In France, one young man has been deliberately shot and killed, apparently by a rogue policeman. Emmanuel Macron is contemplating whether to declare an emergency because of the widespread rioting, which is tied to police brutality against ethnic minorities. At least Macron knows he is facing an emergency.

This article is available as an Audio file and a PDF document.

In New Zealand (and elsewhere, including France), not one but one hundred extra people are dying each week, but our politicians are deliberately looking the other way, and even claiming it is not happening. As a result, there is a curious sense of unreality affecting everyone. Many still argue our voting choices later this year could avert an impending disaster, but in actual fact, it has already arrived.

In our last release, How Political Ideology, Scientific Hubris, and Pharmaceutical Greed Sealed the Fate of Billions we touched on widely circulating talk indicating blow outs in disease rates. We get reports almost daily of unusual health events. Yesterday someone wrote to us about a young professional woman who collapsed in the street with a seizure. No previous history of illness. The ambulance took an hour to arrive because the service is so overloaded.

The Herald online edition led yesterday afternoon with “A&E crisis: Senior doctor’s plea – ‘Everyone’s getting burnt out. We’re exhausted.” which reveals emergency departments are under unprecedented strain. So there is a health emergency in full flood, but why? The government, the loyal opposition, and the health service are keen that we don’t connect the dots and just meekly exercise our right to Hobson’s choice at the next election.

RFK Jr. Dismantles Doctor’s Pro-Vaccine Stance

Fortunately, on the wider political front, it is not all doom and gloom. There is some good news from America. Robert F Kennedy Jnr., who has declared his candidacy for president, has been featured prominently in the media. Despite attempts to discredit him because of his cautious views on vaccine safety, early polls show he is more popular than either Biden or Trump.

In a telling exchange at a town hall meeting chaired by mainstream media personality Elizabeth Vargas, Kennedy showed how adroit he is at revealing and parrying prejudice.

Kennedy is a skilled litigator. He is able to quote published science in the course of debate. Kennedy ran rings around Vargas, who believed that the long term effects of vaccines were fully investigated by pre-release placebo-controlled trials. Kennedy knew this was baseless fiction widely spread by pro-vaccine interests, and he had the references to prove it. Vargas was left adrift at sea. She was sure she was right, but had no idea why. She hadn’t done her research

Kennedy’s point was that a lot of people think they know what is true and what is false about vaccine safety simply because they have been repeatedly schooled by so-called authority figures and organisations like Fauci and the CDC. He pointed out this can be the rule of propaganda, rather than the rule of knowledge. When there is money to be made, people lie, even the authorities.

You can catch up with Robert Kennedy’s views and homey style via a number of interview’s posted on YouTube and Rumble with people like Carlson, Rogan, or Bill Maher. His landmark speech on US foreign policy in New Hampshire is also very revealing. He remembers the ominous lessons of history, they are part of his personal family history. Kennedy is a bright light on the horizon, he is prepared to tackle previously taboo subjects in an open and scientific fashion. Something for which our politicians are currently scoring an F grade.

You might contrast Kennedy’s approach with this vacuous drivel from our local Whangarei MP, Dr. Emily Henderson. She writes 578 words for us in the Northern Advocate without actually telling us what she is writing about. Whatever it is Henderson is talking about, her universal solution of pulling together is waffle. In reality, Henderson is famous around here for refusing to dialogue with anyone with questions about vaccine safety. Surprising really, considering her PhD topic at the University of Cambridge was ‘cross-examination in jurisprudence’.

Open Dialogue Can Be Downright Embarrassing

I have a suspicion why Henderson might be stone walling questions. Open dialogue can be downright embarrassing. On Twitter, there has been a major eruption of fury because malaria has been found in mainland America in Texas and Florida, the same places where Bill Gates’ genetically modified mosquitoes have been released in their millions. This was part of an on-going programme funded by Gates for over ten years which is supposed to banish malaria from the world. It hasn’t.

The fun started when among other Twitter bloggers @TexasLindsay and @TheChiefNerd began to dig up not just the hype Gates has been promoting for more than ten years promising malaria eradication through genetic modification, but also the scientific concerns voiced at the time. Low and behold, scientists suggested that the Gates programme would eventually lead to mutated mosquitoes which would promote the spread of malaria more effectively.

You will appreciate that this is relevant to the safety of genetic modification (Chris Luxon, David Seymour, and Chris Hipkins take note). As such, it was bound to raise the ire of tame fact checkers. Associated Press weighed in on cue by splitting hairs. They noted that whilst the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation ‘supported’ Oxitec (the company releasing modified mosquitoes in Florida and Texas) with money, that doesn’t actually quite fit the definition of ‘funding’ the particular work being done in the US. AP also pointed out that the Florida malaria cases occurred 280 miles away from the site of the experiments as if mosquitos can’t fly or ride the wind.

