As New Zealand looks across the globe to Europe and sees the most vaccinated continent rising in the fourth wave of Covid and contemplates the failure of mass vaccination to protect millions, Jacinda and Labour has decided to bet the farm on more not less.

As accumulating data indicates that adverse reactions to mRNA dwarf any previous vaccines, we ask how did we become so certain about something so uncertain and risky?

Following the discovery of DNA, genetic research became the poster boy for a rosy future free from illness. Biotech garnered the lion’s share of all research money and university funding.

But during the first decade of this century, gene therapy sunk into the doldrums.

Efforts to bring relief to sufferers of genetic defects that cause diseases or increase vulnerability to cancer and other illnesses were floundering due to serious adverse side effects of the virus vectors used to introduce genetic material to cells—the same technology used in mRNA vaccines.

The Mayo Clinic lists these as:

• Unwanted immune system reaction
  Your body’s immune system may see the introduced viruses as intruders and attack them. This can cause inflammation and, in severe cases, organ failure.
• Targeting the wrong cells
  Altered viruses may infect additional cells — not just the targeted cells. If this happens, healthy cells may be damaged, causing other illness or diseases, such as cancer.
• Infection caused by the virus
  It’s possible that once introduced into the body, the viruses may recover their original ability to cause disease.
• Possibility of causing a tumor
  If genetic information becomes incorporated into your DNA, the insertion might lead to tumors.

Some of these adverse effects can take years to register and detect, necessitating long testing lead times.

Despite the investment of billions, no useful medicines were coming to market because of unacceptable side effects, leaving pharmaceutical companies financially struggling to recoup the investment.

Opinion among genetic scientists became polarised. More cautious biotechnologists, aware of the verified pitfalls and risks became locked in a struggle with those who believed in the inevitability of biotech medicine and were willing to take the risks.

Experimentation by biotech advocacy groups away from scrutiny, like that at the Wuhan Virology Laboratory, became normalised. 

To bypass safety regulations, pharmaceutical companies knew they would need to engineer a seismic shift in acceptable levels of risk and harm.

Then the Covid-19 pandemic struck, pharmaceutical companies and research bodies moved into high gear to develop gene vaccines.

Simultaneously the public relations and lobbying arm of biotech swung into action. Long planned and nurtured pipelines into government regulators were primed and pumped.

The International Coalition of Medicines Regulatory Authorities (ICMRA), with close ties to big pharma (to which Medsafe belongs), began to produce policy and procedure papers which informed Medsafe’s advice to our government. 

Biotech was going all in on its bet that regular shots of gene technology would be mandated for everyone in the world. 

Senior and highly experienced figures in the biotech world who spoke out about severe risks were marginalised by placement of clever publicity. 

Now the wheels are coming off and our government is on the back foot. It is certain that the preventive effects of mRNA vaccines are short-lived and they are as much as 50 times more risky than traditional vaccines.

Some of the predicted risks are being seen among the vaccinated such as immune deficiency, thrombosis, heart inflammation, and more.

The government’s situation is dire, if they admit that vaccination is not a stand-alone solution they will lose face and political advantage.

If they start admitting to the public that the side effects of the vaccine are significant and a potential time bomb for the whole population, they face political oblivion. 

They have decided that the way ahead is safety in numbers—ignore flags of risk, vaccinate virtually the whole population, and drag along with the agreement of the media and the other political parties.

Create a fearful and exaggerated picture of the both devastation of the disease and the efficacy of the vaccine.

At the same time, they have promoted a scapegoat myth that the unvaccinated can be blamed for everything.

All of these government actions have been curated by the public relations machine of big pharma and its pipeline into Medsafe who have refused to institute policies that would adequately measure and analyse side effects of the vaccination programme.

The Big Picture is Evident

The world is beset with almost out of control problems of health, food security, climate, and pollution.

Extra-governmental international players are bidding to take control on a global level based on their narrow commercial interests.

New Zealand needs to take back control of its own situation and sovereignty.

One thing is absolutely clear and at odds with our current government’s policies—covid is a disease that severely affects those already ill whether they are vaccinated or not. 

The preventive answer to the severity and longevity of the pandemic is not a shot in the arm, but a massive effort to improve the general health of our population naturally through 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. 

The world is never going to recover from this pandemic unless we move in a new direction. Governments have put off change for years.

It will take open minds, political bravery, intellectual honesty, and persistence, not an ineffective approach fraught with harm. 

The Ardern government (and indeed most governments) have lost touch with the ‘science’, but it is catching up with them. 9 November 2021.

For over a year the Ardern Government had successfully pursued a Covid elimination strategy through tight border controls.

