This is not legal advice, please do your own research and decide your own path if you have been the recipient of a “Notice”.
This process was followed after receiving a “covid fine” from March 2020, subsequently, after sending the three letter process no further correspondence was received. Sending the letters does NOT guarantee “success”, but it would appear that if you serve the actors with a legal notice which confirms your standing in law, as a Subject of the Commonwealth, a Private Entity, then they have no business with you. No jurisdiction, no authority, but you must know your standing and maintain that position.
The individual has since been stopped for a RBT (assuming a “license” check was done by the operators), nothing raised at that time, and still no further issues or correspondence (in Jan 2022, that’s 9 months after last letter was sent). In February 2022 the individual was stopped and a license check was done roadside, no issues, free to go (That was in ACT, not WA, but it appeared they did the full interstate check).

When writing your documents, key points:

• Use font Times Roman, 12pt
• Creditor name block (you) should be ABOVE the debtor name block (them).
• Never use CAPS unless it’s the business as it’s listed on the ABN register or when referring to the legal fiction SURNAME, or quoting a reference that was sent in all caps.
• Avoid using Postcodes, always address to and from a physical address.
• Use the recipient’s full name if you can find it, and your full Christian name, born of the family x (the family name of your Mother at time of birth).
• Sign last page of all documents with a postage stamp and wet ink autograph.

While the doc below “worked” it is a couple of years old and MUCH better docs are now available. Please go to www.thecommonwealthofaustralia.com.au for latest docs that use Quo Warranto.

A pdf copy of the Notices addressing a “fine”, see NoticeToCommissioner (470kb pdf, video below of it also)

No “fine”, stand as a Subject of the Commonwealth with Notice to gov actors

A three letter process is required. A Notice of Conditional Acceptance, which they will fail to rebut, then send the Notice of Default and your Fee Schedule, followed by the Letter of Estoppel to finalise the matter. All correspondence should be sent by Registered Mail. Take photos of the documents before sending. Complete pdf of the Notices to gov actors here. It is STRONGLY recommended that these letters are sent, regardless if you have received a “Notice”/”fine”.

If you’ve received a “fine”

(a “Notice”) you need to send both sets of three letters (plus fee schedule). One set, Notices to gov actors here, confirms your standing under the Crown, a Subject of the Commonwealth, and the other addresses the “Notice” directly – as a Subject of the Commonwealth, and that is sent to the Commissioner of Police in your State or Territory.

Notice regarding a “covid fine”.

View it on BitChute https://www.bitchute.com/video/owsRhtvIHJEm/

The videos have been made so people can see formatting used.

Therapies to Prevent Progression of COVID-19, Including Hydroxychloroquine, Azithromycin, Zinc, and Vitamin D3 With or Without Intravenous Vitamin C: An International, Multicenter, Randomized Trial

Published: November 25, 2021 (see history)

DOI: 10.7759/cureus.19902

Cite this article as: Ried K, BinJemain T, Sali A (November 25, 2021) Therapies to Prevent Progression of COVID-19, Including Hydroxychloroquine, Azithromycin, Zinc, and Vitamin D3 With or Without Intravenous Vitamin C: An International, Multicenter, Randomized Trial. Cureus 13(11): e19902. doi:10.7759/cureus.19902

Abstract

Background

COVID-19 is a global pandemic. Treatment with hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), zinc, and azithromycin (AZM), also known as the Zelenko protocol, and treatment with intravenous (IV) vitamin C (IVC) have shown encouraging results in a large number of trials worldwide. In addition, vitamin D levels are an important indicator of the severity of symptoms in patients with COVID-19.

Objectives

Our multicenter, randomized, open-label study aimed to assess the effectiveness of HCQ, AZM, and zinc with or without IVC in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in reducing symptom severity and duration and preventing death.

Methods

Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in seven participating hospitals in Turkey were screened for eligibility and randomly allocated to receive either HCQ, AZM, and zinc (group 1) or HCQ, AZM, zinc plus IV vitamin C treatment (group 2) for 14 days. The patients also received nontherapeutic levels of vitamin D3.

The trial is registered on the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry ACTRN12620000557932 and has been approved by the Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA).

Results

A total of 237 hospitalized patients with COVID-19 aged 22-99 years (mean: 63.3 ± 15.7 years) were enrolled in the study. Almost all patients were vitamin D deficient (97%), 55% were severely vitamin D deficient (<25 nmol/L) and 42% were vitamin D deficient (<50 nmol/L); 3% had insufficient vitamin D levels (<75 nmol/L), and none had optimal vitamin D levels.

Of the patients, 73% had comorbidities, including diabetes (35%), heart disease (36%), and lung disease (34%).

All but one patient (99.6%; n = 236/237) treated with HCQ, AZM, and zinc with or without high-dose IV vitamin C (IVC) fully recovered. Additional IVC therapy contributed significantly to a quicker recovery (15 days versus 45 days until discharge; p = 0.0069).

Side effects such as diarrhea, nausea, and vomiting, reported by 15%-27% of the patients, were mild to moderate and transient. No cardiac side effects were observed.

Low vitamin D levels were significantly correlated with a higher probability of admission to the intensive care unit (ICU) and longer hospital stay.

Sadly, one 70-year-old female patient with heart and lung disease died after 17 days in ICU and 22 days in the hospital. Her vitamin D level was 6 nmol/L on admission (i.e., severely deficient).

Conclusions

Our study suggests that the treatment protocol of HCQ, AZM, and zinc with or without vitamin C is safe and effective in the treatment of COVID-19, with high dose IV vitamin C leading to a significantly quicker recovery.

Importantly, our study confirms vitamin D deficiency to be a high-risk factor of severe COVID-19 disease and hospitalization, with 97% of our study’s patient cohort being vitamin D deficient, 55% of these being severely vitamin D deficient, and none had optimal levels.

Future trials are warranted to evaluate the treatment with a combination of high-dose vitamin D3 in addition to HCQ, AZM, and zinc and high-dose intravenous vitamin C.

Introduction

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), or COVID-19, has affected millions of people worldwide. COVID-19 was first reported by the World Health Organization in December 2019 and was declared a worldwide pandemic in March 2020. Exploring therapies potentially of benefit for COVID-19 has been a public health emergency.

