spot_imgspot_img
Home Blog Page 41

Why Is There No Rational Debate About Covid Vaccine Safety

Guy Hatchard
-
0
Why Is There No Rational Debate About Covid Vaccine Safety

Sometimes we imagine we are involved in a rational argument about Covid vaccine safety and publish the evidence trusting that truth will have out, but mostly we puzzle about why there is no rational engagement in response.

Some people are writing about mass formation and looking to historical precedents in, dare I say it, 1930s Germany.

Mainstream media would have us believe that NZ has become a nation of 90% converts.

Perhaps it should be inscribed on our immigration landing forms: “Welcome to NZ, facts don’t matter, we have mandates”.

Despite this, it remains true that mass Covid vaccination is the result of innumerable individual decisions albeit taken under the sway of traditional vaccine safety and efficacy, fear of the unknown, tentative and often unreliable early research findings, and, in countries like ours, deliberate disinformation and in some cases compulsion.

So is Mass Formation or Collective Delusion an Explanation?

How were so many persuaded to take an experimental drug using novel technology?

Why was and is our government so keen to tell it’s free of adverse effects.

One of the most confounding factors has been the compartmentalisation of science disciplines and the resulting ignorance of science as a holistic body of interlocking facts and theories.

Thus epidemiologists probably had little in their education to inform them about the appalling safety record of biotechnology.

This has been the case for both animals (for a cattle breeder’s view see Gary Moller’s latest blog) and humans (see my YouTube video The Pandemic of Biotechnology).

Similarly, popular science writers have been drilled in the myth of a rosy biotech future.

Biotechnology Without Question

According to a little bird, in fact a couple of little birds, just before our mRNA vaccine rollout, CARM the NZ system of adverse effect reporting was restaffed or perhaps re-educated to be less meticulous recorders of data.

It is hard to escape the conclusion that the deliberate bloody-minded intention was to ensure that we all adopted biotechnology without question.

We can imagine the do-or-die supporters of novel biotechnology saying “We are not going to let anything stand in the way this time, nothing like that GMO reluctance.”

However, that still leaves us wondering how a gene therapy that has proved largely ineffective, wanes rapidly and has an abominable safety profile is still alive and well, riding high in the media and seemingly impervious to critical science.

Traditional Vaccines Are Known to Be Safe and Effective

A masterstroke was semantic only, call genetic intervention a ‘vaccine’.

Vaccines were widely known to be safe, effective, and were well recognised as a social good.

Vaccination techniques have virtually eradicated some serious diseases including smallpox.

Serious adverse effects of traditional vaccines are very very rare.

So gene manipulation became ‘vaccination’ and hey presto—it was safe.

Consciousness is Intimately Connected to Physical Reality

So back to mass formation, my undergraduate training was in theoretical physics.

Even at that time, it was well understood through quantum measurement theory that consciousness is intimately connected to physical reality.

Recently a groundbreaking experiment has changed our view of how consciousness and physical reality are related.

It appears to me that it points to an important lesson about collective consciousness and mass movements.

In essence, quantum mechanics leaves physical reality to evolve in a superposition of probabilities in an abstract multidimensional Hilbert space until it is measured or observed by someone and thereby becomes objective.

The Two Friends Experiment

In 1961 physicist Ernest Wigner proposed an interesting experiment called the two friends experiment.

Suppose there is a closed box containing one friend who performs a measurement and gets a definite objective result.

The other friend is outside the box and can’t see inside, by the rules of quantum mechanics, his answer about what happened in the box is that there is no definite answer, just a superposition of probabilities of what might happen.

How can something be at the same time absolutely true and only probable?

Are there two realities depending on your point of view?

Remarkably an experiment that approximates this has now been performed.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC6754223/

Three Fundamental Tenets of Our Current World View

The results show that one must give up at least one of three fundamental tenets of our current world view—locality (the friends’ choices do not influence one another), free will (the friends can freely choose their measurements), or observer independent facts (that all observers can reconcile and agree upon recorded facts, in other words objective reality).

The authors and commentators discuss which of the three must be abandoned without reaching any definite conclusion.

However many believe there are reasons to suppose that giving up both locality and free will may be insufficient to resolve the contradiction.

Therefore they are driven to entertain the idea that ‘facts’ are only relative to observers.

Philosophically this is fascinating, but it also may possibly have practical consequences.

People Are Connected by the Choices They Make

Not only matter and consciousness, and hence physiology and consciousness, are intimately connected, but also people become connected to one another by the choices they make.

Decisions taken by individuals are at the leading edge of their personal evolution, but it may also be the case that by taking a decision you could be almost unwittingly joining a group or unit of collective consciousness which has a life of its own and influences your thinking.

In other words, there is a reciprocal relationship between individual and collective consciousness.

Individuals create collective consciousness but they are in term influenced by it.

Citizens of New York for example create the lively collective consciousness or feeling of the city through their individual choices, but they are also caught up in and influenced by the frenzy and excitement of New York.

Examples of groupings of collective consciousness include families, fans of particular football or sports clubs, national citizens, ethnic or religious affiliations, etc.

The result of the ‘two friends’ experiment suggests that not only can groups be linked by shared ideas but they may also be linked together by the laws of physics.

When you acquiesce to an action, join a group, or decide to ‘believe’ you may become linked to other people who have taken similar decisions (losing locality), give up a part of your capacity for independent thought (lose free will), and as a result you begin to live in a different reality (there is no longer only one objective reality).

In this world view, deciding to ‘trust’ something can be a powerful form of hypnosis.

It amounts to giving up your capacity to question the ideas you now ‘trust’ and thereby it changes the world you live in.

Consciousness and Physiology are Intimately Interlinked

This of course is partly philosophical speculation, but it is absolutely the case that consciousness and physiology are intimately interlinked.

The central organising hub of each individual is our unique DNA.

Studies show RNA sequences including those in Covid vaccines can reverse transcribe into our DNA, therefore there is no knowing what effect that may have on our physiology and our psychology.

More recently it has become realised through epigenetic research that the way our individual DNA expresses itself relies on the configuration of both cell microbiology and our wider physiology.

This field of influence extends to the world around us, including for example our family history.

