When a serious crime has been committed, the police generally lose no time in their efforts to locate the culprit and bring them to account.

In this article we consider our long term prospects and what we need to do to improve them.

What Happened This Morning?

When you back a sure fire horse with your whole pay packet and it loses, what do you say to your partner and family when you arrive home on Friday afternoon empty handed? 

Dr. Rochelle Walensky, director of the US Centre for Disease Control, regretted that no one warned her that Covid-19 vaccines waned in effectiveness and wouldn’t be effective against future variants. Surprising really, Dr Walensky presumably has a highly qualified staff. A short Google search of scholarly papers would have alerted them to this highly likely outcome.

Yesterday newspapers around the world reported the death of a man who had been given a heart transplanted from a genetically engineered pig. This occurred two months after the transplant. He was more lucky than the recent recipients of genetically altered pig kidneys which worked for up to three days. NIH journal Medline tried to reassure us concerning biotechnology:

“Medical researchers, institutions, and regulatory agencies are working to ensure that gene therapy research, clinical trials, and approved treatments are as safe as possible.” 

But the Wall Street Journal recently thundered a note of warning saying: 

“Safety scares, including deaths of several young study subjects, have set back efforts to bring more gene therapies to market, clouding one of biotech’s most promising technologies and hottest sectors.”

In more news:

• Moderna’s shares have fallen by 70% since their highs last year, following action in Scandinavian countries to limit the use of their Covid-19 mRNA vaccine following safety concerns and worries about future lawsuits, but a bulletin from Moderna today reported that, following the huge success of their mRNA Covid-19 vaccine, a human trial had began of their mRNA vaccine for HIV.

• Here at home, Radio New Zealand complained that Mayor Sandra Goudie of Thames-Coromandel was still refusing to be vaccinated “despite widespread evidence…Covid vaccines are safe, and the fact Covid-19 vaccines are the most well-studied vaccines ever made.” They certainly are the most studied vaccines ever, but has no one told RNZ of one important conclusion of the studies—mRNA Covid vaccines are the most dangerous vaccines ever produced by a factor of 30x at least. A document containing an extensive list of adverse effects released by Pfizer under court order last week certainly underlined this. Sandra Goudie, unlike RNZ, has kept up to date.

• The UK Transport Minister the Rt Hon Grant Shapps MP joined thousands of other ill-informed politicians across the world and replied to a correspondent “Currently, the evidence shows that a full course of vaccination offers individuals the most effective level of health protection against the virus.” UKHSA, the official body for Covid stats, would have to disagree. Their recent data shows that the vaccinated are now more likely to contract Covid than the unvaccinated.

• On the drug frontline, Pharmac chief medical officer Dr David Hughes announced that Ronapreve, the first Covid-19 engineered monoclonal antibody drug to be approved by Medsafe and bought in quantity by New Zealand, does not actually work against Omicron. Did Medsafe know that such drugs are designed to be variant specific and therefore have limited applicability to coronaviruses?

And today we heard that the most draconian Covid mandate policies in the EU enforced by Austria, which included massive fines for the unvaccinated, have been rescinded. Minister Karoline Edtstadler said the law’s ‘encroachment of fundamental rights’ could no longer be justified by the mild danger posed by the pandemic (if it ever was). 

Who is to Blame?

No doubt at some point New Zealand will join almost all other nations who have recognised that Omicron is a relatively mild illness and consequently stopped enforcing mandates. Yet this will not be ‘job done’. The deaths associated with Covid-19 are due to three causes: 

• A disease that was likely engineered in a lab by gain of function experimentation. 

• A genetically engineered mRNA vaccine whose adverse effect rates have dwarfed that of any previous vaccine.

• Government complicity in moves to reject preventive and early treatment approaches, instead enforcing vaccination as a standalone strategy.

Vaccination has serious adverse effects and Covid-19 variants have posed serious short and long term challenges to health. When evidence mounts up against a serial killer, they are taken into custody to protect the population. Who is possibly a serial killer here?

A reckless community of biotechnology innovators intent on altering the fundamental structure of life itself. Not in one country either. Scientists in the USA, UK, France, and China funded by their governments set about creating new diseases designed to infect humans at the Wuhan Lab, and continue to do so at labs around the world. Now these same scientists wish us to believe that they should be put in charge of our health.

In Which Direction Are We Headed and Are We There Yet?

During the last ten years, modern medicine has been in crisis. Medical misadventure—disease caused by medicine itself—has become the third leading cause of death in the USA. 50% of the population have one or more chronic illnesses—diseases with no known pharmaceutical cure for which only palliative care is available.