SARS-CoV-2 enters cells by binding to the ACE2 receptor. Higher blood levels of ACE2 reflect shedding from the myocardium and pulmonary epithelium and identify patients who are vulnerable to the development of life-threatening complications.

Early in the pandemic, the combination of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), azithromycin (AZM), and zinc, also known as the Zelenko protocol, had shown great promise in the treatment of COVID-19 [1,2].

In vitro, chloroquine increases the endosomal pH required for the virus to fuse with cells and interferes with the glycosylation of SARS-CoV-2 cell receptors, thereby blocking viral infection [3,4]. Investigators performed a time-of-addition assay, which showed that chloroquine is effective at both the entry and post-entry stages of the SARS-CoV-2 infection in cells. Hydroxychloroquine has greater in vitro potency than chloroquine against SARS-CoV-2 and, because of its enhanced safety profile, can be given at higher doses than chloroquine [5].

As of October 2021, a meta-analysis of more than 290 worldwide trials involving more than 412,000 patients found that HCQ significantly reduced morbidity and mortality in patients with COVID-19. Specifically, when HCQ is used in early treatment, a meta-analysis of 32 studies involving more than 54,600 patients suggested HCQ to improve symptoms and prevent death by 64%-75% (all early treatment studies (n = 32): RR, 0.36 (0.29-0.46), p < 0.0001; early treatment studies reporting mortality (n = 13): RR, 0.25 (0.16-0.40), p < 0.0001) [6].

Azithromycin is a macrolide antibiotic that has been found to inhibit the viral tropism and replication of Zika and Ebola viruses [7,8]. An in vitro study has shown the activity of azithromycin (AZM) in combination with hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) against SARS-CoV-2 [9].

In addition, the effectiveness of this combination therapy of HCQ and AZM, when used early, as was demonstrated in a clinical study involving 83 patients in Turkey, reduced recovery time and shortened hospital length of stay [10].

In therapeutic doses, HCQ has a high safety profile and works as a zinc ionophore, enabling zinc to enter a virus-infected cell, increasing intracellular zinc concentrations [11].

Zinc itself has antiviral properties, boosting both innate and humoral immunity [12]. High intracellular concentrations of zinc are essential to inhibit viral replication and proliferation, including coronavirus RNA-dependent RNA polymerase activity [13].

The Zelenko COVID-19 treatment protocol consists of the following triple therapy for five consecutive days in addition to standard supportive care: zinc sulfate (220 mg capsule once daily, containing 50 mg elemental zinc), HCQ (200 mg twice daily), and AZM (500 mg once daily) [2].

In addition, intravenous vitamin C (IVC) has known immune-stimulating and antiviral properties [14] and had shown promise as a treatment for acute respiratory syndrome and pneumonia [15]. Recent studies reported on the benefits of IVC therapy for COVID-19 [16,17].

Furthermore, a large number of studies (n > 200) have demonstrated low vitamin D levels to be a risk factor for the severity of COVID-19 symptoms and hospitalization [18-20].

Adequate vitamin D levels are of great importance in the prevention of respiratory infections, as vitamin D protects against pathogens including viruses via the innate and adaptive immune systems, involving white blood cells and T-cells [21].

In our study, we aimed to assess the optimal treatment protocol for hospitals to consider in their treatment for patients with COVID-19, in order to reduce the severity and duration of symptoms and save lives. Patients presenting at hospitals with COVID-19 symptoms were randomly allocated to the Zelenko protocol (HCQ + AZM + zinc) or the Zelenko protocol plus IV vitamin C.

All enrolled patients also received supplementation of 5000 IU/day of vitamin D3, an adequate dose if levels of vitamin D are insufficient (51-75 nmol/L); however, this dose is considered inadequate for vitamin D deficiency (<50 nmol/L).

Materials & Methods

Trial design and participants

Our study is an international, multicenter, open-label, randomized controlled trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of therapies with hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), azithromycin (AZM), zinc, and vitamin D3 alone (group 1) or HCQ + AZM + zinc in combination with IV vitamin C (group 2) in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. For stage 1 of the trial, we aimed to recruit 200 patients.

The trial was conducted in Australia and Turkey between January and June 2021. Stage 1 of the trial took place primarily in Turkey and involved seven participating hospitals in Eskisehir, Elazig, Istanbul, Erzincan, and Izmir.

The trial was approved by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC)-endorsed National Institute of Integrative Medicine (NIIM) Human Research Ethics Committee in Australia, the Turkish Ethics Committees at the Ministry of Health in Turkey, and participating hospitals.

The trial is registered on the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry ACTRN12620000557932 and has been approved by the Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA).

All eligible participants provided electronic written informed consent.

Inclusion criteria

The inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) age ≥ 18 years, (2) informed written consent, and (3) diagnosis of active symptomatic COVID-19 confirmed by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing via nasal and/or oral swab at the time of enrolment for quantitative PCR assessment.

Exclusion criteria

The exclusion criteria were as follows: (1) known G-6-PDH deficiency; (2) contraindication to hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, or vitamin C, allergy to study interventions, epilepsy, serious hearing or visual problems, advanced liver disease, history of severe depression, calcium oxalate stones, and pregnant or lactating women; (3) already receiving hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, vitamin C >3 g daily, or an experimental antiviral; (4) history of fever (e.g., night sweats and chills) and/or acute respiratory infection (e.g., cough, shortness of breath, and sore throat) of more than seven days’ duration; (5) calculated creatinine clearance of <30 mL/minute; (6) baseline electrocardiogram (ECG) showing QTc ≥ 470 for males and QTc ≥ 480 for females; and (7) receipt of a drug known to increase QTc, such as quetiapine, amiodarone, and sotalol.

Intervention

Group 1 received HCQ + zinc + AZM + vitamin D3, whereas group 2 received vitamin C + group 1 interventions. Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) was given as 400 mg peroral (PO) once a day for one day, followed by 200 mg once a day for six days. Azithromycin (AZM) was given as 500 mg PO on day 1, followed by 250 mg PO once daily for four days. Zinc citrate was given as 30 mg elemental zinc PO daily for 14 days. Vitamin D3 was given as 5,000 IU PO daily for 14 days. IV vitamin C (sodium ascorbate) was given as 50 mg/kg every six hours on day 1, followed by 100 mg/kg every six hours (four times daily, 400 mg/kg/day) for seven days (average: 28 g/day; maximum dose: 50 g/24 hours for those weighing more than 125 kg).

