spot_imgspot_img
Home Blog Page 21

How Far Down the Road to Tyranny Have We Come and Why Are We Still Travelling Along It?

0

An emotionally moving short film released this week, “Silent No More,” documents attempts by Covid vaccine-injured people in New Zealand to obtain recognition of their injuries, treatment, compensation, and a halt to the mRNA vaccine rollout. This factual and simple documentary of personal experiences was banned by YouTube before it was even released. Why?

This is a deep question that encompasses what is so challenging about the pandemic response around the world:

  • Why has scientific debate been censored and cancelled by the media sources that the general public view?
  • Why have scientists asking questions been cancelled?
  • Why are so many concerned professionals still remaining silent?

The evidence of harm is piling up: unprecedented record excess all cause death rates in highly vaccinated nations, low birth rates, high incidence of cancers, cardiac events, strokes, and neurological conditions. In total, millions of people have registered their vaccine injuries on government databases around the world, many have died unacknowledged. So why the silence?

History Can Teach Us Some Important Lessons

In 1961, during his trial, holocaust perpetrator Adolf Eichman argued in his defence that he was simply acting under orders and was, therefore, innocent of wrongdoing. Yale psychologist Dr. Stanley Milgram decided to test the power of authority to free perpetrators from guilt and empathy toward their victims. He set up an experiment where students were instructed to administer increasingly powerful electric shocks to subjects behind a glass window.

The subjects were in on the deception. They were not, in fact, receiving electrical shocks. They were pretending. They were instructed to appear to be in agony, severely injured, beating on the window for relief, and even to collapse suddenly. Incredibly many of the perpetrators were unmoved by the suffering of the subjects they witnessed. Reassured that they were simply following the research protocol and instructions of the project leader, they were able to finish the experiment and return home with an untroubled conscience.

Milgram, and others since, believed his experiment demonstrated a psychological characteristic—people are remarkably receptive to new rules in a new setting. They are surprisingly willing to overlook the harming and even killing of others in the service of some higher purpose that had the sanction of authority.

Timothy Snyder, in his highly regarded 2017 book “0n Tyranny” warns that offering your unquestioning obedience to authority is a road to an oppressive government.

Snyder argues that anticipatory obedience (giving your consent in advance of the outcome) initiates a vicious cycle, whereby those in authority discover they have more influence than they at first realised, leading them to make more oppressive demands. This happened in Nazi Germany, where the excessive enthusiasm of those carrying out pogroms against Jews and intellectuals during the invasion of Russia, emboldened Hitler and others to design larger programmes of mass murder known as the Final Solution.

So is some similar psychological process at the root of the rejection of vaccine injury and the escalation to coercive vaccine mandates? Are officials and leaders like Ardern and Trudeau, doctors, media, and others sticking to the false ‘safe and effective’ narrative in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary because they have obediently adopted the PR propaganda of a safe healthy biotech future as their own?

In fact, Milgram’s experimental results have been widely questioned. Some commentators have labelled his conclusions controversial and inconsistent with his findings. Others believe that perpetrators of violence must, in their own right, be violent by nature and enjoy it. Modern experiments, however, confirm Milgram’s general view. A 2016 study reported in Scientific American concludes:

“…people actually feel disconnected from their actions when they comply with orders, even though they’re the ones committing the act.”

Milgram’s hypothesis might in fact offer an explanation for the behaviour of those designing and administering the pandemic response—a sort of detachment. Patrick Haggard of University College, London, co-author of the study reported by Scientific American, writes:

“This suggests a reduced sense of agency[a psychological term that refers to one’s awareness of causing some external outcome], as if the participants’ actions under coercion began to feel more passive [uninvolved]…rather than fully voluntary.”

Why and How Has This Affected Billions of Innocent Vaccinated People?

Milgram’s ideas don’t really explain how billions of people around the world, the subjects of a biotech experiment rather than the perpetrators, unthinkingly became mRNA enthusiasts almost overnight to the extent that they labelled the vaccine injured scam artists and blamed the unvaccinated for the pandemic. An early study of attitudes found that many people would rather have a terrorist in the family than an unvaccinated member.

There doesn’t seem to be any precedent for such an instantaneous transformation of public opinion. Historical examples of misplaced allegiance mostly seem to have developed over long periods of time. Hitler rose to power and executed his ideas over two decades, after 1933 with the advantage of near total control of the media.

Moreover, Hitler had to first eliminate the political opposition, mRNA vaccination with few stand outs has largely enjoyed the compliance of all parties, left and right.

Are there other explanations? Certainly, there are multiple factors at work. Does one answer lie in a fundamental omission of modern science? Scientific disciplines have been largely isolated from each other and the role of the observer (or consciousness) excluded from discussion of genetics. How would its inclusion affect our understanding?

In particular, do introduced genetic sequences affect human psychology and behaviour? Genetic sequences are highly mobile in any given population, a recognised phenomenon known as shedding, but do they also contain and propagate information relevant to the genesis of distinct psychological and behavioural traits?

Physical health is not separate from mental health. We can consider their overall relationship in terms of balance. This balance is mediated or controlled by our genes which are thought to design our physical structure and support our consciousness.

There are 37 trillion cells in the human body each containing DNA, but there is only one person involved. We can say the whole is more than the sum of the parts, the individual physiology is more than the sum of all the cells of the body. Our identity is dependent on our DNA, but also transcends it.

There is another point here of vital importance, summed up by the expression the whole is contained in every point. If we drill down to the ultimate physical reality at the smallest time and distance scales available at every point in the physiology, the entire unified power of natural law is operating.

Put these two expressions together and you learn something vitally important about genetic command and control, it depends on both the availability of the particular genetic intelligence in every cell and its expression as a field of bio-intelligence. Part and whole, cell and physiology, gene and gene network, form an inseparable self-referral net of intelligent operation. Alter any one part, then you can both damage the whole physiology and disconnect it from its source in the unified intelligence of natural law.

Genetic intelligence is highly specific and sequential. The precise sequential unfoldment of the physiology from conception is paired with the gradual emergence of developmental stages of mental ability which are mediated by social and environmental circumstances, experiences, and opportunities. Therefore it could be anticipated that if mRNA inoculations have mental effects these would involve specific characteristics identifiable in multiple subjects. If this is the case, these could be exhibited by whole populations as a collective psychological profile and shared behavioural tendencies.

Does redirection of genetic traits through mass inoculation disrupt not just the health of individuals, but the health of society in specific and measurable ways? This could indeed be the case and may point to a facilitating role of mRNA vaccination in the pandemic disruption of social stability and integration. In other words, has mRNA vaccination induced a form of mass psychosis?

The Times They Are a Changing

This discussion has taken us a long way from our starting point. People are injured and dying as a result of a medical intervention. Authorities and the media appear determined to ignore the mounting evidence of harm. In the normal course of events, as the history of harmful medical drugs indicates, we would expect the product to be withdrawn and the commercial interests brought to account.

This has not happened. In fact the reverse has gained momentum. Some governments including ours are currently investigating vaccine hesitancy as a form of terrorism. Treaties are being drafted to ensure future mandatory compliance with medical interventions. This is not following prior patterns.

Yet it is evident that some people are more affected than others, which is normal. It is also clear that some people have changed their minds on the basis of evidence.

Therefore should we describe the psychological effect of mRNA vaccination as a temporary impairment affecting some people? Do we discern a tendency for those affected to fall back on more primitive and less independent responses to circumstances and challenges? Less independent responses similar to those described by Milgram—a loss of a sense of individual agency and empathy. It is a subject that deserves thorough investigation.

Fortunately, the film ‘Silent No More’ is not an isolated attempt to restore a measure of balanced assessment to pandemic policy. In the UK, Doctors For Patients has released a film on Vimeo in which numerous working NHS doctors and specialists call for an end to and review of government support for mRNA vaccination.

Even some highly vocal vaccine advocates who led the charge calling for restrictive mandates early this year are bowing to the inevitable and admitting errors were made, such Dr. Leana Wen, who has a US media profile similar to our Professor Michael Baker and had extreme pro-vaccine mandate views like Ardern’s. This week in a press conference she said:

The CDC has determined that “vaccinated people who never had Covid were at least three times as likely to be infected as unvaccinated people with prior infection and a Lancet study found that those who were vaccinated but never had Covid were four times as likely to have severe illness resulting in hospitalisation or death compared to the unvaccinated who recovered from it.”