By 2012, life expectancy had plateaued and then began to reverse. People are living shorter lives. Yet the United States spends more on medical care per capita than any other country in the world. American doctors earn more than twice that paid to doctors in the most affluent nations including ours.

It is no surprise that doctors are highly paid, personal health is highly prized, but medical doctors get paid whether their clients get better or not. They are largely protected from liability if any of the products they prescribe cause harm. Does the medical profession operate rather like a secretive medieval trade guild, whereby they are the only ones allowed to advise about health?

In other words—a virtual monopoly. Not entirely. Fifty percent of the population buy natural health products to help manage their own personal health, but when it comes to government and insurance funding, modern medicine has a virtual strangle hold. Something that the medical profession treasures and protects very carefully.

The majority of these same doctors are the leading lights in the promotion of mRNA technology and they are being paid very well by governments to do so.

Watch Out for More Restrictions Ahead

Moreover there are moves afoot to extend this further by regulating the use of natural health products. Andrew Little, New Zealand Minister of Health plans to effect this by reviving the Natural Health Products Bill that was abandoned in 2017 after public opposition.

It is surprising how many ordinary foods and supplements that pharmaceutical companies and medical regulators would like to restrict. See my original video which explained it:

Self-regulated Healthcare

Let’s talk about health. The truth is that 95% of our health is supported by our diet, behaviour and state of mind. No one needs a doctor to confirm this, it’s obvious, but nevertheless there are multiple studies confirming that diet, nutrition, exercise, rest, and happiness are the basis of health.

Unsurprisingly simple dietary advice can often do more for health than a course of prescription pills. For example, did you know that ice cold drinks impair digestive capacity? Try sipping hot water at intervals throughout the day, rather than exclusively hydrating with fizzy drinks, alcohol, tea, or coffee. This can lift your health dramatically, but it is unlikely that your GP will advise this, because, despite years of training, they know little about the fundamentals of nutrition.

I am not writing here to advise you on your health, but I am suggesting that for many chronic conditions that prescription drugs cannot cure, there are well known natural adjustments to diet, exercise, and behaviour that can help resolve them.

Increasingly if your GP fails to advise you to take pharmaceutical drugs, and instead suggests alternatives, he is at risk of being censored by his profession. As the crisis in modern medicine has unfolded, and then been exacerbated by the pandemic, responsible and thinking GPs are being forced out of the profession because they are using their time to research and prescribe more effective, safe alternatives to pharmaceutical regimes which cause side effects.

This is the work of a proto monopoly, moreover a monopoly that is becoming less and less effective. A monopoly that is increasingly being controlled by the PR specialists employed by multinational pharmaceutical giants. Yet research points to the need for more not less of this. More self-regulated health care.

Conclusion

No response to the pandemic will be complete until :

• Risky biotechnology research is paused while safety regulatory standards are enhanced and made mandatory

• National medical funding programmes begin to sponsor natural preventive and treatment strategies that are proven safe and useful by research and traditional use

• Constitutional change is enacted that will more deeply cement the human right to freely choose medical options 

Globalisation has enabled huge financial players to launch novel and risky biotechnology and ideas. A man-made disaster has been presented by mainstream media and government sponsored advertising as a naturally occurring pandemic without conclusive proof, in defiance of published evidence to the contrary.

Novel gene therapy has been called a ‘vaccine’ in order to smooth its unthinking acceptance. This originated in a supranational global space—a sort of unregulated wild west. The political leaders and leading thinkers of every nation need to be alert, precautionary, and protective rather than unthinking first adopters, just as Texas sheriffs had to enforce the law when cattle rustlers rode into town.

The Guardian newspaper reported UK data yesterday confirming what many know already—the effectiveness of boosters wanes rapidly. It may leave people more vulnerable to illness than before. Are our government ministers up to date or are they continuing on blind faith into uncharted territory?

We are at a critical point in medical history. Right decisions made now, based on objectively considered evidence, can ensure the health of nations. Decisions based on imaginings, following the advice of those seeking professional kudos or short term profit above all else, will lead to a modern medical dystopia.

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

Sometimes I have an opportunity to respond to influential members of the medical profession. I do so in the hope that a dialogue can begin.

This morning I wrote to a leading medical professional often quoted in the newspapers as follows

Dear XXXX

Thank you very much for taking the time to reply to XXXX’s letter. I appreciate that you are busy and no doubt have many responsibilities.

