Home Blog Page 29

Don’t Make Promises You Can’t Keep

0

Globalised mainstream media equates not just with a uniform, poorly informed world but a manipulated world.

The UK Times runs a story, “After centuries of cut, burn and poison, could a jab cure cancer?” by Tom Whipple. 11,000 miles away the same story appears in Stuff newspaper. This is one of those ‘isn’t it wonderful?’ reassuring stories that unfortunately don’t look quite so rosy after close scrutiny, but like bad pennies are turning up everywhere. On the surface informative and exciting; underneath sadly, lacking in that investigative depth we were expecting and certainly overhyped.

This story would not be out of place in a glossy brochure seeking investment funds for BioNTech. According to the story, RNA vaccine technology is rather like buying a piece of furniture from Ikea. Each person could very soon have their own personalised cancer vaccine off the shelf. What could possibly go wrong?

The tremendously hopeful note that the story strikes is based on a lot of over simplified theory and the success (???) of the Pfizer Covid vaccine co-developed with BioNTech. It sounds reassuringly easy to design mRNA vaccines that rush to your aid and eliminate those nasty cancer cells. Ugur Sahin and Ozlem Tureci, founders of BioNTech, are pictured in white coats, they are quoted promising:

We stimulate the immune system, do something magic, and the tumour disappears.”

Heady stuff, but the cited evidence is less than thin. A decorated cancer researcher who was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in 2007, then tried all his innovative ideas out on himself and died in 2011. In 2020, 16 patients with pancreatic cancer were treated by BioNTech. Eighteen months later, 8 have died and 8 are cancer free after 18 months. The details are sadly lacking. What stage were they at and how does that compare with their expected prognosis?

The missing piece of the jigsaw is the article’s lack of scrutiny of the safety of BioNTech’s only commercialised mRNA vaccine product—the Pfizer Covid vaccine. If you want to ask questions and also seek answers, you will need to turn to a completely different kind of journalism.

Igor Chudov is a mathematician (like The Times author) but he writes on Substack and is therefore not constrained by any editorial policy or any no go areas dictated by the newspaper owners, their advertisers, or subtly imposed government guidelines.

Chudov published a very different cancer story yesterday “Cancer Rates are Increasing — and May Get Much Worse. Wiped Out Immune Systems Take Time to Manifest”. According to the article, we are seeing the first ripple of a coming storm of cancer deaths.

Chudov reports the work of the Ethical Skeptic (another Substack researcher) whose analysis of CDC figures has shown that the rate of US cancer deaths accelerated in 2021 and 2022 coinciding with the roll out of the Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA Covid vaccine and other biotech vaccines.

It is the effect size that is surprising—9 sigma. What does this mean? Well perhaps you can remember from high school maths that for a Bell curve two thirds of data points lie within one standard deviation of the mean, that is known as 1 sigma. 95% lie within two standard deviations (2 sigma) and 99.7% lie within 3 sigma.

I’m going to translate for you what the observed 9 sigma deviation from the prior pattern of cancer deaths probably implies in very simple layman terms:—

  • A hugely statistically surprising number of people already infected with cancer have suffered a rapid progression of their condition to death. Covid vaccination reduced their likely longevity.
  • Some people who previously had no evidence of cancer, and possibly no lifetime expectation of cancer, are falling ill and dying in the weeks and months following Covid vaccination.

And it is not due to Covid infection—it didn’t happen in 2020.

Read Chudov’s article first hand. It is a long read, but well worth the effort. In addition to the US data, he looks at the official UK cancer mortality data which shows a similar increase. He also quotes another substack author A Midwestern Doctor who analyses and references in detail what it is about mRNA vaccines that causes cancer. The approach is investigative as we should expect it.

There are concerning issues that Tom Whipple, author of the fawning Times article, chooses not to address. He failed to discuss questions that constitute the normal substance of scientific debate, but his piece was beamed around the world. We expect The Times to ask questions, but they are not. They have quietly rolled over and followed the biotech PR line. They are not alone, MSM are collectively failing the sniff test. We are being manipulated. If you want real journalism, it is flourishing elsewhere. GLOBE and other independents are asking vital questions that few are prepared to countenance.

New Research Confirms Lab-leak Origin Very Highly Likely

0

Vaccinated and unvaccinated should take common cause on the need for biotech controls.

A preprint paper published by bioRxiv Endonuclease fingerprint indicates a synthetic origin of SARS-CoV-2 confirms what we have been reporting throughout the year—the lab-leak origin is very highly likely. The paper is technical but includes a lay summary. You can also follow one of the authors, Dr. Alex Washburne, on Twitter where a lively scientific argument is taking place.

In essence, the laboratory editing and reassembly of viral material involves in vitro genome assembly (IVGA) utilising special enzymes known as restriction enzymes. To create a viable novel engineered virus, each added sequence needs to have sticky ends added. You could imagine these are analogous to the couplings between carriages of a train. This relates to the need to efficiently stitch together engineered segments. Each joint leaves a genetic signature in the final virus at the rejoined ends of each reassembled segment. The presence and regularity of these signature joins serve as fingerprints of in vitro genome assembly. The authors report:

“We found that SARS-CoV has the restriction site fingerprint that is typical for synthetic viruses. The synthetic fingerprint of SARS-CoV-2 is anomalous in wild coronaviruses, and common in lab-assembled viruses. The type of mutations (synonymous or silent mutations) that differentiate the restriction sites in SARS-CoV-2 are characteristic of engineering, and the concentration of these silent mutations in the restriction sites is extremely unlikely to have arisen by random evolution. Both the restriction site fingerprint and the pattern of mutations generating them are extremely unlikely in wild coronaviruses and nearly universal in synthetic viruses. Our findings strongly suggest a synthetic origin of SARS-CoV2.”

Lab origin 99.98% certain

The authors estimate that this could have happened by chance through natural mutation in an animal host to be less than 0.0002. In other words, they show that their analysis supports the laboratory origin of Covid-19 is 99.98%. Other researchers have reached similar conclusions independently.

This conclusion is in addition to other earlier findings that genetic segments of Covid-19 at the Furin cleavage spike protein site were known to biotech science pre-pandemic and had been used in laboratory experiments. Taken together, the findings point to Covid-19 being the result of gain of function research.

Gain of function research involves genetic manipulation of viruses to make them more infective and in some cases more deadly for humans. The stated aim of this research is to aid in the development of vaccines—an aim whose achievement has in practice proved very elusive.

One important point to note is that natural viral mutation in animal hosts is very common. Tens of thousands of novel viral types are created through natural mutation each year, but they very rarely result in a sustained spillover into wider animal populations or into human populations. Covid-19 however had additional, apparently engineered characteristics which caused a deadly pandemic. A pandemic which has resulted in millions of deaths worldwide.

The authors conclude:

“Understanding the origin of SARS-CoV-2 can guide policies and research funding to prevent the next pandemic. The probable laboratory origin suggested by our findings motivates improvements in global biosafety. Given the advances in biotechnology and the low cost of producing infectious clones, there is an urgent need for transparency on coronavirus research occurring prior to COVID-19, and global coordination on biosafety to reduce the risks of unintentional laboratory escape of infectious clones.”

Current Biotech Regulatory Controls Are Wholly Inadequate

The authors no doubt reach a sincere conclusion, but are improvements in lab biosafety sufficient to control pathogen escape? No. Lab escapes are inevitable. Global control of the types of research being undertaken is also necessary.

Gain of function research was briefly outlawed in the USA in 2014, but the ban was lifted in 2017. At the time, Marc Lipsitch, an epidemiologist at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health in Boston, Massachusetts, said that gain-of-function studies “have done almost nothing to improve our preparedness for pandemics — yet they risked creating an accidental pandemic”. He was entirely right, but no one listened to him.

On their own, biotechnologists are highly unlikely to regulate the scope of biotech research. Over 800,000 people work in the field in the USA alone. Entry level annual salaries start around US$85,000. This doubles if your work is relevant to medical research. Biotech CEO salaries rise to a peak of US$45 million. If you were working in the biotech field, would you limit research with such mouth watering funding?

National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (NSABB) chair Samuel Stanley was one of those pleased that the three year gain of function moratorium ended in 2017. He felt it may have delayed research and reduced interest in research on deadly pathogens. “I believe nature is the ultimate bioterrorist and we need to do all we can to stay one step ahead,” he said at the time. He was wrong, research on deadly pathogens turned out to be the real ultimate threat. The new lab-origin study confirms this.