As most New Zealanders have by now had Covid, you can draw your own conclusion about whether you should get boosted again, take the bivalent vaccine, or inoculate your baby, as our government is still advising. A study from the prestigious Cleveland Clinic published last week found that each successive vaccination against Covid increases your risk of infection.

Just remember Dr. Wen is not an anti vaxxer, she is following the evidence and you should too. If you have formed fixed opinions about unvaccinated family members or colleagues, these need to be revised based on current published evidence. If you think the vaccine injured are scammers or grifters, step back from your unsubstantiated prejudice and regain your capacity for empathy. These good people trusted the government and were harmed as a result. It could have been you.

What Are You Going to Say About mRNA Vaccines Over Christmas Dinner?

0

So it is the holidays, and we are all going to see or communicate with people we maybe haven’t seen for a long time. What are we going to say?

A friend told me a familiar tale yesterday. His relatives cannot believe that the government and their experts would mislead the public. What possible reasons would they have to do so? Sound familiar? Here are a few ideas.

Years ago in the early 70s I was the director of a national charity in London. I was introduced to Jimmy Saville. Jimmy was at the time a national icon, host of the insanely popular Top of the Pops TV show and high profile benefactor of children’s charities. On acquaintance, he turned out to be personable, hail well met, and constantly smiling. In reality, Jimmy was none of these. He was a prolific paedophile and sexual predator hiding behind his successful and caring public personality. Eventually, a year after his death, Jimmy was exposed for what he was, but only after a host of well known celebrities and politicians had shielded him for years from mounting questions and accumulating evidence.

You never know what hides behind masks of virtue, bonhomie, fame, success, and authority. That is why TV is able to make hundreds of true crime documentaries, where the villains are apparently respectable pillars of their communities, who were initially considered beyond reproach or suspicion of guilt.

The truth is that before the pandemic very few in the public or government knew anything that would make them wary of biotechnology. If someone comes towards you holding an AK47 or a machete, you run because you know that they are dangerous. We had no cultural or historical context to assess the risks of biotechnology outside of technical papers discussing gene therapy experiments with unexpected and harmful outcomes. Papers that few people would in the normal course of events come across.

Having worked in the biotech testing industry, I happened to know that things can go incredibly wrong. I was lucky in that respect. Most people had for years been fed a diet of popular media articles explaining biotech projects seeking to develop cures for a range of inherited illnesses, to prolong life, and to unlock secrets of robust health. These were actually speculative hopes dressed up by PR propaganda designed to encourage investment, government grants, and pave the way for public acceptance.

It proved easy to fall for the vision of a future free from illness, a very seductive prospect, but biotech insiders working at the coal face of research tell a very different story—set backs, off-target adverse effects, and theoretical benefits that failed to materialise. The complexity of genetic command and control functions defied simple fixes. One gene doesn’t perform just one function, it performs many and works in concert with other genes. Replace a single gene and unwanted side effects are inevitable.

As a result the prospects for gene therapy dimmed in the 90s and early 2000s, but in 2008 new more exact gene editing techniques using CRISPR/cas gene scissors were developed. Research efforts stepped up and PR went back into overdrive—gene medicine, according to this new narrative, was now going to be safe and effective. Today we know this to be false, as a paper published in November 2022 by the Karolinska Institute shows. CRISPR/cas techniques lead to unpredictable on-target genetic rearrangement which can interfere with vital cellular gene repair mechanisms.

This shows just how long it takes for serious safety work to catch up with innovative commercially targeted science—in this case 14 years, not a lot different from the time normally allowed to assess the safety of new vaccines (about 12 years). We now know that mRNA vaccine techniques cause serious adverse effects which can impair long term health and quality of life outcomes. These include but are not limited to cardiac disease and cancers, the number one and two leading causes of death in the world today. Coincidentally the third is medical misadventure—death caused by the supposed cure. We also know that mRNA vaccines are not even effective at stopping transmission, infection, or preventing serious illness.

So Why Are mRNA Vaccines So Much More Dangerous Than Traditional Vaccines?

The answer lies in the body’s defensive mechanisms. There are innumerable processes designed to protect the integrity of physiological structure and function and there are walls which segregate and protect processes and systems, among these:

  • Our skin protects us from all manner of pathogens. We are all aware of the hurt and infection that can result if the skin is breached.
  • The digestive tract is separated from the rest of the physiology and harbours multiple processes enabling food to be sufficiently transformed to cross the barrier in various forms into the wider physiology.
  • Our lung and nasal mucous linings protect us from airborne pathogens.
  • Veins and arteries contain blood
  • The blood/brain barrier protects the brain.
  • The placenta a growing fetus
  • Organ sacs protect vital organs
  • The cell wall protects our trillions of cells
  • The cell nucleus protects our DNA

All these barriers are not actually walls, but transformative filters which permit passage under certain conditions. Five generalised qualities operate at these interfaces and in the physiology as a whole: Stability, Adaptability, Integration, Purification, and Growth.

For example to maintain stability seventy thousand DNA repairs are performed in every cell every day to protect against oxidative damage and mutation. The many protective functions of our immune system are active at all these barriers to purify pathogens. Our immune system has a tremendous adaptability to identify pathogens and design strategies to neutralise them. It integrates the results of these encounters into its immune memory. The final outcome of physiological processes is continual growth and renewal. 98% of the atoms in the body are replaced each year according to set order and protocol.

mRNA vaccines breach the skin, bypass the digestive tract, and can leak into blood vessels as most modern vaccines do. Crucially mRNA vaccines also breach the cell wall and insert genetic instructions adjacent to the nucleus where they dictate how our genome expresses itself. Thus mRNA vaccines enter into the inner sanctum of genetic control and alter physiological processes fundamental to physiological stability. They redirect cells to produce toxic spike proteins which have been found to breach the blood/brain barrier and accumulate in organs.

The complexity of these processes and their outcomes, precluded adequate safety testing in the short time frames available. In truth mRNA vaccines posed a giant step up in risk. Politicians, most medical experts, and the media were either unaware of this or unwilling to contemplate the implications. They were under pressure from exaggerated publicity pointing to massive Covid casualties.

Undoubtedly there were well informed key players deciding to expose the public to risk whilst simultaneously hiding the risks. There was a lot of profit and professional kudos on offer. However in most cases, those promoting the vaccine were acting out of ignorance. Everybody makes mistakes. The test of personality comes after a mistake is revealed.

Some early vaccine proponents have now come clean and admitted error: In the UK, top cardiologist Dr. Aseem Malhotra and nurse educator Dr. John Campbell, in the USA, pharmaceutical safety expert Dr. Vinay Prasad and renowned medical educator Dr. Mobeen Syed for example (and many many others) are now speaking out on media platforms about scientifically proven safety issues. These are not conspiracy theorists as the government is glibly advising us, they are not experts protecting their positions and reputations, they have a lifetime of dedicated public service behind them and they are now risking their positions to inform the public.

I haven’t put a lot of references in this article, that’s because you can watch these renowned scientists on YouTube for yourself as they consider technical issues and arguments for and against in great detail. Their professional conclusions don’t look good for mRNA vaccination. My current favourite: Tucker Carlson interviewing Dr Malhotra. So gather round and enjoy some honest Christmas fare that our MPs dread you might watch.

So why are our MPs and their experts so afraid that you might stray onto the internet and why are they still silent on safety issues? Back to Jimmy Saville, unfortunately those in the public eye often seek to hide their mistakes, and as one deception follows another, deception can become deeply criminal in character. During the pandemic many have suffered devastating adverse effects or had their employment terminated by mandates, but in the face of mounting evidence of harm, politicians and experts have dug in their heels and refused to change direction. Continuing to do so now is becoming a crime.

For more information about the risks of biotechnology and the needed controls go to GLOBE.GLOBAL

Photo by krakenimages on Unsplash

Breaking News: New Zealand Government Report Admits You May Die or Fall Ill After Pfizer mRNA Vaccination, but Advises People Not to Worry

0

Time series analysis of New Zealand data supports a relationship between mRNA vaccination and death that is consistent with a German autopsy study.

On 14th December 2022, Medsafe (NZ Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Authority) released its 46th report into the safety of Covid vaccines entitled “Adverse events following immunisation with COVID-19 vaccines”. The report covered safety signals up to 30th November 2022.

