Cc Andrew Little Minister of Health, Leaders of all political parties represented in parliament.

I am writing to request the implementation of key elements of pandemic reporting and policy that are currently absent from Ministry of Health procedures.

Death certificates do not require Covid vax status to be recorded.

In the UK this information is required and the UK Office of National Statistics (ONS) has recently released this data for all people dying from all causes since the start of the Covid vaccination programme in January 2021 as follows:

As you can see, vaccinated people have a relatively elevated rate of dying from any cause when compared to unvaccinated people. In summary, currently the unvaccinated make up 25% of the UK population yet have only a 4% mortality rate per hundred thousand person-years. The boosted compose 50% of the population but have a 86% mortality rate per hundred thousand person-years. ONS figures which separate Covid deaths from non-Covid deaths show that this breakdown is consistent.

To give you an idea of what the use of person-years means in practical terms, if the UK data pattern is being replicated here it is resulting in a rate of 1 in 246 all-cause deaths within 60 days of receiving a Covid vaccination. I note that this concerning figure is not inconsistent with the current elevated rates of all cause mortality we are experiencing.

All cause deaths in New Zealand are currently running at a record level of 930 per week and rising which is 35% above the long term average, whilst weekly ‘because of Covid’ deaths peaked at 143 and are now decreasing.

As you know, older people are in the majority currently getting boosted. This age bracket does have a higher mortality rate, without records of vaccination status at death, the higher rate of death among the vaccinated will be going unnoticed.

Even if those being affected are predominantly older, if you put the two different analyses of the ONS data together, the important point is that the high death rate is happening to the vaccinated but not to the unvaccinated, so you are forced to conclude that something unprecedented and concerning is happening.

I don’t need to spell out the serious implications of the UK ONS data for you, they are obvious. mRNA vaccinations are very risky, they can trigger potentially fatal health events. This establishes that excess all-cause deaths are significantly related to adverse effects of Covid vaccination, especially boosters.

The UK ONS data we have highlighted is entirely objective. ONS records the vaccination status of all those dying. When these figures are graphically presented, the effects relative to vax status are even more obvious and striking.

All Cause Risk of Dying in the UK Since January 2021

I understand that you have not been receiving such information from the Ministry of Health. This is because, as I said at the outset, it is not required in New Zealand to record a person’s vaccination status on death certificates. As a result, objective analysis of cause of death has not been possible. This now needs to be required.

Newly published scientific papers should lead to revised pandemic policy

During the last few weeks, a number of scientific papers have been published which should be of great interest to the New Zealand government.

These include a study from Qatar finding that unvaccinated people, who have recovered from a Covid infection, are 97% protected from serious Covid reinfection outcomes in the longer term.

A preprint study from Thailand found that 29% of adolescents suffer cardiac irregularities following their second jab.

A study from Iceland shows that the vaccinated are particularly vulnerable to reinfection and that this effect is stronger among younger age groups.

The Danish government has stopped offering Covid vaccination to those under 18 years and is currently considering stopping it for all those under 50.

Crucially Rochelle Walensky, director of the CDC, has flagged the need for a complete rethink after missteps as reported by Bloomberg, Walensky said:

“For 75 years, CDC and public health have been preparing for Covid-19, and in our big moment, our performance did not reliably meet expectations. I want us all to do better and it starts with CDC leading the way.  My goal is a new, public health action-oriented culture at CDC that emphasizes accountability, collaboration, communication, and timeliness.”

Government pandemic experts and advisors are not required to defend their policies in public forums

On July 12th I wrote to the Hon. Andrew Little asking him:

“We wish to reiterate in conclusion that it is very necessary and critical to seek clear and unequivocal data concerning the prevalence of the specific conditions which are overloading hospitals and GPs. No consistent causal analysis is possible without this information. This data should be freely available to a wider range of independent competent analysts and researchers so that you may receive better advice.”

