Six years on from the pandemic the questions that remain unanswered can only be answered from a rigorous scientific perspective. It is remarkable that the Commission failed to engage with the volume of scientific publishing that was submitted to them. Our modern civilization and its technology is built on the foundation of evidence which is assessed using quantities and mathematical analysis. For a complex problem the assignment of mathematical values to components and relationships is required for a solution. Without the numeric evidence, the Commission’s Report in tone and substance appears merely ideological and political. Some key evidence of harm is acknowledged but brushed over, failing to make any impact on the final recommendations.  This is because little or no effort was made to numerically assess the weight and hence relevance of evidence. Thus the conclusions and recommendations of the Commission lack scientific validity. Yet the Commission is suggesting that its report should guide the implementation of new legislation which will set in concrete many of the biggest mistakes of the Covid era including the power to enforce vaccine mandates. Here are some headline omissions which stand out on first reading, (extracts from the report in bold italics):

“All medicines have side effects” This may be a true statement, but without any attempt to quantify the scale and rate of Covid mRNA vaccine adverse effects this becomes a meaningless dismissive platitude. Covid vaccines created a rate of adverse effects that dwarfed all previous vaccines in NZ combined. Moreover the adverse effects that people experienced proximate to Covid vaccination were often serious and covered a very broad range of conditions including death. The Commission heard from a wide range of individuals who suffered adverse effects but failed to assess these testimonies in a scientific manner. Without a comparison of the short and long term health outcomes of the vaccinated with the unvaccinated any suggestion of safety is meaningless. The Commission failed to ask Health NZ to undertake such scientific assessments.

“Together, Medsafe and the Ministry of Health sought and followed extensive advice from medical and scientific experts, who closely monitored evolving international experiences of developing, approving and using COVID-19 vaccines.” It is hard to escape the conclusion that the government was taking decisions within an echo chamber of other governments who were similarly uninformed and confused as to the possible outcomes of infections, containment strategies and vaccine safety. Moreover these in turn were blindly following the advice of international pharmaceutical mega corporations whose interests clearly did not coincide with those of NZ. Our government readily accepted and passed on to the public misleading figures of 99% efficacy for mRNA Covid vaccines without realising they were making a simple mathematical error, confusing absolute and relative confidence measures. Thus NZ fell easy victim to what amounted to an intentional confidence trick on the part of those companies seeking to sell novel vaccines. Moreover even when their error became apparent and they knew that the vaccines did not stop transmission, they still enforced vaccine mandates.

Due to our geographic isolation, we had an opportunity in NZ to delay decisions about vaccine mandates until independent scientific publishing in other countries had yielded information about the true safety and efficacy of mRNA vaccines which were entirely novel in their design and action. We missed that opportunity. The Report refers to the government procurement of the Covid mRNA vaccine as a sensible decision in its search for a ‘safe and effective’ vaccine. As subsequent research and personal experience has shown, it proved neither safe nor effective. The Report reaches an alarming conclusion that NZ would have been better off if more people had been vaccinated more quickly, thus endorsing the concept of coercive health mandates. The Commission highlighted the need to respect the Bill of Rights but in the same breath suggested that legislation should now be passed to effectively automatically bypass its health protections. A sort of double speak worthy of Brave New World.

“The lack of monitoring has made it difficult to assess the extent to which the impacts of vaccination requirements were ‘unforeseen’” Wasn’t it the job of the Commission to insist that such important data was researched and compiled? This statement highlights the complete lack of depth in their approach, their satisfaction with generalities rather than requiring detailed and reliable evidence. Their failure to use their powers to request information and action.

“Vaccination requirements are a valid intervention that should be kept in the toolbox for future pandemic responses….Before the next pandemic, primary legislation should be in place that sets out the most significant legal powers government can use in a pandemic response…[including] vaccine requirements”  These sentences say it all. The lengthy qualifications that follow them are window dressing, they do nothing to mitigate the blunt reality. The Report is calling for legislation allowing for the imposition of future vaccine mandates and medical interventions at the discretion of the government. The use of the term ‘requirements’ is a euphemism for ‘mandates’. Moreover the Report is also calling for a more or less automatic trigger function to set mandates in motion in the event of a pandemic. A frightening prospect.