Data collection

Project management and data collection were carried out by appointed teams at the participating sites.

The participants’ gender, age, disease severity, comorbidities (smoking, diabetes, heart disease, lung disease, and immunosuppression), other medications, and trial outcomes were entered into an electronic online database using Microsoft Forms questionnaires.

Outcomes

Primary Outcome

The primary outcome was mortality or need for invasive mechanical ventilation at any time in the first 15 days from enrolment.

Secondary Efficacy Outcomes

The secondary efficacy outcomes (measured at both 15 and 45 days from enrolment) are mortality, invasive mechanical ventilation, need for humidified high-flow oxygen, admission to the intensive care unit (ICU), days in the hospital, days in the ICU, renal replacement therapy, and extracorporeal support.

The secondary efficacy outcomes also include the World Health Organization (WHO) Master Protocol ordinal score at day 15 as follows: (1) not hospitalized, no limitations on activities; (2) not hospitalized, limitation on activities; (3) hospitalized, not requiring supplemental oxygen; (4) hospitalized, requiring supplemental oxygen; (5) hospitalized, on noninvasive ventilation or high-flow oxygen devices; (6) hospitalized, on invasive mechanical ventilation or ECMO; and (7) death.

Secondary Safety Outcomes

The secondary safety outcomes are QTc prolongation (>500 ms) 24 hours following the initial dose of study drugs, serious ventricular arrhythmia (including ventricular fibrillation) or sudden unexpected death in the hospital, and any of the following adverse events in the first 10 days from enrolment: diarrhea, grade 2 or greater; nausea, grade 2 or greater; and vomiting, grade 2 or greater (Appendices).

Adaptive design features

The study was overseen by the Steering Committee consisting of chief investigators (TB, KR, and AS) and investigators at recruited sites. Independent Data Safety Monitoring Committees (DSMC) at participating hospitals monitored the progress and safety of the trial treatment and were to make recommendations on whether to continue, modify, or stop the trial for safety or ethical reasons.

Sample size calculation

In stage 1, the sample size required is n = 100 in each intervention arm in order to have a statistical power of 80% to detect a relative risk reduction (RRR) of 30% in the proportion progressing to mechanical ventilation or death, compared with standard care, and assuming a standard-of-care risk of progression of 30%. Since the participants were hospitalized, we assumed minimal (<1%) loss to follow-up. The total sample size was n = 200.

Analyses were performed using IBM SPSS version 26. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05. The primary analysis of efficacy was conducted under the intention-to-treat principle; all randomized participants were included in the analyses. Descriptive analysis was conducted on all variables. Any variable differences between groups were included in analyses as covariates. Differences between the groups and comparison of continuous outcome variables were analyzed using Student’s t-test or analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) and chi-square analysis for dichotomous variables or Mann-Whitney U-tests for ranking variables. Correlations between variables were assessed using Pearson’s correlation coefficient.

Participants

In total, 237 hospitalized patients were enrolled in the study in Turkey. Table 1 outlines the number (%) of patients enrolled by hospital site.

Hospital site	Color circle on the map (Figure 1)	Number of patients enrolled	% Patients
Eskisehir (ESOGU)	Blue	138	60%
Eskisehir (City Hospital)		26
Elazig	Red	67	25%
Istanbul	Yellow	1	10%
Istanbul (University)		24
Erzincan	Green	13	4%
Izmir	Purple	2	1%

Table 1: Number (%) of patients enrolled by hospital site

The average age of the patients enrolled was 63.3 ± 15.7 years, ranging from 22 to 99 years. Half of the patients were male and half were female. All findings were independent of age and gender (Table 2).

Out of the enrolled patients, 96% tested positive by the COVID-19 PCR test; those who tested negative had severe respiratory symptoms, such as cough and difficulty breathing (9/10), or had tested positive with a COVID-19 antibody test (1/10).

A small number of patients had recently received a vaccination: 2/230 (3%) reported to have received a flu vaccination and 5/232 (2%) had received a COVID-19 vaccination at the time of the study.

Of the participants, 73% had comorbidities, including diabetes (35%), heart disease (36%), lung disease (34%) or were heavy smokers (41%), cancer (10%), or autoimmune disease (3%) (Table 2).

Almost all hospitalized patients with COVID-19 enrolled in the study were vitamin D deficient (97%), 55% were severely vitamin D deficient (<25 nmol/L) and 42% were vitamin D deficient (<50 nmol/L); 3% had insufficient vitamin D levels (<75 nmol/L), and none had optimal vitamin D levels (Table 2, Figure 2).

Variable	N (%)/mean ± SD	Comment
Hospitalized patients/outpatients	237 (90%)/29 (10%)	Only hospitalized patients were included in the analysis.
Gender  (M/F)	119 (50%)/118 (50%)
Age (years)	63.3 ± 15.7 (range: 22–99) years
COVID-PCR (positive/negative)	227 (96%)/10 (4%)	9/10 with negative PCR had severe respiratory symptoms (cough/difficulty breathing).
Flu/COVID-19 vaccination	7/230, 5/232
Days unwell at enrolment	4 ± 3 (range: 1–30)
Vitamin D level (nmol/L)	24.1 ± 9.2 (range: 2–64)
Vitamin D categories (Figure 2)
Severely deficient (<25 nmol/L)	131 (55%)	The majority were deficient in vitamin D; half were severely deficient.
Deficient (25–50 nmol/L)	99 (42%)
Insufficient (51–75 nmol/L)	7 (3%)
Optimal (>75 nmol/L)	None
Zinc (umol/L)	17.6 ± 4.4 (range: 5–34)
Deficient (<14 umol/L)	49 (21%)
Normal (14–23 umol/L)	169 (71%)
Excess (>23 umol/L)	19 (8%)
Mg (mg/dL)	1.88 ± 0.27
Deficient (<1.7 mg/dL)	48 (20%)
Normal (1.7–2.2 mg/dL)	177 (75%)
Excess (>2.2 mg/dL)	12 (5%)

Variable	N (%)
Comorbidities (1+)	172 (73%)
Diabetes	82 (35%)
Heart disease	86 (36%)
Lung disease	56 (34%)
Heavy smoker	98 (41%)
Cancer	10 (4%)
Autoimmune disease	7 (3%)
Biomarkers (cardiopulmonary – abnormal)
Prothrombin	28 (12%)
D-dimer	40 (17%)
Fibrin + FDP	37 (16%)
Troponin	46 (19%)
BNP	32 (14%)

Table 2: Participant characteristics

M, male; f, female; N, number; SD, standard deviation; nmol/L, nanomole per liter; umol/L, micromole per liter; mg/dL, milligram per deciliter; BNP, brain natriuretic peptide; FDP, fibrinogen degradation product

Figure 2: Vitamin D levels

Safety

During the study, the patients were regularly monitored with an electrocardiogram (ECG), and none reported any abnormalities or ventricular fibrillation.

