The team currently organising the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Covid-19 have misleadingly and mistakenly linked their publicity to a wholehearted endorsement of Covid vaccines.
This article is available as a PDF document and on the video below
Digital Advocacy or Information Control? Navigating the Nuanced Realm of a Pro-Vaccine Campaign
The video, set to music, depicts joyous family scenes of people working from home and celebrating in their gardens and living rooms. It encourages people to share their stories as a means of moving forward and bonding.
If you click the link below the video offering more information, you are taken to this Health New Zealand website which encourages Covid vaccination from 6 months old and up. It also promotes new Pfizer booster shots, masking, and antiviral medication. It describes side effects from the COVID-19 vaccines as rare, despite the fact that reports of adverse effects subsequent to COVID-19 vaccination dwarf any previously reported vaccination side effects by a huge factor.
If you are viewing the video on a smart TV, a runner advises you to click on the title of the video for more information. When you do so, it gives you a series of options, the first of which takes you to a QR code which links to the same Health New Zealand pro-COVID-19 vaccine information.
The comments section below the video is turned off. Clearly the Royal Commission organisers don’t want us to be able to make public comments accessible to others or hold online conversations around the topic. They want to control the flow of information. The video turns up frequently as an advertisement on YouTube which interrupts your viewing. In essence, it manipulates the viewer towards a feel good framework and creates a bland narrative that obfuscates the issues.
Overlooking Rights for Regulation: A Critical Analysis of Public Discourse and Policy Decisions Amidst the Pandemic
Crucially, it doesn’t initiate a public discussion of key concerns. For example, the New Zealand Bill of Rights guarantees the right to refuse medical treatment and experimentation. It also guarantees freedom of thought, conscience, religion, and, particularly, expression. All of these rights were curtailed during the pandemic as the government set them aside and instead instituted vaccine mandates and lockdowns which were enforced by police action, threats of criminal prosecution and actual loss of employment. Moreover, the government censored discussion on social media platforms.
None of these crucial issues which require widespread social discussion and consideration are being directly raised by the Inquiry publicity.
There is no suggestion in the video that the Royal Commission is intended to respond to concerns or that its terms of reference need revising, rather it leaves you with the impression that the Inquiry process is all about picking the approach that the government will adopt during the next pandemic (referred to as “whatever comes next”). The implication of the Health New Zealand link is that this will be a simple process of choosing from among the past and current official COVID policies.
Echoes of Prejudgment: Questioning the Integrity and Objectives of the COVID-19 Inquiry Process
Clearly, there is a suspicion that those organising the Inquiry have already made up their minds what comes next and are just going through the motions without offering a clear idea of the huge issues at stake affecting not just health and the right to life but also social cohesion, employment rights, freedom of expression, the economy, and full disclosure of vital information.
The bias evident in this video underlines the need to completely revise the scope and personnel of the current Inquiry which was set up with very limited terms of reference by the previous government. The web address which leads to the actual process of making a submission on the terms of reference of the Inquiry at Covid19Inquiry.nz occupies a corner of the screen for just five seconds at the end of the video and is not actually directly linked. In other words, you have to copy it down and enter it into your device as a separate process, whereas a direct link to the Health New Zealand pro-COVID-19 vaccine information is available throughout the 30 seconds of the video as a website link and as a QR code.
The Royal Commission of Inquiry should be a process of restoring public trust, this cannot happen until a public dialogue is instituted. As we have repeatedly reported, the Covid years have been marked by a health crisis involving record rates of hospitalisation and death which are still continuing whose causes are little understood and hardly investigated. If the public are not trusted, but rather manipulated we are in for more of the same, perhaps worse.
The government, the media, and the health service have buried their heads in the sand and promised our health problems will go away.
This article is available as a PDF document to print, download, and share.
Friday 08 March 2024: the government announced new health targets promising greatly shortened wait times and faster treatments, but incredibly failed to address why so many people are falling sick. Health Minister Shane Reti admitted the deficiencies in the announced policies, which are neither new nor realistic, saying:
“I do want to acknowledge that achieving shorter wait times for first specialist assessments and for elective treatments were tough for the previous government, and will be tough for us too.”
According to Dr Joe Mills, a consultant cardiologist at Liverpool Heart and Chest Hospital:
“We have really noticed the trend for younger people from mid-20s upwards having heart attacks in the past five years in particular. Now as a cardiologist, you wouldn’t even raise your eyebrows when seeing someone in their late 30s — it’s becoming fairly typical, which is frightening.”
The article then proceeds to trot out the usual suspects: obesity, stress, sedentary lifestyle, smoking, alcohol, and diabetes but fails to observe that none of these factors have changed appreciably or abruptly during the last five years. Something else has, and we all know what that it is, but the Daily Mail and the numerous doctors they interviewed all seem to be suffering from amnesia.
MPs Address Hidden Stats on UK Health Crisis: Hospital Admissions & Excess Deaths
This short-term memory loss is greatly aided by a determined effort to hide the worrying statistics of elevated excess death and alarming rates of hospital admissions covering a wide variety of conditions. Some UK MPs are no longer prepared to go on burying their heads in the sand like frightened ostriches.
An article in the UK Daily Telegraph entitled Health Secretary urged to release data that ‘may link Covid vaccine to excess deaths’ reports that MPs and peers have accused the Health Secretary of withholding health data. They are criticising this ‘wall of silence’ and questioning the government’s excuse of waiting lists and pandemic delays. The MPs say, “There is no place for blind faith.” Show us the data that supports your case.
The MPs believe potentially critical data – which maps the date of people’s COVID-19 vaccine doses to the date of their deaths – have been released to pharmaceutical companies but not put into the public domain. The leader of Reform UK, Richard Tice, said there was a “serious problem” with thousands more people dying than expected and suggested the side effects of coronavirus jabs could be responsible.
NZ Health Crisis Deepens: Data Censorship, GP Shortages, and Unaddressed Sickness Surge
Here in New Zealand, the government has deftly sidestepped the problem by making discussion of the data linking death and Covid vaccination status a criminal offence. Hence Health Minister Dr Shane Reti was able today to blithely announce ambitious and unrealistic health targets without any possibility of anyone questioning what exactly is going on—how many are falling sick with what and why.
Reti also made a reference to ‘bed blocking’, the belief that people are piling up in emergency departments because elderly patients are taking up hospital beds for long periods since there are no adequate care options at home. None of this amounted to a credible policy, because it fails to address the huge increase in rates of sickness among young and working age people, which has overwhelmed our health service. Particularly telling are the cases of turbo cancer and unexplained sudden death which have begun to dominate our newspaper pages.
Urgent Action Needed: Government to Speed Up Health Data Release Amid Growing Crisis
The government has announced a programme of public consultation to expand the terms of reference of the Covid Inquiry. The Inquiry will take years to report, meanwhile people of all ages are falling sick and finding it hard to get treatment. Rather than waiting for a ponderous inquiry, the government needs to act now to release critical health data for public view and discussion. Only in this way can it mobilise and fast track the required analysis and action.
Last week we reported on The Need for a Comprehensive Health Service Audit. The first 100 days of the new government have flowed past without dynamic steps to identify the causes of the health crisis. This cannot be safely postponed. Lives are at stake. This is not a time for excessive secrecy and a pretence of competence. The facts are being ignored or hidden.
An influential cross-party group of UK MPs has raised concerns that the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) knew of serious cardiac side effects of COVID-19 vaccines, including myo/pericarditis and clotting, but failed to alert the public for several months between February and June 2021. During this time, over 24 million people received the COVID-19 vaccine in the UK alone, unaware of the risks.
The UK situation finds an exact parallel in New Zealand. An OIA request H202117570 published on January 12th 2022 confirms that Medsafe, our medicines regulatory authority, was made aware of an extensive range of side effects of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine prior to its provisional approval. This included the information contained in the damning Cumulative analysis of post-authorization adverse event reports of Pfizer bnt162b2 dated 28 February 2021. Yet Medsafe failed to advise the public of any risks for some months, instead telling the public COVID-19 vaccines were beyond doubt ‘safe and effective’.
