Flying under the radar, the BBC has been accused of orchestrating an alliance of legacy media outlets and social media sites to suppress competition from alternative media. This is entitled “The Trusted News Initiative”.
An antitrust lawsuit filed on January 10th 2023 in the US has obtained documents which they say indicate that the BBC joined with the Washington Post, Reuters, AP, Meta, Google, Twitter, and others in order to protect their business models from competition. Whilst publicly talking about suppressing misinformation, documents indicate that the real intention was to exclude other information platforms, whether their reports were true or not. You can view Tucker Carlson interviewing Robert Kennedy Jnr. about the lawsuit here.
BREAKING :
The BBC have been censoring things that are true on the covid 19 vaccines
‘That’s when you cross into criminal propaganda’ @TuckerCarlson is 100% correct.
People will continue to be maimed & die until the mRNA shots are stopped.
There appears to be little doubt that vital information about Covid vaccine safety was withheld from the public as a result.
Covid Vaccination Increases the Risk of Pulmonary Embolism in Persons Over 65
Meanwhile, published studies continue to pour in which reveal the horrifying extent and prevalence of Covid vaccine injury. For two years, we have been told that Covid vaccines are especially essential for older age cohorts. A study published January 9th, 2023, in the journal Vaccine entitled “Surveillance of COVID-19 vaccine safety among elderly persons aged 65 years and older” reports that Covid vaccination increases the risk of pulmonary embolism in the age group by 50%. A pulmonary embolism occurs when a clump of material, most often a blood clot, gets stuck in an artery in the lungs, blocking the flow of blood.
A study published in Vaccine on 22 September 2022 “Serious adverse events of special interest following mRNA COVID-19 vaccination in randomized trials in adults” by Dr. Joseph Fraiman and others, is gaining increased traction. The authors completed secondary analysis of the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA phase III clinical trials and found they were associated with an excess risk of serious adverse events of special interest of 10.1 and 15.1 per 10,000 vaccinated over placebo baselines of 17.6 and 42.2 (95 % CI −0.4 to 20.6 and −3.6 to 33.8), respectively.
The study concluded:
“The excess risk of serious adverse events found in our study points to the need for formal harm-benefit analyses, particularly those that are stratified according to risk of serious COVID-19 outcomes. These analyses will require public release of participant level datasets.”
The continued refusal to release the datasets from the Pfizer and Moderna trials is raising eyebrows very high indeed. Even the BBC has been forced to consider the evidence that the vaccines are raising all cause deaths to record levels in the UK. Watch this interview with Dr. Aseem Malhotra, which took place yesterday. It is a first for mainstream media exposure.
“Repeated immunization of naïve individuals with the mRNA vaccines increased the proportion of the IgG4 subclass over time which might influence the long-term Ab effector functions. Taken together, these data shed light on these novel vaccine formats and might have potential implications for their long-term efficacy.”
Translating this into everyday English, the study found that mRNA vaccines cause a worrying drop off in immune responses to Covid infection that increases over time, leaving vaccine recipients more vulnerable to repeated infection. Crucially the long term outcomes of this are unclear. Igor Chudov discusses the possible implications for our immune tolerance here.
Eminent cardiologist Dr. Malhotra is asking that the mRNA vaccination programme be withdrawn based on the published evidence. Our government and the health service remain silent and apparently unrepentant. For two years, many science writers, doctors, and other professionals asking questions have been labelled conspiracy theorists. The mounting evidence is by now unequivocally pointing to a conspiracy—a very concerning alliance of media, government, medical professionals, and pharmaceutical companies determined to remain silent in the face of overwhelming evidence of harm to the public.
The public are aware that research findings on diet, nutrition, and lifestyle indicate that there are proven health benefits.
Over 50% of the public use natural health products and alternative approaches to health care.
The public realise there are many traditional sources of information about what products can be used safely.
If an individual suffers from a chronic or serious illness, or simply wants to maintain health, they need to retain their options to research and choose the most effective treatment for them.
The new bill will regulate all natural health products that claim to benefit health.
This is an enabling bill. As a result, the government will appoint a regulator who will then decide for you what products can be sold and what health claims can be made.
Well, what will the regulator decide?
In 2016, the Ministry of Health published a draft list of 5500 approved and all restricted ingredients. Most likely, the decisions of the new regulator, when appointed, will be based on this list.
Let’s answer the public’s first question.
Are all these ingredients safe?
The 2016 Ministry of Health permitted list included 3000 synthetic and chemical additives.
A closer look shows that the permitted list includes many additives which are suspected of causing illness and cancer. Including:
FD&C red No. 2
Amaranth, No. 3
Erythrosine No. 4
Ponceau
All are banned in the USA by the FDA.
A 2007 study in the UK found a possible link between six food dyes, a preservative and hyperactivity in children. All these compounds are likely to be permitted by the bill.
Thousands of artificial fragrances and flavours have been approved, even though they have not been tested properly.
Here’s an example of a pre-approved synthetic product. This cheap popular drink is available in New Zealand supermarkets. All of its ingredients have already been approved by the Ministry of Health.
These include:
Sugar: which predisposes to obesity and aggravates diabetes
E330 Synthetic citric acid
Synthetic raspberry flavour, effects unknown.
E211 sodium benzoate: implicated as a possible cause of hyperactivity when used with E122
Colour E122 Carmoisine: banned in the United States, Sweden, Norway and Austria
Artificial sweetener E961 Neotame: similar to aspartame and banned in organic products. US FDA application noted adverse reactions. Dr. Mercola recommends this be avoided at all costs.
