Harm and Hobgoblins – The Momentum of Madness Into a New Age Disorder

A deep dive.

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

By Maurice McGrath PhD


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 seemed as uncertain as they were widely disparate between jurisdictions and countries. Adopting an ‘elimination’ strategy seemed on the face of it, unrealistic. It prolonged the twin tortures of fear and control on the populous 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 a magic ‘vaccination’ bullet would vindicate their elimination strategy and they would be hailed as far-sighted political and medical heroes. It then became incrementally obvious that a strangely similar authoritarian narrative was forming in many countries that included New Zealand, Australia and Canada, around the strict prohibition of early, primary care, off-label intervention, directed at preventing hospitalisation. The sole provision of a state sanctioned experimental silver bullet together with increasing control, mandates, lock-downs, media censorship, propaganda, indoctrination and gas-lighting became the focused output of the New Zealand Government and its multiple outputs of State supported media, while a bizarre and utterly unethical medical authoritarianism assumed control with a vicious appetite for punishment, ostracisation, exclusion and division.

The real question was always how we would arrive at an endemic destination and what policies would be used to deliver us in a state of robust national well being. After all, New Zealand had an extensive period of time in which to study the rest of the World. The earliest commentators highlighted that as differences in management arose between jurisdictions and countries, it would be the policies of management upon which authorities or authoritarians would be judged. And so, it has come to pass. Scandinavian countries, notably Sweden had relatively few COVID restrictions. Similarly States like Iowa, Florida, Wyoming, South Dakota, Texas, Alaska, South Carolina and several others remained ‘free’, exercising management policies vastly different from New York, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. What has become incontestably clear is that countries prosecuting rigid asymmetric public health policies articulated by lock down constraint, social distancing, mask wearing, all liberally laced with a poisonous diet of fear and hobgoblins, fared poorly by every metric, whether social, economic, health, or spiritual, while effecting little change on the progress of the affliction. The opportunity to take a course suggested by the Great Barrington Declaration was rejected, but further, not only was not debated, but was censored and subject to the search engine manipulation effect.

Then came the silver bullet, the vaunted and celebrated injections and their boosters, the redefined ‘vaccinations’, known as jabs and clot-shots; the game of musical chairs really got underway.

That Boards and Councils under the HPCA Act, the purported custodians of public safety and ethics, stood idly by, silent, with not even a murmur of dissent, while the principles of bodily sovereignty expressed by the  NZ Bill of Rights and HDC Code of Patient Rights were ignored and circumvented, is astonishing. In the face of mounting evidence of harm, this political and bureaucratic pursuit of failure abetted by a Fourth Estate become Fifth column against its own citizens, must surely end immediately.  

Coercive mandates and COVID orders have strained the sanity, economy, social cohesion and trust, the very health and well being of the fabric of New Zealand. The imposition of an experimental, government sponsored injection of a substantially untested, novel, synthetic mRNA gene therapy enveloped in a vector of highly inflammatory lipid nano-particles, with a trivial, short lived, variable, unpredictable real world absolute risk reduction (ARR) of 0.46% and the number-needed-to-vaccinate to prevent one case (NNV) of 217, bereft of explicit informed consent regarding the established risk of vaccine associated enhanced disease (VAED), potential immune anergy and antigenic original sin, is inhumane at best. It is also begging for trouble of the worst kind.

Such 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. These authors concluded:

“The analysis identified four unique groups of patients that had vastly different outcomes not expected based on classic risk factors such as age, sex, and preexisting conditions.”

“The group with the highest number of co-morbidities, for example, did not have the worst outcomes and had a relatively low mortality rate, indicating that co-morbidities alone are not responsible for variable COVID clinical courses.”

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.”


Is the New Zealand government promoting useful and helpful inexpensive, freedom consistent measures that offer encouragement for the enhancement of individual health and a potential reduction in hospitalisation rates? Crickets. Only State sanctioned experimental ‘vaccination’ exists in a revolting political mono-diet washed down with the finest vintage fear of hobgoblins.

The Experimental Method, Abandoned

Modelling has become the ‘go to’ for policy-makers. It provides a nice circularity of reasoning and it is resplendent with ‘feel good’ confirmation bias. In other words, it simply tells those who wish, what they want to hear. It has forged a well established niche of epic failure in the policies of climatism.