As late as December 2021, Director General of Health Dr. Ashley Bloomfield, whilst then belatedly admitting the risk of myo/pericarditis, was, as we reported in May last year, minimising its possible prevalence in his public statements and communications with District Health Boards.
MPs Demand Investigation into MHRA’s Approach to Vaccine Safety
A revealing article in the UK Daily Telegraph entitled “Medicines regulator failed to flag Covid vaccine side effects and must be investigated, say MPs” reports that the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) of 24 MPs on pandemic response and recovery has written to the Health Select Committee stating that “far from protecting patients” the regulator MHRA operates in a way that “puts them at serious risk.”
The group also warned that the MHRA Yellow Card reporting system – which encourages patients and doctors to flag-up medicine side effects – “grossly” underestimates complexities, and in some instances picks up just one in 180 cases of harm. In reply, Steve Brine, the health committee chairman, has said an inquiry into patient safety is “very likely”.
How is it possible that medicines regulators are failing in their duty and endangering public health?
APPG has submitted concerns that MHRA regulation of medicine is funded by the pharmaceutical industry and said the body had shifted from focusing on scrutiny to trying to help drugs get approved. Dame June Raine, the chief executive of the MHRA, who announced she would be stepping down last week, has previously said the agency was transitioning from “watchdog to the enabler,” a phrase which the APPG said warranted its own investigation.
Undermining Public Trust: The Conflict of Interest and Evasion in Drug Safety Regulation
The APPG said that concerns raised directly with the MHRA had been met with “an habitually dismissive and evasive response”.A phrase that aptly fits the tone and substance of Medsafe safety reports, which doggedly maintain to this day against all evidence that record number of reports of vaccine harm and death lodged with CARM (Centre for Adverse Reactions Monitoring) are unrelated to Covid vaccination. An indefensible position.
Medicine regulators, including Medsafe, are funded by the pharmaceutical industry they are supposed to regulate, which fosters a cosy if not corrupt relationship. Much is said about revolving doors between regulators and industry. Whilst this is true of countries with significant pharmaceutical manufacturing, the problem is more extensive than that. Global supply chains ensure that most countries end up mistakenly relying on lax or biased regulators based far away in other jurisdictions for a heads up on safety.
Often, the information is not originating from regulators at all. ICMRA (the international coalition of medicines regulatory authorities), of which Medsafe and MHRA are members, is largely funded by the global pharmaceutical industry. It operates a database providing information on drug safety and risks to its members. The database ensures that drug approval is semi-automated from the international level, which undermines the independent vigilance of national bodies. It provides an illusion of safety without the substance to guarantee freedom from risk to public health.
Rethinking Drug Safety: The Urgent Need for Transparency and Rigor in the Approval Process
The failure to publicly acknowledge the risks of COVID-19 vaccines shows what an unthinking process drug approval has become. The problem extends to a wide range of novel drugs. For example, the MHRA recently said it would investigate why very widely prescribed blood thinners were causing dangerous side effects in between two and five per cent of patients. In other words, as many as 5 out of 100 patients are being seriously affected by drugs MHRA had previously approved—an unprecedented stratospheric rate of risk. This augurs a catastrophic breakdown in drug safety regulation.
The introduction of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines raises even more serious safety concerns. The completely novel class of mRNA and other biotech vaccines which edit the command and control mechanisms of our immune system have been introduced despite early warning signals of serious harm at high rates. There was no long term testing data because of the rapid response to the pandemic but crucially nor was there any adequate on-going plan in place to monitor the missing long term effect data according to the canons of accepted risk assessment and criteria of causality.
Regulators like MHRA and Medsafe simply failed in their safety role and compounded this mistake in an apparent frenzy of ‘safe and effective’ public relations hype. How could they do that? They fell for the biotechnology myth promoted by PR gurus. In essence, the idea that biotechnology is so precise and accurate that any desirable trait can be enhanced scientifically and safely. A gobbledegook and totally at variance with published research.
Where does this leave New Zealand?
In 2023, we had the lowest birth rate ever in New Zealand, 26% below what is required to maintain our population. Our death rate is still running at 8% above the longer term rate. Life expectancy has stalled. These are canary in the coal mine figures.
Official mortality data by vax status released on February 15 under an Official Information Request HNZ00033573 show the excess deaths are almost entirely among the vaccinated, while the death rate of the unvaccinated remains stable.
These figures should raise the alarm about the rapid introduction of biotechnology in healthcare. Yet Health New Zealand, the courts, and the government are still pursuing a campaign to discredit a sincere and principled whistleblower raising the alarm about excess deaths, whilst ignoring their own recently released figures, which, as the chart above indicates, verify and amplify the serious concerns highlighted by the whistleblower. Love is blind. The medical love affair with biotechnology needs to be put under the microscope. It is misguided. Health service administrators, drug regulators, and doctors alike need to face up to past mistakes and their own data illustrating the reality of declining public health.
The second paper made headlines in newspapers all around the world, see for example “Two very rare Covid vaccine side-effects detected in global study of 99 million” in the Guardian. The Guardian article and most others highlighted the use of the word ‘rare’ in the paper when referring to adverse events and translated this into a bold endorsement of Covid vaccine safety saying:
Results confirm how uncommon known complications are as researchers confirm benefits from vaccines still ‘vastly outweigh the risks’.
The use of quotation marks implies that the phrase was lifted directly from the paper. It wasn’t. The paper made the same mistake we have referred to in the last three releases of the Hatchard Report. It was a disease-specific assessment of safety. It looked at a list of just 13 specific diseases and assessed whether their occurrence following vaccination was higher than the established background rate of these conditions in the general population pre-pandemic. It did not investigate any effect on all-cause mortality, the measure mostly likely to assess safety or risk.
In the event, rather than confirming benefits, it found the incidence of Guillain-Barré syndrome, cerebral venous sinus thrombosis, myocarditis, and pericarditis were related to Covid vaccination as previously admitted, but also found an increased incidence of acute disseminated encephalomyelitis or acute brain or spinal inflammation following the first dose of mRNA-1273 vaccine.
It also cautiously noted that “Other potential safety signals that require further investigation were identified.” It did not adequately deal with the known under-reporting of conditions following COVID-19 vaccination, and whilst using the term Cardiovascular Conditions, it only investigated myopericarditis occurrence, not the incidence of heart attacks, nor did it look at cancer rates.
Therefore, the authors prejudged the issue by looking at a very limited pre-selected list of conditions, the same discredited method employed by health authorities around the world, including New Zealand, to minimise the significance of and dismiss the avalanche of reports of post-vaccination injury. In other words, they supposed there were just a few conditions that could be related to vaccination, thereby refusing to acknowledge the unprecedented increases in all-cause mortality brought about by unusual increases in a very wide range of conditions.
Gibson’s paper is tightly focused on correcting the methodology used by Michael Baker and others to claim that New Zealand has had a net fall in all-cause mortality since the start of the pandemic. A claim that has been widely reported by politicians and the media in an attempt to reassure the public.
Gibson shows that the methods used to project New Zealand’s population assumed a rising population, which was not the case due to border closures. When the actual population is taken into account, cumulative all-cause mortality rose by 4% between 2020 and 2022 and then rose by around 8% in 2023. Gibson points out this is not statistically distinguishable from comparable countries such as Denmark.
Gibson notes, “Accurate health and economic data are needed to evaluate policy responses to COVID-19. A potentially comprehensive health indicator is excess deaths.” His paper confirms excess deaths are rising and thereby casts doubt upon current health policy decision-making.
So How Should the Authorities Respond?
Clearly, hospitals and emergency departments are overwhelmed. Health Service New Zealand publicity keeps emphasising the importance of Covid boosters, but what if Covid boosters are a part of the problem or even the main culprit? Whether this is the case or not, the government has no clear idea of what specific health conditions are driving the health crisis. Any attempt to alleviate the situation will require an accurate audit of health care usage by age and condition and a corresponding analysis of all-cause mortality.
Three years ago, the New Zealand government and other governments around the world granted the Global Vaccine Data Network (GVDN) unfettered access to their health data and statistics. The paper published this month by GVDN shows just how miserably GVDN has let them down. It failed to ask any questions that would detect any long term effects of the Covid vaccines.