Whatever is going on here, it is not being controlled. A deep dive into the Twitter threads linked above will show you that the Gates mosquito programme has never achieved any of its promised results, just as genetic modification of animals in New Zealand has been a dead end and the cause of cruel suffering. No worries though, Gates is not just funding genetic modification of mosquitoes but also has a bet each way with his malaria vaccines. A win win investment strategy for the man with a deep interest in population control (and money).

But just where could the modification of mosquitoes really be taking us?

In our last release, we discussed the known possibility of general system collapse following genetic modification and editing. We suggested that this might be related to the record levels of excess deaths in New Zealand (yes, they are happening). We pointed out that genetic structures are highly complex, evidenced by the trillions of atomic placements and relationships involved.

There is another way to consider this. These placements and relationships are highly specific, precisely because they support the highly specific capabilities of human physiology and psychology as well as the general stability.

The long standing notion that replacing or editing targeted genes will not undermine the other genetic characteristics of organisms that make them what they are and enable them to function as such, is a belief rather than a matter of science. A belief that increasingly looks misguided and dangerous. Using mRNA vaccines, biotechnology has blundered into the genetic modification of what it is to be human.

As our newspapers characterise the unrest in France as the Brink of Total Anarchy, a sort of general system collapse of society, we might also contemplate what has changed in the last three years that has brought us to the brink? It is not a million miles away from biotechnology.

New Zealand and the world is in the midst of an unprecedented health emergency. There is no point in voting for anyone or any party in October who refuses to discuss this with reference to published science and actual data, or even denies its existence.

Image Credit

Photo by Constant Loubier on Unsplash

The Long Read: Many of my undergraduate courses covered the process of scientific progress. We were required to examine key watersheds, including the advent of relativity, quantum mechanics, and Copernican astronomy for example, and were tasked with finding out what made these theories better and how their opponents were eventually silenced by evidence.

This article is available as an Audio file and PDF document.

Later my own original research focused on the role of consciousness. As behaviourists had been seeking to exclude consciousness from science for decades, I learnt first hand how carefully you had to reason and how much evidence you had to produce to ensure publication of results which swam against the prevailing current of ideas.

Scientific Pride Led to Unrealistic Aspirations

We are in a new era of science and have been since the discovery of the structure of DNA in 1953. With the exception of military-related expenditure, genetics has become the most highly funded and studied sector of science. The iconic heroes of genetics are Crick and Watson. Every student and researcher in the life sciences aspires to gain a similar stature and fame by discovering some amazing application of genetics which benefits the whole of humankind. There is an ingrained certainty in the biotech community of this final outcome for some insightful and lucky person.

For years there was an understanding that, at some point, a pandemic would emerge, at which time the brilliance of biotechnology would vanquish the age-old foe of disease forever. Instead, millions have died, and the reputation of science has been tarnished. So how did it all go so terribly wrong, and why are so many still defending biotechnology and trying to rewrite an abject failure as a success?

We have already covered one reason, biotechnologists were so certain of ground-breaking discoveries and ultimate success that failure was almost inconceivable. Scientific hubris ensured that many could not even register the chaos and adverse outcomes that were being played out the daily in lives of individuals and recorded in pandemic data sets. Last week we reported, for example, that Dr Rochelle Walensky, head of the CDC, knew of Covid vaccine limitations but still told the public they worked. She was not alone.

There were even more significant scientific reasons for caution that were overlooked from the start. The differences of kind and scale between the biotechnologies of genetic intervention and those of prior medical procedures were never really registered by most scientists nor widely discussed by those who were aware of them.

Medicine Aims to Uncover Specific Diseases, Not General Syndromes

The whole of medical science is geared to identifying specific causes of illness and mortality. Do you have something wrong with your heart, liver, brain, etc.? Are there imbalances in particular hormones, biomolecule concentrations, organ systems, etc.? Are you suffering from the effect of particular toxins or pathogens? Once this fundamental cause has been diagnosed, the physician and the patient heave a sigh of relief, and the specific treatments can commence.

Little would those used to this diagnostic system appreciate that genetic intervention could and had led to generalised rather than specific illness. DNA is in every one of the 37 trillion cells in the body. Alter the way that cells function, and you could initiate a whole system collapse. The record of earlier gene therapy experiments shows that this was a possible outcome.

This had a radical effect on the assessment of adverse effects proximate to mRNA vaccination. The aim of attending physicians was to identify a specific pathology of the adverse outcome and then determine if it was due to the vaccine or another cause. If someone had a blood clot in the brain, then it could be classed as a stroke, a common enough malady, and safely unrelated to vaccination. Similarly, for heart attacks, neurological illness, kidney disease, etc.

The very long list of adverse outcomes following vaccination compiled by Pfizer in February 2021 in its post-authorisation adverse event report released to governments in April worried no one in authority. People fell ill and died all the time, so what. The reported adverse medical events were considered not just unlikely but certain to be unrelated to mRNA Covid vaccination and most likely to be the result of pre-existing conditions or susceptibility. The current inadequate paradigm of medical science dictates that.

