Out of the many articles I have written during the pandemic, the ones that elicit the most enthusiastic and emotionally charged responses are those describing the stupidity of ministers.
It is of course an easy out to blame the PM and call for a replacement. One thing I learned over the years is that a change of leadership often doesn’t really change much.
Perhaps we end up with the government we deserve, come what may.
The candidates for blame are many. These are my top picks:
The poor decisions of government
The removal of the right of medical choice
The failure to control biotechnology experimentation
The pharmaceutical monopoly of medicine
When we were campaigning for labelling GM foods back in the 90s, we were successful because of consumer choice. Once informed, people chose to maintain their traditional food values and reject novel gene altered food.
If you remove the right of medical choice, as happened all over the world during the pandemic, there is no consumer power. You are left powerless.
The government took its pandemic policy decisions from a very low knowledge base concerning biotechnology. They simply went with the pharmaceutical lobby which is near total. They asked very few questions and dismissed any advice to the contrary.
But the winner for blame is the failure to control biotechnology experimentation. At Wuhan Virology Laboratory and all around the world, diseases were being weaponized and still are.
I hesitate to say ‘mistakes were inevitable’ because there were no mistakes involved.
Scientists were enthusiastically and deliberately combining deadly illnesses with invasive techniques to penetrate the body’s defences. This was and is going on under the benign smokescreen of the word ‘vaccination’.
No one informed governments that genetic fragments are incredibly mobile. They can race around the world in days. They can never be recalled.
No one informed governments that the stability of the immune system has evolved over uncounted millions of years through a co-evolutionary relationship with the wider epigenetic environment of plants, animals, and the earth’s climate. A stability that could be upset in a moment.
No one informed governments that our nutritional processes and ultimately our health depends on the genetic content of our natural foods inputted through the gut and supported by the air we breathe.
No one pointed out that our mental processes are connected to our physiology in a reciprocal relationship mediated by our DNA.
Nor did anyone mention that mRNA techniques would inevitably upset the function if not the structure of DNA, and thereby disturb the connection between mind and body.
Everyone forgot to mention that the primary determinants of health are balanced diet, lifestyle, exercise, rest, clean air, pure environment, and happiness. They account for 99% of good health outcomes.
This could and should have been the basis of government messaging, not the constant fear-mongering which only serves to degrade health and create psychological stress.
No one mentioned that the first rule of gene therapy was that unintended adverse effects are inevitable.
Instead, governments received the all clear and all safe messaging of public relations experts well recompensed by those who stood to profit the most.
There is an alarming French television series called ‘Peur Sur Le Lac’ about a biotechnology scientist who was blackmailed into releasing the Ebola virus on an unsuspecting population.
The history of criminology is endlessly full of examples of crimes and mistakes. Biotechnology experimentation is endlessly full of the most dangerous pathogens on the planet waiting to fall victim to criminal intent.
It is inconceivable that deadly crimes will not take place, crimes that will drag the whole world down.
And here’s the rub, biotech scientists are even now busy creating new and even more deadly pathogens. They are being funded by governments and unscrupulous entrepreneurs.
They are being funded by military strategists shielded by both shady and well-respected regimes. They are proclaiming their innocence whilst engaging with the most deadly and unstoppable disasters known to man.
Biotechnologists are promising us they will cure all illness and prolong life, whilst hiding the very real risks and confirmed prospects of shortened life.
Young students are being trained in large numbers at universities all over the world to play God with the safety of the human race using nothing but a little bit of hardly understood knowledge. A more baseless and dangerous professional endeavour cannot be imagined.
If governments do not control biotechnology experimentation, they are promoting the greatest risks so far known to mankind and inevitably exposing an unsuspecting population of the world.
They are doing so in the name of health, an enterprise seeped in the deepest deception.
A May 31st report in the Guardian entitled “Three jabs best for preventing Covid infections, global analysis finds” reports on a study published by the BMJ on the same day.
The authors searched global World Health Organisation (WHO) databases in an effort to discover whether mixing and matching vaccine types was better than sticking to one brand.
The study concludes that a combination of any three mRNA vaccines is 95% effective against hospital admissions. It also says that even two doses of mRNA vaccine are 99% effective at preventing severe Covid.
Did the authors realise that these astonishing and entirely unconvincing headline effectiveness figures will grossly mislead and deceive the public?
I don’t know, but I do know that real world figures from around the world show the exact opposite. At the very least, there is currently no statistical difference between rates of hospital admissions for the vaccinated and unvaccinated.
Here in New Zealand and in many other countries who still publish data, official figures show that the triple vaccinated are in fact more likely to be hospitalized with Covid. In other words, mRNA vaccination damages health.
Rigorous Scientific Enquiry is Taking a Back Seat
The paper illustrates just how far our understanding of Covid outcomes has drifted away from rigorous scientific enquiry into a self-congratulatory faith.
The Guardian report on the study begins with the phrase “the effectiveness of individual coronavirus vaccines is well known”. This must be a typo, surely the author meant to write ‘ineffectiveness’?
Hidden in the conclusion of the BMJ paper is a vital clue:
“The vaccine effectiveness against death in people who received three doses of mRNA vaccine remains uncertain”
Now correct me if I am wrong, but surely if a vaccine is claimed to be 95% effective against hospitalisation and 99% effective against severe Covid, it must prevent deaths?
Well according to the paper’s authors their comprehensive review of all WHO databases cannot confirm this. How come?
The answer lies in the interpretation of data and the use of statistics.
Whilst careful editing and curation of hospitalisation and infection data is possible, death has a finality which is hard to ignore. Mortality statistics are carefully recorded everywhere. These show that all cause mortality is on the rise.
The possible culprits are either Covid itself or Covid vaccination. Whichever is the case, the argument for the effectiveness(??) of Covid vaccination against death is a non-starter.
Vaccine proponents are out in force these days arguing (without credible evidence) that increased deaths, especially the significant increases in cardiac illness and deaths among working age people, have nothing to do with mRNA vaccines and everything to do with long Covid.
View a heart specialist in New Zealand recently commenting to this effect.
A report“Increased emergency cardiovascular events among under-40 population in Israel during vaccine rollout and third COVID-19 wave” published in Nature found to the contrary:
Emergency Cardiac Callouts Were Related to Vaccination, But Not to Prior Covid Infection
The authors concluded “It is essential to raise awareness among patients and clinicians with respect to related symptoms (e.g., chest discomfort and shortness of breath) following vaccination or COVID-19 infection to ensure that potential harm is minimized.” and further said:
It is “critical to better understand the risk-benefits of the vaccine and to inform related public policy and prevent potentially avoidable patient harm.”
Governments and Health Authorities Have Ignored the Conclusions of Evolving Covid Science Publishing
In fact, over the last 18 months, the whole mythic edifice of mRNA vaccination safety and effectiveness has come tumbling down due to new scientific findings and assessments.
So what do you do if you are a Covid mRNA vaccine proponent? Of course, you double down on your faith, you plough on regardless:
At first mRNA vaccination was 95% effective against infection and completely safe. Then it was discovered it rapidly waned in effectiveness. So it was pronounced effective against severe infection and hospitalisation.
Then it was realised a very wide range of adverse effects followed vaccination, so these were designated as unrelated or caused by vaccine anxiety.
Then the volume of myocarditis cases was too high to ignore, so these were described as mild and short lived.
Then post-vaccine myocarditis was discovered to be long lasting and potentially serious or even fatal, so it was suggested that early intervention would work well.