It is time for governments to insist that health services provide them with up to date information on the extent of health care usage and all-cause mortality, and that also needs to be related to Covid vaccine status.
A YouTube video by Dr John Campbell details the extent of the problem and makes the compelling observation that excess mortality is a problem in highly vaccinated countries including Canada, USA, UK, Australia, New Zealand, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Japan, Netherlands, South Korea and Taiwan, but nonexistent in nations with low vaccination rates including Bulgaria, Roumania and Hungary.
There is a popular saying in India ‘Truth Alone Triumphs’, this is echoed in various forms in cultures around the world including Shakespeare’s “Truth Will Out”. Truth, by its nature, is what it is; it exists independent of anyone’s opinion or whim. As such, it is eternal. Despite the growing tendency to believe that reality is what I think it is, truth surfaces over time. This statement reflects the Cosmic order, which is so vast and inviolable that no individual or government can swim against its tide for any but a short time.
Instead of relying on political rhetoric, lobbyists, foreign commercial interests, or consultants, the government needs to order a comprehensive audit of our health statistics, and then the truth will out.
I had a shock this weekend, which has turned into a wake-up call. For years I had been sprinkling Black Salt (Kala Namak) on my avocado toast with its unique sulphurous flavour reminiscent of eggs.
The traditional texts of Ayurveda recommend it as an aid to digestion. Recently, it has become something of a sensation among Western cooks and chefs seeking new, exciting flavours for their dishes. In the shops, it is often labelled ‘Indian Volcanic Salt,’ and I always imagined it was mined in some remote exotic place in the Himalayas.
But it is not volcanic at all, browsing the internet I discovered that it is manufactured by an ancient process using extreme heat to fuse a particular kind of mineral salt with a range of herbs and fruits. The shock came when I discovered that there are only a couple of places left preparing the highly prized salt using traditional methods. Instead, industrial companies are making a look-alike salt that tastes somewhat similar but is, in fact, a blend of chemicals, some of which, such as fluoride, are quite poisonous. Hence, for years I have been unwittingly poisoning myself.
You may comment that perhaps the lack of regulation in the diverse Indian market place is to blame, whereas here in the West we have stricter standards and labelling, but is this the case? Among New Zealand’s most prized export products is butter from mostly grass fed cows roaming on green pastures often within sight of snow capped mountains. So far, so good, until you begin to ask how the butter is made. Numerous YouTube videos explain a very reassuring process of churning cream, however more than 90% of butter you find in the shops is no longer made that way.
Giant factories use secretive technologies that more closely resemble margarine manufacture. This involves separating out the different kinds of fat in cream and using only the softer fats to make spreadable butter. The essentials of this process were discovered in NZ in 1970, but only became widely used around 1990, by which time, after much research, a commercially viable industrial manufacturing process had been perfected. So what became of the harder fats? Yes, you guessed it, they were not thrown away. They just might have found their way into ordinary butter.
Your grandmother might tell you that around 1990 butter no longer performed quite the way it used to in home baking. While those who make clarified butter (ghee) for cooking found that when heated, butter separated into strange layers of milky liquid and greenish fat unsuitable for ghee. No one even informed the public of the switch, and the health implications of the hard separated fat content remains an open question, no doubt uninvestigated and swept under the carpet. Butter manufacturers all over the world now use these techniques aside from the few boutique creameries still traditionally churning.
This has happened despite the fact that traditional churning can be and has been a large scale simple process. It is also very easy to make butter at home. It is the work of just a few minutes to churn room temperature cream using a whisk or kitchen aid and then squeeze out the buttermilk (which can be used in other yummy dishes).
The Global Dairy Industry Didn’t Stop There
As vegetarianism became more popular, the use of animal rennet in cheese became a marketing problem. Animal rennet is used to precipitate the curds from milk as the first stage of cheese making. The solution was ‘microbial rennet’. It was much cheaper, more readily available, and acceptable to animal loving vegetarians. Microbial rennet is made in a laboratory, and it is so powerful that just a few drops precipitate the solids from the liquid milk. Today almost all cheese throughout the world is made using this so-called ‘ethical’ microbial rennet. That is progress, right?
Just think, when you eat cheese, you are now ingesting a powerful agent designed in a laboratory to precipitate solids in solution. Well, there are a lot of solids happily performing their functions in solution in our body. We are 60% water. If you have problems with constipation, haemorrhoids, blood clotting, varicose veins, menstrual pains, and other health problems involving congestion or coagulation, you might consider how much commercial cheese you are consuming.
However, you can create fresh cheese at home within ten minutes by heating whole milk (not homogenised milk) to a full rolling boil and then turn off the heat, add a little vinegar, lemon juice, or pure yoghurt. Stir and sieve to create a tasty fresh cheese that is healthy. If you crave the sharp tastes, cheeses like brie or camembert and some European cheeses are still made using traditional methods (but read the labels).
We like a slice of bread with our butter and cheese, and here, too, the industrial chemists are hard at work. In 1961, the Chorleywood Bread Process was invented, which enabled the continuous production of bread rather than the traditional batch process. This necessitated the introduction of hard fats and some mysterious bread improvers, which has given modern packaged bread that rubbery springy quality which seems to last for weeks.
No problem though, you can buy an automatic bread maker and the machine will make it for you without hard fats. Bread lovers will know about sour doughs and have their favourite artisan shops.
Synthetic Ingredients Approved as Substantial Equivalence
You can see the problem can’t you? Industrial scale manufacturers are taking over our food supply and changing it without telling us. Government regulators work hand in glove with such companies. Medsafe lists over 3000 synthetic ingredients it has ‘approved’ often under a convention known as ‘substantial equivalence’. This does not generally involve testing, but instead, if something looks and tastes similar to a natural ingredient or has a chemical composition that is somewhat similar, it is probably OK and therefore approved for general consumption, or is it OK?
A 2019 study in the USA, the country leading the way towards industrial food production and processing entitled “Burden of Gastrointestinal Symptoms in the United States: Results of a Nationally Representative Survey of Over 71,000 Americans” records that there are over 100 million ambulance visits to ED each year in the US as a result of gastrointestinal (GI) problems. A survey of 71,000 individuals found that during the week prior (yes, just one representative week) symptoms included heartburn/reflux (30.9%), abdominal pain (24.8%), bloating (20.6%), diarrhea (20.2%), and constipation (19.7%). Less common symptoms were nausea/vomiting (9.5%), dysphagia (5.8%), and bowel incontinence (4.8%).
So, our government-approved, highly-processed and adulterated diet might not be so safe after all. There are a number of factors for the wary consumer to consider here. The purity of ingredients (organic farming excludes pesticides), additives, synthetic substitutions, genetic modification, and changes to traditional processes. Lax regulations are allowing all of these to be altered without public discussion or labelling.
Which brings me back to black salt. I was really disgusted, but then I should have been more alert and less naive. Supermarkets are now full of processed packaged food that is unhealthy and it is a long list. The Dutch have a saying “If you want to be happy for a day, get drunk. If you want to be happy for a year, get married. But if you want to be happy for a lifetime, plant a garden.” If you haven’t already voted with your feet, you might start with a vegetable patch. If gardening is very new and intimidating, talk to neighbours and friends who can help you get started. Modern civilization began with agriculture, make sure it doesn’t end with biotech culture.
As you are fully aware we have suffered an extended health crisis along with most nations, closely related to the emergence of a novel coronavirus and our response to it. We are still suffering the effects of this pandemic. This letter relates to the concerning and puzzling replies of Health New Zealand to two Official Information Act (OIA) inquiries seeking information about health outcomes following the Covid-19 response. In particular, the persistent high rates of excess deaths and any possible relationship with Covid vaccination.
Firstly I want to appreciate the dedication and knowledge of the medical staff at Health New Zealand. I have recently been under care at two hospitals for an extended period. I underwent surgery and I was deeply impressed by and grateful for the competence and quality of care I received. I have no doubt this saved my life. We are justly proud of a long tradition of funded public health care in New Zealand and we all wish this to continue to play its vital role in promoting and protecting public health.