We Are Part of a Wider Biological Web

It should not be too much of a stretch to realise that our possible actions may be constrained or bounded by our connections, history, and perceptions—by the way we view the world.

All the great scientific, intellectual, and philosophical traditions, emphasise the goal of universal truth.

Physicists such as Bohm discussing the two friends paradox suggest that this might be resolved by the existence of a ‘privileged observer’ who would have access to a ‘global wavefunction’.

https://journals.aps.org/pr/abstract/10.1103/PhysRev.85.166

In other words, there is a holistic truth and that can be articulated.

In fact, it is a quintessentially human endeavour to find the truth, rather than take refuge in comforting ideas that have no basis in experience or experiment.

Therefore we are going to continue trying to resolve the controversy surrounding mRNA vaccine through rational thought and we are going to be careful not to be swayed by ideas and allegiances that have no factual basis.

Whether it is called mass formation or not, a nation desperately clinging to the irrational in the face of evidence to the contrary is in great danger.

Guy Hatchard PhD is formerly a senior manager at Genetic ID, a global food testing and certification company.

Your DNA Diet

To find out more Guy Hatchard Ph.D., former senior manager at Genetic ID, a global food testing and certification company, has written a book Discovering and Defending Your DNA Diet.

What Came Unstuck in New Zealand? Lessons for the World

Guy Hatchard
-
0
What Came Unstuck in New Zealand? Lessons for the World

On the face of it, New Zealand is a lucky country of five million, affectionately termed Godzone.

For two years, New Zealand has largely avoided Covid by strictly controlling its borders.

During 2021, the Pfizer vaccine was rolled out to 90% of the eligible population.

Therefore in the virtual absence of any confounding effect of Covid infection, NZ should be a unique source of invaluable data on vaccine safety and indeed the government maintains it has all been a huge success.

Accordingly, employees of all government departments are mandated, on pain of losing their job, to be vaccinated.

But this week the government narrative began to completely unravel for a rather obscure reason.

Accident Compensation Commission Overwhelmed

We have a universal government accident compensation scheme (ACC).

Anyone who suffers injury in NZ as a result of any accident, is entitled to claim benefits and compensation from ACC.

In fact, there is no path for personal injury claims with private insurers, they must go through ACC.

As you can imagine, the hardy folk at ACC are tasked with investigating all claims thoroughly to avoid any benefit fraud.

Vaccine injury falls under their jurisdiction, so ACC staff have, uniquely in NZ, been immersing themselves in the torrid details of vaccine injury.

As all injuries go through this single department, ACC knows more about vaccine injury than any other sector of our government or society at large.

The avalanche of claims (which could top 100,000 if the government were to admit liability) and their severity has shocked ACC staff to such an extent that a great many staff members are rightfully concerned that they should not be compelled to vaccinate or boost.

The government, who have been trying to hide the extent of vaccine injury from the public and are eager not to be caught out, have reportedly caved in to ACC staff demands and extended the deadline for mandated vaccination into an uncertain future.

Simultaneously we have heard that the government wishes to avoid liability by arguing that vaccine injuries are not actually accidents but the result of free choices by individuals to undertake an experimental treatment.

Perhaps it wishes to take this stance because of the potentially huge cost of injury claims.

In so doing, is it trying to ignore the fact that it mandated vaccination on pain of loss of employment?

How Do We Know This?

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has famously told the public that “the Government should be your sole source of information”, in her words all other sources of information especially social media are worthless “grains of salt”.

We are a compliant and trusting people by nature, the government’s assurances that the Pfizer vaccine is absolutely safe and effective, were initially embraced rather uncritically, but fortunately we do still talk to one another.

As the vaccine rollout progressed, it became apparent to those adventurous enough to diverge from Jacinda’s strictures by reading foreign media sources, that the mRNA vaccine is rather ineffective and rapidly wears off.

More importantly, the number of people suffering from vaccine injuries is so large, that almost everyone has a few friends, (I have almost a dozen), who have succumbed to serious injury.

The vaccine injury blackout that the government has been able to exert over the media has been so total that the vaccine safety narrative at first proved very robust.

Despite the injury stories circulating among friends and on social media, it was always possible for the government to dismiss the fate of one’s injured friends as rare and unfortunate (if indeed they ever mentioned it).

In fact, many vaccine injured have been trolled on social media for breaking the ‘obviously’ true narrative of safety and made to feel inadequate or worse—the cause of their own injury.

The days of this herd mentality are now numbered.

People have started to blow the whistle—they are largely the source of this article.

How Did NZ Go So Far Down The Rabbit Hole?

For a whole population to be taken in by a false narrative, a lot of factors had to come together.

Yes, there is of course a lot of money to be made by some corporations from vaccines and that is a powerful motivating force, but we shouldn’t underestimate the power of ideas and the mistaken decisions that originate from strongly held beliefs.

The turning point appears to be the case of a 17-year-old girl who died from a stroke immediately following vaccination in September last year.

A media hack quickly picked this up and questioned Jacinda Ardern at her press conference.

Jacinda immediately and forcefully responded that the medical event was unrelated to vaccination.

She described the media questioning as irresponsible.

Her reply appeared designed to squash any narrative that could cause vaccine hesitancy.

This strong response, which was probably not based on any proven information about the case, had the unfortunate effect of setting the tone for all government departments—absence of risk from Covid vaccines became an accepted stance and came to dominate government media advertising.

At that point in time, Jacinda had a strong reputation for honesty and kindness.

Apparently, she decided to use up that political capital to promote a no risk from vaccination policy which she possibly believed was a social good.

A government advisor epidemiologist has privately acknowledged to me that strokes are a known outcome of mRNA vaccination, but our government continues to ignore that this is the case.

ACC staff have denied claims based on injury from heart attacks and stroke, but they are well aware of their rate of incidence.

Why Hasn’t The Medical Profession Taken Vaccine Injury Seriously?

There has been from the beginning an all court press to persuade doctors and nurses to support universal mandated vaccination which, given the high rate of vaccine injuries, rapidly morphed into policies promoting silence about risks.

Doctors expressing caution have been sidelined and unvaccinated professionals have been prevented from working.

