Home Blog Page 34

The New Covid Democracy—Don’t Ask, Whatever You Think, It Isn’t True Unless I Told You So

Guy Hatchard
-
0
The New Covid Democracy—Don’t Ask, Whatever You Think, It Isn’t True Unless I Told You So

It was not a triumph of democracy, as some people seemed to think last week, when a majority succeeded in imposing their views on a minority through the passing of restrictive legislation.

Modern democracy is supposed to protect the rights of minorities and a plurality of opinion and options.

The main point of our opposition to vaccine mandates has been to protect our right to freely choose medical interventions. This is not limited to Covid vaccination alone.

The counter argument has been that compulsory Covid vaccination is an undisputed social good and therefore beneficial for all.

The Risk of mRNA Inoculation Can Exceed the Risk of Covid Hospitalization

A French study just published in Nature shows just how vacuous this claim of universal good is.

The study found an elevated risk for myopericarditis in the seven days following mRNA vaccination for both males and females that was particularly high among 18-24 age males.

The risks of hospitalisation for this heart condition is arguably greater than the risk of hospitalisation as a result of Covid infection in this age range.

Yes, governments are supposed to protect their population from risk, but equally important is the need for rational treatment and stratification of risk for different groups, genders, and ages.

This has not happened in New Zealand. The claims of universal applicability and safety still being promoted in the media and by saturation government advertising are without scientific merit.

The key point here is that the government should not be seeking to impose ideology that is not fully supported by logic, evidence, scientific assessment, and research on long term outcomes.

Limitation of Choice Through Threat of Punishment Does Not Amount to a Social Good

Even if the universal health arguments were valid (which they are not), the imposition of views through threat or actuality of punishment necessarily ramps up social stress, which has all sorts of consequences for rates of mental illness, crime, and conflict.

If for example alcohol is outlawed through legislation, the imposition of legal force also causes societal collateral damage of the type seen during prohibition.

Conversely, if an educational programme succeeds in changing people’s poor health habits, it really does lead to social progress, but this educational argument breaks down if the government moves from rational presentation of ideas to outright manipulation of public opinion through half truths, unfounded hopes, and political double talk.

This approach is incompatible with a democratic society.

Rampant Government Funding of Media and Academia to Support its Official Ideology, as has Happened Here, is a Distortion of Democracy

In New Zealand, we are slowly waking up.

The lack of efficacy of the mRNA vaccine, repeated Covid infections among the vaccinated, widespread post-vaccination adverse effects, and the mostly mild Omicron symptoms tell their own authentic story.

Mainstream media and compliant academia are ploughing on regardless.

An article in the NZ Herald entitled “Study out on politics of New Zealand conspiracy theorists” reports on a psychological study which attempts to spin widespread dissatisfaction with the government as a conspiracy.

It places the common concern that ‘the government may not be telling the whole truth’ (naively described as a conspiracy theory) as essentially belonging to the uneducated and aged extremes of right and left.

Worryingly for the authors’ thesis, there was also significant concern among political moderates, who were conveniently dismissed as irrelevant ‘system challengers’, whatever that means.

The logic of this article was plainly circular. If you don’t trust the government you are a conspiracy theorist by definition and can therefore be dismissed as part of an unworthy fringe.

Trust the government and you are a good person. Ask questions and you are not worth listening to. This is polarising talk.

Polarisation of society into right and wrong factions is divisive and destabilising. It is associated with high levels of uncertainty, fear, and stress. Moreover it is the natural tool of dictators.

Since when was it socially unacceptable to question the government in New Zealand?

A preposterous thesis, and one for which the Australian and New Zealand authors of the study need to be thoroughly lampooned.

Jamie Morton, the NZ Herald science reporter who wrote the article, inexplicably failed to question its content. He lovingly reported a “tectonic shift” in New Zealand’s disinformation landscape threatening the integrity of next year’s election.

In one regard he might be right, but politicians may be the ones at fault.

We expect our politicians to make exaggerated promises they know they cannot keep, but now we are additionally expected to obediently accept them as a ‘one stop shop for truth’ along with all this implies.

The current government’s blatant untruths include that ‘herd immunity’ and ‘adverse events following Covid vaccination’ are conspiracy theories.

These obvious canards are cleverly announced at arm’s length by their well-funded academic proxy Te Punaha Matatini.

The Consequences of Distorted Truth

Such untruths have consequences for us all.

The rate of serious adverse effects noted by a recent study I reported last week is considerably larger than anything admitted by Medsafe to date.