My letter relates to OIA responses HNZ00013886 and HNZ00033573. Both requests asked for information about the availability of any data that matches all-cause mortality with Covid vaccination status. I note that prior to the pandemic the existence of any relationship, even if minor, between the use of a drug or vaccine and all-cause mortality was considered critical in evaluating drug safety.
“All-cause mortality, (in contrast to disease-specific mortality), does not require judgments about the cause of death. Instead, all that this endpoint requires is an accurate ascertainment of deaths and when they occur. Furthermore, all-cause mortality is a measure that can capture unexpected lethal side effects of medical care. Because of the concern that some cardiac interventions may cause non-cardiac deaths, for example, there has been a trend toward the use of all-cause mortality as the primary end point in cardiac drug trials.”
As you know, the various Covid vaccines did not go through the normal long term trials that are designed to pick up any such relationship. Now, three years since the introduction of Covid vaccines in New Zealand, it is possible to remedy this deficiency by comparing the health outcomes of vaccinated cohorts with those of matched unvaccinated cohorts separated by age and cause of death.
It would not be in any way an exaggeration to suggest that this comparison will settle any debate concerning Covid vaccine safety.
It would enable Health NZ to respond appropriately based on sound evidence. Incredibly, the replies from Health NZ to the OIA requests cited above present a completely contrary picture. They present a puzzling collection of ad hoc statements without evidential support or compelling logic.
HNZ00013886 says:
“To provide some context, those who have been vaccinated/had boosters are more likely to have high all-cause mortality risk (additional to being aged) than those who did not. Therefore, vaccination will likely be misinterpreted as being associated with increased risk of death. To explain this requires a regression level analysis, which can take upwards of three months based on previous experience.”
The Health NZ official, Michael Clearly, Acting OIA Manager continued:
“Given the amount of work that would still have to be carried out to provide you with this information, we have decided to refuse your request under section 18(f) of the Act as the information requested cannot be made available without substantial collation or research.”
Thus the reply appears to concede that the vaccinated do have a higher rate of all-cause death, a huge red flag, but then decides this does not need to be investigated.
The justification for this lack of action appears to be an unsupported and statistically implausible assertion that “it is likely that vaccination may still appear to increase mortality risk due to ‘residual confounding’ coming from measurement of comorbidities.”
Dr. Diana Sarfati, the Director General of Health is an eminently qualified cancer researcher, I expect that she will appreciate the underlying assumption of this strange assertion: i.e. 87% of our population who have been vaccinated are a special group who were intrinsically sicker than the general population from the beginning. A very highly unlikely and prima facie completely untenable hypothesis.
HNZ00033573 goes further and takes an even more alarming direction. Danielle Coe, Manager (OIA) Government Services replies that:
“…an order was made by the Employment Relations Authority (ERA) on 1st December 2023 which prevents all access, use, and publication of information held by Te Whatu Ora on the National Vaccination Database, or any copies, extracts or information derived from it.”
In other words, it appears to close the door to any research into any relationship that might or might not exist between Covid vaccination and all-cause mortality. The reply asserts that even if such research were to use anonymised data, there is a residual privacy interest in the information that would likely damage the public interest.
Despite this, the OIA is accompanied by an anonymised data set of deaths by age, month, number of Covid-19 shots and days to death. This was released on Dec 15 but a preliminary look at this data appears to confirm the assertion of HNZ00013886 that the vaccinated might indeed have a higher mortality rate. Note: here are still key pieces of information that are missing from the released data set.
Despite this, the OIA reply asserts in its own words:
“Vaccination is safe and effective and everyone should keep up to date with their vaccines to protect themselves, their whānau and their communities. There is no evidence that vaccination is responsible for excess mortality in New Zealand.”
I trust you can see the fallacy in this argument. No rigorous investigation is necessary into long term Covid vaccine safety, because vaccination is safe—a circular argument. Such a categorical statement should require evidence and analysis, but none is provided.
The naivety is on a par with this tweet from rich lister Lord Alan Sugar who reports he has had six Covid jabs but has come down with his second infection which was serious and then says “One will never know how much more ill I would have been had I not had the 6 jabs.” Sugar appears unaware of the well known evolutionary course of viruses to adapt and infect highly vaccinated populations.
I suppose, although please correct me if we are wrong, that you are relying on the conclusions of studies such as a paper published in the journal Vaccine on 2nd February entitled “The impact of Covid-19 vaccination in Aotearoa New Zealand: A modelling study” authored by a group of NZ academics. The Abstract claims that between January 2022 and June 2023:
“Our results estimate that vaccines saved 6650 (95% credible interval [4424, 10180]) lives, and prevented 74500 [51000, 115400] years of life lost and 45100 [34400, 55600] hospitalisations during this 18-month period.”
They concluded that: “Covid-19 vaccination has greatly reduced the health burden in New Zealand”
The paper itself, as the title suggests, is a mathematical modelling of the effect of vaccines, masking, and antiviral drugs on the rates of Covid infection, hospitalisation, and deaths. The error in the paper being its reliance on disease-specific (i.e. Covid-specific) data rather than the more reliable all-cause mortality data.
The paper does not investigate differences in health outcomes between the vaccinated and unvaccinated and thus falls flat at the first hurdle. It completely ignores the issue that overall mortality is ~20% higher about 5 months after vax roll-out compared with historic trends and continues high until the present. A key point is found in the paper’s supplement which describes their model.
“The antibody titre is assumed to be a correlate of protection and a given titre is generally more protective against more severe clinical endpoints, in line with the findings of [5].”
Translated, this means, the authors assumed that the vaccine was effective against all-cause death and severe Covid and just projected the benefits of the vaccine based on this assumption. They never even considered the possibility that the vaccine was not beneficial, which is what the all-cause mortality data in NZ is indicating. In simple terms, vaccine harm was considered unthinkable.
As a result, the paper’s claims are at complete variance with the overall statistics for excess deaths in New Zealand during the study period which were amongst the highest in the world when compared to the pre-pandemic period accompanied by very high levels of hospitalisation especially for cardiac conditions, but also cancer. As you know we have very high volumes and long wait times in ED. There are 60,000 NZers waiting more than four months to see a specialist. No doubt these are figures the government wishes to see reduced.
Yet Health New Zealand is apparently unwilling to investigate a possible causal link to Covid vaccination.
We contend that the secrecy imposed by the ERA, no doubt with the encouragement of Health New Zealand, is excessive and amounts to a denial of natural justice. Members of the public have a right to expect that the government will take all appropriate and adequate steps to ensure that medical interventions are safe. Setting up regulations that ensure safety cannot be fully investigated using the normal criteria of risk assessment is a clear breach of Provision 27 of the NZ Bill of Rights—The Right To Justice which states:
(1) 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.
(2) Every person whose rights, obligations, or interests protected or recognised by law have been affected by a determination of any tribunal or other public authority has the right to apply, in accordance with law, for judicial review of that determination.
(3) Every person has the right to bring civil proceedings against, and to defend civil proceedings brought by, the Crown, and to have those proceedings heard, according to law, in the same way as civil proceedings between individuals.
This provision binds the Crown, Tribunals, Regulators and Public Authorities to respect natural justice which according to the NZ Bill of Rights includes the right not to be deprived of life, the right to refuse medical treatment and the right not to be subjected to medical or scientific experimentation.
Court of Appeal decides NZDF Vaccine Mandate Unlawful
Today, the Court of Appeal upheld an appeal by members of the New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) and reaffirmed that the NZDF COVID-19 vaccine mandate is unlawful. The High Court ruled in Yardley (2021) that the government vaccine mandate for all NZDF and uniformed Police workers was unlawful. Despite this, the NZDF then created its own internal vaccine mandate, forcing those in uniform to get vaccinated or lose their job.
The Court of Appeal ruling today held that the NZDF vaccine mandate limited the right to refuse medical treatment and to manifest religious beliefs. It decided that the Chief of Defence Force was not justified in limiting these rights by imposing a vaccine mandate in the way that he did. This is the third time that members of the NZDF have successfully challenged a vaccine mandate.
