导，也没有建议限制这一原因的推荐。 相反，指导强调严重不良事件的因果关系评估需要专家的专业知识，并明确建议缺乏缺乏充足的内部能力的国家应该寻求各自的世卫组织或区域办事处的援助。 这是为什么160人报告的死亡中只有两个，以及儿童的六名报告的死亡中都没有被提到专家因果关系评估 - 以避免“焚烧”小组？ 一项政策逆转，三年三年来为时已晚于2025年3月27日，健康儿童接受Covid疫苗的建议悄悄地撤回。 没有政治公告，没有新闻发布会和小媒体关注。 该改变通过澳大利亚技术咨询小组关于免疫（ATAGI）的简要说明来提出，建议18岁以下的健康儿童的建议已修订。 两个月后，澳大利亚免疫手册已更新，以反映“在大流行过程中，这种队列中严重疾病的风险极低，并且疫苗接种的利益不被认为超过潜在的危害。” 这个评估并不是新的。 自2020年以来，从疾病中提出给疾病的儿童的最小风险。从第一个报告的儿童死亡到政策逆转，所以花了近三年。 在该关键期间，死亡报告 - 具有推翻有利益处风险平衡的可能性的不良事件 - 被筛选出来而不是升级和调查。 这是实时过程的失败。 VSIG框架正恰当地存在罕见，严重和不确定的安全信号 - 尤其是低风险群体。 由于报告的儿童死亡，没有援引它，提出了关于安全门槛如何解释的不可避免的问题，如何应用指导，以及机构谨慎是否让位于官僚瘫痪。 如果疫苗安全监测是恢复公共信任，则必须使用与经常要求的监管机构相同的严格来检查这些决定和塑造它们的内部指令，但是选择性地应用。 致谢：作者感谢Melissa McCann博士的投入。 MD报告是读者支持的出版物。 要接收新员额并支持这项工作，请考虑成为一名已付费订阅者。“ 结束Demasi Post感谢阅读Phillip Altman Bpharm（Hons），MSC，PHD！ 订阅免费接收新帖子并支持我的工作。 订阅免责声明：本篇文章中提出的信息和个人意见是基于或来自我认为可信并且通常可靠的来源。 我的帖子中的任何无意中的错误或不准确的错误都将尽快纠正。 我努力参考任何相关的发布信息，并提供网站的链接，因此读者可以进行自己的研究。 表达的意见并非打算被解释为医疗建议。 我不接受对我的职位上的评论的任何责任，并且我未能应对任何潜在的诽谤或争议性评论，不应被自己作为被动或以其他方式批准。 我既不寻求也没有收到任何对我的作品的财务补偿。