I am seldom offered the opportunity to communicate with pro-vaccine scientists. In this case, I have been introduced to a prominent pro-vaccine blogger who is a microbiologist in the USA.

We are working towards a moderated public debate. This is a work in progress. He and I have been exchanging emails. This is my latest:

Dear XXX

I can only work through the plethora of links you are sending, one by one. Thank you for communicating.

Can I summarise where we are so far:

I accept and always have accepted that Alpha and Delta can have serious impacts. Initial investigation concluded that mRNA vaccination reduced the rate of their severity as measured by hospitalisations and deaths. However the mortality rates associated with successive Covid variants have gradually reduced from early figures that could be as high as 2% or more. They are currently well under 1%, possibly as low as 0.1% or even lower. Do you agree? This reduction could be due to a combination of a number of factors: improved treatment protocols, more mild nature of variants, immunity from prior infection, and vaccination efficacy. The proportional assignment of the relative influence of these factors is not exactly known.

We also agree that mRNA vaccination causes a relatively high rate of myopericarditis, especially among young males. The long term prognosis of these cases is unknown. There is a recently published indication that some aspects of these heart conditions persist for 3 – 8 months. The Israeli study of 1.8 million individuals that you referred me to, found an incidence of myocarditis of the order of 1.55 – 12.44 (confidence limits) per 100,000, but the risk due to Covid Delta infection was measured as about twice that. Other studies have found rates which differ from this, in some cases by quite a lot. So there is probably a need for a meta analysis, you may even know of a recent one that has been completed.

There is little or no data on the sub clinical occurrence of myopericarditis. The majority of the 18,000 NZ reports of chest pain, tachycardia, and shortness of breath have been treated as non-serious and not followed up. The rate of these adverse effects in NZ reported to CARM is 1 in 500, although the real rate is certainly far higher because of under reporting. Medsafe itself estimates as low as 5% of cases are reported. Reports of this nature in NZ have been largely dismissed as due to vaccine anxiety, one wonders why such reports did not occur for previous vaccines at this rate or anything even remotely like it. The current proposals in many countries for an ongoing regime of mRNA vaccinations stretching into the future are therefore very concerning. Will the severity or rate of adverse effects increase?

You wonder why I am concerned about NZ figures as opposed to figures from other countries collated by Our World In Data. Here in NZ I can verify MoH methods and inclusion criteria through publications and correspondence. When I looked at Our World In Data figures for NZ some time ago, I found they contained the same inaccuracies of presentation used by our MoH. This level of scrutiny is not available to me for data reported for other countries except via researchers in those countries. I note that you have referred me to Our World In Data graphs for other countries. Some of which appear to show, as in Hong Kong’s case, that relatively low vaccination rates are associated with high caseloads, and some show that high vaccination rates appear to be associated with lowered death rates. As you know the circumstances in each country have to be investigated thoroughly. Low death rates can simply be due to the effect of milder variants or different methods of reporting cause of death.

I responded to you that correlations between deaths/hospitalisation by country with vaccination rates do not yield positive results. I also found this. In my opinion such negative statistical findings indicate that other factors outside the scope of vaccination rates are responsible for the wide country differences. These factors could include climate, living conditions, diet and nutrition, lifestyle, genetic makeup, air quality, environmental and chemical pollution, and type of vaccine used. The relative importance of these is yet to be properly investigated or understood.

NZ is unique because up until late 2021 we had almost no cases of Covid. Thereby our vaccine rollout of Pfizer jabs reached 90+% of eligible people before there was any degree of Covid infection. The zero tolerance of Covid was achieved through very strict border controls, cessation of all tourism, lockdowns, and very detailed track and trace and isolation requirements. Thus we arrived at a point where we had almost no natural immunity in the general population, but a very high level of vaccination, amongst the highest in the world. The all-cause mortality data during the vaccine rollout is therefore very interesting from a scientific point of view, as is the evolution of infections, hospitalisations, and deaths subsequent to the introduction of Covid. This is because both periods clearly demonstrate the impact of vaccination, isolated from any effect of prior Covid infection.

Regarding the import of Grant Dixon’s recent video showing that vaccinated individuals in NZ are becoming more vulnerable to Covid infection than the unvaccinated, I reviewed your link from Our World In Data and this points out that it is necessary to look at rates per 100,000 of vaccinated and unvaccinated populations. Grant has done that carefully. You also point out that children might make up a higher percentage of the unvaccinated population and that they may be less vulnerable to Covid which would tend to skew the data. I accept that this could have an effect on the data.