Medsafe have been maintaining that serious adverse effects following mRNA vaccination are limited to myopericarditis at a rate as low as 3 per 100,000 whereas this study pinpoints a wider range of serious adverse effects at 12 per 10,000 above the background rate, which crucially is also 40 times higher than the rate admitted by Medsafe so far.

Of particular relevance to our way of life in New Zealand is the denial of ACC (accident insurance) benefits to a significant proportion of people seriously affected post Covid vaccination.

This denial is loosely based on Medsafe’s contention that most adverse effects cannot be conclusively related to vaccination.

Supporting this, Medsafe asserts that the rate of adverse effects is less than the background rate of the conditions at issue such as coagulation disorders, colitis/enteritis, arthritis, inflammation of the gall bladder, and acute respiratory distress in the general population.

The new study offers evidence that this assertion is incorrect and needs further investigation.

This points to a restrictive and exclusionary approach at ACC without sufficient scientific basis. A more liberal approval approach should now inform the ACC claims assessment process.

As we have mandated people to have mRNA vaccination, we have to accept responsibility for the adverse consequences.

Unfortunately given the government’s ‘one source of truth’ approach, which it has apparently imposed on all its departments and officers, it probably won’t change anything until someone takes this and other key evidence to the courts or to the ballot box.

I Forgot to Mention Something…

A government may lie not just by asserting something but also by conveniently omitting important information. Our Labour government seems to have adopted this as its modus operandi.

As long as they are the sole source of information, and all other conversation is suspect, they can omit discussion of any vital clues.

Those suffering heart attacks and strokes following Covid vaccination are just unlucky, the paralysed unfortunate, and the suddenly dead, sincerely mourned, but causally unexplained.

Our government has spent a lot of money in its efforts to control public opinion. The other parties seem cynically content to let this process become well-established. Presumably so that they can use it to their own advantage if and when they next get elected.

To counter this, we urgently need a moderate political outlook allied with trust, honesty, rationality, and evidence.

We need more ‘system challengers’ not less, our system has been broken by a breed of politicians who want to subvert ‘who we are’ and ‘what we stand for’ in New Zealand.

They have been happy to kiss goodbye to our Bill of Rights, our tradition of Fair Go, and our accepted norms of individual choice.

mRNA Vaccine Serious Adverse Events 12.5 Per 10,000 Above the Background Rate

Guy Hatchard
-
0
mRNA Vaccine Serious Adverse Events 12.5 Per 10,000 Above the Background Rate

A new study of mRNA vaccine phase III trial data finds rate of serious adverse events was 12.5 per 10,000 above the background rate.

—A greater number than the Covid-19 hospitalization risk reduction.

This study raises truly serious doubts about the advisability of mRNA Covid vaccines.

The co-authors include Sander Greenland, Emeritus Professor of Epidemiology and Statistics at UCLA, and the co-author of the premiere textbook on epidemiology. Professor Greenland is a world-leading expert on the postmarketing surveillance of drugs, vaccines, and medical devices.

The paper concludes:

“The excess risk of serious adverse events found in our study points to the need for formal harm-benefit analyses, particularly those that are stratified according to risk of serious COVID-19 outcomes such as hospitalization or death.”

It is of note that this conclusion undermines the last remaining argument relied upon by governments and mainstream media to support the continued use of mRNA Covid vaccines, namely that they improve hospitalisation and death outcomes.

So far there are 4.11 million people in New Zealand fully vaccinated

The study’s conclusions suggest that more than 4,000 NZers will have suffered serious adverse effects from Pfizer mRNA Covid vaccination.

It demolishes the persistent contention of Medsafe that Covid vaccine adverse events are primarily non-serious and occur at rates little different from background rates.

  • The study provides suggestive support for our contention that the elevated rates of all cause mortality we are seeing in New Zealand are related to vaccination.
  • It supports our contention that Medsafe has mistakenly and too hurriedly dismissed as unrelated a wide range of adverse effects observed in New Zealand post vaccination.
  • It supports our contention that at-risk individuals, including those injured by their first dose, have been wrongly denied vaccine exemptions.
  • It supports our contention that unvaccinated individuals have taken a wise decision to avoid risk based on scientific information and assessment.

The study analyses the phase III trial data of Pfizer and Moderna. It applies the criteria established by the Brighton Collaboration and the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations partnership, Safety Platform for Emergency vaccines (SPEAC), which created and subsequently updated a “priority list of potential adverse events of special interest relevant to COVID-19 vaccine trials.” This approach has been endorsed by the WHO.

The exhaustive analysis of the long list of adverse events of special interest indicated some areas of particular concern including coagulation disorders, colitis/enteritis, arthritis, cholecystitis, and acute respiratory distress.