Philosophical biotech musings like Stanley’s often label nature as a dangerous terrorist waiting in the wings to destroy us all, while biotechnologists are described as (well paid) white knights selflessly working day and night to save our souls. This is to all intents and purposes a self-justifying fantasy designed to glorify a very risky profession whose possible end games, as we have seen all too clearly during the last three years, include genetic armageddon.

In fact we share a mutually beneficial co-evolutionary relationship with nature. We rely on a supportive epigenetic relationship with our natural food sources. Our health depends upon it. Research shows, for example, that five servings of fresh fruit and vegetables a day is protective against mortality from cancer, cardiovascular disease, and respiratory disease.

Biotech Research Has Become a Race to the Bottom

There is no doubt that there was a perception in the USA among some biotechnology researchers that they would fall behind if they stopped such gain of function research while those in other countries continued. The cessation of the US moratorium in 2017 initiated a biotech arms race that very quickly led to the outbreak of the pandemic and an precedented era of global mass death that is reducing human longevity worldwide.

The closure of the US moratorium was not absolute, there were stricter protocols of oversight instituted. They didn’t work. The US government funded offshore work in the Chinese Wuhan virology lab which effectively circumvented these protocols. Progress, outcomes, and safety couldn’t be policed effectively at a distance or even locally. There is even a suspicion that the arrangements were designed to circumvent regulation.

You must be getting the picture by now. Biotechnology is a huge scientific and commercial juggernaut involving the livelihood of millions of people and trillions of dollars. Biotech research is a fascinating field where newly minted biotechnologists can play God and be very well paid. It is being undertaken across international borders. It is driven by investment dollars coming from commercial, speculative, and government sources.

Nationally-based regulation has either failed or in many countries is completely absent. It is still failing. The authoritative Financial Times reports: US health officials probe Boston University’s Covid virus research. The FT reports evasion of controls on gain of function research is still apparently very simple. BU scientists engineered a Covid virus that killed 80% of mice. They were working under the radar:

“NIH said it had not reviewed the work before it went ahead, even though researchers were using government money.

“NIH is examining the matter to determine whether the research conducted was subject to the NIH grants policy statement or met the criteria for review under the [government’s guidelines for certain experiments with dangerous viruses],” a spokesperson said.

“Boston University said it did not have to alert NIH before carrying out the work because government money did not fund the experiments directly, although it was used for tools and techniques to carry them out.”

We now have fresh evidence of what went very wrong at Wuhan, and will go wrong again unless global controls are put in place.

These can’t involve easily circumvented regulatory systems like those which failed spectacularly in the past and are still failing. As long ago as 2014, a scholarly article estimated that the risk of a lab escape pandemic was unacceptably high. Effective controls have to involve outright bans on certain types of research.

Put aside for the moment the serious safety arguments surrounding the relative effects of Covid infection and vaccination, in a rather weird sense they are a side show to a much bigger danger which we all face.

Genetically engineered sequences in many research contexts, including medical applications, pose huge unquantified and uncontainable risks. They are potentially recombinative, highly mobile, impossible to contain, inherently mutagenic, and have been pathetically ineffective at achieving stated aims. If we don’t collectively deal with these risks we will become victims. In fact, we already are suffering from the result of lax controls.

BOTH THE VACCINATED AND UNVACCINATED NEED TO TAKE COMMON CAUSE AND CALL FOR AN END TO RISKY BIOTECHNOLOGY EXPERIMENTATION.

Campaign for Global Legislation Outlawing Biotechnology Experimentation — GLOBE

Sunday October 22nd, we are inaugurating a Campaign for Global Legislation Outlawing Biotechnology Experimentation—GLOBE. This will require cooperation between concerned doctors and scientists. It will involve a public and political education programme. It will necessitate global cooperation to bring an end to risky experimentation.

This is not for the faint hearted. We should not underestimate the difficulty of stopping a global biotech research endeavour. Effective control of biotechnology is also hampered by overlapping financial interests shared by biotech scientists, pharmaceutical companies, medical professionals, regulators, media owners, and politicians.

We have to understand that the current open ended nature of biotech research programmes is suicidal in character. A sea change is required. The commercial creators and funders of biotech research are putting themselves as well as everyone else at risk. We are collectively putting ourselves at huge risk by failing to act on controls. We have arrived at a crossroads. Our decisions now are formative for the chances of our survival. Therefore we have to take collective action. It is a matter of collective self-interest. There is no other way.

You can contribute to this effort. Alert individuals can register at our new website. Authors are invited to submit commentary and information. Telling points include:

  • Labs can never be secure
  • Pathogens cannot be contained
  • Human genetic stability needs to be protected

See our new website’s About’ Campaign for Global Legislation Outlawing Biotechnology Experimentation page for an introduction to GLOBE. Participants are invited from every nation.

Signup to receive GLOBE’s email newsletters.

Or Contribute as an author.

Why Biotechnology Experimentation Has to Be Stopped—it’s Urgent

0

Researchers at Boston University have created a deadly new strain of Covid—one that kills 80% of animal subjects. 

The research was funded by the US government and approved by Anthony Fauci. I don’t need to tell you how risky such experiments are or how stupid.

This is just one biotechnology experiment among thousands currently being carried out around the world that pose similar kinds of risk. Each additional experiment adds to the risk and brings another lab escape a bit closer.

Biotechnology and medical science is already a long way down a well worn path that leads to the normalisation of risk. This has involved gradual acclimatisation to high rates of severe injury and death imposed on an unwitting public. The psychology of this process is well known. Repeatedly turning a blind eye to suffering coarsens individual attitudes.

A past true crime Forensic Files episode illustrates how far we have come. A young female doctor died unexpectedly of a heart attack. In those pre-pandemic times, sudden death was a red flag necessitating the close attention of pathologists and police. In the episode, the presence of an unusual toxin was found, and the culprit was apprehended. In contrast, in the post-pandemic world, sudden death has been normalised. No investigation required. Legislation is being changed to allow ‘cause unknown’ on death certificates.

A Gradual Detachment From Sound Science

High rates of excess all-cause death, pregnancy irregularities, cardiac events, and cancers at lower ages and low birth rates have not just failed to raise eyebrows but have been dismissed by ‘experts’ and MSM alike on flimsy pretexts without adequate investigation. Blaming Covid infection for every increase in illness has become the norm. This indicates gradual detachment from sound science and the rational mind. Questions are off the table.

Last week our top vaccinologist Dr. Helen Petousis-Harris sounded a public note of alarm; she wasn’t having any more boosters and gave similar advice to the public. Her advice was based on evolving scientific findings. This was a step too far for MSM. The NZ Herald decided to switch experts, stoke the fear factor, and cancel Dr. Petousis-Harris.

The Herald quoted a University of Auckland computational biologist David Welch who is not an expert on vaccines but begged to differ from Petousis-Harris saying:

“I think we should be regularly having boosters. At the moment a booster twice a year looks like it would be very sensible because we’re getting waves more frequently than that.” 

The long article failed to mention the adverse effects of mRNA vaccination and its near total lack of effectiveness.

Such buffoonery is not just uninformed; it increasingly appears to be part of a deliberate attempt to white wash medical harm on a scale that dwarfs any previous example. An article in the Epoch Times “How Cancer Deaths From the COVID Jabs Are Being Hidden” outlines just one way this is being accomplished saying:

  • Analysis of U.S. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) data suggests that some cancer deaths have been redesignated as COVID deaths since April 2021. This has hidden the cancer signal.
  • Before it was manipulated to eliminate the safety signal, data from the Defense Medical Epidemiology Database (DMED) showed cancer rates among military personnel and their families tripled after the rollout of the shots
  • After the rollout of the COVID jabs in 2021, cancer patients have gotten younger, with the largest increase occurring among 30 to 50 year-olds, tumor sizes are dramatically larger, multiple tumors in multiple organs are becoming more common, and recurrence and metastasis are increasing.

Why is This Not Front-page News?

The controlling conservative elements of the medical profession and the profitable pharmaceutical industry consider vaccine adverse effects to be a sort of unspeakable heresy. Yet ask someone who has been working in the gene therapy field for years and a tsunami of cancers is not unexpected.

