… and What the Whistleblower Wanted to Warn Us About—a Tsunami of Health Issues

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

The Korean National Health Insurance Service tabulates health data of the whole population, including vaccination status, which allows researchers to compare the ongoing health outcomes of the vaccinated with the unvaccinated. Precisely the information our government is hiding from independent researchers and public scrutiny—comparative data, which we have been requesting they release.

So what have they found in Korea? Researchers have released a preprint paper entitled “Hematologic abnormalities after COVID-19 vaccination: A large Korean population-based cohort study“. Haematologic diseases are diseases of the blood and blood forming organs. The researchers randomly selected half of the population of Seoul (around 4.2 million people) aged 20 and above and identified people who had received treatment for a range of blood disorders. They excluded people who had a history of blood disorders prior to the study period and then compared the rate of development of blood disorders among the vaccinated and unvaccinated over a three month period.

The researchers concluded:

“This study demonstrated the haematologic adverse events associated with COVID-19 vaccination using real-world data. The cumulative incidence rate of nutritional anaemia, aplastic anaemia, and coagulation defects significantly and constantly increased for 3 months after the COVID-19 vaccination compared to the non-vaccinated group.”

Aplastic anaemia is a rare but serious blood condition that occurs when your bone marrow cannot make enough new blood cells for your body to work normally. There is no known cure at this point in time.

Nutritional anaemia refers to anaemia that can be directly attributed to nutritional disorders or deficiencies. Examples include Iron deficiency anaemia and pernicious anaemia.

Coagulations disorders are conditions that affect the blood’s clotting activities. Haemophilia, Von Willebrand disease, clotting factor deficiencies, hypercoagulable states and deep venous thrombosis are all coagulations disorders.

Another study from Korea entitled “The spectrum of non-fatal immune-related adverse events following COVID-19 vaccination: The population-based cohort study in Seoul, South Korea” analysed official health data for Seoul residents between 2020 and 2021 and examined the cumulative incidence rates of non-fatal health outcomes among the vaccinated group which included 1,748,136 individuals compared to the non-vaccinated group which included 289,579 individuals.

The study compared these cumulative incidence rates of non-fatal conditions in the following areas:

Gynecological ( including endometriosis, and menstrual disorders [polymenorrhagia, menorrhagia, abnormal cycle length, oligomenorrhea, and amenorrhea]),

Haematological (including bruises confined to non-tender and yellow-coloured especially on extremities),

Dermatological (including herpes zoster, alopecia, and warts),

Ophthalmological (including visual impairment, and glaucoma),

Otological (including tinnitus, inner ear, middle ear, and outer ear disease),

Dental problems (including periodontal disease)

Subjects with a history of these illnesses were excluded from the analysis.

The researchers concluded:

“The cumulative incidence rates of these conditions at three months following COVID-19 vaccination were significantly higher in vaccinated subjects than in non-vaccinated subjects, except for endometriosis.”

A third study of the same official Korean health data, which we have already reported, found higher incidence of eight musculoskeletal conditions among the vaccinated when compared to the unvaccinated including:

Plantar Fasciitis (foot/heel fibrous tissue inflammation),

Achilles tendinitis (pain in the back of the leg near the heel)

Bursitis (inflammation that increases friction between tissues in the body)

Rotator Cuff Syndrome (pain affecting the shoulder)

HIVD (upper back herniated disk),

Spondylosis (chronic neck wear and pain),

Adhesive Capsulitis (inflammation of the shoulder)

De-Quervain Tenosynovitis (wrist inflammation).

The researchers concluded:

“Individuals who received COVID-19 vaccines, either mRNA, viral vector, or mixing and matching, were found to be more likely to be diagnosed with inflammatory musculoskeletal disorders compared to those who did not. Our results provide detailed information on the adverse reactions after COVID-19 vaccination. This information will be useful in clarifying adverse reactions to COVID-19 vaccines and educating people about the potential risk of inflammatory musculoskeletal disorders based on their vaccination status.”

I don’t really need to explain much about these results do I? They speak for themselves. These studies analysed the rates of some specific health outcomes for millions of people following Covid vaccination. The researchers concluded that a very wide range of concerning health conditions are initiated over extended periods as a result of Covid vaccination.

Medsafe, the media, and the New Zealand government are telling us that COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective, but they are not publishing any comparable data. A computer systems developer working at the Ministry of Health noticed that death rates among vaccinated populations were unusually high and blew the whistle. He has been arrested and charged with ‘dishonestly accessing health data’ (his job actually).

Who do you believe? The researchers in Korea who have published analysis of millions of post vaccination health records officially made available by their government or our government who are still refusing to make health records available whilst insisting that COVID-19 vaccination is safe and effective?

