A group of scientists in Japan has released an analysis of 21 million vaccine and health records which provides evidence that up to 610,000 people died in Japan (0.5% of the population or 1 in 200) unexpectedly subsequent to the COVID-19 shots with a peak death rate occurring after 90-120 days. The time interval to the death peaks shortened if you received boosters. This massive effect size was missed until now because few among the medical community believed that deaths occurring 3 to 4 months after the shot could be related to the vaccine. The analysis of official data puts this fallacy to rest. COVID-19 vaccines have prolonged serious adverse effects.
It is disturbing data like this that has had us, up until now, clinging to hope that the Royal Commission would initiate a rational discussion about COVID-19 vaccination safety, but this hope was dashed when public hearings last week before the New Zealand Covid Commission revealed a profoundly different narrative.
Reportedly, the Royal Commission on COVID-19 vaccine safety phase two had previously received about 12 hours of private briefings by Voices for Freedom (VFF), the New Zealand Health Forum and New Zealand Doctors Speaking Out on Science (NZDSOS) during the last two months. These briefings were conducted in a cordial atmosphere and accompanied by detailed written submissions with references to official data sets and thousands of scientific papers published in reputable journals raising safety concerns. The briefings included presentations by recognised experts in epidemiology, health and biotechnology safety.
So we had reason for optimism, but despite this, at the public hearings last week the Commission and its counsels came out swinging, determined to undermine the credibility of concerns raised about mRNA vaccine safety. In doing so they cited discredited ideas, clung to the myth of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine safety and revealed the disturbing reality that they had not taken the time to properly review the submitted evidence and research. Apparently an old proverb applies: a leopard cannot change its spots.
The myths being entertained by the Commission included the following:
1. You cannot hold government officials responsible if they are acting on ‘expert’ advice.
In fact, governments have a duty to investigate the reliability of any advice they receive. During the pandemic there were many well credentialed scientists both here and overseas warning of the need for caution or offering alternatives. The government shut these down and initiated a one size fits all ‘safe and effective’ narrative along with draconian vaccine mandates. From this it is clear that they must bear a significant responsibility for their actions.
2. Whilst many people have suffered unusual reactions including deaths, you cannot prove the mRNA vaccine was causal. Adverse effects might just be the result of COVID-19 infection or something else we don’t know about.
This is a very naive misinterpretation of the science of causality. Statistical techniques like time series analysis of the data sets for COVID-19 incidence, vaccination status and health outcomes can rapidly identify causality to near certainty. Our government has withheld health and vaccination data from public view or independent scientific scrutiny, even going to the extent of gagging and prosecuting Health New Zealand whistleblower Barry Young. However, complete overseas health datasets publicly released in countries like Japan and Korea have proved COVID-19 vaccination beyond doubt as the most significant factor causing or complicating a rise in broad range of conditions including autoimmune and neurological, cancer, cardiac and mental diseases.
3. COVID-19 vaccines are sufficiently similar to traditional vaccines to ensure we can rely on their general safety and efficacy. Therefore there is no known mechanism for long term effects on a broad range of health conditions.
The immune system carries out trillions of protective actions in trillions of cells every day to support health. COVID-19 vaccines are the first ever vaccines to penetrate the cell wall to edit and repurpose the genetic control of human immune responses. Editing genetic functions is inherently mutative and its capacity to create unforeseen health consequences is recognised in pre-COVID scientific literature where for example a 2019 review reports:
“…gene therapy has been caught in a vicious cycle for nearly two decades owing to immune response, insertional mutagenesis, viral tropism, off-target activity, unwanted clinical outcomes (ranging from illness to death of participants in clinical trials), and patchy regulations.”.
COVID-19 mRNA vaccines generate toxic spike proteins which have been detected throughout human physiology even many months after vaccination. Evidence of igG4 modulated immune suppression following COVID-19 vaccination has been verified by numerous studies pointing to a mechanism for long term appearance of disease including cancers.
4. The Commission remit does not allow for or fund an assessment of the results of published scientific research therefore it is relying on ‘expert’ testimony.
In essence this limitation is anti-science. It fails to recognise that many ‘experts’ have conflicts of interest. They may want to ensure that their actions during the pandemic are not called into question. They may want to ensure that sources of funding for biotechnology do not dry up. Government pandemic policy was built on so-called expert advice, much of which has since been disproved by published research. Science proceeds on data. Analysis of data is published in journal papers which are subject to scientific and public scrutiny. If the Commission is not funded or prepared to evaluate the testimony they receive with reference to published data and research, then we will be left with a situation that is not materially different from that of the last five years. In other words, experts will be allowed to bear false witness before the Commission without any possibility of them being challenged as to veracity or supporting evidence.
This week one expert witness told the Commission that COVID-19 vaccines remain at or close to the injection site. A contention that has been proven false by research. The counsel for the Commission did not challenge this, precisely because they have decided not to closely investigate published research. This exposes an absolutely fundamental weakness in the Commission process.
As you probably know, articles we publish at the HatchardReport.com contain links to numerous scientific papers supporting our arguments, as does this one. It is notable that during the pandemic and subsequently, the government has referenced little by way of published research. On the rare occasions it did so, it selected articles that were often out of date and not representative of the broader scientific debate evident in journals. We had been hopeful that the Commission would recognise this as a key deficiency of government policy formation. Instead there was something frighteningly surreal about the public hearings. Echoing Margaret Thatcher’s 1980 speech: “We are not for turning”, the Commission appeared to be a captain ready to go down with his sinking ship.
Taken as a whole, the Commission’s positions which we watched unfold live last week appear to amount to a pre-determined and completely inadequate outcome. If we are to get a result that satisfies the requirement for transparency, the Commission should actually be demanding the public release of New Zealand health data sufficient to enable comparative time series analysis of vaccination status, health outcomes and deaths. Without this and a genuine dive into overseas published research findings, we will be left with more of the same tired old excuses and cover-ups. Moreover we will remain unprotected from a repeat performance in the near future. There have been 7,500 excess deaths in New Zealand since 2020 and the trend is continuing, the public deserves real answers.
The Hatchard Report has requested an opportunity to meet with the Commission on behalf of our many thousands of readers and subscribers but received no reply.