Look at it this way. Cancers result from mutated genetic instructions. These can result from a number of causes, including oxidative stress, inherited weakness, and environmental or ingested toxins. Inside every one of trillions of human cells every day, microbiological immune processes make 70,000 DNA repairs. These ward off potential cancers.

These internal cellular immune processes are sealed off and protected behind the cell wall. mRNA vaccines are Trojan horses designed to breach the cell wall and reprogram cellular activity. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to appreciate that there are risks involved. These risks include cancers. Cancers normally take years to develop. The surge in sudden cancers among US Department of Defense personnel should be a red flag. Instead, medical administrators are apparently busy burying it and presumably just busy burying.

Here in New Zealand, the burying has involved withholding data from public scrutiny, making misleading comparisons, cancelling those asking questions, saturation government advertising promising safety, and indiscriminate use of the ‘conspiracy theory’ label.

We have written about these for a year now. Given recent Covid scientific publishing, we are all hoping that the penny will drop. Perhaps those awake enough to study journal papers carefully will, like Dr. Helen Petousis-Harris, begin to realise that there is no point in endangering their own health for the sake of a biotechnology dream.

The Psychology of Biotech Dreaming

Even though we are approaching the end game of one mRNA biotech dream, there are thousands of others in the pipeline. The psychology of biotech dreaming allows proponents to effortlessly segue from one dream segment to another without a pause. As long as you believe in the ultimate good of human genetic manipulation, there is no real worry if a few people die along the way.

As things have progressed from a few dying, to thousands, to hundreds of thousands around the world and millions injured, coarsened attitudes have hardened. The progress of biotechnology has gradually come to be regarded by the medical elite and giant commercial interests as ‘a necessary task’. A task that requires toughness and determination in order to eventually arrive at a ‘laudable’ and invitable goal. The echoes from history are obvious.

But What if the Whole Enterprise of Biotechnology is Misguided?

Like the discovery of the atomic bomb, literally a dead end? Where the next available step is only a bigger bomb or a more invasive and deadly toxin or pathogen? There are good reasons to suppose this is the case. Millions of years of evolutionary interaction with the wider global epigenetic bionetwork, underpinned by the immutable laws of physics, just might be more reliable than the ideas of a mad scientist.

Is the complexity of human physiology beyond human comprehension and calculation? Yes. Our knowledge of it remains primitive. Moreover, there are inherent limitations to our understanding. The full intricacies of in vivo genetic processes are not open to scrutiny. 

The computational solution of genetic processes and intercellular interactions is beyond the reach of even the most powerful supercomputers. Combinative processes between genes performing multiple tasks requires multidimensional mathematics involving unsolvable equations. Adverse effects of gene editing are known to be inevitable and incalculable.

Governments have poured billions of dollars into biotechnology training and research programmes. The false rationale for this has been created by vast public relations efforts funded by a great variety of global commercial interests.

It has all the hallmarks of a ponzi scheme or an unsustainable investment bubble. There are no beneficial or bankable outcomes appearing at the end of the pipeline. More alarmingly, the deficits in human health are taking their toll and making their presence felt.

How Low Are Our Medical Czars Prepared to Go

Scientific American reported this week that “The U.S. Just Lost 26 Years’ Worth of Progress on Life Expectancy”. How low are our medical czars prepared to go before admitting that something is rotten in the state of Denmark? The ‘it’s not me’ and ‘look the other way’ cultures are in full flood to protect the mRNA PR mirage.

Against all scientific logic and evidence, biotech CEOs, paid scientists and government experts, floundering politicians, and funded media are still talking up the wondrously protective achievements of pandemic responses as if they have saved the public rather than endangered them from the Wuhan lab to the Covid jab.

The general public have been loaded onto the Snow Piercer, and we’ve been allocated third class; it is time to ask some serious questions. The truth is we are not just in danger of losing progress on life expectancy, but also four centuries of progress with the scientific method.

We can’t escape the fact that commercial biotechnology involves an incredibly risky and inherently mutagenic worldwide programme of experimentation. This requires a proportionate response with a global reach.

For this reason and many others, this Sunday, the Hatchard Report will be launching a Campaign for Global Legislation Outlawing Biotechnology Experimentation known as GLOBE. Watch this space for more details and tune in to my Webinar at 8:00 pm Sunday night with Voices For Freedom for the launch.

A Fatal Fascination With Pharmaceutical Interventions

0

Earlier this week Leighton Smith asked me if I thought the structure of society was breaking down. Before the week is through, the UK Chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng is out after just 38 days in office (exit right). He suggested that the uber wealthy needed more money to manage and the common man a lot less in difficult times. The UK papers, both left, and right, have had a field day suggesting PM Liz Truss has lost her balance of mind.

Do I think the condition of society is terminal? No. It is wildly out of balance, completely polarised, and financially strapped, but these are still things that hopefully can be fixed. So why have they happened?

Consumers Can Switch to Bidets if They Are Unhappy

Yesterday I wandered glumly around my local supermarket, morosely looking at price tags. Toilet paper which pre-pandemic sold for $8.50 for 18 rolls, was now selling for $18.50 for 24 rolls. Despite the bigger package, you can’t disguise the fact that this is a wicked price increase of 63%. Callously a supermarket spokesperson joked New Zealand consumers can switch to bidets if they are unhappy.

This price increase, and many others like it (too many), is more a reflection of how corporations have come to regard customers than it is related to any underlying economic conditions. The global and local economy has slipped into a predatory frame of mind.

Economic decisions are taken by individuals. The current economic downturn implies that individual decision-makers have become more isolated from the needs of their fellows. Society is not a reality TV show where the winner takes all, the individual and social interest need to remain balanced. So how have we lost this perspective?

Mind-body Balance is Fundamental to Health

Balance of mind is supported by balance of body—balance of physiological processes. Loss of a balanced perspective involves a loss of physiological balance. Traditional systems of healthcare like Indian ayurveda, Chinese medicine, and many others regard balance as a fundamental of health. Ayurveda seeks to maintain physiological balance through herbal and other interventions. It identifies three fundamental components of physiological (and incidentally mental) balance: TransportTransformation, and Structure.

RNA, in one form or another, touches nearly everything in a cell. RNA carries out a broad range of functions, from translating genetic information into the molecular machines and structures of the cell to regulating the activity of genes during development, cellular differentiation, and changing environments.

Note these RNA responsibilities: TranslatingRegulating Activity, and Maintaining Structure. Which run exactly parallel to the ayurvedic components of balance.

You can see where this is going. Change the way the RNA works in our trillions of cells, and how much have you interfered with balance? Not just physiological balance, but crucially balance of mind. Body and mind are intimately connected; they are not separate but are two sides of one coin.

It is widely accepted that drugs affect mental processes, so why is it not routine to test the possible mental effects of novel medical interventions?

Consumption of Psychotropic Drugs Has Been Normalised Despite Questions About Safety

When a close friend was studying at Auckland University, they were asked to write an essay on the morality of drug use with reference to the philosophy of John Stuart Mill. Mill combined philosophy with economics. He believed that the individual is free to choose what makes them happy unless it interferes with social well-being. According to Mill’s philosophy, the question was asked whether individual drug taking was right or wrong.

My friend argued that individual drug taking should be considered a social ill because of the conditions under which drugs are supplied lead to a lot of undesirable effects on families and healthcare systems. The paper was awarded a low mark. Faculty expected that students would decide that drug taking was an acceptable individual choice.

This story had a happy ending, my friend appealed their mark which was raised on independent review. The bad taste in the mouth remained for me—we live in a society where the consumption of psychotropic drugs, both legal and illegal, has been normalised despite questions about safety.

In other words, mental and physiological balance has been put aside in favour of the superman philosophy. Any sign of trouble, dodge into a phone booth, pop a pill, and emerge ready to save the world. Naturally, our response to the pandemic had to be a pill or an injection. The fundamentals of health—diet, lifestyle, rest, exercise, and happiness had already been relegated to a distant second place by our fascination with all things pharmaceutical and even labelled conspiracy theories.