Then it was discovered that all cause mortality was rising, so it was suggested this must be due to post-Covid infection complications and not to vaccination.
New Zealand epidemiologist Michael Baker, a favourite of the government, is currently gaining widespread media coverage with suggestions that mRNA vaccination prevents 90% of hospitalisations and has saved 80,000 New Zealand deaths.
No doubt reassuring to the 90% of the New Zealand population who are vaccinated, but it doesn’t fly scientifically in any shape or form.
The approach of the New Zealand Government government remains unchanged by the evolution of Covid scientific publishing, note:
Their lack of ability to change policy in the face of evolving scientific publication.
Their lack of empathy for those suffering adverse effects.
Their scapegoating of the unvaccinated without basis in fact.
Their rejection of alternative approaches to health.
Their adherence to mask wearing even though studies show it is ineffective at stopping the spread of infection and also damaging to health.
Governments and Mainstream Media are Championing Disinformation
More worrying are efforts around the world to establish so called disinformation offices devoted to
attacking anyone who questions the safety of mRNA Covid vaccination
issuing reassuring but patently false bulletins about Covid vaccination safety and effectiveness
The New Zealand government has joined in with “The National Centre of Research Excellence for Preventing and Countering Violent Extremism” (yes, this does appear to be concerned with the investigation of anyone doubting the safety of mRNA Covid vaccination).
The bright and breezy Schraer (I couldn’t find her bio online) was “very sure that the jabs are safe and effective”, but unsure exactly how long they last for—somewhere between measles and influenza jabs she hazarded.
No mention of any side effects and no mention of mRNA technology, just the reassuring generic term ‘vaccine’ and oblique references to what unnamed experts think (or possibly imagine?).
The saddest part of this is the fact that examination of the Pfizer documents gradually being released under court order shows that the adverse effects and the waning effectiveness, and much more worrying prospects such as suppression of the immune system or pregnancy complications, were known or suspected after the earliest Pfizer trial results, but hidden from the public.
It is a year since my best mate died from cardiac and immune suppression, conditions which he suddenly and unexpectedly acquired following Covid vaccination. We have not forgotten him.
Exposing the risk of genetic experimentation is still our priority. Nor have we forgotten the Wuhan Virology Lab and similar programmes around the world. Unfortunately, they have not forgotten either, recent publications show that the Wuhan lab is continuing to experiment with dangerous viruses.
Man-made viral experimental genetic material is mobile and invasive, it can reach you wherever you live. It can take control of life, your life, and change it irrevocably. Its ultimate effects are unknown and unknowable.
History shows us it cannot be safely contained in a lab indefinitely. The peril is ours, and we can’t pretend it doesn’t exist or even successfully hide from it.
We are already a long way down the road to ruin, but possibly it is still not too late to turn back. The only road back to safety involves pausing risky biotechnology experimentation immediately.
Someone from one of the major parties involved in the upcoming Tauranga by-election called me yesterday. There are twelve candidates in all. Three minor parties opposed to vaccine mandates say they are hoping for an upset result, but unfortunately, they have not united around a single candidate. Having listened to some political hopefuls, I reflect here on what this is all about.
The history of parliaments goes back to the Magna Carta which was pretty much forced on King John by his disgruntled barons. In essence, King John felt he had a divine right to rule—he could regulate, punish, and tax the population pretty much as he saw fit, and he did so with abandon. Modern parliaments have quietly slipped into King John’s way of thinking.
The Magna Carta affirmed that the King had to take account of the wishes of the people, it acknowledged that citizens had a right to worship and conduct their business freely, and crucially said that the King was not above the law:
“No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land.”
What Is the Law of the Land Referred to Here?
Law has three components:
Parliamentary law
Common law
Natural law
All of which play a role in modern jurisprudence.
Parliamentary laws are those on the statute books. New laws are passed by each elected parliament according to the wishes of a majority of MPs.
Common Law comprises a number of rights stemming from the Magna Carta and subsequent judicial rulings and conventions on human rights. In essence, Common Law is intended to ensure the dealings between individuals and between people and the state are fair and just. It also underpins our right to engage in our chosen profession or trade. It guarantees freedoms such as the right to worship and freedom of movement.
Natural Law combines all the laws of nature described by physics, chemistry, biology, etc. Natural law is often described by religious people as God’s Will.
NZ Parliament Behaves as if It Is Above the Law
My advice to anyone aspiring to be elected to represent Tauranga is that we already have laws which need to be scrupulously observed. The problem is that our parliament, just like King John, has begun to consider that it is above the law.
New Zealand has its Bill of Rights, but its provisions for free medical choice have been ignored.
New Zealand describes itself as a Common Law democracy but the government has denied employment opportunities and other freedoms to a large section of the population through coercive mandates and restrictions.
Natural Law has also been ignored. Evolutionary safeguards embodied in our DNA have been altered through experimental mRNA techniques without regard to the risks involved or the science.
The result has been that almost the whole population has been subjected to medical risk and injury.
I suggest that anyone concerned should print out a copy of the main provisions of the New Zealand Bill of Rights and display them prominently at their home and their place of business.
The New Zealand Bill of Rights Guarantees:
Right not to be deprived of life or subjected to cruel treatment
Right not to be subjected to medical or scientific experimentation
Right to refuse to undergo medical treatment
Freedom of thought, conscience, religion, and belief
Freedom of peaceful assembly, association, and movement
Right to justice, liberty, and freedom from discrimination
If you talk to Tauranga candidates, remind them that our current laws, both ancient and modern, need to be observed, no ifs or buts.
An article in the UK Daily Telegraph last week illustrated a dilemma we all face. Scientists have admitted that the AstraZeneca vaccine increases the risk of the serious neurological condition Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS)—just one of the many post-vaccination adverse effects. Scientists identified the jab’s genetically engineered Trojan horse adenovirus delivery system as possibly to blame.
Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS) Considered a Small Price to Pay
GBS is a rare condition which causes muscle numbness and pain and can hinder movement, walking, swallowing and, sometimes, even breathing.
But here’s the rub, the article concludes that despite these serious side effects, the benefits of Covid vaccines are huge and far outweigh the risks. In fact, aren’t they wonderful?
An AstraZeneca spokesman, uncritically quoted in the article, crowed that their vaccine had helped to prevent fifty million infections and five million hospitalisations.
So what are a few GBS cases [and presumably deaths] compared to that?
Their public relations team must have been working overtime to produce this brazen fabrication, which is inconsistent with official data.
Covid Vaccines are Ineffective and Put Millions of Lives at Risk
A number of eminent geneticists have cogently and scientifically argued the reverse—that Covid vaccines are not only ineffective, but they have also put and continue to put millions of lives at risk. The UK Daily Telegraph chose to ignore them.
As fast as we realise the extent of the health issues surrounding mRNA and DNA vaccination, the authorities are busy denying, disguising, and deleting them.
Our latest example: cardiac health assessments for NZ pilots are no longer necessary for the under 40s (the age most liable to mRNA vaccine-induced cardiac injury).
Whilst many countries have removed social restrictions associated with the pandemic, the biotech industry and WHO, along with their government and media supporters are doubling down on a new age of mandated biotech medicine.
The scientists involved in the GBS study, which was published in the journal Brain, flag a need for more genetic engineering of viruses to try to fix the adverse effect problems. Prompting us to ask the question is GBS shorthand for Good Business Sense and pharmaceutical profits ? What could possibly go wrong?
The Future Direction of Medicine
The charge towards a risky and daunting medical future is visible everywhere. A hapless mother who tweeted yesterday that she was carefully feeding her children fresh natural food, was shouted down by the troll pack.
