In this article, we explore the question “Have Jacinda Ardern’s government and the Ministry of Health sought to hide public knowledge of Covid vaccination risks?”

I’d like to acknowledge and thank Nadine Connock for vital help on the research behind this piece.

Sometime during October last year, Grant Robertson allegedly signed a negotiated contract with Pfizer for vaccine supply. The content of this contract remains secret and the government has refused to release its terms after OIA requests.

However, some Pfizer vaccine supply contracts from other countries have been leaked. These specifically absolve and indemnify Pfizer from any legal responsibility if anything goes wrong.

This leaves our government with the liability.

The contracts require that any dispute arising out of vaccine deployment can only be resolved by a court in the State of New York—that is: out of the jurisdiction of NZ courts and our legal system. Importantly vaccine supply contracts usually contain a clause as follows:

Clause 5.5 Purchaser Acknowledgement

Purchaser acknowledges that the Vaccine and materials related to the Vaccine, and their components and constituent materials are being rapidly developed due to the emergency circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic and will continue to be studied after provision of the Vaccine to Purchaser under this Agreement.

Purchaser further acknowledges that the long-term effects and efficacy of the Vaccine are not currently known and that there may be adverse effects of the Vaccine that are not currently known.

Further, to the extent applicable, Purchaser acknowledges that the Product shall not be serialized.

Thereby we can feel sure that from the outset our government was aware that the long-term adverse effects were unknown. Serialization involves the identification of vaccine batches for the purposes of tracking and research.

As a result, our health service would not have been able to track any particular vaccine batches for efficacy and safety—severely hampering our capacity to research any defects in the delivered vaccine.

Curiously and crucially the Pfizer vaccine supply contracts we have seen do not contain any provision compelling Pfizer to continually update the receiving government on vaccine adverse effects as they come to light.

This potentially left each government probably including ours ignorant of the overall tally and import of vaccine adverse effects worldwide. We shall see the effect of this shortly.

At the time of the contract signing, our government and in fact our whole population was relieved to hear that impending vaccination promised an end to the pandemic.

No one was fully aware of what the fine print of the contract would mean for us. Nor did the implications of ‘emergency’ approval and the unknown scope of adverse events really sink in, especially as the standard opt-out clause only allows 5 days to reconsider.

Should the Government Have Instituted Mandatory Reporting of Adverse Events?

At this point, the Government and Medsafe should have geared up to fill the gap in our knowledge through mandatory reporting of any adverse events through CARM (the NZ system of adverse event reporting) and through full information sharing with health professionals at every level.

This did not happen.

The Pfizer vaccine was handled in the same way as all previous vaccines which, unlike the Pfizer Covid vaccine, had gone through elaborate and lengthy safety testing over many years.

Despite only continuing with its rather haphazard voluntary adverse events reporting system (which Medsafe itself estimates takes in only 5% of actual adverse events), the extent of adverse events reported to CARM following Covid vaccination proved to be a veritable tsunami—thirty times more than previous flu vaccines.

Israel was leading New Zealand from the beginning as far as the Pfizer vaccine rollout was concerned. They too had an exclusive contract with Pfizer.

Early delivery was available as they promised to publicise the use of the Pfizer vaccine worldwide. The Israeli vaccination campaign began on 20 December 2020.

By February 2021, in response to initial cases, the Israeli Ministry of Health began a myocarditis surveillance program requiring all hospitals to report cases.

A Pfizer fact sheet reproduced by Medsafe at this time indicated that myocarditis and pericarditis were known serious adverse events proximate to vaccination.

New Zealand did not however institute a requirement for myocarditis and pericarditis reporting.

Our government and our Ministry of Health have never responded to numerous written requests to make reporting mandatory.

By the end of February, just before our vaccination programme began, Pfizer had collected over 42,000 reports from countries around the world of adverse events proximate to vaccination.

They compiled and analysed these into a document published on 30 April 2021 entitled :

5.3.6 CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS OF POST-AUTHORIZATION ADVERSE EVENT REPORTS OF PF-07302048 (BNT162B2) RECEIVED THROUGH 28-FEB-2021

This document contained reports of over 100 types of serious adverse events following Covid vaccination.

Anyone reading this Pfizer adverse event report compilation will be staggered.

The sheer density of the technical medical terms and disease names are nevertheless broken down into recognisable and serious categories of illness:

• kidney failure,
• stroke,
• cardiac events,
• pregnancy complications,
• inflammation,
• neurological disease,
• autoimmune failure,
• paralysis,
• liver failure,
• blood disorders,
• skin disease,
• musculoskeletal problems,
• arthritis,
• respiratory disease,
• DVT,
• blood clots,
• vascular disease,
• haemorrhage,
• loss of sight,
• Bell’s palsy,
• and epilepsy.

The effect of the inadequacy of Pfizer vaccine supply contracts now became apparent.

There was no requirement for Pfizer to supply this updated adverse effect reporting information to governments and no record of whether they did so.

Let us suppose that Medsafe was proceeding to evaluate reports of adverse effects proximate to vaccination, that had occurred in NZ, in ignorance of the worldwide data.

This had a critical effect on Medsafe’s efforts to ‘discover’ the extent and types of adverse events and to decide whether they were related to or caused by vaccination.

Did the Vaccine Cause the Large Number of Reported Adverse Events?

Hill’s criteria of medical causality list nine ways to determine whether a medical event is caused by a particular exposure.

Among these, the first and most important is the strength of association—the more times an illness occurs together with an exposure, the more certain we can be that the exposure caused the illness.

The second of these is consistency—does the association occur in multiple settings?

The third temporality is critical—does the exposure precede the illness? Mechanism, experiment, and plausibility are also important.

Because Medsafe did not have access to global adverse event data, whether by accident or design, it was going to be very difficult for them to apply Hill’s criteria—they had too little data.

We have a small population. They should have sought more information on global adverse event data from Pfizer, especially when the more careful Israeli health system began to blow the whistle on adverse events and reducing vaccine effectiveness.

In the event, Medsafe have taken a very lazy and unscientific approach.

They have rejected almost all of the very large number of adverse event reports they have received as either unrelated or unknowable.

In late October, they listed only 1 of the 97 reported deaths proximate to vaccination as caused by vaccination.

If they had had access to the April 30th Pfizer report, they could not have reached this conclusion.

Without a shadow of doubt the unprecedented large volume of CARM reports should have alerted Medsafe, Pharmac, MoH, and MBIE and the other participants in the NZ Covid-19 Strategy Task Force that something was wrong.

What caused them to turn a blind eye to the obvious?

The flow-on effects from this were to create a lot of misconceived ideas among politicians and GPs, and a lot of unnecessary suffering in the wider NZ population.

The subsequent efforts which concealed and/or minimised information were to be even more damaging.

Is the Covid Vaccine Causing Deaths of Young Persons?

Sometime in August 2021, 12-19-year-olds became eligible for vaccination.

In September, a case was reported in the media of a 17-year-old Auckland female vaccine recipient who suffered blood clots and died immediately subsequent to vaccination.

A question was asked at a Jacinda Ardern press conference, her reply was sharp and dismissive—it was unrelated to vaccination and it was irresponsible of journalists to ask such questions.

She gave this answer to the press before any reliable causal medical determination could have taken place.