Clearly the courts have decided that members of the NZDF have rights that were denied to the general public by the previous government and the courts upon whom vaccine mandates were imposed bypassing any redress under the provisions of the NZ Bill of Rights.
The OIA replies from Health NZ raise deeper issues of human rights and natural justice. There is clearly an admission in the reply to HNZ00013886 that some sections of Health New Zealand believe or possibly have found out that vaccinated individuals have higher rates of all-cause mortality. The Health Act 1956 establishes the founding principles of the NZ Health Service. Its overriding purpose is stated in:
“Clause 3A: The Ministry shall have the function of improving, promoting, and protecting public health”
A decision to refuse to investigate an increased rate of all-cause mortality shared by a group who have undergone a specific intervention administered by Health NZ amounts to a violation of the founding legislative principles under which Health NZ operates and a violation of the rights of its patients.
Moreover the continued assertions of Covid vaccine safety can only be seen as an attempt to avoid public accountability and circumvent Provision 27 of the NZ Bill of Rights as explained above.
In this regard, the energies of Health NZ appear to have been misdirected following the data leak from a whistleblower. An article in Stuff yesterday entitled Covid-19 vaccinators personal details leaked on US blogsite details extensive efforts by the Chief Executive of Health NZ Margie Apa to investigate whether the anonymised data that was leaked could possibly with “considerable effort and technical expertise” indicate the identities of some individuals. This is in stark contrast with the OIA replies from Health NZ, which point blank refuse to investigate record levels of actual deaths. Instead Apa doubles down on the unsupported assertion that Covid vaccines are safe.
The implication of the Stuff article and the Health NZ response to the data leak is that somehow people raising questions about vaccine safety are rogue operators. This is a classic smear. In my experience, hundreds of NZers are writing to us with their personal stories and those of relatives and friends concerning severe health issues following Covid vaccination. Investigating these issues should be among the primary responsibilities and top priorities of Health NZ.
How could investigation of all-cause mortality be sidelined?
I have worked at a genetic testing company. I suspect that Health New Zealand has lacked sufficient independent advice on the known health risks associated with gene therapies and biotechnology manufacturing processes that have been reported extensively in the scientific literature. Instead, the historical reliance on vaccine technology and the presumption of vaccine safety took precedence over caution with a novel biotechnology
In essence, we are used to a linear conception of drug interventions. In the subcellular world of genetic interventions, a linear model needs to be replaced with an expectation of multiple side effects. Some genes undertake as many as 200 functions in conjunction with a multiplicity of other genes. These functions are transmitted through RNA molecules which exhibit a similar complexity of action. It is no surprise that mRNA vaccines might interfere with these fundamental processes and have a diversity of adverse effects in multiple organ systems that could extend to a range of immune system failures.
In this context, the absence of long term safety testing and monitoring of all-cause mortality can be potentially catastrophic for long term public health. Whatever rules have been created under the smoke screen of confidentiality, the net result is that vital clues are being missed to the detriment of public health and well being.
I am asking you to reply and elaborate the reasons why Health New Zealand is ignoring safety signals and red flags, whilst insisting that mRNA vaccines are safe and effective against the mounting evidence of data signals being reported in scientific journals?
On what legal basis is Health NZ flouting its fundamental duty to protect public health?
I remain fully supportive of the daily efforts of Health New Zealand staff to help individuals facing a great variety of health challenges, but I know this effort cannot be managed effectively unless sufficient analysis of causal factors is undertaken.
I don’t see how Health NZ can continue to omit traditionally sanctioned standard safety analysis, when the actual data of all-cause mortality as it relates to Covid vaccination status would settle any argument very quickly.
As Minister of Health, do you plan to overturn the current ban and secrecy surrounding this traditional avenue of safety analysis, if so when? Will you insist that Health New Zealand rectify errors of judgement and fully investigate any relationship between all-cause mortality and vaccination status broken down by age and condition? There is an urgent need to do so to protect life and an overriding public interest in the outcome.
As you know we live in extraordinary times, of note not just because of our technological achievements, but also because of the pervading mood of science fiction that sits easily with those leading us and a population schooled to accept the dream.
We are continuously sold promises of health breakthroughs that are just around the corner, but we forget they have been just around the corner for decades. We are told technology, and especially biotechnology, will enable us to live longer, healthier lives in greater comfort, yet publicly available statistics show we are now living shorter lives with greater stress, greater wealth divides, and ever-growing rates of chronic and serious illness, including cancers.
I was forcibly reminded this week that it is heresy to deny the imagined march of progress. The burgeoning class of highly paid government technocrats, regulators, and consultants, along with the medical establishment, will do almost anything to protect their imagined future, and that appears now to include the loss of life. Just remember that one murderer or the work of a serial killer is invariably tracked down, but actions that kill millions can be passed off as the price of progress or peace.
A discussion between Dr. John Campbell and Mr. John O’Looney, funeral Director from Milton Keynes, UK, published on YouTube laid bare the deceit of the UK authorities in denying justice for victims and information to the public. The discussion detailed the refusal of coroners and pathologists to investigate the well documented formation of unusual fibrous clots in many Covid vaccinated individuals, including some young people who died suddenly as a result of the consequent thrombosis. The excuse of the senior authorities: the clots must have formed after death, a complete impossibility as death ushers in decay but never growth.
The speakers pointed out that the denial of vaccine damage goes right up to PM Rishi Sunak. To acknowledge that novel mRNA vaccines might be unsafe is truly off limits for our medical practitioners, researchers, administrators, and the leaders of once great nations.
Unfortunately, it is also happening here in trusting New Zealand.
“Our results estimate that vaccines saved 6650 (95% credible interval [4424, 10180]) lives, and prevented 74500 [51000, 115400] years of life lost and 45100 [34400, 55600] hospitalisations during this 18-month period.”
They concluded that: “Covid-19 vaccination has greatly reduced the health burden in New Zealand”
The paper itself, as the title suggests, is a mathematical modelling of the effect of vaccines, masking, and antiviral drugs on the rates of Covid infection, hospitalisation, and deaths. The above claims appear to be at complete variance with the overall statistics for excess deaths in New Zealand during the study period which were amongst the highest in the world when compared to the pre-pandemic period and also at variance with the continuing reports that Health NZ is overwhelmed with high volumes of illness.
So who is right?
The paper does not investigate differences in health outcomes between the vaccinated and unvaccinated and thus falls flat at the first hurdle. It completely ignores the issue that overall mortality is ~20% higher about 5 months after vax roll-out compared with historic trends and continues high until the present. A key point is found in the paper’s supplement which describes their model.
“The antibody titre is assumed to be a correlate of protection and a given titre is generally more protective against more severe clinical endpoints, in line with the findings of [5].”
Translated, this means, the authors assumed that the vaccine was effective against death and severe Covid and just projected the benefits of the vaccine based on this assumption. They never even considered the possibility that the vaccine was not beneficial, which is what the all-cause mortality data in New Zeland is indicating. In simple terms, vaccine harm was considered unthinkable.
It is actually very hard indeed to deny the existence of continuing high excess deaths, they are after all official published figures. The leaked vaccination/death data only adds to the misery of officials who are fighting a rearguard action to deny the obvious. Here is a recent reply to an OIA request made to Health New Zealand. The original request was made almost a year ago and asks Health New Zealand among other things for:
“Data regarding the vaccination status and age brackets of All Cause Mortalities in New Zealand each month since 2019 to present”
This is of course the holy grail of Covid data if we are ever to learn what is causing the collapse of our health system and the blow out in excess deaths. Health New Zealand explained that after a miserly 100 hours of work over a whole year to try to track down the information, they have put it in the too hard basket and are refusing to answer the request because they say it would involve them in too much work.
However, that is not the whole sorry story. The Health New Zealand reply includes this revealing admission:
“To provide some context, those who have been vaccinated/had boosters are more likely to have high all-cause mortality risk (additional to being aged) than those who did not. Therefore, vaccination will likely be misinterpreted as being associated with increased risk of death.”
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to conclude that whatever the 100 hours of work yielded, it almost certainly confirmed a higher rate of all-cause mortality among the vaccinated.
This admission is extraordinary and damning.