Didn’t she realise that the presence of preservatives is essential to maintain health? Aren’t flavours engineered in a lab to mimic their natural counterparts so much better and safer?
The pandemic restrictions and mandates are still very much to the fore in New Zealand, but we are hoping for a change in policies. Will this be enough? No.
The question is: Are we going to exit the pandemic into a daring bioengineered era replete with severe cardiac risk, or will we learn from the adverse effect carnage of the pandemic and close off the risks posed by novel biotechnology applications?
A Consciousness-based Understanding of Evolution Points a Way Ahead
Evolution has been viewed for more than 150 years as driven by random mutations and adaptive responses to the environment. Yet at the cutting edge of every adaptive response is a purposeful, sentient act of consciousness.
Richard Dawkins has not just written one, but a whole string of books seeking to suggest that evolution is driven by random events devoid of subjectivity, awareness, and the sanctity of life.
He has done so in the face of the very obvious involvement of subjective decision-making in evolutionary encounters.
The whole endeavour of so-called rational science to exclude subjectivity has inevitably run into problems as it brushes against the involvement of the observer.
At the heart of physics, measurement theory and experimental results have validated the role of the observer. One way to consider this involves understanding consciousness as primary and matter secondary.
In this view, matter can and does rearrange itself to conform to the evolving structure of consciousness.
DNA is the interface between matter and consciousness. Has DNA evolved over the ages to reflect advances in human consciousness, rather than human consciousness evolving in response to random genetic mutation as many people still currently believe?
Old Idea of the Genesis of Life and Evolution
The problem with traditional evolutionary explanations is that they give the impression that life is solely a series of accidental events that fortuitously had cosmic implications as illustrated above.
A more modern perspective on evolution considers that life emerged as a result of the sum of the underlying laws of nature. This is often referred to as ‘the mangrove of life’ theory.
The Mangrove of Life—Life Emerges From the Laws of Nature
The mangrove evolutionary paradigm implies that life is not an accident. The laws of modern physics, chemistry, and biology governing the emergence of life and its evolution are continuously rooted in the underlying unified structure of natural law—the source of life.
Although the Mangrove of Life is a neat reinterpretation of available biological evidence and theory, it fails to take account of the special role of conscious decision-making in evolutionary events (and in the laws of physics).
Is Evolution the Ascent of Consciousness?
We are so used to the modern idea that every human trait has its ultimate origins in our genetic structure, that we have failed to consider evolution as the ascent of consciousness, rather than a random process of trial and error.
The expression of higher psychological human functions and sensibilities are correlated not just with specific parts and pathways of the physiology but with the coherent functioning of our whole genetic and physiological system which has evolved in tandem with our consciousness.
The whole is more than the sum of the parts, and our physiology as a whole is related to our consciousness.
Thus evolution is not just a random adaptive response to our food, experience, and behaviour. Crucially it includes the evolution of human consciousness. Together these form the four dimensions of evolutionary adaptation.
Does Genetic Engineering Put Higher Human Abilities at Risk?
We have suggested elsewhere and here that genetic alterations to immune system function put higher human abilities at risk. They have matured through millions of years of coevolutionary existence with the wider biosphere. Genetic medicine in its current iteration is therefore a potentially suicidal development for the human race.
As we exit the pandemic, it is apparent that the promoters of pharmaceutical biotech dreams and fantasies have a bulging public relations war chest. There is a lot of money, prestige, and political capital riding on an officially sanctioned A+ rating for the Covid pandemic response.
Part and parcel of this is the adjustment of fact to fit the genetic vaccine safety narrative as we saw in the GBS article.
Evolving Out of the Pandemic
Historically, misinterpretation of Darwin’s theory of evolution helped to curate a myth of genetic superiority. The accompanying notion of ethnic cleansing eventually led to the holocaust and multiple other genocides.
In a parallel development, the conception of evolution driven by random events has led to the idea that genetic editing and manipulation can be attempted with impunity. A misinterpretation that will have catastrophic consequences if left unchallenged.
We must reevaluate our concepts of medical risk and ethics. The distortion of medical risk and the rejection of traditional safe healthy remedies, diets, and lifestyles has not emerged suddenly, it has been brewing for years.
The 2014 reversal in USA longevity is just the beginning of its legacy, the bungled pandemic response has pushed this trend further into the red.
The important point to note is that a biotech medical future and a healthy future are incompatible with one another.
Therefore it will not be enough to merely exit the pandemic restrictions leaving society lulled into complacency. We have to evolve out of the pandemic together with a sound basis in a renewed and updated knowledge paradigm and education system.
We are just now becoming more aware of gag orders affecting reporting of adverse effects following vaccination.
Apparently, hospital administrators are keen to avoid any publicity that might suggest an increased incidence of cardiac events and other common Covid vaccine side effects.
Their motivations for this are unclear, but we have previously noted a lack of New Zealand data for specific conditions. I have received a number of anecdotal reports from hospital staff and patients around the country concerning high rates of hospitalisation and death attributable to vaccine injury.
Whilst scare stories of serious Covid infection outcomes are given wide publicity, gagging of hospital staff effectively hides the prevalence of adverse effects from the public. This has the effect of preventing the public reaching informed conclusions about the relative safety of Covid vaccination.
A UK coroners court recently found that a 26 year old graduate student who died from a blot clot in his brain following an AstraZeneca injection was given incorrect and out of date information about the risks—a situation we face in New Zealand every day where saturation advertising claims safety and efficacy contrary to available data.
Covid Vaccination a Significant Risk for Women
Women are denied informed consent by gagging orders on health professionals and the deliberate withholding of data
It also reported that in September 2021 the American Board of Obstetrics & Gynecology (ABOG) had threatened their 22,000+ constituents with disciplinary actions, including revocation of licensures and board certifications if they questioned the safety of the Covid ‘vaccination’.
This gagging order occurred in the absence of reliable data indicating safety for pregnant or menstruating women. Such discussions are also deleted from social media platforms.
DCS is historically a rare gynecological event, with less than 40 cases reported in the medical literature over the last 109 years. The paper reports 292 cases of DCS following vaccination.
DCS is a synchronized detachment of the entire decidualized layer of endometrium, and it passes from the uterus through the cervix and vagina. It appears to be associated with blood changes caused by Covid vaccination, but virtually no investigation has been undertaken until now, despite very high volumes of self-reported menstrual irregularities.
Pfizer Adverse Effects Withheld From the Public
The latest release of Pfizer adverse effects document which occurred on May 2nd, 2022 reveals that between 82-97% of pregnant women in the Pfizer vaccine trials lost their babies.
45% of the 270 pregnant mothers reported adverse clinical events, more than 60% of these events were rated as serious. Facts which Pfizer withheld from the public until ordered to release them by a federal judge.
These recent findings highlight systematic attempts to hide the extent and serious nature of Covid vaccination injury to women. Over the next few months, we expect that more scientific assessments will begin to reveal the long term effects of Covid vaccination, not just for women but for a very large range of serious conditions affecting all ages and genders.
Continuing attempts to hide or delay the publication of data or suppress the discussion of scientific findings unfavourable to vaccine safety, and the censure of medical professionals who wish to offer informed consent, amount at the very least to a conspiracy of silence, and, at the worst end of offending, to an attempt to pervert the course of justice.
This morning Jacinda Ardern received an honorary doctorate from Harvard University, hitting out in her acceptance speech against keyboard warriors spreading disinformation:
“When facts are turned into fiction, and fiction turned into fact, you stop debating ideas and you start debating conspiracy.”