The authors note that it is still the case that key details about the phase III trial outcomes remain unavailable, saying:

“A systematic review and meta-analysis using individual participant data should be undertaken to address questions of harm-benefit in various demographic subgroups. Full transparency of the COVID-19 vaccine clinical trial data is needed to properly evaluate these questions. Unfortunately, well over a year after widespread use of COVID-19 vaccines, participant level
data remains inaccessible.”

We also note that the study is limited to particular phase III trial data, it does not therefore cover longer term adverse health outcomes of vaccination.

We also note substantive concerns raised in other papers and forums about the integrity of data in Pfizer and Moderna trials where adverse events were excluded and remained unreported.

This paper carefully asks probing questions and provides answers that Medsafe should have sought from Pfizer from the outset. It highlights the potential risks associated with the rapid introduction of the new biotechnology vaccines.

Even analysis of the preliminary trial data from vaccine manufacturers should have raised alarm bells among those charged with protecting the New Zealand public.

  • It underlines the need to immediately pause the saturation advertising still being undertaken in New Zealand advising safety and efficacy of the Pfizer mRNA vaccine.
  • It validates those including doctors and researchers who have been raising concerns through public dialogue, correspondence, and in the courts.
  • It silently criticises the suppression of public debate mandated by the government and all political parties, supported by mainstream media.

The study shows how the New Zealand pandemic response will come to be regarded as a chapter of great shame in our history.

The Grim Covid Industry

Guy Hatchard
-
0
The Grim Covid Industry

Lincoln National, America’s third largest insurance company has announced a 163% increase in death benefits in 2021 paid out under its group life insurance scheme which primarily covers working age 18-64 year olds.

Lincoln National attributes its consequent operating losses to “non-pandemic-related morbidity”. In other words a lot of people are becoming seriously ill and it is not due to Covid infection.

Back here in New Zealand, Stuff reported yesterday:

“District health boards say specialist shortages mean they are unable to provide safe, quality care to patients, with one board saying it needs 50% more doctors to keep up with demand.”

Staff are reporting exhaustion and overloaded wards, especially cardiac and respiratory wards.

The Hon. Little, health minister, fully justified his name by laying much of the blame for the crisis on the flu season which hasn’t yet arrived—due later in June and July.

Mr. Little is apparently never one to shrink away from the notion of backwards causation in time.

The NZ Herald headlined yesterday—our ‘whole health system is falling to bits’.

“New data, released under the Official Information Act, revealed nearly 3000 patients waited longer than six hours to be treated at New Zealand’s busiest ED last month.”

Mr. Little didn’t mention that he sacked a lot of hospital staff through vaccine mandates—available staff who are still prevented from working. Many of whom are possibly better protected from Covid than their vaccinated colleagues through the natural immunity acquired through prior infection.

He didn’t mention the overseas experience—UK hospital staff, none of whom were ever vaccine-mandated, no longer even have to routinely wear masks (let alone the general public).

In contrast, NZ hospital staff were mandated to receive boosters before 25 February or lose their positions.

Who are the Real Government Copywriters?

I am left wondering who actually writes the government’s Covid policy announcements and advertising material.

This week we were regaled on social media with multiple slots advising us that if we have had Covid already (which is most of us) then the natural immunity you have gained is worthless without a booster shot.

No risk is too high when it comes to proving these shots really do work if you have enough of them.

I have a feeling that whoever is churning out the government advertising PR is not actually reviewing published data.

They are more likely to be qualified in journalism and focusing hard to make up whatever they can to satisfy a ‘vaccine or bust’ brief.

The idea that natural immunity from prior infection doesn’t work is fantasy copywriting pure and simple.

A paper just published by the BMJ argues that, on the evidence available, pandemic policies should have recognised proof of natural immunity as a sufficient basis for exemption to vaccination requirements.

It further concludes that there is no compelling evidence for the superiority of Covid vaccine-induced immunity.

My reading of the official current New Zealand Covid data unambiguously backs this up—the unvaccinated are gradually becoming less vulnerable to Covid infection and hospitalisation (presumably gaining natural immunity) but the vaccinated are not, their level of protection is gradually declining.

The reason must lie with the characteristic effects of the mRNA vaccine.

From Friday, District Health Boards will no longer exist when the centralised new government entity Health New Zealand takes over. In a show of responsibility, Minister Little has announced a ‘high power taskforce’ charged with clearing the long hospital backlogs.

Do you, like me, lack confidence in Labour’s centralised government control?