This bill will allow this synthetic product to be marketed as a natural health product.
We’re talking about serious health issues here. During the last 20 to 30 years, there’s been a huge expansion in chronic diseases, including cancers, diabetes, heart disease, anxiety, depression, and other mental and physical illnesses.
No one knows the exact causes but poor nutrition food, food additives and environmental pollution are all suspected.
Over 2000 new chemicals are registered each year. There’s been a rapid expansion in the use of chemicals in food and synthetic chemicals. Many of these have been approved without sufficient scrutiny.
Using discredited principles such as substantial equivalence additives that are similar to but slightly different from natural compounds have been approved in though is well known that very small differences in chemical structure can cause serious side effects.
The bill requires the regulation of entirely natural ingredients already known to be safe, in other words, foods.
Under the bill, all ingredients have to be pre-approved. We estimate a supplier will pay $200 annually for each ingredient.
The probable minimal cost of making a health claim on the label will be $5,000 to the regulator for each application. And for each mild condition, your product claims to benefit.
But you will not be allowed to claim that a natural health product can benefit a serious health condition.
If it is considered that your product has therapeutic value, you will pay around $100,000 to register it as a medicine. And only a medical doctor will be allowed to prescribe it.
An EU report found that natural health products are 45,000 times safer than pharmaceutical drugs; Despite this, suppliers will have to comply with pharmaceutical style regulations and undertake frequent costly testing of ingredients and products.
Say you’re selling 300 product products to the public, and each one benefits two mild conditions; the application fees alone will be $3 million before you’ve even begun to prepare your evidence.
The experience in Australia has been that the preparation of a single application can cost in excess of $100,000.
These restrictions are so costly that most suppliers will simply refrain from making health claims, so you’ll have less information. Many will go out of business.
The net effect of these regulations will be that consumers will have less information than they did before.
Restrictions on scientific information regarding serious illness
Did you know that the simple kitchen spice turmeric is effective in preventing bowel cancer?
There are a lot of studies.
New Zealand has one of the highest death rates from bowel cancer in the developed world.
Studies show that garlic, ginger, turmeric, thyme, rosemary, sage, spearmint, and peppermint all inhibit the growth of colon cancer cells.
A study found that 1/3 of patients with end stage bowel cancer for whom no other treatment options existed, improved after treatment with turmeric extract.
If the bill is passed, I would not be allowed to tell you this and could be liable for a substantial fine.
So there are restrictions on free speech
It has been proven for years that garlic benefits healthy heart conditions. No one selling garlic will be allowed to communicate this factual scientific information. Thereby the bill will restrict free speech and suppress matters of fact.
There’ll be restrictions on health claims
A consignment of this product, Vicks vapour rub, was seized by Medsafe. Officials in May 2016 and destroyed because the Label made this unapproved health claim:
Apply to the chest, throat, and back for 3-way relief from blocked nose, cough, and body ache.
Thousands of products could be snagged by this rule.
Restrictions on dose
In 2016 the Ministry of Health believed that the maximum daily dose of vitamin B 12 should be 50 micrograms. This product, vitamin B 12, is commonly used by people who are deficient. It has hit each dose 20 times the maximum daily dose specified by the Ministry of Health. So it could be banned.
A typical Indian or Thai meal may contain 50 grams of tamarind. The maximum daily dose of tamarind that has been permitted by the bill is 500 milligrams, that is 100 times smaller than the amount you might consume in a meal.
Civil servants have been employed to make up this ridiculous rule and hundreds more like it.
Banned ingredients
Even though this traditional coffee substitute contains only natural plants, it will be banned by the bill because it contains an ingredient that is listed under the medicines act.
A sort of reverse patenting that bans herbs if they are used to make medicines.
Hundreds of traditional remedies will disappear.
Neem is one of the world’s most revered traditional healing plants with many medical uses. Among its many uses, it reduces inflammation associated with internal ulcers. It’s so effective that pharmaceutical companies have tried to patent this plant.
The regulator is likely to classify this herb as suitable for external use only. Effectively banning its traditional use for no reason.
This popular form of vitamin C could be banned because it contains a derivative of lecithin (commonly used in chocolate and other supermarket products), which in 2016, was classified by the Ministry of Health as for “external use only“.
Restrictions on traditional Indian and Chinese medicine
The bill will empower the regulator to restrict the traditional practices of ethnic communities, and it will violate the Bill of Rights.
More than 150 commonly used Indian herbs and a similar number of Chinese herbs were wrongly placed on a not permitted list by the Ministry of Health in 2016.
To a large extent, this is because many traditional herbs have been found to be so healthy, that they have been used to develop medicines and therefore these ingredients will be restricted in natural health products.
There are more than 10,000 traditional healing herbs. It will cost more than $100 million to register their healing properties, so in effect, their use will likely cease in New Zealand.
Just look at this list. This is just a short extract from 300 herbs that the Ministry of Health sought to restrict in 2016. The last time they tried to introduce a bill of this type.
These are foods that we consume many of us regularly, why should they be restricted it doesn’t make any sense.
What will it cost you
And these restrictions are going to cost a lot. Last week a 50 gram packet of Rubia Cordifolia, a herb used to make healthy tea cost $12.
After the bill is passed, the same packet may cost 60 to $80, just due to the compliance clock costs.
There are over 100,000 eligible plants. It will take an army of civil servants years to classify even a small proportion of them.
