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.