I note that you are not responding on behalf of the Ministry of Health, but I am also aware that your advice is occasionally sought and quoted by journalists.

You raise a number of points and I want to take the time to outline concerns in a more formal way.

You are right there are concerns about data capture.

We are both aware that accurate data capture is absolutely fundamental to the assessment of drug safety.

You acknowledge that the CARM system has been largely a fail safe system to look for red flags rather than a comprehensive reporting process.

No doubt that has been very adequate when the drugs and vaccines being used here have already gone through extensive and lengthy trials during which reporting is mandatory.

Therefore, given the short trials for mRNA vaccines, the red flags already raised during the trials, and the subsequent inadequacies of the trials pointed out by the BMJ, the implementation of a more rigorous reporting system should have been implemented.

Especially considering that here in NZ we have had up until recently a unique opportunity to monitor the effects of vaccination in isolation from the confounding data from Covid itself. 

You say that we have a high rate of reporting in NZ.

Medsafe itself estimates this to be of the order of 5% of events, too low to support a reasonable degree of statistical validity especially considering that the 5% is not a random sample.

You contend mandatory reporting would still be incomplete and therefore should not be attempted, and you draw an analogy with the Australian system of mandatory voting in elections which results in some spoiled ballot papers.

This is hardly comparable.

I also note that the Ministry of Health did not institute a cautionary process of informing doctors of a need for accurate and complete reporting with a novel vaccine.

Even a cursory survey of animal trials of mRNA vaccines would have reinforced the need for this.

I note that there is a NZ system of surveying some people by text up to 8 days after vaccination known as PVSC.

I have reviewed the information on PVSC. I note that 38% of respondents reported at least one adverse effect.

I find Medsafe’s reassurance as follows is misleading: “The profile of reported events to PVSC of the Pfizer (Comirnaty) COVID-19 vaccine is similar to that reported in clinical trials and from post-marketing surveillance overseas.

Based on this data we have not identified any new safety concerns.”

This is because short follow up like PVSC is normally only used subsequent to extensive and mandatory reporting during pre-marketing trials which has not taken place in this case.

More importantly the rate of adverse effects is 30 times of that previously experienced with flu vaccines. It is hard to understand why this high rate did not and does not raise safety concerns.

We now move on to a consideration of deaths proximate to vaccination.

You will be aware that there are around 150 deaths in the weeks after vaccination reported to CARM.

You are probably also aware that a significantly larger number of deaths (more than twice as many confirmed and a great many more under investigation) have been reported to NZDSOS.

It is concerning that Medsafe has not reached out to NZDSOS to reconcile the two sets of information.

Anyone would say that a suitable response to a medical emergency is cooperation, not hostility and cancellation.

You rightly point out that an important element of evaluation is the comparison of frequency of adverse events with population norms.

You appear to agree that the voluntary and therefore incomplete process of data collection and the small numbers involved here in NZ make our own efforts in this direction subject to error.

I have no confidence in the Medsafe attempts to do this and even more concern because they present these incomplete figures on their website as ‘proof’ of vaccine safety.

You say you have confidence in overseas agencies to undertake this process accurately, I would be very happy to hear more about it.

My investigations so far have not found anyone undertaking this with sufficient rigor and publishing their results.

Thankfully it has been admitted that there is a link between myopericarditis and Covid vaccination, although this did not receive any substantive publicity here in NZ until after the vaccination rollout was mostly complete in December.

This delay was a disgrace. It denied informed consent to our young people.

MoH’s insistence that the vaccine induced form of this illness is mild and short-lived without sufficient research adds insult to injury. 

Are you aware of the very numerous reports on social media of GPs and EDs denying any need for investigation and failing to report conditions including persistent chest pain, breathing difficulties, and tachycardia, based on a tacit assumption that these are in fact due to vaccine anxiety?

My own daughter-in-law was turned away from ED in this way.

Are busy GPs and ED staff well informed of known risks? It appears not.

The continuing saturation government advertising advising safety and efficacy has also curated a reluctance to come forward with reports of vaccine injury and a reluctance on the part of the medical profession to acknowledge that a wider range of adverse effects might be in play.

This extends to heart disease, strokes, and persistent debility such as chronic fatigue.

In this and the allied fear-building contention that Covid is a very serious illness, we see that the government is using the well known propaganda methods of suggestibility. 

I live in the country, but I have found a range of sudden onset illnesses proximate to vaccination among my government-trusting neighbours and friends: 

A teacher with persistent chest pain and shortness of breath who after an introductory safety lecture at his school had no idea there were any side effects at all.