Assessment costs will be paid by the manufacturing industry so the cost of natural health products will obviously rise dramatically.
What will escape regulation
Well, many unhealthy products will be allowed to be sold without regulation.
Sugary Drinks, hard fat, synthetic flavours, and alcohol will continue to be sold unimpeded….
while the government pours millions of dollars and years of fruitless effort into controlling products that are already known to be safe and healthy foods.
This would be ridiculous if it wasn’t immoral and criminal.
There is absolutely no need for the government to regulate natural foods that are based on DNA that are used in natural health products.
Natural foods and herbs should be automatically excluded from regulation. There is no need to do this.
Meanwhile, there is a crisis in healthcare
Medical misadventure, experimentation and interventions have just become the number one cause of death in the world.
Healthcare costs are spiralling out of control.
Mental illness has quadrupled.
Cancers, chronic diseases, heart disease, and many other conditions are increasing to epidemic proportions, all cause mortality is rising.
Clearly something has gone horribly wrong. But no one knows quite why.
There is no doubt that food additives and the drugs we take play a pivotal role in the development of disease.
There have been multiple failures in the regulatory processes which approve agricultural practices food and medicine.
How has this happened?
The process of regulation has moved away from science and becomes a cosy relationship between industry and regulators permitting unsafe and inappropriate products onto the market.
The bill, the proposed, bill represents a new phase of this cosy relationship. Regulators worldwide are cooperating to place restrictions on natural health products. And this will only benefit multinational companies.
What can we do to reverse this trend?
There is a scientific standard scientific approach to identify cause
Eliminate suspected causal factors and reintroduce them one by one.
Dr. Dee Mangin at Otago Medical School, has found that if you stop all non-essential medication for the elderly, their health improves.
Dr. Julia Rutledge at Canterbury University has found that greatly improved nutrition benefits children with ADHD.
Dr. Kulreet Chaudhary, a renowned San Diego neurologist, has found that her patients, including MS sufferers, improved dramatically when placed on a traditional herbal diet.
These are just pointers to the many scientific preventive approaches to health care, which are springing up everywhere based on natural foods.
So why is our parliament planning to restrict natural health products?
We need to remind ourselves there is no evidence that natural health products are unsafe.
In fact, there’s a great deal of evidence that they benefit health and prevent illness.
Natural health products are traditionally made from plants and animal products which are based on DNA and natural minerals.
Our digestive system has developed to easily metabolise food based on DNA without side effects.
Many people rely on natural health products to maintain their health. It will be criminally negligent to restrict their options.
True natural health products are in fact foods.
There is nothing risky about their use.
Taking natural health products is no different from the need to have a balanced meal.
Food is life. It is our first medicine.
The healing properties of plants are proven to benefit public health. Our right to use them should not be taken away by law and transferred to pharmaceutical interests.
We are a people here who believe in fairness.
This is not the time for New Zealand to become involved in an international effort to subvert regulatory safeguards.
This is not the time to restrict access to preventive health care.
This is not the time to allow suspected unhealthy synthetic ingredients to be included in natural health products.
This is not the time to restrict access to herbs and impose huge unjustified costs on traditional medicine.
This is a time for New Zealand to lead the world in the development of application of preventive approaches to health care.
The therapeutic products bill is currently up for public submissions up until February 15, 2023. Make a submission here.
Ask your MP to review this presentation, which shows that the bill relies upon outdated and discredited ideas.
Or you can contact me directly at my email ghatchard@gmail.com or go to my website for more information. Thank you
Guy Hatchard, Ph.D., was formerly a senior manager at Genetic ID, a food testing and certification company (now known as FoodChain ID).
Yesterday I was enjoying lunch at a restaurant, and I couldn’t help overhearing the extended family at the adjacent table having a concerning and tragic conversation.
A young boy of eight had died suddenly after a cardiac arrest and a brain bleed, and another boy of eight or nine, also known to the family, died suddenly on the very same day. The mother was upset, she was at a loss to understand how this could have happened. The grandfather offered some well intentioned words of comfort: “it could have happened to anyone, it is God’s will”.
I am not a fatalist. Things happen through cause and effect. I believe we have the freedom to choose between right and wrong. What’s more, “As you sow, so shall you reap”. Ultimately the universe is balanced and your deeds catch up with you. This is as much about Newton’s Laws as it is about religious faith. In India, they have a saying Truth Alone Triumphs. Their philosophy of karma mirrors that of Christ, the Buddha, and others.
You must have been reading about the Buffalo Bills’ safety Damar Hamlin aged 24, who suffered a cardiac arrest on the field. Nine days later, he has now been discharged from the hospital. The football world breathed a collective sigh of relief for him and his family. You may not have heard of Hunter Brown, Air Force offensive lineman, dead this week at 21. The New York Post reported Brown suffered a medical emergency, not on the field, but as he was leaving his dorm. First responders were unable to save him.
There’s more. If you read the sports pages of the Euro Weekly, you suddenly become aware of just how many public sports figures of all ages are passing away suddenly—seven this week alone, and that’s just a representative few of them. That doesn’t include those not in the public eye. It doesn’t include two active young boys dying suddenly in the same town in New Zealand on the same day. Deaths I haven’t seen reported in our newspapers.
People Who Lie Comfortably
Following public statements of concern about record high rates of excess death from high profile medical experts and some MPs, the BBC is reporting that there is no reason to be concerned (???). The author Rachel Schraer is a BBC reporter whom the Hatchard Report has had cause to criticise previously, for telling the public that the Covid jabs are safe and effective.