The author of the Health New Zealand reply hedges bets by saying that the differential mortality is “likely” due to “residual confounding”. They are suggesting here that the vaccinated population had some unidentified different characteristics from the unvaccinated which predisposes them to die at a greater rate.
However 87% of the population has been jabbed and/or boosted, this is not a group who were selected because they were sick, old or on the verge of death, it was almost everyone. Because of mandates, healthy working age people had cause to be vaccinated. To suggest that they might be dying in greater numbers as a result of some uninvestigated statistical bias which Health New Zealand is refusing to assess, because of lack of time, resources, and presumably inclination, is utterly absurd and exhibits a blatant disregard for life,
In fact, Health New Zealand is continuing with a counter factual narrative that biotech vaccines are safe and effective, as such they are refusing to face reality. The public are the losers here, left in the dark and continually urged to get boosted. The unvaccinated are still being labelled conspiracy theorists.
Health New Zealand and its employees are sworn to protect our health. In that light, this question is of the essence: Is the Covid mRNA vaccine safe or is it killing people? Apparently, even Health New Zealand is afraid that it is killing people, but they are refusing to investigate. Because of their deep faith in one word ‘vaccination’ and their enthusiastic embrace of our biotechnology future, they have decided to stone wall any attempt to address the situation. In effect, they are prepared to let people die in order to defend their faith.
So what is the right approach here?
Pre-pandemic, the most important criterion of safety in drug trials was any effect on mortality. This paper entitled “All-Cause Mortality in Randomized Trials of Cancer Screening” from 2002 spells out the overriding importance of looking at all-cause mortality as an indicator of drug safety or harm, saying:
“All-cause mortality, (in contrast to disease specific mortality), does not require judgments about the cause of death. Instead, all that this end point requires is an accurate ascertainment of deaths and when they occur. Furthermore, all-cause mortality is a measure that can capture unexpected lethal side effects of medical care. Because of the concern that some cardiac interventions may cause non-cardiac deaths, for example, there has been a trend toward the use of all-cause mortality as the primary end point in cardiac drug trials.”
The paper in the Vaccine journal cited previously and the OIA reply from Health New Zealand are relying on discussion based on Covid-specific outcomes alone, they are ignoring the huge rise in all-cause mortality. They are ignoring the canons of accepted scientific assessment, in doing so they are failing in their duty to protect public health and life.
So what do we think of all this?
Clearly, a huge number of people, many associated with the medical profession, have formed a mutually supportive network of communal amnesia in the face of fact and standard procedure. Incredibly, it appears they are prepared to put even their own lives at risk, let alone the public’s in order to justify their opinions.
There is of course more to this story and I am very grateful for those well versed in scientific practice with whom I correspond and hold discussions. As you know, the Pfizer vaccine was never subjected to long term testing prior to its release, so there was no opportunity to assess its impact on all-cause mortality. This is something that can be, and desperately should be corrected right away.
So why did the government allow a novel experimental biotech engineered vaccine into the country and mandate its use on virtually the whole population? This document from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) explains the twisted logic that was used to bypass the obvious safety issues. The EPA decided that the mRNA vaccine was not an ‘organism’ according to their interpretation of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (HSNO) Act and therefore did not require regulation. In reaching this erroneous conclusion that suited the government of the day, the Decision Making Committee (DMC) of the EPA worked closely with Pfizer and concluded:
“The DMC decided that the only thing that BNT162b2 was capable of producing was the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, and not more copies of itself. On this basis, the DMC determined that BNT162b2 did not meet any of the criteria for it to be called an organism.”
The EPA never investigated whether the mRNA vaccine might be a hazardous substance, they decided it was safe in the absence of any long term testing which for novel vaccines would normally take place over at least ten years.
If gain of function experimentation, biotechnology innovation, military exploitation and casual public exposure to increasing risks of novel medical interventions is allowed to continue unchecked and in fact enthusiastically funded and defended, there is little doubt that there will be another pandemic and there will be a deepening of our medical crisis. Given the existing illusion of biotech safety and efficacy still governing the thoughts and actions of those in charge, the future response of governments and medical authorities will be unpredictable, likely draconian, and possibly catastrophic.
I think you will agree with me that such a pervasive alliance of deliberate scientific amnesia directly involving the medical authorities and their regulatory agencies which has firmly established itself over four years will probably now be very hard to shift. Despite this, please make a submission to the Covid-19 inquiry which is seeking public input to expand its terms of reference, you may do so at the following website: Covid-19 Commission Inquiry Have Your Say.
It used to be the case that kindergarten children played at ‘connecting the dots’ to make drawings, these days this activity is considered to be too structured. Which brings me to the question “Have we lost the capacity to connect the dots?”
So do we still believe in the efficacy of Covid mRNA vaccines? Apparently we do, against all evidence and common sense. A multitude of government websites, including the most recently updated, advise“People should not wait to get a booster”.
Meanwhile Te Whatu Ora reports 60,000 Kiwis are waiting too long for an appointment to see a specialist. That is a 67% increase on a year ago and the health service admits “Referrals for first specialist assessments are greater than our capacity to treat.” In other words:we can’t cope with the additional sheer volume of extra illnesses.
Cardiac departments have been especially hard hit. Almost a year ago we reported leaked data from the Wellington Region documenting an 83% rise in hospitalisations for heart attacks. The latest official figures from Te Whatu Ora show this was not a one off statistical blip.
We are not alone. The Office of National Statistics in the UK reports that long term sickness sufficient to incapacitate from working has reached a record 2.8 million. Up by 33% when compared to pre-pandemic levels. UK excess deaths are running at record levels, as they are here in New Zealand, but Joe Public doesn’t appear to know about it and Governments don’t care to discuss it.
Curiously there is no official national debate on the causes of the alarming decline in public health. As we have been suggesting for two years now, it is vital that health outcomes be documented by Covid vaccine status, age, and type of illness. Without this data it is impossible to rule the suspected effect of the Covid vaccine out or in.
So what is the official response? A Covid Commission of Inquiry. Thank goodness you might say, that is until you read the terms of reference of the Commission effective 27 September 2023. Incredibly, the Commission intended:
1. To use information that is publicly available rather than the data which has not been made public.
2. The Commission does not intend to summon witnesses itself or take evidence under oath.
3. Neither the public nor media will be entitled to attend without the Commissioners’ permission.
4. No person will be permitted to cross-examine those the Commissioners are meeting with. Thereby omitting a fundamental principle of natural justice.
5. Commissioners will be focused on identifying strategies and measures that could strengthen New Zealand’s preparedness for, and response to, any future pandemic.
6. The Commission does not intend to investigate the safety of mRNA Covid vaccines
The two current Commissioners are:
Chairman of the Inquiry: Professor Tony Blakely, an Australian epidemiologist who has jointly authored articles with Professor Michael Baker a New Zealand epidemiologist and high profile advocate of universal Covid mRNA vaccination.
John Whitehead an economist, formerly an Executive Director and member of the Board of the World Bank.
If you think any conclusions of such an inquiry will be comprehensive, revealing, or even in a deep sense healthy or scientific, it is highly probable you will be disappointed. Especially given its terms of reference and the historical views of the Chairman of the Commissioners.
Fortunately, probably due to the good offices of Hon. Winston Peters, Deputy Prime Minister, the Commission has just announced it intends to “expand the COVID-19 Inquiry’s terms of reference”. It is asking the public to make submissions explaining “specific topics that people would like considered and which could be included, or clarified, in the terms of reference.” You can make submissions at the following website:Covid-19 Commission Inquiry Have Your Say.
Information gathered through this public consultation will be provided to the Department of Internal Affairs, who will then provide advice to the Government ahead of any changes it might make to the Inquiry’s terms of reference. The Minister for Internal Affairs is Brooke Van Velden of the ACT Party who encouraged us in May 2021 on her FB Page:
“Today, I received my Covid-19 Pfizer vaccine. I didn’t feel a thing. The Covid-19 vaccine works by triggering your immune system to produce antibodies and blood cells that can work against Covid-19. Keep an eye out for when you are eligible to receive your vaccine” and subsequently suggested that now largely discredited concepts such as “peak vaccine effectiveness” should guide government policy.