It now seems sure that there were more than just this one case of sudden death proximate to vaccination in this age group around this time.

In fact, myocarditis is the third leading cause of death in children and young adults.

The increased incidence of myocarditis among vaccinated individuals in this age cohort would have alerted Medsafe, the Ministry of Health, and Jacinda Ardern that young adults were being exposed to increased risk of illness and even sudden death.

Vehement denial of this possibility was not an acceptable option.

By this time, it was clear that Jacinda Ardern was aiming for very high vaccination rates. Any contrary or cautionary narrative was not welcome, whatever the risks were.

Responding to reports of adverse events including the sudden death of the young girl, my correspondent from the Skegg Committee wrote to me:

“I think it is fair to say that the benefit to the whole population is a factor here.”

In other words, the risks to young people could be discounted because transmission in the wider population would be reduced if youth were vaccinated.

This response completely ignored the by then well known result that vaccination does little to reduce transmission.

This shows just how far the narrative was detaching itself from actual science rather than the science that Jacinda Ardern was citing.

On September 30, the NZ Herald reported that Medsafe had concluded that the death of the young girl was probably due to a medication that she was taking.

What the article didn’t say was that the ‘other medication’ was a very common everyday medication very widely used by a high percentage of the population.

Nor was it newly prescribed. This stretched credulity too far and I took the matter further.

After pressing the issue I received this reply:

“I am not saying there is zero association of clotting with Pfizer. There is certainly well documented clotting association with the vector-based vaccines.”

Did Medsafe and the Government Seek to Hide the Association Between Vaccination, Adverse Events, and Deaths?

We have already indicated that the apparent lack of an attempt to research a larger data set of adverse events hamstrung any attempt to rationally assess any causality.

A casual look at the large publicly available VAERS database in the USA would have told Medsafe that there are many thrombotic events associated with Covid vaccination, too many to be dismissed as coincidence.

Was there political pressure exerted on Medsafe to categorise sudden deaths as causally undetermined events?

Did they receive misleading or incomplete advice from the International Coalition of Medicines Regulatory Authorities (ICMRA)—a non-governmental body to which they belonged?

A body that is heavily influenced by pharmaceutical interests.

Was there a growing desire on the part of the government to hide anything that would disturb the “completely safe” narrative the government was very strongly promoting and financing throughout the media and advertising sectors?

How far would they go to ensure there was no reason in the public domain to be hesitant about vaccination?

Did this perhaps have something to do with the indemnity clause in the vaccine supply contract?

Documentation was always going to be very sparse. In addition to the foregoing, we are left with isolated facts and fragments of conversations, but taken together they are indicative of an all court press to restrict information.

Jacinda Ardern suggested on her Facebook page that everyone ask their vaccinated friends about safety.

This gathered in excess of 33,000 comments, almost all of which reported adverse reactions. Apparently, Jacinda had her staff in the Beehive working late to delete them.

She certainly didn’t respond to these or investigate them.

There are reports on social media from individuals suffering from myocarditis subsequent to vaccination who have been admitted to hospital and found multiple other cases on their ward.

One commentator said that her nurse told her “they are not allowed to talk about the volume of cases publicly”

One of my correspondents among senior government advisors wrote to me:

“[Social media] stories [of adverse events] such as this go straight to my rubbish bin – I have learnt the hard way, that the vast majority prove to be fictitious, and as such will have no bearing on my perspective.”

Another correspondent in the coronial system, warned me not to speak publicly of my concerns about adverse effects of vaccination.

A well known investigative reporter queried about media silence responded by admitting that he had concerns, but said he would lose his job if he spoke up. He had a mortgage and a family to support.

An RNZ commentator wrote to me suggesting I should change my message because it was putting people off a largely safe vaccine. A naive view.

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) wrote to me following my complaint that government Covid-19 advertising was claiming complete safety of the vaccine—an obviously false claim. ASA declined my complaint saying:

In accordance with the findings of the Court of Appeal, the Advertising Standards Authority was required to “tread carefully” and ensure that it did not substitute its opinion for that of the expert body [such as Medsafe].

Treading carefully does not mean that the ASA should not consider the complaint, but rather should do so in-depth and with care.

Something it was not prepared to undertake.

The ASA is designed to be an independent body that can operate without fear or favour.

From this it is increasingly clear that all those sectors of society relying on government funding are feeling the heat.

The Broadcasting Standards Authority is similarly uninterested in investigating complaints of one sided and misleading Covid vaccine safety claims.

The Ombudsman hardly knows where to start.

Does the NZ Pfizer vaccine supply contract place the New Zealand government under an obligation to pay settlements on behalf of Pfizer pursuant to vaccine injury?

If the NZ contract is similar to other examples that could be the case.

NZ individuals and families affected by vaccine injury may even be able to pursue claims against Pfizer in a US court in which case settlement amounts could be very large indeed.

Under contractual arrangements, our government would be obliged to defend these and pay settlements.

There are multiple unconfirmed reports circulating of pressure, possibly even financial incentives being used in NZ to encourage families of Covid-19 vaccine victims to accept and affirm that the adverse events suffered by a family member are not connected to vaccination.

If this is the case, consent could be regarded as due to inappropriate pressure.

In addition, there are many NZers with conditions such as chest or stomach pain following vaccination who have received insufficient public information to realise they may be due to vaccination.

Such people may not realize they need to seek medical attention.

Others certainly have sought medical attention and been informed incorrectly that their condition has no relation to vaccination.

In the atmosphere of public disinformation that has been deliberately created, there is huge scope for medical misadventure.

Is the Pfizer Vaccine a Genetically Modified Organism Under the HSNO Legislation?

Prior to vaccine supply, our government sought and obtained a ruling under Hazardous Substances and Noxious Organisms (HSNO) legislation that the Pfizer vaccine was not a ‘new organism’ under the terms of the act.

If the Pfizer vaccine had been classified as an organism, its use would have been constrained by the stringent safety protocols of HSNO legislation pertaining to genetically engineered organisms.

The favourable ruling obtained should certainly be viewed as controversial.

It is probable that the US EPA played a role in this classification.

The decision process should have included an NZ public consultation that is a necessary component of HSNO processes.

Is the mRNA vaccine in fact a genetically active organism?

A research paper published in 2020 certainly suggests this might be a valid view. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.12.12.422516

The reported experiments suggest a mechanism for an overall process: Viral infection stimulates cytokine production in the infected cells, which in turn induces expression of reverse transcriptase, which makes DNA copies of viral mRNAs, which are then integrated into the cellular genome.

This work was all done focusing on the question of whether DNA copies of the Covid-19 mRNAs could be inserted in the genome of our cells during Covid-19 infection.

The conclusion was, yes, this in fact does happen, with apparently high frequency.

Essentially, this research shows that the Covid-19 virus can genetically alter the cells of the person who is infected.

Although the focus of this research was the effects of viral infection itself, this research is also relevant to Covid-19 vaccines.

Since vaccination also elevates cytokine levels, it is quite possible that expression of the endogenous RTase is induced during vaccination and could lead to generation of DNA copies of the virus mRNA that is present in the mRNA vaccines.

These DNA copies could, in turn, be integrated into the DNA of the cells of the person who was vaccinated.