“On the whole, decisions made during the pandemic response were balanced and reasonable.” In other words no one is going to be held accountable for mistakes. Nor are provisions for compensation recommended for anyone whose health was affected. This is a complete slap in the face for all those who painfully recounted details of their vaccine injuries to the Commission. Many of these adverse effects have been dismissed by the health system and ACC as unrelated, despite published accumulating scientific evidence that is linking neurological, cardiac and cancer events with Covid vaccination status. Research prior to the pandemic recognised that interventions altering genetic structures and expression can result in such wide ranging effects. Denying the possibility of a connection amounts to medical gaslighting and malpractice.

“Misinformation and disinformation affected several areas of the response, particularly the vaccination campaign and lockdown.” The Report confirmed the primacy of government control over health decisions even in cases of ‘contested information’. It failed to acknowledge the legitimacy of much early criticism and the emergence of subsequent scientific evidence in support, much of which was submitted to the Commission. It failed to specifically criticise the “one podium of truth”pronouncements of the Prime Minister, instead satisfying itself with the vague suggestion that: “Future governments need to ensure good transparency and communication around decisions and the science and other evidence used.” In fact the PM’s office set up and funded the disinformation project which rapidly designated concepts including natural immunity, the lab origin of covid and vaccine injury as conspiracy theories. None of this kind of manipulation of truth by the government is tackled in the Report. The fact that mandates were routinely enforced even for people who had reasonable grounds in their medical history to fear adverse reactions is a stain on our record of medical ethics. It resulted in personal tragedies.

“The permanent strategic function at the centre of government should work with relevant agencies to ensure the capacity to stand up epidemiological modelling quickly in an emerging future pandemic” The Report failed to identify the very high inaccuracy of the mathematical modelling that informed government policy. Even a cursory glance at the advice given to government and media by modellers reveals faulty methodology and conclusions. There was a lack of awareness of the findings of scientific publishing. For example early on it became apparent that highly vaccinated countries did not have lower mortality. In fact the reverse was the case.

“Governments facing a pandemic should:

° be open and clear about the science and evidence they are using

(including its limitations), and that knowledge may change and

develop over time

° be open and clear about where they are obtaining their information

from, and how they have reached decisions, so others can review

that material and the conclusions the government is drawing from it.”

These calls for future transparency and associated calls for regular policy reviews in the light of outcomes are one of the few positives in the Report, but they don’t go anywhere near far enough because they ignore the impact of the scientific mistakes that were made during the pandemic and they ignore the impact of introducing novel genetic technology. It was well established in the scientific literature published before the pandemic that procedures which edited genes and gene expression mechanisms introduced new serious classes of risk including deaths which had often in the past necessitated withdrawal of gene therapies. The Report does not call for any retrospective examination in the light of subsequent publishing, of the validity of the so-called scientific advice the government received early on. The biggest medical mistakes in history have resulted from the rapid introduction of new medicines such as thalidomide without adequate testing and assessment of long term effects. Recent cancer data we have reported indicates there are long term effects of mRNA vaccination which the Report ignores completely.

The Report records “there was advice from the Covid-19 Vaccine Technical Advisory Group that suggested there was an increased risk of myocarditis in 12-17-year-olds after two doses of the Pfizer vaccine.” But fails to sufficiently examine the enormity of this failure of the government to publicly discuss the need to balance risk against efficacy or need. In other words teenagers were in some cases effectively mandated to take on serious risks to long term heart health when they were at very little or almost no risk of harm from Covid-19 infection.  Unvaccinated school kids were pressured to vaccinate when they were excluded from normal activities like sport events and many others. In mid 2021 the risk of myocarditis was known to scientific publishing. Health NZ waited till December to inform DHBs of this risk. The public were kept in the dark as advertising featuring young people continued to use the words ‘safe and effective’. To add salt to the wound, Covid vaccination is still recommended by Health NZ. 

The report is a scientific failure and its recommendation to enshrine vaccine mandates in law should be vigorously opposed. Any such provision would nullify the protections of the NZ Bill of Rights which is supposed to ensure a right to refuse medical interventions. The report is a green light for those who wish to promote deregulation of biotechnology experimentation on the public at large. 

