Our health system is collapsing, but health tsars are in complete denial, desperately trying to hide the deaths and distort the science.

This article is also available as a PDF document that you can print, download, and share. An audio version is available here.

For the last 90 years, we have been taught that the universe began with a Big Bang, the James Webb telescope has shown that the theory is incorrect. This is another example of the difference between scientific theory and experiment. In the final analysis theory must match experiment, if it doesn’t the theory is incorrect and must be abandoned.

There is of course a crucial difference between the Big Bang theory and the theory of mRNA vaccines, the Big Bang theory hasn’t killed anyone.

The latest available figures of excess deaths in New Zealand show what is happening. The OECD reports for September 2023 and the first week of October, records there were 577 excess deaths up 17% on the long term average. That is a rate of 155 additional deaths per week above what you might expect for the time of year. Last year (2022) for the corresponding period there were 339 excess deaths, 68 per week, up 10% on the long term average. Even this figure was a record. 2023 is 70% higher than that.

As you can imagine, behind these 155 unexpected deaths in each one of the recent few weeks (22 each day) there are personal stories of tragedy. You might have noticed an uptick in newspaper reports of turbo cancers, sudden deaths, heart attacks, strokes, rare diseases, and family tragedies, but whatever is being reported is not even beginning to scratch the surface of what is really happening. The diagnoses and hospitalisations are also rocketing.

Curiously, no one mentions the vaccine, the explanations offered range from stress to bad luck and everything in between.

As we have been repeatedly writing, a definitive answer to the questions about vaccine safety can only be answered if vaccine status is recorded on death certificates. Only then can a comparison of the rate of deaths of the vaccinated and unvaccinated be made—a fundamental bit of established science that the government and Medsafe have ignored, despite the fact that overseas data points unequivocally to a safety signal.

On 30 November 2022, the last time Medsafe had anything to say on the effect of Covid vaccines, a total of 184 deaths post vaccination over a period of two years were reported to be under investigation (close to the number currently happening each week!!!). Medsafe thought 163 of these ‘unlikely’ to be related, 15 were dismissed as lacking sufficient information, while only 4 were judged related to vaccination. As you read on, you will find that the term ‘investigation’ is actually disinformation.

An article written by NZDSOS entitled “The Detailed Case of Garrett Utting: New Zealanders Have No Protections, Are Being Lied To, and Our Systems are Not Fit For Purpose” explains in great detail the fraud that is being perpetrated on the New Zealand public by our medical authorities. This is an article about a single case of sudden death for which an explanation was sought from authorities by loving parents after their 31 year old son died suddenly at home three and a half weeks after receiving a Covid vaccine on 13th November 2021.

The whole article needs reading. It records a voluminous correspondence between the parents and numerous officials, all of whom, without sufficient evidence or investigation, deny that the vaccine could be involved. These are the salient points:

No-one in authority (medical, police, coronial) reported his death to CARM (Centre for Adverse Reactions Monitoring).  Garrett’s parents had to do this themselves, otherwise his death following vaccination would never have been noted.

The post mortem recorded ‘no cause of death determined’, but added that it was ‘definitely not vaccine related’, despite the fact that no tests were conducted to detect the presence of spike protein in the heart or other organs.

The coroner’s report issued on 23rd July 2023 stated that the cause of death was ‘unascertained’ and incredibly added ‘further inquiry is not necessary’. The Chief Coroner (Anna Tutton) stone-walled the family’s request for further investigation.

The coroner’s report was never forwarded to CARM, revealing that Medsafe’s public assurances that it is investigating deaths subsequent to vaccination is a sham, actually it is passing the buck and forgetting the file.

Dr Michael Tatley, Director of New Zealand Pharmacovigilance Centre, said “CARM is not resourced or able to perform individual requests for clinical reviews or clinical consultation to determine causality….CARM accepts the findings of the Coroner.”

BUT Coroners are not medically trained, indicating that Medsafe and CARM don’t really care to find out what might be happening. This was further confirmed by an OIA request sent to Medsafe which revealed “Garett’s case was not discussed”, eventually fobbing off the parents’ persistent requests for more information replying “the Ministry of Health had nothing further to add”.