Thus, this research also points to a mechanism by which the vaccination process could genetically alter the cells that take up the lipid nanoparticles that carry the virus mRNA.

If the government had allowed a public consultation to take place, this research finding may well have alerted the authorities and the public to potential drawbacks of mRNA vaccines.

How Has Covid-19 Vaccine Misinformation Affected Nzers?

The government narrative around complete vaccine safety and high effectiveness, has misled a large part of the public.

This has led to resentment against unvaccinated individuals.

It has divided families.

It has led to scepticism about and rejection of the vaccine injured.

They have been accused of fakery, dismissed by GPs as anxious types, and left without adequate or timely treatment.

Importantly, serious injuries such as heart attacks and stroke have been denied compensation by the Accident Compensation Commission (ACC) following Medsafe or MoH advice that such injuries cannot be related to vaccination, even though the victims were previously young, fit, and healthy.

This has left many families without a breadwinner facing ruin and poverty.

Medsafe’s advice to reject some injury claims runs in the face of accepted medical causality methods.

I, with colleagues, have recently completed a definitive scientific paper on this topic.

Using the powerful methods of time series analysis, we were able to demonstrate a causal relationship between weekly vaccination totals in NZ during 2021 and all cause mortality in the 60+ age cohort.

434 excess deaths proximate to vaccination over the eight month period of the study were directly attributable to vaccination.

A sobering figure considering the deaths from Covid-19 during this period were just 5.

Ours is a study of fatalities, the smallest category of adverse effects.

Long term effects of many non-fatal categories of adverse events could be very serious indeed.

The sub-clinical effects of mRNA vaccination have not yet been not studied because the vaccines have only had very short trials.

How and Why Has Jacinda Ardern’s Government Covid Policy Evolved?

The most concerning aspect of government policy has been a lack of ability to justify it to the public using rational arguments.

From the start the narrative has been one of fear.

This has been stoked by one sided media reporting both here and to a lesser extent in some overseas publications.

Covid-19 is a potentially serious illness, but it is definitely not as serious as first feared.

The early modelling of potential NZ deaths proved to be completely off target and hugely exaggerated. Serious cases of Covid-19 mostly affect those that are already ill.

Overwhelmingly, comorbidities affect the severity of the disease progression.

These include (in no particular order):

• uncontrolled hypertension,
• obesity,
• diabetes,
• alcohol use,
• weakened immune system,
• certain medications (of which there are many),
• excessive fatigue,
• shift work,
• heart conditions,
• liver and kidney conditions,
• asthma,
• smoking,
• gender,
• ethnicity,
• advanced age,
• poverty and crowded living conditions,
• cancer,
• cystic fibrosis,
• sickle cell anaemia,
• pregnancy,
• dementia,
• stress,
• and substance abuse.

A Prevention Strategy Would be Welcome

2020 would have been a great year for the government to announce preventive measures to encourage better health habits.

A few of the above causes of Covid severity are under the control of the individual.

If it affects you, give up smoking, cut down on alcohol use, increase exercise, rest more, drink more fluids, and eat a more balanced diet including more whole grains, less ultra-processed food, and five portions of fresh fruit and vegetables a day.

Those following a plant-based diet for example have a 73% lower chance of becoming seriously ill with covid—a higher reduction than that afforded by vaccination.

Vitamin D deficiency is also known to be a confounding factor.

The government too can and should help you.

They can abolish GST on fresh fruit and vegetables, introduce a tax on excess sugar and artificial trans fats, and offer educational programmes such as those pioneered by Jamie Oliver in schools.

Their lack of action in this direction is indicative of the government’s paradigm of health—the magic bullet approach.

The government could be forgiven for worshipping exclusively at the altar of vaccination.

Vaccination has played a pivotal role in public health measures for more than two hundred years.

BUT, and it is a big but, recent history should have made them cautious. No need to put all their eggs in one basket.

Repeated attempts to control illnesses similar to Covid such as influenza through vaccination have been singularly ineffective.

Moreover, mRNA vaccination was a new technology.

Probably the government had just signed a contract stating that the long term effects and efficacy were unknown.

The contract certainly specified that the supplier had no liability.

Even more to the point, over the last fifty years evidence has been steadily accumulating that the most influential determinants of robust health are to be found in healthy eating, exercise, and avoidance of pollution.

Magic Bullets Do Not Always Stack Up Well in the Health Equation

Medical/pharmaceutical misadventure is the third leading cause of death after cancer and heart disease.

Yet our government policy is firmly against natural health.

Most people who are vaccine-hesitant are people who are already doing their utmost to maintain their health.

They have not been a burden on the health services.

For example, studies of insurance statistics and health records show that people who practice meditation regularly for a few minutes morning and evening need 50% less utilisation of health care and show reductions in all categories of illness.

Similar large effects in some illness categories are there for other natural health care approaches.

Yet the government has sought to marginalise these people and deprive them of their so far successful natural philosophy, forcing vaccination by depriving them of livelihood and freedoms.

Including even for example hiring extra employees to prevent the unvaccinated walking in Doc parks, forgetting for the moment that open spaces are the safest of environments as far as transmission goes.

It is apparent the government’s policy is based on punishment.

Even people who have already had Covid and thereby have an immunity many times greater than vaccination and more long lasting are required to vaccinate and expose themselves to more health risks.

Where Is This Going?

The government has to face up to the lack of effectiveness and safety of the Pfizer vaccine.

It has to come clean with the public. Historically drugs are pulled off the market after 50 associated deaths.

In little NZ we are in the hundreds and counting.

Recent data from the UK suggests that the vaccinated population is increasingly vulnerable, in fact becoming more vulnerable than the unvaccinated.

In short, studies show that everything around the world is getting worse not better as vaccination rates get higher.

For how long do you need to flog a dead horse before realising that there are other transport options available?

Those at highest risk of dying from Covid-19 are also at highest risk of dying from the Covid vaccine.

Yet our government and the Ministry of Health has not conducted a single safety review aimed at identifying those at risk and putting in place mitigation.

Quite the reverse, those at great risk including those suffering a severe adverse reaction after the first shot are almost universally being refused an exemption, despite the recommendation of their doctors.

Nor have the government offered alternatives to those at risk such as regular testing.

Meanwhile the government has been giving away frivolous inducements to vaccinate such as cash payments, snacks and other more enticing rewards.

While you only get at most six months’ worth of rapidly decreasing protection from the Covid shot, each injection will cause damage for 15 months as your body continuously produces toxic spike protein.

The spike protein is responsible for Covid-related heart and vascular problems, and it has the same effect when produced by your own cells.

It causes blood clots, myocarditis and pericarditis, strokes, heart attacks and neurological damage, just to name a few.

Sensitivity to adverse effects increases after each vaccination.

In contrast, natural immunity from prior infection is long-lasting.

Vaccination Is Not a Stand-alone Strategy

Vaccination is not a stand-alone strategy, adequate early treatment protocols and preventive measures are essential.

Importantly the arguments in favour of Covid-19 vaccination safety and effectiveness for the young do not stack up.

Vaccination is causing severe heart damage in younger people whose risk of dying from Covid is inconsequential as we have argued elsewhere.

Children aged 12 to 17 are five times more likely to be hospitalised with Covid vaccine-induced myocarditis than they are to be hospitalised for Covid-19 infection.