This report contained new advice about the risk of death following mRNA vaccination. Medsafe’s assessment began as follows:

By chance, some people will experience new illnesses or die from a pre-existing condition shortly after vaccination, especially if they are elderly. Therefore, part of our review process includes comparing natural death rates to observed death rates following vaccination, to determine if there are any specific trends or patterns that might indicate a vaccine safety concern.”

The report comes after months of speculation concerning record levels of excess all cause mortality in New Zealand affecting all ages, currently running at 15% above historical levels.

After dropping the bombshell news, Medsafe goes through an entirely bogus and unscientific process designed to reassure the public that there is nothing to worry about. Medsafe compares the number of deaths reported to CARM (Centre for Adverse Reactions Monitoring) within 21 days of vaccination to the background rate of deaths from natural causes. In doing so, it omits to mention (but does so elsewhere) that CARM reports are voluntary and massively underreported by an estimated factor of 20 times. As a result there is nothing at all reassuring about this safety report.

Are There Other Reasons to Be Concerned? Yes, Many:

1. Medsafe reports, “There have been no deaths reported for the Vaxzevria or Nuvaxovid vaccines.” So why are they happening after the Pfizer vaccine?

2. Autopsies are not routinely performed in New Zealand following deaths proximate to vaccination. A recently published German study Autopsy-based histopathological characterization of myocarditis after anti-SARS-CoV-2-vaccination reports 16% of deaths within 20 days of mRNA vaccination exhibit definitive causal symptoms of acute myocarditis, a known adverse effect of Pfizer Covid vaccination. So why is there no concerted effort here in NZ to investigate by routinely performing autopsies?

3. The Ministry of Health has consistently refused/omitted to record vaccine status on death certificates or make CARM reporting mandatory. This makes it very difficult to scientifically and reliably investigate any causal relationship between mRNA vaccination and death or serious illness. On the 17th December 2021 the director of the Covid immunisation programme wrote to me on behalf of Dr. Ashley Bloomfield, Director General of Health, saying “An accurate measurement of all adverse events is not required”.

In the light of today’s Medsafe admission, that’s damning. Incredibly Dr. Bloomfield has just been appointed the inaugural chair of a new public policy impact institute at the University of Auckland, proposing to translate and apply research into policies that directly impact communities—but he doesn’t subscribe to accuracy??? Most people do, especially academics.

4. Medsafe argues that temporal correlation between deaths and vaccination does not prove a causal relationship between them. They, along with epidemiologist Professor Michael Baker, suggest that Covid infection or pre-existing health conditions are more likely to be causally connected to deaths following vaccination. There are in fact other relevant analyses which can determine whether there is a relationship between mRNA vaccination and proximate deaths. Among these, powerful techniques of time series analysis can discover whether deaths are consistently occurring during specific intervals of time after vaccination. This would provide strong support for a causal relationship.

Among the world’s nations, New Zealand is in a unique position to undertake this sort of analysis. In 2021 New Zealand had very few Covid infections (almost none) but the majority of the population were vaccinated over a period of eight months. Therefore deaths recorded during much of 2021 in New Zealand cannot be ascribed to any effect of Covid infection.

Preliminary data from 2021 has been analysed to investigate the proposition that mRNA vaccination resulted in deaths. This shows there is a significant (p=0.045) relationship between number of vaccines administered by week and weekly deaths at a lag of one week. In other words, there is a statistically significant increased chance of dying within a few days of vaccination. Download the study here. Despite the preliminary nature of the data in this study, the findings of this study are consistent with the findings of German autopsies. Therefore there should be more rigorous study of stored data to further test these findings

There are other simple methods to analyse death data. For example taking the date of inoculation for each individual as a notional point in time around which all death data can be assessed for entire cohorts of individuals. This would reveal whether death rates before and after inoculation differ.

5. The time series analysis does not preclude the possibility that other deaths at longer time intervals after an inoculation date may be occurring as a result of mRNA vaccination. Unprecedented rates of all cause mortality suggest this is likely to be the case. Unfortunately, the New Zealand Ministry of Health is not releasing data on causes of hospitalisation by category of illness. There is evidence we have previously reported based on US defence personal data and insurance statistics, and on UK ONS data, indicating that incidence of neurological disorders, cancers, cardiac events, and strokes have increased.

Medsafe’s position on vaccine safety has clearly shifted during the two months since it last published a safety report, but has it realised the importance of more reliable causal assessments? Apparently not. The NZ public is being kept in the dark about vaccine safety as it has been for the last two years. Bland assurances of safety continue without foundation in fact.

Can mRNA Vaccination Be a Trigger Event for Death if You Are Already Sick or Elderly?

The wording of the December 14th Medsafe warning is strange and ambiguous: “..some people will experience new illnesses or die from a pre-existing condition shortly after vaccination, especially if they are elderly”. So are the elderly especially liable to die after vaccination because of vaccination or because they are elderly? We aren’t told.

Aside from the obviously elevated rates of excess all cause deaths, anecdotal reports from rest home staff suggest this is the case. Emergency vehicles and helicopters are answering more frequent calls. Hospitals are overwhelmed and unable to cope. Whistleblowers among nurses are talking about overflowing cardiac wards. A top UK cardiologist has suggested that the evidence of harm is overwhelming and irrefutable. Funeral home workers in New Zealand and overseas have spoken publicly about strange rubbery clots in arteries which have been confirmed by experienced pathologists in the USA. Statistically improbable increases in life insurance claims data have been noted. Sudden unexplained deaths have a high profile in the media. The message is consistent—something unprecedented and very concerning is going on.

Despite having multiple sources of data and methods of analysis available to it. Medsafe has relied for two years on a single obviously flawed method of comparing CARM data to background rates, despite admitting CARM data is underreported. How strange is that? This deficiency is fatal to Medsafe’s claims of safety. It is scientifically unjustifiable and it wouldn’t meet publication criteria.

There is no possible justification for omitting to use more reliable forms of causal investigation. Medsafe has avoided public accountability by refusing to debate the issues publicly, omitting publication of key health data, massaging published data, and unforgivably accusing critics of spreading disinformation. These approaches are worthy of a dictatorship but not a modern democracy.

Goodbye 2022—the End of the Impossible Dream, in Fact a Technology Nightmare

0

Make 2023 your turning point.

Phew!! What a year. Aren’t we all glad to say sayonara. But what drove the events of 2022? What can we take home to help us rebuild in 2023?

During the last four weeks, 197 people have died with Covid. 95% of these were fully vaccinated, far more than the proportion of the population who are fully vaccinated. Beyond that, excess all cause mortality is running at 15% above the long term average as it has for most of the year (currently about 100 extra deaths per week), with no credible explanation from the government or the Ministry of Health. Something has gone horribly wrong, and everyone in authority is keeping mum. The public are being kept in the dark.

2022 was a technology fail—big time. Biotechnology, education, finance, food, politics, communication, trade, farming, justice, employment, globalisation, media, and health all taught us that aspects of modern technology are tearing civilization to pieces. The inherent weakness of fast technological change was suddenly revealed by the pandemic. We had a glimpse of the miserable colourless future that much technology is promising. Some people gave up, some people didn’t notice, and some woke up.

Biotechnology—I don’t need to say much. It has almost all been said. mRNA, DNA vaccines revealed their roots and their fruits as risky, dangerous gene therapy. People died suddenly in unprecedented numbers. Human physiology, the culmination of years of evolutionary fine tuning, knows exactly what it is doing. Biotechnologists do not.

The promised biotechnology dream is truly impossible. Tens of thousands of highly paid biotechnologists struggle in their labs to cure even one disease or one person. An impossible doctor/patient ratio that could never be financed by any conceivable health system.

Yet politicians, investors, media, and the pharmaceutical lobby egged each other on to proclaim the benefits of biotech based on misinformation circulated by multinational databases, paid troll armies, social media platforms, misleading PR, biased think tanks, and international global agencies operating outside of protective national laws.

In any case, gene editing didn’t cure anyone, it escaped from a lab and killed millions, and then the so-called cure left a trail of bodies and a myriad of depressed immune systems as it travelled around the world. This was all funded by governments and endorsed by highly paid scientists. Time to outlaw biotechnology experimentation.

Politics—the political class revealed their power hungry aspirations, their appalling ignorance, and their addiction to the funding of lobbyists. The technology of social manipulation was used to reach the apogee of propaganda. Reliant on social media, populations were guided to believe that two near-identical controlling viewpoints (left and right) represented a choice. Politicians spent big on media manipulation and rewarded their cronies with lucrative pandemic contracts for ineffective remedies and equipment. They bankrupted nations and cancelled voices of sanity. Time to rein in the power of big government and fix political funding issues.