Finally, on Dr. Tatley’s advice, an ACC claim was denied because they couldn’t think of any known effect that the vaccine might have caused. Thus denying that a novel gene technology might be having novel effects, something that could be resolved in a matter of days if vaccination status was recorded on death certificates, as we have been very publicly requesting for more than a year.

Do you think that the officials at Medsafe are doing their job? I don’t. In 1855, Charles Dickens published a book, Little Dorrit, in which a government department known as the Circumlocution Office is described where people trying to find answers are passed from official to official. This happens when officials are trying to avoid answering difficult questions or admitting that an injustice has taken place. Sound familiar?

The incoming government, assuming one can be formed, is faced with a problem that is growing and getting out of hand. This is not just a problem of government inefficiency, people are falling sick and dying in larger numbers than ever before. Continuing to pass the buck and deny the obvious won’t actually amount to a viable health policy, it won’t help the 155 people dying each week whose relatives and friends are being misinformed, ignored and gaslighted. It won’t relieve the extreme pressure on the health service. A dose of reality could start to provide some answers. Time to record vaccination status on death certificates and face the hard facts.

Dr. Guy Hatchard
13 November 2023

The Dentist:

My dentist friend received mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in 2021. He and his partner developed cardiac issues, both have since struggled to recover their full health. They have been alert and informed enough to examine published evidence and concluded the vaccine was likely at fault.

This article is also available as a PDF document to print/download and share.

His subsequent experience at his dental practice paints a picture of vaccine harm that is sobering and truly frightening. He has 2200 patients; during the last two years, a great number of them have reported new serious health conditions as follows. These figures only include accounts that his patients raised with him in order to seek specific advice or help. It doesn’t include the many who suffered in silence.

Clinically recognised cardiac issues – 69 (not counting the significant numbers who have told him they are struggling but not having sought help).

Stroke – 5.

Cancer – 20. (Pancreatic cancer stands out in incidence).

Blood clots – 3.

Sudden death – 11.

Autoimmune conditions – 23.

Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome (POTS) – 3.

Sudden onset dementia- 2.

That is a total of 136 life threatening conditions among his patients, a rate of 6.2% over two years. In his experience pre-pandemic, there was nothing even remotely comparable by way of health queries and complaints.

This is the testimony of one dentist. There are 3336 dentists in New Zealand. There is an almost total media blackout of discussion of vaccine adverse effects in New Zealand. As they are being deliberately isolated by the media and the government, he reports many patients reject any association of their health problems with COVID-19 vaccination. They have no context to objectively understand what is going on. Unlike the dentist, who is simply overwhelmed by the extent of the harm his patients are reporting and deeply concerned at the lack of public debate. Many have written to me saying that they are expecting or rather hoping that matters will eventually be resolved by the courts.

Not So The Judge:

In complete contrast, in an extraordinary ruling, Judge Robyn von Keisenberg has ordered three children aged 6, 8 and 10 receive the full suite of Ministry of Health-approved vaccines after their mother objected on health and religious grounds and their father petitioned the court to overrule her.

Judge von Keisenberg was appointed to the family court in 2020 during the pandemic. Her ruling appears to break new legal ground. She suggested that the mother accompany her children while they receive the eighteen different Ministry of Health vaccines as an indication of support. She said:

“My expectation is that the mother will support this decision and explain to the children that a judge has made the decision and that she will not undermine this decision in any way.”

The judge said, “I think it very sad” that “this is yet another issue that these parents have embroiled their children in.”

You will appreciate that the tenor of this ruling appears to amount to an attempt to control the right to speak freely to our children in family settings on a topic whose rights and wrongs are subject to ongoing learned scientific research and assessment. It puts limits on the right of parents to engage their children in discussions of matters affected by science, health and religious belief.

As an educator and grandfather, I understand that discussions on serious matters within a family, even if the parents are separated and hold different views, are a vital part of growing up. In contrast, the judge appeared to be of the opinion that parents should not be allowed to share their views on health with their children if they differed from the policies of the Ministry of Health.

In effect, where a parent has an opinion different from the Ministry of Health, the judge appeared to feel that the court not only has the right to act in loco parentis (in place of parents) on the side of the Ministry of Health, but also to suppress the right of any parent to continue to hold or express a contrary opinion. If this is her view, it appears to be in contrast to the provisions of the New Zealand Bill of Rights, which explicitly states:

“Everyone has the right to refuse to undergo any medical treatment.”

