Every global shift in power has its own quasi scientific philosophy.
At first sight, the pandemic has brought together unusual bedfellows into a nascent global power structure—the medical profession, a new generation of youthful politicians, mainstream media, biotechnology advocates, globalists, social media moguls, tech giants, very large investment umbrellas, and the commercial pharmaceutical industry.
No doubt there are financial incentives involved, but the philosophy which they share is key to understanding their common cause. Unpicking the flaws in their philosophy reveals they are a danger to themselves.
At the very root of the new outlook are concepts ported from established science that coincidentally, at the same time they became geopolitical fashions, were increasingly being called into question by cutting-edge science.
These revolve around the notion that natural law and therefore our human condition is fundamentally the result of random processes and no holds barred competition. This implies that life itself can be manipulated and controlled with impunity. Whatever your beliefs, this is an amoral philosophy.
The popular acceptance of the dominant role of chance in the emergence of life and its evolution, has helped to undermine notions of morality, right, and wrong.
Allied to this is the idea that life is a winner takes all competition in which only the fittest survive. For almost two centuries this philosophy has nourished the idea that might is always right—that some people are destined to rule in its most absolute sense.
The present social transformation does not however appear to be a revival of the philosophy of Nietzsche, Hitler or Chairman Mao, it prides itself as a democratic social good. It promises freedom from disease and long life.
All the stakeholders are bound together, imagining themselves as participating in a long awaited health revolution in which everyone is a winner. It will free them from the vicissitudes and uncertainties of random chance and put them back in charge of their own destiny via the miraculous manipulation of DNA.
Chance or Design?
But is life a chance phenomenon?
Are chemical and physical phenomena arbitrary, their properties linked by evolutionary chance and circumstances to the particular kinds of life which emerged through adaptive processes and continued to adapt through a series of fortuitous events?
Is therefore genetic manipulation a route to a more rapid pace of evolution? Or more starkly put, is life a matter of chance rather than design?
This question does actually have testable scientific content, and that testing has been recently completed. Zachary Blount, reporting in 2017 (BLOUNT, Z. D., Replaying Evolution Is the living world more a result of happenstance or repeatable processes? American Scientist, Vol 105 p. 156-165, May-June 2017. ) states the proposition as:
“if evolution is highly contingent (on chance events), then it is inherently unrepeatable.”
In fact, by studying thousands of generations of bacteria and by looking closely at related species of lizards on separate islands within an archipelago, Dr. Blount and his colleagues have concluded that evolution is both repeatable and contingent on chance.
Evolutionists have coined the phrase evolutionary potential, to cover its repeatable element. Dr. Blount concludes that there is a need to understand how chance and evolutionary potential interact:
“A better comprehension of evolutionary potential and its role in contingency will require a multidisciplinary effort involving not just evolutionary biologists, but also molecular biologists, geneticists, biophysicists, and systems biologists”.
In other words, the present popular understanding of evolution as solely the result of environmental adaptation and competition following random mutation is incomplete and potentially misleading.
Cooperation or competition?
Moreover, nature is also primarily cooperative rather than only competitive. The co-evolution of plants and insects is very instructive in this regard.
Dr. Benjamin Rubin writing in the journal Nature Communications (RUBIN, B. E. R., MOREAU, C. S., Comparative genomics reveals convergent rates of evolution in ant–plant mutualisms, Nature Communications 7, Article number: 12679 25 August 2016) reports new findings which suggest that cooperative, mutualistic, or symbiotic behaviour between different species results in faster genetic evolution. Cooperation is a winning strategy.
I would concur with both Dr. Blount and Dr. Rubin and add the need to reference their work to foundational physics. There are underlying universal laws of nature elucidated by physics which support life in a particular form and have given rise to emergent properties of life.
These most fundamental unified laws of nature have properties which are recognisably intelligent. Their non-abelian mathematical character identifies them as self-referral, creative, and holistic, as if conscious.
Living systems acquire and extend all the properties which are inherent in the design of nature. Life then is lawful, it has rules by which it unfolds.
I am not concerned here with how much the major players of the pandemic consciously articulate these ideas, but rather they merely feel that as life in its broadest sense is the result of chance and competition, it can be and should be redesigned by themselves however they see fit.
In this philosophy, there are no absolute rules or rights. The rules can be changed. This is all about humans being free to redesign nature without constraints, to make it their own. A sort of biotechnology heaven in which we ourselves make the rules.
Genetic Manipulation is Dangerous
From this perspective genetic manipulation becomes a matter of fulfilling our human destiny to overrule nature. The complete opposite of nature knows better than man how to organise. I have already discussed the inherent dangers of genetic manipulation at length (see my YouTube video The Pandemic of Biotechnology).
The naive promotion of a medical future dominated by biotechnology, undertaken by the leaders of the so-called new world order including our prime minister, amounts to a self-destructive folly which threatens to engulf the world in an era of mass extinction. An era towards which many are sleep walking, lulled into complacency and compliance.
Research in evolutionary genetics highlights this frightening prospect. David Reich, leading professor of genetics at Harvard University, has studied the DNA of ancient human remains using ground breaking techniques.
His book ‘Who We Are and How We Got Here’ reports that our current conception of the evolution of modern humans is faulty. The genes that support higher human abilities such as skills with language and tools are not the result of a genetic mutation in Africa 350,000 years ago, they have been part of our genome for at least a million years, probably more than five million years.