I received a reply to the effect that he had forwarded the information to the Ministry of Health for review, but I have heard nothing further and I am not aware of any action being taken.

For the last two years your advisors at the Ministry of Health have been allowed to offer the government advice unchallenged by the need for debate. Encouraged by your insistence on “one source of truth”, the media have also given them a free ride and simultaneously attacked anybody raising questions about vaccine safety. This has created a distorted perception of safety among the general public.

The investigation of such effects will remain unavailable as long as Covid vaccination status is omitted from death certificates and as long as your advisors are not required to defend their positions in a public forum. These positions are inconsistent with international standards and policies.

I note that fifteen months ago I was in support of New Zealand’s pandemic policies. My personal support for the government’s pandemic initiatives evaporated as a result of my professional assessment of continuing Covid science publishing. See here a consultant cardiologist speaking on primetime UK television about his concerns that pandemic advice to governments from medical professionals has failed to take account of evolving scientific findings.

Without revision of pandemic policy all cause deaths will continue at unacceptable levels

Early on in the pandemic you and your government, in agreement with all other parties, appeared to be acting in good faith based on the advice you had been given. Subsequently it has become obvious that mRNA vaccination methods have adverse effects that go beyond those of any previous vaccines. Most people involved in decision-making underestimated the mobility, toxicity, and persistence of genetic sequences and adjuvants in the vaccine.

The time has come now to revise current New Zealand mRNA vaccination protocols. The latest research and UK ONS data unequivocally show that the loss of life and obfuscation of data involved with continuing current protocols is both substantial and unacceptable.

Continued faith in and reliance on the title ‘vaccine’ (when applied to mRNA injections), as an apparent guarantee of efficacy and safety, is misplaced and foolhardy, as well as misleading for the public.

All political parties need to revise their pandemic knowledge base according to continuing Covid science publishing.

I believe you are in a position to use your communication skills to take a lead in this process and initiate an appropriate public discussion of the limitations of current policy and the possible remedies. In the absence of appropriate debate, we are facing continuing unprecedented record high levels of all-cause mortality including impacts on working age and young people. This is a serious and deteriorating situation which demands immediate action.

Yours sincerely

Guy Hatchard PhD

A Conspiracy of Silence and a Litany of Lies Part 2

Yesterday I wrote about the High Court decision rejecting a petition questioning child mRNA vaccinations.

Last night I was able to read the full judgement in detail which was something of a revelation.

Justice Gendall wrote (Clause 54) that he thought the government’s approval of child mRNA vaccinations was reasonable because:

“…earlier, all pharmaceutical regulators from Australia, United Kingdom, United States, Europe, Singapore and Canada reached the same conclusion on all the expert evidence before them to approve the Paediatric Vaccine in their jurisdictions.”

Perhaps Justice Gendall was unaware that Medsafe is a member of the International Coalition of Medicines Regulatory Authorities (ICMRA), as are all the other regulators in the countries he mentions.

In fact, ICMRA has forty members. It is a non-governmental organisation heavily influenced by the pharmaceutical industry and the World Health Organisation.

ICMRA members closely coordinate through a shared database which means that most of the medicines regulatory authorities around the world have used the same ICMRA-supplied information templates to reach their decisions—information co-created by pro-pharmaceutical funded sources.

Even our government may be unaware just how much influence the pharmaceutical industry has on our Ministry of Health decisions through the back door of ICMRA.

Globalists are anxious to control little people in New Zealand and stave off any original and constructive thoughts they might entertain. Control of information is a vital part of the process. Our government has uncritically facilitated this.

In fact, the very computers that we often think are setting us free are actually also tools of global control. Databases and AI systems can rigidly control what lands on the desks of compliant and complacent minds sitting in government offices.