And

“Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion, and belief, including the right to adopt and to hold opinions without interference.”

The judge went further and said “while the mother had provided multiple affidavits from alternative viewpoints, she [the judge] could not consider them expert evidence as there was no background about the writers.” 

The NZ Herald reported von Keisenberg took particular aim at the mother’s assertion that many of the diseases vaccinated against in New Zealand are treatable. If this is her true opinion, it must be considered at variation with fact, most diseases are in fact treatable. According to the Herald the mother did not assert all are.

The main point here is that the courts are following a practice that seems to have become established during the pandemic to refuse to consider expert witness testimony in any depth if it differs from the advice of the Ministry of Health. This seems to be a denial of natural justice and a perversion of science. Although this was not a criminal case, this refusal to consider countervailing arguments in any detail or encourage cross examination is also at variation with the New Zealand Bill of Rights, which states that in matters before a court there is

“a right to examine the witnesses for the prosecution and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses for the defence under the same conditions as the prosecution”

And

“Every person has the right to the observance of the principles of natural justice by any tribunal or other public authority which has the power to make a determination in respect of that person’s rights, obligations, or interests protected or recognised by law.”

You will appreciate that through this ruling, the judge might be seeking to interpret the enforcement of law to a degree that is not intended by or written into existing law. In summary, the pro-vaccination argument seems to have acquired a protected status in court cases that it does not enjoy in law.

The judge went much further and denied the request of the mother to administer homeopathic preparations for her children and for testing to ascertain if there were any adverse effects from the vaccines. As there is no medical evidence that either of these would be in any way harmful, this part of the ruling could appear to be punitive and might establish that a judge’s ruling on health could not be subject to testing. All the more concerning since the mother claimed that one of the children had had a reaction to a previously administered vaccination. In any case, the ruling appears to limit rights of medical choice.

This was a difficult and distressing case, where two parents disagree and the children are caught in between. One can appreciate from the ruling that the judge believed she was acting sternly in the best interests of the children, but in doing so she apparently overstepped the intent of the New Zealand Bill of Rights. After all, no vaccination in New Zealand is currently mandated, all are optional.

The ruling appeared to restrict the examination of new evidence as it comes to light, put court judgements on health outside of the accepted canons of scientific evaluation, extended the power of the state to stifle discussion and further wrested control of children from their parents. It appears to fly in the face of the intent and wording of the New Zealand Bill of Rights.

Particularly concerning is the reported assertion of Judge von Keisenberg that the mother should put on a face of approval and subservience to the court when dealing with her children. This is reminiscent of dictatorial regimes where people are required to make a public show of support for the government both in public and private for fear of reprisals. Faced with this, the mother said she would comply with the court orders.

I found one further point very striking. The mother cited her moral compass based on her religious convictions which were opposed to vaccination, but nothing in the available New Zealand press coverage records any discussion of this at the court hearing or any response from the judge. Why? There appears to be a concerted effort to exclude religious matters from everyday life.

I want to contrast the opinion of the judge and the dentist. One who from the newspaper account seems to be completely confident of her judgement to the exclusion of scientific doubt, religious sentiment, human rights and possibly family values, while the other injured by vaccination and a witness to great suffering of others, resolving to speak up, but faced with a lonely path and wall of official silence.

In contrast, the lead article in the UK Daily Telegraph today entitled “Oxford AstraZeneca Covid jab was ‘defective’, claims landmark legal case” concerns a victim of VITT – a new vaccine-induced condition identified by specialists which can lead to permanent brain damage – who has launched a legal case against AstraZeneca and the failure of the British government to adequately monitor of the safety of the vaccine’s rollout and its efficacy.

I hope this provides some context and a dose of reality for those still believing, against all the accumulating evidence, that COVID-19 vaccines were safe and effective. The wheels of science turn slowly but inexorably, and their direction is now very clear. The government and the medical establishment failed to take account of the risks of biotechnology, which were, in fact, discussed and evidenced in mainstream science publishing even before the pandemic.

Quite apart from the individual circumstances we have discussed above, it is apparent that the policies and influence of our government during the last three years have established ways of working and taking decisions that contrast with previous practice. Those in responsible positions of authority in public service have in some cases taken extreme positions which rather than reflecting the wording of the law, reflect the discriminative social attitudes and prescriptive control of the outgoing government. In doing so they have left little or no room for scientific doubt or legal appeal.