Whistleblowers among the medical profession have privately reported wards overwhelmed with cardiac event cases following vaccination including myo- and pericarditis, but hospital policies have ensured that many patients with vaccine injuries go unreported.

Some have been sent home with aspirin.

Staff have been told that they cannot publicly talk about it.

Doctors are afraid they could lose their right to practice if they speak up and some have lost their licence.

At Medsafe (the branch of the Ministry of Health managing medical safety), whistleblowers report staff have been encouraged to keep the wraps on statistics of vaccine injury, by refusing to make reporting of vaccine injury mandatory and by refusing to acknowledge that reports of death proximate to vaccination may be related.

Staff have reportedly been reassured that it is alright to keep mum both because vaccination is a social good, and because Covid itself is such a frightening disease.

Given the government vaccination injury blackout and the general perception in the medical profession of vaccine safety, there have been a number of severe vaccine injuries that have flown under the radar.

I have two friends for example who developed rapid onset leukaemia after vaccination (a known side effect of gene therapy), but whose doctors had no inkling that vaccination should be investigated as a possible cause.

Such rarer cases including cancer, kidney, and liver disease are brushed aside without reporting.

How Were the NZ Media Managed?

The Science Media Centre was set up in 2002 to specifically undermine opposition to GM crops by offering courses and talks for media science correspondents given by qualified ‘experts’.

A central plank of the Science Media Centre is the idea that there are certain areas of science where there cannot be two sides to an argument.

One powerful example of this is climate science.

It has been readily understandable to science correspondents that articles which give credence to climate change deniers should not be given any space, except to lampoon them.

A similar doctrine has emerged with regard to vaccines.

Crucially biotechnology, despite its very poor safety record, has been accorded a similar sacred cow status.

Given the unstable financial situation of the NZ media, significant financial support from the NZ government, probably around $100 million, has helped to promote a universally uncritical stance which has isolated the NZ population from all but adoring elements of global Covid vaccine reporting.

Some investigative journalists have resigned in protest and blown the whistle on mainstream editors who have assiduously edited out discussion of the dire circumstances of some of our vaccine injured.

I was told by one nationally famous radio host that no programmes critical of vaccination safety can be aired.

How Much Has Our Covid Policy Cost NZ?

Here is the rub, NZ government policy has broken the bank.

Grant Robertson, deputy PM and finance mister set aside $62 billion 20 months ago to provide for Covid recovery.

He envisioned this would last for five years. At the time of writing, the government has spent $64 billion and has no money left for the planned fourth booster.

NZ government debt has almost doubled in the space of two years from $69 million 2019 to $123 billion last year.

To put this in perspective, NZ has a population of 5 million, so our rate of government expenditure on Covid per head of population is roughly the same as that in the USA and UK but we have spent that before the disease has even arrived and there is no money left.

Very few improvements have been made to our underfunded and ageing hospital system, because NZ policy was predicated on keeping Covid out while we vaccinated the population and thereby kept everyone safe for the future.

No allowance was made for the vaccine being ineffective or risky.

Now Omicron has arrived, the government is in disarray, imploring the whole population to come for boosters at just that moment when we are waking up to the damage vaccines have already wrecked on our health.

Where Does This Leave NZ Now?

In Walter Scott’s famous phrase:

Oh what a tangled web we weave

When first we practice to deceive

In 2020 it was hard to imagine the sorry consequences of Jacinda Ardern’s quaint faith in vaccination as a stand alone solution, but they are all too evident now.

Among the members of the public who have stood by Ardern and kept a closed mind, there is fear and panic.

This is unfortunately and mistakenly directed at the very small number of unvaccinated NZers who Jacinda tells them will upset her well laid plans by spreading Covid among the faithful.

Most people living overseas will know this for what it is—a red herring.

Omicron is all for equal opportunity—it does not discriminate much between vaccinated or unvaccinated.

The government seems impervious to this reality, happy to blame the unvaccinated for its woes.

We were advised yesterday to wear two masks one on top of the other.

We await our fate.

Guy Hatchard PhD is formerly a senior manager at Genetic ID, a global food testing and certification company.

Your DNA Diet

To find out more Guy Hatchard Ph.D., former senior manager at Genetic ID, a global food testing and certification company, has written a book Discovering and Defending Your DNA Diet.

Comment: NZ Has Run Out of Money

Guy Hatchard
-
0
Comment: NZ Has Run Out of Money

You may not have noticed this week that our deputy PM Grant Robertson (he who refuses to answer emails about the pandemic because it is nothing to do with him) announced that as things stand there could not be a fourth booster shot.

The reason is more revealing—New Zealand has run out of money.

Covid sure has eaten up the cash.

Grant has spent $64 billion on the pandemic so far (before it has even arrived here) and there is nothing left.

Our annual health budget is a paltry $20 billion, the $64 billion has been in addition to that.

So those of you who were thinking and blogging that the unvaccinated were depriving them of hospital beds might like to rethink.

Perhaps it is profligate spending on the vaccinated which has led to those long queues for tests and treatments for diseases like cancer (10,500 deaths per year) and heart disease (600 deaths per year and rising).

Just 52 people have died of Covid in NZ during the last two years and most of those few left in hospital are double vaccinated.

If you think the opposition will have a different view, think again.

Deputy leader Simon Bridges (he who tried to be prime minister and failed to excite the populace) chided Grant for not having enough of the readies to spend on those tempting fourth boosters.

Bridges urged Robertson to “prioritise funding for vaccines, given the impact this is having on New Zealanders and the economy”.

He is right there, government spending and policy has certainly had an impact on the economy, but why does he want to spend more?

You may be aware that just before Christmas I posted a short video on YouTube about the alarming NZ pandemic spending.

Click on the Video Image above or use this link to watch this video on bichute A Snap Shot of Covid-19 and Economic Statistics in NZ at the End of 2021

After raising 20,000 views in a week, it was taken down because, in the words of the YouTube censorship team, it was not in accord with NZ Ministry of Health guidelines.

If I worked in the Ministry of Health like Director General Dr. Ashley Bloomfield (he who refuses to grant vaccine exemptions to people injured by the first inoculation) I would want to take it down too.

Embarrassment is one of the most painful of emotions that any government department should try to avoid if at all possible.