Here she does it again with cherries on top. The article reports Andrew Bridgen MP has been suspended for five days for quoting an eminent UK cardiologist Dr. Aseem Malhotra who has concerns about multiple deaths related to Covid vaccines based on studies which he has discussed in detail in his peer reviewed scientific papers. Schraer responds: serious side effects from Covid Vaccines are rare (???) and says “Extensive independent research shows that Covid vaccines are extremely effective at preventing deaths”, but unlike Malhotra she doesn’t reference her research. There is a good reason for this. It doesn’t exist except in the imagination of MPs, media moguls, die-hard vaccine advocates, and others anxious to please PM Rishi Sunak whose former hedge fund invested heavily in biotechnology.
Tory Chief Whip Simon Hart joined in the grovelling and jingoistic fervour with “As a nation we should be very proud of what has been achieved through the vaccine programme” (???).He didn’t mention that Covid vaccines have not prevented infection, hospitalisation, or death. He didn’t mention that the rate of excess all-cause deaths in the UK is continuing to rise. Presumably Hart is proud of vaccine injury; there appears to be nothing else to be proud about. Following Bridgen’s suspension, adverse effects of Covid vaccines are now officially unmentionable in the UK Parliament; the government-funded BBC is applauding at every possible opportunity.
Actually, serious adverse effects from Covid vaccines are so rare that they dwarf the totals of side effects from all other vaccines ever given in history. There are clever ways to hide these astronomical totals. If you assume for example that Covid vaccines could only possibly cause deaths in the three weeks following the jab, you can minimise totals. If you then produce a list of fatal conditions like neurological conditions and cancers for example that couldn’t possibly (???) be caused by vaccines, you can subtract all those deaths and arrive at a manageable total which can be relayed to the public. Even that total (60 according to the BBC) would have, in days of yore (pre-pandemic), resulted in the withdrawal of a pharmaceutical product. Back then, even two deaths would have been sufficient.
For the Record, It is Not Safe
I don’t want to put too fine a point on this, but all this obfuscation, hiding, sweeping under the carpet, and trumpet blowing about non-existent achievements amounts to lying. There seem to be a great many ‘great’ people in the public eye who have gotten used to lying comfortably. Many among our great and good rulers have difficulty admitting that they don’t know much about something; they are quite happy to have us believe they know all about biotechnology safety. For the record, it is not safe.
In fact, biotechnology is busy shaking up the arrangement of the ancient building blocks of life and coming up with surprises almost every week. Here at the Hatchard Report we come across published studies almost every day and write about them (with links). A little known study published in August 2022 by PubMed reports that Botox injections are less effective after Pfizer Covid-19 injections. I haven’t had one myself, so I am not in a position to recommend them, but I want to say that no one knows why Covid-19 injections interfere with Botox.
Popular beauty magazine Allure is having none of it. The article “Is the COVID-19 Vaccine Making Your Botox Wear Off Faster??” repeatedly urges its readers to “get the vaccine [and the booster] anyway”. Beauty is apparently too precious a possession to let a study interfere with your botox routines or stop you from having a vaccine.
If It Doesn’t Happen Within Three Weeks, It Doesn’t Matter
Add botox to a very long list of what no one knows about Covid inoculations, and biotechnology in general. In truth, no one knows what effects are going to surface over time, but they would have you believe that if it doesn’t happen within three weeks and it’s not on their approved list, it doesn’t matter. That, ladies and gentlemen, is a lie. One that is still rolling very easily off the tongues of government officials and pro-vaccine insiders all over the world who are increasingly worried that we might find out that they mandated a killer and told us to give it to little children.
Despite the collapse of the pro-vaccine narrative, the appetite for lying appears to have grown stronger. The BBC article puts asking questions on Covid vaccine safety on a par with denying the holocaust. An absurd comparison.
Evidently, there is something addictive about the ‘lying’ habit, despite it always being wrong. Our mothers and teachers were right to discourage it. If our MPs continue to wilfully employ this tactic on both sides of the house, if they continue to stand by and watch people die, they will all be suddenly due for a stretch in the wilderness. Deaths have a cause. They do not suddenly increase for no reason, nor are they convenient political footballs.
I would like to conclude at this point by saying that time has a habit of sorting this out, but time is not on our side right now. Tragically we have found out the hard way that we can’t entrust the safety of our children to officials. They don’t care. Much is unknown about biotechnology, but one quality that is becoming increasingly clear is its deadly effect. It upsets the physiological balance that our health relies on every day, and for some people, that is proving final. Apparently, our leaders only care about covering their behinds and hiding their Pinocchio noses with masks.
People who die do not have a voice anymore, but they deserve justice. Justice here can only be the restoration of truth and an immediate change in pandemic policy.
A paper was published this week outlining a study completed in Taiwan. A survey of ECG (Electrocardiogram) parameters after the Pfizer Covid shot found that 17.1% of senior high school students had at least one cardiac symptom after the second vaccine dose, mostly chest pain and palpitations. 1% of students returned abnormal ECG measurements. The study concluded:
“Cardiac symptoms are common after the second dose of BNT162b2 (Pfizer) vaccine, but the incidences of significant arrhythmias and myocarditis are only 0.1%.”
85% of the estimated 500,000 12-18 year olds have been vaccinated in New Zealand. 0.1% of this number is 425 children who the study estimates will have had “significant arrhythmias and myocarditis”, while 4,250 would have returned an “abnormal ECG”, and17,625 who will have had “at least one cardiac symptom”.