In 2017 the background rate of myocarditis was 4 per million children.

The current rate in the USA is over 200 per million.

The proposed vaccine rollout for 5-11-year-olds in NZ is unnecessary and dangerous.

Vaccination is all risks and has no benefit for them.

We are not seeing a single pause in the government’s advertising narrative or in media reports that the vaccine is absolutely safe.

Chris Hipkins and Jacinda Ardern have expressed ‘loss of patience’ with those clinging to vaccine hesitancy.

They have hinted at more stringent measures to come.

More stringent than loss of profession and freedom of movement????

They have affirmed that they see a booster treadmill stretching into future years, a treadmill that current figures indicate will be at shorter and shorter intervals with increasing incidence of more serious adverse effects.

Conclusion: What Does This Tell Us About Our Government?

The preferred narrative of our government has diverged from science towards futuristic political ideology.

Their perceptions about future directions of public health appear to be fundamentally governed by biologic genetic technologies.

They and previous governments have over many years directed massive funding in this direction. These ‘visions’ might include microbial food, gene altered medicine, vaccination for every condition, compulsion or exclusion of the non-compliant, gene-altered intensive horticulture and agriculture.

This vision is not supported by current science, it is a brave new world vision.

Prestigious researchers and scientists striking cautious notes worldwide have been completely thrust aside during the mayhem of Covid-19.

The rush to a new world health order has carried our government beyond the limits of reliable science into science fiction.

They appear to be crusading out of touch with realistically attainable goals.

To pursue this end, they have shown themselves prepared to alienate and impoverish large sections of the public.

Including many previously contributing a wealth of professional experience and expertise. More than this, they have executed a system of morality more usual to dire warfare, where the deaths of some are weighed against that of others.

Their approach is no longer acceptable, ethical, or scientifically supported.

The government and the opposition need to take stock honestly, listen to a broader range of advice without an expectation of approval.

They need to admit mistakes, and revert to an open public dialogue.

A government that consistently distorts and misrepresents information cannot sustain national integrity and progress.

The programme to vaccinate the youth must end.

They need to reverse the mandates and offer compensation for those financially affected.

They need to pay attention to the health and well being of those who have been vaccine injured.

It will take courage to do this, but if it is not done now, matters can only get worse and more difficult to correct.

What you can do right now: How to complain to the Advertising Standards Authority.

The government covid 19 vaccine advertising campaign contains numerous references to the complete safety of the inoculation.

For example:

There are other examples you may know.

Recently the phrase ‘safe as’ has been used. Young people and adults have been featured saying they have had the vaccine and it is completely safe.

The Pfizer vaccine safety information sheet lists 21 adverse events.

Three of these are serious:

• allergic reactions
• myocarditis
• and pericarditis

The last two particularly affect young people.

Vaccination of Children at School Without the Parents Permission

Our children have been deliberately exposed to advertising information claiming complete safety—a misleading message. Our government has allowed the vaccination of children as young as 12 at school without the permission of their parents.

These children have not been informed there are risks, therefore they are not capable of giving their informed consent. Soon the government is planning the vaccination of 5-12-year-olds.

You can complain about inaccurate government advertising online at: https://www.asa.co.nz

When complaining you should quote the Medsafe datasheet: https://www.medsafe.govt.nz/profs/Datasheet/c/comirnatyinj.pdf

This sheet shows that the government is aware of adverse effects. According to Medsafe there have been at least 144 cases of myocarditis/pericarditis reported up to 9th October:

https://www.medsafe.govt.nz/COVID-19/safety-report-32.asp

Medsafe also says that they believe only about 5% of adverse effects are reported:

https://www.medsafe.govt.nz/profs/puarticles/adrreport.htm

Myocarditis Is the 3rd Leading Cause of Sudden Death in Children and Young Adults

Myocarditis is a serious illness The Myocarditis Foundation reports:

“In simple terms, myocarditis is a disease that causes inflammation of the heart muscle. This inflammation enlarges and weakens the heart, creates scar tissue, and forces it to work harder to circulate blood and oxygen throughout the body.

“While we often associate cardiovascular conditions with elderly populations, myocarditis can affect anyone, including young adults, children and infants. In fact, it most often affects otherwise healthy, young, athletic types with the high-risk population being those of ages from puberty through their early 30’s, affecting males twice as often as females. Myocarditis is the 3rd leading cause of Sudden Death in children and young adults.”

The Risk Following Vaccination Is Much Higher Than Initially Believed

There is a great deal of preliminary research on the risks of myocarditis and pericarditis subsequent to both vaccination and covid itself.

You can quote a recent NY Times article which summarises the risk following vaccination is much higher than initially believed: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/09/health/researchers-find-a-higher-than-expected-risk-of-myocarditis-in-young-men-after-full-vaccination.html

The point to make in your complaint is that it is false advertising to claim there is no risk when the government is well aware of risks, and particularly misleading for young children who have been encouraged to make up their own minds by advertising that claims there is no risk.

It is a very poor precedent and educational strategy to misinform children and thereby manipulate their understanding without disclosure of facts.

Moreover, it has divided families and led to disagreements with children.

It has also meant that some people having adverse reactions are unaware that they are serious and should seek treatment immediately

I hope this helps the many worried mothers who have voiced their concerns.

If many people complain to ASA as above or in your own words, we may be taken seriously, and the one-sided and inaccurate content of the government advertising message may be scrutinised.

Sometimes in life, we find ourselves at a moral crossroads. On the path of our development as a nation, that point has now arrived for New Zealand.

No one should think that the failure of our governmental system, which has just happened, will not impact their life and that of their children.

A bond of trust between our government and us has been broken.

Our parent’s generation knew that once discriminatory laws that disenfranchise whole sections of society are passed a precedent has been set.

Loss of profession, freedom of movement, housing, income, education, and personal medical choice for many of us invoke the darkest days of the last century.

This Government Has Crossed Its Rubicon

How soon will it be before other discriminatory laws are passed?

Something has to be done.

Two years ago, full of confidence, we voted into power a government who had promised us a more caring and intelligent future.

It was not to be. Why?

What we didn’t know or had forgotten:—

Concepts of national law in cultures all around the world were originally derived from philosophical ideas of Natural Law and/or God’s will.

The idea is that people everywhere are subject to universal laws of nature. For example, the sun shines on everyone equally. It gives life to all.

Thus early concepts of the rule of law assumed that the king would be just and benevolent as they considered nature to be.

As time went on confidence in the benevolence of rulers gave way to an acceptance of the need for shared responsibility.

In 13th century England, Baron Simon De Montfort called together two parliaments. The first stripped King Henry III of unlimited powers and the second enfranchised citizens in the towns.

From then on parliamentary systems evolved with more checks and balances on the exercise of governmental executive authority and the legislative power vested in parliaments.

The intention of these is to avoid parliamentary overreach and exclusion of the interests of minorities and stakeholders and to provide a measure of continuity of responsibility beyond that afforded by the short elective term of parliaments such as ours.

It has also been considered very necessary to have an independent judiciary.

This was achieved in the UK through the concept of common law—what is naturally fair between persons, and between the individual and the state.

In the USA this was achieved through a written constitution.

Nz Political System Vulnerable to Undue Influence and Manipulation

Being a young democracy, New Zealand initially relied on the British courts for determinations of common law.