Play with these at your peril. He also reports that almost total human extinction events, known as Adam and Eve events, are far more common that we have previously realised.
Naive, uninformed, and unregulated application of genetic manipulation is a path that should have been left untravelled, but unfortunately it is a path already ventured.
There is still time to shut pandora’s box, but with every new step of government and media sponsored compulsion that time is running out. The great idea of the Great Reset is actually a poisoned chalice.
Guy Hatchard Ph.D. was formerly a senior manager at Genetic ID a global food safety and certification company (now known as FoodChain ID). He is the author of the book: “Discovering and Defending Your DNA Diet”
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)
Here in New Zealand, you have to go through a complicated process of separating historical data from the cumulative reports our Ministry of Health publishes, you then discover what the current situation is—Omicron is affecting the vaccinated proportionately more than the unvaccinated.
Why would our Ministry of Health be concerned to hide this from us?
You may not be surprised to learn that there is a global effort to make sure the information we receive is heavily slanted towards a continuing programme of mRNA vaccinations for all.
Two days ago I sent a letter to Paul Hunt, Chief Commissioner for Human Rights in New Zealand. With Dr. Hunt’s permission, this letter has been widely circulated.
Today I received an email from Australia with some pushback. Apparently, a kindly GP over the ditch wanted to point out that my letter was inaccurate and I was a prime example of the ‘unscientific’ thinkers questioning the wisdom of vaccination. He cited what he referred to as a ‘large study’.
So I clicked on the link and came to not a ‘large study’ but a newsletter published by ‘Health Desk’. Health Desk described itself as an initiative of ‘Meedan’.
Meedan is an organisation devoted to strengthening global journalism by uncovering ‘misinformation’. Meedan undertakes cooperative ventures with the Google News Initiative to develop machine learning technologies in order to mine social media and create ‘fact checkers’.
Probably the same fact checkers that delete any posts from social media sites which raise questions about Covid vaccination safety and deaths. Including the deletion of published papers from reputable scientific journals such as the BMJ.
This is a case of AI machines programmed by people to promote their agenda.
Meedan is founded and supported by Pierre Omidyar, co-founder of eBay. Omidyar Foundation is allied with many organisations. Among its largest financial contributors are the World Bank and the World Economic Forum.
Meedan is also supported by the Robert Wood Foundation, a 13 billion dollar US foundation devoted exclusively and rather vaguely to healthcare coverage.
Health Desk states that its purpose is to serve journalists worldwide by publicising content about Covid-19 vaccination created by Science Media Centres in order to counter ‘misinformation’.
Science Media Centre (SMC) was first set up in 2002 in the UK to counter opposition to GM crops. It has since blossomed into a global science lobbying service with outlets in many countries (including NZ).
It is supported by among others AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Dupont, and Welcome all of whom are possibly known to you as global pharmaceutical organisations.
I quickly found that the article in Health Desk contained exactly the same ‘errors’ that our Ministry of Health is making. The latest Covid data is confounded with historical data in order to make it appear that unvaccinated individuals are more vulnerable to Covid-19 infection and hospitalisation, whereas with Omicron the reverse is true.
It might not have escaped your notice that there is a potential benefit to pharmaceutical companies such as Pfizer and AstraZeneca if the myth of Covid mRNA vaccine efficacy could be perpetuated.
So why would our Ministry of Health and Medsafe cooperate with this drivel?
ICMRA sends out Covid policy advice to Medsafe via a global database. Just as Science Media Centres began with a mission to support GM crops and thereby oppose natural crops, ICMRA began with a mission that called for the extreme regulation of herbal medicine and natural products.
My critic from Australia finished his assessment by referring to the advice of the Royal College of Australian GPs, which also appeared to be curated by the global pharmaceutical lobby.
I reflected that busy GPs probably have little time to research original papers published in learned journals, they are left with digests of misleading information produced by official sounding but actually private international bodies with commercial agendas who have long since lost touch with actual research findings and the basics of health.
As a result of this type of lobbying, medical misadventure became the third leading cause of death, and now our government has mandated the most dangerous and deadly medicine in history for all, including even our children.
My point is that our health service has been co-opted by foreign commercial interests that do not have the health of the nation at heart. As a result, we are suffering a tsunami of adverse health effects.
We must speak up now and free our health service from this novel untested biotechnology madness.
Guy Hatchard PhD was formerly a senior manager at Genetic ID a global food safety testing and certification company (now known as FoodChain ID)
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.
Now that many governments including New Zealand have at last laid out some criteria to end mandates and vaccine passes, we ask is this sufficient to resolve the problems created by pandemic policy and prevent a recurrence?
This article starts by laying out the gist of prevalent pro-vaccination arguments in order to be able to set up a rational summary of our current knowledge concerning Covid-19 mRNA vaccination safety and set up an exit strategy by recommending measures that will help resolve the divisions in society.
Attitudes to Vaccine Hesitancy and Effectiveness
No consideration of vaccination can omit mention of the MMR and autism scandal of the nineties.
In 1998, the Lancet published a paper by physician Andrew Wakefield that claimed there was a link between the measles, mumps and rubella vaccination and incidence of colitis and autism spectrum disorders.
This paper led to much public vaccine hesitancy, but was later judged to contain misleading data and was withdrawn by the Lancet in 2010.