In the words of rapper DertySesh (warning: a lot of words begin with ‘f’), who publishes provocative social commentary on X and is unafraid to say how he feels, ‘we don’t want bland reports from the media that someone has been arrested for vaccine disinformation, we want to know if the data he published is real or not?’ One of our data correspondents, Terry Anderson, sums it up as follows:

Terry picks just one week, number 25 of 2022 ending 19th June. In that week 858 people died (the 3rd highest of the year). The MoH tells us there were 61 Covid deaths in that week, made up of around 46 who died with Covid as the underlying cause and 15 where Covid contributed. That means at least 797 people died of something other than Covid. Over the previous five years from 2017 to 2021, an average of 701 people died. Even allowing for a small population increase (around 2%), excluding Covid there appear to be at least 82 excess unexplained deaths in this one June 2022 week alone, 12% above the long term average.

If 82 people died in a train accident the nation would agonise over it for years. Every effort would be made to make sure it never happened again. As we have discussed and documented repeatedly, it is not just one week, there has been an unexplained level of excess death occurring week in week out for three years, at least 6,500 New Zealand deaths in total since the vaccine rollout began. To put it in perspective, that is more than twice the 2,700 New Zealanders who died in Gallipoli, whose heroics and sacrifice we commemorate to this day. The whistleblower is right, excess deaths are completely and absolutely off the scale.

The Korean studies of official health data confirm the chief suspect: COVID-19 vaccination. You would think the newly elected government would be crawling all over the New Zealand health data, enlisting the help of those who are untainted by any association with the prior Covid policy formation and assessment, desperately trying to get to the bottom of what has happened and staunch the flow of injury and death.

In fact, our government, the Ministry of Health, and the media seem to be incapable of facing the facts. Through the arrest and public denouncement of a whistleblower, they have shown themselves to be cowards, afraid to face up to the consequences of past decisions. Unbelievably, they are continuing to push the COVID-19 vaccine on the population against all evidence.

A headline in the New York Times today reads “There Are Politicians Who Lie More Than Is Strictly Necessary”. Once found out, the cover-up begins and then one lie leads to another. Eventually, any erstwhile friend can be abandoned to save your skin. In our case, the health and longevity of New Zealanders has become a political pawn that is being sacrificed to save Parliament and civil servants from public humiliation and disgrace.

The actual effect of the government policy of continued heavy vaccine promotion in the face of concerning data on adverse effects is frightening. It has completely distorted public perceptions and understanding. We have ended up living in an illogical and untenable world governed by propaganda rather than fact.

I am shocked every day by the stories I hear. Just take this, for example, someone has had persistent health problems over months, including a cardiac event after their third booster. After a fourth jab, they couldn’t drag themselves out of bed for three weeks. So they went to see their doctor recently who advised them to get another Covid booster as soon as possible, which they did. Have people lost their minds? Our health service certainly appears to have.

Where do we go from here? The health outcomes reported in this article have, I am sure, been very concerning for readers. For our next report hosted by GLOBE.GLOBAL we will discuss research which points to some positive benefits of health interventions which may help alleviate some of the wide range of symptoms of COVID-19 vaccination adverse effects.

Behind the concerns of a New Zealand Ministry of Health database analyst, which led him to become a whistleblower and land up in the courts, are some very serious scientific questions indeed. These relate to the health outcomes of ordinary New Zealanders and call into doubt the integrity of Medsafe and Te Whatu Ora (Ministry of Health).

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

It now appears clear from the comments of Margie Apa, CEO of Te Whatu Ora (who has a degree in public admin), that the unprecedented record high rate of New Zealand excess deaths is no longer being vigorously denied. Rather, she has assured the public:

“There is no evidence whatsoever that vaccination is responsible for excess mortality in New Zealand.”

Margie Apa

At the basis of the Te Whatu Ora and Medsafe claims of COVID-19 vaccine safety is an assumption that Covid vaccines do not have any long term adverse effects. Medsafe Safety Reports (now over a year out of date) assert that the mortality rate of COVID-19 vaccine recipients during the 21 days after vaccination is lower than what you would expect in the general population. They are only looking at the three weeks following vaccination and no further.

Yet the latest available official figures put the average number of excess deaths (the number in excess of the long term average) at 14 extra deaths per day.

That makes an additional unexpected 775 deaths during the latest reported eight week period alone.

775 individual people now unexpectedly and prematurely lost to their families and communities. A massive 14.4% above the long term average.

Four years ago, this would have been considered a national disaster. Today, we are being assured that something other than the COVID-19 vaccine is responsible, but we are not being told what it is. We have long since moved on from peak Covid, so what is happening? Apparently, no one wants to talk about it.