When we broke from the British Privy Council in 2004, we left behind some of the checks and balances in British common law.

We didn’t realise it at the time, but this has left the NZ political system vulnerable to undue influence and manipulation.

Key weaknesses in the NZ system include:

• Parliament is supreme. 62 newcomers can pass any law without reference to any longstanding body of wisdom.
• The NZ Bill of Rights is advisory only—we have no rights other than those granted to us by whomsoever happens to be in the majority this week.
• We don’t have a formal written constitution—leaving the door open for the abuse of power.
• Because of parliamentary privilege politicians are not obliged to speak the truth and there are no mechanisms such as impeachment to hold them to account for lying.
• The judiciary serves the dictates of Parliament—there is little reference to universal standards of fairness.
• Control of much of our economy and the media is in the hands of foreign entities who wield subtle influence on government.
• Levels of party allegiance and conformity restrict independent discussion.

No Mandate for Divisive Covid Legislation

Jacinda Ardern’s Labour government did not win a mandate to upend our Kiwi values, but they chose to do so in the form of the divisive covid legislation.

They did not win a mandate for social control, but they have begun manipulating information as in their assurances of covid vaccine safety and effectiveness in the face of clear evidence to the contrary.

Immediate fixes that avoid social disruption are possible:

• The NZ Bill of Rights could be ‘entrenched’ as a constitutional provision that is beyond the reach of parliament alone to alter. This will strengthen the individual rights that the judiciary can protect.
• The control exercised by party whips can be reduced to allow MPs to vote more often according to conscience. For example by reducing the MMP threshold to one per cent.
• Parliamentarians should not be allowed to tell lies once they step outside the debating chamber, but should be subject to the same laws as anyone else.
• Provisions of direct democracy such as those in Switzerland can be introduced and implemented through the use of modern technology.
• Options for choices in health and education need to be strengthened.
• A NZ constitutional conference should be called to discuss these and other issues which would strengthen our democratic institutions.

We Didn’t See the Rocky Road Ahead.

Yesterday morning I woke up to some unwelcome news. My best friend from university days has passed away. He was an active fit man looking forward to enjoying retirement.

Early on he had a mild stroke, his heart became inflamed and the valves were damaged, unfortunately, his immune system was too depleted to respond to treatment.

His story is familiar in these Covid times and shared by millions, yet nevertheless a deeply personal tragedy for his family. He was doubly vaccinated.

Feeling very sad, I decided then and there to write a short history of the political and scientific decision-making that brought NZ to where we are today.

I am fortunate in having some access to these. Firstly my training in physics, logic, statistics, and the scientific method enables me to understand the principles that must be used to uncover the truth from a science perspective.

Secondly, I have enjoyed an email conversation with a few of the key players.

Everyone Has an Opinion About Covid

Everyone has an opinion about Covid, and they are rightly entitled to their views. It is probably the number one topic of conversation in every country in the world.

It seemed clear from the start that this was an unusual illness that must be taken very seriously. The creation of an effective vaccine was a gold standard to be aimed at.

Having worked at Genetic ID, a safety testing and certification company, I had a healthy suspicion of genetically engineered creations.

So I wrote to a colleague who works in the field of gene therapy to ascertain his recommendations.

I asked him whether the move to mRNA vaccines posed any unintended risks. He replied at length and discussed the technicalities but the essence was

“I do not believe they are more invasive [than traditional vaccines] because they introduce into the body a short-lived molecule.”

At the time it appeared there were good theoretical reasons to suppose that mRNA vaccines were relatively harmless.

These reasons have since been destroyed by the inexorable march of science. As a result, my colleague has revised his opinions.

The Scientific Advisors Supporting Jacinda

In January 2021, I was invited to correspond with some government advisors.

Possibly my knowledge of network theory and my advocacy for the safety of natural health products were seen as useful skill sets to help ‘persuade’ a reluctant cohort of the public to trust a new vaccine technology.

I had an open mind and entered into the conversation with enthusiasm.

I admired the caution and competence that Jacinda Ardern’s government had already shown in trace and tracking, and in controlling our borders.

Faced with a lot of uncertainty, Jacinda’s cautious ‘wait and see’ response and her trust in ‘science’ was a smart and politically adroit move.

As a statistically aware and competent person, I was already alert to the main risk factors for severe covid—comorbidities and age.

My first contribution to the debate in January was to suggest:

1. The NZ Government (including Jacinda’s star power) can take a lead in encouraging other countries to recognise the need for a global elimination strategy to be put in place quickly.

2. Given the non-uniformity in outcomes and symptoms, there is a need to step up research to locate which historical health, diet, behavioural, and lifestyle factors correlate with the severity of symptoms.

It was clear that 99+% of people would recover from Covid.

Somewhere around 75% of people would do so rapidly without any lasting symptoms.

As a scientist, I thought it was vital to understand what it was about these people that kept them so healthy.

Neither of these thoughts greatly energised my correspondents who were naturally absorbed in the possibilities of the vaccination campaign that was just getting going.

But by July, I was well aware from Israeli data that the Pfizer vaccine waned in effectiveness quite rapidly, as were my correspondents.

There were obvious uncertainties in what approaches would work.

I considered that vaccination could not be a stand-alone solution, at the very least it had to be paired with early treatment options.

Epidemiologist Michael Baker concurred and wrote to me on 2nd August:

“Thank you for that very lucid description of our current state of knowledge around Covid-19 and the uncertainties – which are large. I agree about the importance of trying to keep an open, evidence-informed debate about future options.” and “I agree with you about caution”.

At this point, a member of the David Skegg committee—the Strategic Covid-19 Public Health Advisory Group— was drawn into the conversation. He too struck a cautious note writing:

“It is important to realise that the vaccines are only in their first iteration. Israel is effectively Pfizer’s real life laboratory”

“A protective immune signature is often elusive and vaccines are actually quite primitive in design”

“I think you are right that studies have also shown that high vaccine coverage will not alone contain outbreaks.”

“The recommendations in the Skegg report should be considered in the light of their recommendation for frequent review i.e. the possibility that what we know in November might lead to a significant change of timing or content of the response in 2022.”

The Skegg Committee has eight members.

• Four of the members are epidemiologists with a focus on public health measures such as vaccination.
• Three are statistical modellers and one is an immunologist—an expert on vaccines.
• One member has an interest in respiratory diseases.

It goes without saying that given the make-up of the committee, it was designed to make recommendations about how to roll out and monitor vaccination.

Distinguished and experienced though the membership was, it was not designed to evaluate questions and evidence about the physiological and genetic effects of mRNA vaccines.

Nor did it have enough of a knowledge base to consider questions about covid treatment options.

In essence, a decision had been taken early on that vaccination was going to trump early treatment in designing NZ’s response to the pandemic.

From my correspondence, it was clear that in the beginning the committee were satisfied that the Pfizer vaccine was highly effective and that they expected improved, even more, effective vaccines to become available with time.

In hindsight, this was a naive view, mediated by the rosy picture of 95% effectiveness that Pfizer was projecting.

A cursory glance at the history of attempts to control influenza through vaccination should have alerted them and everyone to the fact that treatment protocols were going to play a major part in our efforts to control the pandemic and reduce mortality.