There are many philosophical elements and indeed myths contributing to a global takeover strategy:

• The decline in original writing and thought and long format reading, which has been supplanted by cutting, pasting, and sharing imposed ideas.
• The idea that there are infallible global sources of information and authority; which runs parallel to the cult of international personalities and wealth.
• The rejection and suppression of anything natural because it can’t be patented, along with legal mechanisms to monopolise patents.
• The rejection of the role of subjective, intuitive, and cultural knowledge in favour of solely objectivised mechanical concepts; which silently reject the quantum mechanical self-referral nature discovered by modern physics.
• The decline in individual and national self-sufficiency. Essential items in every country are now made overseas and controlled by global capital, leaving every nation vulnerable to decisions they cannot influence.

The acceptance and proliferation of these and many other ideas has been gradual, almost imperceptible. The growth of computer controlled mechanisation has led to a great deal of comfort, but it has also led to the loss of a great many personal skills.

Globalists would like us to define ourselves through which machines we own, what medicines we take, what global brands we wear and consume. All of which are monetised.

Overwhelmed with this object-referral concept of reality, we have forgotten just how powerful our own mind is. The ancient health system of India, Ayurveda, defines this forgetting as the essential source of disease—becoming disconnected from who you really are, referred to as the ‘mistake of the intellect’.

This mistake includes relinquishing authentication of ideas and truth to third party ‘authorities’. Thus Justice Gendal was able to delegate and bypass a thorough assessment of safety research. He ruled:

Clause 42 “I need to say at the outset that, as I see the position, it is not the role of this Court on judicial review to decide which experts are right, nor to form its own opinion on the desirability of the Paediatric Vaccine being supplied in New Zealand. [that he said is the role of government experts].

The judge responded to evidence as follows:

Clause 62 “The applicants in their submissions raise numerous concerns regarding the safety of the Paediatric Vaccine, pointing to what they contend are adverse event reports following vaccination…

He continued: “the rate of vaccine-induced myocarditis across all age groups appears to be very low, being about 30 per million in New Zealand [a ridiculously low figure supplied by the Ministry of Health without any evidence to corroborate it. See this study, the measured real world risk is as much as 10,000 times higher].

He continued: “That risk, too, is substantially lower for children [also unsubstantiated by definitive evidence, but accepted by the judge on the authority of the MoH]”,

Clause 63 “… there is no real-world evidence that exists to demonstrate these are actual risks of the vaccine ….[thus naively accepting the MoH’s ridiculous assertion that temporal association can be ignored and discounted when assessing causality]

Clause 64 “This Court has also rejected claims that …. the absence of longer-term safety data was a cause for concern.”

Since when did courts believe that the longer term safety of children should not be their legitimate concern? In all this, we seem to have forgotten that we are dealing with human life. The loss of a life cannot be reduced to a mere statistic.

Nothing illustrates the direction this sort of thinking can take more than the evolution of euthanasia laws. In Canada, which arguably has the world’s most permissive laws, people with disabilities and treatable conditions like hearing loss or mental health issues are being permitted to end their lives.

There is some suggestion that doctors have acted improperly to encourage the vulnerable and even the young to end their own lives. It is just a small step to realising that people suffering medical misadventure or side effects such as those caused by genetic experiments could be euthanized, all paid for by the government.

Today Stuff newspaper, with a documentary entitled Beyond the Fringe (a title shared by a popular BBC radio comedy show), has sought once again to demonise the voices questioning the safety of mRNA vaccination. According to Stuff, their aim is nothing less than a plot to make New Zealand ungovernable (???).

To bolster its case, Stuff describes a local councillor’s suggestion that the Pfizer mRNA vaccine is an experimental drug as “a frequently made, but inaccurate claim.” An appalling and laughable criticism of a simple truth.

Stuff might do well to investigate the strange case of the disappearing CDC claims about safety. In the most recent version of CDC advice about mRNA vaccine safety, the section entitled “The mRNA and the spike protein do not last long in the body” has been quietly removed.

Multiple research findings indicate that the spike protein is both very toxic and very persistent following mRNA vaccination—a safety busting revelation. No doubt the CDC removed the offending paragraph in order to avoid falling foul of the punitive American courts.