Although we now live in a North Korean-style enclave (apologies to North Korea, many of you have written to me that North Koreans have more opportunities than we do), it should not have escaped the notice of our Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern (she who promised never to introduce vaccine mandates and changed her mind a week later) that many of our sister countries like the UK have announced they are ending all Covid restrictions.

Why are our politicians competing with one another to announce further spending on a dead horse?

According to our local rag the NZ Herald (the paper that uncritically Heralds government policy no matter how silly it is) Omicron is here and has been for a while.

Striking a note of alarm, their lead article warned its readers that this will probably lead to a shortage of toilet paper.

They didn’t lead with our record Trade Imbalance—the second half of 2021 stands at $8 billion, nor on the housing market—houses prices up 30% in 2021, nor on our total loss of tourism formerly worth $38 billion per year, nor on the increase in Government debt in 2021 of $19 Billion.

But that really doesn’t matter because Dr. Ashley Bloomfield and our dear Prime Minister are quite rightly looking out for our mental health by keeping these items of disturbing news safely away from us delicate folk in danger of running out of toilet paper.

Long Live the Republic.

Guy Hatchard PhD, is a former senior manager at Genetic ID, a food testing and certification company.

The Pandemic of Biotechnology

Guy Hatchard
-
0
The Pandemic of Biotechnology

Biotechnology is it providing giant medical breakthroughs or giving us inevitable disasters? And are there alternatives?

I try to answer these questions in my latest YouTube Video: 

UPDATE: 13 March 2022

Initially this video ‘The Pandemic of Biotechnology’ was on my Youtube channel. However, they removed it for “inappropriate content”.

According to YouTube, my video had violated the instructions of the Ministry of Health and the World Health Organisation. It had been judged “misleading”.

YouTube offered me an opportunity to appeal, but that only lasted for a few hours and disappeared.

The video contains a discussion of safety research findings around gene therapy.

It references published papers from journals including:

  • Frontiers in Oncology
  • Gene Therapy
  • Cold Spring Harbour bioRxiv
  • Frontiers in Medicine
  • Nature Medicine
  • Gastroenterology
  • British Medical Journal—Nutrition, Prevention, and Health
  • Environmental Health
  • Phytomedicine

The video is highly critical of biotechnology safety, but in addition to the balanced criticism in the above mainstream journals, it also refers the listener to an alternative view presented by Tal Zak, chief medical officer of Moderna.

Clearly our Ministry of Health and the World Health Organisation has a very different idea of science from mine, one that YouTube appears very anxious to protect and promote. YouTube does not offer explanations in scientific terms.

My view of science involves the collection and analysis of evidence, rational discussion among peers, and a precautionary approach when it comes to experimenting on human subjects.

I don’t think any of these are controversial.

Science as I know it eventually comes to settled conclusions when the evidence stacks up.

The new science of the Ministry of Health, World Health Organisation, and YouTube involves stifling debate, hiding data, protecting commercial interests, and promoting political power. Novel technology is the poster boy of this science.

In my opinion, collateral damage is its natural bedfellow. Unfortunately in the globalised world we now live in, damage from this approach can occur on a catastrophic scale.

The pandemic has proved to be a gold mine for some global pharmaceutical companies. Massive profits from future biotech innovation now beckon.

A new sort of politician has emerged able to manipulate public opinion and remain largely insulated from the interests of the people they serve.

Mainstream media seems content to go along with all of this, but as a result the worldview of their readers has been diminished.

What Does It Mean to Be a Politician Going Down With the Ship

Guy Hatchard
-
0
What Does It Mean to Be a Politician Going Down With the Ship

Today Jacinda Ardern had her booster shot and warned us all to do the same.

If I was charitable I might say that she must be unaware of figures from overseas including Denmark, the UK, Israel, and USA which call the effectiveness of the booster into question.

Even the CEO of Pfizer admitted to the media this week that his shot was all but ineffective.

More than this, is she also unaware that boosters carry a greatly elevated risk of adverse effects?

And further, has she informed herself of the UKHSA figures which show that within a few weeks of receiving the booster, the unlucky recipient is more vulnerable to Covid than before the shot?

Certainly, I know she must be aware that the long-term effects of vaccination are unknown.

The fight to contain the pandemic has often been characterised as a war.

Who the two combatants are is maybe not so clear—the people against the virus, or perhaps big pharma against…..

A Bit of Military History Might Help Enlighten Us

When the US invaded Saipan and the crucial battle of the Philippines Sea took place, they found out some terrifying facts about a determined enemy.

The Japanese people had little true information about the course of the war and the US successes.

They were religiously devoted to their emperor and they had been fed a diet of propaganda that the US military were bestial and cruel to the losers.

So the Japanese, to a man, decided to fight to the end and go down with the ship so to speak.

As a result, the casualties in the Pacific war were horrendous on both sides.

The impetus for this disaster was lack of information.

This morning an active figure in the National Party phoned me concerned that his party had not taken the trouble to inform themselves about the evolving science behind mRNA vaccination.

It brought to mind the numerous meetings I have had over the years with politicians to inform, ask questions, and lobby for change.

As a scientist, if I was meeting with a politician, it was generally about a complex science matter related to government policy.

If I was to pick the ideal meeting it would be the sort I was able to have with my erstwhile local MP Winston Peters.

He took notes, asked pertinent and probing questions, emailed me afterward to summarise the issue, check facts, and encourage me to contact him with further information.

The sad truth is that our modern political representatives on both sides of the political spectrum, now see themselves as messiahs of media, to be listened to from a distance, while the disenfranchised recipients (all of us) are managed by the push of a button.

Old fashioned dialogue is a thing of the past. Knowledge is believed to be assured by downloading a file, whether it will be read or not.

Political leaders convey the sort of worthless assurance that comes with bravado, imagination, and misplaced self-belief.

There must be a lot of unread emails lying around in the Beehive, just as there are a great many NZers lying around in bed sick after mRNA vaccination.

A recent genomics paper has found that there are more than 30,000 Covid variants out there in the world.