The aura of invincibility surrounding the word ‘vaccine’ was leading everyone to underestimate the challenges ahead.

Covid is a Disease of the Unhealthy

I became convinced that, given the uncertainties around vaccine effectiveness and the overwhelming contribution of comorbidities to outcomes, rather than just dividing the population into vaccinated and unvaccinated, a useful division might be healthy versus unhealthy.

I suggested that an effective preventive answer to the severity and longevity of the pandemic is not just a shot in the arm, but also a massive effort to improve the general health of our population naturally through education about improved diet, exercise, nutrition, reduced stress, and sufficient rest.

Remove GST from fresh fruit and vegetables, improve education in schools a la Jaime Oliver, regulate known disease vectors like excess sugar, hard fats, and pollutants, inform the public more fully, investigate and promote verified approaches to health like organic food, meditation, and yoga.

I knew that governments would be reluctant, but thought naively that the serious nature of the challenge, the uncertain vaccine effectiveness, and the overwhelming contribution of comorbidities would strengthen minds and seed political bravery.

My Skegg committee correspondent had an initially positive response to my suggestion that we needed to do more to educate the public about healthy habits saying:

“I think you may be right – in that opportunities should be taken to promote preventive health measures now and at all times.”

But added a rider “the chances of other ‘interventions’ having anything like the protective effect [of vaccination] is remote in my view.”

This last sentence revealed the bias governing Skegg committee decisions.

As a result, the committee was going to miss key signals.

These include a study published in June by the BMJ which found that the severity of Covid symptoms is reduced by 73% in those following a plant-based diet.

There were other vital indicators like this one, missed early on.

For example, a UK study found that shift workers are three times more likely to be hospitalized.

15% of people exposed to covid never even develop the illness, why is that?

This is a vital question that got forgotten in the rush to push vaccination as a stand-alone answer.

On August 7th the Delta variant escaped quarantine in Auckland and the long lockdown began.

The Risk of Vaccine Adverse Events

By late August I had become aware that a number of my friends and friends of friends had suffered illness at some point following vaccination.

My best friend at university was one of these, he never did have Covid, but he was doubly vaccinated.

I exchanged a number of emails with my government advisor correspondents on this topic.

I provided details of specific serious events including death proximate to vaccination, and quoted studies documenting vaccine adverse effects such as myocarditis.

I was met with a vigorous defence of the safety of vaccination.

One of my correspondents wrote of social media reports (often the last resort of people injured by vaccination)

“I have learnt the hard way, that the vast majority prove to be fictitious, and as such will have no bearing on my perspective.”

This was misguided prejudice, pure and simple. Another conceded:

“There is certainly well documented clotting association with the vector-based vaccines,”

but maintained this was not common enough to cause concern.

Did the Skegg Committee have the myopathy associated with narrow disciplines?

Michael Baker however shared my concerns and responded:

“I am hoping that the intense surveillance of adverse events following immunisation will give us a good steer about the risk of these events.”

I researched the NZ reporting procedures to which he referred (known as the CARM system) and found to my dismay that these were voluntary.

Under normal circumstances, a new vaccine arriving on our shores would have already undergone rigorous long-term testing.

As a consequence, adverse events following vaccination have never been significant and the relevance of the CARM system has been largely academic and of little concern to GPs, hospital staff, and Medsafe (the ultimate NZ authority).

Vaccines are assumed to be safe. Such is the reassurance and power of the word ’vaccine’, mRNA covid vaccine adverse events have been grossly unreported.

Many people suffering adverse reactions have been sent home with the advice that they may be overly anxious.

Some reactions are readily dismissed as unrelated coincidences.

Moreover hospitals and GPs are often at a loss to suggest treatment options.

On August 19 vaccination was made available to 12-15 year olds.

This again resulted from a vaccination bias.

People under thirty are at minuscule risk from covid, but they are at risk from vaccination.

The point of vaccinating the young is not to protect them, they will be better served by the strong immunity gained after recovering from the illness rather than the very short-term protection from vaccination.

The point of vaccinating the young is to protect their parents in case they bring the illness back from school.

There is an argument here that vaccination will expose children to a greater risk than covid.

The research data is equivocal on this point and not in any way conclusive of benefit.

Despite this, the government Covid messaging took a new turn.

Young people were appearing in adverts to assure the public that they had received the vaccine and it was both safe and beneficial.

No mention was made of the high risk of myocarditis (a serious illness) among especially vulnerable young men and boys.

Vaccine Mandates

On September 21st Jacinda Ardern emphatically claimed that those who refuse vaccination would face no penalties at all.

Curiously Ardern added:

“anyone who doesn’t take up an effective and trusted and safe vaccine when it becomes available, that will come at a risk to them.”

Clearly at this point, since it was available, Ardern knew that the Pfizer vaccine did not fit all the criteria: effective, safe, and tested.

In actuality, we were to find out soon enough that it does not fit any of these criteria.

On October 3rd, realising that productive dialogue with my private correspondents was at an end, I wrote an open letter to Jacinda Ardern.

This was very widely read and shared.

In this, I discussed the uncertainties around vaccine outcomes and safety.

I urged the government to adjust its message that vaccination would enable personal freedoms to be restored, and to broaden its message to include preventive approaches to improve health.

I received no reply and my correspondents among government advisors ceased responding altogether.

I had overstepped an unwritten rule—no doubts about covid vaccine safety were to be raised in public.

On October 11th Cabinet announced sweeping vaccination mandates for staff in the education and health sectors.

From this point on, vaccine mandates were floated as the way ahead to the lifting of lockdowns and ‘freedom’.

Clearly, between September 21st and October 11th, something happened to radically change Ardern’s mind about mandates.

She must have started to either believe that the Pfizer vaccine was both safe and effective or decided to ignore these criteria—her own preconditions for mandates.

From my earlier correspondence with government science advisors and their subsequent public comments, it seemed clear that they remained cautious about the wisdom of lifting lockdowns and should have been able to recognise the limitations of vaccine effectiveness. Business advisors less so, but even they were emphatic that they would defer to science advice.

Factors Influencing Government Policy

There was a fundamental mistake in Jacinda Ardern’s perception and use of ‘science’. Science was being treated as a monolithic body of knowledge.

In fact, scientific disciplines contain competing ideas, paradigms, and theories.

Separate disciplines have overlapping expertise but often their practice is so separated that experts in different fields are unaware of each other’s conclusions.

Ardern had come to rely on the advice of epidemiologists whose profession was dominated by a fear of infectious agents and a deep belief in vaccination.

What other factors influenced the change in government policy?

Perhaps during this time political decisions began to take precedence over science.

Clearly, the natives were getting restless in Auckland which had been under near total lockdown for two long months.

During this period Israel, the other country exclusively using the Pfizer vaccine, was in the middle of a surging third wave of cases and deaths.

Therefore Ardern should have known that the vaccine was not effective enough to support her aim of control and elimination.

There was also a mistaken statistical and methodological idea that rolled over from early calculations of herd immunity.

If the effectiveness of the Pfizer vaccine remained at 95% as was believed early on, herd immunity could have been achieved with 60% to 70% of the population vaccinated.

As it became known that the effectiveness of the Pfizer vaccine waned, this figure was revised up to 95% and even to 99% by some.

This would have been a powerful motivation for vaccine mandates.