Whatever the merits of the case, ever since vaccination hesitancy has been linked with notions of fraud and criminal behaviour.
The discussion of this case now plays an important role in medical education, but unfortunately tends to promote an incautious attitude to vaccine safety procedures.
The MMR medical hoax has reinforced the notion that vaccination is always a social good and that vaccine hesitancy is a form of anti-intellectual, Luddite behaviour to which ill-informed people are particularly vulnerable.
A very long history of vaccination and its success in reducing the impact and elimination of some diseases such as smallpox have led to trust and reliance that places vaccination at the forefront of preventive medical strategies with a presumption of safety.
Medical literature has grown up which discusses the psychology of vaccine hesitancy and dismisses adverse effects of vaccination as predominantly a nocebo effect due to anxiety and mass hysteria.
It is this perspective that has dominated the discussion of Covid-19 adverse effects in the world.
It is particularly noteworthy that the David Skegg committee here in New Zealand was almost exclusively composed of experts in epidemiology, a profession who would largely share this perspective as one of their core values.
There is an understanding in the epidemiological field that vaccination is the preferred solution to communicable disease which will ultimately be sufficient to control its spread.
For example, Philip Hill, McAuley Professor of International Health, Co-Director, Centre for International Health, Department of Preventive and Social Medicine, Otago Medical School, wrote to me on 1st September 2021
“A protective immune signature is often elusive and vaccines are actually quite primitive in design, and often don’t need to be anything other than that. For Covid, we are actually still in the first generation and there will be lots of improvements – to dosing, dose interval, boosting and adjusting for variants. The fact that one has to give them to everyone to protect the few from falling victim (death) is unlikely to ever change I wouldn’t have thought.”
Professor Hill could not have been aware of just how much of a structural break in vaccine methods the novel mRNA technology represented.
Like most medical professionals busy and isolated in their work environment, he would have been limited by exposure to rosy commercial biotechnology PR which was promising more exact techniques and outcomes in its search for funding.
As a result, he would not have anticipated the public health disaster of Covid vaccine adverse effects that was beginning to unfold.
He shared the medical profession’s acceptance of vaccine safety.
In fact, the very misuse of the term ‘vaccine’ to describe a novel experimental intervention was a source of reassurance.
The inside story among gene therapy researchers was far different from this.
Underwhelming and mutagenic outcomes were still plaguing animal and the few human trials approved.
For a discussion of the key issues, with references, see my video The Pandemic of Biotechnology:
Among the general public, pro-vaccination attitudes can be somewhat extreme and vary greatly in intensity.
At one end of the spectrum of opinion, especially since the start of the Covid pandemic, the notion has been passed around that unvaccinated individuals and those that refuse to have their children vaccinated are nothing more or less than murderers.
At the other end there are fears that unvaccinated individuals are unnecessarily using up healthcare resources by failing to protect themselves and others from sickness.
Pro-vaccination ideas have especially curated mainstream media attitudes to publishing.
For example, I received this message from Jesse Mulligan popular host of Afternoons on RNZ on 6th December 2021
“I enjoy some of your observations but I’m worried that you appear to line them up in a way that makes people lose perspective around the vaccine. I feel like anybody aiming to critique such an obviously positive public health measure should begin and end their messaging reminding people that any risks/flaws in the vaccine are minor compared to the horrific impacts of getting covid. I think your messages would be better received by the scientific/media community if that were the case.I don’t have the time to correspond with you on this at length but, for what it’s worth. If you’re putting people off getting a largely safe vaccine by what you’re writing about it, I think you need to review how you approach writing these messages.”
Note the “obviously positive” epithet ascribed to vaccination that is contrasted with the “horrific impacts” of Covid.
If you solely used mainstream media and government messaging as your sources of information, the foregoing discussion of Covid and mRNA vaccination would sit easily with you and ring true.
Jesse concludes by ruling out any public messaging that would put people off Covid vaccination.
This certainly chimes exactly with government messaging.
Does this conclusion stand up to scrutiny as Jesse suggests it obviously does?
Science and New Zealand Vaccine Policy—Impacts
The arguments for the safety and efficacy of vaccination, in general, underpin policies that enforce Covid-19 vaccination through restrictive mandates, but this simple narrative falls apart to a large extent when you look at Covid-19 science journal publishing.
This is a huge field.
I have a list for example of 1000 papers that deal with adverse effects of Covid-19 vaccination, and this is only a small part of the published literature.
New journal papers are coming out at an unprecedented rate.
The David Skegg Committee recommended that the New Zealand government undertake regular formal reviews of new pandemic scientific publishing to ensure its policies remain up to date.
I see no evidence that this has happened to any extent compatible with good faith.
Thus those busy people who rely on sources like Twitter and mainstream media digests for their information can be completely misled about the import and significance of Covid science publishing.
I summarise here only a few considerations which point to a divergence of government policy from published data and established medical safety protocols and ask ‘What are the human impacts of the unwavering application of New Zealand Covid vaccination policy as it was first formulated?’.
1. Children, teens and young adults are at low risk of harm from Covid-19 infection but at a relatively high risk of harm from mRNA vaccination.
The published arguments are complex, with many papers coming down on either side.
Crucially there is no mainstream consensus, advice is equivocal. See this recent paper in BMJ:
Conclusion: In the absence of published definitive data, incentives that coerce children to vaccinate by reducing opportunities to participate in social activities are in clear violation of the human rights of children to avoid quantifiable medical risk if they or their parents decide to do so.