My immediate issue is with the use of the term “only” in the conclusion. Many of these cases will have gone undetected and untreated, or worse, dismissed out of hand by doctors as insignificant or due to anxiety. Left untreated, some of these kids are likely to go on to develop serious complications that may leave them vulnerable to sudden cardiac events and even death.
If you follow Twitter closely, as some of our researchers do for us, you will have noticed that a number of qualified doctors are very busy on Twitter dismissing concerns. This week after the sudden collapse of a college basketball star on the field, Tweeters who were present at the game expressing concern (who didn’t mention vaccination) were nevertheless rapidly attacked for making a fuss about “nothing”. According to many doctors, sudden collapse during sports is now normal and nothing to worry about???
How Has This Happened?
You must have noticed a worrying trend increasing over the last few decades. When you visit some doctors, they seem to spend more time looking at their computer than they do questioning or looking at you. This is because the Ministry of Health has linked them with databases allowing them to enter symptoms and ask the computer what tests to run and what pills to prescribe. A sort of lazy man’s approach to doctoring largely controlled by pharmaceutical firms.
It is no surprise to realise that the “treatment” (???) of Covid vaccine injury has also been automated in this way. Doctors have been prompted to treat chest pains, palpitations, and shortness of breath as normal outcomes of vaccination. They never were before Covid Pfizer vaccines. Previously these symptoms would have prompted a call for an ambulance. The variety of ways that concerns are dismissed is mind boggling. CBS News reports this week, five college basketball players were hospitalised in Chicago following a workout. Incredibly the coach was blamed and removed.
The Bigger Picture
Increasingly authorities, politicians, and doctors have allowed themselves to fall into the hands of information supplied directly to their computers by operators with commercial and political agendas. Many of these operators are working in a global space outside of the boundaries of national regulation, and they directly control medical agendas via sophisticated databases pushing suspect information. You are no doubt aware that Big Pharma is fully involved. Concerning Pfizer trial outcomes were kept well away from public view. Incredibly, military and spy agencies have also become involved and are possibly contributing to the advice your local doctor is offering you about Covid.
During the first Gulf War (1990-91) the US military suspected troops might face damage from deadly nerve agents like sarin. Soldiers were issued pyridostigmine bromide pills and vaccinated against anthrax. More than one third of returning veterans suffered from Gulf War Syndrome, a chronic and multi-symptomatic disorder. A wide range of acute and chronic symptoms have been linked to it, including fatigue, muscle pain, cognitive problems, insomnia, rashes, and diarrhea. The causes of Gulf War Syndrome have never been determined.
I am using this example not to point the finger at any cause but rather to suggest that the US military has a long history of involvement with Big Pharma. The pharmaceutical industry is a military contractor. Recently discussion and evidence has surfaced that the US Department of Defense (DoD) has been closely involved with the formulation and promotion of pandemic policy. Why? Left wing, pro-vaccine news platform Politico reports:
“Officials are launching a new plan to develop medical treatments, vaccines and personal protective equipment that can adapt to a range of evolving biological and chemical threats,” said Ian Watson, DoD’s deputy assistant secretary for chemical and biological defense.
This new military approach to medicine is officially named the “Chemical and Biological Defense Program’s Enhanced Medical Countermeasures Approach”. The move involves the development of tests, treatments, and vaccines for a range of as yet unknown threats. Its introduction marks a shift in strategy for the DoD.
According to Ian Watson, “the change in approach has been shaped in large part by the Covid-19 pandemic. It can be impossible to tell whether a new threat is naturally occurring or intentionally manipulated by adversaries, but either way, the countermeasures are often the same”, Watson stressed.
Evidently, all along, there has been a US suspicion that Covid-19 is actually an escaped bioweapon. If that is the case, the close involvement of the military in our future medical services is a given. Military thinking is quite different from civilian thinking. Military thinking involves inevitable casualties. As Tennyson said ‘Theirs not to reason why, Theirs but to do and die’. With this in mind, it is no surprise that the medical profession has changed gear and now insists that nothing has gone wrong—excess all-cause mortality in highly vaccinated nations is simply the cost of final victory.
Biotechnology Doesn’t Work
The fly in the ointment of this wacky philosophy is the risk of biotechnology itself. Apparently, no one has informed the top military brass that biotech doesn’t actually work; it kills people, any people, whether they are friends or foes, Russian, Chinese, or American. Moreover, it is an offensive/defensive weapon like no other; once launched, it can’t be recalled, and it goes on killing people indefinitely.
It appears to me that the military is as much a victim of biotechnology misinformation as everyone else is. You can make money out of biotechnology whether it works or not, whether it helps or kills people. You simply have to keep the investment dollars, the government grants, and the military contracts rolling in. You do this by making wild promises that you can’t keep.
By the time it becomes clear that your product doesn’t work and actually harms people, you have a new product ready to go and a new set of promises. Technology moves so fast that the government, the medical profession, and the military can never catch up. They are in a state of constant fear driven by people writing sexy public relations drivel that arrives on official looking letterhead at everyone’s desktop. All at the push of a button. And the writers are very well paid to do so. They probably also write the scripts for fanciful quasi medical Sci-Fi epics that pollute our televisions with stories of miracle cures engineered by white coated scientists and hunky heroes. None of this exists.