In our article “Some Hard Sobering Truths Are Beginning to Sink in” we reported that Health Services in highly vaccinated countries are beginning to realise that more people are falling sick than ever before. Higher percentages of the population are suffering from chronic and serious health conditions that require more medical care. This is putting a strain on national health budgets particularly in nations with high rates of Covid vaccination. However governments aren’t prepared to admit this, rather framing the crisis as due to a lack of resources, personnel, facilities, organisation or funding—anything but the truth. This article asks how governments are intending to direct their growing health spending. The answers are very concerning.

An article in the NZ health this morning is entitled “UK health secretary says changes in new contract for family doctors will reduce pressure on hospitals” It draws upon newspaper articles published overseas. Faced with more people falling sick more often, British GPs are being asked to use computer tools to prioritise consultations with people who visit emergency departments and/or stay in hospitals frequently, euphemistically described as “frequent flyers”. The aim is to reduce pressure on overworked hospitals who have run out of beds due to the increased volume of sickness. In other words, the government wants GPs to play a greater role in treating the seriously ill who are referred to as the “most vulnerable” in order to sound as if help is on the way. Understandably the British Medical Association is pushing back, saying that GPs do not have the diagnostic resources, equipment, specialist expertise or funding to treat many chronic conditions and serious emergencies.

So what are GPs specifically being asked to offer to their patients? Under a key provision of their new contract starting on April 1st, British GPs will be paid bonuses worth up to £3000 a year (NZ$6750) if they boost the roll out of so-called miracle weight loss injections with additional financial incentives if the rate of childhood vaccinations among their patients increases. 

Incredibly, Wes Streeting, UK Health Minister says that “these measures will bring the NHS out of the dark ages”. Which says just about everything we need to know about the hollow heart of government plans for healthcare.

Similar initiatives are planned in NZ as we reported in our article “Weight Loss Drug Enables You to Swap One Disease for Dozens of Others“. A serious problem arises because the rate of adverse effects of GLP-1 weight loss drugs is very high including long term serious health conditions such as a doubled risk of pancreatitis, an 11% increase in the risk of arthritis, an increased risk of bowel obstruction, an elevated risk of low blood pressure, blindness, and serious kidney disease. The UK Daily Mail reported in January 2025 that the number of people in hospital as a result of weight loss drug side effects has rocketed. 

The epidemic of obesity would be better laid at the door of industrial food production. Therefore GPs might be better advised to encourage improved diet and exercise regimes. Instead, Health Services are effectively incentivising them to ignore such proven natural approaches. They are following a trend established during the pandemic—incentivise injections and ignore the adverse effects. Publish articles ascribing miracle status to risky prescriptions and pat themselves on the back for being so wise, or is it deluded?

There are alternatives. US Surgeon General nominee Casey Means is currently going through the Senate ratification process. In her opening address, she said:

“Public health leaders must address the evidence-based, modifiable drivers of chronic diseases which include ultra-processed foods, industrial chemical exposure, lack of physical activity, chronic stress and loneliness, and over-medicalisation. As Surgeon General, I would call on every American and the Public Health Service to join in a great national healing — one that halts preventable chronic disease, makes healthy living the easiest choice, honours the body’s connection to the environment, and puts America back on the road towards wholeness and health.”

Despite some heartening sentiments surfacing in unexpected places like those of Casey Means, there seems to be a myopia when it comes to facing up to adverse effects of Health Service decisions. An article in the NZ Herald this week proclaims “Health NZ hands out over 7000 free vapes in two months to help smokers quit. A more sobering view is evident when you look at the health risks of vaping. An article in the UK Daily Mail is entitled: “The growing evidence vaping really IS harmful – and how it raises the risk of serious infection and even a chronic lung condition that triggers organ failure“. It reports studies which show people who vape are more likely than non-vapers to develop chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or COPD – a chronic lung condition which can trigger organ failure. COPD is associated with a ten year life expectancy following diagnosis. Research also suggests that regular vaping can weaken the lung’s protection against potentially serious infections and can even damage the teeth. 

As a result, the UK is clamping down on vaping. Many countries – including Australia, Singapore, Thailand and Mexico – have even chosen to ban open sale of the products over safety fears. Not so NZ, which has its head in the sand, deluded by its own public relations drive. Health NZ officials have decided to push ahead with a wider vape rollout, asking for tenders from vape companies for a deal it described as a “significant opportunity”. In fact before the introduction of vapes, 16.4% of Kiwis smoked. Today an estimated 6.8% smoke but 11.7% vape, a total of 18.5% inhaling nicotine products and thereby risking serious illness. Some surveys have come up with even higher estimates. Among the 15-24 year age group, daily vaping has increased faster than any drop in tobacco smoking. Health NZ wants us to believe this is a win. How dumb is that?