But you don’t have to look very far into recent scientific findings about Covid to find that the assumption that there are no long term COVID-19 vaccine adverse effects is simply and obviously disproven. If you read our reports, you will be aware of many studies demonstrating risks. So, how big are the risks?

A study completed in Japan entitled “Assessment of Myocardial 18F-FDG Uptake at PET/CT in Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2–vaccinated and Nonvaccinated Patients assesses the risk of long term cardiac damage in patients who had no initial myocarditis symptoms. The research found that the risks are disturbingly high.

The retrospective study looked at the treatment records of 700 vaccinated and 303 unvaccinated male and female subjects with an average age in their fifties who had undergone tests to measure their uptake of a form of glucose in the heart muscle (myocardium) using PET/CT scans. The researchers found that those who had taken the COVID-19 vaccine had a significantly higher uptake of glucose into their myocardium than the unvaccinated.

This is concerning because the human heart prefers fatty acids as a fuel over glucose. Distressed heart cells take up more glucose. Hence, the study suggests that vaccinated individuals have a significantly increased risk of long term heart damage. Cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough interpreted the study to support:

A single vaccine shot causes a 2.5% risk of long term heart damage. Those who got two shots have an 8% risk.

The study concluded: “When compared with non-vaccinated patients, asymptomatic patients who received their second vaccination 1–180 days prior to imaging showed increased myocardial ¹⁸F-FDG uptake on PET/CT scans.” In more simple language, even those people of all ages and both sexes who had no noticeable adverse symptoms following COVID-19 vaccination end up with a significantly increased risk of long term cardiac damage.

This has obvious implications for Medsafe data collection and assessment. Medsafe should have looked at health outcomes over a much longer time frame than 21 days, at least 180 days according to this study, and almost certainly much longer. The Ministry of Health whistleblower published data of suspiciously high death rates in the months after COVID-19 vaccination for precisely this reason. He wanted to highlight the way that his employer, the Ministry of Health, was glossing over suspicious deaths, not just one or two deaths but thousands, around 10,000 so far.

More concerning is the fact that the Japanese study is only looking at one possible adverse effect of COVID-19 vaccination. A rapidly growing number of recently published scientific papers we have been regularly reporting are pointing to a wide range of other long-term mRNA Covid harms, including immune deficiency, cancers, inflammatory musculoskeletal disorders, strokes, and mental illness.

Distressingly, the media, the government, and Te Whatu Ora have failed to address the substance of the whistleblower’s concerns and the valid scientific reasons to acknowledge them.

Instead, he has been charged in court with the offence of “dishonestly accessing vaccination data”. None of them have told the public that accessing vaccination data was actually his job at the Ministry of Health. He was doing his job, spotted a concerning red flag, and went public after much heart searching about the inaction of his employer, whose job it is to protect public health.

I am receiving a number of communications from individuals who are in personal touch with their local MPs. It is a common report that their MP is now quite sure they will not be getting another jab, but doesn’t want to rock the boat by raising the issue of vaccine safety in caucus. Their excuse: they are unsure of their ability to present the science.

Meanwhile, Te Whatu Ora is rocking on telling the public from 30 years old upwards and from 12 years up in some categories, they need to get another shot with the tired refrain:

“Vaccination is safe and effective,….Covid-19 is still in our communities and is a significant risk – so please protect yourself, your whānau, and your community by getting immunised.”

No mention of record levels of adverse effects, known lack of effectiveness of the vaccine, and the many recently completed studies highlighting the long term risks, including ironically that the vaccine can actually increase your risk of Covid viral persistence.

The whistleblower crisis is rapidly becoming a test of the new government’s ability to move on from the past three years of censorship and gaslighting.

Our national health records are now out on the international public stage. How the government responds to this crisis will tell us a lot more about their real intentions and their capacity or lack of capacity to think things through rationally in the public interest.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Guy Hatchard
13 November 2023

The Dentist:

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

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

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

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

Stroke – 5.

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

Blood clots – 3.

Sudden death – 11.

Autoimmune conditions – 23.

Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome (POTS) – 3.

Sudden onset dementia- 2.

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

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

Not So The Judge:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And

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

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

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

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

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

And

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Mortality

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

2. Hospitalisation

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

3. Long Term Effects

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

4. Long Covid

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

5. The New Zealand Bill of Rights

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

6. Adverse Effects

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

7. Treatment of Those Adversely Affected

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

8. Scientific Selectivity

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

9. Media Funding and Censorship

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

10. Sovereign Independence

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

11. Biotechnology Experimentation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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