A lady with chronic fatigue who has had to stop work for three months.

A neighbour with kidney disease immediately after vaccination.

My best friend who died from rapid immune deficiency and carditis, two others of my age with sudden onset leukaemia (no previous history) both of whom have responded unexpectedly to chemotherapy.

At no point with any of these people, I have subsequently learned, was there any suggestion from their medical professionals that these conditions might have anything to do with vaccination.

These cases remain unreported to CARM.

Conversely my lawyer in Whangarei has had 250 people enquire about support for their contention that they have been affected by vaccination.

In your conclusion you specifically point out the value of vaccination to protect against Omicron saying that “Further more as a front line health care professional I am extremely supportive of a vaccination programme that reduces the burden on our services, as it is clearly showing right now in the middle of an omicron surge, we still have much lower hospitalisation rates and death rates because of high vaccination rates. Something NZ can be proud about”.

Yet the latest data does not support your contention.

The cumulative data published by MoH might point in that direction, but if you translate that into current daily and weekly data, this is no longer the case for example:

For the Feb 25-27 period:

Of all the vaccinated people in NZ
 1% tested covid positive
 0.002% are in hospital and covid positive

Of all the unvaccinated people in NZ
 0.4% tested covid positive
 0.001% are in hospital and covid positive

84.4% of covid positive cases are among the vaccinated.

The Absolute Risk difference for hospitalisation between vaxxed and unvaxxed is 0%.

This is consistent with published data from the Kaiser Permanente health care in California and the data from the UKHSA and Scotland Health.

The latest data from insurance companies in the USA and the EU points to large percentage increases in all cause mortality among the working population.

There is also an increase in a very broad range of illnesses among US military personnel.

This is currently the subject of academic debate and publishing.

Looking at this the balance of evidence leads to a conclusion that these figures are a mixture of the effects of both Covid and vaccination.

Some of these results may also be mediated by poor health among the general US population.

It is a possible conclusion of this data that vaccination followed by Covid may pack a one two punch.

This will need to be researched carefully when evaluating the long term effects of Covid and Covid vaccination.

Up until now, polarisation of opinion has led to many such probable interpretations of data to be rejected without investigation. 

Therefore I entirely agree with you that the evidence has to be investigated.

Results will also have to be acknowledged and publicised.

I am hoping at this point that rather than the continuous barrage of publicity urging boosters, there will be some honest public discussion and government reflection.

As a high profile medical professional you could play a role in brokering this.

I hope you have time to consider these issues and I look forward to a dialogue. 

Yours sincerely

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

Guy is the author of Discovering and Defending Your DNA Diet

Public Statement by Guy Hatchard Ph.D. Following a meeting with the Chief Commissioner Paul Hunt of the NZ Human Rights Commission

23 February 2022

Dear Commissioner

Thank you for providing the opportunity to present to yourself and staff yesterday afternoon. I did so as an individual scientist but on the invitation of Voices For Freedom. I remain independent of groups, but maintain communication with many groups and colleagues on scientific issues.

I am not a protestor, nor do I have any history prior to the pandemic of publicly opposing vaccination. I am formerly a senior manager at Genetic ID a global food safety testing and certification company (now known as FoodChain ID).

I am a long standing advocate of the benefits and safety of those natural approaches to diet and medicine which have been adequately scientifically verified. I have my own website, HatchardReport.com.

At the conclusion of the meeting you said that the HRC would make a public statement and left the participants free to make public statements themselves. Thank you.

This morning I read your public statement following the meeting which affirms that you feel a duty to listen, and adduces “It’s clear that the protesters who I have met with have very real stories of loss and suffering. They feel broken and discarded due to the impact of Covid-19 health measures on their lives.” You also expressed a measure of caution.

As a person experienced in the analysis of data and the assessment of scientific information, I am increasingly aware of deficiencies in official NZ pandemic data and its use to support continuations of now outdated government policy. Outdated government policy and incomplete official data directly impacts the rights of individuals.

For example, since 21 August 2021, the Ministry of Health (MoH) has been publishing data related to the Covid outbreak in a cumulative fashion. This data shows that 60% of cases occur in the vaccinated (against a vaccinated population rate of 79%), and that 70% of hospitalisations are among the unvaccinated.

This appears to strongly support vaccination, however it is misleading due to the cumulative nature of the data, (and incidentally because of the way vaccination status is categorised). Cumulative data only reveals the average of the whole outbreak, not the current daily and weekly trends.