Would you describe our health crisis as the result of long hospital backlogs rather than a failed pandemic strategy?

Or would you ask some hard questions and expect answers? Whoops, you can’t ask questions of Jacinda Ardern. If you do, you lose your job, get sprayed with water or pepper, and are forced to listen to loud music through the night.

Jacinda, we lament:

In the North, South, East and West,
We gave you our votes and our best,
You were toasted in our talk, and our song;
We thought that love would last forever: We were wrong.

Your cabinet stars are not wanted now; put them out every one,
You packed the parliament and threatened the young,
You poured away the budget and usurped the good;
Nothing now can ever come to anything that it should.

We’re mourners now and march to muffled drum…

(Apologies to W H Auden Funeral Blues)

Truth Cannot Remain Hidden

The government messaging has so far been overwhelming. The government can pretend, it can make up stories to placate an increasingly informed and suspicious public, but it can’t hide the truth forever.

New Zealand is becoming aware that a foreign mega entity is draining our coffers and injuring our best with impunity.

Sometimes I am reminded of the history of World War 1. From Gallipoli to Verdun to Somme to Ypres. No doubt the generals, far from the trenches, considered that each successive push over the top would succeed when all previous had failed miserably.

All the while the casualties mounted. Poor New Zealand was there, like today, at the behest of foreign powers whose sense of the value of human life was attuned to a game of dice—over the top again lads.

Billions of dollars have poured into the coffers of Pfizer, the medical establishment, universities, and the biotechnology industry.

This has happened all over the world and has created a vested interest in continuing the pandemic along with all its trappings and contractors.

The miracle is that none of these protagonists are liable for the injuries and deaths. They have legal immunity and their profits are stupendous. No one is required to shoulder any blame.

As the German pacifist Kurt Tucholsky satirised the horrors of war:

“The war? I cannot find it to be so bad! The death of one man: this is a catastrophe. Hundreds of thousands of deaths: that is a statistic!”

Today he might just as well have said ‘pandemic’ rather than ‘war’, or are we actually in the midst of an undeclared bout of modern germ warfare?

A war conjured up in secret biotech laboratories. A heartless and grim conflict where the injured are not just mere statistics but, thanks to propaganda, are not even aware of the true cause of their novel maladies.

Every day we hear we are winning the war, just one last push, one more boost, over the top to the promised land.

Journalists Are Not the Right People to Dispense Health Advice

Guy Hatchard
-
0
Journalists Are Not the Right People to Dispense Health Advice

More revelations this week about behind the scenes manipulation of public opinion.

Melissa Fleming is a journalist who was appointed United Nations Under Secretary General for Global Communications in September 2019 just in time for the pandemic.

In a recent talk, Ms. Fleming spoke about her use of invasive behavioural science techniques at the UN to encourage support for the official WHO pandemic narrative (to view Ms. Fleming talking, pick this video up at 47 minutes).

She reported on her UN program Verity which trained 100 scientists around the world to flood social media platforms with what Ms. Fleming called the UN-owned science and to discourage circulation of material counter to the UN/WHO position.

Ms. Fleming implied that bare facts of published science papers are uninteresting and need to be nuanced in order to give them the required impact.

A New Brand of Science Journalism

Ms. Fleming is no stranger to public relations journalism having previously been for eight years Head of Press & Public Information at the International Atomic Energy Agency.

She represents a new brand of science journalism which seeks to reshape the narrative of modern science to facilitate public consumption and acceptance.

In so doing the obvious linchpins of the scientific method and process have been sidelined. Science is a process of experimentation and progressive testing of theories leading eventually to verification.

There are many stakeholders in this process which often involves competing ideas, interpretations, or paradigms (scientific genres). It also quantifies degrees of certainty and conversely large areas of uncertainty.

Fleming outlined a brand of public relations/journalism which seeks to portray absolute scientific certainty, where actually there is doubt and a high degree of risk.

The purpose is to satisfy the commercial- or power and influence-seeking objectives of their employers. The ultimate aim is to garner public acceptance for products through promotion of an aura of scientific infallibility and inevitability.

Unprecedented Levels of Irreversible Risk

No subject could be more unsuited to this modus operandi than Covid pandemic policy. Biotechnology was well known to involve unprecedented levels of irreversible risk.

The pandemic involves an evolving disease trajectory that was possibly created as part of a bioweapons program and a vaccine that derived from experimental gene therapy with a history of spectacular failures and adverse effects.

Describing the pandemic response as fait accompli science that was somehow owned by the UN and the WHO amounted to a take over of science, medical ethics, and human rights on a breathtaking scale—modern journalism allied with methods of social manipulation and control that were completely discredited by the revelations that followed in the wake of the second world war and the end of the Soviet Union.