Unfortunately, the absence of experimental controls means accurate real world data regarding ‘vaccine’ effectiveness is difficult to establish. Current data attesting to alleged effectiveness is not empirical. Instead, it is modeled on the data derived from the unrepresentative initial efficacy studies, current RT-PCR numbers, hospitalisation and the number of dead. Unfortunately, modelling is not a valid indicator of real world effectiveness (or ineffectiveness) as the trumpeted and catastrophic projections of Neil Ferguson and his Imperial College colleagues demonstrated in March 2020. Instead, they opened the door on an expression of unchecked raw power, which CS Lewis described as the most oppressive form of tyranny, the unchecked ‘tyranny of goodwill’.

The circularity that apparently exists in modelling between its purveyors and political masters provides an infinite political justification for draconian, asymmetric interventions with devastating medical, social, educational and economic consequences, while simultaneously providing a disingenuous convenience to both parties when considering consequent policy and its outcomes. After all, as Professor (London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine) Graham Medley, chair of the UK Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) modelling committee stated in a widely reported Twitter conversation,

“Decision makers are generally only interested in situations where decisions have to be made.”

“We generally model what we are asked to model. There is a dialogue in which policy teams discuss with the modellers what they need to inform their policy.” “We model the scenarios that are useful to decisions.”  

Prof Graham Medley, chair of SAGE

A point was being made that were Omicron virulence modeled low, then no political decision would be required to do anything, in which case there appeared no point to model for no decision. It confirms that modellers and policy-makers, bureaucrats and politicians alike appear seemingly biased to be seen to ‘do’ something that justifies their position and their past decisions. Corollaries elsewhere make the point; one of the hardest strokes to play at the crease is allowing an errant delivery to pass untouched.

An important point that may be missed here; no decision is a decision.

Public Health England (PHE) statement on their modelling of ‘vaccine effectiveness’, makes for interesting reading.

“To infer the impact of vaccination, the model was fitted to both ONS [Office of National Statistics] prevalence and daily COVID-19 mortality data in England, resulting in posterior samples for a range of epidemiological parameters. The posterior samples were then used to simulate the number of infections and deaths that would have occurred without vaccination. Finally, the total impact was calculated by comparing the infection and mortality estimates with vaccination versus the simulated outcomes without vaccination.”

Public Health England

The modelling method of PHE leaves the question of model validity open to debate, which leaves the decisions based on modelling equally open to debate. Yet it is a debate that is broadly speaking consistently stifled.

While modeled data has been used to promote fear of the affliction, real world data of vaccine effectiveness exists, to wit, ‘there is a large amount of public data available that permits a [Bayesian] analysis of the effect of the vaccine rollout on COVID-19 related cases and deaths‘.

The findings appear deeply concerning. The statistical analysis conducted by Kyle Beattie of the University of Alberta, Canada published in November 2021 showed that

“vaccine’ administration has ‘a strong and statistically significant propensity to causally increase the total number of deaths and cases per million associated with COVID-19 in a majority of countries’ (truncated).


In other words, 90% of the 145 countries that had high vaccination rates experienced this negative effect from the COVID shots, leading to 38% more COVID cases per million – and a 31% increase in deaths per million. Countries with few COVID-19 deaths in the year 2020 appear to have fared the worst of all countries after vaccine administration. The New Zealand government claims it has injected a majority of the population whom it now urges to receive ‘booster’ injections, the findings in this research would appear to offer a prescient and dire warning.  


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.

Notwithstanding this, the word ‘myocarditis’ occurred just 6 times, 4 of which were part of the list in the Appendix 1. The condition is also listed once under Immune mediated / autoimmune adverse events of special interest, where there are 25 myocarditis events of the 1050 listed in this category, and it is also listed in the search criteria for vaccine associated enhanced disease (VAED). While the commercial conclusion was VAED remained a theoretical risk, myocarditis was also not identified by Pfizer as a condition of concern.

Nonetheless, myocarditis is a clearly growing and identified concern, while VAED remains an established but unknowable condition because it cannot be clinically discerned from a usual case. The rate of myocarditis was well described in a published paper in Current Problems in Cardiology that showed from US Vaccine Adverse Events Reports System  (VAERS) data a markedly higher rate of myocarditis, particularly in the young and well above the known background rate.The BMJ also published a paper highlighting an increased risk of myocarditis and myopericarditis derived from data taken from the Danish population, again seen in the young (12 – 39 yrs) and for the Pfizer injection, more significantly in women.The former VAERS paper was subsequently and inexplicably withdrawn by Elsevier some weeks after publication and this extraordinary post hoc intellectual censorship is presently the subject of legal action.