Since October 2021, members of my support team have been calculating ‘snapshots’ of data by subtracting report data from each subsequent report. This has allowed me to see the current burden of cases by vaccination status for any specific time period, and to calculate the hospitalisation risk disparity for cases by vaccination status. Below is an example of the data between February 17 and 18:

This snapshot data paints a very different and relevant picture. It is indicative that during the present phase of our Covid outbreak, those that are vaccinated may be at slightly higher risk of hospitalisation than those who are unvaccinated. The general trends and overseas data support this concern.

You will be well aware that this is in contrast to government and media messaging strongly encouraging booster vaccinations as essential. If you ignore the crucial issue of very high rates of adverse effects, this could possibly be supported by the historical cumulative Covid data, but it is certainly not supported by current data.

The reason for the ineffectiveness of mRNA vaccination must also be obvious to you from yesterday’s presentations and the supporting submissions provided to you by presenters. The characteristics of Omicron are quite different from those of Delta. Omicron is a variant that has adapted to prefer infection of vaccinated individuals. From the perspective of genomics, this results from the well documented path of viral evolution.

I note that Medsafe has admitted in small print on its website, generally unnoticed and uncommented by media, that the phenomenon of vaccine acquired immune deficiency (which I allude to above) is a risk about which they have concern.

The Human Rights implications of this are also obvious. Incentives and encouragement to vaccinate, when its benefit is in doubt, but the risk of harm is well documented, do not amount to a process of informed consent or medical risk mitigation. Today in your public statement you clearly extend personal sympathy to those affected by adverse vaccine reactions.

Many among the wider population are becoming aware of risks through personal experiences. For example a friend of mine is a director of a large business, one of his relatives has been affected by myocarditis, but his work colleagues remained sceptical of any risk.

Recently the father of one of their employees had a booster shot immediately followed by a massive heart attack. As a result, the opinion of his colleagues has swung back in full support of my friend’s informed choice. This kind of experience is reforming public opinion up and down the country (and even I have heard in Parliament). It is no surprise that booster uptake has barely reached 50% of those eligible.

I come to the point of my writing, in addition to a big thank you for taking the time to listen at length, I submit that the human rights abuses are a matter of daily misery for many, extending to some dramatic and devastating personal health impacts which are escalating as booster shots are rolled out. In my opinion, it is not tenable to delay action.

The government has curated extremes of public opinion fearful of Covid outcomes, in favour of experimental mRNA vaccination, and prejudiced against those reluctant to vaccinate. As you know, this has extended to punitive measures.

As published evidence has accumulated which points to increased health risks of vaccination and therefore a need to revise policy, the government has dug its heels in and doubled down on announcements of vaccine safety and effectiveness. The Ministry of Health’s restricted presentation of data along with its refusal to institute mandatory reporting of adverse effects verges on the deliberately misleading and implies a cover up.

I surmise from your extensive history of supporting human rights, that you will know there is a fine line between unfortunate mistakes and deliberate suppression of fact. I believe that line is now being crossed in New Zealand.

Leadership in this situation involves a willingness to speak up, even if the message may be unwelcome, and a capacity to change direction. Every day that passes by without action means growing economic misery and exclusion for some and crucially some serious health incidents for others. There is an imperative for the Commission to stand up and say unequivocally there is a case which has been made and needs to be answered. A case that requires an open public dialogue.

Therefore I warmly welcome your statement:

“The job given to the Human Rights Commission, Te Kāhui Tika Tangata, by Parliament is to listen, conciliate, educate and advance human rights and responsibilities for all”

I am asking you here to follow this statement with a timely call for a wider public process that will go beyond a possibly poorly informed, and certainly based on past experience, opaque review confined within the corridors of parliamentary power. The HRC is there to protect and uphold rights independently from parliament.

As I indicated in my submission, incidence of adverse effects and death proximate to Covid vaccination in NZ and elsewhere have far surpassed thresholds set by medical ethics and protocol that should also trigger an immediate pause in vaccination. This is not a time to delay, the situation has already passed beyond a point requiring prompt action. Can you please advise me of the intended HRC time frame?

I will, as you have already indicated I may, make this statement publicly available.

I look forward to hearing more from the Commission shortly. I remain ready to provide any scientific information you need within a short time frame. As you know, I have already submitted to the HRC a list of 1000 published papers on adverse effects of mRNA vaccination.

Yours sincerely

Guy Hatchard PhD