Justice—the law is ever the servant of the long purse, no more so than in 2022. With just one source of truth (the government), judges looked the other way, pontificated, jailed, and made up specious arguments to cancel the effect of human rights that had been won with great difficulty by oppressed people over past centuries. Time to reinstate human rights.

Farming—ignoring the fact that plants and animals have covered the earth throughout history, against all commonsense, farmers were blamed for climate change. Working from private jets, politicians and entrepreneurs used arguments derived from computer analysis to justify the purchase of lands and taxation that will reduce food production. GE crops continued to fail and require higher and more toxic pesticide inputs. Meanwhile, 10% of the world’s population is hungry. The number grew by 150 million in 2022. Organic agriculture is sustainable and healthy.

Food—the modern ultra processed diet full of chemicals finally served up its true desserts. Those suffering from diabetes, heart disease, smoking, and other conditions (which are largely preventable if you follow a healthy diet and a balanced lifestyle), were the first victims of the pandemic. This is just a precursor to the unhealthy effects of the promised biotechnology revolution in the food industry. Legislation for regulation is set to bring an end to natural products, herbs, and spices, all replaced with the fruits of giant energy hungry biotech vats laced with exotic genes, accelerants, and catalysts. Time to restore diets based on natural fresh foods.

Health—doctors forgot the hippocratic oath, medical ethics, and informed consent. They looked the other way when patients died and made up stories to cover their tracks. Remote consultations debased the doctor-patient relationship.

Medical administrators stopped publishing statistics and liaised with social media for them to do the same. They shamelessly accepted massive funding dependent on their adoption of particular medical interventions that didn’t work and caused harm.

Experts proclaimed cures over the airways based on biased commercially motivated studies which had carefully concealed adverse effects. With the help of the media they closed the doors to debate.

The end result—longevity declined, birth rates declined, while hospital admissions and death rates soared, but the public wouldn’t know it was happening. Time to base medical funding on the number of healthy outcomes.

Education—universities and schools received generous financial incentives to insist on vaccination and masking, and close their doors. Those hesitating or asking questions were excluded. Education based on remote learning technology failed miserably. Youth crime and suicide rose. Engagement and achievement fell among all age ranges. Development of the young was slowed. Face to face personal instruction is the lost gold standard. Government control of education should be reduced, interdisciplinary studies revived, and personal teaching time valued.

Finance and Trade—crypto currencies based on the memory banks of computers fell and fell in value. Mortgage rates rose to unaffordable heights. Stocks fell. Pharmaceutical giants, energy companies, and billionaires laughed all the way to the banks who laughed with them. Plans were pushed ahead to digitize money and require digital identities. The vulnerability of international supply chains based on offshore production was revealed. International trade based on computer controlled ‘just-in-time’ shipments collapsed. Inflation took off. Commodity monopolies profiteered. Renewed emphasis on national self-sufficiency and real values is required.

Globalisation—the global reach of the internet spawned a special brand of dictator. The WHO and WEF were prime examples. Operating outside of democratic safeguards, unelected officials began to assume power over the entire population of the world, all to the delight of big pharma. Super powers poured sophisticated weaponry into regional and ethnic conflicts to the delight of arms manufacturers. The sums involved are many times the amounts needed to feed the world and promote solar energy adoption. Politicians should be stripped of the power to sign international treaties without local scrutiny and support.

Entertainment—Globalisation of entertainment has led to dull uniformity and suppressed cultural diversity. The Avatar sequel costing over $400 million to produce showed us that live theatre and actors beat digital programming. The expressive quality of the human face (often masked in 2022) wins every time. Local production and traditional culture can be revived.

Employment—remote working took off everywhere. Faced with a surfeit at work and at home we realised just how uninteresting computers and phones can become. Devoid of human contact, life can lose meaning and the spark of humanity. Employment law failed to protect employees from the dictates of fearful and coercive employers. Millions lost their jobs rather than submit to vaccine mandates. Workplace rights need to be restored.

Media—the collapse of a sustainable funding mechanism for print media has been seized upon by governments and commercial interests who now fund digital platforms but only do so in return for content control. This has blurred the distinction between advertising and reporting to the extent that the public is often unaware that the articles they are reading purporting to be truth or science are actually paid content designed to influence public behaviour for private profit or political gain. The independence of the media needs to be reasserted.

Communication—Social media closed the door on diversity of opinion. The entire world was fooled into believing a lie. This had been carefully curated by computer controlled systems of censorship designed and built up over years by commercial pharmaceutical interests. During the pandemic, the interests of governments, financial moguls, and big pharma coalesced into a perfect storm of deceit. Governments imposed censorship on free speech. Suddenly hundreds of thousands of people found their voice of protest, they were instantly suppressed, but reappeared everywhere. We cannot be silenced. Truth will have out.

Best wishes for 2023. We can do this.

Guy Hatchard PhD

https://hatchardreport.com & https://globe.global/

Is Society Polarised or Simply Disconnected?

0

An article published in Nature Cardiovascular Research reports the incidence of POTS—Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome following vaccination. POTS is a condition that causes your heart to beat faster than normal (over 100 beats per minute) when you transition from sitting or lying down to standing up. POTS can be a result of both Covid infection and Covid vaccination. The authors theorise that it involves an inflammatory response to the spike protein which is present in both the virus and the vaccine, saying:

“This invokes the possibility of an immune-mediated mechanism triggered by an antigenic component of the spike protein shared with vaccination.”

The known causal mechanisms of POTS include peripheral denervation (loss of nerve connection), autoimmune disease (where the body attacks healthy tissue), or hyperactivity of the sympathetic (fight or flight) nervous system.

The growing number of recognised neurological off-target effects of mRNA vaccination points to how little we know about the mechanisms of connection and coordination in the nervous system as a whole.

As we have discussed previously, the coordinated functioning of the whole physiology with its trillions of cells and the emergence from this of the whole person is little understood. In a recent release, “Is Human Life Programmable” we noted research showing that DNA isn’t the only builder in the biological world— there’s also a little understood bioelectric layer directing cells to work together to grow organs, systems, and bodies.

Much of our understanding of physiology as a whole is masked by the compartmentalisation of knowledge into different disciplines whose distinct findings are not always integrated into a complete picture. Underpinning genetic structures are the laws of physics in which consciousness plays a significant role.

Thus the health, well being, and survival of the individual involves coordination between multiple elements at different time and distance scales—from consciousness itself to fields, atoms, molecules, biomolecules (including DNA), organs and organ systems. The stability of the individual physiology encompasses the operation of laws which are artificially separated from one another by our limited understanding of them. In reality nature is a coordinated and integrated whole.

When seeking to understand and treat illness during the pandemic, our medical systems have applied concepts from gene therapy, virology, and toxicology, which in many ways are inadequate to respond to the novel bioengineered components of Covid. The interventions themselves, including the Covid vaccines, have prompted disruptions to physiological coordination. This is precisely because genetic material is intimately and continuously involved in maintaining physiological coordination. Modifying genetic structures and their mechanisms of expression is not only liable but certain to break chains of command and pathways of coordination resulting in novel adverse effects. The POTS study is just further confirmation of this.

Does Genetic Editing Affect Coordination Between Individuals?

The coordination of the physiology involves integrated laws of nature at multiple time and distance scales. There are really significant implications of this holistic picture for human life and life as a whole. At smaller time and distance scales, distinctions between entities dissolve into a unified coordinated whole exemplified in Unified Field theories of physics.

From this, it is clear that individuals are connected with one another. There is an abstract resonance in society connecting individuals. In some branches of psychology, this is referred to as collective consciousness. Collective consciousness is built up from individuals to families, neighbourhoods, cities, nations, and the world as a whole.

Collective consciousness is accessible to perception. When you land in New York immediately you notice the vibrancy. You are affected by it, energy levels step up. There is a mutual reciprocity between the individual and the collective consciousness. Individuals create collective consciousness, but they are also affected by it. From an expanded perspective of natural law as one integrated system, it is impossible to divorce the biological laws of genetics from those governing the creation of levels of collective consciousness.

Families and societies are partly held together by the structure and function of DNA, something we all share in common. So what happens when the structure and functions of DNA are edited and modified? It is obvious. The structure of society is also modified. As we have seen, the effect of mRNA vaccination and the engineered Covid virus itself is to disconnect system stability components, inflaming and disabling immune responses.