The Rush to Vaccinate Turned Out to Be a Fatal Mistake

According to medical orthodoxy, vaccination should have been an individual and social good, one of which Mill would have approved. However, mRNA injections involve a novel technology which resets fundamental physiological processes. Novel mRNA vaccines upset balance throughout the body, including our circulatory, reproductive, and respiratory systems. The blood-brain barrier and the placenta are breached, and the heart and mind are affected.

The solely pharmaceutical paradigm of health could be out of place in the adverse effect post-pandemic landscape. Those damaged by mRNA adverse reactions are facing an uphill struggle to source effective treatments and meaningful compensation. Reportedly some adverse effect sufferers are being offered additional risky experimental ‘remedies’.

In the USA, the drug Humira, an immune system suppressant sometimes used in the treatment of Crohn’s disease, has been offered to some. Humira’s label highlights the risk of serious infections leading to hospitalization or death, including TB, bacterial sepsis, invasive fungal infections and infections due to opportunistic pathogens. It also features cancers, notably lymphoma and hepatosplenic T-cell lymphoma. Other warnings listed on Humira’s label include severe allergic reactions, hepatitis b reactivation, neurological reactions, blood reactions, worsening congestive heart failure and lupus-like syndrome—out of the frying pan into the fire.

Some of these adverse reactions sound depressingly similar to those which can follow mRNA vaccination. There is a reason for this. Humira belongs to a class of medicines called biologic drugs. It is made from a synthetic (bioengineered) antibody. It belongs to a group of medicines called ‘anti-TNF’ drugs or therapies. This is because it works by suppressing a protein in the body called TNF-alpha (tumour necrosis factor-alpha). Your body naturally produces TNF-alpha as part of its immune response, in order to help fight infections by temporarily causing inflammation in affected areas.

In other words, Humira takes over control of our natural immune response by blocking a key pathway in the chain of events which originates with the DNA to RNA transfer of information. Sound familiar? We need to exit from a biotechnology paradigm which seeks to re-engineer the relationship between our DNA and the immune system it orchestrates—a relationship we depend on every second of the day.

The ultimate sources of mental balance, of philanthropy, kindness, security, understanding, and happiness are no doubt tied to our bodily processes. If these are irreversibly altered, recovering from social polarisation might be difficult, but history records remarkable regeneration following great ups and downs. It is perhaps right to assume that such will eventually be the case.

However, if we are to secure our individual and collective future, we will need to wake up from our fatal fascination with an exclusively pharmaceutical dream of health—it is becoming a nightmare. We need Global Legislation Outlawing Biotechnology Experimentation—GLOBE. We have no desire to be lab rats or drug addicts.

Dr. Helen Petousis-Harris Backtracked on Her Previous Overwhelmingly Pro-vaccine Advice and Said Enough is Enough

0

New Zealand’s high profile vaccinologist, vaccine advocate, an opponent of vaccine hesitancy, co-director of the Global Vaccine Data Network, Pfizer advisor, and NZ government advisor says: Don’t get another booster, she isn’t.

In an interview on 11th October with Radio New Zealand, Dr. Helen Petousis-Harris backtracked on her previous overwhelmingly pro-vaccine advice and said enough is enough.

Among the verbatim highlights of her replies on RNZ Morning Report:

On a fourth booster: “I wouldn’t be running out to get myself boosted. I don’t think it would be particularly useful. I don’t see any evidence to suggest it is going to benefit me.”

On the Moderna bivalent booster: “I think that the expectations for the new bivalent vaccines exceed the evidence. Probably not a lot [of protection against Omicron]”

Dr. Petousis-Harris is in a position to make these kinds of judgments. As co-director of the Global Vaccine Data Network (GVDN) she heads the only organisation that has been given unique access to New Zealand’s public health data for research purposes. Is this her first comment that reflects the outcome of GVDN research? In other words, does GVDN data show that further boosters are a waste of time?

Dr. Petousis-Harris also suggested that the best immunity against Omicron you can have is a combination of vaccination and infection. Is she right?

Two large studies in Qatar of primary data reached these conclusions: A combination of no vaccination and prior infection yielded 97.3% protection against severe reinfection with no evidence of waning effectiveness.

Without the addition of Covid infection, the protection offered by two doses of mRNA vaccination is below 50% and declines within three months to 8%. At six months, protection is -18%—it predisposes you to catch Omicron. However, a combination of three mRNA shots plus prior Omicron infection yielded 90%+ durable protection against severe reinfection.

In other words, it is natural immunity resulting from prior infection that provides protection rather than mRNA vaccination which the stats show does not add any additional protection.

An article in Nature also reports “Long COVID risk falls only slightly after vaccination, huge study shows

Conversely, an unrelated study of five million clients of US Veterans Affairs health services found that for the vaccinated, reinfection resulted in more serious health outcomes than their initial infection. In other words, vaccination including boosters did not decrease the risk of reinfection among clients of US veterans health services but did increase the severity of symptoms. Nor did vaccination provide any more protection against reinfection than the unvaccinated had.

To watch a detailed discussion of the relative merits of all these studies watch this video.

How Many People Have Died or Been Severely Injured by mRNA Vaccination?

We have clearly reached a point where the ineffectiveness of mRNA vaccination boosters has been admitted by scientists here in New Zealand (and by many overseas, including Dr. Paul Offit). The really concerning feature of this apparent U-turn is the absence of any discussion of the adverse outcomes of mRNA vaccination. It is one thing to admit mRNA boosters don’t work, it is quite another to answer the question “How many people have died or been severely injured by mRNA vaccination?”

If you follow the EU sports pages like those in Euroweekly News, you will be aware that sudden deaths and cancer diagnoses among young sports people have become alarmingly common. Why?

People like Dr. Petousis-Harris would like to avoid this question at all costs because the answers coming out from Covid scientific journal publishing are not pretty. They are very concerning. Unfortunately, MSM has not yet reached the point where they can ask these kinds of questions. They too have been promoting Covid vaccination mandates and failed pandemic policies for two years, and they don’t want to admit to misinformation about public safety.

For a well-referenced up-to-date review of Covid vaccine safety read “COVID-19 vaccines – An Australian Review” published in the Journal of Clinical and Experimental Immunology in September 2022.

A Tsunami of New mRNA Vaccines on the Horizon

There is another reason why big pharma, biotechnologists, vaccinologists, and epidemiologists want to stay mum on mRNA vaccine safety. They are poised to unleash a tsunami of new mRNA vaccines on an unsuspecting public. They are currently busy currying government favour around the world.

Watch Stephane Bancel CEO of Moderna offer polished reassurances to the public about mRNA vaccines, while simultaneously flattering the wondrous visionary intelligence of Australian drug regulators in approving their products. He is promising new mRNA vaccines to cure number one killers—heart disease and cancer. Spoiler alert: he doesn’t mention that Covid vaccines haven’t worked.

Six minutes into the video, he explains that Moderna plans to inject mRNA vaccines directly into the heart to ‘cure’ cardiac events. He conveniently forgets to mention that Covid mRNA vaccines have been shown to cause heart disease, and the mechanism is still unknown. The fawning Sky News interviewer lets him off scot free.

Bancel explains that people are sometimes at a disadvantage if their parents have the wrong DNA, which he expects will be cured by mRNA injections into the liver. This does not involve visionary leaps of proven technology, but daring leaps of commercial imagination. Thirty years of research in the field of inherited genetic disease has not yielded cures, but rather adverse effects and repeated setbacks.

Compare ‘Dr. Helen Petousis-Harris speaking’ with ‘Mr Bancel proselytising’. Helen Petousis-Harris knows that at some point she will have to face a public inquiry which will sift through the evidence carefully. In contrast, Mr. Bancel knows that Moderna is protected from prosecution by agreements and laws conferring freedom from legal liability.

Moderna shares jumped 11% on Wednesday following Bancel’s announcement they would make a cancer vaccine in partnership with pharmaceutical giant Merck. They have already made tens of billions in pandemic profit, and they want more. Admitting any mistake at this point will put that at risk.

So who would you trust?

If we don’t speak up now, we won’t be given any choice in the future, and we won’t be given information. That is the new normal Moderna, Pfizer, and their pharmaceutical cousins are working hard to create.

Leighton Smith and Guy Hatchard Discuss the Distortion of Public Information and the Age of Social Engineering

0

Leighton Smith Podcast Episode 176 – October 12th, 2022

The Video Version

The video includes screen recordings of the articles being read and screenshots of the studies cited.