If mRNA vaccination did have a common side effect it was only going to be a very specific effect, not involving a generalised set of conditions. The wide range of outcomes and conditions being reported post vaccination could not possibly be related, they must be due to anxiety or imagination so doctors and others thought. Very few were aware that altering cell genetics was already known to cause broad spectrum physiological system collapse and dysfunction.

There was then a failure to communicate the known science of genetic intervention to the working medical profession, those with political responsibility for pandemic policy, and those in the media informing the public. So who was responsible for this failure?

The Rejection of the Fundamental Principles of Science

In the original Pfizer trial, it is now known through data released under court order that more people died among the vaccinated experimental group than in the unvaccinated control group. Pfizer scientists ignored this fact relying on the logic we have just outlined. In essence thinking: ‘it couldn’t possibly be related, it must be a coincidence’.

Some people at Pfizer, both current and former employees, did realise this was a huge mistake. Dr. Mike Yeadon, a former vice-president at the company went public with concerns for example. Others involved in earlier mRNA technology research and development, like Dr. Robert Malone, also came out to express their concerns that mRNA technology was risky and probably carcinogenic.

At this point, the reaction of Pfizer and other pharmaceutical and biotech giants gathered almost criminal intent. They sought to silence and discredit these concerned voices through manipulation of media content. Worse, they curtailed the vaccine trial. The control group was vaccinated, effectively leaving no way for the safety of mRNA vaccination to be accurately measured by the now defunct trial. They had hidden the evidence.

The science principle being violated here is absolutely fundamental and readily understandable to everyone. If you are assessing a novel medicine or procedure, the first data you need to assess is whether the experimental group is better off than a similar group who did not receive the intervention. Pfizer and others failed to disclose that this criteria had not been met.

Moreover, the implicit assumption in their repeated assurances of vaccine safety was that there were no long term adverse effects of mRNA and adenovirus Covid vaccination. As excess deaths mount, we now very justifiably suspect that what they supposed is totally in error. Yet the authorities have long since abandoned any attempt to test whether this is the case or not.

The horrific fact is that this would actually be very simple. Public health data of hospital admissions and mortality is routinely kept. There are also records of vaccination status. However, this data is being kept well hidden from public scrutiny in most countries, including our own. Why? Again the intent here increasingly appears to be the hiding of evidence and the prevention of any identification of pandemic policy mistakes. In essence, the course of justice is being perverted.

The advent of biotech medicine involves a vast difference in scale and complexity from that of chemical and molecular allopathic medicine.

There are other reasons why poor outcomes could be anticipated. These have to do with scale and process. In general, high school education points to simple chemical processes which are well defined. The vigorous reaction between sodium and chlorine is sometimes demonstrated in chemistry lessons. Two atoms join together to form common table salt. In contrast, a single chromosome comprises around 14,400,000,000 atoms, and there are 46 chromosomes in each of 37 trillion cells.

People educated to understand the satisfying and exact scientific explanations of such processes as making salt may not appreciate the complexity of genetic systems and what can go wrong if you interfere with them. They may not understand the possible instabilities involved in genetic processes once they have been deliberately altered or edited. These are known to exist but not well understood by science. Not just atomic content and sequencing but also the effects of molecular shape, temperature, impurities, electric fields, vibratory modes, mobility, information transfer processes, the presence of pathogens, energy availability, and prior imbalances are all involved.

This doesn’t just apply to in vivo processes, the industrial scale processes involved in mRNA vaccine production are also subject to instabilities in outcomes, including the presence of unwanted and unanticipated impurities. Hence some vaccine batches are associated with much higher rates of adverse effects.

None of this is obvious to the public, who have been repeatedly and erroneously reassured that bioscience, like the familiar high school science, would always be accurate and safe and should be followed without question. Given the known problems with gene therapy and genetic manipulation, this reassurance was nothing more than deceptive political ideology. We have discussed this elsewhere as genetic essentialism, the false belief that almost anything can be accomplished through genetic manipulation.

The end result of these miscalculations, and the accompanying deliberate obfuscation, is now apparent. Covid vaccines don’t prevent transmission, infection, and or even serious illness and death over the longer term. Their introduction is contemporaneous with high rates of adverse effects and record levels of excess deaths, but the authorities don’t want to investigate, and the media don’t want to ask the difficult questions this raises.

The failure of the media to inform the public impartially speaks volumes about the dysfunction that has dogged the evolution of the pandemic.

If you watched the recent film She Said, you will no doubt be filled with admiration for the tenacity of the New York Times in exposing the despicable behaviour of film mogul Harvey Weinstein against women. Unfortunately, the financial model of the media has moved on since those heady days of the Me Too movement six years ago. The media now relies on commercial sources of income and, in some cases, government funding, both with strings attached. Pfizer ($2.8 billion in 2022) and other biotech advocates like Bill Gates ($319 million) spread the cash very widely indeed among media outlets and are thus able to dictate much content. It is to the discredit of the NY Times and most other mainstream media that they have become uncritical advocates of Pfizer’s cause. Take this June 23, 2023, NYT article, “Suddenly, It Looks Like We’re in a Golden Age for Medicine” which describes “the brutal years of the pandemic…as like a premodern plague and yet a watershed of medical innovation…ushering in a golden era of mRNA vaccination.” Good luck convincing anyone with that oxymoron NYT.