In addition, on 11 August, the CDC completely back tracked on pandemic quarantine measures:

• Those exposed to the virus are no longer required to quarantine
• Unvaccinated now have the same guidance as vaccinated people
• Students can stay in class after being exposed to the virus
• It is no longer recommended to screen those without symptoms

In other words, the pandemic is over, except in isolated New Zealand and Australia, where the courts and mainstream media are determined to back extensive and misguided government restrictions to the hilt.

I want to finish here with the view from Sweden (and all the Nordic nations). They do not share the views of the New Zealand courts about forcing pandemic measures on our children. They rejoice that they have escaped such excesses and harmful mistakes. After the latest myopic court ruling in New Zealand, you might find this article refreshing, entitled Sacrificing Children’s health in the name of Health.

A Conspiracy of Silence and a Litany of Lies

The Director General of the Danish Health Authority, who last week halted Covid-19 vaccination for under 18 year olds citing absence of any evidence of benefit, has been giving interviews.

He acknowledged that the prescription of Covid vaccines for young people had been a mistake and said they never would have approved them if they had known then what they know today.

Thai Study Finds High Levels of Cardiac Risk Among Adolescents

It is possible that the Danish Ministry of Health and other health authorities around the world, including ours, were aware of risks.

Certainly, they could have been fully aware of the dangers if they had undertaken their own appropriate investigation and made unbiased assessments early on.

A study of adolescents undertaken in Thailand and published last week illustrates what could have been done.

Cardiovascular Effects of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine in Adolescents

The study examined the cardiovascular effects on 300 students aged 13 years to 18 years receiving their second Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine injection. Data being collected included demographics, symptoms, vital signs, ECG, echocardiography and cardiac enzymes. These were collected at baseline, Day 3, Day 7, and Day 14 using case record forms.

Although it is admitted that myopericarditis can be a side effect of mRNA vaccination, our Ministry of Health advised DHBs that it is rare and estimated that it may only affect 3 in every 100,000 recipients.

The Thai study found 29% (not 3 out of 100,000, but 3 out of every 10 students) registered cardiovascular effects, including tachycardia, palpitation, shortness of breath, chest pain, and myopericarditis. The overt symptoms subsided within 14 days (the duration of the study).

There was no follow-up of subsequent health outcomes, and therefore the long term effects remain unassessed. The authors concluded that adolescents receiving mRNA vaccination should be monitored for side effects.

It is notable that this study is an assessment of cardiovascular outcomes based on objective measurements, not on subjective assessments and estimates as was primarily the case in New Zealand.

If such simple objective measurements had been taken early on in the vaccine rollout, it would have been normal procedure to pause the programme pending more detailed investigation of the cardiovascular effects. BUT this was never done.

There was an unjustified assumption of safety based on recommendations of safety from Pfizer itself, who stood to profit greatly from our Covid-19 mRNA vaccine rollout.

The High Court Says its Views Cannot Overrule Medical Decisions of the Government

Yesterday (Friday, 13 August 2022) a judgement was released by the High Court in Wellington confirming the legality of the approval process for Covid-19 children’s vaccine (aged 5-11 years).

Stuff newspaper reported on the decision. Although I have not yet seen the full judgement, the quotations from it in the newspaper raise some serious questions about our legal system.

Justice David Gendall said the decisions of our Ministry of Health complied with the law and the court shouldn’t substitute its own views for the decisions of the various Ministry of Health officers and committees. These included Medsafe group manager Chris James, the Medicines Assessment Advisory Committee, a separate technical advisory group, and Dr. Ashley Bloomfield, Director General of Health.

The judge acknowledged that the applicants to the court had called their own expert witnesses and submitted evidence, contrary to that submitted by the government, weighing the risks and benefits of the vaccine. BUT according to the Stuff article, the judge said:

“It was not my role when reviewing the process, to decide which experts were right or form my own view on whether the paediatric vaccine should be supplied in New Zealand. Generally weighing the benefits and risks of the vaccine, and the desirability of it being available in New Zealand, were matters for Chris James as the minister’s delegate.”

