Silver Bullet or Poisonous Chalice

Is the New Zealand Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine a Silver Bullet or an enhanced disease poisonous chalice?

Dr Maurice McGrath explores.

By August 2020, it became increasingly clear that the earliest iteration of “the affliction” was clearly not developing into the monster that it was initially feared to be, but something akin to serious seasonal ‘flu with a predilection for the aged and those with one or more serious co-morbidities’. It was reasonable to conclude that our endemic destination seemed assured, though the means of getting there appeared as uncertain as they were widely disparate between jurisdictions and countries.

Adopting an ‘elimination’ strategy was unrealistic and it prolonged the twin tortures of fear and control on the long-suffering people of New Zealand by delaying the inevitable. On the other hand, it suggested that the New Zealand Ministry of Health and the New Zealand Government believed that the eventual delivery of the magical silver bullet of ‘vaccination’ would vindicate their elimination strategy and they would be hailed as far-sighted political and medical heroes, with a political get-out-of-jail card to wave for a long time to come.

It then became incrementally obvious that a strangely similar authoritarian narrative was forming in many other countries that included most obviously the UK, Australia and Canada with a strict prohibition of early, primary care, off-label intervention, directed at preventing early hospitalisation, together with the implementation of draconian policies around the freedom of movement, masks and vaccine passports. Ultimately, the sole provision of a state sanctioned experimental silver bullet, the Pfizer ‘vaccine’, together with increasing control, ‘vaccine’ mandates, ‘lock-downs’, media censorship, propaganda, indoctrination and gas-lighting became the focused output of the New Zealand Government and its institutions, together with the multiple outlets of State supported media and thousands of colluding, coerced businesses. At the same time, a bizarre and unethical medical authoritarianism displayed by those Councils and Boards charged with upholding the NZ HPCA Act predicated on public safety and practitioner competency, dispensed with established medical ethics embodied in NZ Bill of Rights and HDC Code of Patient Rights, and assumed absolute control with a vicious appetite for division, exclusion, punishment, and ostracisation. Indeed, the forged-by-horror principles of ethics and scientific practice embodied in the Nuremberg Code (1949), Helsinki Accords (Association and others 2009), and the Human Rights Declaration on Bioethics simply bit the dust.

A key question arose:  how would we arrive at an endemic destination and what policies would be used to deliver us there in a state of robust national well being, social and economic health? After all, New Zealand had an extensive period of time in which to study the rest of the World, as my letter to the PM in August 2020 attested, making quite clear that an opportunity existed to select the best policy trajectory in the light of the emerging successes of the open acting nations and indicating the likelihood of short lived ‘protection’ from novel experimental injections of synthetic genetic material wrapped in novel envelopes, later shown to be highly inflammatory lipid nano-particles.

What became incontestably clear is that countries prosecuting rigid asymmetric public health policies articulated by lock down constraint, social distancing, and masks, all liberally laced with a poisonous diet of fear, fared poorly by every metric, while the progress of the affliction remained unaffected. The opportunity to take a course suggested by the Great Barrington Declaration was not only rejected, but further, was not debated and was actively censored, subject to the Google search engine manipulation effect.

A Silver Bullet

Then came the NZ Government silver bullet: the vaunted Pfizer ‘solution.’ The media celebrated and the government mandated injections with their boosters, carefully redefined as ‘vaccinations‘, colloquially known as jabs and clot-shots, delivered in the alleged quest for redefined ‘herd immunity‘ illogically born out of trivial ‘protection‘. The twisted narrative had really got underway.

Mandated, mass experimental injection is unethical, illogical and unreasonable for a condition with a nuanced survival rate of 79% in an 80+years male with greater than 1 co-morbidity, and at best in a child 0 – 9 years at 99.99996% – similar to a seasonal ‘flu. The co-morbidities picture is further illuminated and teased out by an identification of patient endotypes in the hospitalised COVID patient, revealing specific risk associated with already raised inflammatory markers pointing at genetic and lifestyle predispositions. “The group of patients with the worst outcomes and most deaths had fewer co-morbidities than expected but had higher levels of circulating inflammatory markers than the other three groups.” Did the New Zealand government promote inexpensive, freedom consistent measures that offered the reassurance and encouragement of individual preventive measures with a likely reduction in hospitalisation rates? No. Worse, the New Zealand Government expressly forbade off-label prescribing that would have equipped primary care and further ‘flattened’ a potential hospitalisation curve. Instead, only State sanctioned experimental ‘vaccination’ was permitted in a revolting political mono-diet washed down with the finest vintage of fear reinforced by the visible and ridiculous unscientific messaging of masks, aptly and better described as a public healthcare masquerade.

The End Justifies the Means. What Ends? What Means?