Social media, too, has bowed to government pressure and cancelled content at their behest. Two years ago, I published a 15 minute video, 2021 Covid Stats For Kiwis on YouTube, (owned by Google), which merely catalogued official New Zealand government pandemic data. Within a week, it had accumulated more than 20,000 views but was then cancelled, according to YouTube, at the request of our Ministry of Health. They didn’t even want the public to review their own uncensored data. I haven’t been able to air my pandemic content on YouTube since, despite the fact I reference my work to government data and published scientific papers. That is not science, it is anti-science.

No discussion of the causes of pandemic misinformation would be complete without noting that governments and medical authorities have employed sophisticated techniques to distort pandemic data. Not the least of these are the strange definitions of a Covid death. Dr. Jessica Rose does an excellent job of navigating these muddy waters in her sub stack post “What is a Covid-19 death?“. In essence, far fewer people died of Covid than we have been led to believe. The media have been remiss in discussing these issues.

The media have also been remiss in discussing the origins of the pandemic without bias. There seems to have been a lot of money supporting a natural origin which for a long time cancelled the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Some media outlets are now redressing this problem. The NY Post reports 19 June 2023 “10 reasons we KNOW that COVID-19 leaked from the Wuhan Lab“.

If you read my blog, you will already know that I believe the arguments about who is right (pro or anti vaxxers) are distractions. Both sides have suffered at the hands of big pharma and the biotech lobby. Whether you caught a bad case of a lab grown virus or a shocking adverse effect of mRNA vaccination, the culprit was the same biotechnology. Throw in governments addicted to the largess of pharmaceutical lobbyists and a penchant for total control, then you have a recipe for disaster.

I have just finished lunch with some old friends, one of them works in the kind of mum and dad store that has a loyal community customer base. They are overwhelmed by the rapidly growing health crisis among their many customers, including cancers, deaths, and persistent illness, along with the inevitable grief. Another friend counts twelve cases of cancer among her circle of friends, eleven have died. These anecdotes mirror government health statistics which are equally appalling but unsung by our media. The government has stopped publishing most Covid stats, perhaps because the unvaccinated are enjoying more healthy outcomes and robust natural immunity, whereas the vaccinated are showing signs of long term immune deficiency and increased susceptibility to Covid.

There are long term adverse effects of biotechnology which are making their presence felt more and more. There is a lot of blame on offer here, and few who are prepared to accept responsibility. Guilt gnaws at mental peace which wastes away, making it all the more difficult to initiate redress. The longer this situation is allowed to go on, the more strained it becomes. The data isn’t lying, but people are. Time to face up to some hard truths.

At the height of the fear and panic about possible pandemic outcomes, there is no doubt people acted under a fight or flight psychology. Anyone familiar with emergency situations will realise what this means. You either meet the threat head on or you rush to the nearest exit. Everything is concentrated on self-preservation, you are looking to cling on to lifelines. There is little time to think it through.

The nearest exit rapidly became the development and eventual rollout of a ‘vaccine’, the most trusted and revered word in the modern medical lexicon. But this was no ordinary vaccine, it was using novel biotechnology whose eventual effect was little understood, but already known to be mutagenic. What lay behind the offered exit was largely untested and highly risky, but no one was prepared to admit this to the public. They still aren’t (we have written extensively on this at GLOBE).

Novel Biotech Vaccines Are Ineffective and Unsafe

Extensive research is now published indicating that the novel biotech vaccines are ineffective and unsafe, but the nature of the early information presented to the public, who were in a state of near panic, has been imprinted too deeply in the individual and collective consciousness to allow for doubt to emerge.

Over the last few months, a thirty year old social media personality has experienced a miscarriage, loss of health, and irregular menstrual cycles, her husband has had a heart attack, but hundreds of her followers have urged her to ignore anyone asking questions about vaccine safety. She has become caught in a network of irrational responses and a reluctance to question the safety of the so-called exit strategy. She is a victim of disinformation.

Unequivocal data shows she is not alone. Here in New Zealand and in many other highly vaccinated nations we have entered an era of record rates of excess deaths (up 18%); and hospitalisations including a high incidence of cardiac illness up 83%, strokes up 25%, miscarriage and stillbirths up 25%, and acute kidney injury up 40%. Cancer incidence is climbing. Yet the causes of these remain unaddressed in the media. People are suffering repeated ill health episodes, but due to saturation government advertising and media compliance, many still thank God they are vaccinated.

The gratitude of survivors to their rescuers is well known, it can last a lifetime. People maintain contact, and the shared experiences of escape become the stuff of legends to be passed down through generations. But what if the dangers were exaggerated, the causes obfuscated, and the eventual poor outcomes ignored, as they are being now?