If you feel it is worth making a submission to the Commission I suggest you emphasise the following points:
1) Without public health data comparing the health outcomes of the Covid 19 vaccinated and unvaccinated by age and health condition it will be impossible for the Commission to reach any scientifically valid conclusions about the Covid-19 response.
2) The use of novel mRNA biotechnology is well known in the published literature to introduce novel risks whose long term effects are still unknown but suspected with good reason to be serious and detrimental to longevity. Moreover, along with the well documented adverse effects of the bioengineered vaccines, the lab origin of the Covid virus has been widely denied and ignored.
In conclusion, I want to reiterate my opening question “Have we lost the capacity to connect the dots?”. Our civilisation is at least partly built on a consensus concerning the scientific method. In the past we have trusted matters of fact, shifted the evidence, and admitted to universal truths. It won’t surprise you if I reflect that risk assessment and health ethics appears to have departed from these fundamental canons of science.
It will take months for new terms of reference for the inquiry to be decided by people, some of whom previously endorsed or acquiesced to our government’s Covid-19 response. It should take just a few days and a little courage, to ask the obvious questions that people have been avoiding and ignoring for four long years.
An opinion piece caught my eye in the New York Times this week entitled ‘My Patients Used to Be Enthusiastic About the Covid Vaccine. What Changed?’. The article is behind a paywall, but you can guess the content can’t you?
A vaccine enthusiast medic bemoaning the near universal rejection by the public of the latest mRNA Covid vaccine boosters. For the author, Dr. Ofri, the sanctity of vaccines is unquestioned and unquestionable, no matter how poorly they perform and how many people are severely affected. If you want to know about her sorry arguments in detail you can read a critique by the indefatigable journalist Alex Berenson under the title “They STILL won’t quit pushing the mRNAs”.
Dr. Ofri’s opinion is just the tip of the iceberg that is freezing out anyone who openly questions mRNA vaccine safety in the medical profession. Nor apparently can anyone expect relief from the courts: the NZ Herald reports the sad story of a Wairarapa nurse Amanda Turner fired by Te Whatu Ora over mild FB posts questioning the safety of mRNA vaccines. She may need to pay $20k in court costs after unsuccessfully challenging her dismissal and then proceeding to lose on appeal. Her crime—she shared a FB post from another person saying they had experienced a rash or hives after receiving an mRNA shot (a known and recognised side effect to the Covid mRNA vaccines). It must feel like a personal assault and, of course, a rejection of the time honoured principles of the Hippocratic oath and medical ethics.
Other institutions are also presenting a united front. The Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal has ruled that Dr. Peter Canady is guilty of professional misconduct because he publicly questioned the safety of mRNA vaccines. Numerous private companies have successfully defended themselves before the ERA against the charge that they breached employee rights when they sacked the unvaccinated. The basis of these court decisions has been faith in government mandate policy and worthless assurances of vaccine safety and efficacy.
Toot your horn if you think the court rulings are ill-informed, nutty and draconian.
Let’s face it: in a country where 90% of the population is already mRNA vaccinated, you can hardly expect justice or sympathy from those in authority. Any backtracking would reflect very badly on their own role during the period of vaccine rollout and mandates. The UK Daily Telegraph is rightly referring to these die hard Covid policy administrators as “Covid vaccine fanatics”.
But there is no longer a united front. Many GPs and hospital staff at the patient care coal face are becoming aware that something has gone horribly wrong and their pro-vaccine rhetoric has gone suddenly silent. Talking to doctors I am hearing stories of confidential advice to patients to steer clear of boosters. For example, the surgeon who told his patient about to be discharged from hospital after a major transplant operation. “I wouldn’t want to see you back here again so promise me no more Covid boosters.”
Despite this, mainstream media in New Zealand and elsewhere cannot let go and start questioning the wisdom and safety of near universal Covid mRNA vaccination. Why? There is now an abundance of high quality published evidence of serious harm, but the scales have been tipped against it by the media business model. The media are clinging on to solvency by the tips of their fingers. Advertising revenue and sponsorship from drug companies is in many cases a significant part of their dwindling revenue stream.
Instead, a close study of media offerings reveals a growing preponderance of disturbing stories about people who have recently fallen sick or died with serious illness, including so called turbo cancers and heart attacks, etc. An article by one of the world’s leading cancer experts Dr. Angus Dalgleish reveals the way a cacophony of medical authorities have sought to hide and dismiss the variety, extent and causes of the precipitous rise in cancer cases.
As long as the government fails to publish a comprehensive comparison of hospitalisation and deaths by Covid vaccine status and disease type, vaccine injury will remain under the public’s radar. It’s worse though isn’t it? Leaked NZ health data correlates mRNA Covid vaccination with excess death, and more to the point record levels of excess deaths are persisting here in New Zealand and around the world in highly Covid vaccinated countries. Without facing up to these hard facts, governments will be unable to tackle the problems assailing health services.
Moreover, as long as the suppression of fact persists, continuing to call for justice and posting more and more evidence of COVID-19 vaccine harm amounts to whistling in the wind and dancing outside the fire circle. No doubt many are feeling upset and angry, but anger is no help when there is no unbiased court of appeal. In fact anger is the invincible foe, it only serves to harm the sufferer, not the guilty party.
So where can we go to safely dance and whistle now?
The answer I suggest brings in a second element and one that might be very timely and politically acceptable as New Zealand’s population continues to rapidly rise.
In a country the size of Britain, we have just three main cities all overcrowded, spreading into the surroundings, gridlocked, and environmentally polluted. House prices have rocketed beyond affordability driven by high demand, low supply, and the absurd red tape of the Resource Management Act. Government policies have encouraged higher and higher densities and smaller housing units, a policy well known overseas to drive crime and social unrest. Proposed high density developments around the country in cities such as Nelson, and elsewhere without gardens or open space are rightfully being described as an entre to future problems and the collapse of the Kiwi experience.
Yet we are a nation with vast open areas of land, much of it under utilised by agriculture or horticulture.
It is time to start developing entirely new cities that prioritise quality of life, safety, family values, a clean environment, healthy living and a sustainable future. Cities with wide boulevards, large section sizes, non-polluting personal transport, energy efficiency, and public amenities. Cities that value pure food, the natural environment, parks and gardens, sunshine and clean air, that are free from excessive EMF smog. Basic section sizes of one quarter to a full acre would allow for multigenerational living and nearby family support. One acre is sufficient to grow enough food to feed a family more efficiently. The skills involved can be fostered through education.
To maximise the advantages of cost-free passive solar heating and cooling of housing stock, each house should be orientated east-west to the cardinal points. Communications can be hard-wired to avoid the hazards of dense wi-fi and cell phone radiation. With comprehensive pre-planning, employment, recreation and educational opportunities can be placed within easy walk or cycle to work distances. Ten thousand inhabitants and all the required community and cultural facilities can be accommodated within an area approximately 4 kms by 4 kms.
So what is to stop such cities from being controlled by the same short sighted and over bearing administrators that are all too common everywhere?
It is no good leaving this to governments. Designed by faceless bureaucrats, new cities become soulless concrete jungles more akin to prisons and labour camps. Success demands the participation of those who are alert to the growing dangers with the support of those responsible citizens who have resources. There is still a window of opportunity to get this done before the inevitable damaging contradictions of health and military biotechnology experimentation overwhelms our social and political stability.
As we have frequently discussed, the missing element of modern science is knowledge of consciousness. Consciousness is not a subject of dry study but rather our own living Self. According to many cultural traditions, the built environment has a profound effect on our consciousness. Almost everyone has experienced the profound silence and expanded consciousness when you walk into the soaring spaces of buildings such as St. Peters in Rome.
There is a sophisticated system of design which originated in India known as Vastu which lays out exact principles of architecture to enhance the experience, decision-making capacity and health of those living and working in buildings and cities. Vastu is not a vague set of general ideas, it involves mathematically precise proportions, placement and orientation of buildings with respect to the wider environment and the influence of the laws of nature including the sun. Vastu buildings are constructed out of nonpolluting materials.