But the calculation was in most respects inappropriate.

Firstly the vaccine allowed transmission rather easily and secondly, real-world data showed that even countries with 100% vaccination like Gibraltar and Portugal were experiencing waves of covid infection.

Also, vaccine effectiveness drops to zero after 7 months, completely negating any possibility of herd immunity.

This left the justification for mandates clinging on to one last hand hold—vaccines reduce hospital admissions.

Our overstretched health service might just need this in order to cope.

The significance of this pales in the face of hard truth, covid mortality is still primarily related to comorbidities and age. Smokers, diabetics, immune-compromised persons, the elderly and infirm, and the unhealthy are most at risk.

This is compounded by something disturbing hidden in real-world data, figures published by UKHSA showed that for individuals over 19, the rate of transmission was almost twice as high among the vaccinated when compared to the unvaccinated.

These calculations should have sounded alarm bells.

They didn’t, they were rejected as obviously false, a rejection that had no basis in science.

Some experts in genomics however have taken them very seriously and have begun to research biochemical pathways and mechanisms which would possibly allow vaccination to facilitate susceptibility.

This underlines the as yet unknown and the ‘in progress’ research projects.

Any government rigidly enforcing mandates and speaking in absolutely certain terms, as Ardern is, has lost the thread of the science.

Did the government take advice from Medsafe on safety?

Did Medsafe’s reluctance to classify reported adverse effects and deaths as related to vaccination convince her that the Pfizer vaccine was safe?

Medsafe is a member of the International Coalition of Medicines Regulatory Authorities (ICMRA).

ICMRA is well connected to the commercial vaccine industry and was known to be writing pro-vaccination covid policy statements which were distributed to its members via the data sharing channels ICMRA had established.

If Ardern had consulted with other governments, she may well have found they shared similar views about mandates just because the same policy papers of ICMRA had found their way to every government desk—a phenomenon well known in network theory.

ICMRA had since its formation in 2015 cemented a central place in the medical regulatory network (known as a centrality effect).

In effect, it had created an unbalanced network, whereby all medicines regulatory bodies around the world were receiving the same information and advising their political decision-makers in the government accordingly.

Political decision-makers however were unaware of the centrality of ICMRA policy briefings.

If one Government head were to speak to their counterpart in another country they would be gratified and reinforced to find that they had similar ideas about mandates.

If they spoke to several at an international meeting of heads of state, they would be reinforced many times over in an opinion that had actually been fed to all of them by a single vested interest.

This phenomenon is known as double counting in network theory and systematically creates network bias.

The Need for Mandatory Reporting of Adverse Events

On October 28th I wrote to all MPs and urged the government to put in place mandatory reporting of adverse events so that their extent could be properly assessed.

At the time, Michael Baker, my gene therapist colleague, myself, and almost everyone else were unaware of the inadequate protocols that had been used to test the novel covid vaccines.

Of course, the trials had to be almost impossibly short because of the sense of urgency, but their other shortcomings have only recently come to light.

Being short trials there was always going to be uncertainty about the long-term effects, but we presumed that any immediate dangers of vaccination were going to be detected and documented before approval for emergency use.

Journal papers had already been published reporting that the vaccines were highly effective and very safe.

Early in November, the BMJ blew the whistle on shortcomings at one trial location for the Pfizer vaccine—some data had been falsified.

Alarming though this sounded, we hoped the errors were minor and resulted from the logistics involved in the short time frames and from the sloppy quality control of one contractor.

Last week this hope was dashed by an investigative journalist from Australia, Maryanne Demasi PhD. Ms Demasi found that the Pfizer and AstraZeneca trials used new digital apps to gather patient data on adverse effects.

The reporting options on these apps had only limited predetermined choices and gave little or no opportunity to describe symptoms if they departed from the multi-choice scheme of mostly mild adverse events.

Brianne Dressen was a participant in the AstraZeneca (AZD1222) trial.

She suffered a severe adverse reaction after the first injection and became disabled.

She was ‘unblinded’ from the trial, her smartphone app was disabled, she was advised not to have the second injection, and crucially the reports of her adverse event were never recorded in the final publication of the trial in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM).

As participants suffering serious adverse events like Ms Dressen were withdrawn, it is no wonder that whilst the occurrences of mild adverse events were reported as significant, occurrence of serious events was reported as insignificant.

Ms. Dressen complained to the editor of the NEJM, but he refused to correct the inaccuracies, thereby blinding the public, governments, and scientists to the possibility that adverse events could be very serious indeed.

Ms. Dressen’s experience was not an isolated event, there were others. The recent Pfizer trial results of 12-15-year-olds state there were “no serious vaccine-related adverse events”.

But Ms. Demasi reports a serious adverse event excluded from this study also—a thirteen-year-old girl now confined to a wheelchair.

Moreover, the AstraZeneca protocol had excluded adverse events resulting in death for the five weeks immediately after the first inoculation—a fatal safety testing flaw.

What is the take home lesson from this?

Drug side effects are known to be the third leading cause of death. In 2009 Pfizer paid out $2.3 billion in damages for criminally misbranding drugs.

The Ministry of Health should have been more suspicious.

Knowing that the safety trials were short, they should have alerted GPs and hospital staff to expect the unexpected, report all adverse events, and send accurate and complete reports to Medsafe promptly.

This didn’t happen.

More importantly, the number of adverse events and deaths that Medsafe did receive was large, many times greater (possibly around 50 times greater) than any previous vaccine programme.

There should have been a vigorous effort on the part of Medsafe to find out what sort of people were at greatest risk.

Ignoring this was not just an oversight, it is possibly criminal. It may have affected the health of a very large number of recipients.

Some of these only consented to vaccination under threat of loss of employment.

Moreover, the Ministry of Health largely refused to issue vaccine exemptions to people who had already had an adverse reaction to the first covid dose or to a past vaccination.

This was, without doubt, an imposition of personal medical risk by the government in contravention of the Bill of Rights.

Did Jacinda Ardern Ignore Red Flags?

The failure to alert the public that there was a measurable and significant risk to vaccination was compounded by false government assurances that there was no risk.

Jacinda Ardern herself cannot have been unaware of potential risks, yet on occasions she dismissed questions at press conferences about adverse events, giving the impression that such concerns were without foundation.

The 33,000 comments on her Facebook page, after she advised people to enquire of their vaccinated friends whether they were unharmed, should not have been ignored nor quickly deleted.

Her rejection of safety concerns and possible long term risks can only be described as an inexcusable failure to inform herself, or could it possibly have been fuelled by a deliberate attempt on the part of Medsafe to hide or downplay the significance of adverse event data?

The safety reassurances Ardern, Bloomfield, and Hipkins gave repeatedly at press conferences and advertised to the public, also mitigated against adverse effect reporting.

I know of a number of people who did not suspect that their cardiac events subsequent to vaccination could be related.

The public perception of safety has become so entrenched that individuals posting about their adverse event symptoms on social media are often mercilessly trolled.

Medsafe has maintained that the very high level of adverse events is not necessarily related to vaccination, because they knew of no proven mechanism which would cause them.

With the recent publication of a number of scientific papers suggestive of risk, this position cannot be realistically maintained, even if it ever could be.

In the last month, alone Circulation reports that the average risk of a cardiac event after vaccination rises from 11% to 25% as measured by biochemical markers of heart inflammation used in the standard PULS test.