However if you review Grant’s video summary, what stands out is a progressive trend of higher vulnerability of the vaccinated as the weeks go by. This trend is certainly significant, even if the absolute percentages have a range of confidence limits. Grant suggests that the BA2 variant which has become dominant here might be better able to evade the vaccine. Of course it could also be the case that BA2 is adapted to prefer to infect vaccinated individuals. It could also be the case that the booster effect wears off rapidly, other assessments have placed cessation of the booster effect as low as 10 weeks. It could also be the case, as others have suggested, that as the booster effect wears off, the individual is left more vulnerable to infection. All of these are possible in varying but as yet unknown proportions. Vaccine suitability should be judged against five criteria. Does it reduce: infection, transmission, safety, hospitalisation, and mortality? The NZ data currently supports none of these.

I continue to be concerned about multiple cases of adverse effects proximate to vaccination and subsequent anecdotal reports in NZ of high incidence of cardiac and thrombotic events. I note the results of the Israeli study which suggests that Covid infection might cause higher rates of these conditions. But I also note the authors call for more study. It is therefore disappointing that the NZ MoH has not released 2021 and current data for specific conditions such as stillbirth, cardiac hospitalisations, etc. despite reports that these have increased. Refusal to publish figures does not help clarity around these issues or promote confidence in the government.

I presume you also agree that Covid continues to be a disease that overwhelmingly affects people with comorbidities. These include diabetes, smoking, excess alcohol consumption, high BMI, and many others. Age is also a primary determinant of severe outcomes. From the outset, I have been suggesting that improved health and lifestyle habits would be in the longer term a more effective approach to the pandemic than vaccination. Moreover they will promote wider health goals beneficial to a whole range of health conditions. I suggested our policy advisors should promote preventive educational strategies of improved diet, exercise, reduced pollution, reductions in processed food consumption, etc. They dismissed this because they felt that the difference this could make would be marginal. I disagree, modest studies have shown that lighter diets, more exercise and rest, and some ayurvedic herbs can have large effect sizes on Covid outcomes. It is disappointing that governments continue to ignore this option, and rely instead on mandated mRNA vaccination as a largely standalone strategy.

The point about which we are in complete disagreement is the advisability of vaccine mandates. You say:

“Nothing is 100% safe and everything has adverse side effects. If a child needed life-saving antibiotics but the parents did not believe in such things and chose to not treat their child, are they not responsible? Antibiotics have potential for adverse events, like any medicine, so by your logic it would be immoral for the parents to be forced to bring their child to a hospital for treatment even if we know that the treatment would save the child’s life. Famous cases such as these have happened and the parents have been convicted. Actively making a choice that poses more risk to both yourself and your community can’t be argued as moral.”

This is a powerful sounding but largely emotive statement of your case. You are talking about parents refusing treatment for their very sick children. We are not talking about medicines for sick children here, but a novel vaccine the extent of whose long term effects remains unknown. Historically, the forced experimentation on people who are not actually sick has since WW2 been a matter of choice. I note that mRNA vaccination does almost nothing to reduce transmission. In that sense it does not resemble anything that was previously called a vaccine. As a result, mandate arguments fall over at the first hurdle. Moreover mRNA is a novel technology which should imply caution. You also reference that Omicron has produced a relatively high rate of 0-4 years infant hospitalisation in the USA. That has not been reported here in NZ. Moreover absolute risks from Covid infection of the young are incredibly low, and no level of efficacy of Pfizer Covid vaccination for infants has been established.

I note your argument that risks from medical procedures are inevitable and therefore they should be enforced on everyone. People who oppose vaccination should not be spoken of as little children to be controlled by remote authorities. Moreover your logic would imply that people who drive cars, eat too much, drink alcohol, smoke, and go surfing should be forcibly stopped.

There are alternative approaches to maintaining health. People should be allowed to pursue these. The vast majority of our health outcomes are determined by our diet, behaviour, and our psychology, not by medicines. The insistence on risky medical protocols has made medical misadventure the third leading cause of death in the USA. Whereas improved diet, behaviour, and happiness are known to be keys to greatly improve preventive health outcomes. When it comes to health, choice of treatment and prevention is the right of everyone, no ifs or buts. Draconian vaccine coercion here in NZ has splintered the cohesion of our society, damaged our economy, and led to a loss of trust.

Thank you again for corresponding. Yes we should have another face to face soon.

