The fourth year of the pandemic has already started, and we are still left wondering about the whys and hows.

We could easily be participating in a medical psychological drama on Netflix entitled ‘LIFE’ with a very uncertain outcome and lots of anxious episodes.

Two days ago, Dr. Ayesha Verrall, Minister for Covid-19 Response, belatedly replied to my letter of 18th August entitled “Current pandemic policy and protocols are out of date,” which asked the government to consider published research findings from Thailand, Qatar, and Iceland. It also requested that vaccination status be included on death certificates in order to aid research. In her reply, Dr. Verill noted that the government has now ended the Covid-19 Protection Framework and added:

“While New Zealand watches closely how other countries are dealing with the response to Covid-19, it is important that we make our own decision when it comes to how we manage the virus, as many factors determine our response, such as vaccination rates, community transmission, and the pressures on our health system.”

Dr. Verill is also the Minister of Research, Science and Innovation, but she managed to avoid addressing any of the specific points I raised in my letter. The government is going to make up its own mind without worrying too much about what is going on in the world or even who among the dead are vaccinated. That just about sums up the current state of New Zealand Covid science.

Let’s take stock. What do we know has happened, and what don’t we know? Our aim here is to find out what we can expect going forward.

I spent a few hours this week studying the Human Mortality Database. Excess all cause deaths is the difference between the historical long term average (2010-2019) and current data. Crucially I’ve proportionately adjusted the figures down to account for New Zealand’s rising population. This has the effect of significantly reducing the apparent number of excess deaths.

In 2019 there were 1,154 excess deaths compared to the long term trend

In 2020 there were 1,043 fewer deaths compared to the long term trend

In 2021 there were 533 excess deaths compared to the long term trend

In 2022 (up to the end of September), there have been 2,684 excess deaths

These figures have been particularly influenced by government policy. The closure of our borders to foreigners for long periods in 2020 and 2021 and the use of quarantine, lockdowns, and ‘track and tracing’ effectively kept the case numbers of alpha and delta very low indeed during these years.

Moreover, the same measures drastically reduced the incidence of flu cases in both years (see figure). Flu is closely related to all-cause mortality rates, higher incidence of flu correlates with higher mortality. The low flu rates in 2020 and 2021 undoubtedly reduced mortality in those years, whereas the high rates in 2019 probably increased mortality.

There were 1,576 more deaths in 2021 when compared with 2020. In both years, the effects of government policy were similar, and rates of flu incidence were low in both years. mRNA Covid vaccination was rolled out beginning at the end of March 2021. Beginning at the end of April, excess deaths were running considerably ahead of 2020. During weeks 17 to 36, there were 1,319 more excess deaths in 2021 than in the equivalent period in 2020. These were the weeks of maximum Covid jabs, and the total excess deaths during this period account for 84% of the 2021 excess over 2020.

The high number of excess deaths in 2022 up to the end of September (2,864) is unusual. There were records broken. Week 30 (end of July) was 26% above the historical average, even after adjusting for New Zealand’s increase in population. This corresponds to a wave of Omicron infections, but the total significantly exceeds the number of deaths directly attributed to Covid.

Here’s the rub, in New Zealand, we do not have access to sufficient data that would help to ascertain whether Covid vaccination was a key contributing factor in the higher excess death totals in 2021 and 2022. In order to investigate this, we would need data on the cause of death, date of death, vaccination status, age, and date of vaccinations for all deaths. This information has not been published. Nor does it appear that there is any plan to release this data in the future. We are being left in the dark.

If anyone is telling us that they are sure Covid alone is to blame for excess deaths (and some are), they are either hoaxing or deliberately obfuscating. There is insufficient data to reach this conclusion. The exact causes of high excess deaths in 2021 and 2022 remain unknown, or rather the information which would determine this has been withheld from public scrutiny.

The principle barrier to understanding has been the Ardern doctrine that the government should be our only source of truth. As a result, virtually all our sources of Covid information emanate from Ministry of Health experts and from government sponsored sources including funded MSM articles and so called disinformation experts. These channels are all pro-vaccine by design.

This has effectively bypassed the normal channels of scientific investigation. Ministry of Health bulletins are not peer reviewed by independent scientists. Their methods of data collection and analysis are not subject to scrutiny. Their source data has not been made publicly available. Consequently, almost no papers of scientific merit studying NZ data have been published in learned journals or presented at international conferences. What are our New Zealand scientists up to? They have either looked the other way or worse become complicit in government censorship. We have been left with a steady diet of what amounts to little more than vaccine propaganda.

Overseas the situation is not so black and white. There is a huge volume of journal publishing, and there are conference presentations and public debates. Watch Dr. John Campbell discussing UK excess deaths among the young. There are open data sets which can be analysed and discussed. Take for example this article by Steve Kirsch on Substack which reviews a current US scientific controversy—is there a peak in deaths following vaccination? A lawyer whistleblower points out that official US Medicaid data shows a peak in death rates 17 days following Covid vaccination.

University of Pennsylvania biostatistician Prof. Jeffrey Morris attempts to debunk the claimed effect, but in the process accidentally confirms that the effect size is stronger after the second dose. In other words, each subsequent vaccination is followed by a larger number of deaths which supports a causal connection between Covid vaccination and higher death rates. This is precisely the sort of detailed discussion that could shed light on the NZ excess all-cause mortality peaks, but this has not happened here.

We only have indicative data up to mid July 2022. Up until this point in time, there was objective and complete data on deaths where there had been a positive Covid test up to four weeks prior to death (subsequent adjusted data released by the Ministry of Health is tainted by subjective judgements about cause of death—it does not include all deaths).

This data shows that any protective effect of Covid vaccination wears off quickly and is consistent with the findings of other studies showing any mRNA vaccine protection enters negative territory after three months.

In mid March 2022 (see figure above), 50% of the population were boosted and accounted for just 20% of deaths and 15% of the population was unvaccinated and accounted for 31% of deaths. By mid July 52% of the population were boosted but accounted for 62% of deaths, whereas 15% of the population remained unvaccinated and now accounted for only 14% of deaths—a reversal of the situation four months earlier. This is not inconsistent with the US Medicaid data showing a negative impact.

It is true that New Zealand is in a unique situation. The reasons for this are various—climate, exercise, diet, ethnicity, economic opportunity, education, health services, etc. We are predominantly using the Pfizer vaccine, but the UK, USA and other countries are using a number of different vaccine types which have different adverse effect profiles, but that doesn’t mean that key overseas experience and research findings can be sidelined.

Dr. Verill underlined the fact that our hospital systems are under pressure. So what are we going to do about it? Do we suspect that Covid vaccination may be exacerbating the situation? I do. To understand the causes, we need information about incidence of hospitalisation by type and severity compared to prior years. For example, are rates of cancer or cardiac incidence elevated?

But there is a brick wall when it comes to dialogue with the government, and the opposition parties are no different. That is why we are stuck in the dark ages. Dialogue and debate is the very foundation of democracy, but here in New Zealand it is missing in action. Excess deaths are up and the government information vacuum means that families and the public remain under-informed or mostly uninformed or even misled about the causes.

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.

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.

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.

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: Transport, Transformation, 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: Translating, Regulating 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.

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 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.