Crucially the main evolutionary pressure on the virus has been to avoid the vaccination.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC8647651/

In this, it has succeeded, but like the misinformed Japanese public in 1944, our island nation has decided to go down fighting a losing battle to the last man, and if the published data is anything to go by, we intend to die by our own vaccination.

Finally, a cheer for the TV One expose last week of one vaccine injured lady unable to gain an exemption from further shots, yet it did not even warrant a response from the Ministry of Health.

That reeks of sadistic disregard—there are great many being refused and callously put in harm’s way. Let’s not pull our punches here, there are a lot of unanswered questions and unsupported vaccine injured.

A Lot of Untold Horror Stories

Apparently, the unprecedented reports of casualty wards clogged with heart patients and sports figures having cardiac events around the world have failed to open minds or elicit any human response from governments.

Instead, we face further combative coercion and financial hardship.

Fortunately, there have been a great many scientific papers published during the last three months, it is now a race to see which of our political parties and media outlets will pluck up the courage to read them and adjust their suicidal stance accordingly.

Keeping your head in the sand is no longer an option!

mRNA Technology—The Myth of Safety

Guy Hatchard
-
0
mRNA Technology—The Myth of Safety

Stuck in a parallel universe:—at our local school a doctor arrived to address the student body and the staff about Covid-19 inoculation.

Reassuringly the doctor explained that mRNA vaccination technology has a 30 year history of testing and safety. ‘The best vaccine ever’.

Absolutely true that gene technology has been under development and testing for thirty years, but why is it only just now being used?

A quick glance through the published papers should be enough to convince you:

A paper published in 2003 in the journal Gene Therapy was entitled

Adverse effects of gene therapy: Gene therapy can cause leukaemia: no shock, mild horror but a probe

A paper in Frontiers in Oncology published in 2019 just before the pandemic was prophetic:

“…gene therapy has been caught in a vicious cycle for nearly two decades owing to immune response, insertional mutagenesis, viral tropism, off-target activity, unwanted clinical outcomes (ranging from illness to death of participants in clinical trials), and inadequate regulation….the resurgent interest in offering gene therapy-based treatments is one of the most defining developments in the pharmaceutical industry and is expected to have far-reaching implications With an estimated US $11 billion market in the next 10 years, both clinical trials and pharmaceutical industry are anticipated to benefit immensely from gene therapy.”

They were way below (by a factor of 200) in their estimation of profit per year that the pharmaceutical industry would be able to squeeze out of it but reassuring spot on in their estimation of adverse effects.

A paper published in Nature Medicine with the experience of the pandemic to add to hindsight in April 2021 says

“Gene-therapy trials are on the rise, but more needs to be done to understand the long-term risks associated with this type of treatment.

An August 2021 study in Toxicology Reports reviewing the mRNA vaccination trials says:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221475002100161X

“Clinical trials for these inoculations were very short-term (a few months), had samples not representative of the total population, and for adolescents/children, had poor predictive power because of their small size. Further, the clinical trials did not address changes in biomarkers that could serve as early warning indicators of elevated predisposition to serious diseases. Most importantly, the clinical trials did not address long-term effects that, if serious, would be borne by children/adolescents for potentially decades.”

So if you read in the mainstream media about the problem free trials and the long history of gene technology safety you might look for scientific papers and always add the term ‘scholarly articles’ to your Google or DuckDuckGo search which will enable you to avoid the drivel of paid public relations being printed by the press.

Open Letter to the Editors and Owners of the NZ Herald and Radio NZ

Guy Hatchard
-
0
Open Letter to the Editors and Owners of the NZ Herald and Radio NZ

— How could you sink so low?

Speak up now or we will lose our access to truth!

This letter calls upon the leaders of Civil Society in NZ to speak out now and loudly point out that NZ no longer wishes to be controlled by media who report manipulated data.

Yesterday Radio NZ printed an outrageous lie designed to persuade parents to present their 5 – 11 year old children for inoculation on Monday. Their article entitled “Covid-19 vaccination for children: What you need to know” was also reprinted in the NZ Herald. It said: “one in 11,000 children who get Covid are likely to die”

Lies Designed to Manipulate the Treatment of Children are the Most Despicable

The CDC in the USA reports that only 2 in a million children in the 5-11 age bracket die of Covid, UKHSA reports an identical figure. The CDC also reports that 86% of the miniscule number of children dying suffer from comorbidities unrelated to Covid that seriously impair their health and immunity. There are 570,000 children aged 5-11 in NZ, the above figures translate to just 0.16 of a healthy 5-11 year old dying in NZ. In other words, most probably zero. Certainly not the 52 children dying as a result of Covid that the RNZ/Herald article predicts.

We have become very familiar with the mainstream media reporting outrageous lies just before each new phase of the pandemic policy and vaccine roll outs. For example we remember Professor Shaun Hendry suggesting in March 2020 that up to 80,000 kiwis will die of Covid. A rate so exaggerated that it is 6 times greater than those nations most affected to date by Covid in the world.

Yes, leaders of NZ civil society, you can and must speak up in the face of obvious lies. You can do this, just like Professor Ehud Qimron, head of the Department of Microbiology and Immunology at Tel Aviv University who has decided to speak out by writing an open letter the Israeli Ministry of Health saying:

“Ministry of Health, it’s time to admit failure”.

Full text here: https://swprs.org/professor-ehud-qimron-ministry-of-health-its-time-to-admit-failure/

If we don’t speak up now, half truths and exaggerations will become the common coin of NZ media and government leaving us little better off than North Korea.

My analysis of the scientific findings concerning Covid vaccination of 5-11-year-olds: “Investigating the Science Behind vaccination of 5-11-year-olds: An Indictment—Does the vaccination programme for teens and younger surpass the threshold for criminal prosecution?”

Investigating the Science Behind Vaccinating 5-11-Year-Olds

Guy Hatchard
-
0
Investigating the Science Behind Vaccinating 5-11-Year-Olds

An Indictment:
Does the vaccination programme for teens and younger surpass the threshold for criminal prosecution?

D-Day for vaccinating 5-11-year-olds is upon us. If as a parent (or a politician) you do a google search “Is Covid vaccination of 5-11-year-olds safe?” you turn up a host of articles not only assuring you that it is safe and effective but also urging you that it is necessary.