Best wishes

Guy

There is no doubt my correspondent is going to reply to me rejecting my points, citing a number of links to studies, as he has on previous occasions. There are many thousands of Covid papers and articles published so far. Some of these reach conflicting conclusions. The important point to note is that their conclusions, on both sides of the argument, are not always justified by the data. In some cases, potentially key outcomes have not been considered.

Science is a process of working through these through peer review, theoretical considerations, correspondence, re-analysis, and so on. In some cases, there are significant findings which should not be overlooked. In others, deliberate manipulation of data can be employed to hide unwanted outcomes. See for example Dr. Robert Malone’s critique of a recent paper “Effectiveness of the BNT162b2 vaccine among children” In all cases a great deal of caution should be exercised with novel medicines, such caution has not been exercised in the case of mRNA technology. Commercial interests have certainly interfered with this process.

All in all I am grateful to my correspondent for agreeing to a discussion. It is lamentable as we saw in my blog yesterday that scientists, media, and government officials in NZ are refusing to engage in open rational debate.

Guy Hatchard PhD was formerly a senior manager at Genetic ID a global food safety testing and certification company (now known as FoodChain ID)

Press Release: Ministry of Health figures show that boosted individuals are now more vulnerable to Covid infection and hospitalisation than the unvaccinated

A video summary released 2nd April 2022 by Grant Dixon shows through a series of graphs how the effects of boosters have worn off rapidly in New Zealand, especially since the BA2 variant started circulating.

https://www.bitchute.com/video/ilXGTCV7F3zc

Grant Dixon has been carefully following the NZ Ministry of Health Covid statistics during the last 15 months. By the start of April the rate per 100,000 of Covid hospitalisations for the boosted overtook the rate of hospitalisations for the unvaccinated. Watch the video, the magnitude of the change is very obvious.

Even prior to the pandemic, it was realised that vaccines that allow transmission could drive the evolution of more highly virulent pathogens:

https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1002198

The NZ data speaks for itself. It is hardly necessary to comment that government policy has failed to take account of the concerning growth of infections among the vaccinated.

Instead, it is continuing to drive the population towards more boosters in an ill-conceived and doomed attempt to outwit the trend. It is promoting failed technology sold to us by a US pharmaceutical giant more interested in its bottom line than the well being of New Zealanders.

How Could the Government Have Become So Reckless?

Yesterday my wife and I had a conversation about our food processor. We have had it for a long time, but it never has worked as well as we hoped. In contrast, our mixer is a dream.

How is it that most people have a very clear idea of what works and what doesn’t when it comes to domestic appliances, but a complete lack of clarity when it comes to medical interventions?

Our everyday appreciation of what works and what doesn’t is based on common sense and personal experience. If we buy an appliance and it doesn’t work, we immediately take it back and cease trusting the brand. If in addition it cuts off the hands of one percent of the people who used it, we would call in the police.

You can see where I am going with this. In a recent release I pointed out that in February 2021 Minister of Health Chris Hipkins and Droector General of Health Ashley Bloomfield expected that the adverse effects of Covid mRNA vaccination would run at over 1% of recipients.

In fact it proved to be much higher than this.

Scientific Criteria of Effectiveness and Safety are Being Misused by PR.

For a long time now the criteria being used by medical researchers to justify the use of new drugs has been drifting far away from what is commonly understood to be proof of effectiveness, but this has reached new heights during the pandemic.

To get any paper published you need to at least exceed a probability of 95 parts in 100, 95%, or 19 in 20. This sounds like a reasonable threshold, but dig a little deeper and you realise that all this really means is that it is almost certain that one specific thing happened. 

There could be lots of other effects of the drug that are simply not covered by the trial. This is precisely what happened in the case of the Pfizer mRNA vaccine trials.

The rushed trials did not examine secondary effects of the vaccine

The rushed trials did not examine secondary effects of the vaccine—the long term effectiveness and the extent of adverse effects were unknown.

By how much, how safely, for how long, and what else happened are issues that might not be covered by the quoted significance of a drug trial. Up until the pandemic, the medical safety criteria being applied to drug trials were relatively clear cut.

They had to be long trials. If deaths occurred subsequent to trialling a drug, it would have been a very serious issue that paused trials and led to reevaluation. Not so now.

The reported adverse effects following mRNA vaccination are running at 30-50 times that of earlier vaccines. Yet our government is still telling us they are safe. As we now know, mRNA Covid vaccines are not only unsafe, but also completely ineffective against Omicron.

This situation has crept up on the government. They have known for some time that the effectiveness of mRNA vaccination wanes rapidly, but the potential extent of this and the potential implications of viral evolution coupled with repeated injections have been largely ignored.