Was she echoing Orwell’s 1984?
“His mind slid away into the labyrinthine world of doublethink. To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies…to repudiate morality while laying claim to it,…to believe that the Party was the guardian of democracy.”
Ardern continued with a sordid use of imagery worthy of Orwell:
“In my mind, when I read something especially horrific on my feed, I imagine it’s written by a lone person, unacquainted with personal hygiene practices, dressed in a poorly fitted superhero costume – one that is baggy in all the wrong places.”
I Have to Be Cruel to Be Kind
Ardern said her speech was about kindness, presumably that special brand of kindness that is hard to recognise.As Hamlet said after berating his mother “I have to be cruel to be kind”.
Was Ardern’s brand of kindness at work when she famously deleted in a single night 33,000 comments on her feed informing her of personal stories of the adverse effects of Covid vaccination?
Ardern might just as well have entitled her speech: “I have sat on my hands and refused to read my emails. I insist that other MPs do the same. I am the sole source of truth. The world needs this.”
The historical antecedents of the rejection of protestors, writers, and intellectuals as irrelevant, dirty, and dangerous spreaders of disease and disinformation certainly escaped Ardern and probably most Harvard graduates. The 1930s don’t feature much in modern curricula.
Ignorance is No Excuse
As all cause mortality rises, as another new study shows the immune system of the vaccinated exhibits dangerous antibody instability, as infections and hospitalisations among the vaccinated overtake the unvaccinated, we no longer need to speculate about where this is going.
History tells us that it will end badly for many. An outcome of which Ardern appears to be determined to remain ignorant and condemn as conspiracy without discussion—by government decree.
But of course, it is much worse than mere ignorance, as Sir Walter Scott said:
“Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive.”
Master of Disinformation
Ardern is a master of disinformation, coercion, and suppression. Her continuing (but thankfully waning) popularity is a reflection of her practice of controlling the media through continuing large cash grants and revenue from saturation Covid vaccination advertising (aka old fashioned bribery).
As a result, New Zealanders are dying in greater numbers not only unaware that this may have anything to do with Covid vaccination but actually told by the government that it does not and cannot.
The cardiac wards are overflowing, but governments are not letting on. In the history of mass poisoning, there is no parallel in the world.
When Is a Crime Not a Crime?
When the government says so. This happens when the government and the medical profession not only cannot be held accountable for their actions but wilfully exploit this loophole to the full.
We have reached the apogee of the era of unaccountably disregarded consequences for which Ardern is the unapologetic international poster child.
Ardern’s Harvard speech reportedly generated emotional rapture. She received a standing ovation. What does that mean for our future and the future of the world?
Government policies in many countries including New Zealand have unnecessarily stoked negative feelings. This in turn has had a negative effect on economic conditions.
In times of social anxiety, people stockpile goods and seek to recoup actual and imagined trading losses or goods shortages through increased prices.
Uncertain conditions also magnify opportunities for unscrupulous traders to engage in price gouging which is reflected in the current large cost of living rises.
Quality of Life Is the Main Priority of All Economic Policy
My Ph.D. thesis focused on the influence of human factors on the global economy and national competitive advantage. I tracked over 200 social and economic indicators during a seven-year period in 46 developed nations.
Daily meditation practice reduces anxiety and anger, increases creativity, and greatly improves health. The pandemic has been characterised by increases in essentially opposite qualities.
The psychological profile of the pandemic includes increases in fear and anxiety, expressions of anger and disappointment, and a decline in general health and life expectancy.
All of these characteristics decrease the individual and collective ability to think clearly and creatively—essential components of economic success.
Economic fear snowballs in much the same way as a bear market sentiment does. Marginal increases in prices increase anxiety and drive a tendency to charge even higher prices.
In a Global Economy, the Effects Are Magnified Further
Pressures on fuel prices and reduced productivity due to lockdowns and regional conflicts only exacerbate the effects.
Government pandemic policies and pronouncements have been greatly influenced by medical administrators, epidemiologists, pharmacologists, and immunologists.
It is worth reflecting that 99% of the factors which have a positive preventive influence on health are related to our diet, environment, behaviour, and happiness. Medical interventions tend to be made in urgent or emergency situations.
The fearful psychology associated with emergency medical interventions has inevitably crept into the medical advice being given to and then offered by governments. This has influenced our economic expectations and activity.
The Covid pandemic is now realised to be on a par with flu epidemics, not with medical emergencies. To preserve the stability of the economy, governments should be rapidly cooling the pandemic fear factor and helping people to realise that we are no longer in an emergency situation. A great deal of reassuring data has been recently published.
Fight, Flight and Freeze!
Speculative and unsubstantiated talk of future variants, new pandemics, resurgence of infections, and exaggerated Covid mortality, which have been especially prevalent in New Zealand and many other countries, leads to a panicked approach to everyday life and instability in economic relations.
Moreover, this acts to freeze larger scale private and public innovative economic initiatives and projects, as anxious people tend to be risk averse. Anxiety pushes people towards a fight or flight psychology, looking for bolt holes rather than undertaking new projects.
Vaccination mandates have also had an effect on the workforce. They have resulted in a loss of highly qualified personnel in many sectors. We sometimes forget that marginal changes in economic and social parameters such as the skill base are strong drivers of economic performance or decline.
Unfounded Prejudices Against Unvaccinated
Moreover, the introduction of unfounded prejudices against unvaccinated people tend to create dysfunctional economic profiles that are characteristic of countries in the throes of conflict.
There is currently no statistically significant advantage of reduced infection, hospitalisation, or mortality conferred by mRNA Covid vaccination, and therefore no basis for this prejudice. The government needs to explain this honestly to the population and reopen all sectors to unvaccinated workers.
In New Zealand our tourism sector previously worth $38 billion per annum has virtually disappeared, it will not revive until the outward signs of fear, such as mask mandates and excessive testing, are scaled back. We need to welcome visitors, not scare them away.
The government’s health spending priorities were distorted during the pandemic on the advice of planners dazzled by the unsupported promise of risky biotechnology.
So far our government has spent nearly $100 billion on the Covid response. Far more than the entire health budget for all other conditions, actually on a par with the entire pre pandemic annual budget of the whole government. They plan to spend even more in the near future.
Our health services should broaden their focus back to a wider range of serious conditions and rebalance health priorities. These are ordinary considerations of a traditional health economics perspective. In addition, they should plan how to address the needs of those affected by vaccine injuries and long Covid.
The media needs to broaden their approach to reporting, away from an overwhelming focus on divisive pandemic fear mongering. They need to admit that some serious mistakes were made and apologise for their promotion of misinformation.
The fear economy will never evaporate until people are fully informed rather than manipulated.
Ultimately economic performance is strongly affected by both psychology and health. Government planners need to close the curtain on overhyped fearful pandemic advice and expenditure that is not founded on current scientific publishing. They need to cool down the collective temperature of society.
All constitutional arrangements have both written and unwritten provisions that underpin their operation. These reflect the duty of care owed to the population, to promote progress, protect them from harm, and refrain from interfering with or removing their basic human rights.
Unfortunately, we have come to realise that governments make promises they can’t keep and fail in many of their undertakings. We also know that many of these promises are made in the absence of good faith—they contain assurances that are most probably unrealisable or even patently false.
In many ways, we are all playing a political game. The electorate knows what is going on, but at every election we hope that newly elected voices will finally act in good faith, only to have our hopes dashed yet again.