It is more likely that the number of adverse injuries and deaths are far greater than we are commonly led to believe, perhaps as much as two orders of magnitude greater than the passive adverse events record of individual countries and jurisdictions indicate. It will not be possible to indefinitely conceal this number, even with de rigueur censorship, propaganda, indoctrination and gas-lighting on social media and the State-funded and legacy media. Alternative media now captures more attention than legacy media and the truth must inevitably be exposed. Chronic under-reporting was highlighted as a major problem associated with passive reporting systems by the The Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare study funded by the US CDC between 2006 and 2009. The study identified that fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events were reported. Given the unprecedented deployment of an experimental biotechnology on a global scale, the absence of mandated reporting is as astounding as is the blithe dismissal of the established principles of medical ethics, public health practice and novel interventions. In New Zealand, this wisdom and precedent was embodied in the once extant law of the Medicines Act, which, as New Zealand Minister of Health Andrew Little quipped, required, “technical amendment to modernise the law” to enable New Zealanders to have, “early access to medicines when needed.” In hindsight it seems abundantly clear that what he really meant was that the New Zealand government would acquire an ability to possess “early access” to an untried public health measure to impose mass public injection.

When such passive (under)reporting systems are utilised to explore risk to benefit ratio and reveal indications that a serious problem may exist, the published article seems all too often forced into retraction by means foul, rather than allowed to stand with the more usual letters of rebuttal and rejoinder. For example, in ‘The Safety of COVID-19 Vaccinations—We Should Rethink the Policy published in Vaccine, the authors, analysed data from the Adverse Drug Reactions (ADR) database of the European Medicines Agency and of the Dutch National Register. They found that there were 4.11 deaths per 100,000 vaccinations with around 700 persons reporting side effects per 100,000 vaccinations, 16 of them severe. ‘Saving’ the lives of 3 people while killing 2 people by vaccination, or in the best case scenario, saving 8 lives and killing one person is no Hippocratic exemplar of the principle, ‘first do no harm‘. The risk benefit ratio is obviously appalling. The paper was retracted after peer review and publication.

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

We understand instinctively that actions speak louder than words, and the wise among us judge by deeds not by words. No politician or Big-Pharma corporate executive, or Silicon Valley magnate has yet demonstrated the temerity or hubris to announce that, ‘the end justifies the means’. Yet their actions appear to betray them. Greed is good, or so Gordon Gekko opined in Wall Street (1987).

One academic counter-point to the claims and data asserted is provided by the doctors and scientists of the Canadian COVID Care Alliance (CCCA) who present a detailed critique and rebuttal of the initial December 2020 Pfizer efficacy study and the September 2021 follow-up study. The Pfizer document describing the ‘post-marketing experience’ is entitled, Post-Authorization Adverse Event Reports of PF-07302048 (BNT162B2) Received Through 28-FEB-2021. Comparison with the usual time period and phases of study required to reach a safe, effective marketable product are made by the CCCA. The gulf between this experimental biotechnology and usual practice is huge. It is clearly incapable of demonstrating all but a pond-skating level of safety and effectiveness. Safety becomes an even greater point when placebo controls have disappeared and effectiveness is trivial. The 9 pages of the September 2021 Pfizer document Appendix, is an exhausting listing of euphemistically termed ‘adverse events of special interest’ (a thousand or so), reading like a compendium of disease.

New Zealand government claim some 4M people have been injected thus far. Pfizer advises in their initial study, ‘More BNT162b2 recipients than placebo recipients reported any adverse event (27% and 12%, respectively) or a related adverse event (21% and 5%)’ which suggests that a staggering 1,080,000 injected Kiwis will experience any adverse event. The Supplementary Appendix S3 of the Pfizer study indicates that 1.1%, 44,000 Kiwis in this case, will sustain a severe adverse event. The information we have suggests that far more than 390 people may have died of an injection related cause. Detailed records from careful reporting by GPs, nursing staff and families help lead to this conclusion. Given the previously cited NNV of 217, injecting 4M New Zealanders would have only led to a theoretical 18,433 unpredictably “successfully protected” individuals. More people sustain unpredictable severe adverse events than are “successfully” injected. And despite this, it is well established that transmission and infection will still occur at a similar level to those who have not received the Pfizer injections. The well known Texas prison study underscores the same point, demonstrating that vaccinated persons who become infected with SARS-CoV-2 were no less infectious than unvaccinated persons.

The basis then for segregating the people of New Zealand, of depriving them of their occupations and incomes, appears as irrational and unscientific as it is socially divisive, medically pointless, economically ruinous, cruel and morally bankrupt.