Much the same is happening in society at large, evidenced by disruption of family ties, polarisation of views, economic dysfunction, and even stressed international relations. Some of these clearly have multiple, identifiable, and understandable causes, but think for a moment about the ordinary response of society to a common foe. Sheltering in subways during the blitz, people spontaneously sang together which raised their collective and individual spirits. Why did we suddenly polarise rather than stand together during the pandemic?

Attending services in church, mosque, temple, or synagog restores collective harmony. Celebrating the seasons and the harvest. Meditating or praying together. Enjoying concerts and performances. Eating or feasting together as families do at Christmas, Eid, or Thanksgiving, for example. All these cement the bonds of collective consciousness. Many of these vital collective activities were unavailable or disrupted by pandemic restrictions, but don’t you agree that disruption went much further than can be explained by disrupted social functions alone? It raises questions about whether gene editing poses a threat to the individual, family, and society more than we have previously imagined possible.

Genetic modification remains a highly risky process, groping in the dark on the basis of a lot of speculative ideas. In contrast, I want to emphasise that the integrated connection of life everywhere is not an imagined or speculative concept. It is a cornerstone of modern physics. Biofields have long occupied a place in intellectual discussion and historical cultural ideas, have pandemic conditions, and responses illustrated just how real they are? In addition to the challenges to our individual and mental health brought about by the pandemic, have we been genetically amputated or disconnected from one another on the level of biofields which we only dimly sense and little understand?

The Political Science of the Unbelievable

0

Yesterday I was enjoying a cup of tea with Gary Moller overlooking Wellington Hospital. Over the course of an hour, there were six flights of rescue helicopters presumably ferrying injured or sick people for emergency treatment. Gary tells me the current frequency of these flights is very often at a rate unprecedented over the many years he has lived there. At night we hear the wailing of ambulance sirens.

Wellington is the seat of government. I wonder if our politicians have noticed? Or are they just putting a brave face on the carnage? When they read the international papers, do they wonder about people collapsing or dropping dead suddenly? Are they concerned about the record levels of excess mortality? As very few of them answer the concerned emails of their constituents, we can only guess what they are thinking. We have entered the political era of the unbelievable. Don’t ask, don’t answer, and talk about something inconsequential.

There is another approach: admit that something has gone horribly wrong, but make up a story blaming it all on the unvaccinated. This is the approach of Raymond D. Palmer, who describes himself as Chief Scientific Officer of Full Spectrum Biologics based in Perth, Western Australia.

Palmer has published a paper in Biomedicine (Taipei) entitled “Covid 19 vaccines and the misinterpretation of perceived side effects clarity on the safety of vaccines”. In this, Palmer comes up with the ingenious theory that it is panic induced by reading articles from antivax writers that causes so many people to drop dead soon after vaccination. Palmer says:

“Mental stress clearly causes vasoconstriction and arterial constriction of the blood vessels. Therefore, if subjects are panicked, concerned, stressed or scared of the vaccination, their arteries will constrict and become smaller in and around the time of receiving the vaccine. This biological mechanism is the most likely cause for where there have been blood clots, strokes, heart attacks, dizziness, fainting, blurred vision, loss of smell and taste that may have been experienced shortly after vaccine administration.”

I didn’t realise so many pro-vaccine individuals have been reading my work shortly before getting vaccinated. I’m mortified. According to Palmer, reading articles like this one is “highly likely” to cause “congested blood flow”. You might consider stopping reading now. Warning: DON’T READ ON YOU MAY DIE SUDDENLY.

There is another little matter of balance to consider here: the unvaccinated lost their jobs, have faced constant threats in the media, were locked out of restaurants and libraries, and some lost their homes as a result. So why aren’t they dropping dead from stress like the vaccinated? It’s hard to fathom Palmer’s logic.

In fact, Palmer is not all that he seems to be. His actual training is in web design and real estate. Around 2019 he enrolled in a few online courses in biotechnology and suddenly became an expert (??). His early attempts at a biotech company fell into administration. If you want to read more about the search for the real Raymond D. Palmer, you can go here – UPDATE: This page is no longer available.

Seriously though, Palmer’s article shows just how panicked the pro-vaccine lobby are. The high casualty rate from mRNA vaccines is getting harder and harder to hide, so hard that there is little point in denying Covid vaccines are a danger to health. The current best practice political stance is to keep quiet or deflect.

Therefore I was not surprised this week to read a reply from the ACT Party which said:

“ACT continues to stand up for freedom of personal choice.

ACT was opposed to the mandates and we voted against the legislation that introduced them. We said it should be ‘vaccinate or test’. There should be choice for New Zealanders and the mandates caused division.

Brooke van Velden, ACT Party Health spokesperson wrote to the COVID Minister asking her to re-consider the vaccination mandates.”

In contrast, David Seymour is on the social media record saying: 

“Under ACT’s policy most businesses would still require vaccination. Why? Well because the overwhelming majority of us are thrilled with the technology of the mRNA vaccines”.

So what is ACT’s policy? ACT never makes an unambiguous clear statement. You can’t have it both ways. It is true that earlier this year, Seymour questioned the efficacy of the vaccine and took a lot of media flack for doing so. But we haven’t heard much since. Even if we give ACT the benefit of the doubt and say thank you for standing up for freedom, we still need to know what ACT thinks about people dropping dead. Does ACT have a policy on that? Is it also a matter of personal choice?

You see, these are the questions that require answers today. Hopefully, vaccine mandates are firmly in the past, thank you, but now we have a different problem in Houston, and it requires an immediate fix, or we may not be alive tomorrow to think about it. Stop blowing with the wind David and take a stand. You are the only elected politician so far who has, on occasion, asked questions.

Sean Plunkett of The Platform (whose hollow slogan is Join the Resistance) also failed to address key questions. He outdid himself this week during his interview with stand out mRNA vaccine critic Steve Kirsch. Sean resorted to ad hominem attacks rather than face the truth. It is worth noting that I talked to Sean a few months ago about a similar little matter of truth; I suggested I might complain to the Broadcasting Standards Authority (BSA). Sean told me that The Platform isn’t a member of the BSA, so I would be wasting my breath. He went further and suggested that his broadcasters would be saying whatever they liked—even if completely untrue—because everyone was entitled to air their opinion. A radio station which concedes it is happy spreading untruths is hardly going to endear itself to anyone. Well then, it is no surprise that The Platform and Sean, in particular, has ended up on the government’s list of top disinformation spreaders.

I’m waiting to see who breaks ranks first among all the scientists, writers, advert copywriters, commentators, columnists, politicians, experts, and doctors who have been misleading the New Zealand public for two years about mRNA safety. Who is going to be the first in New Zealand to admit what is becoming obvious publicly? They’re very dangerous.

The international prize has just been won by Governor Ron DeSantis of Florida, who announced this week “a petition with the Supreme Court of Florida to empanel a grand jury to investigate any and all wrongdoing in Florida with respect to COVID-19 vaccines.” In a televised address, DeSantis said, “it is illegal in Florida to mislead the public about the efficacy of drugs.” It should be so in New Zealand. Also, it is a matter of life and death.

The Urgent Need to Keep Up With Published Covid Findings

0

Health experts appearing on or writing in mainstream media to discuss Covid are reassuring the public that they are keeping up with science publishing and tailoring their messaging accordingly. But are they? Recently we reviewed a study published in the Lancet, which shows that, contrary to the assurances of New Zealand experts, mRNA vaccination fails to reduce transmission, serious illness, and death among the vulnerable. This article discusses two more recent studies that run counter to the government narrative.

German Study Implicates Myocarditis in Post mRNA Vaccine Deaths

German researchers performed standard autopsies on 25 persons dying within 20 days of mRNA vaccination. The results are reported in a paper entitled “Autopsy-based histopathological characterization of myocarditis after anti-SARS-CoV-2-vaccination”.

In four patients who received an mRNA vaccination, the researchers identified acute myocarditis without detection of any other significant disease or health constellation that may have caused an unexpected death.

The deaths were found to be caused by acute arrhythmia leading to cardiac failure associated with interstitial myocardial T-cell invasion. The effect was most notable on the right side of the heart, which receives blood returned from veins, which is likely to have contained elements of vaccine components.

The authors concluded:

“Myocarditis can be a potentially lethal complication following mRNA-based anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. Our findings may aid in adequately diagnosing unclear cases after vaccination and in establishing a timely diagnosis in vivo, thus, providing the framework for adequate monitoring and early treatment of severe clinical cases.”