A Tale of Two Worlds: Inside Jacinda Ardern’s Dystopian Biowave Political Movement

0

We have just had local body elections here in New Zealand, and we were entertained by the spectacle of Jacinda’s government-funded medico-political platform in full flood.

If you want a metaphor from popular culture, watch Divergent, in which good people whose profession is to protect society get injected and become compliant oppressors.

Stuff newspaper, in conjunction with sophisticated websites and government-funded scientists, led the campaign charge and sought to identify and publicly attack any candidates who had safety concerns.

The most revealing part of these attacks was the selection of the candidates’ personal interests, which apparently should disqualify them from seeking office. These included:

Yoga, Wellness, Natural products, and Meditation

Freedom, Human rights, and Free speech

Dairy farming, Permaculture, and Home Gardening

Knitting and Crochet

Adverse effects, Herd immunity and Lab leak theories

Social media, Sharing links, and Protest

Oh yes, and they threw in FB friendship with myself.

There is even a hotlink button to anonymously dob in colleagues and report misinformation to the police and other government bodies, including an emergency report team. Instructions encouraged you to report lawyers, health professionals, teachers, and WorkSafe breeches.

One of the principle advocates of Ardern’s biowave politics is a newly minted Ph.D. and expert on, you guessed it—disinformation, who, as reported by Stuff, has the incredible distinction of writing ‘a million words’. Yes, a whole million of them.

According to some words, the principal danger of the above interests was that they all lead, after about a year, to a desire to replace democracy with far-right extremism and eventually ‘war’. Dangerous Stuff!! (Warning: they might have got some words confused here.)

On a serious note, how could anyone imagine that a political movement can be built around an ineffective and risky biotech intervention? Well, apart from Jacinda Ardern of course… Wait a minute, let’s just add Justin Trudeau. That’s it, right? Of course, there’s Joe Biden…. I could go on, couldn’t I? Covid vaccination doesn’t make you gullible, does it? It couldn’t possibly.

Don’t worry though; if Ardern has her way on the global stage, we will never know what happened. Knitting needles, crochet hooks, and yoga mats will disappear overnight, and health food stores will close their doors. They will all be erased from our internet history and excluded from printed books (if anyone is still taught to read).

Jacinda Ardern is apparently a scion of Klaus Schwab and a champion of that old saw of dictators—if you keep saying the same thing often enough, it should stick, no matter how batty it is.

If I was Klaus, I would be very careful of tying my boat to Ardern’s. Labour didn’t do too well in the elections, there are far too many knitters in New Zealand. Or is that nutters? Some newspapers and political pandits seem unable to distinguish one from the other.

Prejudice Doesn’t Work Unless You Ignore Some Results, Exaggerate Others, Redirect Funding, and Impose Government Control

0

How selective recording of Covid data and control of Crown entities distorts public information

Updated: 9:40pm 07 October 2022

An article in the NZ Herald “‘Flood of Noah-like proportions’: The studies revealing Long Covid’s hidden toll in NZ” by Jaimie Morton predicts that Long Covid will cast a decades-long shadow over the health and economy of the nation. We welcome renewed attention on assisting all those affected by the aftermath of Covid infection, but we have some questions.

The article reports that the government is funding a raft of clinical studies to gauge the impact of the pandemic. Each study will receive between $200,000 to $500,000. 23 government funded studies are listed here.

Incredibly, 14 of these funded studies focus on how to improve Covid vaccine uptake and reduce vaccine hesitancy. Three of the studies will focus on assessing long Covid outcomes. 5 studies will assess the impact of the government’s pandemic response.

Just one study will examine vaccine safety. This study is being undertaken by Dr. Petousis-Harris, a known vaccine advocate who is co-director of the Global Vaccine Data Network (GVDN), an organisation whose policy aim is to fight vaccine hesitancy. Read a discussion of the strange relationship between GVDN and the Ministry of Health here.

It appears government funding is being selectively granted with the deliberate object of promoting Covid vaccination and vindicating pandemic policies. If you ignore vaccine safety, the results will be biased. See here for a discussion of how the design of scientific studies of Covid outcomes can be selectively adjusted in order to persuade people that all negative outcomes of the pandemic are due to Covid infection and nothing else.

Studies need to be designed without any preconceptions prejudicial to outcomes. They need to fully distinguish between the outcomes for the vaccinated and the unvaccinated. If they don’t, vaccine injury will be hidden and falsely attributed to long Covid.

How Data Obfuscation Works in New Zealand

Let’s take the case of myocarditis, a known adverse effect of mRNA vaccination. In the financial year ending March 2020, there were 274 hospital discharges following myocarditis.

In the following year, 20/21 (before the vaccine rollout) there were 343.

For the next year, 2021/22, corresponding to the vaccine rollout, the Medsafe safety report No.42 reports 783 cases of myocarditis. Is this figure reliable? An OIA (ref H202200078-2) reports that there were 1540 hospital discharges in 2021 for myocarditis, twice the rate reported by Medsafe. Both figures are likely to be under-reported.

Medsafe claims that myocarditis is a rare side effect of mRNA vaccination. A safety update on its website in July 2021 (and still up), estimates the myocarditis rate at less than 1 per million vaccine doses. In December 2021, Ashley Bloomfield claimed the NZ rate was 30 per million. The reported 2021 rate is actually between 75 and 150 per million and probably higher depending on who you believe.

Other official documents have claimed that the rate of myocarditis is lower than the expected rate. So we had 274 cases in 2019/20 and 1540 cases in 2021 and that is lower than the expected rate? It doesn’t make sense.

But it gets worse. A prospective study of 300 students in Thailand found one case of myocarditis, two suspected cases of pericarditis, and four cases of subclinical myocarditis. If you extrapolate that into a rate, it is twenty times higher than our Ministry of Health estimates. Medsafe itself has written that only 5% of adverse effects are reported. If that is true, it would put the real rate of myocarditis twenty times higher than the reported rate, the same proportion indicated by the Thai study.

Prospective studies are just the sort that our government should have funded from the start, but didn’t (a word of caution, don’t do it now, we already have enough evidence that mRNA Covid vaccines are very unsafe).

The Thai study used standard diagnostic tests to assess the severity of the concerning cardiac symptoms such as tachycardia, shortness of breath, palpitation, and chest pain reported by 29% of the participants. Seven of these participants (2.33%) exhibited at least one elevated cardiac biomarker or positive lab assessment. That is a rate of 23,000 per million.

Should this concern us? Of course. However, some New Zealand ‘experts’ and so-called fact checkers have answered ‘No’ and claimed that myocarditis is a self-limiting mild illness (in other words it gets better without treatment). This is false. It is not supported by published studies. Although most patients, like the 29% in the Thai study, with mild symptoms improve over time, a UK study found acute myocarditis is a serious and likely underdiagnosed condition. A significant minority of those presenting with acute myocarditis (4%) die as a result of complications which develop over time including heart failure.

Even serious cases of myocarditis can respond to early treatment as long as it is detected. The cavalier treatment of myocarditis data by our Ministry of Health has possibly encouraged a public health disaster to unfold. Myocarditis and its associated cardiac complications can be detected with a simple troponin test which are now performed routinely in many US hospitals, but not here.

When you consider the above myocarditis data, it is not a stretch of the underlying scientific publishing to consider that the record rates of excess all cause mortality in New Zealand and the often noted cases of sudden death might be related to undiagnosed cardiac complications.

These should have raised red flags, but they have only elicited half hearted concern or outright denial by unqualified fact checkers and MSM. Some might be tempted to excuse our officials on the grounds that they missed key papers, but they didn’t.

On 9th November 2021 the Covid-19 Vaccine Technical Advisory Group (CV-TAG) in point 4 expressed a need for caution with 18-30 year olds due to a potentially different risk equation (they must have looked at the myocarditis data). CV-TAG still failed to halt mandatory boosters for employment reasons in this age range. In February 2022 CV-TAG noted there was a lack of safety data regarding boosters for 12-17 year olds (as we have seen there wasn’t any lack of data, boosters were known to be high risk for this age range). Apparently CV-TAG went ahead and recommended approval anyway.