The NEJM initial Pfizer efficacy study stated,

…the study has more than 83% probability of detecting at least one adverse event, if the true incidence is 0.01%, but it is not large enough to detect less common adverse events reliably.

DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2034577

The very short 3.5 month follow-up time and overall low power of the study to detect less frequent more severe events, like death, is a red flag. Keep in mind the data cut off for the initial study upon which emergency approval was granted was an unprecedentedly short, two months. At the six month follow-up, the data showed that the total number of deaths in the Pfizer intervention group exceeded the number of deaths in the control group both before and after unblinding with a total number of deaths of 20 people in the participant group, compared with 14 people in the control group. (Canadian COVID Care Alliance, More Harm Than Good, Increased risk of death.pdf, see, pp12)

It seems abundantly clear that the NZ Centre for Adverse Reactions Monitoring (CARM) system fails to capture a fraction of the adverse data predicted by the initial Pfizer efficacy study. Conversely, the early efficacy data appears vigorously used to promote an unwarranted claim of effectiveness and safety. There seems to exist an unspoken unwillingness and institutionalised bureaucratically sanctioned resistance to declare or acknowledge even the suspicion of an adverse event that bears a causal association with the injection(s) or indeed the trivial level of effectiveness. This further underscores the observations made by the Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare study. Sir Austin Bradford-Hill must be rolling in his grave, while the tenets of causality appear to have been shredded for political and commercial expediency.

The monstrous and unethical elephant in the room must surely be clear to all?

A trivial level of highly variable ‘protection’ is unpredictably induced or, as others have commented similarly, ‘because no intervention acts on two persons in an identical fashion, and results are influenced by individual risk factors, inflicting a severe adverse event at a rate of greater than 1:1 for each individual’s unpredictable ‘success’ in order to achieve a trivial, unpredictable level of ‘protection’ requiring a litany of ‘booster’ shots is a far cry from public health at its best. The appearance of futility is unavoidable, while social and economic degradation is inevitable. However, the dismissal of the historically forged-by-horror principles of medical ethics and scientific practice embodied in the Nuremberg Code (1949), Helsinki Accords (Association and others 2009), and the Human Rights Declaration on Bioethics is predictably bereft of benefit and good.

The very short Pfizer exercise of a formal experiment quickly abandoned placebo controls, so the threshold of scientific rigour has been tacitly lowered to the level of routine clinical advice. This permitted an enthusiastic and uniformly promoted mass public health experiment. By this measure then, there cannot be legitimacy in the imposition of a threshold of scientific rigour that endeavours to ruthlessly separate causal attribution from all possibility of chance, bias and confounding. Discarding severely injured cases or deaths upon the slightest presence of any of these is not the manner in which clinical practice is conducted. For in the clinical arena, the balance of evidence moves closer to a legal balance that pivots nearer a reasoned 50:50. Patients are not treated as experiments, they are clinical cases for which a wise, informed, ethical health professional seizes upon any and all possibilities and probabilities for beneficial outcomes with the explicit consent, understanding and willing co-operation of the patient, without harm.

The current policy driven double standard is clinical malpractice, and it is leading to a failure to identify any emergent safety signals as theoretically recommended by the Safety Platform for Emergency Vaccines (SPEAC).

A foot note here:

New Zealanders are mostly unaware that this vaccine safety platform is funded by the ‘vaccine’ developer, the Coalition of Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) who in turn list New Zealand as one of its partners and investors. It should come as no surprise. After all, a majority of injected Kiwis are also unaware of their ability to complete a CARM report and perhaps more alarmingly, are not advised of CARM when consenting their uninformed acceptance of the experimental biotechnology. It begs the question of whether the New Zealand political and medical authorities over-seeing and encouraging the coerced injection measures are even slightly interested in the emerging consequences of their haste riven actions? A mounting injury and death rate that remain substantially under-reported or dismissed must inevitably emerge in public perception as more people experience the loss of a child, loved one or friend. It will distressingly come to affect those we know, perhaps even our own family member. Will an unchallenging silence still persist? The numbers of dead and sick people cannot be concealed and ignored indefinitely, and surely the same must be said of the escalating discomfiture manifest in some of those clinicians, nurses and administrators who attend the sickened?

The Unknowable Risk of Vaccine Associated Enhanced Disease

The absence of a readily made distinction between Delta infection (or Omicron or whatever other variant is said to occur), vaccine associated enhanced disease (VAED), immune anergy or antigenic original sin, all described euphemistically as “break through” cases, is a serious concern in that it may promote a spurious justification for further “boosters.”