The prevalence of definitive causal myocarditis symptomatology was 16% among deaths within 20 days of mRNA vaccination. According to CARM data held by Medsafe, up to September 2022, there have been 157 deaths reported to CARM proximate to vaccination. Medsafe admits this figure is highly underreported by a factor of approximately 20. Therefore a conservative estimate of the actual total would be 3140. 16% of 3140 is 502 deaths.

It is noteworthy that over the course of almost two years, New Zealand Medsafe has admitted that only two deaths proximate to vaccination can be causally ascribed to the effects of vaccination. If the German experience is being repeated here, there could be 500 deaths from vaccine related myocarditis that have remained undetected and unacknowledged.

The huge discrepancy between the German results and the official New Zealand figures indicates that insufficient investigation, including autopsies, have taken place here. For a detailed discussion by Dr. Mobeen Syed of this technical study, see here.

Large Prospective Lancet Study Calls the Current Long Covid Narrative Into Question

Dangers of Long Covid are repeatedly cited as a reason to vaccinate and take severe precautions such as masking, ventilation of social spaces, social distancing, and isolation. A number of cross sectional studies have been completed on the prevalence and persistence of Long Covid. Those published so far appear to indicate that a very wide range of symptoms persist over long periods among a significant percentage of persons subsequent to Covid infection.

A potential difficulty with the information we have so far is the great variability of the estimates offered by different papers. Current estimates of Long Covid prevalence hover around 10-30% of those infected who still suffer some symptom(s) after three months. These include loneliness, mental health and well being, fatigue, and specific physical symptoms, including loss of taste or smell, pain, and shortness of breath. Is this picture accurate?

Studies to date have an inherent defect. They are based on surveys of populations at specific intervals post infection, but they don’t follow the course of Long Covid for the same groups of individuals over time. In other words, from a strictly scientific perspective, we have to ask: are the same people suffering symptoms throughout the study period? This defect can be rectified by prospective studies that follow individuals from the point of infection onwards

A prospective controlled study published by the Lancet of 7000 children and young persons (5000 covid positive and 2000 covid free) over the course of a year post infection during 2020 up to March 2021 is entitled “Natural course of health and well-being in non-hospitalised children and young people after testing for SARS-CoV-2: A prospective follow-up study over 12 months”. The results are very surprising and entirely up-end our understanding of Long Covid.

In summary, symptoms of Long Covid in all categories decline greatly over the course of the year which is very reassuring. But here’s the rub, for many young subjects, not initially subject to Long Covid, new symptoms appear after 6 or 12 months which are actually not related to Covid infection but have multiple other causes.

“New adverse symptoms were reported six- and 12-months post-test by both test-positives and test-negatives, particularly tiredness, shortness of breath, poor quality of life, poor well-being and fatigue.”

The authors conclude that the evidence points to:

“The new-onset adverse symptoms arising 6- or 12-months after initial viral infection should not exclusively be viewed as new long COVID symptoms as a consequence of the initial SARS-COV-2 infection. Rather, these adverse symptoms should be seen in the wider context of health and well-being in the general adolescent population.”

Some symptoms being ascribed to Long Covid have other causes unrelated to Covid infection. Thus young persons are likely to be affected by the stressful social effects of pandemic policies which could include lockdowns, loss of school time, peer interactions, inadequate medical care, masking, etc. In other words, pandemic policies could be making things far worse for young persons, not better. For a good video summary by Dr. Vinay Prasad, see here.

Why Have Alarm Bells Remained Silent at the Ministry of Health?

Increasingly government policies around the world are falling out of step with Covid findings published in journals. There is a need for greater vigilance and an educational programme to get medical professionals up to date. However, this is not the whole story, if you listen to eminent UK Cardiologist Dr. Aseem Malhotra in a recent interview with Tucker Carlson, you will be horrified to learn that many doctors are actually up to date with mRNA vaccine harms, especially those related to cardiac problems, but they are carefully protecting big pharma from blame by keeping silent and pressuring others to do the same.

The systemic pathology of the regulatory system and the profit incentive in the pharmaceutical industry have distorted the safety data and hidden the adverse effects of mRNA vaccination. Many people are anxious to keep it that way. The latest findings reveal mRNA vaccination is far more dangerous than Covid itself. Malhotra’s in-depth interview with Carlson is one of the clearest and most measured discussions of research on safety data I have seen. Please take the time to watch this so that you inform others and help protect public health.

MSM is Still Offering the Nz Public Incomplete Information

Is any of Dr. Malhotra’s message coming to public attention in New Zealand? Unfortunately not. The New Zealand Herald published an article yesterday, “Covid 19 Omicron: Explained – the two big variables that could slow or grow this wave” —another missed opportunity. Curiously, the article didn’t mention mRNA vaccination and didn’t tell us why it got left off the page. Short answer: mRNA vaccination doesn’t work, and more to the point, it leaves recipients more vulnerable to Covid and other illnesses, including cardiac conditions. This could have been avoided if the Ministry of Health had examined the Pfizer trial data more diligently early on.

So here is the sad outcome of a highly vaccinated New Zealand, we are now all being encouraged by mainstream media to:

1. mask, test, socially distance, and isolate

and wait for it:

2. take antiviral medication

Yale Medicine lists the possible side effects of antiviral Paxlovid (currently being widely advertised on TV) as: hives, trouble swallowing or breathing, swelling of the mouth, lips, or face, throat tightness, hoarseness, skin rash, an altered or impaired sense of taste, diarrhoea, increased blood pressure, muscle aches, abdominal pain, nausea, and feeling generally unwell.

Studies show significant measures that we can take to improve Covid outcomes and cardiac outcomes include the following: dietary improvements, including a lighter fresher diet, regular exercise, sufficient sleep, nutrition, and reduced consumption of ultra-processed foods. Dr. Malhotra discusses these factors in his interview and in many of his earlier writings. He expresses disbelief that governments chose to ignore warning signs early in the pandemic that easily rectified lifestyle factors were important determinants of Covid outcomes. We also tried to alert medical decision makers to this over a year ago.

Our medical system has closed its eyes and looked the other way. It has failed to offer informed consent to the public, and it has ignored potential cost-effective remedies. The longer we postpone informing the public about the dangers of mRNA vaccination, the greater the pain is going to become.

For Once, Hats Off to Jacinda Ardern. Can You Believe I Am Saying This?

0

The papers last week were filled with rhetoric which will fuel and exacerbate attacks upon those with doubts about vaccine efficacy and safety.

The New Zealand Herald reported, “Complaint lodged against lawyer and anti-vaccination campaigner Sue Grey” Sue Grey is the lawyer representing the parents of Baby W. A number of complaints have been lodged with the Law Society during the two years of the pandemic asking that Grey be disbarred because of her vaccine-hesitant views. One complainant said: 

“I am worried about the damage Grey does to people by spreading deeply concerning conspiracy theories.”.

It is apparently very easy under the influence of pandemic panic to forget that the right to legal representation is a cornerstone of our democracy. Quite apart from Covid, every single case that comes before the courts involves discussion of opposing views and interpretation of evidence. If lawyers holding views opposite to public perceptions were routinely disbarred, we would not be living in a democracy but a dictatorship.

Public Reaction Has Become Hysterical and Detached From Fact

The New Zealand Twitter-verse was overwhelmed last week by attacks on the parents of Baby W, who unwisely chose to appear on Infowars and be interviewed by Alex Jones, infamous for denying the Sandy Hook school massacre ever happened. In the thread Debunking Conspiracies Aotearoa, for example, complaints that Sue Grey and others are unhinged right-wing fanatics intent on bringing down the government are carefully sandwiched between assertions that vaccine injuries reported to Centre for Adverse Reactions Monitoring (CARM) are fake or inconsequential.

This highlights just how uninformed the New Zealand public is about the extent of vaccine injuries. No doubt, tight manipulation of media content is mostly at the root of this. Should we blame the government alone? No. Whilst there are a lot of heavily pro-vaccine political players on both sides of the parliamentary benches, there are also sponsors and advertisers using their dollars to influence media content. There are high-profile experts who are dyed-in-the-wool vaccine proponents, refusing to debate the issues, requiring sanitised platforms that enable them to assert their views unopposed.

The contrast we are experiencing these days is disconcerting. On the one hand scientists who have had their concerns marginalised are now confined to alternative channels where they are presenting charts and analysing data from scientific studies in great detail to try to get their point across. But if you only watch MSM you are on a diet of so-called experts who have a free pass to appear on national TV and be quoted in print, saying whatever they wish without any requirement for justification. The two worlds never meet.