The initial Pfizer efficacy study published in December 2020 reported a rate of any adverse event of 27% in the intervention group. Follow-up at six months, published in September 2021, declared in the preamble, “Due to the large numbers of spontaneous adverse event reports received for the product…”

going on to list 42,086 injury reports by February-end 2021, with 1223 fatalities!

The Ends were shaping up rather differently as our own official unofficial record at NZDSOS was showing. Further, it was also concluded in the Pfizer report that vaccine associated enhanced disease (VAED) remained a theoretical risk. However, it is reasonable to contend that Omicron changed that.

The Unknowable Risk of Vaccine Associated Enhanced Disease

The absence of an easily made distinction between vaccine associated enhanced disease (VAED), also described euphemistically as a “breakthrough” cases is a serious concern because it may promote a spurious justification for further “boosters,” with New Zealand government having made a Pfizer vaccine purchase commitment of 6 shots per capita.

In the apparent absence of community transmission, it is reasonable to consider that the large proportion of the New Zealand population injected with the Pfizer solution were primed for the established risk of VAED. It is self-evident that no one in New Zealand received adequate information to facilitate informed consent. Explicitly, recipients were not advised of the established risk of VAED. In all likelihood, an absence of political willingness to state, recognise and take responsibility for the potential incidence of VAED coupled with a medical inability to identify it, conveniently excluded it as an inherent problem, with an established association to the novel biotechnology. In so doing, a hitherto existing barrier to the continued use of this experimental product was removed.

Pfizer identify VAED as an important potential risk, which they state in their Cumulative Analysis of Post-authorization Adverse Events Reports. They also state that they had not identified any post-authorization cases of VAERs. However, they reported that a suspected 75 of 101 cases of COVID-19 were severe following one or both doses, resulting in hospitalisation, disability, life threatening consequences or death…but…none of the 75 cases could be definitively considered as VAED. Their final comment stated that VAED remained a theoretical risk for the vaccine.

Pfizer clearly do not recognise VAED as a problem, even though it is established as such. The same is true of the New Zealand Ministry of Health, who confidently stated, “Disease enhancement has not been observed in response to COVID-19 vaccination.” (OIA Response 8 November 2021, ref.H202115700)

This is a surprising statement to make about VAED, not only because of the established risk but most particularly, given the notable difficulty, even inability, to recognise it, as is described by the following.

The Brighton Collaboration (BC) is responsible for the experimental scientific rigour of the Safety Platform for Emergency Vaccines (SPEAC), which is now being applied asymmetrically and inappropriately to an approved and usual clinical practice, namely the widespread routine clinical administering of Pfizer injections. There is no precedent for this asymmetry, nor indeed for the apparent conflicts of interest. BC is funded by the vaccine developers, The Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) in which New Zealand is listed as an investor and partner. With regard to this, the NZ Ministry of Health stated, “The Ministry of Health does not have a relationship with the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovation…and there are no grounds for believing it is held by another agency subject to the Act.” (OIA Response 8 November 2021, ref.H202115700). I wonder then what entity in New Zealand is the “partner and investor” in both vaccine development and the safety platform funding?

The real kicker regarding VAED is that the SPEAC Vaccine-associated Enhanced Disease Working Group wrote, “No single or combination of specific confirmatory tests is available to diagnose VAED. As the clinical manifestations of VAED lies within the spectrum of natural disease – occurring more frequently and/or severely in vaccinated individuals – it is also difficult to separate vaccine failure (also called breakthrough disease) from VAED in vaccinated individuals.”

(Munoz FM, Cramer JP, Dekker CL et. al 2021)

So to reiterate, it is astonishing that the NZ Ministry of Health would brazenly deny the presence or risk of VAED, given the notable difficulty, even inability to actually recognise it clinically.

Here’s the crux, and the New Zealand experiment. Given that it is now well known that the omicron variant is very mild, less than a cold for most, even for  those already unwell, with many unaware of being infected, yet it is abundantly obvious and reported elsewhere that significant numbers of ‘vaccinated’ New  Zealanders are winding up hospitalised, while it is obvious that the unvaccinated fare far better by an order of magnitude. (Fig. 1)

It is therefore reasonable to conclude that the primed, multiply injected population of New Zealand, whose community experience of the affliction was negligible was an unwitting, un-consented control arm for VAED. It is clearly already the case for vaccine induced disease and injury, since these far exceed by three orders of magnitude the numbers who have succumbed to COVID.

Given the innocuous nature of the current affliction then, the Ministry of Health has unwittingly provided a huge cohort of vaccine primed New Zealanders and their children with a harmful injection for no benefit, that turns out to be a poisoned chalice and not the political silver bullet most had been coerced to reluctantly accept.

But then, when one finds oneself in a running medical, social and political experiment and one is the lab rat, as Tennyson put so well:

Theirs not to make reply, Theirs not to reason why, Theirs but to do and die.

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H.L. Mencken