2. It is no longer rationally and empirically arguable that vaccination significantly reduces transmission and infection (despite continuing reports in mainstream media to the contrary).
There is a huge volume of published data on this topic.
The situation is complicated by the fact that any marginal protection from mRNA vaccination wanes very rapidly, but also exposes vaccine recipients to additional risk.
Please note that most recent data from many countries including the United Kingdom and New Zealand point to at the very least proportionately equal rates per 100,000 of infections among both the vaccinated and unvaccinated.
This undermines prior justifications for mandates.
For a full discussion of the most reliable of recent paper on Omicron data see:
This paper which follows 50,000 subjects indicates that Omicron hospitalisation and death rates are very very low (lower than influenza).
Moreover, outcomes are similar for both vaccinated and unvaccinated.
3. The genetic techniques used in mRNA vaccines pose additional risks
It was established in the last quarter of 2020 that genetic sequences contained in both the Covid-19 virus and the mRNA vaccines can and do integrate into the human genome.
It places Covid-19 vaccination in a special high risk category that individuals have a right to avoid if they so wish.
The fact that adverse effects reported to Medsafe are running at 30 times the rate of flu vaccines is supportive of a sea change in the level of risk introduced by mRNA biotechnology techniques.
4. Mandatory reporting of Covid-19 vaccine adverse effects should have been instituted.
Even though mRNA vaccines went through only a short testing period of less than one year from which key phases of 10 year testing normal to vaccination safety protocols were omitted, the Ministry of Health has refused to institute mandatory reporting of adverse effects of the Covid-19 vaccination and continues to do so.
I have received two written communications to this effect from Dr. Astrid Koornneef Director, National Immunisation programme, writing on behalf of Dr. Ashley Bloomfield (one in December 2021 and one on 15 February 2022).
Koornneef admits:
“In some countries it is mandatory for healthcare professionals to report adverse reactions in specific circumstances, however New Zealand has a good reporting culture for adverse reactions in general.”
In other words: business as usual, no special procedures are necessary for a novel biotechnology approach that hasn’t been properly tested.
Our faith in vaccination is undimmed.
Critically, phases of testing designed to catch secondary medical effects of mRNA vaccination have never taken place.
Without mandatory reporting, there is no way any valid statistical constructs of safety can be constructed, the more so because Medsafe itself estimates just 5% of adverse effects are reported in New Zealand.
Nor can valid comparisons of adverse effect rates with population norms be made.
In addition, the total absence of long term testing of Covid-19 vaccines points to an obvious need for caution when applying vaccine mandates that have been ignored.
5. Adverse effects of Covid-19 vaccination are at least 30 times higher than those of traditional vaccines.
The situation of those many individuals seriously affected by mRNA vaccination is dire.
Government messaging on the topic is deliberately reassuring but short on detail.
The latest Medsafe report on adverse effects was issued on 16 February 2022:
UPDATE: It looks like the Ministry of Health has removed the medical exemptions page – Sorry – you don’t have permission to access this page on our server.
These are incredibly restrictive, a maximum duration of six months is allowed and all those being granted a temporary exemption are expected to eventually complete their vaccination in consultation with their medical practitioner.
Dr. Ashley Bloomfield alone has the power to grant exemptions.
Information about the number of exemptions granted and refused is hard to access, but exemptions are certainly few in number.
6. Social Media Reports
Due to Medsafe’s restricted and veiled discussion of adverse effects, there is only one way to access individual experiences—through social media.
Since many normal channels to ask questions are blocked by either mainstream media, medical or political indifference, social media has become a place of last resort for New Zealanders.
For example on 17 February 2022 the Health Forum NZ which has 35,000 members posted a question on its FB page: “MEDICAL EXEMPTION Have you been granted a medical exemption for the Covid vaccine from Ashley Bloomfield? If so, on what grounds were you successful?”
There were 476 comments indicating extreme reluctance and mostly refusal on the part of the New Zealand Ministry of Health to grant vaccine exemptions to those already injured by their first jab.
Conclusion
Government policy has been largely formulated in the context of scientific publishing that is in many cases now outdated.
Moreover, political bias in science publishing appears to have affected its formation.
How did the government fail to properly investigate the mounting evidence of vaccine harm?
Why did the Prime Minister delete more than 30,000 reports of vaccine harm from her FaceBook page without instigating an investigation?
How did the government come to push pre-pandemic notions of vaccine safety into the discussion of biotech vaccines without a comprehensive safety assessment?
Did the Prime Minister feel along with pro-vaccination advocates that this was a now or never moment when vaccination compliance would be pushed to its limits whatever the circumstances and casualties?
There is a need now to review policy in order to take account of a broader consensus of recent Covid-19 science publishing.
There is also a need to review the impacts of government vaccine policy on both individual health circumstances and age cohorts.
In the light of the high rate of adverse effects of Covid-19 vaccination, safety protocols need to be updated and strengthened.
There is time needed to scientifically assess how much of pandemic injury is due to Covid and how much is due to vaccination.
To allow time to review and effect the needed reforms, there needs to be an immediate pause on mandates.
Nations have been so polarised by pandemic policy and misinformation, there is also a need for a period of mature and collective national reflection along the lines of a truth and reconciliation commission.
