Is The Evidence Used By NZ Government Covid-19 Advisors Compromised By Conflicts of Interest?

Where Are the References Providing the Evidence?

In speaking about the Baby W case, Dr Nikki Turner has been one of the more prolific purveyors of mistruths and has done her best to obfuscate the issues.  She has made multiple statements, often without a shred of evidence and with no scientific references to back them up. 

She has a variety of roles listed below.  Might it be difficult to say anything negative about vaccines with this many potential conflicts of interest?

• Medical Director of IMAC at University of Auckland
• RNZCGP representative on immunisation matters
• Child Poverty Action Group Health spokeswoman
• Until 2020 was a member of WHO SAGE (Strategic Advisory Group of Experts) on Immunisation and Chair of SAGE Working Group on Measles and Rubella elimination

Here are some of her statements with our comments:

From her Science Media Centre article:

Injection as a Whole

• There is no harm from antibodies from the Comirnaty vaccine being present in the blood stream. 
  
  Concern has not been expressed about antibodies.  This appears to be a deliberate attempt to confuse the issue.  The concerns are about the many unknowns of the injection and the fact that safety of transfusions using blood from vaccinated donors hasn’t been proven or even studied. 
  
  Confusion and mixed messaging are well-known tools used by behavioural psychologists to manipulate people.

• There is no harm from any components or products of the vaccine that may potentially be present in blood (lipid nanoparticles, mRNA or the spike protein).  They would not be harmful if they were to be transferred through blood transfusion.
  
  How does she know this, has someone studied it?  We would expect studies comparing the short-term and long-term outcomes of patients transfused with blood from vaccinated donors vs blood from unvaccinated donors. 
  
  This presumably has not been done since no countries appear to be applying the precautionary principle and separating blood.  It is disingenuous to say ‘there is no evidence…’ while knowing full well that is because no-one is studying it, rather than someone having studied it and proven the blood safe.

• The rate of myopericarditis is higher after COVID infection than after the vaccination. 
  
  Again, where is the evidence?  We would say the opposite – that the rate of myocarditis is higher in those vaccinated than those unvaccinated who contract Covid-19.
  
  According to this study the rate of significant myocarditis after Covid INFECTION is negligible.  In contrast, recent research from Thailand and evidence presented at the European Society of Cardiology meeting in Switzerland demonstrates that a significant number of people who receive a covid INJECTION will have a degree of heart inflammation even though in many cases it appears asymptomatic. 
  
  For an in-depth discussion about the evidence for myocarditis related to infection vs injection with details of relevant scientific papers, watch this interview with Dr Peter McCullough.  

• There are no recorded international concerns with use of donor blood from COVID vaccinated donors. 
  
  Yes, as above, that’s because NO-ONE is recording or even looking, they appear to be deliberately NOT looking.  Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

mRNA

• Once outside of its lipid bubble, mRNA is quickly destroyed by enzymes found everywhere, including inside and outside of our cells. It only has a day or two to do its work. 
  
  Then how does that explain the presence of mRNA in germinal centres of lymph nodes 8 weeks later?

• The mRNA is transiently expressed and is only very briefly in a person’s body before it is degraded by physiological pathways.
  
  Where is the evidence for this and why is it not included in the Medsafe datasheet?  Given that the mRNA in the injection contains a synthetic element, pseudo-uridine in place of uridine, specifically to prolong the life of the mRNA, it is unlikely that is it only “briefly in a person’s body”.
  

• The mRNA does not integrate into the genome.  
  
  How can you be so sure when this study has shown in vitro that it can integrate into the nuclei of human liver cells?
  
  This paper asks two important questions: “Who is responsible for testing the likelihood of vaccine mRNA retroposition, and who will be responsible for eventual genome modifications resulting from the application of emergency-use mRNA vaccines?”

LNPs

• The lipids used in the nanoparticles, including cholesterol, are mostly normal products in the body or in our foods and medicines, and are processed in the liver.
  
  The lipids are proprietary so who really knows what is in them.  They were initially designed to deliver chemotherapy to the brain.  A LNP biodistribution study done on rats in Japan showed widespread distribution to various organs including the ovaries.  
  
  Show us the evidence that they are like food products and processed in the liver.

• The components of the lipid bubble are also cleared from our body as a waste product.
  
  How does Dr Turner know that, when Medsafe presumably do not know because they don’t include this vital information in their datasheet?  It still says still says ‘Pharmacokinetics: Not applicable’.  
  
  It would appear that Medsafe is saying that the distribution of LNPs in the body does not matter and Dr Turner is saying that they are cleared.  It appears they do not know what is going on and are trying to hide their ignorance from the public by obfuscating or down-right lying.

Spike Protein

• The quantity of this spike protein produced after vaccination is much lower than the amount seen in people with COVID-19 infection. 
  
  In fact, the synthetic mRNA has been modified in several ways (poly-A tail, use of pseudouridine in place of uridine, making it guanine rich) to increase its stability, make it more persistent, and to increase the amount and duration of spike protein production. 
  
  The LNPs ensure that the mRNA is widely dispersed throughout the body whereas in many immunocompetent people a covid infection will be stopped in the respiratory tract and will not spread systemically.  Dr Turner has provided no references.  Please reference the studies that demonstrate this.

• As soon as it is produced, this spike protein is dismantled inside specialist cells. 
  
  Then why does the NZBlood website say: “The spike protein is present in vanishingly small quantities in the blood in some people for the first two weeks after their mRNA vaccine.​​​​​​​”

In various interviews she has stated that the amount of safety data is enormous.  Yes, we’d agree with that, but it is all pointing to a significant signal of harm, harm on an unprecedented scale and no-one appears to be doing anything about it.  Far from being safe, these injections are one of the most harmful substances that have been forced onto a population in the history of the world.

Dr Turner also didn’t consider whether there might be other undeclared substances in the vials.  She seems to trust that what is on the label is what is in the vaccine.  This has been shown not to be the case by independent researchers both in NZ and overseas.  The NZ government has provided no evidence to refute this and the police have stated they don’t intend to investigate.  In fact, authorities have admitted they have no ability to test the vial contents independently. (Is there a clause in the secret Pfizer contract forbidding testing?)

Dr Turner has stated there are vaxxed vs unvaxxed studies.  We would love to see these (comparing FULLY unvaccinated with vaccinated) and contrast the outcomes not just for covid infection but overall mortality and for various morbidities including heart attacks, blood clots, strokes, neurological conditions, stillbirth, premature birth, menstrual disorders etc etc.  The placebo group of the ongoing original clinical trial has been destroyed due to the participants all being offered, and the majority taking up the offer of, vaccination.

At the end of her Science Media article it is stated: No conflicts of interest declared.

In our opinion, Dr Turner needs to be explicit about her funding sources and any conflicts of interest and needs to provide scientific references for her bold statements.