This is not in the spirit of our New Zealand history. We have been a nation that is proud of self-reliance and independence. It seems the authorities may now have developed a different conception of New Zealand, one in which compliance with and deference to government policy is the required norm irrespective of the law or human rights. Remarkably also one in which there is little room for faith and conscience, two values which are inextricably linked with the development of civilisation and natural justice.

It should be clear to the incoming government that any continuance of the past efforts to silence open debate are not in the national interest. They are threatening to undermine the vitality of the nation. The government will need to become proactive to correct those in public office misusing their authority to quash individual rights, family values and national independence. Whether they can rise to the occasion will be a mark of their depth of understanding of the pandemic missteps and their ability to change course.

As we head into the uncharted waters of a new government, we have to consider strategy. Unfortunately, during the election, the interests of those opposed to mandatory mRNA Covid vaccination and concerned about adverse effects were scattered among a number of uncoordinated different minor parties and confused with other political, economic, and social issues that were often only distantly related. We now have a chance to correct that.

This article is also available as a PDF document to print/download and share. You can also listen to an audio version here.

We hope there will be a wide ranging inquiry into the Covid pandemic and we need to concentrate on a set of focussed questions. During the pandemic, the government, and in fact all elected parties and politicians, assiduously avoided open debate while asserting that the opinion of the government and the medical authorities should be accepted at face value.

Court processes could not accommodate cross examination of government witnesses and accepted their testimony as gospel.

There was a concerted effort to label those asking questions, including highly qualified academics and doctors, as conspiracy theorists. This effort was partly funded by the government.

These actions were essentially opposed to the democratic principles upon which our nation is founded.

The main point here is that witnesses should be obliged to defend their positions with up to date data, case studies and published science reflecting the full range of conclusions. No one should be allowed to continue to get away with speaking solely on the basis of any supposed authority and qualifications whilst omitting disclosure of evidence.

I submit the following questions should be the focus of a concerted effort to correct these glaring omissions. There will of course be others, but these are key points to which those called to testify and those briefed to ask questions should return again and again.

1. Mortality

Pandemic vaccination policy can only be assessed with reference to complete data that compares the outcomes of the vaccinated and unvaccinated populations. Mortality data must include the ages, date and cause of death, and dates and types of vaccination. No other statistic can accurately assess the efficacy and safety of mRNA vaccines here in New Zealand.

2. Hospitalisation

Similarly, hospitalisation data needs to include vaccination status as a matter of routine and be categorised by age and type of illness.

3. Long Term Effects

Any attempt to limit the causal effect of COVID-19 vaccination to a period of time such as three weeks, as has been used so far, needs to be rejected. There were no trials of long term effects of mRNA vaccines prior to their approval. There is no sound a priori reason to reject the existence of long term adverse effects. Indeed, it is normal to test for them.

4. Long Covid

Theories popularised by the media and scientists ascribing elevated death and hospitalisation rates to Long Covid can only be treated as speculation as long as accurate statistics differentiating between outcomes of vaccinated and unvaccinated populations are withheld from public scrutiny. Without this data any conclusion being drawn will be unreliable.

5. The New Zealand Bill of Rights

Why were our rights enshrined in law overturned by vaccine mandates when there was insufficient data to justify concluding the safety of mRNA vaccines. Bill of Rights provisions that were overridden include medical, employment, speech and assembly rights.

6. Adverse Effects

How were record levels of adverse effects ignored and dismissed in contravention of accepted canons of medical ethics and the principles of medical causality?

7. Treatment of Those Adversely Affected

How were those affected by mRNA vaccination often misdiagnosed and denied adequate treatment and/or compensation while routinely being gaslighted and blamed themselves?

8. Scientific Selectivity

There have been millions of scientific studies of the effects of the pandemic, how did the government and its advisors come to ignore the critical results of some studies, especially those involving key design features such as meta-analysis and prospective design which clearly identified safety red flags? Why did they dismiss critical comment and fail to update the scientific basis of policy with the results of later better designed studies?

9. Media Funding and Censorship

How did the government come to set out to fund academia and media, to control social media content, and to set up a Disinformation Project with a view to silencing questions about vaccine safety in direct contravention of democratic principles?