The process of acknowledging fault and designing procedures to safeguard against future mistakes is the sine qua non of resolution.
Guy Hatchard PhD was formerly a senior manager at Genetic ID a global food testing and certification company (now known as FoodChain ID)
Unless rampant genetic experimentation is regulated, the whole population of the world will continue on a risky journey towards an unknown destination somewhere in a biotechnology future
Today I want to reach out across a divide and back in time.
At the beginning of the pandemic, the origin of Covid-19 was of special concern to everyone—the question was ‘who was ultimately to blame?’.
The dialogue was between those who thought its origin was zoonotic (jumped from an animal) and those thinking it was made in a laboratory.
We never received a definitive answer to this debate, but nevertheless our government decided early on in mid 2020 that the idea that Covid-19 came from a laboratory was a conspiracy theory (see my article ‘The Jacinda Papers’).
The immediate value to Jacinda’s government should be obvious, if Covid-19 came from an animal it was a natural virus requiring the time honoured solution of a vaccine.
If it came from a biotechnology laboratory, there would be an issue of trust—could the same people who created Covid-19 be trusted to cure it?
Moving back to the present day, genomists have made real progress in resolving the debate around the origins of Covid-19.
Some genetic sequences in Covid-19 have been found in mutated strains of HIV which appear to have no place in any animal viruses and some genetic constructs of Covid-19 are not natural at all, but they are identical to genetic sequences patented before the pandemic by Moderna—a company who created a Covid-19 mRNA vaccine.
The details are technical but the process of researching the connections has been rendered accessible to a lay person
In general, the debate about Covid-19 origins has swung strongly back towards a laboratory origin, especially considering that it is now clear that the early calls for a zoonotic origin were mainly from scientists involved in the experiments at the Wuhan lab who would have most to lose from the debate.
This gives us all a completely different perspective about that other crucial debate between the provaxx and antivaxx camps (let’s leave aside for a moment the supporters from both camps who are anti-mandate).
Both the vaccinated and the unvaccinated are actually facing a common foe—risky biotechnology experimentation leading either to a virulent illness or a novel vaccine with a high rate of adverse reactions.
Whatever political end game that emerges, both camps are left with a common problem—how to control biotechnology experimentation that threatens the stability of life itself (see my video The Pandemic of Biotechnology).
We are up against formidable obstacles:
Military interest in biotechnology continues for reasons of both offense and defense. More accidents are inevitable. No weapon ever invented remains unused.
Commercial investment in biotechnology is huge, there are fortunes to be made and lost depending on the outcomes of experimentation and regulation. Inevitably this means political lobbying and donations with strings attached.
There is a massive academic class of trained biotechnology researchers looking for employment and professional kudos who are dominating research perspectives and calling for more biotech funding in universities.
There are popular myths of biotechnology carefully curated through media support that biotech will ultimately cure all diseases and feed the world. As a result, biotechnology is seen by the public and medical professionals as the new frontier of medical and social miracles, but without any understanding of the huge risks and historical accidents. This has led to political myopia concerning biotech risk.
It is time to recognise that both the vaccinated and unvaccinated have actually been relying on the same pandemic exit strategy.
The unvaccinated are trusting their natural immune system to protect them. The vaccinated are trusting their natural immune system to react appropriately to a vaccine and thereby protect them.
So both groups are trusting their natural immune system. Perhaps what neither group fully realised was that biotech manipulation is a common foe that is busy offering novel products, some of which are capable of overwhelming our natural immune system whether we are vaccinated or not.
No exit strategy from the divisive horrors of the pandemic will be complete without instituting limitations on biotechnology experimentation.
For that, the political myopia concerning biotechnology dangers needs to be overcome.
This will require a massive educational effort and inviolable constitutional safeguards.
Guy Hatchard PhD was formerly a senior manager at Genetic ID a global food testing and certification company (now known as FoodChain ID)
A remarkable trove of documents has been created in New Zealand by an organisation called Te Punaha Matatini—Covid-19 Modelling Aotearoa hosted by the University of Auckland but funded directly by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet.
Covid-19 Modelling Aotearoa is headed by the wildly inaccurate Covid modeller Dr Shaun Hendy who once predicted 80,000 imminent New Zealand deaths (currently at 53 in NZ) and includes the participation of academics from universities across New Zealand.
The documents are remarkable because they indicate the genesis of the unique and blinkered pandemic perspective of our Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern which has diverged from that followed among other countries and from that found in global science publishing.
The documents in some cases exhibit in their referenced material, a lack of awareness of the extensive content of global science publishing on the pandemic.
One paper of particular interest is entitled:
Evaluating the infodemic: assessing the prevalence and nature of COVID-19 unreliable and untrustworthy information in Aotearoa New Zealand’s social media, January-August 2020
It is hardly remarkable that the New Zealand government uses sophisticated computer systems to closely monitor the social media content of its citizens (what government doesn’t?), but the methods used and the starting point of evaluation are highly indicative of where the repressive and controlling New Zealand Labour government Covid policy began:
The paper accepts a number of controversial ideas as true at face value such as the zoonotic origin of Covid-19. It describes discussion of a bioengineered origin of Covid in a Chinese lab as Xenophobia and a conspiracy trope, when it actually was, at the time the article was published, a matter of general scientific debate.
