Open Letter To The Commissioner of NZ Police and The Chief Coroner
Investigation into Record Levels of Excess All-Cause Deaths is Required
To: NZ Police Commissioner Andrew Coster
Acting Chief Coroner Anna Tutton
I very much appreciate your role to protect the public and inform the bereaved in the context of our system of criminal and civil justice. Your role must have been especially taxing during the pandemic, since many of the issues involve specialised knowledge of novel biomedical interventions. You have no doubt been guided by qualified experts.
I am a person with experience in the analysis of social indicators, including crime, health, quality of life, and economic indicators, using time series analysis and panel regression analysis. I was formerly a senior manager at Genetic ID, a global food safety testing and certification company (now known as FoodChain ID). Our company used methodologies from the cutting edge of biotechnology research.
It appears from the most recent record of adverse effects of mRNA vaccination reported to CARM and tabulated by Medsafe that 177 people have died proximate to vaccination. A much larger number (64,041) of non-fatal adverse effects have been reported. Medsafe reports (Table 8) that in general the recorded number of deaths has been lower than the expected number deaths in the monitoring period. No doubt you have felt reassured by this analysis.
At the end of 2021, the number of recorded deaths stood at 133. Therefore there have been 44 deaths proximate to vaccination recorded during the first eight months of 2022. There have been suggestions that these mortality figures are grossly underreported to CARM. Most notably NZDSOS and others have curated reports suggesting that the total number of deaths proximate to vaccination is at least as high as 500. Even this higher figure does not include unexplained deaths occurring at longer time intervals following vaccination.
In July of this year, NZ excess all-cause deaths rose to record levels. The last week of the month was 26% above historical levels. So far in 2022 the number of NZ excess all-cause deaths exceeds the historical trends by over 2,800 for the first nine months of the year. In turn, this far exceeds the estimated number of deaths related to Covid. There is a similar picture in the UK where more detailed figures are available from ONS and ZOE. In addition to excess deaths, UK data shows an alarming rise in long term chronic illness sufficient to incapacitate individuals for work. According to ONS data this is not related to incidence of long Covid. So what is causing these unprecedented high death rates?
These figures point to a need for careful investigation of the circumstances. There is a suspicion that mRNA vaccination may be one of a number of contributing causes. There are robust procedures which could be easily applied to settle the question. Unaccountably they are not being used.
There should be a requirement to enter full Covid vaccination status on death certificates including dates of inoculation. Without this information it is not possible for any analyst to reliably determine all the contributing causes of death. This information can and should be retrieved retrospectively, analysed, and recorded in future.
A number of procedural errors have distorted assessments made by Medsafe and pathologists. These include:
- Reporting of injury and death to CARM proximate to vaccination is not mandatory. Therefore Covid mRNA adverse events are being grossly underestimated. Medsafe itself has estimated that reports to CARM may make up only 5% of the total number of adverse events. As a result, Medsafe comparisons of rates of mRNA vaccine injury and death to historical background rates for similar conditions can be highly misleading.
- There has been a failure to take account of the distinct nature of mRNA vaccinations. mRNA technology is based on methods developed via gene therapy experimentation. They differ from traditional vaccines in their biomolecular operation and outcomes. Despite this, there has been an a priori assumption that a number of serious conditions, which can be fatal, can be reasonably excluded from serious epidemiological and pathological investigation. These include, but are not limited to cancers, strokes, cardiac events, neurological events, and sudden death. Some conditions have been discounted as possible vaccination outcomes because there is little history of their occurrence with traditional vaccines. However there are good reasons and experimental results, reported in the literature, to suppose that these can be caused by mRNA genetic interventions.
- There has been an assumption that a valid procedure to investigate causal factors associated with Covid vaccination should be the designation of a short effect window of time following inoculation. Any adverse events occurring outside the expected time period proximate to vaccination are assumed to be unrelated. This method incorrectly assumes that there is little likelihood of long term effects of mRNA vaccination. It appears that this is an assumption which biases assessment. Cancers for example do not necessarily develop rapidly. The final outcomes of cardiac impairment may take 3-5 years to develop. It is this bias which has led to a presumption that mRNA vaccination is not related to the current record levels of excess deaths. This presumption is unfounded in the science of medical causality and therefore in error.
- Crucially there is a growing realisation that the possibility of VDED—Vaccine Dependent Enhanced Disease should be taken seriously. In particular there is a great deal of published evidence showing rapid drop off in vaccine efficacy, tending within 3 months to enter negative territory. In other words, greater susceptibility to Covid infection. This can be associated with reduced immune function which can increase susceptibility to a wide range of other disease types.
My concern about the limited investigative methods being adopted by Medsafe and others can be reinforced by listening to vaccinologist Dr. Helen Petousis-Harris, director of the Global Vaccine Data Network (GVDN) speaking to health professionals in August 2021 about the measures that GVDN were proposing to take in order to assess vaccine safety. It is notable that GVDN have been granted exclusive access to NZ health data. Sound research protocols include provisions which ensure that researchers do not have conflicts of interests. Therefore it is of the essence that a GVDN newsletter suggests that their main mission is to reduce vaccine hesitancy. This aim is incompatible with the need for an unbiased role in the assessment of causality.