It is quite a different matter when a government deliberately enforces policies that result in direct harm to sections of the population without any provision to escape their effect. It is at this point that the government may be said to be acting outside of constitutional protections.
The Casualties of Our Pandemic Response
In the very early months of the pandemic and the mRNA vaccination programme, the government might argue defensively that they were, to a certain extent, unsure of the potential effectiveness of Covid inoculation and hopeful about the ultimate long term outcome. This is no longer the case.
It is now clear from the government’s own official data that there is no statistical benefit of reduced Covid infection, hospitalisation, and death rates among the vaccinated population, but this has been hidden from the public.
More worryingly, it is also clear that Covid vaccination is associated with an unprecedented rate of adverse effects including serious illness and death, more than 40 and possibly as high as 80 times that of traditional vaccines.
We have previously discussed a pattern of excess all-cause mortality in 2021 closely related to Covid vaccination. We estimated that there were over 2000 excess deaths during the first eight months of the vaccine rollout.
From the start, there has been a worry that the long-term effects of Covid mRNA vaccination are unknown, due to the limitations, brevity, and inconsistent findings of the Pfizer vaccine trials.
2022 New Zealand All-Cause Mortality Figures Are Now Available
These show that the pattern of excess deaths is continuing. Moreover, the magnitude of the effect is similar to 2021 and is greatly in excess of the known official mortality from Covid itself.
Using the Human Mortality Database (a University of California / Max Planck collaboration), we have compared the all-cause, all-age New Zealand mortality for the first 17 weeks of 2022 to the long term average for 2010-19.
These figures show that the excess deaths for the first 4 months of 2022 exceeded 2,200, whereas the total confirmed deaths which list Covid as the underlying cause of death, as recently announced by the government, is less than 450 for the same period. This is in line with a 2020 article in the British Medical Journal. It suggests that less than 1/3 of excess deaths are due to Covid. So what are they due to?
The important point is that there are many reasons to suppose that mRNA vaccination is contributing to the elevated death rate. Learned journals are publishing new articles raising significant questions at an unprecedented rate. For example, an Israeli study has shown that high levels of cardiac emergency call outs are related to prior Covid vaccination, but not to prior Covid infection (for more information see this summary).
Even an editorial in the prestigious and influential New England Journal of Medicine has warned of the potential harmful impacts of mRNA Covid vaccination on the immune system such as antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE). Excess all-cause deaths could be related to vaccine-induced immune deficiency. The New Zealand public remains in complete ignorance of this and other scientific warnings by virtue of the influence the government wields over the New Zealand mainstream media who have chosen to report on the government’s Covid response uncritically.
The Unwritten Constitution of New Zealand Includes the Bill of Rights
In New Zealand, in addition to the principles of Common Law originally derived from our association with the UK, we have a Bill of Rights. Its provisions include:
Right not to be deprived of life or subjected to cruel treatment
Right not to be subjected to medical or scientific experimentation
Right to refuse to undergo medical treatment
Freedom of thought, conscience, religion, and belief
Freedom of peaceful assembly, association, and movement
Right to justice, liberty, and freedom from discrimination
Unfortunately, the New Zealand Bill of Rights contains poorly worded limitations which were never meant to override its provisions but which have been misused by the government and misinterpreted by the courts. Whilst Section 5 entitled Justified limitations provides assurance saying:
“The rights and freedoms contained in this Bill of Rights may be subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.”
Section 4 Other Enactments Not Affected says:
“No court shall…decline to apply any provision of a [subsequent] enactment [of the Government]—by reason only that the provision is inconsistent with any provision of this Bill of Rights.”
In other words, the legislation wording is insufficiently accurate to the extent that the government believes it can simply bypass the provisions of the Bill of Rights by passing new legislation, as it has done during the pandemic. This is self-evidently a distortion of the intent of the Bill of Rights.
The courts feel they must defer to the government. Moreover, the process of judicial review available in New Zealand to challenge the application of government policy in the courts does not allow for cross examination of witnesses. As a result, courts remain essentially tied to government advice.
The Government is Mandating Risk in Defiance of the Bill of Rights.
Despite the growing evidence of harm, the government has continued to endorse Covid vaccination mandates in one form or another upon at least 20% of the population. It has continued to fund saturation advertising assuring the public of the safety and efficacy of the Pfizer vaccine, contrary to fact. It has set up funding mechanisms to reward mainstream media publications which endorse mRNA vaccination. Despite evidence of increased cardiac risk, including long term risk, it has failed to warn the public of risks, quite the reverse.
In doing so, it has stepped beyond the constitutional protections of the New Zealand Bill of Rights. It is forcing the public to take on added medical risk including the risk of death. At the same time it is concealing the risks from the public. It is also suppressing and criminalising attempts to inform the public and the government of risks. Including the deregistration of doctors wishing to offer the public meaningful informed consent and the deletion of social media posts reporting vaccine-induced harm. This has engendered a constitutional crisis unprecedented in New Zealand’s history.
This has occurred partly as a result of a close alliance between the government and medical professionals who are ideologically committed to the safety and efficacy of any and every vaccination irrespective of new evidence. The government has also committed itself to an unquestioning level of trust in Pfizer, a company with a history of proven malpractice.
Medical professionals are not well qualified to govern nations, nor are pharmaceutical companies. The medical protections and rights of medical choice written into the Bill of Rights are there for very good historical reasons.
A level of fear has been promoted and created through manipulation and censorship of information. This has become associated with an irrational condemnation of those exercising their constitutional rights to refuse medical interventions, which are guaranteed by the NZ Bill of Rights.
Constitutional Reform—The Way Ahead
The distortion and concealment of information is so great that it may be said to be not only criminal but also in direct violation of the unwritten Common Law constitution of New Zealand. As a result, during the pandemic, an asymmetry has arisen between the limits of government power and the rights of the population. The government is determined to extend its power beyond previously recognised boundaries and thereby infringe on the prior rights of the people.
New Zealand is a relatively young and immature democracy with few historical moments of crisis. In 2003 Helen Clark abolished the right of appeal to the UK Privy Council and vested its functions with the New Zealand Supreme Court. In New Zealand, the courts do not act contrary to legislation, even if the provisions of Common Law are violated. It is Parliament that is supreme, its enactments not being susceptible to annulment by any court. Thus under the present vaguely defined constitutional provisions, the resolution of a constitutional crisis is a process poorly understood.
Resolution of crises, such as the pandemic now presents, will define New Zealand going into the future. Will we take truth as paramount, or will we consider truth to be a maleable tool of government? Historically we have despised those nations who distort the information available to their populations. We have participated in conflicts where we thought that truth and the protection of populations from violence was at stake.
The management of the pandemic has merged suspect modern medical orthodoxy, commercial medical imperatives, and the power of parliament to the extent that human rights, the rules of evidence, and personal freedoms have been bent to suit the aspirations of politicians and foreign institutions. The fact that no party has raised its voice in significant opposition is indicative of the extent of the constitutional crisis.
This government has eighteen months to run, we can only imagine the havoc that it is capable of creating during that period. New Zealand urgently needs a constitutional reform party to address the urgent issues that have arisen.
In the meantime, the provisions of the Bill of Rights should be reinstated without limitations. This is not a matter of new legislation, it is a matter of scientific fact that the provisions of the Bill of Rights have been bypassed illegally and the courts should recognise this and act accordingly.
This is a matter that cannot be bypassed, it must be faced and resolved.