A small proportion of the enrolled patients (12%-17%) had been admitted to the hospital with abnormal levels of troponin, D-dimer, fibrin, or brain natriuretic peptide (BNP), indicative of cardiopulmonary stress, likely due to acute infection with SARS-CoV-2 (Table 2). These biomarker levels either improved or did not worsen during the trial, and none of the trial participants suffered blood clots, stroke, or heart attack.

Adverse effects

Mild to moderate transient adverse events were reported by a proportion of the patients in both groups: diarrhea, 17%-27%; nausea, 18%-20%; and vomiting, 15%-16% (Table 3).

Symptom	Group 1 (HCQ + AZM + zinc); Group 2 (IVC + HCQ + AZM + zinc)	No symptoms (%)	Mild symptoms (%)	Moderate symptoms (%)
Diarrhea	1	72	25	3
	2	82	15	2
Nausea	1	80	20	0
	2	81	17	2
Vomiting	1	85	15	0
	2	84	15	1

Table 3: Adverse effects

HCQ, hydroxychloroquine; AZM, azithromycin; IVC, intravenous vitamin C

Symptoms on admission

The enrolled patients experienced the following symptoms on admission into the study: 70% had difficulty breathing, of which 7% had severe difficulty breathing and 21% had moderate difficulties; 60% had headache (56% mild); 48% reported cough, of which 11% had a moderate cough and 3% had a severe cough; 46% had a fever, of which the majority were mild (40%); and 41% reported a loss of sense of smell.

Key findings

Almost all hospitalized patients with COVID-19 enrolled in the study were vitamin D deficient (97%), 55% were severely vitamin D deficient (<25 nmol/L) and 42% were vitamin D deficient (<50 nmol/L); 3% had insufficient vitamin D levels (<75 nmol/L), and none had optimal vitamin D levels (Table 2).

This finding is in line with the international literature, linking low vitamin D levels with higher susceptibility to symptomatic respiratory infection, including COVID-19.

In our trial, we found a statistically significant correlation between vitamin D levels and ICU admission. The lower the vitamin D level, the higher the probability of being admitted to the ICU (14.2 nmol/L (n = 13) versus 25.1 nmol/L (n = 224); p < 0.0001). Furthermore, we found a statistically significant correlation between lower baseline vitamin D levels and longer hospital stay (r = -0.195; p = 0.003). Vitamin D levels were comparable by gender and age.

Outcomes

All but one patient in our trial fully recovered, half (52%) of the participants after 15 days, and half (48%) at 45 days follow-up since enrolment (Table 4).

During the hospital stay, 40% of the patients required oxygen, and 6% were admitted to the ICU; one patient was treated on a ventilator, one required renal replacement, and one died (Table 4).

One 70-year-old female patient with heart and lung disease died after 17 days in the ICU and 22 days in the hospital; her vitamin D level was 6 nmol/L on admission (<25 nmol/L = severely deficient).

Variable	N (%)	Comment
During hospital stay
Requiring supplemental oxygen	82 (40%)
ICU admission	13 (6%)
Ventilator	1
Renal replacement	1
Died	1	Vitamin D = 6 nmol/L
Day 15 follow-up
Total recovery/no/mild symptoms	120 (52%)/45 (19%)/68 (29%)
Day 45 follow-up
Total recovery	236 (99.6%)

Table 4: Outcomes

A larger proportion of participants in group 2, which received additional IV vitamin C therapy, were symptom-free and discharged from the hospital earlier on day 15 compared with day 45. This difference was statistically significant, indicating that IV vitamin C treatment contributes significantly to quicker recovery (day 15 versus day 45; p = 0.0069) (Table 5).

		Total recovery  (symptom-free, discharged from the hospital); N (%)
Group	All N (%)	Day 15	Day 45
1 (HCQ + AZM + zinc)	75 (32%)	29 (39%)	46 (61%)
2 (IVC + HCQ + AZM + zinc)	162 (68%)	93 (57%)	68 (42%)
Total	237	122 (51%)	114 (49%)

Table 5: Outcomes by treatment group

HCQ, hydroxychloroquine; AZM, azithromycin; IVC, intravenous vitamin C

Chi-square statistical analysis: IV vitamin C treatment contributed significantly to quicker recovery (day 15 versus day 45; p = 0.0069).

Discussion

Our study suggests that the combination of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), azithromycin (AZM), and zinc with or without IV vitamin C is safe and effective in the early treatment of COVID-19. No cardiac side effects were observed.

All but one patient (99.6%; n = 236/237) in our trial fully recovered, with IV vitamin C contributing to a significantly quicker recovery (15 days versus 45 days until discharge).

Our study’s findings are in line with the international literature, whereby the treatment of COVID-19 with HCQ, zinc, and AZM or intravenous vitamin C has shown to be effective in aiding recovery and reducing mortality.

The effectiveness of HCQ with or without AZM in the treatment of COVID-19 has been demonstrated in a meta-analysis of more than 290 trials involving more than 412,000 patients, whereby improvement of symptoms and prevention of death were achieved at 64%-75% if treatment was provided early [6].

The combination of HCQ, AZM, and zinc, also known as the Zelenko protocol, has been shown to reduce hospitalization and mortality significantly, whereby a significantly smaller number of patients in the treatment group was hospitalized or died compared with the untreated group (hospitalized: 3% treated versus 15% untreated; died: 0.7% treated versus 3.4% untreated) [2].

To date, few studies have looked into the effectiveness of early treatment of patients with COVID-19 with vitamin C/ascorbic acid [22]. One study found that high-dose intravenous vitamin C provided a 72% improvement in symptoms and reduced recovery time [17]. In contrast, a study that used an oral combination of vitamin C and zinc did not find a significant difference in the improvement of symptoms between the treatment and the control group [23].