Table 2 (excerpted above) designates some common types of scientific discussion around Covid-19 as ‘disinformation’, most of which were actually the subject of science publishing even in mid 2020. It dismisses them as fallacious without justification. Subsequent data analysis has upheld them in large part. Yet the rejection by Ardern of their moderating tone, was and is used to stoke fear in the whole population.
Concepts of herd immunity since found to play a highly significant role in reducing Covid severity are dismissed as oversimplification and misrepresentation despite their verified and time-honoured role in developing human immunity.
Assertions that Covid-19 disproportionately affects those already ill with comorbidities or the aged (a highly verified fact) are outrageously dismissed as the result of ableism.
Table 3 in the paper asserts additionally that suggestions that the vaccine might have adverse effects or may alter DNA is a conspiracy theory. Subsequently there have been over 1000 papers published worldwide examining the deficiencies in mRNA vaccination safety and adverse effects reporting including evidence published late in 2020 that RNA vaccine genetic sequences can and do integrate into the human genome.
Mainstream scientists like Dr. Simon Thornley, media personalities like Mike Hosking, and politicians including Gerry Brownlee are described as using conspiracy theories to recruit NZers to right wing causes. All of whom should rightly have been described as high profile public figures stimulating discussion around political and scientific policies affecting a complex subject. The attempt to marginalise Ardern’s political opponents is obvious.
The paper rejects health and wellbeing narratives, many of which are in fact grounded in mainstream medical advice, as misleading. Thus it specifically rejects self-care options. Yet prior and subsequent research has found many of these lifestyle and dietary options to be helpful if not critical to healthy Covid outcomes and avoidence of serious illness. These include adequate rest, exercise, a balanced diet, and nutritional supplements.
This rejection of the value of wellbeing programmes has found its obvious conclusion in the formation of New Zealand government mandates. Yet the paper describes the suspicion that there are hidden government agendas to introduce ‘forced vaccination regimes’ as an ‘opportunistic conspiracy theory’. As we now know, these suspicions voiced early on social media are almost indistinguishable from the actual oppressive New Zealand vaccination mandates which Ardern eventually introduced denying employment and impoverishing those wishing to avoid risk and continue to make their own medical choices.
The push to introduce the censorship of scientific information and discussion that characterises the Ardern government is evident throughout the paper. Specific individual scientists tied to the government by both ideology, and in some cases by financial support, are picked out as people who should be the public’s sole sources of reliable information. These include: microbiologist Associate Professor Siouxsie Wiles, physicist Professor Shaun Hendy, and epidemiologist Professor Michael Baker.
The paper says the aim of government messaging should take the form of ‘branding’ designed to teach the public to trust the government alone. Something so close to propaganda as to be almost indistinguishable.
Emphasis in social media on ‘individual rights’ is described as an undesirable import from America. Ardern’s more recent rejection of protests as ‘imported ideas’ echoes Trudeau’s recent dismissal of protestors as ‘taking up space’, both of which hint at exclusionary agendas to come.
In conclusion the paper hints that ‘simply relying on the successful multi-faceted science and public health communication approaches of the government earlier in the pandemic will not be sufficient to debunk’ what it describes as ‘increasing prevalence of conspiracy theories about state control and individual rights’.
And continues:‘a wide-ranging response to the increasing discussion of unreliable sources, untrustworthy narrators, and conspiracy narratives in media, political, and civil society discourses is required’.
It further reports that a computational methodology and process for on-going monitoring of the prevalence of mis- and dis-information, and conspiracy narratives, within Aotearoa New Zealand’s social and mainstream media ecosystems has been established. It describes public access to a plethora of social media platforms, as a problem that needs to be addressed.
The very limited scientific outlook of Covid-19 Modelling Aotearoa is evident in the many other papers it has produced for the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. In particular, their narrative has diverged in content from trends now well-understood through published data analysis around the world, including:
The strident saturation advertising of Covid-19 mRNA vaccination referring to its absolute safety.
The Ardern doctrine that the government should be the public’s only source of information.
The confidence Ardern extends to tentative and often subsequently falsified science without feeling the need to update policy.
The encouragement the government has offered to social media sites to censor content.
The politicisation of NZ’s Covid-19 policy.
Obviously, the paper and others may have fuelled and validated Ardern’s limited understanding of science. Science is a global, rational, empirical endeavour to arrive at truth, not a process tailor-made to support ideology.
Perhaps its most frightening consequence is Ardern’s rejection of the notion of individual health rights which has obvious historical parallels.
Guy Hatchard PhD was formerly a senior manager at Genetic ID a food testing and certification company (now known as FoodChain ID)
New genetic research results indicate that the DNA of plants plays a far greater role in health maintenance than previously thought.
The corollary of this is the great role that food additives, processes, medicines, and pollution are playing in the massive rise of certain diseases such as mental illness and cancer among the young.
Jacinda today summoned her waning powers of public relations to fire a stuttering broadside towards those afloat on Mallard Lake.
The vacuous labels ‘Anti-vaccination’ and ‘Imported forms of protest’ were duly rolled out for RNZ but her shots fell short.
What actually are some of the serious protest questions that remain unanswered?
The Covid-19 mRNA vaccine has emergency approval only, not the usual ten years testing and evaluation, so why isn’t reporting of adverse effects mandatory—a question asked repeatedly but never answered?
How are you going to manage an economy in which ten percent of the population, including many skilled professionals, are excluded from work?
Now that studies show Omicron affects the vaccinated and unvaccinated equally why are there still mandates?