10. Sovereign Independence

How did the New Zealand government come to rely on overseas institutions who clearly had commercial interests and priorities that were not consistent with our national interests? For example, why did the government fail to register the widely reported glaring deficiencies in the Pfizer vaccine trial data which led to defective safety assessments and the long list of adverse effects noted in the Pfizer February 2021 post marketing safety report?

11. Biotechnology Experimentation

How did the government fail to recognise the novel nature of mRNA vaccination methods, the probable lab-origin of Covid and the unique associated safety issues well documented in the scientific literature?

These are just a few important issues, no doubt you will be able to suggest others. We are up against a highly organised and well funded lobby with international roots who will try to present a contrary picture.

For example last month a study was published by the Lancet funded by the Medical Research Institute of New Zealand (MRINZ). According to Professor Richard Beasley, MRINZ Director, the study demonstrates that New Zealand’s COVID-19 policy has “prevented the high rates of mortality from COVID-19 experienced by most other countries.” A comment that appears to lack sufficient perspective and critical evaluation.

There is no doubt that this incomplete study and others like it will be selectively presented to any Commission with a view to dismissing our concerns, despite its obvious deficiencies. It will need to be examined in detail and its main arguments questioned for example as follows:

1). As Dr. John Gibson at the University of Waikato and others have pointed out, the base rate of population growth used to calculate the population data appears to have assumed a rate of growth that did not in fact eventuate due to pandemic policy restrictions. This made the 2021 excess death rates appear almost normal when they were not. The census data when it is released will likely correct this.

2) The figures used in this study for Covid deaths (the red bars) appear to be ‘with’ rather than ‘because of’ Covid.

3) I would choose a five year moving average for a baseline mortality rather than the nine years the authors choose

4) The continuing absence of seasonal flu in 2021 has not been accounted for, despite the authors referring to its absence in 2020. In other words, they are being selective.

5) Crucially, there is no mention of the differing outcomes for vaccinated and unvaccinated populations. A glaring omission. Without this data no useful conclusions can be drawn about the cause of excess deaths.

6) The authors do not mention that excess death rates in 2022 and 2023 are at record levels

The authors appear to be aware of some but not all of these limitations because they conclude:

"This interpretation is limited by several factors such as clinical uncertainty determining whether COVID-19 was the cause of death, background variability of annual mortality rates, population ageing, and differences in immigration and emigration patterns across the years of observation and historical reference. To better understand the effects of different stages of New Zealand's pandemic response strategy on COVID-19-attributable and non-COVID-19-attributable deaths, an examination of demographic differences in excess mortality and detailed cause of death data will be required."

In this qualifying paragraph, the study authors do not include ‘vaccination status at time of death’ as needing investigation. If this issue remains unaddressed, any Commission will be unable to reach meaningful conclusions about vaccine safety.

I note that previously, the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification and the recent public submission process on the Therapeutic Products Bill received thousands of submissions and hundreds wishing to speak on their submission. As a result, hundreds of submitters were granted equal time. Thus, highly qualified submitters, some of whom had travelled from overseas were assigned just five minutes to speak to complex scientific topics. This nullified their impact. I believe we should push for a right of cross examination, sufficient time, and legal representation as a group.

We note that the incoming government is facing a number of crises. The health service is overwhelmed. Our economy is facing challenges not the least of which are the high costs of living and housing. While foreign policy is set to be dominated by the rising tide of proxy conflict and the emotions these naturally arouse. However, we should be careful not to lose sight of the importance of the pandemic issues we raise here. If we let these go, we will inevitably face similar problems in the future.

In conclusion, I suggest that submissions to any Commission need to be carefully considered and we should coordinate to ensure that those arguments with potentially the most critical impact and supporting data are given maximum exposure. We should rigorously avoid presentation of ideas that are not based on sound data and known matters of fact, but rather constitute speculation. To do so will only serve to feed prejudice, and we have suffered enough of that during the last three years. I look forward to feedback from you. I encourage you to circulate this widely.

In this article, we review newly published research studies on the adverse effects of mRNA vaccines and draw out the implications for a meditation and whole food diet programme which could play a role in mitigating these effects.

A study funded by the US FDA has found a new vaccine safety signal. This was a retrospective study which analysed the medical records of four million children aged 6 months to 17 years. In addition to the known high risk of myopericarditis, the study found a statistically significant number of children aged 2 to 5 years suffered seizures and convulsions following the Pfizer or Moderna mRNA vaccines.