To answer this, we will have to consider the potential effects of novel genetic technology more deeply. The Hatchard Report has written extensively about our lack of understanding of the interaction between DNA and higher human functions (past articles can be reviewed in the Genetics section of our website). The importance of understanding the contingent risks cannot be overstated.
It says a lot about the primitive state of our knowledge of genetics that after two years of painstaking assessment, no consensus has been reached about the origins of coronavirus. Many geneticists have of course made up their minds based not on the highly unusual nature of the virus, but on its familiarity. It contains genetic sequences well known to science which appear to have been fudged together by researchers, possibly as part of a bioweapons programme.
In fact genetic engineers are currently the most dangerous people on the planet, they are putting serial killers and war mongers to shame. You may question whether it is possible to argue that genetic manipulation inevitably endangers the integrity of human DNA. The fact is that our DNA functions as part of a wider epidemiological network. Even disruption or alteration of this subsidiary network is quite sufficient to cause serious health problems.
Even Fragments of Genetic Material Pose Dangers
A summary published by Nature on May 11th reports that viral fragments known as coronavirus ghosts are probably causing or complicating serious and lingering problems including long covid. They have been found to persist in the human gut for months where their continued presence can exhaust the immune system.
The extent of our current understanding of genetic function is wildly exaggerated. No geneticist can even construct a single cell organism from scratch. Not even close, a million miles away in fact. To date, what geneticists can do is fiddle about with natural genetic structures and maim their holistic function, or combine fragments from different organisms or biochemicals, rather like a five year old left with a book of matches and a box of fireworks.
Real World Data Illustrates the Non-linear Nature of DNA Functions
To illustrate this further, consider the growth of commercial DNA testing. Unlike much of the theory of genetics, which is nascent and incomplete, the results of commercial DNA testing are built on the analysis of empirical data from millions of DNA tests. As such, many of their findings and conclusions are highly indicative. This real world data is fascinating to the genetic scholar.
DNA testing offers information about ethnic origins. Our popular conception about the linear character of genetic information leads us to suppose that the ethnicity of the child will be some combination of the ethnicity of the parents, just as the DNA of the child is a 50-50 combination of the DNA of the parents. This is not the case.
One parent may have 48% English, 25% Celtic, 22% Scandinavian, and 5% Jewish. The other parent 58% Celtic, 38% Scandinavian, and 4% Italian. BUT their child might have 50% Scandinavian, 32% Celtic, 14% Iberian, 2% Italian, 1% Nigerian, and 1% Jewish. These are real figures. So where does the child’s Iberian and Nigerian heritage, not found among the parents, come from?
The answer is that DNA is not strictly linear in the sense that we understand a book, the various combinations of the genetic sequences give rise to the expression of novel characteristics not found in the parents. The child in this case did look Spanish, does have an element of latin temperament, and their eye colouration is correctly predicted by the reservoir of empirical data analysed by the DNA testing company.
The deeper understanding of this phenomenon will likely come through an understanding of human consciousness and identity, whose source may never be understood by objective science but rather through its subjective exploration and reasoning. However, mind and matter are two sides of one coin and do influence each other.
DNA is a Rigid Taskmaster
Changes in genetic sequence, content, and function can and do have major consequences for genetic expression and that perforce includes our personality and social interaction. Our DNA is our rulebook, and it strictly enforces its own code in controlling our physiology and psychology. Change the rulebook and the consequences can be unpredictable.
You arrive at a football match, unknown to the players, the referee has been substituted. The new referee knows nothing about the rules of soccer, he has made them up and is about to rigidly enforce them. Imagine the ensuing chaos, consternation, and sheer disbelief.
Now imagine the situation if virtually all the players have such a deep belief in the authority of referees that anything that they do and say has to be accepted. There will be chaos, but no consternation or disbelief, just uninformed random mayhem.
Our genetic system commands acceptance much like the referee, our physiology and psychology has to comply. Change the DNA, its expression and function or its wider epidemiological network, even in a minor way, the physiology and psychology must respond. The consequences are going to be unpredictable, that is a known law of genetic manipulation.
Government Control of the Pandemic Response Has Been a Disaster
Our government claims that 95% of the eligible population have received the mRNA vaccination, although only 70% have been boosted, no doubt after the first shots left a bad taste in their mouth and the prospect of endless jabs was daunting. mRNA inoculation has changed the way our immune system functions. Has this changed the temperament of the New Zealand population? You decide. The risks are real.
Yesterday Covid Response Minister Chris Hipkins struck a positive note. Requirements for pre-departure Covid testing are being phased out. He also reminded us that the Covid-19 Public Health Response Act has an in-built sunset clause and must be repealed by May 13, 2023.
Be warned, Hipkins added that he planned to incorporate its provisions into existing legislation and added that the management of the virus should become a part of the normal functioning of government.
Do you think that our government is capable of managing the outcomes of uncontrolled biotechnology experimentation? No it is not. Biotechnologists are not honestly warning the government of risks, just as the family members of criminals often shield their black sheep and provide them with alibis.
The Biotechnology Industry Has Been Operating a Ponsi Scheme
The commercial biotechnology industry has been running a con. The technique is to make big promises to encourage investment and grants. There is nothing too large to promise—freedom from disease, long life, …When nothing is achieved and problems inevitably occur, you make even bigger promises and ask for more money. Nothing is said about the risks.
As a result, biotechnology has become a highly influential part of our society accounting for much of university funding and speculative investment. At root, the hype is based on an improbable dream and phantasm. In actuality, biotechnology is presenting the world with an elevated risk profile that threatens to dwarf all others.
Just think, the whole basis of our society, health, creativity, kindness, intelligence, morality, happiness, and so much more relies on the optimal operation of our DNA. Risk that and you risk everything, including even topical issues like the integrity of the global supply chain and social stability.
Time to say it clearly—we made a big mistake. Millions have died from the cure and the cause. Only the cessation of genetic experimentation can protect us from more injury, mental turmoil, deaths, and global catastrophes.
This article was first published at The Looking Glass and is republished here with permission.
Meet the new thought police: the ‘Orwellian’ researchers working to pathologise dissent
Image Credit: Bob Moran
A research group funded by the Government are warning that people critical of the Government are a danger to society. Is it 1933, 1984 or 2022?
‘Dangerous speech’, especially speech from those opposed to or negatively affected by the Government’s covid response who protested at Parliament earlier this year, is a threat to us all, a group of government funded researchers warn.
Te Pūnaha Matatini (TPM) is a research group that receives Centre of Research Excellence government funding. It’s covid modelling unit is funded directly by the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, while its ‘disinformation’ unit is independent with no funding sources declared. Both these units have been instrumental in pushing censorship, and in the case of the modelling unit, was used to justify emergency powers that have had a devastating impact on civil liberties, the economy, and the social contract.
It is troubling that The Disinformation Project, a group warning that people critical of the government are a danger to our individual and collective safety, are attached to a research unit entirely reliant on Government money.
I imagine if you are the government, speech that questions state actions is indeed a danger – that is one of the reasons why its freedom has traditionally been safeguarded.
In a new report generated by TPMs The Disinformation Project, the broad-based grassroots protest movement that emerged from the oppressive environment created by covid-19 restrictions, is cast as the creation of a “complex meta-level scaffolding of disinformation operations, including Russian disinformation”.
But this pseudo-academic word salad is not necessary to explain why a large section of society is unhappy with the Government and its covid response.