In truth, the failure and risk of biotechnology is a dirty secret that is being kept from us. When trusting school children were told they needed to get the Covid vaccine in order to participate in school activities, no one told them that 17.1% would experience a cardiac symptom whose final outcome was unknown. No one told them that they were being signed up as subjects in an experiment. No one told them or their parents that they had virtually no risk from Covid infection but a measurable and significant risk subsequent to vaccination. No one told them that many medical professionals would ignore or dismiss them if they suffered vaccine injury. It is hard to escape the notion that school children have become cannon fodder in a secret war orchestrated by biotech dreamers and misguided military planners not too dissimilar from Dr. Strangelove.
Civilisations come and go through the ages. When governments empower people, they harness the intelligence and creativity of their citizens for the good of all; when they seek to control their populations, they fall into decline.
Following three years of pandemic control, governments are not stopping there. Here in New Zealand, the government has introduced the “Therapeutic Products Bill,” which will control how products which appear to benefit health are manufactured, prescribed, imported, advertised, supplied and exported. According to Health Minister Andrew Little:
“It will enable New Zealand to take advantage of advances in medicine, such as cell and tissue therapies, emerging gene therapies, and the use of artificial intelligence and machine learning software. Having risk-proportionate approval systems will improve access to necessary and life-saving medicines, such as vaccines in a pandemic.”
An important part of the bill aims to regulate the natural health products used by more than 50% of our population. This is the third attempt of the Labour Party to introduce extreme regulation of the public’s options to choose their medical care, supplements and diet. Their earlier two attempts failed because of vocal public opposition. In 2017 Labour opted for a prohibited list of 300 common herbal ingredients ( for some of these see photo):
Control of Our Food Supply
It won’t have escaped your notice that many of these like Cinnamon and Mustard are currently sold in shops. So how on earth did they get onto a prohibited list? The answer lies in attempts to gain control of our food supply.
Natural products that are beneficial to health cannot be patented, but synthetic copies can be. To make this work, the products that grow in gardens need to be banned.
Labour and the Ministry of Health did not make this list up, the list was supplied by the International Coalition of Medicines Regulatory Authorities (ICMRA) of which Medsafe is a member. ICMRA is largely funded by the pharmaceutical industry whose interests they serve. You can read all about it in my book Your DNA Diet, available as a Kindle from Amazon or a hard copy from the Hatchard Report.
Labour says it has learned from prior public opposition. This time the Bill will not name any prohibited ingredients. Instead is an enabling bill, the type of legislation made famous by Adolf Hitler. The Bill establishes a new regulator headed by an independent statutory officer with a wide remit:
The new regulator will be responsible for ensuring the safety, quality, and efficacy of natural products. It will design and implement proportionate, risk-based market authorisation pathways. Its functions will include, in addition to market authorisation, licensing controlled activities, post-market surveillance, and compliance.
These services will be funded through levies on the industry which are liable to be costly. Government regulatory schemes mooted in the last two attempts were likely to push small players out of the market due to the cost of compliance, as happened as a result of the Food Bill.
Crucially the Bill also includes a range of modern enforcement tools allowing for a graduated and proportionate response to breaches, including tiered criminal offences, strict liability offences, improved infringement notices and a civil pecuniary penalty regime.
In other words, the Bill appoints a new, as yet, unnamed regulator who is being empowered to do whatever he thinks fit to control the manufacture and availability of supplements. He could and is, in fact, very likely to publish a list of banned herbal ingredients soon after his appointment. The list is ready to go from the ICMRA database connected to Medsafe, courtesy of the pharmaceutical industry.
If we wish to be able to continue to freely chose herbal medicines and supplements without government interference, we will need to speak up. Go to this link to make a submission before February 15th. Write to your MP and complain that the appointment of a regulator amounts to an open ended blank cheque to control the use of products used by more than 50% of our population without fully specifying the principles he should use.
… in the Belief the Public Will Swallow Anything, No Matter How Absurd.
It is surprising what tripe you read in the newspapers, and more surprising—the government is funding it. Te Punaha Matatini hosts the government’s Disinformation Project, which is hitting the headlines again. According to Principal Investigator Kate Hannah (MA in history), the government should be allowed to dictate to high street stationer Whitcoulls which magazines it can sell to the public. Correct me if I am wrong but isn’t this a bit close to book burning?
Hannah is concerned that the magazine New Dawn has questioned the efficacy of the Covid vaccines (among other things like Atlantis and fake Moon Landings). I don’t read New Dawn, but if there is one thing that the public has figured out, it is the lack of efficacy of Covid vaccines. They don’t seem to prevent transmission, hospitalisation, or death.
During the last few weeks a number of papers have been published in journals outlining some of the many reasons why this is the case. A paper entitled “Class switch towards non-inflammatory, spike-specific IgG4 antibodies after repeated SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination” reports that after three mRNA injections B cells critical to antiviral immune protection switched to an IgG4 function. The immune system switches to an IgG4 function when it decides it wants to tolerate an allergen rather than fight it. Covid, however, is not an allergen; it is a replicating pathogen. Such tolerance explains why boosted people are slowest to clear Covid infections and can become subject to repeat infections. Read Q & A about it here.
Hannah is undeterred by such findings or concerns. Framed by a dramatic black background in a Stuff Newspaper video appended to an article, she explains to the public why we should only follow the government website Unite Against Covid-19. Her reasoning reveals the kind of anti-science New Zealand our government is planning. She advises against reading publications which:
Have lots of links and scientific references (like most science journals)
Come from a variety of sources from all over the world
Incredibly Hannah says even referenced data from the WHO and CDC should be treated with suspicion here in New Zealand. Instead, ask the government or talk to your GP. The government doesn’t just fund one link to information. Go to https://www.karawhiua.nz/frequently-asked-questions/ for example where in a mixture of Maori and English 16 year olds are urged to get a booster if they want to enjoy summer and everyone is advised to cease worrying if they get reinfected after talking Paxlovid.