Our study is the first to combine HCQ, AZM, and zinc with high-dose intravenous vitamin C therapy, resulting in the total recovery of 99.6% of participants, whereby IVC contributed to a significantly quicker recovery and discharge from the hospital. The treatment protocol was highly tolerable and did not cause any cardiac complications.

Importantly, our study confirmed vitamin D deficiency to be a high-risk factor of severe COVID-19 disease and hospitalization, with 97% of our study’s patient cohort being vitamin D deficient, of which 55% were severely vitamin D deficient.

This finding is in line with the international literature, highlighting the importance of adequate vitamin D levels for immune function, prevention of acute respiratory infections including COVID-19, and recovery [18,19,24,25].

Specifically, vitamin D protects against pathogens including viruses via the innate and adaptive immune system, involving white blood cells and T-cells [21].

Several studies conducted earlier in the pandemic have linked vitamin D deficiency with the risk and severity of COVID-19 infection and hospitalization [26,27], while a recent systematic review and meta-analysis of eight studies and >1500 participants concluded that vitamin D levels over 50 nmol/L can reduce the mortality risk of COVID-19 to zero [28].

It is known that a large proportion of Australians are vitamin D deficient [29]. Research has proven vitamin D supplementation to be a key factor to alleviate vitamin D deficiency and subsequently to prevent the onset and severity of acute respiratory tract infections and reduce morbidity and mortality [20].

Higher daily doses of 5000-10000 IU vitamin D3 orally are considered safe and effective in elevating vitamin D deficiency [19].

Furthermore, our study revealed that lower vitamin D levels were significantly correlated with a higher probability of being admitted to the ICU, leading to a significantly longer hospital stay.

While comorbidities contribute to the risk of hospitalization [30] (three-quarters of our study population had comorbidities), severe vitamin D deficiency (6 nmol/L) was the most probable cause for the death of the 70-year-old patient with lung and heart disease.

Conclusions

In summary, our study found vitamin D deficiency to be a high-risk factor for severe COVID-19 disease and hospitalization, with 97% of our study’s patient cohort being vitamin D deficient, of which 55% were severely vitamin D deficient, and none had optimal levels. In addition, vitamin D levels were significantly correlated to ICU admission and longer hospital stay.

Furthermore, our study contributes to the evidence of HCQ, AZM, and zinc with or without IV vitamin C being safe and effective in the treatment of COVID-19, with IV vitamin C contributing to a significantly quicker recovery.

Future research based on the findings in stage 1 of our trial in line with the international literature of the importance of adequate vitamin D levels to immune function and recovery are encouraged to adapt the protocol for the next stage of the trial by adding a high-dose vitamin D3 to all enrolled patients.