An article in the Epoch Times summarises multiple reports and case studies of mental illness following Covid vaccination. Symptoms include panic attacks, depression, insomnia, anxiety and hallucinations. We have also reported worrying rises in mental health problems in New Zealand under the title “The Long Read: Mental Health Issues are Multiplying. Why?”

A UK review of 271 cases has been published in the journal Vaccines entitled “New-Onset Rheumatic Immune-Mediated Inflammatory Diseases Following SARS-CoV-2 Vaccinations until May 2023: A Systematic Review“. It concluded COVID vaccines “may trigger” rheumatic immune-mediated inflammatory diseases, including arthritis, vasculitis, lupus, and adult-onset Still’s disease.

A peer reviewed study conducted in Saudi Arabia published by Cureus entitled “Impact of COVID-19 Vaccinations on Menstrual Bleeding” has found that more than half of the subjects (54%) suffered post-vaccination menstrual bleeding abnormality in terms of a heavy or irregular cycle.

A peer reviewed study published in Science, Public Health Policy, and the Law entitled “COVID-19 Illness and Vaccination Experiences in Social Circles Affect COVID-19 Vaccination Decisions” estimates that “the total number of US fatalities due to COVID-19 inoculation may be as high as 289,789 (95% CI: 229,319 – 344,319)”. This is remarkably consistent with the actual rate of New Zealand excess deaths we reported based on official data once you adjust for relative population size and vaccination uptake in the two nations.

There are actually more studies and reports than these alarming findings, but let us proceed to draw out the general implications of these and many other assessments of mRNA vaccine safety that we have been regularly reporting.

In an article Sucharit Bhakdi MD and others point out that the essential mechanism of mRNA vaccines inevitably results in an autoimmune conflict. Our immune system is designed to destroy any cells which contain non identical (or non-self) genetic material. mRNA vaccines invade billions of cells throughout the body which our immune system then seeks to destroy. Dr Bhakdi explains this leads to long term physiological conflict as a result of which cells in the brain and heart, which the body lacks the capacity to replace, may be destroyed. This is also a pathway to cancer generation.

Dr. Bhadki hints at a principle of ‘unique genetic identity’ at the heart of every organism, or more simply put our psychological concept of ‘self’ is aligned with our unique personal genetics. Other researchers and theorists are beginning to investigate the origins of the integrated cellular self-organisation which is the hallmark of large organisms. This article proposes the existence of cellular communication waves. This one from the Smithsonian identifies universal mathematical principles underlying cellular size and mass.

Systematic efforts to withhold data on long term Covid infection outcomes compared to Covid vaccine outcomes (as has happened here in New Zealand and elsewhere) have obfuscated and frustrated many sincere efforts to distinguish generalised outcomes of Covid vaccination as opposed to background rates of specific illnesses. To this very day, there has still not been a single study published that looks at unvaccinated outcomes from January 2020 compared to vaccinated outcomes today. The consequent lack of recognition for a generalised effect of mRNA Covid vaccination on cellular organisation and function is a serious deficiency in our current medical understanding that needs to be corrected as a priority.

If our sense of self isaffected by mRNA vaccines, can this be reversed?

There is an important lesson we can take from the proliferation of research articles indicating a very wide range of adverse effects of mRNA vaccination. mRNA vaccines disrupt fundamental properties of genetic organisation which underpin our sense of ‘self’. They alter who we are and how we function. They degrade not only the holistic level of genetic organisation but also our identity.

Now let us turn around the argument and start from the other end so to speak, start from the self rather than the cell, start from the whole rather than the part. From this perspective, our physiology can appear to be a resonant vibrational mode of our unique identity. If our self-expression is disrupted by mRNA vaccines, is it possible that any physiological disruption might be corrected by strengthening our sense of self? Decades ago, I gave a lecture at the University of York Centre for Health Economics. Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) studied at the Centre were an attempt to assess the relative merits of medical interventions in the modern era.

Essentially, the better you feel following a medical procedure and the more you are able to do for yourself, the more useful any added longevity bestowed by a medical intervention will be. The Centre had selected 45 measures of quality of life. My lecture centred on the results of scientific research on meditation as it related to these 45 criteria. A table as follows, reproduced from my book Your DNA Diet, summarises verified improvements in all 45 criteria as a result of meditation. The numbers refer to hundreds of supporting scientific studies referenced in my book.

