The following letter was sent recently to all of the police union and association presidents. Will any of them have the cojones to do anything about it? We can only hope.

At the moment, I’ve heard it said that tying a noose in a length of rope is illegal. If so, maybe we could repeal that law first.

Editor in Chief


3 June 2022


Over the last week or two I have written to each of you separately.  I did this because the various attachments to those emails would have been time-wasting and even confusing to some because they did not apply to your individual area of responsibility.

I am now writing to you as a group so that you are all aware that each of you has received similar communications bringing to your notice the likelihood there has been atrocious criminality perpetrated by politicians, public servants and contractors advising the Government.  Complicit in this have been major media outlets and even the Australian Broadcasting Corporation; an organisation supposedly not tainted by commercialism but definitely by political ideology.

The motives for these actions, which I am certain were criminal to varying degrees, range from ignorance to ideology to perceived financial and career benefits that might be accrued by espousing a particular narrative and pursuing certain policies. 

The regulations and orders, flowing from this, flouted the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia and resulted in Australians having their liberty stripped from them; not to mention, small businesses being demolished whilst big businesses, especially those that involved in eCommerce, such as Amazon and eBay, thrived.

At the core of this criminality, lies the prohibition/obstruction of the use of low cost, readily available therapeutics for the early treatment of COVID-19 by Federal, State and Territory health authorities.  These various early interventions were known by many of those involved in this obstruction, to be highly effective in reducing hospitalisation and death by greater than 85%. 

Many hundreds of Australians have needlessly died, and continue to die, as a consequence of this denial of early treatment by the Government and its health authorities.

One of the key motivations for the banning and disparagement of early treatment, using a sequenced combination of safe medicines such as Hydroxychloroquine, Azithromycin, Ivermectin, Doxycycline, Soluble Zinc Salts, Aspirin, Prednisone, Melatonin, Fluvoxamine, etc, was to make possible the introduction of a new type of medical therapy based on Messenger Ribonucleic Acid (mRNA) technology.  Specifically, the Therapeutic Goods Administration of Australia forbade the use of low cost therapeutics for early treatment whilst providing expedited provisional approval for expensive, dangerous drugs like Remdesivir and mRNA gene based Anti-COVID Injections(ACIs) presented as being “vaccines”. 

Such is the power of those involved in this criminal enterprise that they actually changed the definition of a vaccine to include injections involving mRNA technology.  In concert with this:

  1. the Australian Health Practitioners Regulatory Agency deregistered any doctor who spoke out in favour of early treatment and pointed to the danger these ACIs, which have never been properly evaluated per Australian Standards, posed; and
  2. there was enforced mandatory wearing of masks even though there is a wealth of empirical data going back at least 70 years that shows masks definitely do not reduce the spread of an RNA respiratory disease and, in fact, may actually result in higher mortality rates from respiratory complaints, including COVID-19.  I believe this mask wearing was enforced so as to instill fear into the public and to cause them to believe their only salvation lay in subjecting themselves to some form of vaccination.

From the outset, there has never been an earnest effort on the part of the Government Health Authorities to rigorously determine the threat that COVID-19, in all its variants, posed to the Australian population.  It became obvious very early in the course of this pandemic, from March to June of 2020, that this disease really only affected the very old and those who were already suffering from serious, life-threatening medical ailments.

The data from the Australian Government’s Website ( indicated that the average age of persons dying from COVID-19 Alpha was 82years of age for males and 86 years of age for females.

The exaggerated danger presented by authorities, worldwide, did not end there.  Here is a graph, resulting from a postmortem audit by the Swedish Public Health Authority, which demonstrated many people were being certified as having died from COVID-19 when, in fact, they died with it! 

The exaggeration factor in this case was seven-fold.  (I personally rang the Swedish Health Authority at Östergötland to verify this data was in fact genuine.  It was.)

With the help of eminent doctors around the world and an engineer who specialises in data analysis, I was able to construct a table that gives some indication as to the Infection Fatality Rate(IFR) of this disease.  The IFR is expressed as the percentage of persons who contract the disease divided into the number of people who die from the disease. Here is that table.

By way of example, using this table, if you are in the age-group 40 to 49, your probability of dying (IFR) from COVID-19 Alpha is approx 9 in 10,000 without early treatment and approx 1 in 10,000 if early treatment is provided.  For the Delta strain, the probability of dying from this disease for the same age cohort is 2 in 10,000 and 4 in 100,000 respectively. 

For young, medically fit persons the chances of dying from this disease is many times less than that of being struck by lightning during their lifetime. Any person who dies from this disease is most likely suffering from other life-threatening medical ailments or died from medical malpractice.  Note that early treatment reduces the chances of dying by around 6 times for all age cohorts.

So, is this disease, COVID-19, exceptionally deadly such that it demands extreme action by the Government in terms of curtailing civil liberties and coercing people, such as yourselves and your members, to submit to a potentially dangerous medical procedure?

The answer to this question is an unequivocal, “No”. 

Why, then, has this happened?  Why, for example, did the Queensland Government deny by law early treatment to Queenslanders and threaten doctors with a heavy fine and prison sentence if they attempted to administer it? If early treatment is effective in preventing hospitalisation and death (and I have personally ascertained that it definitely is) then those persons, from the Prime Minister of Australia down, who played a role in preventing well-known and successful treatments, are complicit to varying degrees in causing the unnecessary deaths of many Australians.  Put simply, those involved are provably guilty of causing specifically identifiable deaths by withholding proven treatments.

I believe that a key motivator for this criminal behaviour was avarice.  The Pharmaceutical Companies selling the ACIs stood to make billions of dollars profit from their universal adoption as the only means for eradicating COVID-19 and many of those who played a role in promoting this approach stood to gain financially either directly or indirectly.