Then in August 2021, the Skegg report let them off the leash.

A naive reading of the report led the Government to believe that universal vaccination could be a stand-alone solution to the Covid crisis.

The small print was missed. The Skegg Committee was well aware that there are some big risks that would require the issue to be frequently revisited scientifically.

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

Michael Baker, epidemiologist and government advisor wrote:

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

Despite this, a relieved government ramped up a publicity drive of unprecedented cost and coercion.

The ensuing publicity gave the general public the assurance that all was well and wisely put.

As a result, we have ended up with a majority of the population (and also the media) holding strong opinions about issues they haven’t had the time to study scientifically in isolation from the government’s public relations onslaught.

The very word ‘vaccination’ was tremendously soothing balm for troubled souls, carrying as it did the connotation of safety and effectiveness.

Even more reassuring for the general public, there were some scapegoats that the government identified who were deserving of being shunned and punished.

These were labelled as anti-vaxxers, yet among their number were serious scientists whose experience extended not only to the ‘management of public risk’, but also included some giants of the vaccine research and development industry such as the former VP of Pfizer itself.

After August, it became government policy to dismiss safety questions and to turn a blind eye to voices other than their own.

Nothing was done to shore up the defects in our reporting and recording systems which might serve as an early warning that the wheels were coming off the government’s strategy.

Now November has arrived and with it a sudden rush of mainstream science reservations. Among these:

The prestigious BMJ exposes deficiencies and data falsification in Pfizer vaccine trials:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n2635

Leading journal Viruses reveals that mRNA vaccines impair DNA repair and undermine immunity in vitro Viruses 2021, 13,2056.

https://doi.org/10.3390/v13102056

The data out of Public Health England (PHE), one of the most comprehensive publicly available databases, is so obviously out of step with the public narrative of vaccination effectiveness as to shake even the most ‘Ardernt’ supporter’s faith.

One picture is worth a thousand words, the import of the combination of high UK vaccination rates and high cases is unmistakable, not to say glaringly obvious.

More worrying still, there is a nagging trend in the PHE data of all-cause mortality among the vaccinated which has prompted a number of mathematically competent observers to suggest that rapidly waning vaccine effectiveness leaves the recipient with deficiencies in their immune protection.

The jury is still out on this one, but the implication is obvious: meticulous reporting of data is essential if government policy is to be safe.

What Did the Government Do Wrong and What Can Now Be Done to Correct It?

1. Vaccination adverse event reporting should be mandatory, not voluntary as it now is. All events need tabulation and analysis.

2. Death certificates from all causes of mortality should note vaccination status and be compared to population norms.

3. Child vaccination should be paused because of elevated risks of heart inflammation.

4. Vaccine mandates should be paused pending the availability of reliable adverse event data. Since there is little that vaccination does to stop transmission (https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.31.21261387v4.full.pdf), there is no public health downside to this.

5. Importantly, the government needs to conduct a scientific reality check by honestly comparing its message to the ‘science’.

The ethical fault line in the government’s current mandate policy should be obvious: Yes, Covid poses a grave risk even though a lot less than originally feared: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanwpc/article/PIIS2666-6065(21)00102-4/fulltext), but the replacement of this risk with another unquantified risk—the unknown short and long term health impact of vaccination—can not be justified without ongoing scientific evaluation.

Guy Hatchard Ph.D. has expertise in the statistical management of risk. He previously worked for Genetic ID, a global company which tested and certified bulk food shipments as safe.

Varying Methodologies to Assess Relative Risks have Distorted the Covid Debate, Tended to Misinform the Public, and Opened the Door to Mistakes in Public Health Policy.

Methodological Deficiencies in Covid policy

Varying Methodologies to Assess Relative Risks have Distorted the Covid Debate, Tended to Misinform the Public, and Opened the Door to Mistakes in Public Health Policy.

Dear Jacinda

I want to thank you for the great compassion and clarity you have exhibited during your tenure as Prime Minister.

Your promotion of science and scientists in alliance with government has been inspiring. Your capacity to communicate ideas is of the highest order. Your patience is exemplary.

I am a scientist who has worked with statistical analysis of social data including time series analysis and panel regression analysis.

I have also worked in the genetic testing industry. I am therefore well aware that to draw useful conclusions methodologies and data collection criteria have to be at foundation consistent.

Given my data background and my long-term concern for health, over the last few months, I have corresponded with a number of scientists among your extensive advisory team.

I have been able to express my views to them and ask questions. This is a great feature of your inclusive government approach.

I understand very clearly that you have been risk-averse, and for good reasons. Your aim is to protect public health and especially that of the vulnerable.