In fact the original grid layouts of the garden cities of Christchurch, New Zealand and Adelaide, Australia were heavily influenced by Vastu principles absorbed by their respective town planners when they served in India.
At its basis is a profound principle—as is the macrocosm so is the microcosm. Shape is profoundly important and related to proper function at the molecular level. Misfolded molecules can be a cause of disease. Similarly the materials, proportions, placement and orientation of some buildings enhances the health of the occupants while others can degrade it by a significant degree. Currently all the decisions of governments are being taken in buildings that are poorly designed. For example east facing entrances admit the positive and healing first rays of the rising sun. Buildings designed to face east will be more healthy.
Vastu design is a highly precise and mathematical science which finds echoes in the classically proportioned buildings of ancient civilisations including Greece. Vastu design requires mathematical training in traditional principles and some developers have already begun to apply these principles in NZ and Australia to individual house design.
Faced as we are, with growing chaos, polarisation and technological extremes, there is a need to revive principles of living which have been lost to view. Knowledge is inevitably lost with the passage of time, often swamped by conflict both current and historical. If we are to survive the global transition that is already in progress, revival of knowledge is a necessity. The design, construction, and occupation of new cities in harmony with Nature can forge a powerful path to help achieve this.
The peaceful and orderly state of mind that Vastu produces is the need of our time, not just here in New Zealand but around the world. In ten thousand cities, like minded people could live together where the collective effect of the built environment will create a peaceful atmosphere. This could purify collective consciousness and help safeguard the future from stress, mistakes and conflict. As geopolitical tensions rise, this is not just an imaginative hope but a necessity to foster individual insight, good governance, health, and a community cooperative spirit that can help to carry us through the current crisis and beyond.
I hope you have enjoyed a Christmas and New Years break. I am writing to distil the lessons of the past three years and look to the future. Very interesting findings are surfacing almost daily, not only highlighting the contradictions inherent in the growing use of biotechnology approaches to pharmacy, but more importantly, some consciousness-based interventions are opening the door to a completely different approach to health.
I have just been discharged home from hospital and I am still in recovery mode. I want to thank all those who sent messages for a speedy recovery. The hospital staff were caring, talented people who looked after me through the weeks I was there.
The hospital departments (I was in two hospitals during the course of treatment) were very busy and working at full stretch. In general, all hospital staff, at every level, work in their silos and their whole day is taken up with saving lives. It is an unenviable task but one being met energetically and with dedication. The most influential sector of longer term care is based around pharmaceutical approaches which are largely unquestioned as the leading paradigm of ongoing treatment.
Few if any in the system have the time or inclination to look beyond the daily needs of patients and ask pertinent questions about the safety of novel biotechnology.
On two occasions I met senior staff members who had a wider perspective and responsibility for the whole system and range of departments. They both noted that they had insufficient information about what exactly was causing the ongoing high volumes of admissions and the varied nature of ailments.
It goes without saying that without a complete picture of health data any decisions about how to tackle overloaded hospitals will be flawed.
It appears that those responsible for the big picture have been wilfully ignoring their responsibility to document and/or investigate health data and have thereby been failing the public. Up to the minute hospital admission data and death rates need to be broken down across the whole system by cause, age, vaccination status and compared with prior years.
There is a clear responsibility here to make full information available to the new government and to the broader public domain. Unfortunately, some of those in a position to control information and policy have dug in and resisted change. Even seeking to hide the facts. The prosecution of the NZ whistleblower is a case in point. Our sources confirm there is currently an all court press on hospital staff to refrain from sharing or discussing concerning data, with a clear instruction that anyone doing so will face prosecution and imprisonment. This intimidation is undermining the core safety standards of healthcare.
For three years now we have been raising questions about the latest generation of biotech vaccines and medicines, highlighting research findings and data including unprecedented rates of adverse effects, massive increases in hospital admissions and persistently high rates of excess deaths. In the end the truth will out, the growing scientific evidence of continuing harm is overwhelming, but it is a question of how much long term damage could result and how many more lives will be lost before this happens. mRNA flu vaccines are in the pipeline and gain of function experimentation continues.
Catastrophic consequences are being suggested including the inevitable emergence of an as yet unknown Disease X.
Taking stock of our progress can be painful or disappointing but it is at this point very necessary. There has been increasing polarisation surrounding issues of health, climate, and conflict, all of which impact everyone’s future. With polarisation has come the rejection of dialogue and rational discussion of key facts. The climate of uncertainty and fear breeds further division, extreme views, and an irrational urge to dictate responses and ignore facts. Yet lack of communication serves no one’s interests. Unfortunately it is hard to envision change anytime soon, but easy to predict that matters will continue to come to a head and eventually reach crisis proportions without too much delay.
The contradictions inherent in biotechnology research and development are simple to understand within the framework of modern science and simple observation but apparently hard to accept among those gainfully employed in the field who are determined to open novel channels of highly risky experimentation.
Simply put, as we examine smaller time and distance scales in human physiology, elements become more interconnected and multitasking. Some genes for example are involved in hundreds of distinct tasks. Thus the potential for unwanted off-target effects of biotech interventions increases exponentially as more subtle biomolecules are manipulated, eventually culminating in the disruption of the whole physiology as interventions cross the cell membrane. mRNA Covid vaccines are a case in point, but many similar dangers are also associated with the latest generation of biotech medicines across the board.
High rates of adverse effects and lack of documentation of their extent have become the norm.
The pandemic has pushed medical misadventure from the third place cause of death to first place. Man made medicines, diseases, vaccines, exotic foods, and biotech research products taken together are now by far the leading cause of death including premature death.
Contrast this with the obvious but ignored dual reality of our daily life: Consciousness is the constant partner of physiology and natural foods the primary source of our health. In the absence of meaningful dialogue in a polarised world, if communication is to be restored it is obvious that a second element needs to be introduced into the health debate. I, along with others, term this a ‘consciousness-based approach to health’ which of necessity draws upon traditions of holistic healing long known to the world across many cultures.
Not surprisingly scientific endeavour is finding deep truths which can transform our world.
Steven Cole has undertaken studies of people exposed to chronic threat and has identified a Conserved Transcriptional Response to Adversity (CTRA) in circulating immune cells. In other words when threatened or stressed our physiology exhibits an unhealthy pattern of reduced immune function including the upregulated expression of genes involved in disease causing inflammation and downregulated expression of genes involved in cancer fighting—Type I interferon responses
Long term practice of Transcendental Meditation reverses this process establishing healthy genetic responses to stress.
To understand this, we have to consider the difference between point and infinity, between part and whole. Nature functions as a whole and its essence is awake, conscious. Consciousness is that which encompasses the harmonious functioning of the WHOLE physiology. As such, truly holistic consciousness-based approaches are free from unwanted adverse effects, yet capable of transforming and augmenting health. There is much to be understood and revived.
Similarly as I have discussed in my book Your DNA Diet, natural food, being based on DNA and under the control of the holistic level of natural law, promotes holistic health. The specific health values of herbal medicine are described in traditions including Chinese medicine, Ayurveda, and many other traditions often centred on the availability of local plants.
As we can see from the published research of the last few years, the general need for healthy approaches to daily life is increasing everywhere. On our sites, as the year unfolds, we wish to do more to fully promote natural approaches to health. We will be publishing specific updates on approaches to holistic healing and we also wish to support community efforts to inform the public of scientific assessment of their effects in order to facilitate their use.
There is little doubt that the growing crises in the fields of health, social stability, regional and global conflict and environmental sustainability are going to impact us all in ways that we cannot now fully assess.
Building closer community ties allied with knowledge of sustainable and healthy practices are going to be key to surviving and flourishing during the massive transitions that are looming on the horizon. If we remain too isolated from one another physically and intellectually it may be difficult to cope with the big changes that are coming. We shouldn’t underestimate the importance of developing conscious communities and we shouldn’t naively believe that our social circumstances will automatically settle to something resembling the pre-pandemic conditions. Irreversible changes in medicine, geopolitics, and the environment are already underway driven by the development and deployment of invasive and destructive technology in health, defence, and agriculture. Close cooperation among people alert to the dangers and solutions can form a protected way ahead.