With regard to ACIs eradicating COVID-19; exactly the opposite is the case. 

Above is a recent graph from the Australian Government’s website ( showing how, despite over 90% of the population having been subjected to a course of ACIs, infection rates are continuing to go up exponentially.  This is consistent with UK data which indicates that persons who have been given ACIs are significantly (36%) more likely to contract and die from COVID-19 than those who have not.

So it is appropriate, at this point, I deal with the danger these ACIs pose and the damage that has already been done to your members as a consequence of recklessly enforced mandates where there was definitely no informed consent.  I assert your members were not “informed” because I don’t believe they were made aware that:

  1. these ACIs had not been properly tested in accordance with Australian Standards;
  2. Australian Health Authorities based their assessment the ACIs were safe solely on data provided by the manufacturers;
  3. these same manufacturers had, in the past, been found guilty of significant, deliberate fraud and had had to pay billions of dollars in compensation to those their products had killed and injured;
  4. the manufacturers were granted immunity from liability by the Government, the liability, instead, being carried by the taxpayers; and
  5. with early treatment, COVID-19 did not pose a serious health threat and therefore the inherent risk of these injections far outweighed any benefit they might confer.

Your members did not consent to these injections.  Most agreed to them because, if they had not acceded, their employment would have been terminated.  This, by any standard, is coercion.  Where coercion exists, there cannot be consent.  Coercion is a criminal offence.

As at the time of writing, many thousands of people, globally, are suspected of having died from the administration of these ACIs and many, many more have sustained life-long injuries.  If you have undergone a series of ACIs, it is highly probable you have sustained vascular, immunological and neurological injury.  The more injections a person has, the greater is the chance of permanent harm or death. You should consider your own health to be at risk when weighing up the evidence.

The problem with precisely quantifying the danger these ACIs pose is deliberately made difficult because the health state of a person has not been methodically determined before receiving a course of ACIs and there is no formal, periodic measurement of their health state after the injections.  As a consequence, when someone like, for example, Senator Kimberly Kitchens, or my daughter’s mother-in-law, suffers a massive heart attack and dies, the cause of their demise can never, with any certainty, be ascertained. A cursory examination of the data strongly suggests that caution was/is required. 

The above graph is self-explanatory.  This is a fit, relatively homogeneous population and therefore it is excellent for the purposes of assessing whether ACIs are doing great harm.

For a more detailed examination of this phenomenon, you should look at the graphs extracted from the US Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System(VAERS) at by Dr Jessica Rose.

One of the more telling graphs in this set is the comparison of the deadly performance of ACIs compared to all other true vaccines since the US Vaccine Adverse Events Recording System (VAERS) commenced.

Associated with this, I attended a Zoom meeting with US LTCOL Dr Theresa Long and a number of other medical officers and doctors associated with pilot medicals in the US.  LTCOL Long has filed an affidavit in an effort to have the US Judicial System stop the use of ACIs in the military because her experience shows they pose an extreme danger to pilots flying aircraft in the USAF (and by virtue of that everyone!).  You may find her affidavit at 

I assure you her concerns are well grounded and supported by all of the other doctors who attended and spoke at the same Zoom conference.

Because the means by which one can positively ascertain whether an ACI was responsible for a particular death or injury is made difficult due to the incompetence of the public health system, it is necessary to look at “All Cause Mortality” statistics to be aware something is terribly wrong:

With the above graph, you see a green band which is the average mortality rate based on data from years past.  The red dotted line indicates an elevated mortality rate.  The dark blue line is the actual mortality rate for persons 25 to 44 years of age in the US.  It may be argued by some that this extreme mortality rate is the result of other factors such as suicide and drug abuse brought about, in part, by isolation and lockdowns.

But recently published Australian figures also show a strong correlation between the rate of injections and the excess rate of mortality.

The word “excess” is sobering.  These are the number of deaths above the Australian National average.

Having explained the situation to you in some detail, it is now appropriate I explain to you the reason for my writing to you in this manner.

As Presidents of the various Associations and Unions of Police Officers throughout Australia, you have a duty of care to those members you represent. 

The DPPs throughout Australia have advised me that police officers are the only ones who can investigate my complaint.  I have therefore taken my concerns to three police forces.  Only one has bothered to reply and the others are avoiding my calls.

The senior management teams of every police force in Australia is guilty, in my opinion, of reckless endangerment.  As a Commanding Officer in the military, if I had exposed my men to these dangers without, before-hand, thoroughly weighing up the necessity and benefits against the risk before mandating action, I would have been court-martialed.

Senior members of your Associations and Unions have the ability to initiate formal investigations.  Because the matter now involves the DPPs, senior Politicians – including Attorney Generals, they cannot, by law, obstruct such an investigation.  To do so would be an offence in itself as they are, potentially, persons of interest in such investigations.

So I’m asking you to make these matters known to your membership.  I recommend as a first step to doing this you confer amongst your fellow Presidents so that this action is coordinated.

At this moment, you and your members are victims of this criminality.  The long term effects of the ACIs you have been subjected to are unknown but the all-cause mortality data suggests the prognosis is not good.  If you should fail in your duty as Presidents to fully inform your membership of the information I have brought to you, you will be complicit in this criminality.  I do not want that to happen.

My intention, and that of my colleagues and associates, is to see that the persons responsible for this atrocity and mayhem are brought before a jury of their peers who will decide their innocence or guilt and, where it is the latter, that they be punished to the full extent of the law.  I’m hopeful you will assist me with that aspiration.


Kevin Loughrey

K.A.LOUGHREY LtCol(Ret’d) BE Mech(hons), psc, jssc, Grad Dip Strategic Studies