Viruses reports that the covid spike protein inhibits DNA repair in vitro. The New England Journal of Medicine reports that the spike protein may impair long-term immune function.

Cell Discovery reports that post-vaccination symptoms mimic covid itself. Other research suggests that the spike protein can be long-lived in the bloodstream and that the cell nucleus is not as well protected from mRNA vaccines as we thought.

Clearly, the lack of clinical research expertise in the field of genomics, and specifically gene therapy risk assessment, on the Skegg Committee meant that such tentative concerns are not being factored into any discussion.

The possible extent of adverse events is unknown and apparently being ignored.

BUT, and it’s a big BUT, the main ignorance here concerns the possible long-term effects of covid vaccination with an mRNA vaccine or a viral vector vaccine.

It cannot be overemphasised enough that these risks are unquantified and in a completely new field of biotechnology unknowable within a short time frame.

Certainly, there are some very highly qualified and respected leaders in the field who have struck a very cautious note when airing their views publicly.

Did anyone ever have an honest conversation with Ardern about this?

Should mandates be enforced when they are in essence a gamble with uncertain and unknowable odds?

What Lessons Can be Learned?

In summary, Ardern set the pre-conditions for vaccine mandates as “safe, effective, and tested”, we have seen that none of these are reasonably satisfied.

Yet she went ahead and ‘bet the farm’ on vaccine mandates.

The watch word of my early dialogue with advisors was ‘caution’.

At the beginning, they recognised the limitations of current knowledge. They ‘knew’ we had to explore all the options.

This sensible approach has seemingly been replaced by a misplaced professional stamp of vaccine approval along with the exercise of political Jacinda power.

In the first world war, trench warfare was a failed strategy but its continued use was promoted by the establishment despite the horrendous loss of life.

As we now face new variants, possibly impervious to vaccination, do we continue to maintain the fiction that universal mandated vaccination is a stand-alone strategy?

Are we going to meekly submit to regular booster shots at shorter and shorter intervals, and to embrace new genetic vaccine formulations?

Or do we recognise that we are at a turning point in our civilization whereby our most successful strategy will be improvements in our habits, our lifestyle, our diet?

Do we recognise that, as in so many fields of endeavour, we have brought ourselves to our knees, and need to think again about the fundamentals of personal health and the environment?

Do I think that the NZ public can handle a mature and honest discussion?

Yes. The decision to not only keep the public in the dark, but promote an entirely exaggerated and in some aspects false narrative appears as a misguided crusade.

The scapegoating of the unvaccinated, despite the fact that the vaccinated can and do transmit covid easily, appears as a Machiavellian political plot.

The willful suppression of the large scientific uncertainty surrounding many covid ‘facts’, through selective editing or blocking of information comes straight out of the playbook of tyrants.

The lack of an early and dynamic effort to understand and evaluate early intervention treatments was an error that could lead to increased fatalities.

The gap between evolving scientific knowledge and government fiction has become a gaping chasm.

A final word—why oh why hasn’t the media dug deeper?

Where is well researched investigative reporting to be found?

Why is there no balance?

The media reporting of Covid in NZ is a lesson in itself and another story to be told at a future date by some brave and clear-minded investigator.

The origins of one-sided reporting are not hard to discern when you recognise that the government has discouraged the cash strapped media from investigating or striking a critical note using a well-financed carrot and stick approach.

Large grants have been made to media outlets.

Independent vaccine lobby groups have also financed media outlets.

Yesterday in Stuff, a long, rambling, and selective piece of reporting, entitled Covid-19 NZ: Just how deadly is the virus?, concluded with the comforting thought that the vaccine makes you younger.

Miracle of miracles—the long-lost elixir of eternal life has been discovered by the independent Stuff media group.

When society is faced with an imminent threat of annihilation, ancient means of defence are invoked.

Five essential elements are especially evident in history—a leader, a pack, a talisman, a scapegoat, and a sacrifice.

Thus a medieval foot soldier had a baron, his army, armour, an enemy, and a battle. To ward off plague some might have been happy to follow a priest, his religion, the sacrament, to abhor witches, and burn them at the stake to ward off the evil eye.

A bit dramatic you might say. We have moved on from these primitive instincts, haven’t we?

The pandemic has evoked a somewhat similar response. Our leader is  ‘science’, our pack is the vaccinated, our talisman the vaccine, our scapegoats the unvaccinated, and the requirement for a sacrifice is appeased by confining the unvaccinated to their homes. For some, it has been a comforting response to a much-hyped pandemic.

Vaccination does have a mythic history of success dating back to the nineteenth century and should qualify as a talisman with special powers to ward off disease. Similarly, science is fundamental to modern civilisation.

The existence of Luddite unclean elements of society, who have primitive fears of vaccination and almost certainly of science and technology too, is to be deplored. They should be excluded from the company of the great and the good.

This sort of response has been associated with a certain kind of smug self-righteous nobility throughout history.

All is well and good,  but a problem appears when our response is rooted deeply in belief rather than rational thought. Thus the first world war had its hereditary generals, its armies, its trenches, its enemy, and its bloody battles.

The generals soldiered on with trench warfare far beyond any rational realisation that as a strategy it was not working. Millions of young men were sacrificed to an almost medieval ideal of a noble cause.

Schizophrenia comes in when the facts no longer fit the narrative

Here are the talismen of vaccination mandates put next to the contradictions:

• Europe has high rates of vaccination, but is experiencing a fourth surge.
• Vaccination confers immunity, but it allows transmission 
• Vaccination protects against symptoms, but it wanes rapidly and disappears.
• Israel mandated booster shots, but covid deaths doubled last week.
• Vaccination is safe, but causes 50 times more adverse reactions than normal.
• Vaccination will protect society, but there is unprecedented excess mortality. 
• Young people are at great risk from covid, but their risk is miniscule.
• Covid is a killer, but it is just 1.5 times more deadly than regular flu.
• Covid will overwhelm health services, but they are functioning overseas.
• Vaccination will develop herd immunity, but it doesn’t 

A couple of days ago I sent out a press release to our NZ media about a  paper in the journal Circulation reporting that vaccination elevated the five-year risk of a cardiac event from 11% to 25%. 

Did our mainstream media report it? No. In the UK it caused a stir. The lack of any reaction to this and other contradictory findings is increasingly looking like a conspiracy of silence.

How Long Will We Have to Wait Until the Penny Drops?

Thomas Kuhn described the psychology of this very aptly when he discussed the warfare associated with competing paradigms of scientific thought. 

He referred to the anomalous card experiment. A deck of cards is sprinkled with false cards amongst the real, such as a black nine of diamonds or a red jack of spades. Cards are rapidly presented to a subject and he is asked to identify them. 

At first, all cards whether real or false are identified as real, this is known as a dominance reaction—we wish to impose our own truth on our experience.

As the rate of presentation is slowed, moments of confusion set in when false cards come up. At some point, the subject realises that anomalous cards can exist in his universe. He has an aha moment.

Interestingly, a  few people never make the transition, they are trapped in their tendency to dominate their perception of the world around them and impose their own views even if they are inconsistent with facts.

It is time to review mandates and reconsider how much dominance,   hope, and fear are contaminating our perception of covid facts