This has happened as a result of a drive to promote a product which has not been adequately researched. If mRNA vaccination were a domestic appliance, it would have been banned months ago, money refunded, and the culprits summoned to court.

Public Debate, Which Lies at the Heart of The Democratic Process, is Being Suppressed

The public are beginning to work it out for themselves through personal experience—even if you are boosted, you can catch Covid and it can be serious in some cases. There is also a growing reluctance to accept booster shots and second child vaccinations.

Our government is desperately countering this by telling us that the unvaccinated are worse off and we are all in dire peril unless we get boosted. Grant Dixon’s video shows that the reverse is true. The government should know this.

Either we are being deliberately and criminally misled or our government, the Ministry of Health, and their chosen scientific advisors are completely incompetent. Take your pick.

This week former MP Matt King and I invited one prominent NZ scientist, who is often quoted in the media, to an independently moderated publicly broadcasted debate on the above topics. He replied:

“While I am happy to outline the scientific evidence around vaccine efficacy and safety to the public (and have done so on a number of occasions over the past year to various audiences), I do not think a debate, whether live or pre-recorded, is likely to be a productive forum for communicating the science.”

The New Zealand public is quite able to make up its mind if it is allowed to hear the rational arguments.

How long will mainstream media keep denying them this opportunity? Our government pandemic policy no longer deserves to be propped up and shielded. The scientific evidence is unequivocal.

Longer term follow up of children experiencing chest pain following Pfizer mRNA vaccination finds persistent heart abnormalities

The Czars of epidemiology advise the government to continue mandates

A follow up study conducted at the Seattle Children’s Hospital of children suffering myocarditis following their second dose of the Pfizer mRNA vaccine was published in the Journal of Pediatrics on 25 March 2022.

The study followed up 16 male children, with an average age of 15 years, 3 to 8 months after their initial diagnosis with myocarditis within a short time frame following mRNA vaccination.

The authors used Electrocardiograms and Cardiac Magnetic Resonance (CMR) to examine abnormalities in the heart such as myocardial scarring, fibrosis, strain, and reduced ventricular muscle extension which can be associated with reduced capacity to pump blood and increased risk of heart attack.

The authors found that although there was some measure of resolution after 3 – 8 months most subjects still had some persistent abnormalities.

“Although (initial) symptoms (such as chest pain, and exercise intolerance) were transient and most patients appeared to respond to treatment (solely with NSAIDS such as ibuprofen), we demonstrated persistence of abnormal findings on CMR at (3-8 months) follow up in most patients, albeit with improvement in extent of LGE (a measure of the heart’s capacity to pump efficiently).”

The authors warned:

“The presence of LGE is an indicator of cardiac injury and fibrosis and has been strongly associated with worse prognosis in patients with classical acute myocarditis. A meta-analysis including 8 studies found that presence of LGE is a predictor of all cause death, cardiovascular death, cardiac transplant, rehospitalization, recurrent acute myocarditis and requirement for mechanical circulatory support.”

For those who wish to review a detailed evaluation of this study by a medical expert, you can watch this video

Wider implications for New Zealand

The latest Medsafe Adverse Effects Report #41 lists 12,000 people who have experienced chest discomfort and 6,000 shortness of breath (all ages) following mRNA vaccination, both classic symptoms of myocarditis. The authors of the small study reported above concluded:

“In the cohort of adolescents with COVID-19 mRNA vaccine-related myopericarditis, a large portion have persistent LGE abnormalities, raising concerns for potential longer-term effects.”

It is clear that little has been done in New Zealand to follow up those affected by adverse effects. Many reporting to EDs or GPs with chest pain, tachycardia, or shortness of breath have been told that everything will be OK without clinical assessment. In many cases these symptoms were not even registered with CARM.

Even though the Seattle study had few participants, it red flags the possibility of subsequent cardiac events. It raises the possibility that sub clinical adverse effects of mRNA vaccination may have serious longer term impacts on health.

Until now these have been classified as non-serious in NZ. Persistent reports of cardiac events in the weeks and months following mRNA vaccination among ostensibly fit and healthy people of all age groups and genders, but especially men, can no longer be ignored or dismissed as unrelated. They need to be investigated.

This underlines the fact that the Pfizer mRNA vaccination roll out has been undertaken in the absence of long term follow up testing which often requires the use of sophisticated equipment such as CMR and MRI.