To pursue this agenda it was necessary to quash the actual process of scientific evolution by silencing even highly qualified scientists urging caution.

The Narrative Has Completely Lost Touch

Such was the success of the combined forces applying the new PR methods, including pharmaceutical giants, government agencies, social media behemoths, and international forces like the UN, that their agenda has snowballed out of control and the narrative has completely lost touch with the evolving process of real pandemic science assessment and evaluation.

Most of the world’s population have come to believe in the safety, effectiveness, and profundity of the new biotechnology vaccination processes because of the apparent massive endorsement of the science, but it was not actually science, it was journalism allied with behavioural manipulation at work.

I am beginning to feel very sympathetic towards the vaccinated. They have been the unwitting victims of the psychic numbing promoted by the UN, WHO and the global pharmaceutical PR machine.

Actual science is trying to catch up with the hyperbole, deception, and control managed by media and government overreach, but we have almost arrived at a situation where catch up is out of hand.

Covid 19 Vaccines Don’t Work And Their Long Term Effects Are Unhealthy

The truth about this disturbing Orwellian agenda has come at a time when the weight of science has found that not only do Covid 19 vaccines not actually work but their long term effects are unhealthy.

More to the point, an increasing number of scientists are admitting, albeit in some cases reluctantly, that the true extent of adverse effects is not only misunderstood, but may be far more serious than any previous worst case suspicions.

As we reported last week, (Shining a Light in Dark Places—Ten Ways the Government Controls the Pandemic Narrative) immune imprinting resulting from Covid vaccination limits the capacity of physiology to respond to the new BA4/5 variants.

It shouldn’t have been unexpected, studies completed way before the pandemic indicate that viruses evolve to bypass vaccines, especially if the vaccine is not that effective at stopping transmission.

The truth is that a lot of established science was simply forgotten during the process of formulating pandemic policy. The involvement of unscrupulous commercial interests and power seeking political bodies was in no small measure to blame.

Unfortunately, the push for the pharmaceutical/biotechnology vision of universal mRNA vaccination continues regardless. All the while the real basis of health is ignored.

It has become a runaway train sustained by journalistic imagination and the wilful doubling down of medical hacks and governments devoid of the safeguards of traditional science.

The Unvaccinated are Increasingly Enjoying Enhanced Herd Immunity

In contrast, data shows that the unvaccinated are increasingly enjoying enhanced herd immunity following Covid infection with the mild Omicron variants.

As rates of cardiac events and all-cause mortality rise in highly vaccinated populations, it is increasingly obvious that the vaccinated will need a lot of help to get their health back on track.

Early on in the pandemic, a few studies indicated that taking care of your own health naturally is highly effective at preventing serious Covid outcomes. The implications of these studies urgently need to inform government policy

A lighter diet, a regular exercise regime, adequate rest, and some traditional anti-inflammatory medicinal herbs and spices all help. The help they provide is not marginal, it is stunning.

I have reported on these effects in earlier articles. For example, a study found that there was a 71% reduction in Covid hospitalisation rates among vegetarians.

If you have been bewitched by sophisticated techniques of behavioural manipulation into thinking that a pill or a jab on its own will guarantee health, you have been misled.

Those with unresolved health issues have been most at risk from Covid. Many prevalent chronic conditions are caused or complicated by diet and lifestyle choices which can be reversed naturally and safely with the right advice.

99% of our health results from our own management of lifestyle, diet, and behaviour, but always remember, if you are feeling unwell, to also take professional advice in good time. A stitch in time saves nine.

Each successive generation innovates, but at the same time some vital areas of knowledge are lost due to the passage of time and the gap between generations.

In this case, discredited techniques of social control have been rediscovered and misused in a modern context. The profit motive has been allowed to overturn standards of medical ethics and risk assessment. Biotechnology innovation has come to threaten the basis of life itself.

Shining a Light in Dark Places—Ten Ways the Government Controls the Pandemic Narrative

Guy Hatchard
-
0
Shining a Light in Dark Places—Ten Ways the Government Controls the Pandemic Narrative

Ten ways the government and its allies control the pandemic narrative to ensure most of us are none the wiser!

This week Dr. Ian Town, chief scientific advisor to the Ministry of Health, announced that the unvaccinated are six times more likely to be hospitalized with Covid than the vaccinated.

Dr. Town prefaced his remarks with the caveat “the data is reasonably preliminary”.

Two weeks ago epidemiologist Dr. Michael Baker told us that the unvaccinated are 9 times more likely to be hospitalized.