First among these are the official NZ government information web pages. If you have doubts and persist by broadening your search criteria, the same kind of reassuring articles from a great variety of sources appear.

This has prompted my son to say to me for example ‘why am I telling people the vaccine is not safe when I am not a medical doctor but a mere researcher?’ I am sure a good many other concerned parents and grandparents are being faced with similar questions.

Google Searches Exaggerate the Influence of Single Studies

If you add the term ‘scholarly articles’ to your search you might be surprised to find that there are just two root studies on which this whole host of reassuring public relations is based.

Both of these are conducted by Pfizer itself which certainly has a vested interest in telling you that vaccination is safe. One of the studies cited is not actually conducted on 5-11-year-olds.

This means that the apparent confirmation and reassurance that your google search afforded, is actually only the result of google multiplying a single source of information into many, bolstered by a preference to exclude dissenting voices.

In this article, firstly I am going to be reviewing the scientific evidence. Secondly, we will be examining how its amplification has distorted government policy, media coverage, and public opinion in New Zealand and led to the hazard of unacceptable risks.

Criticism of the First Pfizer Trial on Teens Has Been Severe

The first study cited involved the vaccination of the 12-15-year-olds published on 15 July 2021 in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM)

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2107456

This study had 1131 participants receiving the vaccination and a similar number receiving a placebo. The total duration of the trial was extended just two months after completion of vaccination.

The study reported high efficacy in reducing transmission and also reported there were no serious side effects. The reliability of this study has been harshly criticised. A 2021 study in Toxicology Reports says:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221475002100161X

“Clinical trials for these inoculations were very short-term (a few months), had samples not representative of the total population, and for adolescents/children, had poor predictive power because of their small size. Further, the clinical trials did not address changes in biomarkers that could serve as early warning indicators of elevated predisposition to serious diseases. Most importantly, the clinical trials did not address long-term effects that, if serious, would be borne by children/adolescents for potentially decades.”

Moreover, it has since been revealed by an investigative journalist that some of the teenage trial subjects receiving Covid vaccines and experiencing serious adverse effects, as a result, were excluded from the final reports of trials.

A fact that first came to light when the parents of an affected recipient realised that their child’s case of permanent disability was not reported in the Pfizer study.

The Effects of Covid Vaccination on 5-11 Year Olds Are Not Fully Assessed

The second study was published on 6 January 2022 in the New England Journal of Medicine “Evaluation of the BNT162b2 Covid-19 Vaccine in Children 5 to 11 Years of Age”

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2116298

This study involved the vaccination of around 1500 children while about half that number received a placebo. It also reports that the Pfizer vaccination is safe and effective. Subjects were followed up for just one month after completion of vaccination.

This would be insufficient to detect some serious side effects, for example, a November 11 article in the journal Vaccines reports a case of Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in a teenager developing 10 weeks after vaccination.

https://www.mdpi.com/2076-393X/9/11/1353

On 11th November, the Science Media Centre published some expert reactions to the Pfizer 5-11-year-old vaccine trial report, scientists generally welcomed the pre-publication of the abstract of the study and supported the intention to vaccinate children but typically comments from scientists struck a note of caution for example:

“This trial had only 2268 participants. A trial of this size is unlikely to detect rare vaccine associated adverse reactions (side effects)”

“Questions about the risks and benefits of vaccinating children against COVID-19 are currently weighing heavily on the minds of most parents. Unfortunately, this trial does not provide the answers we seek. The reason for this is that severe outcomes of COVID-19 among children and severe complications from vaccination are too rare to be measured even in this study of over 2000 children.”

Myocarditis Risks are Known to be Serious

Incidence of clinical myopericarditis (heart inflammation) for example in the 12-19 age group receiving the vaccine is estimated at around 1 in 1800 so the Pfizer 5-11 trial could hardly be expected to generate any confidence about vaccine safety for 5-11-year-olds as the number receiving the vaccine was less than 1800. Moreover, a study published by MedRxiv on December 27, 2021

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.21.21268209v1

found that myopericarditis has been typically underreported in a large integrated health system. Medsafe also admits this is the case in NZ. Other studies show that as age decreases from 30 down there is an increasing myopericarditis adverse effect risk—the younger you are the greater the risk. This points to the need for greater caution with 5-11-year-olds.

One of the most concerning processes in NZ has been the rejection of individuals reporting vaccine side effects by GPs, hospital staff, and attending vaccination staff. These cases are numerous and have been very widely commented upon.

One recent example among a great many: a lady who suffered a stroke during the 15 minutes rest period after vaccination. She was subsequently told she was too fat and the attending physicians refused to make a report to CARM.

The risk that serious symptoms may be ignored and the condition aggravated due to delay in treatment is especially high for young children aged 5-11 who cannot adequately articulate their symptoms.

In the current scientific publishing climate, from experience, I and colleagues know that it is hard to get an article published in a timely manner as a preprint unless it endorses vaccination, but some authors are mixing and matching their concerns with a positive tone to bypass these reservations.

For example, a generally pro-vaccine article published on 6 January 2022 MedRxiv preprint says “vaccinating children to benefit adults should be considered from an ethical as well as a public health perspective.” In other words any potential benefits resulting from vaccinating children are at best related to preventing children from bringing covid home from school, although even this has been disputed.

The Risks to Young Children From Covid Itself are Miniscule.

Data from the US Center for Disease Control (CDC) shows the risk of death from Covid in the 5-11 age cohort is just 2 per million (lower than the mortality risk in this age bracket from influenza and pneumonia), but also reports that 86% of the 2 covid deaths per million in this age bracket had comorbidities. In other words, they were already seriously ill children at severe risk due to other significant causes and events unrelated to Covid.

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2021-11-2-3/03-COVID-Jefferson-508.pdf

The Risks of Vaccination for 5-11 Ages are Higher Than All-cause Risks

When you compare the risks from child Covid vaccination to the risks of death from all other causes in this age bracket you brush against some very worrying figures.

The CDC reports the risk of death from all other causes in the 5-11 age group in any given year is 86 per million. It is too early in the 5-11 vaccine rollout process for meaningful data to be available, but in the 5 months prior to 22 October 2021 there were 128 reports to VAERS of fatalities proximate to vaccination among the approximately 750,000 vaccinated in the 12-16 age range.