I clearly understand that Covid poses a unique challenge to immediate and long-term health.

I also realise that our emergency health facilities here in New Zealand will be inadequate to provide services should Covid become widespread in the community.

I support all efforts to prevent this happening including effective vaccination.

Recently I have become puzzled by persistent personal reports of vaccine harm circulating in the public domain that are not reflected in the government reports of adverse reactions to the vaccine.

I have reflected upon this, and communicated with friends and scientists here and overseas.

As a result I am beginning to get a clear picture of a distinct divergence of methodologies which is distorting the presentation of information.

Firstly, overseas there has been a general tendency in countries where there is an adequate reporting system in place, to certify deaths within one month of being actively ill with Covid, as being due solely to Covid.

This has occurred even though it is clear that co-morbidities are determinants of the risk of developing serious Covid.

These comorbidities include (in no particular order):

• uncontrolled hypertension
• obesity
• diabetes
• 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
• and substance abuse.

The policy of recording Covid on the death certificate irrespective of the co-morbidities can be consistently applied and has its own logic.

However, the method of recording adverse effects of Covid vaccines is applied distinctly differently and in an opposite way.

When a vaccine adverse effect is reported, the policy is to search for possible confounding morbidities, if one can be found then it is judged that the vaccine is not responsible.

It is also not a policy to examine all deaths and adverse events for a whole month after vaccination, thus in addition many possible adverse effects are being omitted.

It is well known that vaccines including Covid vaccines are vectors (or triggers) which can and do exacerbate a large number of comorbidities.

Thus, taking a specific example, Covid vaccines are known to be associated with thrombosis, but this association is dismissed as causative because it predominantly occurs among people who already are known to be at risk of stroke.

For example, a small number of people taking the contraceptive pill are known to be at risk of thrombosis.

Should such a person die after receiving the vaccination as happened recently in New Zealand, the cause of death is ascribed to the contraceptive pill.

This is an excessively conservative and misleading approach.

Since the reporting methodologies of Covid severity and death versus vaccination adverse effects are divergent, conclusions drawn from these two sets of data are unsound.

The distortion these two differing methodologies of reporting produce turns out to be significant in terms of public policy. Apples are being compared to oranges.

Whilst Covid deaths appear inflated, vaccine adverse effects are greatly reduced to the extent that they appear to be virtually non-existent.

This is not the case.

As you are aware from your recent post on your Facebook page about vaccine side effects, which garnered 33,000 comments, vaccine side effects are highly unreported by the government agencies but are not going unnoticed by a significant cohort of the public.

What are the principal effects of this and other known facts on public policy?

1. Members of the public who have significant comorbidities likely to be triggered by the Covid vaccine are not being informed of the potential risks, quite the reverse.

They are being encouraged and even pressured to take the vaccine with the impression that it is scientifically proven to be harmless.

Thus they are being denied informed consent, and should they suffer adverse effects denied redress or acknowledgement.

The imposition of vaccine mandates in certain professions confounds this further. The present discussion of possible vaccine passports will also do so. 

2. The overriding importance of tackling co-morbidities is masked—prior ill health is actually the main cause of death from Covid.

Thus government policy is not doing enough to favour healthy diets and lifestyles.

It could be doing more than it is, such as abolishing GST on fresh fruit and vegetables, imposing a sugar tax, introducing closer assessment, information, and control of additives, ultra processed foods, and known harmful pesticides, as well as maintaining clean air (including reducing off gassing in building materials and household goods).

In this regard, a huge opportunity is going missing. Approximately 75% of people recover from Covid without suffering serious illness or long-term effects.

Where is the funding for research to be done to determine what it is about their lifestyle, diet, environment, etc., which is supporting their health?

3. The vaccination of minors is a scandalous side effect of this misinformation.

Research is yet incomplete, but an initial indication from the USA is that the Covid vaccine is four times more dangerous for males under 18 than Covid itself.

Moreover, other research shows that the natural immune protection developed after recovery from Covid is 13 times more powerful than the temporary protection offered by the vaccine.

Since the vaccine does not stem transmission of Covid, the purpose of vaccinating 12-17-year-olds (not to speak of 5-12-year-olds) is obscure and risky. It flies in the face of your caring stance.

4. It is not being publicised that the vaccine has been approved on an emergency basis.

Its long-term effects, which would normally be assessed before general use, have yet to be researched.

Thus youth in particular and the whole population, in general, are being exposed to some unquantified risks.

How did it come about that you have been advised that the policies being followed are soundly based on science, whereas there is a fundamental methodological flaw being applied?

The answer lies in historical policies which in their day might have been useful or expedient, and in the fragmentation, inconsistency in thinking, and lack of alertness among the busy scientific and health professionals formulating advice.