So who is right, or do you, like me, smell a rat?

The answer is neither, and the sleight of hand involved makes for gripping science fiction.

Every day the New Zealand Ministry of Health issues daily data for Covid infections, hospitalisations, and deaths. Our team here at the Hatchard Report copies and compiles these figures.

We also communicate with the Ministry of Health and Medsafe, sometimes with OIA requests, to clarify the reporting procedures that are being applied.

Our figures are therefore official, but strangely they differ by a huge margin from those hinted at by Dr. Town.

The light blue line indicates hospitalisations for unvaccinated, the light red for the vaccinated. These are rates per 100,000 population so they are strictly comparable.

The daily volatility is due partly to delays in the collection of data from around the country. For this reason, the long term trends are calculated in thick blue and red lines respectively.

You can clearly see the unvaccinated are becoming progressively less likely to be hospitalized with Covid, whilst the rates among the vaccinated remain more or less constant.

The graph shows that the unvaccinated are gaining a measure of herd immunity as more and more of them catch Omicron and recover, but why aren’t we seeing a similar result for the vaccinated?

The answer lies in something termed immune imprinting. A paper published a few days ago in the journal Science investigated 750 triple vaccinated individuals and found that vaccination combined with their various prior infection or immunity histories had conferred some protection against earlier Covid variants but often left them vulnerable to subsequent variants, especially the B.5 variant.

Ten Ways the Government Controls the Covid Narrative

So how is it possible for Dr. Town to claim that the unvaccinated are not only worse off than the vaccinated but 6 times worse off, when official figures show it is the vaccinated who are actually worse off?

1. Distortion of Population Data

The Ministry of Health overestimates the percentage of vaccinated individuals and undercounts the number of unvaccinated individuals. The Ministry of Health says that in any group of 100 people 97 are vaccinated and 3 are unvaccinated.

The true ratio is closer to 85 vs 15. The effect of this is simple. Undercounting the unvaccinated artificially inflates their rate of hospitalisation.

2. Poor Definition of Unvaccinated Status

The Ministry of Health counts all people who have had just one jab as unvaccinated. No one is counted as vaccinated who received their jab less than seven days ago.

So for example, if a person catches Covid during the week after vaccination and then dies four weeks later, or they have only had one jab, they are counted as an unvaccinated Covid death.

This also artificially inflates rates for the unvaccinated and conversely hides hospitalisations and deaths among the vaccinated.

3. Amalgamation of Historic Covid Figures

The Ministry of Health adds all historic Covid data together, this confuses the current Omicron situation with past variants and makes the short lived effect of vaccination look more significant.

It also ignores the impact of herd immunity among the unvaccinated.

4. Lack of Peer Review

The government and its advisors are quoting figures out of the context of peer review. Dr. Town used the term preliminary to describe his figures.

The government is ignoring the results of carefully performed published work that has gone through scientific peer review in favour of its own in-house data which as we have seen is biased by poor reporting practices.

5. Lack of Debate

There is no provision at press conferences or in the media for genuine debate of government data.

6. Control of Media

The government is continuing to provide significant funding to media to support Covid coverage which is favourable to the government’s position.

It surely cannot escape our notice that such cosy arrangements are alien to our conception of a free and honest democracy.

7. Funding of Fake Science

The government funds Te Punaha Matatini to issue unreviewed science papers which have grossly overestimated the impact of Covid.

These papers have for example labelled the established scientific concept of herd immunity as a conspiracy theory.

8. Discouraging Social Communication

The government has informed people that social communication has been hijacked by conspiracy theorists, thereby reducing the opportunity for and trust of peer to peer communication essential for a lawful society.

9. Failure to Publish Key Data

Emergency departments and heart specialists have been overwhelmed with an unprecedented surge in cardiac cases which an Israeli report shows are related to vaccination but not to prior covid infection.

The government has failed to make these facts public. Worse, the government and the media have tried to relabel such sudden cardiac problems as due to other causes.

10. Coercion of Medical Professionals to Remain Silent

Medical professionals wishing to speak up and voice concerns face loss of their profession and media vilification if they do so.

The Sun is Trying to Break Through the Clouds

Yesterday an article by the NZ Herald science reporter Jamie Morton said:

“Local cases of BA.4 and BA.5 – which have been shown to be more effective at causing breakthrough infections among vaccinated and boosted people – likely now numbered in the thousands here.”

Unfortunately, the article and this rare paragraph of clarity disappeared from the online headlines very quickly. You can’t have too much of a good thing.