It is immediately apparent from these figures that if the known mortality incidence for 12-16-year-olds is repeated among 5-11-year-olds, the rate of deaths proximate to vaccination will be much higher than the mortality risk from Covid, and possibly even higher than the all-cause mortality in this age group.

The population in NZ of 5-11-year-olds is 570,000, there is no doubt that if this scale of adverse effects were to occur here in NZ, it would be regarded as a catastrophe.

These considerations should be raising serious doubts, if they don’t I suggest you reread the above or get someone with a scientific background to consider it with you.

The conclusion is that any benefit of vaccination in this age group is wildly outweighed by the risks, and significantly the long-term risk to health is unknown.

For comparison, the historical 3 to 5-year mortality rate following serious cases of myocarditis (the most common serious side effect of the Pfizer vaccine) is variously estimated somewhere between 50-80%.

I certainly wouldn’t advise any parents or grandparents to trust the reassurances of a google search or a government public relations bulletin, but rather rely upon the source science and reasonable commentary upon it.

Does the Lack of Adequate Information About the Risk of Adverse Effects Following Vaccination Constitute a Crime?

The NZ Bill of Rights provides that “Everyone has the right to refuse to undergo any medical treatment.” 

However the High Court has upheld a preliminary judgement that vaccination mandates are not unlawful, curiously Justice Palmer ruled they do not fall within the scope of the NZ Bill of Rights.

Nor since Parliament is supreme and has passed new laws, does it carry weight with NZ Courts that Covid vaccination does not reduce transmission (the stated basis of mandates).

Children and teens are not being mandated per se to undergo vaccination, they are being offered a form of Hobson’s choice—damned if you don’t and damned if you do.

Teens are being pressured to vaccinate through the removal of their opportunity to participate in certain school-based activities. For a child, this amounts to very strong coercion.

The consequent peer pressure has been very effective in ensuring that teens wish to vaccinate in order to continue to participate in very popular and socially beneficial extracurricular activities.

The prospect of social isolation that an unvaxxed status imposes on teens can bring about mental instability and suicidal thoughts. There is no doubt the government is aware of how this works.

Many parents have been unsuccessfully trying to cope with the dilemma posed by insistent children who are distraught in the face of their parent’s informed hesitation and reluctance.

They just want to join in, or have a haircut, go to camp, or learn a musical instrument. The government has settled this matter unequivocally, by allowing 12-year-olds and above to vaccinate without their parent’s permission. No stretch of the imagination can hold that this process is informed consent on a teen’s part.

The position of 5-11-year-olds is somewhat different, their parents or caregivers must accompany them and give consent, but this is insufficient to ensure informed consent.

Information provided to parents is critical to establish this. In the present case, there can be little doubt that the repeated assurances of absolute safety in government advertising during 2021 undermines any contention of parental informed consent and teen informed consent, even if the wording of printed pamphlets and official websites offer hints of minor and transitory side effects.

But this doesn’t amount to a crime until you add in the import of recent research findings reviewed briefly above and argued at length by others, which very strongly support the notion that the risk of death following vaccination for the under twenties is greater than any risk posed by Covid infection.

Under sections 160 and 171 of the Crimes Act 1961 and clarification offered by Common Law, the Crown can prove Manslaughter if the unlawful alleged act meets specific conditions and can be proved beyond reasonable doubt:

1. The unlawful alleged act must be dangerous. The test of dangerousness is objective and does not even require that the defendant was aware of the risk of harm.

2. The alleged “substantial and operative cause” does not have to be the main or the only cause of death. But, it must have played a part which was not insubstantial or insignificant.

It appears that these criteria could be met in the case of Covid vaccinations for the under twenties.

Who Would Be Liable For Prosecution?

Blame must fall severally on the medical profession, workers in government departments administering and evaluating the vaccination programme including for example Medsafe, mainstream media, school authorities designing punitive sanctions, and on politicians from all parties naively supporting vaccination mandates and guidelines.

There has been a continuous spate of scientific publications, especially during the last quarter of 2021 which should have led to revised government policy. It appears that politicians, medical professionals, and the media may have ignored these.

The whole machinery of government, mainstream media, and the medical establishment has remained bent upon universal vaccination of children based upon a single inadequate study, repeatedly called into question, that tells us nothing about the serious long term risks revealed by other studies.

Whilst the Pfizer CEO Albert Boula in an interview with CNBC this week struck a very cautious note about very low vaccine and booster effectiveness, and hoped to develop new more effective products in the future, our government and officials are ploughing on regardless. Does their ignorance of scientific caution amount to criminal negligence?

It is up to the Crown prosecution service to take this matter very seriously. This is assuming critical importance as the all cause excess death rates not associated with Covid infection in many countries including NZ are rising above historical rates.

For example, the alarming 40% increase in claims for deaths at the OneAmerica insurance company in Indiana during the third quarter of 2021. Many will feel such figures cannot continue to be ignored without shouldering criminal responsibility.

At this point in time, given the volume of correspondence on the matter, the ignorance of new scientific findings on the part of decision-makers can only be either pretended or the result of deliberately looking the other way.

The public would be appalled if they knew that the whole edifice of child vaccination is built on a single flawed study contradicted by other studies.

Guy Hatchard PhD was formerly a senior manager at Genetic ID, a global food testing and certification company. He is an advocate of natural preventive approaches to health.

The Last Hurrah of the Pharmaceutical Society

Guy Hatchard
-
0
The Last Hurrah of the Pharmaceutical Society

Sometimes in history we reach turning points—unsustainable evolutionary moments requiring change.

Here we are again.

The last decade has seen the first drops in life expectancy in western countries.

One third of all deaths are caused by medical misadventure.

Fifty percent of the population suffer from one or more chronic illnesses which according to pharmaceutical advisory sheets require multiple medications which themselves cause more illness.

Schooled to believe that health can be controlled with pills, epidemics of addiction are sweeping the world.

On the other side of the coin, 50% of consumers now use natural health products in an effort to maintain health.

Increasingly these offer highly verified alternative paths to health.

A diet with high content of organic fresh fruit and vegetables, fibre, etc. offers a significant degree of protection against cancer.