Adverse Effects of Covid Vaccination Have Been Hidden

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to conclude either that information is being ignored, or record keeping is haphazard and unreliable. Both possibilities are very concerning three years into the pandemic. It is hard to escape the conclusion that vaccine adverse effects are at the bottom of Ministry of Health priorities. Possibly they would be happy if they were hidden. The current batch of funded research projects geared to stamp out vaccine hesitancy certainly points in that direction.

The ‘safe and effective’ vaccine bias was directly challenged this week by alarming CDC Covid vaccine adverse effect data released under a court order running at 77,000 per million (see here for a summary) and by a number of newly published studies, for example:

A Case Report: Multifocal Necrotizing Encephalitis and Myocarditis after BNT162b2 mRNA Vaccination against COVID-19 published in the journal Vaccines reported the autopsy outcomes of a single death and found:

  • Acute multifocal vasculitis and necrotizing encephalitis in the brain.
  • Signs of chronic cardiomyopathy, myocarditis, and vasculitis in the heart.

Tests for nucleocapsid protein, an indicator of prior Covid infection, came out negative. Only spike protein could be detected within the foci of inflammation in both the brain and the heart, particularly in the endothelial cells of small blood vessels. Therefore the presence of spike protein could only be ascribed to vaccination rather than to viral infection.

The findings corroborate previous reports of encephalitis and myocarditis caused by gene-based COVID-19 vaccines. Just a word on how serious these findings are: ‘multifocal necrotising’ indicates cell death throughout the brain.

How Does Government Control Keep the Public in the Dark?

We have been discussing disturbing findings reported in learned scientific journals for over a year, but because of government control over a wide range of social institutions and the media, the public remains in the dark. How did this happen? Is something amiss with our system of government and the control it wields?

For decades successive governments have felt a paternalistic need to impose uniform approaches on various public institutions. This has particularly affected education, health, employment, science, and the management of risk. Various bodies like the advertising standards authority, the employment relations authority, the accident compensation commission, the courts, etc are tasked with administering legislation fairly. All of these bodies are funded by the Crown and therefore subject to varying degrees of ministerial control.

Ardern’s government realised that under the law they could, if they wished, exercise great power over the decisions of these supposedly independent public institutions. They did wish to do so. Rapidly all of our public institutions fell into line with ministerial directives, and the pronouncements of prime minister Ardern and her cabinet:

  • Courts ruled that they were obliged to follow government policy and set aside the provisions of the New Zealand Bill of Rights.
  • The Accident Compensation Commission—a universal personal insurance scheme—denied compensation to many affected by Covid vaccination.
  • Schools and the tertiary education sector rigorously imposed vaccine mandates and restricted educational access to the unvaccinated.
  • Te Punaha Matatini—a government funded research body—issued papers stating that government policies were verified, labelling vaccine injury and herd immunity conspiracies.
  • The protections of employment law against discrimination were waived in the case of the unvaccinated.
  • Protest and dissent were no longer an impetus for discussion and debate, but a cause for suppression.
  • The authorities moderating broadcasting, media, and advertising ruled they were obliged to follow the government line without ruling on truth
  • Dissenting doctors were excluded from the medical profession.

Control of the Media is Increasing

The mainstream media were potentially in a position to ask questions, but they were generously funded by the government to back pandemic policies to the hilt. Social media giants like Metaverse have concluded an agreement with our government to control content. This week parliament moved to further cement their control over the media. The government introduced a bill which will amalgamate TV One and Radio NZ into a single crown entity under ministerial control. It seems likely to pass.

We don’t need our government controlling the media and censoring social media and free speech. View this video to find out what others think.

There are many areas of life where individuals alone are capable of making sensible decisions. Unfortunately, none among our political parties want to turn down the opportunity to exercise control. The prized object of all parties is to exercise control, and more of it.

We need more genuinely independent public and private institutions. We need more choice in health and education. We need more open debate. We need to reduce our isolation from international scientific standards. We need to refresh our understanding of Common Law and Human Rights. We need to restore concepts of personal freedom and articulate a new social compact backed by legislation and protected by constitutional provisions.

In a recent fawning interview by Stephen Colbert, Dr. Anthong Fauci said with reference to Covid vaccines “Safety is off the table. There is no doubt”. Our government expert’s safety claims sound very similar. Did Fauci mean that safety is proved (risible), or was it a Freudian slip implying he no longer cares about safety? You decide.

The Pandemic Response Has Broken the Social Compact

0

The Social Compact is an evolution of theories attributed to enlightenment philosophers Locke, Hobbes, and Rousseau.

In the modern context, a Social Compact is an implicit understanding between the government and the people and between individuals on the roles and responsibilities each plays. The aim is to ensure they can live successfully and safely together and shape the orderly and mutually fulfilling growth of society in both the present and the future.

Implicit in the social compact is the notion that differences of opinion, ideas, and styles of living can happily coexist. The belief that individuals and the government can rationally discuss and defend their ideas and proposals between each other without conflict and rancour. Except, that is, in the case of deliberate intention to cause harm.

The social compact has been broken because pandemic policies have imposed harm on individuals and society

The rate of adverse effects following Covid mRNA vaccination is more than fifty times that of any previous vaccine. Covid vaccination is strongly correlated with excess rates of all-cause mortality in countries across the globe. The normalisation of medically induced mortality marks the end of the social compact.

This involves one of the most disturbing results of pandemic policy—the denial and rejection of the accepted principles of medical causality. Suspicious deaths proximate to vaccination have been labelled ‘unrelated’ or ‘cause unknown’ because of the a priori assumption of Covid vaccination safety.

Apart from death, a huge range of serious adverse effects have been labelled unrelated in the absence of reliable evidence. It cannot be overstated how concerning this is. It ranks among the great mistakes of history, where obvious truths have been overturned through coercion or propaganda.

The correct initial response, according to the pre-existing social compact, should have been a precautionary pause of vaccination, followed by further investigation involving collection and analysis of data including vaccination status, disease type or cause of death, and age. This has only been undertaken on data voluntarily reported on adverse event systems.

These systems hugely under-report adverse events. CARM in New Zealand is estimated by Medsafe to only capture 5% of adverse events. Thus the conclusions of its’ analysis are worthless statistically speaking and break the notion of medical ethics inherent in the social compact.

Just released data from the CDC indicates rates of vaccine adverse events greatly exceed historical background rates of conditions

Due to under-reporting, CARM records that only 1 in 180 vaccinations resulted in any adverse event and only 1 in 3500 were judged to be serious. Medsafe then analysed these figures and concluded that this rate was lower than the rate of similar historical medical events in the general population. Therefore Medsafe erroneously concluded they were of no concern.

Two days ago in the USA, after a prolonged legal battle, the CDC released the raw data from its vSafe adverse event monitoring program. vSafe involves 10 million users and facilitates the reporting of adverse events via the user’s smartphone. Among the alarming safety signals in the data set:

Over 7.7% of vSafe users had a health event requiring medical attention, emergency room intervention, and/or hospitalization.

Over 25% had an event that required them to miss school or work and/or prevented normal activities—a quarter of all the people, that’s huge. These rates are at least 15 times higher than those recorded by the voluntary CARM system in New Zealand, probably more.

The Hatchard Report has been asking the Ministry of Health to institute mandatory reporting of adverse events for over a year. In December 2021, Dr. Astrid Koornneef, Director of the National Immunisation Programme, replied to me on behalf of Dr Ashley Bloomfield as follows:

“In regard to your comments on reporting of adverse effects, the current passive [voluntary] monitoring system’s purpose is to assign causality for individual cases where there is a suspicion the vaccine might have played a role. An accurate measurement of all adverse events is not required.

The vSafe data suggests that if CARM reporting had been mandatory, it would have recorded close to one million adverse events following an mRNA vaccination in New Zealand. This figure is consistent with the estimate of 5% under reporting of adverse events at CARM. It suggests that the New Zealand population has experienced very high rates of severe illness and death proximate to Covid vaccination—figures that remained hidden from the public because of the government’s refusal to fully count adverse effects.

vSafe data provides fresh evidence that the unprecedented record rates of New Zealand excess all-cause mortality (in July 35% above historical levels) are related to mRNA vaccination. It also suggests that the voluntary method of reporting and the subsequent analysis and conclusions offered by Medsafe have misled the population about Covid vaccine safety and mortality. This has left many vaccine injured persons unaware that their health conditions may be related to vaccination. Many families remain unaware that the death of a relative could have been the result of vaccination. GPs have also been under-informed of risks by the government.