The judge noted that Chris James had given his consent on conditions that included Pfizer giving further information as it became available, including periodic safety reports.

Somehow the judge failed to acknowledge that Pfizer has persistently sought in US courts to withhold such safety information (for up to 75 years). Nor did Stuff newspaper reveal whether James or the Ministry of Health had reviewed any court ordered safety information released to date.

If the study of adolescents in Thailand is anything to go by, 3 out of 10 vaccinated children in New Zealand over the age 5 may already have suffered cardiovascular problems with varying degrees of severity, and there still could be more to come.

Was the High Court Judge Just Following Legal Precedent?

There is much legal case history and discussion centered around the need for the state to take responsibility for the application (or indeed withdrawal) of medical treatment for seriously ill children; if necessary against the wishes of the parents if they are found by the courts to be mistaken in their views. See for example this recent paper published just prior to the pandemic.

The accepted interpretation is that courts should adjudicate in disputed cases by weighing the evidence of risks. In the present case, the life of a seriously ill child was not at issue. The arguments were scientifically complex and moreover there was no unanimity among scientific professionals and in the published scientific literature.

Crucially the risks involved were open ended—not fully identified or quantified. This is because the long term effects of the vaccine are still unknown.

Typically, vaccine safety trials take 10 years to complete.

The court failed to fully take account of the fact that the risks for the children from Covid were certainly low and from the vaccine possibly high—there was an imbalance and uncertainty concerning risk.

The situation does not appear to have met the accepted justification for state intervention—serious illness of a child requiring treatment.

In summary, the court failed to address the nature of the health risks involved and avoided doing so by deferring to the government as the ultimate authority.

In other words, like Pontius Pilate, the judge carefully washed his hands of the matter and left our children’s fate in the hands of the NZ government and its officers.

Did the government responsibly complete its due diligence throughout the course of the pandemic and in its dealings with Pfizer?

Simon Rae, Manager, International Science Partnerships of the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment (MBIE), who vetted the vaccine supply contract with Pfizer and advised the government accordingly, wrote on 22nd March 2021 in response to an OIA request:

“We did not investigate Pfizer’s management team or its ethics as a company. We are satisfied that Pfizer has not been reckless in the development of its vaccine…we are confident that the vaccine is acceptably safe and effective…

“MBIE advised the Minister of Finance to grant an indemnity to Pfizer on the basis that doing so was in the public interest. It is not unexpected for pharmaceutical companies to seek indemnities from governments in circumstances where clinical trials are restricted, or where a purchase agreement is concluded before full trials are completed…as of 16 March 2021, MBIE is not aware of any deaths or permanent disabilities that were caused by Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine.”

MBIE asserted this, despite the fact that Pfizer already had records by 28th February 2021 (prior to the MBIE statement) of more than 42,000 injuries and 1,200 deaths subsequent to its Covid vaccination.

Did our government know of these deaths and injuries but decided to believe assurances from Pfizer that they were unrelated? If so, were there any valid reasons for the Ministry of Health and MBIE to assume that these serious effects post vaccination were unrelated and proceed to grant Pfizer indemnity?

If MBIE and the Ministry of Health didn’t know of the deaths, why had they not sought this information from Pfizer whom they certainly knew had been collecting such post marketing data?

Why is the Government Along With All Opposition Parties Unanimously Behind Pfizer?

It is notable that the judge in the just announced High Court judgement acknowledged that the decision of the Medicines Assessment Advisory Committee (whose up to 12 members are anonymous) was unanimous in support of childhood vaccination.

This runs parallel to the unanimous approval of government pandemic policy by all members of parliament of all parties and their refusal to meet or listen to questioning voices.

Given the paucity of evidence of benefit, the incapacity of the vaccine to stop transmission, and the high rate of adverse effects and deaths, the unanimity stands in need of explanation.