References

1. Derwand R, Scholz M: Does zinc supplementation enhance the clinical efficacy of chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine to win today’s battle against COVID-19?. Med Hypotheses. 2020, 142:109815. 10.1016/j.mehy.2020.109815
2. Derwand R, Scholz M, Zelenko V: COVID-19 outpatients: early risk-stratified treatment with zinc plus low-dose hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin: a retrospective case series study. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2020, 56:106214. 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2020.106214
3. Yang N, Shen HM: Targeting the endocytic pathway and autophagy process as a novel therapeutic strategy in COVID-19. Int J Biol Sci. 2020, 16:1724-31. 10.7150/ijbs.45498
4. Hu TY, Frieman M, Wolfram J: Insights from nanomedicine into chloroquine efficacy against COVID-19. Nat Nanotechnol. 2020, 15:247-9. 10.1038/s41565-020-0674-9
5. Gautret P, Lagier JC, Parola P, et al.: Hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin as a treatment of COVID-19: results of an open-label non-randomized clinical trial. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2020, 56:105949. 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2020.105949
6. HCQ for COVID- 19: real-time meta analysis of 294 studies. (2021). https://hcqmeta.com/.
7. Bosseboeuf E, Aubry M, Nhan T, de Pina JJ, Rolain JM, Raoult D, Musso D: Azithromycin inhibits the replication of Zika virus. J Antivir Antiretrovir. 2018, 10:6-11. 10.4172/1948-5964.1000173
8. Retallack H, Di Lullo E, Arias C, et al.: Zika virus cell tropism in the developing human brain and inhibition by azithromycin. PNAS. 2016, 113:14408-13. 10.1073/pnas.1618029113/-/DCSupplemental
9. Andreani J, Le Bideau M, Duflot I, et al.: In vitro testing of combined hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin on SARS-CoV-2 shows synergistic effect. Microb Pathog. 2020, 145:104228. 10.1016/j.micpath.2020.104228
10. Tanriverdİ E, Çörtük M, Yildirim BZ, et al.: Hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin and early hospital admission are beneficial in COVID-19 patients: Turkish experience with real-life data. Turk J Med Sci. 2021, 51:10-5. 10.3906/sag-2005-82
11. Xue J, Moyer A, Peng B, Wu J, Hannafon BN, Ding WQ: Chloroquine is a zinc ionophore. PLoS One. 2014, 9:e109180. 10.1371/journal.pone.0109180
12. Read SA, Obeid S, Ahlenstiel C, Ahlenstiel G: The role of zinc in antiviral immunity. Adv Nutr. 2019, 10:696-710. 10.1093/advances/nmz013
13. te Velthuis AJ, van den Worm SH, Sims AC, Baric RS, Snijder EJ, van Hemert MJ: Zn(2+) inhibits coronavirus and arterivirus RNA polymerase activity in vitro and zinc ionophores block the replication of these viruses in cell culture. PLoS Pathog. 2010, 6:e1001176. 10.1371/journal.ppat.1001176
14. Cerullo G, Negro M, Parimbelli M, et al.: The long history of vitamin C: from prevention of the common cold to potential aid in the treatment of COVID-19. Front Immunol. 2020, 11:574029. 10.3389/fimmu.2020.574029
15. Mahmoodpoor A, Shadvar K, Sanaie S, Hadipoor MR, Pourmoghaddam MA, Saghaleini SH: Effect of vitamin C on mortality of critically ill patients with severe pneumonia in intensive care unit: a preliminary study. BMC Infect Dis. 2021, 21:616. 10.1186/s12879-021-06288-0
16. Huang L, Wang L, Tan J, Liu H, Ni Y: High-dose vitamin C intravenous infusion in the treatment of patients with COVID-19: a protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore). 2021, 100:e25876. 10.1097/MD.0000000000025876
17. Zhao B, Liu M, Liu P, et al.: High dose intravenous vitamin C for preventing the disease aggravation of moderate COVID-19 pneumonia. a retrospective propensity matched before-after study. Front Pharmacol. 2021, 12:638556. 10.3389/fphar.2021.638556
18. Martineau AR, Jolliffe DA, Hooper RL, et al.: Vitamin D supplementation to prevent acute respiratory tract infections: systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data. BMJ. 2017, 356:i6583. 10.1136/bmj.i6583
19. Benskin LL: A basic review of the preliminary evidence that COVID-19 risk and severity is increased in vitamin D deficiency. Front Public Health. 2020, 8:513. 10.3389/fpubh.2020.00513
20. Brighthope I, Sali Am A, Ried K: Vitamin-D and COVID-19: time for the profession to take a stand. Adv Integr Med. 2021, 8:77-8. 10.1016/j.aimed.2021.01.003
21. Xu Y, Baylink DJ, Chen CS, et al.: The importance of vitamin d metabolism as a potential prophylactic, immunoregulatory and neuroprotective treatment for COVID-19. J Transl Med. 2020, 18:322. 10.1186/s12967-020-02488-5
22. Meta-analysis of vitamin C Covid-19 treatment studies. (2021). https://c19vitaminc.com/.
23. Thomas S, Patel D, Bittel B, et al.: Effect of high-dose zinc and ascorbic acid supplementation vs usual care on symptom length and reduction among ambulatory patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection: the COVID A to Z randomized clinical trial. JAMA Netw Open. 2021, 4:e210369. 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.0369
24. Yildiz M, Senel MU, Kavurgaci S, Ozturk FE, Ozturk A: The prognostic significance of vitamin D deficiency in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. Bratisl Lek Listy. 2021, 122:744-7. 10.4149/BLL_2021_119
25. Matin S, Fouladi N, Pahlevan Y, et al.: The sufficient vitamin D and albumin level have a protective effect on COVID-19 infection. Arch Microbiol. 2021, 203:5153-62. 10.1007/s00203-021-02482-5
26. Merzon E, Tworowski D, Gorohovski A, Vinker S, Golan Cohen A, Green I, Frenkel-Morgenstern M: Low plasma 25(OH) vitamin D level is associated with increased risk of COVID-19 infection: an Israeli population-based study. FEBS J. 2020, 287:3693-702. 10.1111/febs.15495
27. Hernández JL, Nan D, Fernandez-Ayala M, et al.: Vitamin D status in hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2021, 106:e1343-53. 10.1210/clinem/dgaa733
28. Borsche L, Glauner B, Mendel Jv: COVID-19 mortality risk correlates inversely with vitamin D3 status, and a mortality rate close to zero could theoretically be achieved at 50 ng/ml 25 (OH) D3: results of a systematic review and meta-analysis. Nutrients. 2021, 13:3596. 10.1101/2021.09.22.21263977
29. Travica N, Ried K, Bujnowski R, Sali A: Integrative health check reveals suboptimal levels in a number of vital biomarkers. Adv Integr Med. 2015, 2:135-40. 10.1016/j.aimed.2015.11.002
30. Baradaran A, Ebrahimzadeh MH, Baradaran A, Kachooei AR: Prevalence of comorbidities in COVID-19 patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Bone Jt Surg. 2020, 8:247-55. 10.22038/abjs.2020.47754.2346

31. Appendices

    Definitions of Adverse Events

    Diarrhea

    Grade 1: Increase of <4 stools per day over baseline; mild increase in ostomy output compared with baseline

    Grade 2: Increase of 4-6 stools per day over baseline; moderate increase in ostomy output compared with baseline; limiting instrumental ADL

    Grade 3: Increase of ≥7 stools per day over baseline; hospitalization indicated; severe increase in ostomy output compared with baseline; limiting self-care

    Grade 4: Life-threatening consequences; urgent intervention indicated

    Nausea

    Grade 1: Loss of appetite without alteration in eating habits

    Grade 2: Oral intake decreased without significant weight loss, dehydration, or malnutrition

    Grade 3: Inadequate oral caloric or fluid intake; tube feeding, TPN, or hospitalization indicated

    Vomiting

    Grade 1: Intervention not indicated

    Grade 2: Medical intervention indicated

    Grade 3: Tube feeding, TPN, or hospitalization indicated

    Grade 4: Life-threatening consequences

     

Original trial (mirrored to ensure it was preserved):
https://www.cureus.com/articles/76496-therapies-to-prevent-progression-of-covid-19-including-hydroxychloroquine-azithromycin-zinc-and-vitamin-d3-with-or-without-intravenous-vitamin-c-an-international-multicenter-randomized-trial

75 studies:

Ivermectin for COVID-19: real-time meta analysis of 75 studies from https://ivmmeta.com/

************

NIH National Library of Medicine published study

“Conclusions: Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally.

See full study at https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34145166/

************

CureUs published study

“Conclusion: In this large PSM study, regular use of ivermectin as a prophylactic agent was associated with significantly reduced COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, and mortality rates.”

See full study at https://www.cureus.com/articles/82162-ivermectin-prophylaxis-used-for-covid-19-a-citywide-prospective-observational-study-of-223128-subjects-using-propensity-score-matching

************

What about Ivermectin? You should ask.

From a de-platformed, currently suspended Australian medical practitioner, previously known as Dr Mark Hobart.