Adverse effects from Covid-19 mRNA vaccination are running at 30 times any previous vaccine, so what is your justification for continuing mandates?
Why are young children and teens being coerced into a health risk from mRNA vaccination that is greater than the risk from Covid itself?
As our economy falters, when are you going to allow it to restart?
When is government advertising going to treat the people of New Zealand to accurate information rather than misleading propaganda such as the assertion that mRNA vaccines and boosters are completely safe and effective?
When are individuals injured by vaccination going to be allowed an exemption to further doses?
When are the guarantees of the NZ Bill of Rights going to be honoured as our constitutional right?
Please reply by quoting published science papers.
Loud music, sprinklers, police cordons, labels such as ‘import’, refusal to dialogue, refusal to receive documentation, and refusal to answer questions do not cut the mustard in a democracy and at the moment that is still what we call ourselves.
Guy Hatchard PhD was formerly a senior manager at Genetic ID a global food testing and certification company (now known as FoodChain ID).
New genetic research results indicate that the DNA of plants plays a far greater role in health maintenance than previously thought.
The corollary of this is the great role that food additives, processes, medicines, and pollution are playing in the massive rise of certain diseases such as mental illness and cancer among the young.
St John ambulance cases increased by 6.8% in 2021 to 555,000.
Out of the St. John categories of call outs, I have selected those conditions which correspond to common adverse effects of vaccination reported to Medsafe.
Note: to be complete I have also noted figures for suicide (up 30%) which are believed to be related to the effect of lockdowns.
The vaccine adverse effect categories increased by 17,000 cases.
The large rises in chest pain (up 6,102—+15.5%) and breathing problems (up 5,195—+14.4%) correspond to increased cases of myocarditis and pericarditis.
It is to be noted that the St John figures are for those sufficiently ill to warrant the call of an ambulance. Generally ambulance cases involve people who are seriously ill and in need of urgent attention.
St John Figures Show Many Vaccine Injuries Are Serious
Of the 46,000 adverse effect cases reported to Medsafe following Covid vaccination, 8,500 were for chest pain and 5,000 for breathing difficulties.
Medsafe estimates that only 5% of adverse effects are recorded in its system.
The St John figures indicate that contrary to Medsafe’s assertion that these conditions were non-serious, a great many were serious enough to warrant an ambulance call out.
It is interesting that despite anecdotal reports from ambulance crews of high vaccine injury case loads, St John has no category for vaccine injury per see.
Instead St John joins the long list of official bodies in vaccine injury denial saying only that “St John attributes rises in chest pain and breathing difficulties to the direct impact of COVID-19 or COVID-19 lockdowns.” A rather inadequate assertion given the low Covid incidence in 2021.
For weeks now, I and others have been writing about the unprecedented level of vaccine injury supported by science journal publishing.
There has been an overwhelming level of support and more case records coming in daily through social media and the rapidly growing alternative press in New Zealand including the Daily Telegraph, The Buzz, The Daily Examiner, The Health Forum NZ, VFF, Gary Moller, Muriel Newman, and many others (too many to mention everyone, apologies).
Thank you for everyone’s support and continued efforts to stand up and speak up. So why the inexplicable silence from the government and mainstream media?
We are talking here of the lives of many tens of thousands of people in New Zealand adversely affected by vaccination, thousands very seriously. These are all people who followed government advice and accepted assurances of safety.
Adverse effects are running at an unprecedented 30 times more than previous vaccinations. We know that the standard response of silence in the face of statistics and personal stories has been curated directly by Jacinda Ardern who famously deleted 30,000 adverse effect comments on her FB page.
How does this work?
We don’t have to look very far into history.
Is Ardern Following in Tony Blair’s Footsteps?
Take the case of Tony Blair, like Ardern he is skilled in public relations—a mesmerising public speaker.
In his heyday, an overwhelmingly popular politician who articulated a vision that communicated a sense of hope and promise to the population. His appeal stretched across historical political boundaries.
At some point, he decided to use his abilities to promote a lie—fully aware of the UK spy agency report that they had none, he told the public that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.
His lie provided justification for a war in which a million Iraqis died.
Tony Blair used his skills to impart to his global public a sense that the war was the right thing to do.
There were two elements to this—the invention of an imminent threat from fictious weapons to create fear in the population and demonisation of a foreign population of Iraqis in order that mass murder could be seen as a righteous act.
Has Ardern used the same tactics?
Quite early on in 2021, it should have been clear to the government from reports out of Israel that vaccination gave rise to heart disease.
As the vaccine rollout progressed in New Zealand, adverse effects piled up.
But saturation advertising promising that the vaccine was safe and effective continued.
Ardern used her PR skills to not only deflect questions, but demonise the vaccine hesitant as ill-informed, weak-minded people.
As the year went on, serious scientific work emerged documenting risks of vaccination—there were many.
These were not only ignored, but suppressed through the Ardern doctrine that the government should be the only source of information.
The Deception is Continuing with Omicron Misinformation
As the year ended, scientific studies of Omicron reached a number of important conclusions: Omicron is a mild illness that equally affects vaccinated and unvaccinated.
A study in Israel found even a fourth Covid booster is not enough to fight Omicron.
It is notable that health authorities in both the EU and Israel have tried to suppress information that Omicron is a mild illness unaffected by vaccination.