Multinational tobacco companies own the vast majority of vaping brands. British American Tobacco owns Vuse and Vype. Altria owns NJOY and JUUL, Imperial Brands owns Blu, Japan Tobacco International owns Logic and Ploom and Philip Morris owns IQOS and VEEV. NZ Tobacco Holdings now owns shares in Vape Merchant’s parent company, Vapertech. So why are Health NZ proposing jointly beneficial arrangements with Big Tobacco? You tell me. It doesn’t make any sense health wise. It doesn’t stand up to the results of research. 

Both weight loss drugs and vaping are highly profitable enterprises for multinational corporations. Health NZ seems to feel comfortable existing in their space.  A medical ideology has taken hold during the pandemic that says: “We are in charge, you will do as we say because we know what is right. We don’t have to explain the risks or take responsibility for them. You will be responsible to cope with the consequences of our actions”.

Viewed in the cold light of day it seems that some Health Services have given up on wellness in favour of drug dealing. Never mind the risks and the rising tide of adverse effects. As long as it plays out in the newspapers to an uninformed public as exciting new health technology, it is OK. As the casualties mount they can be ignored. These are sometimes labelled as unlucky or dismissed as the price of progress. Are government subsidised weight loss injections or e cigarettes our ticket out of the dark ages? We beg to differ and so should they.

For some months now, the New Zealand government has been claiming that an economic recovery is just around the corner.

We are still waiting and wondering.

A quick look at the state of health of highly vaccinated nations is very revealing: 

• In the USA, a Wall Street Journal report found that medical care employment has become the so-called engine of the US economy. Virtually all the 130,000 new jobs added in January were related to healthcare. 
• In the UK, nearly 9 million people are unable to work due to mental health disability up 55% on pre-pandemic figures. The government is clutching at straws urging sufferers to seek therapy.
• The NZ government has announced it is cutting back on planned roading and other infrastructure projects designed to stimulate the economy in order to build more hospitals. Minister Chris Bishop described the u-turn as the result of ‘sobering hard truths’. 

The hard truth behind the headlines is a simple reality: many more people are falling sick than before the pandemic, but no one in government is daring to discuss why. Admitting the harm that mass vaccination has caused the nation would amount to political suicide. Governments prefer to keep silent about the cause and pretend they are coming to the rescue by spending more on healthcare. But this is all a big smokescreen whose clouds are beginning to clear. We are being gaslit.

Epidemiologist Nicolas Hulscher has released a summary of over 100 published scientific papers which point to increased cancer risk associated with mRNA Covid jabs. Hulscher described mRNA jabs as One of the Largest Carcinogenic Exposures in History and listed 20 increased cancer risk factors that studies have linked to the jabs:

1. Increases your risk of 7 major cancers including breast, colon, lymphoma, melanoma, pancreas, leukaemia and prostate.

2. Integrates into human genomes

3. Disrupts THOUSANDS of critical genes

4. Drives genome instability

5. Enables tumour immune escape

6. Suppresses DNA repair mechanisms

7. Drives chronic inflammation

8. Causes immune dysregulation (decreasing cancer fighting T-cells, decreasing antiviral type I interferons)

9. Disrupts microRNA networks controlling both growth and apoptosis (clearance of dead cells without causing inflammation)

10. Activates oncogenic signalling (MAPK, PI3K/AKT/mTOR leading to uncontrolled cell growth)

11. Remodels the tumour microenvironment

12. Reactivates dormant cancers

13. Blocks innate immune sensing (decreasing TLR inhibition which controls inflammation)

14. Produces aberrant proteins (caused by gene frameshift errors)

15. Induces immune exhaustion

16. Promotes IgG4 class switching leading to inappropriate immune responses

17. Contains plasmid DNA contaminants including SV40 known to promote cancer

18. Disrupts RAS signalling which regulates cell growth, differentiation, and survival

19. Damages the gut microbiome

20. Increases resistance to standard cancer treatments 

You can find out more in Hulscher’s article linked above. Increased cancer risk is just one of a number of documented health risks associated with mRNA vaccines. These include cardio toxicity, neurological disease, kidney disease and mental illness. Which brings us to the million dollar question: Why is the Health NZ bureaucracy and the medical profession still advertising and prescribing mRNA vaccines and cancelling or even prosecuting those raising the alarm?