“IVERMECTIN PROTOCOL
I was without due process suspended as a doctor on 11/11/21 and now unable to provide medical advice. It is astounding to hear from so many colleagues and other doctors the increasing demand for the Ivermectin protocol. Ask yourself why have Australians been denied early stage treatment especially when this protocol recorded no deaths and had an excellent recovery rate under the supervision of a trusted doctor? Irresponsibly Ivermectin was banned by the TGA and Dept of Health on 10/9/2021. People are now being forced to acquire it by irregular means. It is insane that a safe oral drug which has been available for decades is now demonised. Ask yourself why? You’ll be interested to know I was one of 30 doctors who treated 600 patients over several months or so with no deaths, only 5 hospitalisations and no side effects. In contrast, there were 6 deaths and 70 hospitalisations in a similar group of untreated patients. https://trialsitenews.com/combination-therapy-for-covid-19-based-on-ivermectin-in-an-australian-population/ Even though I cannot use my title anymore, I can share the protocol from one Aussie to another.
Treatment Protocol for someone who feels unwell. (also very effective to prevent and treat vaccine injuries) :
1. Ivermectin: 48mg day 1 (split the dose to 24mg twice a day) then 24 mg/day day 2-10 . Take ivermectin with fatty food which increases its bioavailability by 2.5X.
2. Doxycycline 100mg twice a day, day 1-10.
3. 1 × Zinc (25mg – 50mg, picolinate or sulphate effective) daily, day 1 – 10.
4. Also take Vitamin D 10,000 units per day and Vitamin C 2000mg per day.
Prophylaxis Protocol:
1. Ivermectin 24mg
2. Doxycycline 100mg and Zinc 50mg every 2 weeks.
3. Also take regular Vitamin D and Vitamin C
Close Contact Protocol
Ivermectin 24mg , doxycycline 100mg, Zinc 50mg daily for 3 days.
Always remember to turn to a trusted doctor who can supervise you whilst you take the protocol.
If it works for Japan, India and El Salvador (as it has), why isn’t it widely available for Australians?”

While there is “no effective treatment available” the “emergency use” of an untested “vaccine” is possible. Hence, available treatments have been blocked from use to facilitate “mandating” untested “vaccines”.

Clearly there are safe and effective treatments available, making it unlawful to mandate an experimental injection.

The “Australian Government” made it illegal for doctors to prescribe IVM in Australia. Initially, they changed the “use by date” (shelf life) of IVM from 6 months to 28 days to restrict its use, then they banned it because too many people became aware of it effectiveness. Looking after your health, or preventing effective treatments to force jabs and controls?

More information will be added as time permits.
Excerpt from an article about the test.

“After December 31, 2021, CDC will withdraw the request to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) of the CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel, the assay first introduced in February 2020 for detection of SARS-CoV-2 only.” https://www.cdc.gov/csels/dls/locs/2021/07-21-2021-lab-alert-Changes_CDC_RT-PCR_SARS-CoV-2_Testing_1.html

“The CDC admits that the PCR test cannot differentiate between SARS-CoV-2 and influenza viruses.

It was reported several months ago that the “health authorities” had reached this decision but were withholding its implementation until the end of 2021. They needed the fake test to keep the fear going in order to achieve as much vaccination, and therefore as much profit, as possible.

It is extraordinary that the CDC’s withdrawal of the test received no attention from the media or politicians.

Dr. Kary Mullis, Nobel Laureate and inventor of the PCR process said several years ago that “the PCR is a process. It does not tell you that you are sick.” It was never meant to be a Covid test.

Dr. Pascal Sacre, the famous Belgian specialized in critical care, said that the RT-PCR process was misused and applied as a relentless and intentional strategy to create the appearance of a pandemic based on phony test results and not actual Covid patients in order to violate human and constitutional rights of citizens.”

Numerous court cases around the world have determined the PCR test was incorrectly used. It facilitated a pandemic, but was not an indicator of any disease.

Below are just a few snippets of the changes to your rights, made through “legislation”, to protect the tyrants and to remove your rights under the Crown and the Commonwealth.

He who does not know his rights has none.

CRIMES ACT 1958 – SECT 464I

No power to detain person not under arrest

Nothing in sections 464 to 464H (except as provided by an order made under section 464B(5)) confers a power to detain against his or her will a person who is not under arrest.
http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/ca195882/s464i.html

Acts Amendment and Repeal (Courts and Legal Practice) Act 2003

Section 122 (6)    Schedule 1 is amended by deleting “our Sovereign Lady Queen Elizabeth the Second, Her Heirs and Successors” in the 2 places where it occurs and in each place inserting instead —

             “ the State of Western Australia ”.

Section 123.       The Criminal Code amended

     (1)    The amendments in this section are to The Criminal Code*.

              [* Reprinted as at 9 February 2001 as the Schedule to the Criminal Code appearing as Appendix B to the Criminal Code Compilation Act 1913.

                 For subsequent amendments see 2001 Index to Legislation of Western Australia, Table 1, p. 89 and Acts Nos. 3, 6, 8  and 27 of 2002.]

     (2)    Each of the provisions in the Table to this subsection is amended by deleting “Crown” in each place where it occurs and in each case inserting instead —

             “ prosecutor ”.

The sections above are repeated across dozens of pieces of legislation. Removing the Crown, the Commonwealth, and all references according to our Constitution that must be in the Queen’s NAME, and replacing with the “State” or another entity created by the “Australian Government” or one of its subsidiary entities.

Acts Amendment and Repeal (Courts and Legal Practice) Act 2003

Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013

11  Types of Commonwealth entities

                   There are 2 types of Commonwealth entities:

                     (a)  a corporate Commonwealth entity, which is a Commonwealth entity that is a body corporate; and

                     (b)  a non‑corporate Commonwealth entity, which is a Commonwealth entity that is not a body corporate.

Note:          Corporate Commonwealth entities are legally separate from the Commonwealth, whereas non‑corporate Commonwealth entities are part of the Commonwealth.

https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2013A00123

Privacy Act 1988
See section 94H 1(c)
“Requiring the use of COVIDSafe

             (1)  A person commits an offence if the person requires another person to:

                     (a)  download COVIDSafe to a communication device; or

                     (b)  have COVIDSafe in operation on a communication device; or

                     (c)  consent to uploading COVID app data from a communication device to the National COVIDSafe Data Store.

Penalty:  Imprisonment for 5 years or 300 penalty units, or both.”

A paper register will be required by the COVIDSafe “authorised” personnel if they deem a contact was in a store that you visited, and may have consented (or not) to adding your personal information to a register. That information will be added to the COVIDSafe database if requested from a business owner.

Download a handy A4 page, print and give to any business owner that demands you sign in. (5yr prison penalty for doing so). Privacy Act 1988 94H(pdf)

Biosecurity Act 2015
https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2017C00303

See of note S59, 60 and 61.