Similarly here in New Zealand, saturation advertising encouraging boosters has continued, painting a picture of severe risk from Omicron and the fiction that the booster shot provides protection.
No mention of the progressively increased risk of myocarditis with each vaccine dose.
Ardern has used her star power to promote a vaccination dream and she has succeeded in imparting a sense of righteous vaccination achievement to a large cohort of the population.
This has left the vaccine injured shut out of coverage, and the rest of the population unaware that they have been exposed through vaccination to a long-term unquantified risk of heart illness.
As with any exaggeration or lie, at some point there has to be an accounting. Almost everyone in New Zealand knows of a friend or family member adversely affected by vaccination.
Gradually the penny is dropping that these are not isolated unfortunate incidents but part of a pattern that the government has sought to sweep under the carpet.
Ardern, Hipkins, and Bloomfield are the central characters promoting vaccination at the expense of any reality check.
We suspect that they are finding it hard to admit the deception, but now they have to take responsibility.
Guy Hatchard PhD was formerly a senior manager at Genetic ID a food testing and certification company (now known as FoodChain ID)
The use of brute force rather than dialogue in Parliament Square today is a reflection of a long standing imbalance in healthcare and an arrogant political misunderstanding of what science is.
Before the pandemic modern medical healthcare was already in crisis. In the USA medical misadventure had become the third leading cause of death. Longevity gains had plateaued and started to decline.
Our healthcare system was in hock to drug companies. How many of us have experienced a befuddled GP referring to his computer to locate the ‘right’ drug for us from a database we can’t see but is ‘approved’ by pharmaceutical companies?
How many of us have then researched some dietary advice and perhaps some supplements and/or exercise and found that to be useful?
The Pharmaceutical System
Within the allopathic paradigm of medicine, drugs are developed, researched, manufactured, and supplied by commercial pharmaceutical companies. Medical professionals are like the repair technicians, they prescribe the drugs and deal directly with the end user.
The medical regulators (or in some cases insurers), like Medicare and Pharmac in NZ, negotiate payments and approval of drugs. Although all these parties appear to be separate, in practice they work together.
There are revolving doors whereby employees of each sector can switch within the system. It works as a very addictive system.
When you are young you will mostly recover from illnesses through the natural operation of your immune system, yet the prescription of a palliative drug reinforces the idea that drugs guarantee health.
However, it is often the case that a drug compromises your immune system and predisposes you to future illness, but you are not told that. If a drug fails to help, or its side effects cause other problems, you may be prescribed an additional drug.
This is particularly evident among the elderly, who typically have multiple prescriptions and consequently multiple side effects. Pharmaceutical regimes have become so complex that research studies, such as those conducted by Professor Dee Mangin at Otago Medical School and others, conclude that almost all elderly become more healthy if they cease all non-essential medication.
This in itself shows that the whole system is not working, nor is any party accepting responsibility.
GARFINKEL, D, MD; MANGIN, D. MBChB, Feasibility Study of a Systematic Approach for Discontinuation of Multiple Medications in Older Adults. Addressing Polypharmacy. Arch Intern Med/vol 170 (No. 18), OCT 11, 2010 pp 1649 – 1654
Medical Professionals Advising the Government Are Not Researchers, Nor Are They Up to Date With Covid Science Publishing
Our medical professionals are a professional group of people who had training in the pharmaceutical paradigm of health. They are not research scientists.
Yet when Jacinda Ardern says ‘she is following the science’, what she means in pratice is following the advice of a group of medical professionals who are themselves used to following advice sent to them by representatives of the pharmaceutical system.
From published data, it is clear people who have been taking care of their health through balanced diet and lifestyle choices are well placed to avoid most serious risks from Covid.
In fact in addition to Dr Dee Mangin we have some good internationally-recognised researchers in New Zealand working and publishing in the field of nutrition like Julia Rucklidge. We have highly regarded alternative practitioners.
Fifty percent of New Zealanders use natural health products. BUT it now appears our government is not only intent on ignoring natural and traditional approaches to maintaining health, but is also intent on punishing those who wish to continue doing so.
A Message to Our Politicians
My previous experience over the years interacting with NZ governments has been one of open communication. As a scientist I have received written replies to queries I have sent to Muldoon through to John Key.
Not so the present range of MPs and cabinet ministers, with very few exceptions they use computers to send you an automated reply that they are either very busy or it is not their problem; or you receive no reply at all. I am a scientist asking for a dialogue about scientific matters that are being used to form government health policy.
I am referring to published papers. I do not see the government referring to up to date papers. I see childish public relations statements that repeat—We are following the science and please don’t find out anything for yourself. Do as you are told.
POLITICIANS PLEASE WAKE UP Covid policy should be a matter of genuine science not a carte blanche offered to the pharmaceutical system to try out a hardly tested novel biotech product on our whole population.
Please consider admitting that you are not a scientist and could do with a broad range of advice. Please understand that science in its true sense progresses through theory, measurement, debate, and publishing.
Please be aware that there is history of science, medical ethics and safeguards before the pandemic related to health that is just as valid today.
Please be aware that we have a tradition of listening to one another and thinking it through.
As we all saw today, rejection of ideas without dialogue and careful consideration of all the facts is a one way street to the decline of democracy and social values which have stood the test of time.
Guy Hatchard PhD was formerly a senior manager at Genetic ID ad global food testing and certification company (now known as FoodChain ID)