Clear, logical, relatable, human explanations have been communicated by activists themselves, many times over: they are unhappy about covid restrictions that breach civil and political rights, medical mandates that unethically force people to decide between bodily autonomy and the ability to earn a living, doubts about the truth of the official covid narrative due to its many inconsistencies, the suspected corruption of science and regulators, swathes of people seriously injured by the Pfizer product they were coerced to take, the lack of informed consent, and a media environment that is heavily biased making open debate near impossible.
The Government did mandate injections, people have lost their livelihoods, people have suffered life changing injury – this is not misinformation, these are the direct experiences of a huge number of New Zealanders. Protest seems a perfectly logical response. What is not logical is the purported alarm from The Disinformation Project (TDP) that this section of society is finding a way to voice it concerns when nobody in the mainstream will permit them to.
For two years the Government and media ignored the voices of those sacrificed to the covid response, refusing them a voice and treating them as acceptable collateral damage. Not only have they been ignored, they have been vilified as letting the ‘team of five million’ down and scapegoated unscientifically as vectors of disease.
In a two-page summary, the authors state, “Everyone deserves to be talked about in ways that uphold their dignity. The Parliament Protest, and the language that emerged from it, challenge this.”
On almost every level, the protest was about upholding human dignity – under the Government’s medical mandates, people’s were reduced to their vaccination status. Where is the dignity in that?
A tender moment between a policeman and protester at Camp Freedom in February 2022. Media and Government cast the protesters as ‘extreme and violent’, but those who attended either to camp or to lend support say there was little if any evidence of these claims, which were used to cast the protest in negative light.
The report, The murmuration of information disorders: Aotearoa New Zealand’s mis- and disinformation ecologies and the Parliament Protest, begins with a quote from the Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern.
“One day it will be our job to try and understand how a group of people could succumb to such wild and dangerous mis- and disinformation. And while many of us have seen that disinformation and dismissed it as conspiracy theory, a small portion of our society have not only believed it, they have acted upon it in an extreme and violent way that cannot stand. We have a difficult journey in front of us to address the underlying cause of what we have seen here today.”(emphasis mine).
The Disinformation Project is comprised of Kate Hannah, Sanjana Hattotuwa and Kayli Taylor. Notably, its work began in February 2020, just as covid hysteria hit, and mere weeks before the first national lockdown.
The timing suggests a government getting prepared for an information war following the inevitable backlash to nonsensical and unscientific covid policies from the sector of the population more prone to questioning authority.
Sociologist Jodie Bruning notes in her research paper, Covid-19 Emergency Powers: The New Zealand State, Medical Capture & the Role of Strategic Ignorance, that the TDPs establishment was a way of foreshadowing arguments that contest government covid messaging, given the significant gap between the scientific literature and what the public has been told. “The Disinformation Project appeared to be installed within Te Pūnaha Matatini for this purpose.”
The authors describe their role as helping social media companies, journalists, academia, policymakers and civil society to identify, understand and respond to the “information disorders” plaguing the country and threatening its “democratic fabric and electoral integrity”.
The information disorder they refer to is free and frank discussion challenging all aspects of the covid response and the rollout of the Pfizer product, which they seek to censor.
The new report, which does not declare its funding and was not peer reviewed is publicised as an expose on New Zealand’s ‘disinformation dozen’, which is a curious choice as we’ll see.
“On the protest’s final day, 73 per cent of interactions in the mis/disinformation networks was generated by just a dozen Facebook accounts,” the report states.
The paper itself does not name the offending ‘misinformation’ spreaders. A footnote refers us to this Spinoff article, which in the most unflattering terms possible describes a number of groups and people involved in the protest – more than a dozen, so we never learn which exact people and accounts are being accused.
News items about the research take an uncritical view, and simply amplify these claims, which seek to pathologise rational thought and the vaccine risk aware, as unhinged. It is taken for granted that the vaccine is safe and effective, as has been repeated ad nauseum, despite all medicines carrying risk – even those that are extensively studied, unlike the covid injection, which has no long term safety data at all. Who is being irrational?
The Disinformation Dozen report was launched by The Centre for Countering Digital Hate in an attempt to coerce social media platforms to deplatform 12 people considered leaders in the health freedom movement. Now the same tactic appears to have been taken up by New Zealand’s The Disinformation Project.
The original ‘Disinformation Dozen’
The “Disinformation Dozen” refers to a campaign run by the UK based Centre for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH). Some reports have speculated it is funded by “dark money” and has links to intelligence agencies, formed as a front group to launch political attacks on the vaccine sceptic movement, as it appeared as if from nowhere and has significant resources. These facts ought to stir scepticism in journalists, but instead the report was widely and uncritically reported as truth.
However, the original Disinformation Dozen report, which accused 12 advocates of natural health and health freedom, of being ‘vaccine misinformation super-spreaders’ on Facebook, was later discredited by Facebook itself.
Facebook vice president of content policy, Monica Bikert said:
“There isn’t any evidence to support this claim … In fact, these 12 people are responsible for about just 0.05% of all views of vaccine-related content on Facebook. This includes all vaccine-related posts they’ve shared, whether true or false, as well as URLs associated with these people.
“They are in no way representative of the hundreds of millions of posts that people have shared about covid-19 vaccines in the past months on Facebook.”
This hasn’t stopped it being repeated. The irony that they are spreading real disinformation is generally lost in the media chaos – they can’t seriously be unaware of Facebook’s rebuttal.
Shoot the messenger, ignore the message
Parents and concerned citizens all over the country have watched in horror as the Pfizer product was approved for use in children. It was well known by many that during the FDA approval in the US, a large amount of expert testimony opposed approval for 5-to-11 year olds because of clear safety signals. It was also widely reported in new media that one of the FDA voting members openly stated, “We’re never gonna learn about how safe the vaccine is until we start giving it.”
FDA Voting Member:
"We're never gonna learn about how safe the vaccine is until we start giving it."
But TDP implies that it is obscene to question vaccinating kids for covid, and worrying that people began to express their concern online.
In its report TDP noted that months before the protest, following Medsafe’s provisional approval for the paediatric dose on 20 December, they observed “levels of volatility online”, which intensified when the roll-out began on 17 January.
“The vaccine was described as “poison”, compared to D-Day, and heavily resisted. This resistance was based upon mis- and disinformation and Covid-19 denialism … One misinformation super-spreader alleged that five children had collapsed at a vaccination site – something that was debunked by health professionals. Nevertheless, the lie went viral across the mis- and disinformation ecologies studied by TDP, fuelling fear and tension surrounding the Covid-19 vaccine for children,” the report states.
The person they are referring to, Liz Gunn, was reporting at a large Auckland vaccination site on the first day of the roll out to young children. While there, she heard reports from the crowd that five children had collapsed directly following injection. Unable to enter to verify the claims herself, when she encountered a TV1 news crew leaving the scene, she asked them if they had heard the claims and whether they were investigating.
This turned into Gunn ‘lying’ and spreading ‘misinformation’ in subsequent news reports, which was uncritically repeated in the TDP paper. Watch the confrontation here and judge for yourself if Gunn was spreading lies or trying to establish the facts.
Gunn’s real crime is reporting on vaccine injury and the effect of mandates, giving a voice to Kiwis shunned by legacy media, a practice TDP implies is dangerous for democracy. You can view her rebuttal to claims by Newsroom that she was spreading rumours here.
The TDP report goes on to describe the ad hoc citizen journalism that emerged around the convoy and protest at parliament, of which Gunn was a part:
“The convoy was the most significant domestic event studied by TDP to date – including new irrigation patterns around the seed and spread of content, the pace of production, various vectors used for content production, virality, cross-pollination within and between social media ecologies, and levels of engagement …
“On multiple occasions mis- and disinformation pages studied on Facebook received greater engagement than mainstream media – with serious implications for how people understood the protest and what took place.”