In any case, the paragraph was incomprehensibly followed by a quote from epidemiologist Michael Baker drawing the conclusion that the pandemic would stop when everyone was fully vaccinated and masked.

Jamie Morton and the editor of the Herald must have missed the oxymoron.

Science has standards. These involve communication, debate, and publishing. If you remove these, as our government has done, you don’t have science, you have something quite different—mass deception.

Extraordinary Eye-opening Study Highlights the Fatal Difficulty With Gene-altered Vaccines

Guy Hatchard
-
0
Extraordinary Eye-opening Study Highlights the Fatal Difficulty With Gene-altered Vaccines

Discussions of the essential drawbacks to mRNA and other gene-edited vaccines were probably never held in the cabinet offices. They should have been.

A study just published in PNAS1, one of the world’s most-cited and comprehensive multidisciplinary scientific journals, showcases the fundamental obstacles to the safety of CRISPR gene intervention, which lies at the heart of novel biotechnology.

The authors of “CRISPR-Cas9 editing of the arginine–vasopressin V1a receptor produces paradoxical changes in social behavior in Syrian hamsters” engineered a type of hamster known as Avpr1a KO which was altered to completely lack a key signaling mechanism in a brain circuit that was thought to increase the expression of social communication and aggression.

Unexpectedly, however, Avpr1a KO hamsters displayed more not less social communication behavior and aggression toward their peers than did natural non-engineered littermates.

In other words contrary to expectations the engineered hamsters displayed increased asocial aggressive behaviour—they were psychologically altered and impaired.

We have written extensively about the possibility of psychological impairment due to mRNA vaccination here and here. This is difficult to investigate with human subjects because of the obvious ethical and safety issues.

The study of hamsters illustrates what can and does go wrong. There are a number of obvious points to the study which illustrate the risks:

  • Genetic editing always results in collateral damage. The Avpr1a receptor performs not just one function but many including for example a blood pressure regulation function which was absent in the engineered strain.
  • Our understanding of the relationship between biomolecular processes and psychological behaviour is primitive and unreliable. Prior understanding of how the Avpr1a receptor mediates social behaviour was found to be incorrect.

When considering the effect of gene-editing of DNA we have to consider three areas of effects, those on Structure, Function, and Communication.

The hamster study indicates even without actual structural DNA editing the alteration of wider functional and communication pathways, as happens to the immune system as a result of mRNA vaccination, could be sufficient to alter psychological states.

This study underlines the fact that commercial promoters of universal mRNA vaccination are ignoring key safety considerations. Psychological states and functions result not from single isolated genes or biomolecular pathways, but from the structure and function of the physiological system as a whole.

Edit one building block of the epigenetic system, and you risk undermining psychological stability.

There have been puzzling aggressive features of psychosocial behaviour during the pandemic. These have disrupted families, coerced dissenters (even those with prior vaccine injuries), and blamed the unvaccinated despite ample evidence to the contrary.

Very often these reactions have been as if ‘switched on’ suddenly—a good scientific indication that a novel cause should be sought.

Genetic and epigenetic editing results in sudden and absolute changes in function. How on earth were our government and their medical advisors able to ignore the risks?

More importantly, once the rate and extent of adverse effects and the ineffectiveness of mRNA vaccination became obvious through the data that was being collected, why did the government irrationally seek to hide the facts from the public?

Like the Avpr1a KO hamsters are they by this point deterministically constrained by invasive gene-edited biomolecular techniques to exhibit only aggressive tendencies?

In other words, does our government no longer have any capacity for rational choice in the matter? No. Recipients of mRNA vaccines have not had their genome edited but the epigenetic environment of the genome has been constrained, this may have had psychological impacts. Mind and body are connected more intimately than we realise.

The potential dangers are unquantified and uncertain, but in no way insignificant. Genetic techniques are operating at a subtle but very powerful level of the physiology which determines responses throughout its biomolecular network.

The consequences can be far more far reaching than we imagine.

It is well understood that many medicines have psychological consequences, mostly these are temporary or they can be reversed. The problem with gene therapy techniques is that their effects are destabilising and irreversible.

It has been a huge miscalculation to assume that the safety parameters involved with mRNA vaccines can be equated with those governing traditional vaccines.

1The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), is a peer reviewed journal of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). It is highly respected and viewed by many as an authoritative source of high-impact, original research that broadly spans the biological, physical, and social sciences. The journal is global in scope and submission is open to all researchers worldwide.

Pandemic or a Bad Case of Medical Myopia?

Guy Hatchard
-
0
Pandemic or a Bad Case of Medical Myopia?