Moreover heart disease is not the only category of serious illness whose incidence may be increased by mRNA vaccination as other recent studies suggest. Possible long term adverse effects include cancer, kidney and liver disease, and neurological conditions. A recent court-ordered document release shows Pfizer and probably our government is aware of cases.

But our government is still persisting with advertising suggesting that mRNA vaccination is safe and effective. This is not supported by research. mRNA vaccination comes with some serious risks. Moreover the government was well aware of the risks from the start.

In an internal document released under OIA dated 10th February 2021 and signed by Ashley Bloomfield, Director General of Health and Chris Hipkins, Covid Response Minister discussing provisions for the vaccination of border workers, point 57 says:

“current data suggests severe adverse reactions are less than 1.1%”

Following 10 million injections, as we have had in NZ, that would amount to more than 100,000 adverse reactions (a figure not inconsistent with the grossly under reported 55,000 adverse reactions registered with CARM).

Did either Ashley Bloomfield, Jacinda Ardern, or Chris Hipkins ever hint to the public or the media that this was the expected outcome?

No they did not. They told the public the vaccine was completely safe and effective. They hid facts. More than this, Jacinda Ardern deleted the 33,000 reports of adverse effects that were posted on her FB page. She gaslighted the public.

Shocking Deficiencies in Advice Given to Government

In the light of the study at Seattle Children’s Hospital and other recent findings of potential long term health issues associated with mRNA vaccination, we will now look at the very recent official advice given to the Prime Minister and Cabinet.

A letter dated 13 March 2022 has been sent by the Strategic COVID-19 Public Health Advisory Group (the David Skegg committee) to The Hon Dr. Ayesha Verrall Associate Minister of Public Health.

Read or download the above-mentioned letter by clicking here >>> Strategic COVID-19 Public Health Advisory Group

The letter is entitled Vaccine Mandates and aims to review the government’s strategy for minimising harms caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, to health, society and the economy. The Committee assured the Minister: “we have been able to take a completely fresh look at the evidence.”

The signatories to the letter are Dr. David Skegg an epidemiologist, Dr. Maia Brewerton a clinical immunologist, allergist, and immunopathologist, Professor Philip Hill an epidemiologist and public health expert, Dr. Ella Iosua a biostatistician, Professor David Murdoch a clinical microbiologist, Dr. Nikki Turner an immunologist interested in preventive child health. All are vaccine advocates.

Point 29 calls for more measures to encourage children to be vaccinated.

Point 12 of their letter asserts: “As we now deal with a large Omicron outbreak, vaccination is undoubtedly reducing the numbers of people who are becoming seriously ill and require hospital treatment.”

However current NZ data discussed in articles at the Hatchard Report reveal that the rates of hospitalisation are equivalent for vaxxed and unvaxxed.

Not a single scientific reference is included in this letter.

Not a single reference is made to adverse effects of vaccination (currently running at 30-50 times higher than that of any previous vaccine).

Not a single reference is made to any need for informed consent prior to vaccination. The theme running throughout the letter is a need to normalise the use of vaccination mandates when they are needed in New Zealand going into the future.

The right of employers to enforce vaccine mandates is described as common.

High vaccination rates are said to reduce absenteeism and the collapse of public services and commercial businesses.

The letter admits that the protection provided by the Covid-19 vaccines wanes after a few months and says the term booster should be avoided. It recommends the needed number of mRNA vaccinations should be described as a course, and raises the imminent desirability of a fourth vaccine dose for at least some people.

Point 28 says: “For some cases, it would be appropriate for vaccination to be a condition for new employment.” This clause recommends the broad use and normalisation of vaccine requirements in New Zealand for many illnesses and in many service sectors.

Unaccountably the letter says “Encouraging vaccination in the general population was not one of the specific objectives of vaccine mandates.” It also says that vaccine hesitancy has been much less in New Zealand than other countries and that people “have been prepared to accept redeployment and redundancy”. In essence denying the obvious coercion involved in mandates.

The letter recommends that mandates continue in use for health care workers, aged and disabled caregivers, corrections workers, and border staff. There will be a review in six months time.

The overall content of the letter appears to suggest that vaccines have been the key element ensuring low Covid-19 incidence. It completely fails to discuss the obvious point that this success has been achieved through border controls and contact tracing, NOT mRNA vaccination.

Conclusion

The long term health effects of mRNA vaccination are becoming more obvious through published research findings. Meanwhile the government advisors have their heads in the sand.

Their careers have been built upon vaccination and now it seems they are prepared to ignore the obvious deficiencies of mRNA vaccination to save the government. One Chicago professor commented this week:

“New Zealand science is circling the drain”

This week we were subjected to a piece of theatre that transported us all into an uncertain future.