One conclusion that was not reached by TDP is that trust in legacy media is at an all-time low, and new media is springing up to inform people of the grassroots views and perspectives that major outlets won’t touch. It’s no exaggeration to say that the vast majority of media reports completely misrepresented the protesters. Interested members of the public could tune into multiple livestreams to get an unbiased view of what was happening at parliament, which differed starkly from news reports and government claims that it was a “river of filth”. The ”implications’ for Government of the public learning this was not true, are unquestionably threatening.
All the usual slurs were employed throughout the report: anti-vax, conspiracy theory, mis-and-disinformation, covid denialism, far-right, lies etc.
“Our warning in November 2021 that anti-vaccination and Covid-19 mis- and disinformation were being used as a Trojan Horse for the norm-setting of far-right ideals was fully realised during the Parliament protest,” the report states.
“That protest was an illegal occupation of Parliament’s grounds based on misinformation and disinformation” pic.twitter.com/MBraZiGaCO
Like many others that were there, I saw no sign of far-right activism of any sort. My experience was a spontaneous coming together of people of different political stripes, by and large people who voted Labour, Green and National – centre left and right voters – who generally adhered to the basic liberal values of individual rights, free speech and bodily autonomy and who treated one another in the main with great love and respect. It’s hard to describe how positive, comforting, supportive and uplifting the energy of the protest was, and impossible to reconcile with the paranoid and alarmist descriptions laid out in this report and news coverage.
No. Your @nzlabour party and Government are full of ‘misinformation’ and ‘disinformation’ and what you’ve failed to realise is that 55% of the protesters where once your constituents and supporters. Great re-election strategy G-Rob! 😂
— Worshiper of Coffee (@nessblackmore) May 17, 2022
The bogus disinformation industry
Uppsala University propaganda expert Greg Simons reviewed the TDP report and said it was “Orwellian in every sense”, and defensive in nature. There is heavy use of different propaganda techniques like glittering generalities, assertions and card stacking.
“The project is run in a classic front-group style of information operation and influence activity. They attempt credibility by not disclosing their financial and political conflicts of interest. The underlying reason is that they want to be seen as being more credible at a time when the New Zealand government is increasingly (and rightly) seen as being less trustworthy and credible. This report is written in a pseudo-academic format that is intended to make it seem more credible than it actually is – form over substance.
“This Disinformation Project is likely to be a pre-election information operation intended to engineer public perception and consent ahead of the next parliamentary election – there is a lot of work to be done in order to persuade and influence the public with the possible aim of facilitating Jacinda Ardern’s re-election, given her dismal – for obvious reasons – performance in the polls,” Simons says.
While propaganda studies has a long academic history, disinformation scholarship is entirely new, created with the distinct purpose of defining the boundaries of what can and cannot be legitimately discussed, and always in the name of safety.
In response to news that US President Joe Biden has created a Disinformation Governance Board, effectively a Ministry of Truth, journalist Glen Greenwald says a well-financed industry of ‘anti-disinformation scholars’ have been promoted to rationalise and ennoble censorship, since most Americans have been educated to view censorship sceptically, associating it with tyranny. He rightly asks, “Which credentials constitute “expertise” in disinformation?”
“They have thus created a litany of neutral-sounding groups with benign names — The Atlantic Council, the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, various ‘fact-checking’ outfits controlled by corporate media outlets — that claim to employ ‘anti-disinformation experts’ to identify and combat fake news. Just as media corporations re-branded their partisan pundits as ‘fact-checkers’ … the term ‘disinformation expert’ is designed to disguise ideological views on behalf of state and corporate power centres as Official Truth …
“Indeed, the concept of ‘anti-disinformation expert’ is itself completely fraudulent. This is not a real expertise but rather a concocted title bestowed on propagandists to make them appear more scholarly and apolitical than they are. But the function of this well-funded industry is … to discredit dissent and justify its censorship by infusing its condemnation with the pretense of institutional authority.”
“Standard Techniques”, A British Channel 4 documentary from 1985 about the CIAs approach to influencing news reporting.
The relationship between the media and the security state
Simon’s and Greenwald’s insights are particularly useful in the context of increased cosiness between journalists and security agencies. It’s far too common to find journalists uncritically repeating security agency talking points. The big one at the moment is aligning freedom protesters and ‘anti-vaxers’ with extremism, as Ardern did in her comment about the protesters. The new term coming from these agencies is ‘domestic extremism’.
Those who have studied history or thought about this messaging carefully can see the problem with it – that anyone who opposes the actions of the government can now be labelled an extremist. And that is exactly what is happening. The public is slowly being nudged, through outfits like TDP, to view covid sceptics and people who have chosen not take the jab as dangerous and prone to far right-wing ideologies and violence.
If you pay attention you will have noticed this terminology creeping into New Zealand news reporting since early 2022. There is a long history of journalists acting as an auxiliary arm of intelligence agencies, both knowingly and unknowingly – The CIAs Project Mockingbird is infamous. We should not deceive ourselves that this practice is over, when it is probably more common than ever.
For those interested in the history of security services influencing media, a restored Channel 4 documentary on CIA media influence from 1985, featuring whistleblowers John Stockwell and David MacMichael and Reuters war correspondent Fred Bridgland is a great watch. It describes how actual disinformation, convenient lies cooked up by the state in the ‘national interest’, are fed to reporters as truth. Thus the pubic come to widely believe a false version of events, swinging public support for certain policies or state actions in their favour. It’s available here on Swiss Policy Research. It is inconceivable that a documentary like this would be produced let alone aired by a legacy media outlet today.
Another theme to watch for is the need for increased censorship, which is ultimately what The Disinformation Project’s work is suggesting. As well as a pre-election tool, as Simons points out, it’s highly likely it is being deployed to soften the public up for planned legislation that will dramatically limit what can be said online, including legal speech. The New Zealand Government, like governments everywhere, is working on this now.
The Minister for Internal Affairs, Jan Tinetti is conducting a ‘Content Regulation Review’. The aim of the review is to “design and implement a new approach to content regulation that minimises the risk of harms caused by content to New Zealanders.”
The Free Speech Union is working to bring awareness to these plans. “From what we understand, this review is likely to suggest that all public material, including podcasts, blogs and social media posts, could be under the scrutiny of a censorship regime.”
That’s not to mention the proposed hate speech law, which if passed, carries every likelihood of being used to criminalise all kinds of viewpoints. Given the TDPs report and the media’s unquestioning coverage of it, do we really think anti-government sentiment or vaccine risk awareness will escape the label of ‘hate speech’? Bad actors can and will find a way to frame issues in this light – after all it is a ‘standard technique’.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6KDsuui0AI&t=1s
‘Doublespeak and language manipulation’, an interview with William Lutz from 1989.
One way the public can defend themselves against the kind of duplicitous language used in reports like those produced by the TDP, is to learn about the use of doublespeak in politics, advertising, and increasingly in academia. An interview from the late 1980s covering this topic is a good primer – again, it’s hard to imagine a topic like this being discussed on any current affairs or news programme in New Zealand in 2022 – or even an audience that would demand such a high level of social critique.
Perhaps it’s time we as the public initiated a mature debate about these worrying developments – especially if we want our children to grow up with anything like the freedoms we have known ourselves.
As has been often remarked upon lately by astute observers, when George Orwell wrote his dystopian novel 1984, he intended it as a warning – not an instruction manual.