“Part 3—Managing risks to human health: human biosecurity control orders

Division 1—Introduction

59  Simplified outline of this Part

Download handy A4 Biosecurity Act 2015 relevant sections. Biosecurity Act 2015 s59-61  (pdf) 

Following sources from: https://www.greataustralianparty.com.au/letter-of-response-to-a-workplace-direction-to-vaccinate
Sources:

s 162(1) Public Health Act 2016 (WA)
s 203(2) Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 (VIC)
s 362D Public Health Act 2005 (QLD)
s 120(4) Public Health Act 1997 (ACT)
s 101(2) Emergency Management Act 2013 (NT)
s 81 South Australian Public Health Act 2011 (SA)
s 10 Public Health Act 2010 (NSW)
s 242(1) Work Health and Safety Act 2012 (TAS)
George v Rockett [1990] HCA 26; 170 CLR 104; 64 ALJR 384; 93 ALR 483; 48 A Crim R 246
High Court unanimously holds that Queensland Rail is a trading corporation within the
meaning of s 51(xx) of the Constitution
s2 Constitution Act 1889 (WA)
Corporations (Commonwealth Powers) Act 2001
s 118 Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)
Stay of the Emergency Temporary Standard Requiring Mandatory Vaccines or Testing for All Employers (US)
Emergency Temporary Standard Stayed by Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (US)

While the masses are busy fearing a “deadly virus”, 5G rolls out and guidelines and legislation (all written by the unelected, self appointed, unaccountable UN/WHO) to allow new exposure levels previously banned. How else will the matrix work? All those connected “humans” can only tolerate so much radiation before they develop symptoms that can be explained as another “virus” or “variant”. Roll on the plandemic. Total control, tracking, tracing, surveillance… Agenda21. Australia was signed up to Agenda21 in 1992.
Wuhan China launched a high frequency 5G trial across Wuhan City in October, 2019 (when images of people dropping dead in the street launched the pandemic).
MedallionNet launched their high frequency 5G satellite network across the major cruise lines at the same time and into early 2020 (when cruise ships became incubators of the “virus” and hundreds of little birds dropped dead upon the decks of the same ships).
More information in this wearethe99 forum topic.

Skip ahead to today. New guidelines with new thresholds for public “safety”, developed by the unelected, self appointed, foreign globalists, hell bent on controlling every living thing on the planet, and killing the rest.

The politicians don’t write this stuff, the UN minions do. The politicians, including the “highest” of “office” are merely puppets to the UN.

“ARPANSA EME Program Action Plan 2020-2024

The Federal Government’s Electromagnetic Energy (EME) Program aims to promote health and safety and address misinformation about EME emissions. This Program will provide the public with clear, reliable, and reputable information on new EME based technologies like 5G, and advice on how to use this technology safely.

ARPANSA will support the Government’s EME Program by delivering on its own EME Program Action Plan 2020-2024, which will help provide evidence-based scientific advice on EME and health. ARPANSA will report performance against this Action Plan through its corporate reporting and website. The Plan includes the below initiatives.

Assess EME exposure in the community

During 2020-2024 ARPANSA will conduct studies to assess EME exposure from existing and new telecommunications technologies, like 5G. The studies will separately consider EME exposure levels in the home, in the workplace, and in the wider community. The aims of the studies will include, but are not limited to:

• What is the typical EME exposure in the everyday environment?
• What is the cumulative exposure from different telecommunications sources (mobile phone networks, TV, radio, Wi-Fi, etc)?
• How does the EME exposure change over time (e.g. has the introduction of 5G increased the exposure)?

ARPANSA will publish the results of these studies to inform the community on EME exposure levels.

Upgrade ARPANSA’s EME laboratory

ARPANSA maintains a nationally accredited laboratory for measurement and calibration of EME testing instruments and EME research. During 2020-2022 ARPANSA will upgrade its EME laboratory to extend its capability to higher EME frequencies, which are related to 5G and future telecommunications. Specifically, ARPANSA will:

• Acquire new EME measurement equipment
• Build a new anechoic chamber, which is a specialised room designed to perform EME measurements, calibrations and research across an extended frequency range.

ARPANSA’s upgraded EME laboratory will offer a calibration service to the industry sector and the public and will provide an international standard research capability.

Conduct research on EME and health

It is important to continue the research into EME and health to ensure that public health policies are based on the most up-to-date information as telecommunications and other technologies continue to develop.

During 2020-2024 ARPANSA will promote, co-ordinate, fund and lead EME research outcomes through direct commissioning of research to focus on key research needs that underpin safety standards. This will support gold standard research that considers the totality of science to ensure safety standards remain evidence-based and risk informed.

ARPANSA has also published an EME Research Agenda that makes recommendations for specific areas of research where the body of knowledge can be expanded. The recommendations include research for emerging technologies, like 5G.

The EME Program of research will also be aimed at addressing areas of public concern that can benefit from additional evidence.

Engage with international health authorities

The World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) are leading the international effort to assess the health and environmental effects of EME exposure.

During 2020-2024 ARPANSA will continue to engage with the WHO, ICNIRP, other international bodies and experts to build new knowledge and contribute to research outcomes and international safety standards. Specific international engagement during 2020-2024 will include:

• Participation in the WHO health risk assessment of EME exposure.
• Participation in the ICNIRP development of exposure guidelines to ensure they are fit for implementation in Australia.
• Attendance at international workshops and conferences which present advances in EME research and protection policies.

Develop national EME safety standards

In order to protect people from harmful effects of EME exposure, ARPANSA has developed a new safety standard, which sets the limits for exposure from all EME sources, including 5G and other telecommunications. During 2020-2024 ARPANSA will continue to:

• Review, revise and maintain the ARPANSA EME Safety Standard based on international best practice and will consult all stakeholders on changes to the EME safety standard.
• Support the development of national standards related to EME measurement and safety compliance to reflect a rapidly changing environment and align with international best practice.

Provide information on EME and health

During 2020-2024 ARPANSA will provide information to the community through a range of mediums that translates scientific content on EME and health for a general audience.

To cater for the different ways the public seek and consume information, ARPANSA will provide content via various communications channels including the ARPANSA website, news items, social media, multimedia material, ARPANSA’s Talk to a Scientist Program and media spokespersons.

ARPANSA will also develop and publish a framework for communicating risk related to radiation exposure.”

See their website: https://www.arpansa.gov.au/research-and-expertise/electromagnetic-energy-program/arpansa-eme-program-action-plan-2020-2024