The wide scope of the findings is notable in itself. They illustrate the HOLISTIC effect of more orderly awake consciousness on the whole physiology. This effect is simultaneously holistic and specific. Improvements in specific areas of the physiology and psychology are coupled with improvements in the physiology and psychology as a whole. Because deep meditation strengthens our sense of self, it strengthens the functioning of the whole physiology and the parts. This points to a strengthening of the immune system.

It appears that research points to a role for meditation in the treatment of mRNA Covid vaccine injury.

This is not an isolated suggestion on my part. Watch this BBC Reel from 2020 entitled Three simple ways to deactivate your bad genes which explains that meditation, a diet based on whole foods, and exercise have been proven to reduce disease-inducing inflammation in the body by initiating improvements in the epigenetic regulation of our gene expression.

Now contrast this with current medical thinking on the diagnosis and treatment of mRNA Covid vaccine injury. The main thrust has been to identify a specific illness type such as myocarditis, kidney disease, cancer, etc. and to proceed to specific treatment. This approach ignores the generalised disruption of the immune system and the impaired genetic interface at the root of the disease development.

Moreover the idea that mRNA vaccines might be causally involved is often dismissed once a diagnosis is made, and replaced with the notion of an undiagnosed pre-existing condition or weakness. An approach that ignores the specific toxic characteristics of the mRNA vaccine components and also misses any opportunity for treatment involving detoxification measures. If a specific diagnosis or cause is lacking, varied symptoms can be vaguely dismissed as forms of ‘Long Covid’—an approach that often does not lead to treatment options. Thus current medical thinking ignores simple natural self-managed approaches well understood to be of benefit pre pandemic.

We have reported record levels of excess deaths in New Zealand and around the world in our articles during the last two years (see here for details of millions of excess deaths worldwide). We have been met not just by a wall of silence, but repugnant efforts to bury the facts through manipulation of data. We have investigated the cause in terms of greatly increased rates of cardiac events linked with mRNA vaccines verified by high quality published studies (see here for example). Still silence.

This article is available as a PDF document to print, download, and share.

Early on in the pandemic, eminent microbiologists including Dr. Robert Malone and many others warned that mRNA vaccines had the potential to reactivate dormant cancers and cause new cancers. UK Professor Angus Dalgleish, MD, FRCP, FRCPA, FRCPath, FMedSci has publicly warned that he is now seeing unprecedented large rises in cancer incidence and recurrence among his patients. Data from the UK Office of National Statistics has been released documenting a massive rise in cancer deaths starting in 2021 (up 13%) and accelerating in 2022 (up 43%) among young people aged 15-44.

Follow us and join the conversation on X (formerly Twitter)

You will appreciate from the above graphs that there is no historical precedent for such massive rises in cancer deaths. Leaked data for the Wellington Health Region indicates rises in hospitalisation for cancers of the order of 25%. There has been no data released for cancer deaths in New Zealand, but the massive increases in hospitalisation are as unprecedented as the rises in UK cancer deaths. So why are we hearing or reading nothing about this? Why are mainstream media articles appearing almost daily with stories of family cancer tragedies without revealing that they are part of a trend which must have a novel cause?

Last night I watched a harrowing documentary ‘Ireland’s Mother and Baby Scandal’ on PrimeTV. For eight decades unwed pregnant women were forced into homes run by Catholic nuns to give birth and work off their ‘sin’. In these homes upwards of a quarter of all babies born died within their first twelve months of life. As many as 8,000 babies died in total. Despite being amply funded by the state to pay for their care, many had died of malnutrition and related conditions.

Doctors and inspectors routinely turned a blind eye to the appalling conditions and mistreatment. The documentary reported at least one good doctor who was unafraid to look beneath the surface and condemn the institution he visited. He simply lifted the crisp white sheets of the hospital beds and discovered the horrible sickness hidden beneath.

The situation continued for so long partly because the government ceded its responsibility of care to the church and its judgemental dogma without undertaking sufficient investigation of the outcomes and possibly because the government agreed that unwed mothers were deserving of punishment.