If you are wondering in your spare moments why the government hasn’t twigged that mRNA vaccination is dangerous and ineffective, be assured that you don’t have to look far for the cause—medical myopia.

First, a quick update on the latest New Zealand covid data. The vaccinated continue to drift into negative immune territory, including the boosted. The unvaccinated are gradually making up a smaller and smaller proportion of cases and hospital admissions when compared to their population numbers.

The long term trend of covid deaths is shown in this graph:

The implication is that the very small effect of vaccination and boosting wears off rapidly and tends to zero within 8 weeks. More importantly, as the boosting effectiveness wanes, it leaves the recipient more vulnerable to serious illness and death than they were before vaccination.

Reading these graphs is not difficult and they are official figures. So why, every time we turn on our television, are we still seeing adverts encouraging us, our children, and our whanau to get boosted and stay safe? Are the government and their medical advisors really so blind to reality?

The Long History of Medical Myopia

In nineteenth century London tens of thousands of people died of cholera. In 1854 Dr. John Snow discovered through careful epidemiological research that cholera was caused by contamination of drinking water.

But cholera continued to rage in London for decades afterward because government medical officials and the supposed scientific elite insisted against all evidence that it must be caused by contagion and smells.

Thalidomide was prescribed for pregnant women for a decade while birth defects, occurring under the very noses of doctors, continued to be dismissed as unconnected. Something that was missed due to an unquestioning faith in novel pharmaceuticals.

Even in the 17th century, it was realised that doctors can have limited ability along with financial motivations which override caution. To counter this, Henry VIII proclaimed the Herbalists Charter to protect the use of natural remedies and allow for the right of medical choice in perpetuity:

“The guild of doctors have small Cunning yet they will take great sums of Money, and do oftentimes impair and hurt their Patients, rather than do them good. Therefore for the Ease, Comfort, Succour, Help, Relief, and Health of the King’s poor Subjects now pained or diseased: Be it ordained that at all Time from henceforth it shall be lawful for every Person having Knowledge and Experience of the Nature of Herbs, Roots, and Waters, or of the Operation of the same, by Speculation or Practice, within any part of the Realm of England, or within any other the King’s Dominions, to practice, use, and minister in and to any outward Sore, open Wound, Swelling or Disease, any Herb or Herbs, Ointments, Baths, Pultess, and Emplaisters, according to their, Experience, and Knowledge without suit, vexation, trouble, penalty, or loss of their goods; the foresaid Statute in the foresaid Third Year of the King’s most gracious Reign.”

The Training of Medical Professionals Imposes a Straight Jacket

Doctors are highly intelligent and dedicated individuals selected for their academic ability who undergo long training to diagnose and treat illness.

Certainly, there are many branches of medicine of great benefit such as modern surgery, but their profession has become dominated by pharmaceutical protocols dictated by large commercial enterprises.

These protocols have come to accept marginal outcomes and high rates of adverse effects as acceptable.

Doctors are constrained to strictly follow these pharmaceutical prescribing regimes known as gold standards. Measures of quality of life do not uphold the outcomes of many of these protocols.

In other words, the adverse effects of many medicines outweigh their marginal benefits.

Most doctors do not have the time to closely monitor the effects of their medications on wider populations or even to research published data, they assume safety.

The advent of novel biotechnology, whose risk profile dwarfs traditional medicine by a factor far greater than fifty, has not changed their outlook or their habit.

Most doctors have continued to assume safety, without even the benefit of completed trials. Those who have asked questions or who harbour doubts have faced the prospect of expulsion from their profession if they speak up publicly.

The pandemic has exposed the deficiency of the straight-jacket prescriptive pharmaceutical system to everyone’s cost. Time to wake up.

Fortunately, many medical vloggers like John Campbell, Vinay Prasad, and Dr. Been who started out by encouraging mRNA vaccination have now changed their tune.

In fact, no rational person who keeps up with Covid science publishing can fail to notice the extreme dangers it poses.

We have written previously an urgent open letter to doctors—with every day’s new Covid data there are additional urgent reasons to speak up.

What Is the Most Alarming Prospect of the Pandemic?

Guy Hatchard
-
0
What Is the Most Alarming Prospect of the Pandemic?

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.

The Road to Ruin

Guy Hatchard
-
0
The Road to Ruin

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).

For a prime example of the doublespeak of disinformation officers, try the BBC’s very own Rachel Schraer who weighed in today with a graphic presentation entitled “Covid: Why do some vaccines protect you longer than others?”.

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.

The Rule of Law

Guy Hatchard
-
0
The Rule of Law

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.

1...333435...47Page 34 of 47