In contrast, the Danish government advises the under 50s to avoid mRNA injections. Current research shows the risk of mRNA vaccine induced myocarditis exceeds the risks of Covid-19 infection, but as Hannah says: avoid overseas information. She feels this would constitute cherry picking (only citing findings favourable to your viewpoint).
“..males younger than 40 receiving a second dose of an mRNA vaccine are at greatest risk [of myocarditis]”.
The paper also shows how some researchers hid the risks of myocarditis by averaging the data of 20 year old males with 80 year old women—a form of medical fraud motivated by pro-vaccine myopia and big pharma funding.
In another example, government website Unite Against Covid-19 advises:
“You can get the Pfizer vaccine at any stage of your pregnancy.”
If you steer away from the narrow boundaries of Kate Hannah, government websites, and The Disinformation Project, you might come across this journal paper published 30th December 2022:
(all p values were much smaller than 0.05). The paper concluded:
“When normalized by time-available, doses-given, or persons-received, all COVID-19 vaccine adverse events far exceed the safety signal on all recognized thresholds…A worldwide moratorium on the use of COVID-19 vaccines in pregnancy is advised.”
Curiously, Kate Hannah (MA in History), as well as rejecting out of hand the scientific references cited by those asking questions about mRNA vaccine safety, is not offering any references of her own, nor do experts like Michael Baker in their public pronouncements. Content to pontificate that their unseen references are better than yours, but I don’t have to show you mine because you are not worthy of seeing them (possibly because they don’t stand up to scrutiny, you might infer). A sort of school playground spat where you had better watch out because my father is bigger than yours.
Hannah applies some truly wonderful logic to her case. An article reporting the concerns of frontline hospital workers in the USA is dismissed because the author is not specifically qualified to write about frontline health workers. Can you get such a qualification? Presumably, Hannah has sufficient qualifications (an MA in history) to tell everybody what to do. As such, she appears to fit right into the current Labour government mould.
Probably you, like me, are tempted to laugh at Kate Hannah. Her depiction of proto-terrorists as fair-haired people who wear braids, grow vegetables, knit, and eschew Covid vaccines. So why is the government funding Kate Hannah (MA in History) to tell us what to think about Covid when we could be relying on published research in reputable scientific journals?
They are desperate. There is an election coming up. They are engaged in a last ditch stand to rally their remaining supporters around the fading and tattered mRNA banner that Ardern unfurled with trumpets and mandates back in 2021. They are ignoring the accumulating safety signals and throwing money at anyone who will stick with their failed Covid policies and experimental injections. Given the risks of serious injury and death, which increase with each successive vaccination, it is a kamikaze approach. Send your most fanatical followers to the front line, knowing they are risking all for a lost cause.
Don’t stop asking questions. If you have studied history (like Kate Hannah), you should be aware that whenever governments become your sole source of truth, things can go horribly wrong.
Jeremy Fleming, the head of GCHQ (Government Communications Headquarters), one of three leading spy agencies in the UK, has publicly discussed that the agency wishes to promote “pre-bunking”—feeding the public with information designed to undermine narratives before they even appear on social media.
In other words, spy agencies originally tasked with monitoring events are now engaged in spreading propaganda about things that haven’t actually happened and probably have been doing so for a long time. They appear to be pre-empting the truth with their own imagined version of events.
Fleming described pre-bunking as a process of issuing ‘public warnings.’ This is, you will appreciate, a misuse of the term since the ‘public’ is not aware that they are listening to ‘warnings.’ They are being fed information or denied access to information without being told who is ultimately controlling the narrative. This is happening all over the world, as revealed by Elon Musk’s revelations about the role of the FBI in closely censoring Twitter content.
The pandemic has multiplied information actors with shady sources of funding and likely ties to government and big pharma, who are tasked with spreading pre-bunking narratives. Among these are a host of fact checkers. Full Fact UK presents itself as an independent fact checker located not a million miles away from Westminster and GCHQ with a host of funding sources, including Facebook, the National Endowment for Democracy, the International Fact Checking Network, and many others.
“In Alberta, Canada, unknown causes of death are causing even more deaths than heart disease, strokes and diabetes combined”
Full Fact doesn’t dispute that this is entirely true. It merely wants you to feel assured that there is no evidence these deaths were caused by Covid-19 vaccines—something that the creators of the YouTube source video do not actually assert. In other words, Full Fact wants to pre-empt any suggestion that the undisputed huge rise in unexplained deaths in Alberta, Canada (and presumably the many other highly Covid vaccinated nations suffering in the same way) is anything to worry about. That is a curious kind of manipulation of which GCHQ would no doubt be very proud. Just remember these are deaths in need of explanation, not inconsequential data sets that can be swept under the carpet.
Hypothetically …
So should we be concerned about statistically significant rising excess all cause deaths in highly vaccinated countries around the world and incidentally low birth rates in the same countries (see here and here)? Effects that are not being seen in nations with low vaccination rates, in Uganda, for example, as reported in this video. Yes, we should be concerned because the consequences of ignoring these trends would be catastrophic for Western civilisation (if such a thing exists).