Why is this such an important issue for the police and coroners?
We are talking here about an ongoing issue of public health, safety, and accountability. It is proposed that mRNA vaccination will become a routine part of NZ healthcare, but the rate of vaccination among the general NZ population has fallen from around 85% for the first dose to 53% for the booster this is indicative of widespread public concern about safety and efficacy. Therefore it is essential that key questions about safety and causality are settled only after thorough investigation.
The importance of this is further illustrated by the prevalence of sudden death events. There is a growing tendency for health journalists to designate Sudden Adult Death Syndrome (SADS) as a class of illness that offers some explanatory value as far as cause of death is concerned (see What is SADS? Healthy young people dying from Sudden Adult Death Syndrome).
In fact SADS is an umbrella term used to cover deaths for which there is no explanation. It should not be the case that SADS is considered a sufficient recorded cause of death.
Simple statistical and experimental methods can and should be used to assess causality. These include:
Prospective studies. Wide ranging investigations of this type should have been undertaken from the outset, but a presumption of limited outcomes and need for testing ensured that early trials were flawed. This has since been rectified. A study of 300 students in Thailand for example has found that the incidence of cardiac irregularities following mRNA vaccination is far higher than previously suspected. 29% percent of participants had detectable adverse cardiac effects. Myocarditis has been sometimes been dismissed in NZ as a self-limiting condition, it may in fact have serious sequelae in a significant number of cases. We have to assess this accurately.
Timeline adjusted cohort studies. If the vaccination status of people at time of death were available, it would be easy to analyse mortality data and compare the health timeline pre and post vaccination to detect if there is any statistical difference between them.
Hospital data. Our hospitals and specialists are currently overwhelmed with highcase loads. It is important to analyse up to date hospital admission rates across the whole range of disease categories in order to detect any abnormalities. Figures from overseas suggest these may be found for incidence or recurrence of cancer, stroke, and cardiac events for example.
Mortality among the young. Have mortality and hospital admissions increased among younger age groups? If so, has this affected vaccinated more than unvaccinated individuals? This data would be easy to collect. It has happened overseas as indicated by insurance data for example.
Uncertainty about the safety of mRNA vaccination has sharply divided opinion. This is not healthy for society. Debate is always healthy. Statistically and experimentally sound research will go a long way to resolving the situation. For this to be successful, access to data has to be granted to a wider range of researchers. The difficulty of doing definitive research without access is amply demonstrated by this linked article. The mathematician estimates the relative mortality to be 40% higher among the vaccinated, but does so with many caveats related to incomplete access to information.
As scientists, we cannot accept opinions that rely on expectations and previous experience alone or on faulty research protocols. It is crucial to employ sound statistical science. Even pathology and autopsy on their own can be misleading as to cause of death when dealing with biotech interventions which are known to cause complex disease etiology that is opaque to routine tests. From available data it appears highly likely that novel biotechnology has been introduced that has significant adverse effects whose ultimate impact on health and longevity has not been properly measured.
I believe that greater involvement and scrutiny initiated by the police and coronial officers can have the effect of broadening the scope of investigation into high mortality. This should involve more appropriate statistical methodologies, tabulation of vaccination status and hospitalisation data as above, and consultation with qualified researchers who have demonstrable independence outside of the strongly pro-mRNA vaccination safety paradigm.
I also note the politicisation of the issues surrounding the Covid response. This has happened in almost all countries around the world. Political reputations are at stake. We should however be very sure to set aside these political issues. I myself have written to government ministers on occasions concerning the issues above and have not received satisfactory replies, rather proforma protestations of safety. Based on published journal research papers, I know these replies to be unreliable. Medical ethics and health system safety are at stake. These cannot be bypassed. Since high mRNA vaccination compliance is a government expectation, any errors or omissions can lead to unaddressed serious long term health consequences among the general population.
I note that there is no longer a case for any procrastination, lives are at stake, thousands of lives, as the 2022 mortality figures suggest. Provision 165 of the Crimes Act 1961 Causing death that might have been prevented by resorting to proper means is relevant here. If insufficient steps have been taken by the relevant authorities to ascertain the causes of record elevated levels of mortality, it cannot be determined if proper means of prevention have been adopted. Such ascertainment is a technical scientific undertaking. At the present time, the government appears to be relying on advice that is insufficiently grounded in accepted science and probably based on an in-built expectation among medical professionals that any intervention carrying the name ‘vaccination’ will be safe even if it is entirely novel, as mRNA vaccines are. This supposition is not supported by evidence. This should lead to prompt action by your relevant departments and officers to rectify the situation.
I am happy to meet and discuss these issues with yourself, your representatives, and advisors.
Yours sincerely
Guy Hatchard PhD