Government Control of the Dialogue

An article published yesterday in the UK Telegraph “Covid disinformation unit made ‘hourly contact’ with tech firms, its leader reveals” indicates the extent of control the UK government exerted over information during the pandemic. A control that is still continuing today. The article reports that a career civil servant, Sarah Connolly is Head of the Counter Disinformation Unit (CDU). Ms. Connolly has just admitted in testimony to MPs that the CDU was in contact with “almost all” social media platforms, and that discussions were “daily, sometimes hourly… to encourage…the swift take down of posts”.

The Telegraph reports these contacts were intended to curtail discussions about vaccine safety and discussion of controversial lockdown policies during the pandemic. Addressing MPs, she said that the most concerning types of anti-vaccine material included discussions about side-effects and the speed with which the vaccine was produced.

When asked about the CDU’s process for having posts removed, Ms. Connolly said: “If somebody from our cell says: ‘We are worried about this,’ that goes immediately to the top of the pile. Whoever it is, in whatever company.” In other words, since many scientific papers and leading scientists were raising these questions, she appears to be frightened by the normal process of scientific investigation and determined to control it.

The Telegraph reports that the UK Government confirmed last night that social media firms had taken action on more than 90 per cent of the posts referred to them by the CDU during the pandemic, often by deleting them or using AI algorithms to ensure they were not seen as widely. This is the modern equivalent of government-sponsored book burning.

The effect of these policies on media reporting was laid bare by current and former BBC staff who have told the Telegraph that, during the pandemic, a “climate of fear” existed within the BBC among those who argued that its reporting lacked balance, saying they were branded “dissenters” and were ignored when they raised their concerns about impartiality with senior managers. Staff were fearful of losing their jobs if they spoke up.

Sources told the Telegraph that Connolly took control of the Covid narrative like a puppeteer. CDU rapidly silenced respected scientists such as Dr. Alexandre de Figueiredo from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and many others, who argued against mass vaccination of children against Covid-19, questioning its need or safety.

There are fears that Connolly’s control at CDU indicates the close involvement of the UK intelligence services. Connolly’s CV notes she previously worked in the Home Office and Foreign and Commonwealth Office on a range of security and counter-terrorism policies. Were government ministers so poorly informed about a technical area that they became misinformation perpetrators in the hands of people used to enforcing agendas by any and every means?

In New Zealand We Are Being Left in the Dark

We too have a government Disinformation Project funded by the Prime Minister’s office whose staff appear to share political agendas and a lamentable deficit of scientific understanding. Crucially there have been no moderated public debates between those determining policy and those asking questions. There has been no cross examination of government experts in the courts. There has been free media access granted to paid proponents of biotechnology.

Two days ago Kathryn Ryan of RNZ Nine To Noon interviewed Michael Spector. According to Wikipedia, Spector has a degree in English and was formerly the New York Times Bureau Chief in Moscow (???). He has described the value of organic food and concerns about vaccine safety as ‘fictions’. He is now a New Yorker science writer and author of an adoring biography of Fauci whom he describes as “The Enlightenment’s human shield”.

Ryan was apparently ill equipped to ask scientifically probing questions of Spector. As a result, we were subjected to a barrage of disinformation, a sort of black comedy. Asked to define Covid vaccines, Spector replied “mRNA vaccines deliver the blueprints that tell the cells how to build the antibodies needed to defend against Covid. Once they do that they hang around for a couple of days then disappear”.

Anyone with even a modicum of Covid scientific knowledge would know that this is not just a simplification but a fiction. mRNA Covid vaccines override cellular processes and create copies of the toxic spike protein on the surface of the Covid virus. This circulates in the physiology where the immune system attempts to destroy it by creating antibodies. Spike protein has been found in the blood up to 28 days following vaccination and in some cases longer. It can cause a range of adverse effects on health including myocarditis.

The conversation between Spector and Ryan rapidly deteriorated into the wild imagination of genetic essentialism. The false idea that any desirable human trait can be engineered by editing genes. Spector suggested that we could make kids taller or play the cello better. These are laughable fantasies. Ryan jumped in to say we could make female possums infertile. Segue to a cure for cancer. If you want a more informative assessment of so-called miracle biotech cures read my articles “Genetic Essentialism and Biotechnology Experimentation” and “Speak up now, it is almost too late“

Or watch Professor Richard Dawkins answer actual probing questions about Covid pandemic science in this interview with Unheard on Youtube. Dawkins struggles to try to justify his earlier extreme moral condemnation of the unvaccinated, and eventually admits he got it wrong. In a convoluted defence, he blames politicians for wanting a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer when actually scientists didn’t know about the efficacy and safety of the vaccines or government lockdown policies.

Yes, you read that right, one of the world’s best known scientists publicly admits they didn’t know much about Covid vaccine efficacy or safety when they accused the vaccine hesitant of being killers. More than that, he now admits he and many others made the wrong call.