The problem is that for two years Jacinda Ardern, backed up by government-funded saturation advertising, has been educating the public that Pfizer mRNA vaccination is completely safe and fully effective. MSM has backed up Jacinda to the hilt.

This one-sided propaganda has created a counterrational outlook.

Light at the End of the Tunnel?

Meanwhile, in a parallel universe, some sense of contrition is creeping in at the edges. The Ministry of Health has announced it is conducting a survey of those affected by myocarditis and pericarditis.

To participate you will need to have registered an adverse reaction at CARM and seen a physician.

If you are affected by symptoms of myocarditis following vaccination such as:

• chest pains
• shortness of breath
• irregular heartbeat
• excessive fatigue
• swelling in the legs
• joint pain
• fever
• headache
• heart attack
• stroke, etc.

and haven’t registered with CARM already, I suggest you do so right away.

Please also alert any affected friends immediately.

You should consider registering a copy of your submission with NZDSOS. For full details of the Ministry of Health survey go to:

https://www.health.govt.nz/covid-19-novel-coronavirus/covid-19-vaccines/covid-19-pfizer-vaccine-side-effects-and-reactions/covid-19-vaccine-myocarditis-and-pericarditis-study

I note that in a survey such as the one projected by the Ministry of Health, the results will be skewed by the absence of submissions from those who have already died as a result.

The prestigious Mayo Clinic lists heart attack, heart failure, stroke, blood clots, sudden cardiac death, and rapid irregular heart rhythms as complications of myocarditis.

If you know of such cases subsequent to vaccination, I suggest that you contact both Ministry of Health and NZDSOS to ask how their details may be added to the final result of the survey.

Two Worlds Apart

We can be forgiven for thinking that Ardern’s is a counterrational world. One part of the government continues to tell us that mRNA vaccination is completely safe and effective, while another part of the government is starting a survey to identify and monitor those whose heart health has been adversely affected.

Meanwhile, the government has just announced it will appeal the recent court ruling which struck down their vaccination mandates for police.

So the Ministry of Health is wondering what their long-term prognosis might be, whilst the government is going to court to insist that the police continue to be required to risk long-term cardiac damage.

Truth and Reconciliation is Needed

In other developments this week, the government’s announcement that vaccination passes are ending has led to a measure of confusion.

Some of Jacinda’s followers are apparently feeling cheated and betrayed. There has been an outburst of hate speech against unvaccinated individuals.

Someone posted a tweet referring to TVNZ news host Hilary Barry speaking last year when she referred to all unvaccinated people as unwashed ‘feral’ (a particularly offensive epithet in New Zealand) members of a street gang.

As a result, Barry’s Twitter followers reprised their approval and erupted in praise. Someone called for the death penalty for all unvaccinated. Some who tweeted dissent were blocked by Barry.

This morning when I looked, death threats against the unvaccinated were still up on some Twitter feeds of vocal Barry supporters. Some called for unvaccinated people to have their children removed into state care.

In the past, Barry has also called for unvaccinated people to be transported to a remote island (a suggestion that did lead to online threats against Barry).

After a complaint, the Broadcasting Standards Authority (BSA) found in Barry’s favour.

It is particularly concerning when remarks seek to dehumanise people. It is the same sort of attitude that allowed Mexican children to be held in cages at the US border without sufficient general public outcry.

The use of the word “feral” is moving towards the classification of some people as undeserving of their place in society.

Something that Jacinda Ardern appeared to condone when she admitted that her vaccination mandates were creating a two tier society.

If you condone threats against anyone on either side of the argument as the BSA did, it can only get worse.

The situation will only get resolved when Jacinda Ardern publicly tells her adoring followers that a ‘mistake’ has been made.

mRNA vaccination is actually not measurably ‘effective’ against Omicron and it can cause serious adverse effects.

When will Ardern come clean?

We hope Covid science journal publishing and political rhetoric will have to merge at some point.

A visit to the Dentist?

Until misinformation is acknowledged we are going to be living in a very strange world.

Yesterday, following the removal of vaccine passes, my daughter called up our dentist to book some much needed dental work for the family. The conversation went much as follows:

My daughter: Now that vaccine passes are no longer required, I need to book an appointment. We are unvaccinated, but we have had Covid so we are immune.

Receptionist: If we decide it is possible for you to make an appointment, you would have to come right at the end of the working day as we will have to clean the surgery after your visit.

My daughter: Don’t you clean the surgery after each appointment?