Infant mortality in the UK in the 1950s was running at 3.2%, that is approximately 32 babies dying within 12 months out of every 1,000 births. In the Irish Mother and Baby Homes, 250 babies were dying out of every 1,000 births. This should not have escaped the notice of the government. In fact it probably didn’t. Apparently, they just chose not to care and kept silent.

On August 9th of this year Dr Michael Tatley MBChB (UCT), FFCH(SA), FAFPHM, FNZCPHM, AdvCertVac, BBusSci(Hon)(UCT), Research Professor and Director of the New Zealand Pharmacovigilance Centre and Centre for Adverse Reactions Monitoring (CARM) wrote to a correspondent who reported to CARM a case of cancer subsequent to Covid vaccination. Dr Tatley roundly rejected any association between Covid vaccination and cancer saying:

“I am not aware of any known association of any of the COVID vaccine platforms that have been in use for the Pandemic being associated with any form of cancer…..Considering the extensive uptake/coverage of COVID vaccination in New Zealand and globally, background level events occurring in some temporal association with the COVID vaccination have a high likelihood of coincidence.”

To bolster his opinion, Dr. Tatley referred to the case of a single individual who had experienced cancer remission after receiving a Moderna mRNA vaccine. To be able to claim that he had never heard of any association between cancer and the Covid vaccine, Dr Tatley must have been assiduously avoiding any exposure to public discussions and relevant scientific publications. It is indeed strange that Dr. Tatley hasn’t heard of the warnings issued by his eminent UK colleague Dr. Dalgleish and others.

As he is Director of the New Zealand Pharmacovigilance Centre you might expect Tatley would be aware of the massive uptick in New Zealand hospitalisations for cancer since the start of the vaccine rollout involving not one case but thousands. You might have thought he would be demanding access to cancer death statistics tallied with vaccination status just to verify whether his learned opinion of no association was correct.

You see I can be forgiven for asking again and again why excess deaths are so high and what is causing them. A parallel with the Irish Mother and Baby Homes could well be drawn. When you actually look into the data it is hard to ignore, so if you want to sweep the facts under the carpet it is best not to look at all.

How can such an obvious association remain hidden?

The answer possibly lies in a collusion between the government and the medical authorities to keep silent at any cost. The government doesn’t ask and the medical authorities don’t tell. If you have ever run a business, you will know that verification of outcomes and auditing of accounts cannot be avoided. If you fail to deliver the goods and balance the books, various inspectors and disgruntled clients might come knocking.

Governments however are in the fortunate position of being in absolute charge. Especially here in New Zealand, where there is no written constitution and a presumption of the absolute power of parliament. They can do what they like with impunity. Every three years they face the ballot box but when they do so they can hide as much as they think they can get away with.

In New Zealand, the outgoing government succeeded in winding back the clock.

Before the invention of the printing press by Gutenberg in 1450, the populace relied on the pronouncements of those in authority and whispered fragments of village gossip for information. The printing press however changed all that, learning, information and law became a matter of public property accessible via the printed word.

During the last parliamentary term, learning, information, media and law reverted to state control and the use of social media was labelled as unreliable and therefore censored. We suddenly fell back under the control of those in authority without the right to challenge government dogma or the means to assess policy outcomes. As a result, people appear to be dying directly as a result of government policy, but the evidence required to investigate this is being hidden.

In criminal law there is a principle of culpability known as ‘joint enterprise’. Where two or more parties embark on a joint enterprise, as either a principal or secondary party, each will be liable for acts committed in pursuance of that joint enterprise with the necessary intent, unless the principal goes beyond the scope of what was agreed. In other words, one party cannot escape guilt by blaming the other.

By now it is impossible to distinguish any mitigating circumstances that might excuse our government or medical authorities from their continuing actions to hide health data from public scrutiny.

Where is the Good Doctor who will publicly call time on this deadly charade? Who among our newly elected MPs will honour the dead and those whose quality life has been impaired? This is in no sense a trivial matter, nor one that can be postponed any longer.

In Ireland, a commission of inquiry was supposed to complete a report into the Mother and Baby Home deaths by 2018. To date it hasn’t done so. There are lessons here for us. A commission of inquiry alone will not guarantee justice, public questions must be answered and health data published. The New Zealand Bill of Rights needs to be embedded as a constitutional principle as a matter of urgency.