We have been kept in the dark because government advertisements claiming vaccine safety were misleading and because Medsafe follow up safety research was inadequate. This was curated by exaggerated claims of mRNA vaccine safety promoted by Pfizer who stood to profit greatly during the pandemic.

The impact on the social compact which expects honesty and accountability can be gauged by an example: A young woman who experienced a stroke minutes after mRNA vaccination here in Northland was incorrectly informed by her doctors that it was because she was overweight—an unlikely cause.

In summary, the medical profession and government can deceive the people and pretend innocence because they have omitted to correctly monitor and investigate all adverse events.

Deceptive use of data is continuing. On 30th September 2022 the Ministry of Health released a document claiming their mRNA vaccination programme saved lives and improved health outcomes for New Zealand. They did so based on inadequate and incomplete data including that described above, and failed to reference international Covid-19 publishing in learned scientific journals. The Ministry of Health’s claims do not stand up to scrutiny.

The age of social engineering

Historically periods of instability ensue when governments seek to unilaterally impose questionable social ideas or harmful products, procedures, or restrictions on individuals, segments of the population, or their people as a whole. Note, for example, the growth of the theory of eugenics beginning in the nineteenth century, which eventually led to Nazi ideas of racial superiority and cleansing, and even today informs genocidal conflict.

As control of information in all its forms has increased in the digital age, the opportunities to impose ideas on whole populations have increased, especially because wealth and political power have become concentrated in fewer hands around the globe. The pandemic has facilitated the exercise of this global power over individual life.

In the imagination of a few, uniform and universal compliance with novel ideas have become possible outside of the accepted norms of the social compact. An age of social engineering has arrived.

Safe genetic engineering is a figment of the imagination

During the pandemic, the concept of faultless prevention of disease through genetic technology took hold of the public imagination through massive public relations campaigns, which also concentrated the fear of disease. This heavily funded effort involves the cooperation of governments, social and heritage media, and the medical establishment. Behind the scenes, the commercial pharmaceutical lobby, mega investment funds, and futuristic global control movements shape the dialogue. This is the antithesis of the social compact.

It is a verified principle of gene editing that there will always be unexpected effects. This is because genes perform multiple roles and cooperate with one another in different combinations to perform diverse tasks. Therefore inserted genetic instructions will always have unanticipated and unwanted effects in an organism.

There are trillions of cells in the body, each containing DNA which expresses itself in the complex multi-dimensional epigenetic web of microbiology, organ systems, and the organism as a whole. Alter DNA or its immediate connection with the wider physiology through RNA, there is not just a risk but the guarantee of adverse impacts on the whole physiology and its constituent parts.

Over a period of nearly fifty years, the dream of faultless redesigned genetics—a super race concept—has been cultivated by biotech dreamers, scientists, and commercial interests. The false notion that genetic engineering could eradicate disease and prolong life, has led to the situation we now face.

Experimental interventions on whole populations have been accepted as a necessary step to usher in a new genetic age. The imagined benefits have been exaggerated and widely publicised, while the huge risks have been deliberately hidden from all but a few players. The pandemic provided the opportunity to rush this through.

Three years into the pandemic, the genetic dream is unravelling into a nightmare and the social compact is in tatters

The accepted norms and freedoms of the social compact are dissolving into chaos:

Communication: Restrictions on information and ideas are being imposed. Legitimate questions about mRNA vaccination safety are labelled as disinformation or even treason. Media platforms can be cancelled without explanation. Bank accounts of those asking hard questions can be closed or their freedom of movement and speech curtailed. Government funding controls mainstream media messaging.

Diversity: Special restrictions have been mandated for unvaccinated individuals imposing a form of medical apartheid. In New Zealand, certain population subgroups have been prioritised and offered incentives to mRNA vaccinate without informing them of risks.

Science: The accepted process of repeated scientific debate, testing, and publishing to determine validity has been curtailed and limited to pro-biotech medicine narratives. This has created a pipeline to rush through new drugs and vaccines. Gain of function of experiments have been refunded.

Medical ethics: Medical experimentation on unwitting populations without informed consent has been normalised. Trust in the medical profession has hit an all time low. Doctors asking questions have been censored.

Protection of the young: Incredibly, studies showing elevated risk of vaccination and low risk from Covid infection for young persons have been dismissed as irrelevant.

The unborn child: The significance of studies finding reproductive risks such as low sperm count and menstrual irregularities and the presence of spike protein in reproductive organs have been downplayed. Spike protein has recently been found in breast milk. Elevated rates of still birth and miscarriage have been ignored or hidden.

The elderly and vulnerable: Record rates of euthanasia, in countries where it is allowed such as Australia and Canada, have been hailed as a victory. Doctors have been encouraged to recommend euthanaeuthanasiasia more often and more widely, even to younger or less sick individuals.

Fresh air and water: Mandatory masking has adversely affected respiratory systems. The addition of chemical additives to water systems has been legitimised.

Freedom of movement: Unprecedented lockdown restrictions on movement from home and across borders have been normalised without sufficient justification. These are modelled on those of repressive regimes and include digital tracking and surveillance.

Compulsory medical treatments: Coercive vaccination mandates are backed by legislation compelling medical compliance. Laws have not been removed from the statute books. In some cases, they have been extended. Doctors in California and other places face fines, disbarment, and even imprisonment if they fail to recommend certain genetic interventions.

Employment: Hard won anti discriminatory employment rights have been revoked allowing employers to control their employees’ medical choices and access their health records.

Education: Participation in education at every level has been limited in many countries to students who comply with pandemic policies. The result has been reductions in educational attainment and setbacks such as zoom-only classes and lengthened course time. Youth suicide rates and self-harm have increased.

The economy: Small businesses have been impacted adversely by lockdowns and government debt has blown out. The terms of international trade have been tilted in favour of monopolistic mega corporations.

The damage to society is so extensive that it will take years to fully recover but it will only have a chance to do so if immediate curbs are placed on risky biotech medicine and experimentation. Vaccine adverse effect rates are now known to be much higher, longer term, and more serious than first thought.

Covid vaccination programmes should be halted immediately. Research protocols should be revised to fully take account of new data. All vaccine mandates in the public and private sectors should be halted.

How Known Risks, Safety Protocols, and Red Flags Were Suppressed Under Jacinda Ardern’s Leadership

0

… as a global avalanche of adverse effects gathered momentum.

Three days ago Ardern spoke in New York about New Zealand’s early cooperation with the global push for universal mRNA vaccination:

“I’ve had a number of bilateral conversations. The first was with the lead of GAVI—the Global Alliance for Vaccination and Immunisation [probably its CEO Dr. Seth Berkley], the vaccine alliance in which NZ had played a key role in making sure that we had early contributions. He requested to have that meeting and it really struck me that first and foremost he wanted to thank NZ for its support but also to have a conversation around how do we make sure that we don’t lose any of the global momentum around making sure that children in particular are vaccinated.…”

Just what sort of contributions did New Zealand make? We have already discussed some of these in our article The Strange Case of the Gates Foundation, the US CDC, and Our NZ Health Data but international cooperation and national blackouts on information gathering went deeper.

At the height of the fear about Covid severity in August 2020, Ardern laid out a policy the government should be your sole source of truth. She has pursued this policy rigorously since. It is now apparent that politicians from all sides of parliament and also government advisors took this information very seriously. It turned out to be a huge mistake that isolated the whole country from the traditional processes and safeguards of scientific investigation.

Incredibly, our first hand sources indicate that politicians and some government scientists working on Covid-19 safety are still unaware of the full scope and findings of international Covid-19 publishing. They appear to have confined their assessments solely to pro-vaccine material provided by government-approved databases run by bodies like the US CDC, GAVI, and ICMRA (International Coalition of Medicines Regulatory Authorities). These bodies are supported by WHO, pharmaceutical corporations, and the Gates Foundation. They strictly control which studies are made available and how their results are interpreted.