Prior to the release of mRNA vaccines, the NZ public and the world were subjected to publicity which outlined a very simple and supposedly safe pathway of mRNA vaccine action. This suggested a temporary redirection of a small number of cells in a limited area of muscle tissue which would produce harmless molecules similar to a part of the Covid coronavirus sufficient to induce an appropriate protective immune response. Within days those cells affected by the vaccine would be cleaned up by the body’s own defences leaving the recipient’s immune system able to fight off Covid infection. End of story. We now know this was nonsense. Clearly something was and is very deficient about the physiological and genetic paradigm underpinning these false claims which were broadcast to all of us from the self-proclaimed government podium of truth using the now infamous mantra ‘safe and effective’.

The paradigm of genetics and evolutionary science needs revising. There are alternatives. Fortunately the Hatchard Report is not alone in raising its voice. There is an international chorus of concern growing even among the traditional media as well as the scientific and technological elite. This week the Washington Post headlined “As an oncologist, I recommend these foods to lower cancer risk“. It advised a minimum of two servings of fruit and vegetables each day citing an analysis of studies following 27,000 people which showed low consumption of fruit and vegetables increased cancer risk. While high fruit consumption reduced the risk of cancers of the mouth, esophagus, stomach, colon and rectum, pancreas, larynx and lymphoma. A greater variety of vegetable, herb and fruit varieties is also recommended.

The article advised prioritising whole grains like oats, whole wheat, and quinoa. Other articles have included lentils and beans in this suggestion. A study of 2 million people over 5 to 26 years found this reduces your risk of dying from cancer by 6%. 

Each daily serving of red meat (lamb, beef, pork and veal) or processed meat (bacon, sausage, ham, hot dogs and burgers) increases your chance of developing colorectal cancer by 17%, So try to limit your consumption.

Ditch sugary drinks, they dramatically increase the risk of developing cancer. Read the labels, if sugar, sucrose, or fructose is listed near the start of drink ingredients it is a major component. Artificial sweeteners also pose serious risks. Liquid sugar is easily absorbed and has a higher potential to cause cancer than sugar in solid food like chocolate for example. Drink pure water periodically throughout the day. 

A recent article from the BBC is entitled “Ultra-processed food is global health threat, experts warn“. It calls on the government to introduce packaging warnings and charge higher taxes on UPFs because they are driving an epidemic of chronic illness. Despite this, there is an even more sobering reality revealed by the latest data on health since the start of the pandemic. The cancer and disease risks associated with poor diet and lack of exercise are dwarfed by the increased short and long term risks from mRNA vaccines. This makes our situation a double whammy. Not only have the risks of disease and cancer increased because of biotechnology experimentation which gave us Covid and Covid vaccines, but the risks have shifted to affect working age and younger people. Not only that, our natural immune capacity to resist has been degraded by the increasing industrialisation of the world’s food supply.

It is time to fight back by changing our diet and daily routines. It is never too late to start. Take the case of a 102 year old healthy yoga teacher in France who did not start yoga until she was 50 years old. Watch this charming short video of her simple life. She is pictured achieving simple yoga poses, going for walks and eating fresh produce and fruit from her garden.

There is another secret to a happy, healthy long life that is confirmed by the famous inventor of the CPU microchip, physicist Frederico Faggin. He reveals that an experience of light during a stay at Lake Tahoe led him to a journey involving meditation and reflection which taught him that the entire world is made of consciousness. In this video Faggin proposes that consciousness is not an emergent property of the brain, but a fundamental aspect of reality itself which can be known in self-referral consciousness. 

Since the beginning of history, those seeking understanding of the world have sought it in meditation. The profound health benefits of daily meditation practice have been verified by thousands of scientific studies that we regularly reference in our reports. Among these, a 50% reduction in medical care utilisation including a 55% reduction in cancer incidence and an 87% heart disease among an insured group of 2000 individuals practicing transcendental meditation which is systematically taught, easily learned and simple to practice for a few minutes morning and evening. The immemorial truth of a short daily dive into deep meditation needs to be reinstated as a fundamental of education.