Let us return now to the hapless social media personality, suffering repeated bouts of unexpected ill health but assailed on all sides by her own pro-vaccine followers bolstered by government propaganda. She feels alone, but she is not actually alone, she is certainly misinformed about the extent of vaccine injury and quite possibly one of hundreds of thousands of severely vaccine-injured individuals.

There are key processes of data analysis that would help decide the causes of current unprecedented high rates of illness and death. Including analysis of vaccine status at the time of hospital admission and death, segmented by age and condition. This can be compared with historical data. Why are medical authorities around the world refusing to undertake this and even hiding data? Why are mainstream media not asking these questions? The present need is for rational re-evaluation.

Image Credit

Photo by Melanie Wasser on Unsplash

The World Health Organisation has announced an agreement with the European Union to develop a digital health certificate. WHO has stated that they will use the “EU Digital COVID Certificate” as a model to establish a global digital health certificate otherwise known as a vaccine passport (you can follow the reaction on Twitter here).

This brings to mind the conditions imposed on daily life during pandemic lockdowns which were enforced using vaccine passports. Restrictions on movement and participation which are now known to have had an overwhelmingly damaging effect on society. An article in the authoritative UK Daily Telegraph on 4th June headlines “Painful lockdowns a global policy failure that must never be repeated“. According to new research, we will be suffering drastic effects on the economy, educational outcomes, and mental and physical health for years to come as a result.

Now that the pandemic panic is subsiding, you may hope that this will not affect you or your family. Think again. The latest WHO initiative is one among many being promoted around the globe to restrict the freedoms of unvaccinated individuals.

In our backyard, the headmaster of prestigious Auckland Grammar School Tim O’Connor has written on 1st June to parents and friends of the School and spoken to the student body saying:

“It is our intention for all teaching and extracurricular programmes to be in person, with appropriate health and safety procedures in place”. Warning students that “personal health can affect their ability to attend and/or to actively participate in School activities”.

He announced that AGS has received advice from Public Health and medical professionals about the need for pupils to receive MMR shots and influenza vaccines. Mask wearing is also advised.

Mr. O’Connor appears not to realise that parents may have legitimate reasons to be concerned. He writes as if his audience is convinced of the need for universal vaccination and of its safety. He may not have read of the study conducted in Thailand on the effect of mRNA vaccination on adolescent boys which found cardiovascular effects in 29.24% of secondary school students, ranging from tachycardia and palpitation to myopericarditis.

He may not have read recently published studies including “Effectiveness of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Bivalent Vaccine” which found not just zero effectiveness of the bivalent Covid vaccine, but an increased susceptibility to Covid infection following repeated vaccinations. Possibly Public Health and the unnamed medical professionals advising him have failed to share the results of these studies.

Is this a taste of what is in store for us all—removal of medical choice and restricted access to reliable information? Or could it be worse than that?

In 2020 during Operation Warp Speed something happened that possibly escaped your notice but its effects are just now altering everything we took for granted about the safety of medical interventions. Operation Warp Speed was the programme to develop Covid vaccines rapidly in the heated climate of fear surrounding the initial stages of the Covid pandemic.

The usual 10-12 year period of careful safety and effectiveness research evaluating new vaccines was cut short to a matter of months. You may remember something else happened after these initial months. All the control group who had been given a placebo were suddenly given the same mRNA vaccine as the experimental group. This meant the Pfizer study had no possibility of evaluating the long term effects and safety of mRNA vaccines. Pfizer documents released under court order now show that by this point more people had died in the experimental vaccinated group than in the unvaccinated control group, a fact that Pfizer tried very hard to hide.

Move forward now to late last year, the bivalent vaccine was developed and rolled out around the world. It had different ingredients from the original vaccine but its testing period was even shorter. You can see where this is heading, can’t you? The pandemic has legitimised wide scale testing of novel pharmaceutical drugs on the general public. Drugs whose long term effects are unknown.

WHO is fully involved in a push for rapidly updated vaccine types. See this article in the Atlantic “Fall’s COVID Shots May Be Different in One Key Way” which explains that the FDA’s advisory panel is expected to authorise an ‘updated’ Covid vaccine, something ‘experts’ described as “momentous, but wise”. In other words, we have become guinea pigs, unprotected by any standards of safety that ruled drug development before the pandemic.

The introduction of vaccine passports on a global scale is one more step in this direction. Someone at the World Health Organisation, closely associated with the highly profitable pharmaceutical industry, will be dictating which drugs and vaccines you need to take. These standards set up a framework which may restrict freedom of movement, access to education and employment. Public health officials, medical professionals, headmasters, employers, and many others will no doubt be enforcing these WHO standards by adopting their digital health certificate. Theirs will be unthinking decisions, they will be following the crowd without knowing where it is heading. Given their position and responsibility they should be looking carefully into research findings before acting, not relying on others.

