Coroners are now more important than ever. However, their role in investigating what is causing the increase in excess death, particularly amongst the young, is likely to be diminished if the proposed changes to the Coroners Act progress.
NZDSOS presented an online submission to the select committee considering these changes to the coroners act and have requested the opportunity to present an oral submission. In effect the coroners act needs strengthening not diluting.
Read: The NZDSOS Submission on the Coroners Act Amendment
Submission Presentation on Coroners Amendment Bill 2022 at select Committee – Bill Number 157-1
Dear Select Committee,
The four stated goals of the proposed changes are:
- Establishing new position of ‘Coronial Associate’
- Recording cause of death as ‘unascertained natural causes’ in certain circumstances
- Enabling coroners to hold coronial inquiry solely in chambers, where appropriate
- Enabling written findings to be issued stating cause of death only, where appropriate, omitting circumstances
- We oppose the position of a Coronial Associate and recommend instead increasing the number of, and support for, full Coroners.
- We suggest that doctors should be considered for the role of coroner as well as those with legal backgrounds.
- We do not agree with a legally-qualified person being able to classify a death as due to “unascertained natural causes” without investigation.
- We recommend that a family member be able to request a post mortem, investigation or an inquiry, rather than the coroner having sole discretion.
- We submit that circumstances as well as cause of death ought to be considered for EVERY VACCINATED New Zealander, commensurate with Comirnaty’s experimental status in law and in practice.
The intention of providing faster resolution to coronial reports is appropriate, however speed must not come at the expense of accuracy.
We refer you to the submissions of lawyer Kirsten Murfitt, retired health worker Fiona Lynch and retired CEO and IT consultant John Andrews, all of which we have read. We agree with the medical and medico-legal points made in them.
Our submission will be briefer, being the basis of an oral submission.
As a group of medical professionals, including pathologists, we have written already to the Chief Coroner, before this consulation process was announced, with information and questions. There has been no response, which is a marked deviation from established norms of inter-disciplinary communication and courtesy. On this note, we have written to you MPs three times too, with information, concerns and questions. Also, upon discovery of potential contamination in the vaccine we spoke directly to the Health Select Committee, to zero response. Two of us submitted previously to the Select Committee hearing proposals to take fluoridation decisions away from local communities and centralise them. During a break in the public submissions process, we heard one of the MPs telling a DHB member not to worry, that the decision was a foregone conclusion. So much for even a veneer of democratic decision-making, with no pretence of listening to concerned citizens.
For background information, the population of NZ (and indeed much of the world) is currently in the middle of phase 3 and phase 4 of a clinical trial of a new genetic therapy (Pfizer Comirnaty). The risks have not previously been defined. Information is still being gathered. The usual process during phase 4 of a clinical trial (‘post marketing surveillance’) is to investigate every death in a person exposed to the medication.
Ideally the country would have a robust system in place for conducting this phase 4 monitoring, but NZ has only an inadequate, overwhelmed, voluntary reporting system (CARM) which means the coroner is our last bastion of hope for providing this monitoring. In her article published in Sept 2020 Dr Helen Petoussis-Harris of Auckland University warned that “…it is vital that robust pharmacovigilance and active surveillance systems are in place.” given the safety compromises built in to Operation Warp Speed.
The thrust of our concern is that we are facing an incontrovertible and literal epidemic of unexplained deaths in all age groups, but especially notable in younger people. This is BEYOND ARGUMENT. ‘Sudden adult death syndrome’ (SADS) is being acknowledged the world over but, according to the press, is leaving doctors “mystified”, and “befuddled”. We know the shocked families of these previously healthy people will be as far beyond “befuddled” as one can humanly get, and in the absence of any investigations providing an alternative cause, we believe many of these deaths to be due to the hurriedly produced, inadequately tested Covid-19 injections, which were shoed-in by regulators despite very obvious red flags already present before our rollout started here in New Zealand.