BUT there has been no meaningful explanation offered except vague references to the social good of vaccines and the questionable reliability of Ministry of Health experts.

MPs have preferred to remain silent and accept the apparent assurances of the Ministry of Health that the reported 50 times greater incidence of adverse effects following Pfizer mRNA vaccination (when compared to previous vaccines) is somehow normal.

In my experience, such unanimous silence on the part of MPs of all parties is highly unusual.

Forgive me for paraphrasing the judgement of Justice Mahon following the Erebus disaster—this hints at a conspiracy of silence and a litany of lies.

Young innocent children are being herded towards vaccination through the minimisation of risks, misinformation, and consequent peer and societal pressures to conform to pharmaceutical medical orthodoxy.

An orthodoxy which has embraced universal applications of novel biotechnology and gene therapy without acknowledging or properly investigating the serious risks.

In fact, seeking to hide such risks from public knowledge or discussion. Risks that can potentially blight young lives and persist through generations.

The Danish Ministry of Health was right to acknowledge and correct their mistakes about Covid vaccine safety for the young based on updated information. They discontinued mRNA vaccination for the under 18s.

When will our Ministry do so, and when will our courts recognise the overriding need for caution?

The Danish government has from 1st July stopped giving Covid vaccines to anyone under age 18 due to absence of benefit.

The EU has flagged similar concerns. The Western Australian government has ruled that out of nearly one million covid cases just 18 people died specifically of Covid.

Germany’s largest health insurer, Techniker Krankenkasse, reports that 1 in 25 of its policyholders had to undergo medical treatment for Covid vaccine side effects in 2021.

Here in New Zealand, the public has been kept in ignorance of such overseas developments. Mainstream media is still reporting that boosters are essential, safe, and effective (against all evidence).

The New Zealand family court is supporting parents who wish to force Covid vaccination of their young children against the wishes of their spouse. Some university courses and employers are still insisting on proof of vaccination as a prerequisite.

The New Zealand government began this week to ramp up advertising for a second booster.

The Ministry of Health has admitted ‘adjusting’ Covid data. Apparently in favour of satisfactory results for boosted individuals, but won’t say how it is doing it.

They are touting outcomes which are frankly unbelievable such as a 13 times higher Covid risk if you are under 50 and unvaccinated. A figure completely at odds with previous published official NZ data and with overseas published studies.

The Government Launches a Public Consultation on Pandemic Ethics

On 26 July, the Ministry of Health released an 80 page document ‘Ethical Guidance for a Pandemic’ which reads as a justification of everything that the government has done with no genuine reflection on the mistakes that have been made. The implication is that New Zealand can expect to go through the same again whenever a new mild infectious illness emerges.

Unbelievably, the document does not contain a single reference to adverse reactions to Covid vaccination, nor does it reference the use of novel genetic technology and the serious outcomes dogging prior gene therapy experiments.

The assumption appears to be that our health professionals, administrators, and government agencies will always know best and should be allowed to overrule any individual or public concerns and preferences with impunity.

The document implies that the government legitimately has the power to overrule the provisions of the New Zealand Bill of Rights as long as there is a pandemic as defined by the World Health Organization, (whose directives and publications are referenced 25 times in the document). This includes the use of coercive measures.

The need for ‘informed consent’ is not mentioned once.

From its title, this should be a document about medical ethics which in large part are intended to protect the rights, health, and life of individuals, but there is no mention of the refusal of the Ministry of Health to grant vaccine exemptions to many people injured by their first shot—a policy which was far in excess of even the Pfizer mRNA vaccine safety guidelines.

There is no mention of the unprecedented number of deaths subsequent to Covid vaccination or the refusal of the Ministry of Health to acknowledge that temporal association is a criteria of causal relationship.

There is no mention of the long history of medical misadventure and the traditional role of medical ethics in this field.