This has become a problem for the government. Over the course of two years government advice has systematically schooled the public to believe deeply and uncritically in the safety and efficacy of mRNA vaccination—a novel form of gene therapy. A vocal segment of the population has adopted this perspective with a depth that borders on fanaticism. Now the data is in, it is not looking good for the vaccinated. They are disproportionately represented among Covid related deaths.

Over a quarter of the eligible population, a significant minority, have twigged that something is up and ducked the boosters. So what is the government going to do?

Is Ardern Trying to Calm Concern About Covid Vaccination?

It was somewhat surprising and also moderately gratifying to hear an attempt at a conciliatory statement from Jacinda Ardern when she gave a Christmas interview looking ahead to 2023. For people who still felt disenfranchised, she insisted that the government’s intentions have “Always been about how we best look after people.” And continued:

“Those who may have very strong feelings about, for instance, vaccines, that might have been their starting point – that was ours too.”

“We always were focused on how do we best look after people – so let’s start from the point we’ve shared and find ways so where we don’t agree, to accept that,” she summarised.

I know you are going to say she didn’t say anything near enough to that which our situation demands. Acceptance of difference resolves little. I totally agree, but could I also detect in these words a tacit acceptance that there is evidence about vaccine harm that needs to be addressed and convincingly resolved through actual published science rather than prejudice?

Ardern’s remarks were definitely not the staunchly pro-vaccine rhetoric that we have come to expect from the government. Are they having doubts? Just possibly. They should be. Might some Labour politicians have read papers in leading journals pointing out that there is a net harm from vaccination for younger recipients, such as this recent article from the British Medical Journal?

Ardern has started the ball rolling by posing a question. None of these parties—National, Greens, and ACT—have made any conciliatory comments. Any political figure who steps out of line, such as Winston Peters, who made comments opposing mandates, has been cancelled and mercilessly attacked. The longer the opposition parties fail to step up to the plate, the harder it is becoming to make the transition. They are increasingly looking like dinosaurs.

Will Jacinda Ardern’s tentative comments do much to curb public hysteria directed against the unvaccinated? I doubt it. Far more clear explanations and discussions of published scientific evidence will be required to calm down the current level of vocal public prejudice. In other words, a genuine moderated public debate.

Highly Risky Biotechnology Experiments Are Quietly Continuing

In truth, whether vaccinated or unvaccinated, we have much in common to be concerned about. For example, recent evidence has cemented a lab leak origin of Covid-19, but incredibly we now read in the authoritative Nature journal that gain of function experiments are continuing at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

An article entitled “Close relatives of MERS-CoV in bats use ACE2 as their functional receptors” reports that Wuhan researchers have found out how to mutate two bat viruses closely related to MERS CoV to make them more dangerous for humans. Just recall that MERS was far more deadly than Covid. It had a 35% mortality rate. Is that too going to escape accidentally? Why on earth are scientists still making novel deadly viruses in weakly protected lab conditions? Is the Covid death toll not enough for them? No lab is safe enough to contain these risks.

As everyone does, we live in hope of sanity and rational sense. So much decency and reason has been abandoned during the pandemic with little or no justification. The thing that really appalls and worries me is that ongoing biotech experiments and projects are being carefully concealed from view. The world has been subject to manipulation as for example revealed by this article “Emails show Wuhan lab collaborator played central role in public messaging about COVID-19 origins”.

Emails released under the North Carolina Public Records Act document a rare insight into behind the scenes manipulation. EcoHealth Alliance President Peter Daszak, who worked closely with the Wuhan Institute of Virology, helped steer the media and scientific community away from questions about whether COVID-19 could have originated in a lab. Unbelievably, his misleading and disproved views on Covid origins still hold sway with our government.

This is in the past, but even now, new biotech medicines and vaccines are in the pipeline and about to be sprung upon the public. Those developing them and expecting to profit greatly are being very careful to ensure that no independent judges of safety are able to look over their shoulders and comment on what is really going on. Simultaneously the highly funded biotech PR machine is presenting an idealised rosy future free from disease—a carefully crafted fiction. This is anti-scientific.

The biotech lobby succeeded in glossing over risks and harms during the pandemic. Now, they don’t want anyone asking questions about the safety of future biotech products. Governments and investors are blithely handing out funding to almost innumerable incredibly risky biotech projects around the globe.

We Need Calm Heads Accessing Reliable Knowledge, Not Open Conflict

The fiction of biotech safety is being maintained through the diversion of attention. For three years, the public has been unnecessarily polarised. As long as the media continue to stoke fear and thereby ensure sections of the population remain angry with each other, we are lost. Venting anger on one another is not a strategy that can facilitate a way ahead. Conveniently it keeps the misinformed public from asking key safety questions.

Biotechnology involves editing the building blocks of life, our life, our DNA. Changes and inevitable mistakes cannot be recalled; they spread without limit, affecting not only living populations but future generations as well. Slowly but surely, catastrophic danger is creeping up on civilisation.

Faced with this danger, whatever has happened so far during the pandemic, whatever water has flowed under the bridge—united we stand, divided we fall. Together we can eliminate the dangers posed by biotechnology experimentation by calling for global legislation and agreements imposing a ban. Go to GLOBE.GLOBAL for more information.

What is Science and Who is an Expert?

0

Last night we heard the decision of the High Court Judge in the baby W case, who ruled that the state should enforce a transfusion from the national blood bank in defiance of the wishes of the parents. He declined to allow an obvious and simple work around of donated unvaccinated blood. In so doing, he was ruling on a scientific matter, but was his ruling scientific?

To qualify as science, a theory must accurately describe a large class of observations or measurements on the basis of a model or set of rules which is simple and plausible. Crucially it must make definite and accurate predictions about the results of future measurements. If its predictions fail to agree with measurement, the theory should be adjusted or in some cases it might need to be abandoned and a new theory sought.

This was the case with the early Egyptian theory that the sun and the planets go around the earth in a set of crystal spheres. The model was adjusted to try to account for the observation of retrograde motions of planets, but eventually it became very complicated and didn’t ever quite fit observed planetary positions. When Galileo saw the moons of Jupiter through a telescope, the theory was abandoned and the sun-centred ideas of Copernicus were accepted.

Adequate theories must make predictions which can in principle be falsified by experiments. For example, a theory which predicts that a jolly green giant lives at the centre of the earth is not scientific because it cannot be proved right or wrong, as no one can travel there to look. Nor is such a theory plausible. A person who claims to be an expert on jolly green giants, should rightly be laughed at and dismissed.

The public has been offered a relatively simple theory of the action of mRNA vaccines. They invade a few of our cells, instruct the cells to produce spike proteins which are similar to those found on the surface of the Covid virus. The immune system detects these and in theory learns to neutralise the Covid virus if and when we are exposed to it. The physiology is supposed to rapidly clean up any excess spike protein or vaccine ingredients within a few days of vaccination.

It won’t have escaped your notice that a lot of predictions about the effect of Covid vaccines have been found to be false when actual health data is examined. They are clearly not effective or safe as claimed. Recent data indicates they fail to even provide protection against severe disease or death. They appear to suppress immune system function and leave some recipients vulnerable to a range of illnesses.

Is the Theory of mRNA Vaccines Incomplete

So is the theory of mRNA vaccines incomplete or even wrong? It seems so. Fragments of genetic material in the vaccine are more mobile than first thought and last longer, months even in some cases. The immune system appears to be confused by this in some way that is not yet fully understood. Blood clots may be generated. So has the theory been adjusted? No. Governments, medical experts, and the media have unaccountably been doubling down on the theory and cancelling critics. This is not the normal process of scientific debate, in fact, it is not science at all. It involves a measure of prejudice and hubris.

You must have experienced that sinking feeling when you have said or done something wrong. Generally, wishing to avoid embarrassment and blame, we rush to correct our mistakes and apologise. Occasionally, as is sometimes the case with the young, we may protest our innocence against all evidence or try to hide the evidence.

There is another kind of response that can arise if we are particularly invested in what we were doing at the time and expecting a good result or some gain. The disappointment of failure can lead to self-justifying anger. Anger clouds our judgment, which leads us to describe or even remember the actual events differently. When we lie to ourselves or others in this way, our rational faculty gets suppressed. If we are not careful, one thing leads to another and we get caught in a web of deceit.