Meanwhile our primary public health data that could provide hard information on what is actually happening here is being shared with the Global Vaccine Data Network but has not been released to the New Zealand public. Instead, the small number of people with probing questions are left with person-to-person conversations, which paint a revealing picture of state sponsored ignorance and suppression of fact. The great thing about living in a small close-knit country is that people talk to one another and little remains secret for long:

One government advisor spoken to, professed complete ignorance of key studies on natural immunity, still believing, contrary to recent research findings, that the immunity conferred by the Pfizer vaccine was superior to natural immunity after infection. They hadn’t even heard the names Peter McCullough, Robert Malone, Aseem Malhotra, Vinay Prasad, etc.

all-cause death rates are higher among the vaccinated

Another joyous New Zealand scientist is busy sharing anti vaxxer jokes like “I’m not worried about anti vaxxers. It is a dying movement.” Apparently unaware that the all-cause death rates are higher among the vaccinated.

One of our senior scientists offered the opinion that all those experiencing cardiac problems after vaccination (and there are a great many), already had a cardiac problem and were really lucky that the vaccine brought it to light so that they could get needed treatment. We should be so lucky.

Conversely, a few people are noticing the obvious, despite the government telling them not to look around. A lawyer told me that their property team has little to do, but their estates team members are run off their feet.

A number of undertakers are doing brisk business, taking note of the predominance of vaccinated clients, and finding those rubbery clots. They are speaking up and won’t be told to keep quiet.

Some nurses are unafraid to say that myocarditis following vaccination is not mild, not uncommon, and not confined to the elderly. While a cardiac surgeon is complaining he used to work three days a week and now he has to work four days. Cancer specialists have never seen anything like it.

Some insurance brokers are also notching up unusually high numbers of health claims.

Some indispensable, highly-qualified specialists working for the health service refused to get vaccinated and the Ministry of Health allowed them exemptions. Pity if your employer doesn’t value you.

Pity also if you are a surfer or an athlete who doesn’t go out to play anymore because you can’t catch a breath, although some of them are no longer here to tell us about it. Mostly those affected don’t even realise it could be due to Covid mRNA vaccination because of government censorship.

The great secret being kept from the public: all-cause mortality is at record levels and those affected are primarily vaccinated. GVDN could tell us, but they are keeping mum.

The Medicines Assessment Advisory Committee (MAAC) approved the Pfizer vaccine in New Zealand. They certified all the ingredients as safe!!! How? What information did they use? MAAC has 12 members whose names have not been made available to the public. According to a source, one of the lead members of MAAC’s deliberations was Dr. XXX (I’m sparing her the embarrassment of being named because our government might not appreciate it). Her Linkedin profile lists her as an expert on lamb survival. Did she have sufficient qualifications and expertise to mandate the health choices of five million humans? You decide.

We have a lot of experts on cattle and sheep breeding, we don’t actually have a great many, if any, experts on biotechnology safety of an international standard. It seems curious to me that no one was tasked with locating the arguments and the research papers that ran counter to the naive assumption of vaccine safety. Why wasn’t a sub-group told to assemble concerns and then debate them with the pro-vaccine committee members? In fact, why wasn’t there any public debate? No doubt most of our ‘experts’ would look under informed and inadequate if they had to debate in an open forum.

The provisional consent for the Pfizer mRNA Covid-19 vaccine was granted on 3rd February 2021 for use until 3 November 2021. It was signed off by Dr. Chris James, Group Manager of Medsafe. Conditions 53-57 of the approval required Pfizer to provide to Medsafe the results of their post-marketing adverse effect data and analysis which Pfizer finalised on 30th April 2021.

An OIA reveals that the safety report on which approval was based noted:

“The benefit risk balance of the Covid-19 mRNA vaccine for…individuals 16 years of age and older, is not clear. At this stage, there is evidence only for short-term protection, and longer-term safety data are lacking. However, experience with the vaccine is accumulating rapidly. Notwithstanding uncertainties, in the light of high clinical need and the expectation of further data (including regarding duration of protection) around April 2021, a provisional consent…may be appropriate.”

So safety wasn’t clear and there was no long-term data. The April 30th Pfizer data contained disturbing information documenting an unprecedented range of adverse effects following vaccination. So why didn’t it lead to a review of the vaccine approval? And crucially, why did Ardern leverage her position as our sole source of truth and tell us again and again from the podium and via saturation government advertising that the vaccine was proven safe and effective?

Medsafe has not provided exact information as to when it first received the post-marketing adverse effect data from Pfizer, it has merely affirmed that it received it prior to 28th October 2021 on which date it renewed the provisional consent for a period of two years. It seems incredible that the arrival of the Pfizer report didn’t ring alarm bells or merit detailed discussion.

The minutes of the original approval show that some of the (unnamed) scientists on the MAAC had other concerns. For example:

‘The data on long terminal half-life of the lipid nanoparticles (LNP) was considered unusual but unlikely to be a safety concern, as only two doses are intended to be administered.’

So why wasn’t the concern about LNP re-examined when the approval was renewed at the end of the October, when a third (booster) dose was already on the table? The Hatchard Report has discussed research findings of inheritable immune suppression due to LNP. No worries though.

It is hard to escape the notion that approval had become an assured rubber stamp. It is probable that the government was so committed by this stage that no other outcome would be politically acceptable. The growing international concerns about rates of myocarditis among the young would have been very unwelcome.

Further than this, it appears that national medical regulatory bodies around the world were egging each other on to make more daring and carte blanche safety claims, without adequate supporting data, and in spite of multiple safety red flags. It was like an avalanche of investors buying shares in a failing Ponzi scheme.

Now the safety bar is dropping by the week. A month ago the results from just eight mice were sufficient to get the rubber stamp for distribution of a Moderna bivalent vaccine to 171 million Americans. Igor Chudov has analysed the data. It is concerning. The results were very inconsistent among the eight ‘subjects’. Some subjects registered an effect size 73 times greater than other ‘participants’. In any case, all of the mice got Covid and we haven’t been told whether they survived. The trial failed, but the rubber was stamped. No one in the scientific establishment squeaked concern.

This is all evidence of a trend towards transhumanism—open season for genetic experiments on humans without adequate safeguards—all humans. It goes against all the current and historical safety signals.

‘Out of Touch’ Doesn’t Cover It

Read this substack by Alex Berenson which analyses data from a peer-reviewed study of 9.1 million people in the UK published in the Lancet. Ostensibly it is about the relationship between Body Mass Index and vaccine effectiveness, but it contains a mass of data which contradicts the remaining last ditch claim of vaccine advocates—Covid vaccination protects against serious infection and death. It doesn’t.

A table from the supplementary appendix 1 of the Lancet study is devastating. Like so many studies, the bad news for the vaccine is buried in supplementary material. Bear in mind this is a study on England infection data Dec 8 2020 to Nov 17 2021, so it only covers Alpha and Delta when the vaccine was supposed to be effective, unlike today’s dismal performance against Omicron. It shows that contrary to all they’ve told us before, the double vaccinated were at least 44% more likely than the unvaccinated to be infected. Covid vaccination never has protected anyone, it simply elevated risks (and that is a very mild way of putting it).

New Zealand Engineered a Vaccine Miracle. Not!

To sum up: New Zealand decided to be led by Bill Gates, big pharma, and the CDC. Ardern reciprocated, she kept the lid on scientific discussion and dutifully told the world New Zealand engineered a vaccine miracle. Our scientists and medical professionals meekly followed her lead. Perhaps they thought their time to rule had come.

In fact, our low mortality rates in 2020 were the result of closed borders and excellent contact tracing in a small, well-spaced population who were very compliant about lockdowns. When vaccines arrived in 2021 all cause mortality rose precipitously in lock step with the vaccine rollout. During 2022 all cause mortality rose further and broke records, but the data shows it wasn’t in the main due to Covid.

Ardern with the full support of the entire parliament, all our political parties, and the New Zealand scientific and medical establishment has created a well-oiled machine to suppress discussion and dissent, to label scientific concepts like ‘herd immunity’ and ‘vaccine adverse effects’ conspiracy theories.

Ardern now travels the world speaking about the benefits and necessity for internet censorship to suppress the disinformation and violent extremism (???) of anti vaxxers—ordinary concerned people who ask questions of their government and their medical professionals.

Last week at the UN General Assembly she called for

efforts to develop a new global health legal instrument, strengthened international health regulations and a strong and empowered World Health Organization”.

Is it a conspiracy? Would you like to see Ardern granted the global leadership she aspires to? You tell me.