Even in regard to conventional medicine, you might have thought that the document should reference repeated mistakes authorising harmful and ineffective drugs for a variety of conditions. Including for example the prescription of prozac and other drugs for depression, thalidomide, and 462 other drugs similarly withdrawn since 1950.

These might have provided an example of the need for caution during a pandemic, but no, the Ministry of Health evidently considers the pharmaceutical industry above suspicion, wrongdoing, and reproach.

Last year 128,000 people died in the USA alone from opioid overdose involving approved prescription drugs such as the painkiller fentanyl. No worries, the doctor knows best.

In the UK one third of all hospital admissions among the over 75s are due to drug reactions. In the USA medical misadventure is now the third leading cause of death.

We have, in this way, unconcernedly entered an era of reducing longevity, but that lack of concern will not last long. The disappearance of life years and quality of life from individuals, families, and the workplace will increasingly make itself felt and regretted.

If you want to consider why the facts can’t remain hidden for very much longer read this substack blog from Steve Kirsch which reports the chain of mortality following mRNA vaccination.

You can register your opinion on the deficiencies of the Ministry of Health public consultation pandemic document on ethics here, I encourage you to do so.

Reflect with me for a minute on one of the causes of these deficiencies.

MPs and representatives of all parties in most nations of the world have a relationship with pharmaceutical companies. In many cases it involves a two way exchange of money. More than two thirds of the US congress received a check from pharma in 2021.

Big pharma, in turn, relies on government approval and funding of its products. In this way, the use of political power to promote the exclusively pharmaceutical model of medicine has become a matter of unquestioned routine.

Research shows that improvements in diet and lifestyle can in large part protect us against the worst outcomes of future pandemics

The truth is that the safest and by far the most effective verified responses in any pandemic remain the simplest—adequate diet, hygiene, freedom from pollutants and ultra processed foods, rest, exercise, and time for enjoyment.

None of these gets a mention in the MoH guidance on pandemic ethics.

Medical Economics journal reported in its 19 November 2010 edition: $1.8 trillion (75%) of the $2.4 trillion spent on health care in 2009 is attributable to preventable lifestyle behaviours.

Curiously nutrition hardly figures at all in a medical education, but studies show that changes in diet can have massive health benefits. The BMJ reported that vegetarians had a 71% lower rate of Covid hospitalisation.

Research at Massachusetts General Hospital found that vegetarians live longer. Gut health and exercise are also factors in better Covid outcomes.

Gut health is believed to be one factor that has helped ensure a low rate of covid infection and death in Africa, despite a very low vaccination rate (only around 15%).

Aside from the money, what is it about our representatives that ensures they unreservedly support pharmacy?

The opportunity to wield power is the coveted prize of politics and the assumption of extraordinary power appears to be the hallmark of the global pandemic response.

Forgive me for thinking we have somehow time travelled back into a feudal system where we have been granted the status of indentured serfs who do not even have a right to petition the lord of the manor.

It was particularly galling this week to see that the newly elected National MP for Tauranga had a history of bullying and beating peers at school and possibly at university, but it was not surprising.

Politics seems to be very attractive to people who want to tell others what to do with impunity and punish them if they don’t comply.

All parties have been supporting and pushing the pandemic agenda.

The expectation that populations down to the last individual now need to comply unquestioningly with governments, medical doctors, pharmaceutical companies, and globalists seems to be the strange new world order that is being thrust upon us. But it is not working out even for them or anyone, is it?

Birds of a feather make a habit of flocking together. Healthline defines a sociopath as a person who has little regard for another person’s emotions, rights, or experiences. They lack remorse for their actions, and they act in ways that show no regard for others. If the shoe fits…

New Zealand seems unaware of how vulnerable we are to global control and hence global mistakes, deception, and exploitation. Our government seems ready to submit to a system whose hidden controllers have little concern for the interests of New Zealand citizens and little appreciation of the fact that, like arsonists, they are playing with fire.

History teaches us that apparently great and invincible civilisations can disappear within a single generation.