No doubt many have been seduced by the constant barrage of articles appearing in the press which promise miracle cures through biotech medicine. A sobering assessment is given in an article by the BBC entitled “The quest for the era of personalised medicine” which says:

“The Human Genome Project was supposed to lead to personalised medicine tailored to our DNA. It’s finally happening, but it is proving more difficult than anyone could have imagined.”

Instead of ‘difficult’ they might have used the words ‘dangerous’ or ‘concerning’. The article recounts the story of five year old Mila who had a rare disease understood to be caused by a genetic defect. Her mother raised $3 million in 2017 to fund the development of a personalised medicine designed to block the function of the defective gene. This medicine called ‘milasen’, relieved some symptoms for a while, but they returned and sadly Mila died two years ago aged 10.

It won’t have escaped your notice that medicine costing $3 million per person is not a prescription for a sea change in global health. Indeed the long and informative BBC article repeatedly bemoans the massive and ultimately impossible cost of various genetic research initiatives, whilst enthusing about their potential. ‘Potential’ is the right word because the article fails to describe a single initiative that is actually working. Sadly, poor outcomes continue to dog genetic medicine.

Projects to monitor the genome of hundreds of thousands of babies to screen for genetic defects are underway in the UK and USA, but the treatments are not. Clinical trials of conventional drugs have a notoriously poor success rate, or rather a 90% failure rate and, even for those that pass, a very low effectiveness and a high rate of adverse events. Genetic interventions haven’t yet even been able to graduate from trials.

The article reports some health officials noting there are sometimes treatments available for genetic conditions that don’t involve personalised genetic testing and medicine, treatments that are cost-effective. This advice tends to fall on deaf ears when billion dollar genetic projects are on offer.

Remarkably, the article touts the very high incidence of sudden cardiac arrests as an opportunity to develop personalised genetic medicines. Ironically, the authors fail to realise that the incidence of such events has doubled during the era of mRNA vaccines.

The article concludes with a chilling statement:

“It is going to potentially require a different approach to the way drugs are tested, and some willingness to embrace risk.”

Who is going to adopt this risk—the general public of course. Will we do so willingly or will we be left misinformed of its full extent? Will we be forced to participate on pain of loss of employment or housing? It has happened before, hasn’t it? It is our job to ensure it doesn’t happen again. Don’t let these initiatives be introduced unchallenged. Speak up now, it is almost too late.

This article is available as a PDF file:
https://hatchardreport.media/pdf-files/speak-up-now-it-is-almost-too-late.pdf

Image Credit

Photo by Juliana Romão on Unsplash

Members of the Public Adversely Affected by Covid Vaccines May Be the Last to Hear About It.

In his book Structure of Scientific Revolutions Thomas Kuhn describes what happens when new experimental data contradicts the established scientific orthodoxy. According to Kuhn, there is a period of extraordinary science where new theories abound and compete with one another to explain the new findings.

This is often accompanied by an almost irrational effort on the part of the proponents of the discredited theories to cling to their old ideas. Even Einstein for example was vilified by a number of colleagues for more than a decade after his 1905 discoveries of relativity, quanta, and Brownian motion.

Eventually, controversy settles down, and a new broader scientific paradigm or understanding becomes widely accepted, one which explains the anomalous experimental results which precipitated the crisis.

We Are in the Middle of a Paradigm Shift

For seventy years it has been more or less accepted that DNA is a biological molecule that contains an almost alphabetical system of information storage like a giant manual which guides the development and operation of biological systems. This linear understanding underpins the development of biotechnology—the attempt to edit DNA in order to modify the operation of biology.

The era of biotechnology has reached a point of crisis where the current theories of DNA operation are proving insufficient to explain the proliferation of adverse effects of Covid vaccine technology. On the GLOBE website, we have discussed that DNA and its cellular functions form a biomolecular interface between consciousness and matter, necessitating a change of paradigm—a scientific revolution that must encompass consciousness within the scope of biology.

The crisis we have arrived at is intrinsically different from those in scientific history. The globalisation of information, the commercialisation of science, the overreach of political control into every aspect of everyday life, the involvement of military interests, the power of online media, billion dollar investment, and the pharmaceutical society all wish to interpret and influence scientific debate.

How is This Vast Competition to Control the Scientific Narrative Playing Out in Our Lives?

Ever since the Christchurch earthquake, I have checked my email and read the newspapers from around the world when I first wake up. I feel the need to know what is happening, you probably do too. Take this morning for example:

The BBC asks “Could ultra-processed foods be harmful for us?“. Two identical twins were given different diets which had identical nutritional profiles (the same quantity of fats, fibre, calories, nutrients, sugars, etc.), but one twin ate these via ultra-processed foods (UPFs) and the other through fresh ingredients. The UPF twin put on weight, and increased unhealthy blood sugar and lipid fat levels. The other lost weight.

