What they’re not telling you about film producer’s visa cancellation
by Jon Rappoport
August 11, 2017
(Part 1 of this story here.)
FACT: Recently, the film Vaxxed (trailer) was shown in locations across Australia.
FACT: The film exposes horrendous and criminal scientific fraud at the US Centers for Disease Control.
FACT: Vaxxed features the 2014 public confession of William Thompson, a long-time CDC researcher.
FACT: Thompson states that he and his colleagues falsified data to make it appear that the MMR vaccine has no connection to autism, when in fact the vaccine does raise the risk of autism.
FACT: The film’s producer, Polly Tommey, came to Australia with the film and spoke with audiences at showings.
FACT: The Australian government, upon her exit from the country, canceled her visa.
Here is one version of the story, from the Australian press, about Polly Tommey and a colleague, Suzanne Humphries. Herald Sun, August 7-8: “…[they] entered the country on false visas…it is believed they did not declare their intentions to work…”
It is believed? By whom? Three drunks in a bar? A ghost in an attic? A paid public-relations hustler for a vaccine manufacturer?
Well, here is the actual statement of the Australian government canceling Vaxxedproducer Polly Tommey’s visa. Here’s the actual statement, signed by an anonymous government official who scribbled his unreadable name at the bottom of a document issued on August 8th at 10:45 hours:
“Ms. Tommey stated in her subclass 651 visa application that the purpose of travel to Australia was ‘business’ however there is no further details [sic] as to the business she intended to undertake. Given this visa does permit the holder to undertake business visitor activities, I give a little weight in Ms Tommey’s favor.”
I see. So Polly Tommey DID state her intention to work. The press story was entirely misleading.
The document continues, with its real bombshell, under the section titled, “Evidence for grounds of [visa] cancellation”:
“Open source information indicates that Ms Tommey is a prominent anti-vaccination activist in the United States of America…”
“I am satisfied that if the wider Australian community became aware of Ms Tommy’s intended activities…her presence in Australia would be a risk to the good order of the Australian community.”
“’Good order’, in the context of 116(1)(e) is concerned with actions by a visa holder which have an impact on public activities…including the risk of an adverse reaction by certain members of Australian society…Therefore, it appears Ms Tommey’s presence in Australia would be a risk to the good order of the Australian community and I am satisfied that there is a ground to cancel your [Tommey’s] visa under section 116(1)(e).”
“Certain members of Australian society” might react adversely?
Who are they? Vaccine-company CEOs? Three drunks in bar? A few snowflakes who are “triggered” by the presentation of ideas they haven’t been trained to believe?