Also in a certain willingness to accept at face value the consistency of data and conclusions sourced from different bodies, countries, and commercial interests. 

Vaccine developers and manufacturers are commercial bodies. At the heart of their endeavour is not just a desire to benefit health but also a push to secure profits in a highly competitive market.

Over 117 vaccines have or are being developed worldwide.

The failure to address statistically and publicly the interactions of vaccines with comorbidities is not just a matter of history but also a matter of marketing.

Despite the fact that vaccine companies have been granted immunity from prosecution, they are still sensitive to public acceptance.

Covid is a new disease that emerged rapidly and spread globally.

Whilst Covid is very obviously greatly affected by co-morbidities, vaccine side effect assessments have continued to follow protocols established for illnesses where comorbidities were of less importance.

This needs to be urgently corrected.

I trust that you will continue to take account of the science and be bold in adjusting your message accordingly.

At present, an erroneous impression might have been created that vaccinated individuals can be allowed free movement without a downside, whilst the vaccine-hesitant are blameworthy.

On a positive note, it appears that new treatments for Covid are emerging (as indeed they did for AIDS). These are promising to lessen the impact and mortality rate of the disease.

If these gather pace, your policy of elimination will be vindicated. In this light, extension of elimination strategies may prove within a short time frame to result in a long-term benefit.

As you know, vaccination alone is proving insufficient to control the disease around the world, even in developed countries.

Therefore it is unlikely to do so here. New treatments may hold one answer. No doubt your government is closely monitoring these and proposing to adopt them.

If there is one clear lesson of the pandemic it is this:—maintenance of personal health through access to diet, exercise, cleanliness, and adequate rest is still the most vital determinant of public health and should be the priority of government health policy.

Today the High Court ruled that whilst vaccine mandates can create bullying, harassment, and vilification of the unvaccinated and their family members, they do not breach the NZ Bill of Rights.

This means that Justice Matthew Palmer believed that vaccine mandates do not violate the provisions of the NZ Bill of Rights including

“Right not to be subjected to medical or scientific experimentation” or 

“Freedom of thought conscience or religion” or 

“Freedom from discrimination” or 

“Right to refuse to undergo medical treatment” or 

“Rights of minorities”. 

In ruling against the plaintiff’s Justice Palmer appealed to section 5 of the NZ Bill of Rights which says:

“the rights and freedoms expressed in this Bill of Rights may be subject to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society”.

You might join me in thinking that Section 5 is chilling in the way that it asserts the ability of parliament to overrule our rights and implies that the majority may impose its views on the minority.

How Did This Happen?

Before 2004, NZers had the right to appeal to the Privy Council in the UK. The UK judicial process has essential guarantees built into its constitution known as Common Law.

Common Law dates back to the 13th century and to the confrontation between the rebel Barons and King John which resulted in the Magna Carta Libertatum (Great Charter of Freedoms) being signed at Runnymede.

Common Law is perpetuated when justices invoke ancient principles of fairness and rights in their interpretation of the law.

Lord Chief Justice Denning, Master of the Rolls, and famous advocate of individual justice defined the effect of Common Law as

“what right thinking men consider to be fair between man and man and in these days between man and the state” (please forgive his gender bias in an earlier age)

Helen Clarke decided that our right of appeal to the Privy Council was archaic and should be replaced by an NZ institution—the Supreme Court.

That seems OK, but in so doing she quietly replaced the central role of Common Law in the judicial process with the ‘supremacy of Parliament’.

The NZ courts have consistently taken the view that their role is not to interfere with but rather support the intent of Parliament.

The NZ Bill of Rights Act Has no Teeth

The NZ Bill of Rights Act of 1990 thereby has no teeth, it is advisory only and its provisions are regularly ignored or overruled by the courts.

Jacinda Ardern and her government, riding on an absolute parliamentary majority, have today exploited parliament’s supremacy to the full.

Crown lawyers have sought and succeeded in painting the imposition of medical risk as a democratic and social good in times of emergency.

Concerns raised by scientific research publications did not play a part in today’s judgment, the law does not require science to be followed only the intention of parliament.

Can we be forgiven for drawing a parallel between 12th November 2021 and 31st March 1933 when the German government passed an innocent-sounding law called the Temporary Law for Coordination (Gleichschaltung)?

This proceeded along two related paths: synchronisation of all government institutions and mobilization of all citizens for the National Socialist cause.

This law paved the way for the creation of all subsequent instruments of mass control and exploitation in the Nazi state.

This situation can only be avoided by the repeal of Section 5 of the NZ Bill of Rights!