The article references dozens of studies showing that UPFs increase the risk of developing serious illnesses like cancer, strokes, and diabetes. It discusses the possible causal role of various additives in UPFs like emulsifiers and artificial sweeteners. It should have also identified a major difference between UPFs and fresh foods—one has DNA and the other doesn’t—but it didn’t because current nutritional paradigms ignore genetics. Fresh foods we could say have more ‘genetic intelligence’ and availability of nutrients that the body can utilise to maintain health. I discuss this more fully in my book Your DNA Diet. Understanding this possibility will involve a paradigm shift in our concept of nutrition.

The UK Guardian’s Health Editor based in Chicago writes “Global ‘silver tsunami’ of older cancer patients is coming, experts warn“. The article reports that an aging population is likely to suffer from cancers at a rate that will overwhelm oncology care facilities. This may be true, but no current discussion of cancer incidence would be complete without discussing the fall in longevity, decline in population growth, and the rise in cancer incidence that the world has been experiencing since the start of the pandemic. As we have repeatedly discussed at the Hatchard Report and GLOBE, data shows cancer incidence is on the rise among all age groups, not just the elderly. Why?

Another article in the Guardian reports “AI could outwit humans in two years, says UK government adviser“. He suggests “You can use AI today to create new recipes for bioweapons or to launch large-scale cyber-attacks.” AI systems do not launch attacks on their own volition, they can only do so if they have been programmed by a human being. AI systems were used during the pandemic to promote biotechnology acceptance, helping to generate hundreds of articles, fake social media posts, automated fact checks, and advertisements. Powerful secretive lobby groups were controlling the content of mainstream and social media. AI was not the culprit here, massive commercial interests were at fault. They used AI to distribute distorted information.

A few days ago the NZ Herald reported “Number of antidepressants dispensed to children and teens jumps 53 per cent in five years“. The article talks about the concern psychologists are feeling about over prescribing of antidepressants by GPs, a familiar story you might think. The article prints a table of total antidepressant prescribing by year and age.

We calculated the percentage change by year. Up until 2021, antidepressant prescribing was increasing by a worrying figure of about 5% per year. In 2021 prescriptions to 1-18 year olds increased by 23% four times the prior rate, to 19-24 by 14% double the prior rate. Prescriptions to 24+ also doubled. 2022 increases returned to roughly historical levels. So what happened in 2021 to cause such a dramatic rise? You might say lockdowns, but then there were lockdowns in both 2020 and 2021. You might say Covid, but then there was very little Covid in New Zealand in 2021.

If you want to know why, examine the VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Effect Reporting System) in the USA. Jessica Rose queried the VAERS database with the keywords: “psych”, “schiz”, “halluc”, “delus”, “visions”, “voices”, “suicid” and “mania”, “dreams”, “seiz”, “conscious”, “memory” and “depress”. This yielded 54,905 cases clustered around younger age groups (similar age groups to those affected by antidepressant prescribing increases here in New Zealand). These figures are astonishing considering VAERS is highly under-reported. Yes, mRNA vaccines do have neuropsychological adverse effects, although you wouldn’t know it if you only read New Zealand newspapers.

One feature of the competition occurring during paradigm shifts is the denial and falsification of data. Vatican officials famously looked through Galileo’s telescope but still denied that Jupiter had moons which would have falsified their theory that planets are embedded in solid crystal. Looking beyond newspapers to scientific comment, Dr. Clare Craig pointed out in an article published by HART (Health Advisory and Recovery Team) that the NHS had drastically and retrospectively altered records of atrial fibrillation incidence. Why? One wonders who to trust. You tell me.

In another example, the UK Telegraph reports that the Conservative government’s Covid Disinformation Unit asked social media tech companies to remove articles it considered to be ‘potentially harmful’. This included any suggestions that lockdowns were ineffective and damaging. Yet a giant meta analysis by Johns Hopkins University and Lund University had already concluded in 2022 that benefits of lockdowns were “a drop in the bucket compared to the staggering collateral costs”.

Finally on to one of this week’s published scientific papers. The European Heart Journal published a paper “COVID-19 vaccination-related myocarditis: a Korean nationwide study” This study of 44 million health records of vaccinated Koreans reported that 8 deaths of young people initially recorded as sudden cardiac deaths unrelated to vaccination, were actually caused by vaccine related myocarditis as shown by subsequent autopsy results. Sound familiar? Do you think the New Zealand press could learn from this? The study suggests that around 20% of confirmed cases of vaccine induced myocarditis are severe with long term health implications.

As we indicated in our most recent article, our government is continuing to promote Covid vaccination even though multiple studies show the bivalent vaccine has zero effect on the dominant XBB variant, and repeat vaccine doses even increase susceptibility to Covid infection.

In this release, we have argued that a paradigm shift is underway. A time of extraordinary science where competing theories and explanations for events and data are being considered. Unfortunately, as a result of censorship, the general public is unaware of the risks of Covid vaccines and biotech in general. Scientific debate is being suppressed. The Hatchard Report is committed to report on science publishing and bring the arguments and counter-arguments to the attention of the public.

Image Credit:

Photo by Dave Goudreau on Unsplash