Receptionist: Yes, but we will need to complete a deep clean after you.

They haven’t yet agreed to make an appointment for us. We are possibly considered feral gang members, too unclean for their refined sensibilities.

A large part of the public have become addicted to the false sense of safety associated with vaccine passes. They have cemented a kind of group superiority that has historical parallels.

They have normalised a scapegoat psychology that falsely places the blame for everything on a class of people who want to maintain their health naturally. It is going to take a long time to return to planet earth.

Guy Hatchard has written a book Discovering and Defending Your DNA Diet.

Refocusing National Energies to Prevent Recurrence and Assist Those Affected.

As an end to mandates makes its slow way out of the starting gate, it is time to take stock and begin to remediate the severe damage that has been done to our nation and our world, its scientific, medical, social, and economic institutions and to individual citizens.

The Hatchard Report wants to reiterate that both the vaccinated and the unvaccinated have been disadvantaged by disinformation, discrimination, and medical misadventure.

In fact, governments distracted their populations from needed debate by dividing us into vaxxed and unvaxxed—characterised as the ‘saved’ and the ‘dangerous’. 

They created this strong distinction without any adequate scientific basis.

Their fear narrative overhyped the dangers of Covid infection—the mean age of deaths was in fact similar to average life expectancy.

The mRNA vaccines did not stop transmission, rapidly waned in effectiveness, and caused unprecedented rates of adverse effects. 

To move forward from this, both the vaccinated and unvaccinated will need to take common cause.

scientific debate involving rational discussion has been from the outset suppressed and outlawed

PART ONE

The Need for Rational Science

We need to recognise that a scientific debate involving rational discussion has been from the outset suppressed and outlawed.

Journal publishing on Covid-19 and the mRNA vaccination now runs into tens of thousands of articles. The data reported and their conclusions need to begin to inform changed government policy.

We are now fully aware that in the Omicron environment, mRNA vaccination has virtually no impact on transmission, infection, and hospitalisation rates.

It is also clear that excess all-cause deaths have risen in association with vaccination rates in a number of countries including ours. Unusually this has affected working-age individuals at an unprecedented rate.

We have discussed that a paper published in May 2021 indicated that mRNA vaccination causes a drop in T cell production. T cells are our first line of immune defence. 

It is also clear that contrary to initial expectations, the genetic sequences in mRNA vaccines are relatively mobile and can affect diverse organ systems in the physiology, interfering with their functions.

The Hatchard Report and others have covered and referenced many of these findings in depth during the last few months.

The main point we want to emphasise here is that although Covid-19 and the mRNA vaccine have unique specific effects which distinguish them from each other, they also have a great many toxic effects in common.

For example, high rates of cardiac events. There are long-term impacts of both on health, but their true extent remains largely uninvestigated, and in fact, will only be known as time passes.

Reorienting Our Health Service Response

Here in New Zealand and in other countries, health services need to capture an accurate picture of the health impacts and provide appropriate treatment and compensation for those affected.

In mainstream media, it continues to be unacceptable to associate high rates of cardiac events and strokes with vaccination.

Unprecedented rates of health events among athletes, public figures, and the general population are being variously dismissed as due to stress and described as a ‘Warne anxiety effect’ or a ‘holiday heart syndrome’ etc.

This is patently absurd. The refusal of health authorities in many countries, including our own, to countenance what is becoming obvious and the subject of speculation needs to be rectified.

Accurate surveys of adverse events following vaccination and Covid-19 infection need to be instituted.

Up until now, in most countries, adverse effects reports have been collected through passive voluntary systems leading to massive underreporting. A recent survey of 4,000 representative subjects in Israel reported a disturbing picture—50% of mRNA vaccine recipients who responded experienced adverse effects. 

The incidence rate, severity, and duration of long Covid following Omicron is also unknown.

Any studies need to take account of the fact that people will experience adverse outcomes as a result of both vaccination and Covid infection, their relative importance should be assessed through proper selection of experimental groups: unvaxxed with covid, unvaxxed without covid, vaxxed (1,2, and 3 doses) with covid, and vaxxed without covid.

Otherwise, the complicating effects of mRNA vaccination on Covid outcomes will be underestimated.

• National rates of heart disease and stroke among all age groups, known common outcomes of both vaccination and Covid-19, need to be monitored in real time, rather than reporting at a three year lag as is happening at present.
• Cancer rates need to be monitored. Mutagenic cancer-causing events could become more common when T cell function is suppressed, as it is immediately after mRNA vaccination.