And yet, just at a time when it has never been more important for public safety that legally-astute coroners speak to the sudden shift in death demographics and numbers, compared to established and stable averages, these proposed amendments will result in less scrutiny of deaths ‘of unknown cause’, and allow more junior lawyers with less life experience and personal authority to close cases without investigation, inquiry or even a post mortem. Bereaved families will lack a most essential factor in being able to start the healing process: knowing how and why their loved one died. Importantly too, they may miss out on compensation entitlements e.g ACC support for a now single parent family. And the country may miss the opportunity to prevent similar such deaths in the future.
The suggestion is that the CA will be able to deal with the ‘straightforward’ cases and leave the complex ones to the real coroner. The reason cases get referred to a coroner is because they are complex, because a medical practitioner has not been able to sign off the cause of death. Allowing a non-medical person to then conclude a death is due to ‘unascertained natural causes’ will not enhance the accuracy of the process.
If a doctor is not comfortable or able to determine the cause of death without further investigation, how is a legally trained person with no medical knowledge going to be able to do this? How will ‘natural’ be determined? A blood clot in the lungs may be ‘natural’ but not necessarily if it follows an injection that causes clotting. A burst cerebral or aortic aneurysm may be ‘natural’ but was the blood vessel weakened by vasculitis (vessel inflammation) caused by an injection? Cancer may be ‘natural’ but was its development due to dysregulation of immune surveillance due to a new genetic therapy? How is a non-medically trained coroner going to know to ask such questions?
Doctors were all told to support the safe and effective narrative “or else”, including pathologists who are all medically trained and have to reapply annually for a practising certificate. Coronial associates and doctors may well feel a collective political pressure to ‘get the job done’ and co-operate to sign off on an unexplained death that should have a painstaking, expert and properly funded investigation. This is standard procedure in any phase 2, 3 or 4 clinical trial, where real-time close surveillance of participants is always a requirement of the ethics committees before approval for the study is granted. The ignoring and denigration of vaccine-injured people by the medical, legal and political fraternities hardly inspires confidence that the dead who have taken the ultimate “one for the team” will be acknowledged any better.
The medico-political ground is shifting rapidly, and assumptions about safety are being officially rolled back. The Danish minister of health has apologised for vaccinating children, and has now gone further to stop boosters for everyone under 50. The UK has banned all jabs for the under 12s, and says, nearly 2 years on, that they still lack adequate safety data for pregnancy, actual or intended, and breast-feeding. Clinical evidence suggests fertility harm to both males and females, and far more heart inflammation in than our officials admit, especially in the young. All our officials have been saying “the jab is fine at all stages of pregnancy, safe in children, covid is worse, protect the community”. Every word is proven untrue, and now you, our elected reps, are going to weaken our coronial system just as we might face an ongoing tsunami of mortality?
The place of the coroner in society goes back a millenium, and if there is further weakening of their vital public sentinel role, then who will watch out for, and alert government to, patterns of fatal diseases, poisoning, death by medicine, environmental contamination, crimes of violence, deprivation and neglect?
We maintain there is now overwhelming evidence that the vaccines do not work, cause more harm than good and there is good biological plausability to implicate them in the astonishing rise in deaths amongst the vaccinated. The evidence is so strong now that, by continuing to deny it, our celebrity health bureaucrats are not just mistaken, they may well be actively lying to our faces, whilst still trying to hide their substantial conflicts of interest.
We have never needed brave and dedicated coroners more than at this unique time in our history. The Coroners Act should be strengthened not undermined, more coroners trained and some should be doctors, as has been traditional in other countries, like the UK. Given all the foregoing facts, documented and referenced on our website and in numerous letters to you MPs, the police, Medsafe and all other relevant governments, we believe these amendments, if passed, could be tantamount to complicity in covering up deaths by experimental injection.
The legal profession could be dragged into disrepute by a government interfering with a supposedly independent judicial function. Please prove your loyalty is to the NZ public, not enabling corporate strategy, that which is what these amendments could amount to.
Thank you for your consideration.
Submission regarding changes to the coroners act have now closed but you can still lobby your MP and share this information in your communities. The more people who express their opinion about the suggested amendments to the coroners act, the harder it will be for the government to make these changes to the coroners act. Promises of investigating all vaccine injuries will not be possible if the coroners act is changed. We need to strengthen the coroners act.