Let us examine a hypothetical country of 5 million people with a previously stable population year on year. Each year 35,000 people die, and 35,000 babies are born. If annual deaths rise by 15% as they are in New Zealand for example, and births fall by 13%, as they currently are in Sweden, what would happen? In one year, 5250 extra people would die, and 4550 fewer babies would be born. A net loss of 9,800 persons in the population.
That is a net loss of 0.2% of the population size. So not too much to worry about then, or is it? Five thousand two hundred fifty extra deaths are 5250 people with families and jobs who died too soon—5250 tragedies. These are the figures for 2022. No one knows if these percentages will rise or fall in 2023. So far, they are steady or rising. Irrespective of the outcome, adverse events directly affecting individual well being and capacity to work are already a huge multiple of the number of deaths.
Medsafe safety reports indicate serious health outcomes could be as much as 1,000 times the number of deaths proximate to mRNA vaccination. We could speculate maybe a 100 times the number of excess deaths over a longer period. Scale that up to the whole world’s population and you would arrive at 8.4 million deaths along with an incalculable impact on global health, possibly 20% of the world’s mRNA vaccinated population affected with a significant health deficit—more than one billion people.
Why are People Dying and Falling Ill?
They are dying as a result of a new technology—mRNA biotechnology—which governments, big pharma, and the medical establishment are currently bidding to mandate widely for hundreds of conditions stretching into the future.
A February 2022 article in Nature lists 90 mRNA lead developers in the global vaccine landscape with 137 mRNA vaccines in the pipeline. You can bet your bottom dollar that number has grown substantially since. Commercial biotechnology experimentation is rife and cast adrift from rational considerations of human safety.
This represents a massive investment of money and personnel, an expectation of massive profits, and a speculative biomedical revolution aimed at the prevention and treatment of almost every illness. Expectations that are proving very hard to relinquish in the face of growing evidence of ineffectiveness and serious risk—risk of ill health and death. It is hard to comprehend why anyone involved would not be raising red flags.
Similarly, falling birth rates are a very serious concern. Biotech PR is busy pre-bunking this too, promising designer babies growing in pods for us all. A preposterous dystopian Brave New World future vision that has no basis in proven technology. Even a child can work out that an ordinary pregnancy and a family environment works efficiently with love and the immense personalised computational power of our physiology. Whereas even if baby pods did work (they don’t exist, except in the imagination of wannabe biotech profiteers) a whole army of biotech baby technicians will be absurdly expensive, mistake-prone, impersonal, and wholly frightening.
Nothing to See Here Carry On
In 2023 we are about to be engulfed by a tsunami of biotechnology involving an army of biotechnologists, their investors and supporters who are hoping against hope, like Full Fact UK, that we don’t notice how many people are dying suddenly for no recorded reason. They are busy along with thousands of other funded experts (???), pushing out the message that there is nothing to see here. They are hoping that regulatory agencies are going to approve their products at lightning speed with a minimum of scrutiny and fuss, as happened during the pandemic. In fact, the FDA has already flagged a speeded up process for mRNA look alikes—regulation lite.
The alternatives for wannabe mRNA billionaires are unthinkable. If biotechnology is fingered as the cause of the current wholly unprecedented rise in deaths and injury, their finances, reputation, and future will fall apart. Therefore they, like GCHQ, are incredibly busy pre-bunking to save their pet biotech projects from cancellation due to the risk of death and injury. They don’t care if you die as long as no one works out what you died of. Canada, New Zealand, Australia, the EU, USA, and the whole Western world are playing along by pretending, with the help of their spy agencies, that no one knows why so many people are falling down dead. They are busy hiding data, delaying investigation, and looking the other way.
If we don’t debunk and stop them very soon, they, along with the police, the courts, and our employers, will be breaking down our doors in 2023 and coming for us with deadly needles for every ill we don’t even have. Given the disastrous and deadly failure of Covid vaccines and lockdowns, this could only be described as a futuristic frenzy of psychopathic dysmorphia—a distortion of real appearances. It would make 2022 look like a cake walk.
Be Silent No More
Conversely, for us, the general population, the hoi polloi, if we put our thinking caps on, if we stand up and speak up with evidence, we could regain our life, choice and truth.
So our task in 2023 is to get this one message across: not just Covid mRNA vaccines, but biotechnology and gene editing, in general, is inherently risky and dangerous. It bids to redesign and therefore undermines the stable basis of physiology—DNA—built up over millions of years of evolution.
This is a task that can only be achieved if our efforts are global, if MPs, business leaders, senior civil servants, medical decision makers, and people of influence and common sense all over the world are approached, challenged, and re-educated. For this reason, in 2022 we founded a dedicated website: GLOBE.GLOBAL. You can visit now for more information and register for regular updates by email. GLOBE stands for a campaign for Global Legislation Outlawing Biotechnology Experimentation.
We have been producing articles in 2022 to publicise the inherent risks and outline the steps to rein in the deadly biotech juggernaut. In 2023 we will extend to podcasts and videos. Our reports aim to explain the results of complex research in terms accessible to the layman. These are intended to enable you to brief those in power and authority, in order to bypass the efforts of global commercial powers aiming to subvert the course of our health and our right to justice.
Biotechnology is a serial killer. A killer that has been identified by irrefutable evidence and now needs to be convicted and sentenced in the courts of ancient common law, public opinion, and fair leadership. We cannot leave this task to unnamed others or the vagaries of chance. It is up to us to get this done.
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.
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
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.