This seems to have been happening as cracks have appeared in the pandemic response and the official narrative has unravelled. Yesterday the 11 year old son of a prominent entertainer collapsed on the sports field. According to a news report the father said “He was going blue and was unconscious until he calmed down. It was scary, but it turned out to be a panic attack”. It was suggested this could have been brought on by the son’s desire to impress his father with his performance.

The media agreed, and reported this reassuring advice from the NHS:

“there are a number of symptoms of a panic attack including a racing heartbeat, feeling faint, chest pain and shortness of breath.” 

They omitted to mention that becoming unconscious and turning blue are definitely not normal results of a panic attack. In fact, chest pain, racing heartbeat, feeling faint, and shortness of breath are all symptoms of myocarditis, a known side effect of mRNA vaccination, especially prevalent among under-40s, including school children.

The incident should be added to a long list of tragic events on the sports field that are occurring in unprecedented numbers. When I say ‘unprecedented’, I don’t mean this in the sense of a casual turn of phrase. Given what typically happened (or rather didn’t happen) pre-pandemic, the current rate of events on the sports field should be a statistical impossibility. A ten fold increase should raise panicked alarm, an almost hundred fold increase, as has been estimated by some, should have compelled medical authorities to revise everything they thought they knew about mRNA vaccination. It hasn’t.

Medical Gaslighting

What is going on is medical gaslighting. Victims are being sent home with false diagnoses and reassurances that their serious and unusual symptoms are mild, short-lived, or ordinary, and unrelated to vaccination. This does not bode well for the future evolution of the pandemic response and our health system in general. Authorities are deliberately looking the other way in the face of accumulating evidence of risk and harm. The public are being fobbed off with suggestions they are merely weak or anxious.

There is a fundamental problem here. There are a lot of experts in epidemiology, virology, vaccines, and public health who know next to nothing about biotechnology and gene therapy. My guess is they are experiencing that sinking feeling increasingly these days as new health data comes in falsifying all their preconceived ideas, but instead of correcting their mistakes and revising naive opinions, they are getting angry. From the start they should not have pretended that they were experts on biotechnology, they never were.

Caught in a Web of Deceit

Now the media, medical authorities, governments, and a number of high profile experts are caught in a web of deceit. Like the confused or proud astronomers adding new crystal wheels to their planetary models in order to prop up their theories of the Heavens, they are adding new medical diagnoses to protect the illusion that interfering with genetic structures and functions is inherently safe—an illusion that they themselves created or endorsed without having sufficient, or even in some cases any knowledge and evidence. Others are withholding or hiding medical data, including the incidence of disease or vaccination status of victims.

In essence, the authorities have been caught in a lie and they are trying to lie their way out of it. As a result, they are failing to warn the population of an increasingly obvious and serious danger to individual and public health posed by Covid vaccines. In the process, they are putting the health of children and adults at risk by continuing to advise that mRNA vaccines are safe whilst pontificating about their own position and status and their right to decide the fate of others. Time to come down off their high horse and admit that jolly green giants don’t exist except in fables and advertising jingles. It is a very serious matter, a matter of scientific validity and public safety.

Scientists and experts: if you were expecting to make your reputation and your fortune during the pandemic, you can salvage what is left by immediately and publicly admitting a mistake has been made and a wrong impression created that urgently needs to be corrected. Lives are at stake every day in the home, on the sports field, and at work. All-cause mortality has reached record levels here and in highly vaccinated countries overseas. A silent killer has been let loose amongst us.

Pandemic Policy Became a Political Vanity Project With Caution Thrown to the Winds

0

Matt Hancock, former UK Secretary of State for Health and now reality TV performer, has published his tell all diary of the pandemic which is being serialised by the Daily Mail. Throughout the diary, petty politicking and Cabinet rivalry is on show, along with a casual disregard for caution and for those injured by vaccination. I can’t cover this in its entire detail, it is book length, but you can find daily short extracts for free at the Daily Mail.

On Friday, June 19 2020, Hancock, who is an economist by training, wrote in his diary:

A massive blow-up with Kate Bingham [Head of the Vaccine Taskforce. A venture capitalist with a background in the pharmaceutical industry]. She simply doesn’t see the need to order 100 million doses of the Oxford vaccine – she wants 30 million – and can’t seem to grasp almost everyone may want or need it”

According to the diary:

“Kate pressed her argument claiming that the technology that underpins the vaccine Oxford is working on ‘is neither proven nor scaled’, and that she has ‘an expert team who are working round the clock, pushing hard’.”

Hancock wanted to accelerate delivery of the vaccine and commented:

“This only seemed to wind Kate up further, prompting a mini-lecture about the dangers of trying to go too far too fast. ‘The worst case is that we kill people with an unsafe vaccine,’ she said. ‘We need to tone government communications to register the fact this is risky and unproven.’”

Hancock won the argument with the support of Cabinet and finished with:

“If there’s one thing I can’t stand, it’s being patronised.”

Curious language indeed, the leader of the vaccine project was striking a sensible note of moderation, safety, and ethics. Biotechnology was known to be risky. The unqualified Hancock was annoyed because he was being warned by someone beneath his presumed rank. Kate Bingham’s warning didn’t slow him down.

Hancock reveals that in early 2021 he feared the vaccine rollout would have to be cancelled because 3 out of the first 400 recipients had in the words of the UK Chief Medical Officer Chris Whitty “a massive reaction”.

Hancock’s diary entry reads: ‘We may well have to halt the entire vaccination rollout… Still feeling nauseous, I slumped into bed, knowing I wouldn’t get a wink of sleep.’

But first thing the following morning a member of Hancock’s private office rang and relayed: “All three had a clinical history of anaphylaxis”.

“I can’t remember ever being so relieved in my life,” Hancock’s entry reads.

These massive reactions and the advice that the technology was unproven and risky did not stop the government telling everyone, including the young, to take the jab.

The serialised diary reveals that Hancock is extremely proud of his work to push the vaccine rollout ahead of safety concerns. By 26 August 2021, Boris Johnson was beginning to realise that statistics showed Covid wasn’t actually as serious as they first thought and their policies had been a “catastrophic overreaction”. Hancock was not about to change course, his commitment to universal vaccination added to his rivalry with Boris, led him to discount and ultimately ignore the growing concerns.

One can only wonder how much our government was influenced by the determination of the UK government to ignore early advice warning that the biotech jabs were unproven, possibly unsafe and even lethal, and then plough on regardless despite severe adverse reactions among the first batch and the realisation that Covid infection was not usually serious.

Our government has never publicly acknowledged the fact that biotech vaccines pose unquantified and unique risks to health, some of which may manifest in the longer term. Jacinda Ardern, like Matt Hancock, chose to present a picture of safety and efficacy to the New Zealand public that was not supported by known science. The government further denied that the vaccine was experimental in character, something that was obvious to qualified persons.

Unlike our newspapers and media, the UK Daily Mail sometimes seems to have the courage to say it how it is. It reports at length the whistleblower book by Dr. Andrew Huff, the former VP of EcoHealth Alliance, who confirms what the Hatchard Report and others have been saying for a year—Covid was genetically engineered and leaked from the facility in China. Fauci knew more than he was prepared to publicly admit.

“EcoHealth Alliance and foreign laboratories did not have the adequate control measures in place for ensuring proper biosafety, biosecurity, and risk management, ultimately resulting in the lab leak at the Wuhan Institute of Virology,” Huff said.

The army veteran, from Michigan, said EcoHealth Alliance, which was funded by US NIH, taught the Wuhan lab the “best existing methods to engineer bat coronaviruses to attack other species” for many years.

“I was terrified by what I saw. We were just handing them bioweapon technology.

In his book, the infectious diseases expert claims “greedy scientists killed millions of people globally,” and goes as far as to claim the US government covered it all up. To this day, the US government is still publicly claiming the source of the virus is probably zoonotic. Another example of how the promotion and protection of political reputations is taking precedence over truth.

Reading these two first-person accounts from protagonists at the forefront of pandemic scientific work or decision-making, one in the USA and one in the UK, we can’t help but be appalled. It is clear that politicians were determined to override and cancel any scientists who spoke for caution, whilst biotechnologists involved were in turn going to make sure that no one found out just how deadly their work was. In the end, both sides cooperated and, with the help of the pharmaceutical lobby, dragged the medical establishment and the media into their deception. You can apportion blame as you wish, there is plenty to go round.