Use of herbals like turmeric and ginger reduces the incidence and symptoms of out of control inflammatory illness.

Drinking water rather than fizzy drinks, taking regular exercise, avoiding smoking and excess drinking are all essential components of health.

Like all technology companies, pharmaceutical companies regularly require new products as their old ones are revealed as obsolete, ineffective, or worse—dangerous.

Come the Biotechnology Age

Promises of health by playing God were welcome music to CEOs, shareholders, and medical professionals at risk of losing their cool.

But there was a fly in the ointment.

Heretofore pharmaceutical interventions were based on chemical and biological molecules that contained no genetic instructions.

The tone deaf administrators of big pharma were unprepared to listen to the warnings of geneticists that gene therapy had already presented a minefield of catastrophic side effects.

Buoyed by both their wealth and pre-eminence, they were simply not prepared to defer to science.Now we have come to the end game.

Last week the CEO of OneAmerica insurer, a 100 billion dollar company, broke ranks to say that in the third quarter of 2021 death claims rose by 40% compared to historical figures and NOT as a result of the pandemic.

Anyone who is not prepared to recognise the probable cause of this, is by any standards an ostrich with their head in the sand.

Accumulating data and theoretical advances show that the genetic technology being rolled out across the world, is causing excess deaths, immune dysfunction and suppression, and cardiac events.

The refusal on the part of governments to countenance this, is surely the defining moment heralding the coming change.

A few weeks ago I saw a farmer standing in the middle of a bonfire that he had just lit, trying to get it to burn more fiercely.

Government leaders are pretty much in the same position now.

The Data Landscape Is Changing Rapidly. Non-covid Death Rates Accelerate Alarmingly

Guy Hatchard
-
0
The Data Landscape Is Changing Rapidly. Non-covid Death Rates Accelerate Alarmingly

Alarming reports are being published in a number of countries of increased ill health and deaths among categories of people normally enjoying robust health. For example:

Unprecedented rise in Indiana death rates

The CEO of OneAmerica life insurance Scott Davison, a $100 billion dollar company, reports that in the third quarter of 2021 deaths were up by 40% over pre pandemic trends.

https://www.thecentersquare.com/indiana/indiana-life-insurance-ceo-says-deaths-are-up-40-among-people-ages-18-64/article_71473b12-6b1e-11ec-8641-5b2c06725e2c.html

Davison said the increase in deaths represents “huge, huge numbers,” and that it’s not elderly people who are dying, but “primarily working-age people 18 to 64” who are the employees of companies that have group life insurance plans through OneAmerica. Most of the claims for deaths being filed are not classified as COVID-19 deaths, Davison said.

The insurance industry relies on careful analysis of data. Death rates are historically very stable. The OneAmerica figures represent an unprecedented statistical trend. A 10% increase would have been a 1 in 300 year anomaly. A 40% increase is statistically off any conceivable scale and points to a rise that would never happen during the whole billions year history of earth except during wartime.

Brian Tabor, the president of the Indiana Hospital Association, said that hospitals across the state are being flooded with patients “with many different conditions,” adding “unfortunately, the average Hoosiers’ health has declined during the pandemic.”

Other anecdotal reports of statistics and events include increased incidence of miscarriage and still births, increased incidence of cardiac events including increased incidence among athletes, increased excess death rates as compared to previous years, high incidence of myocarditis among young vaccinated people, and reduced immune efficiency among the vaccinated.

Data Integrity Issues

From a statistical point of view these reports are alarming. They certainly point to a novel cause. The obvious candidate is vaccination but analysing the connection precisely and mathematically is obstructed because of data integrity issues designed to hide the truth:

Inadequate adverse event reporting: Early on governments decided not to require mandatory reporting of adverse events following vaccination. The procedures are too time consuming for busy doctors. Only 5% are reported.

Expectation of vaccine safety: Previously vaccines underwent lengthy testing over many years and were largely safe. Because of this, GPs and hospital staff expect safety and tend to dismiss adverse events as unrelated.

Early mRNA vaccine data was misleading: Reports of 95% efficacy in preventing infection and reports of a near perfect safety record have since been discredited by whistleblowers.

Misleading modelling reports: Based on the Pfizer data and some highly speculative papers on transmission, early modelling greatly overestimated infection and death rates from Covid. This fuelled ideas that there would be a net benefit from vaccination even when the adverse event rate was clearly reaching unprecedented highs. Moreover huge discrepancies between real world data and modelling predictions were ignored. For example modelling reports of 100,000 Covid deaths in NZ and a twenty fold greater rate of Covid transmission among the unvaccinated are patently false and bear no relation to actual data, yet they have helped form government policy and public opinion.

Misrepresentation and concealment of data: Because of the belief that vaccination would provide a net public good, authorities continue to feel it is important to hide information about high adverse effects from the public. In NZ this has happened in government departments and hospitals, particularly with regard to cardiac problems subsequent to vaccination.

Lack of adverse effect data by category: Little data has been provided concerning individual categories of adverse events. This happens because a great many specific adverse effect reports have been dismissed since in the opinion of physicians, based on experience of safety with past vaccines, they could not possibly be related. This happened despite the fact that some unusual categories such as miscarriage have reportedly become common relative to historical data.

Lack of follow up of secondary health issues: The Covid vaccine trials were too short to carry out the standard investigation of incidence of secondary health issues over an extended period of time. As a result the long term effects of vaccination cannot be known unless the health outcomes of vaccinated individuals is followed over time and compared to population norms. This has not happened. The data from OneAmerica insurance highlights the absolute folly of this omission

The net effect is that data documenting the risks of Covid vaccination has been concealed to the extent that insufficient or inaccurate data is made available to researchers. Thereby government policy remains unsupported by real world data, but instead driven by politically biassed or uninformed ideas.

Guy Hatchard PhD was a senior manager at Genetic ID, a food testing and certification company. He has experience in statistical analysis of social indicators.Guy Hatchard PhD

1...404142...46Page 41 of 46

© hatchardreport.com. All rights reserved. Dr. Guy Hatchard is an international advocate of food safety and natural medicine.

Quick Links

Must Read

Popular Articles