Action Step—Assisting Those Affected

Most importantly, we need to make renewed efforts to identify and assist those affected. 

Due to lack of information, misinformation, or in some cases indifference, GPs and hospital doctors have dismissed many serious medical events as unrelated to vaccination.

Thus people suffering strokes, cardiac events, occurence or resurgence of cancers, and a wide range of other conditions have been left in the dark concerning possible causes.

As such, they have been unaware of the possibility of making insurance and ACC claims. Nor in many cases, have families been able to make rational sense of sudden debilitating health impacts. 

Qualified personnel volunteering at NZDSOS, VFF, and the Health Forum NZ have for more than a year been dialoguing with those affected who have been alert to a possible connection.

No cooperative investigation has been undertaken by Medsafe and the Ministry of Health who have thereby ensured that they remain in blissful ignorance of the true extent of adverse effects.

This is a scandal that needs to be rectified immediately. 

The content and character of government Covid messaging needs to change radically. It should encourage people to come forward, whose health has been affected since the mRNA vaccination rollout began.

A demonstrably independent team should be set up, dedicated to creating a reliable statistical picture and treatment system. This should cover both the vaccine injured and long Covid sufferers.

PART TWO

The Likely Origin of Covid Needs to Influence Our Approach

There is another vital and cogent reason why the vaxxed and unvaxxed have a common cause.

It is likely that both Covid-19 and the mRNA vaccines have similar origins and certain that they have similar effects.

Although we may never know the exact sequence of events that led to the pandemic, there are many reasons to suppose that Covid-19 originated in a laboratory:

• Twelve genetic sequences in the spike protein were known to laboratories before the pandemic. The odds against their appearance together in a specific functioning order have been estimated by some to be more than a trillion to one. One of these sequences reportedly originated in the HIV pathogen, another was the subject of a Moderna patent—sources too diverse to suddenly merge together in a natural setting.
• Chinese virologist Shi Zengli working at the Wuhan Virology Lab, is now known to have been conducting gain of function research funded by the US government. Before the pandemic, she created novel pathogens capable of infecting humans that involved the insertion of unusual sequences similar to those found in the Covid-19 spike protein. Her successful endeavours are the subject of papers she published prior to 2020.
• The high mutation rate and apparent instability of the Covid-19 pathogen that has led to the formation of over 30,000 variants and to radical changes in its symptoms as it mutated, indicates that Covid-19 was probably not a naturally occurring relatively stable variant in an animal population. Moreover the unique spike protein configuration has not been found in animal viruses despite a vigorous search.
• The determination of the Chinese government right from the start to completely eradicate Covid-19, indicates that they possibly knew something about its origins and the dangers it posed. It is possible that they had foreknowledge of the exact nature, purpose, and dangers of the gain of function experiments being conducted at Wuhan.

We now know that the highly unusual Covid spike protein has a strongly toxic effect on the human physiology both from Covid infection and following mRNA vaccination. 

The mRNA vaccine teaches human cells to produce the novel spike protein in order to stimulate an immune response.

Following mRNA vaccination, our body creates spike protein sequences in high concentrations, millions if not billions of times higher than the exposure you might receive from an air borne Covid infection caused by someone coughing or sneezing.

In some cases, the physiology produces or harbours spike protein for months after both vaccination and Covid infection where it is able to continue to adversely affect health.

Action Step—Biotechnology Experimentation Should be Paused

Biotech experimentation is very risky. It has likely created a lethal disease and certainly a lethal vaccine, both of which have had global impacts on health running to millions of casualties.

We must insist on a rational debate about these topics and action to curb laboratory work, otherwise, exotic biotechnology experimentation will continue and proliferate. 

Already pharmaceutical PR is calling for more investment in biotechnology to ‘avert’ future threats. A claim that should be dismissed as absurd. The idea that biotechnology is curing disease is the stuff of myths.

In actuality, as we have just experienced, it is introducing lethal and random risks affecting genetic stability and immune function. This should have been well known through the results of earlier studies on gene therapy outcomes.

Due to government indifference to enforcing ethical safeguards of experimentation, their lack of attention to science publishing, and their reliance on the deceptively comforting use of the word ‘vaccine’ to describe a novel and ineffective biotechnology intervention, we are facing an ongoing global public health crisis of unprecedented proportions.

The implication is that biotechnology experimentation should be paused around the world, otherwise inevitable laboratory accidents will occur again, possibly with even more devastating consequences.

Guy Hatchard has written a book Discovering and Defending Your DNA Diet.