In the absence of widespread community transmission, it is reasonable to think that a large proportion of the New Zealand population has been primed for 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 excludes it as an inherent problem that has an established association with this novel biotechnology. In so doing, a hitherto existing barrier to its continued use is removed. Pfizer clearly do not  recognise it as a problem, even though it is established as such, and quite confidently, neither do the New Zealand Ministry of Health. Despite their inability to recognise it, these authors (funded by CEPI) stated for the Brighton Collaboration Vaccine -Associated Enhanced Disease Working Group, that

“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.”


Anticipate ‘boosters’ every 3 or 4 months, already occurring elsewhere, while keeping in mind, here in New Zealand, your ‘vaccine’ passport expires in 6 months or less, as indeed will your participation in society unless you step up for another ‘uncertainty’ booster, a series of injections with no defined end point or stated number of repeats. As increasing numbers of reflective individuals decline boosters, the New Zealand work force will shrink to troublesome levels. Welcome ‘rapid antigen testing’ (RAT) that while proposed as a means to reduce societal and medicalised division and worker exclusion, it will serve to maintain the authoritarian control drama.

Unpredictability ~ An Ignored Fundamental Compounding Ineffectiveness

In addition, the political battle to acknowledge the surety of natural and pre-existing immunity is yet another tedious and irrational battle required to rid established science and medical practice of twisted authoritarian politicisation. Dr Peter Doshi, senior editor at the BMJ highlighted that multiple studies have reported T cell reactivity against SARS-CoV-2 in 20% to 50% of people with no known exposure to the virus, while elsewhere 150 studies affirm naturally acquired immunity.   

However, it is clear any variable, unpredictable ‘protective‘ immune response derived from injections is short lived, if it meaningfully existed at all. Strangely, protection has now replaced immunity as a required feature of a ‘vaccine’, while ‘vaccine’ itself was redefined to include the experimental synthetic mRNA gene therapy. Meanwhile, the re-definition of ‘herd immunity‘ unscientifically and politically serves to spuriously exclude those with natural or pre-existing immunity, now solely confining itself to the ‘vaccinated’. The unpredictable variability of protection was pointed out by Bliden, Liu, Sreedhar et al. 2021 who stated,

We did observe highly variable immune responses including those with well below average anti-RBD [rigid binding domain] IgG levels and avidity. It is therefore important to monitor immune responses at the individualized and personalized level, identify those who are still at risk even after vaccination, and provide meaningful measures to protect them from infections.”


With this in mind, there can be no uniform response across the population. The implication is that a nascent and blunt ‘precision medicine’ novel gene therapy approach is being implemented not only on an inappropriate grand-scale, but in manner of outdated, population cohort based methodology that fails to take account of variance in mRNA epigenetics

Let Us Fix This

The consequence of this erroneous trajectory is a complete politicisation of science, and therefore its demise and an end to authentic progress. Where politics and science have been fused under a media promoted mantle of purported “kindness,” currently abides coercion, control, and regression to totalitarianism, seemingly through a route suggested by Mattias Desmet’s ‘mass formation’ hypothesis. One thing seems certain, in recovering from these multiple assaults on civilised society we need a second Reformation leading to clear separations between funding and science, science and politics, education and politics, and medicine and politics. Politicisation is the problem.

There exists now an endemic problem that we were warned against in Eisenhower’s famous military-industrial complex speech, a dystopian aggregation of political and commercial vested interest pursues absolute control and influence. The commercialisation of digital and internet personal information, search engine algorithms that instigate the search engine manipulation effect and social media platforms, are all heavily distorted and manipulated, diminishing personal liberty, managing perception and destroying privacy. The restoration of a cast-iron New Zealand Bill of Rights in which the sanctity and liberty of the individual remain inviolate must be a goal. With it comes a restoration and continuing guarantee of institutional sanity and personal safety, in which the government is no longer tyranny in waiting or more plainly, manifest hooliganism.

Finally, we deeply feel for the manifest uncertainty that must surely be present in many worried pregnant women and young mothers who relinquished their former energetic assertion of, ‘my body, my choice’, and accepted the injection and presumably also its inevitable forthcoming boosters, whether out of fear or out of coercion. The New Zealand authorities audacious and explicit guarantee of safety and efficacy must have seemed so reassuring though nonetheless odd, given in the absence of any long term studies regarding the potential effect upon the developing foetus, child and future adult.

As Charles MacKay opined in 1841 in, Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds,

 “Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, one by one.”

Charles Mackay
Share this post

Similar Posts