In the last two years we have been repeatedly told to Trust the Science, usually when applied to the covid injections or to masks and lockdowns. No-one defined or explained what “the science” was; nor were we allowed to question those who said they had “the science”. We just had to trust. This state of affairs descended into farce when Toni Fauci stated he was “the science”, changing his mind as necessary to keep the narrative going where he wanted it to. Where we just to trust him unquestionably and can anyone say they are or have the science?
Trust the Science: From Farce to Reality
NZDSOS, in speaking out with science, have continuously asked questions. This is the true scientific method. A true scientist advances knowledge by attempting to disprove his or her hypothesis, encouraging questioning and looking for alternate explanations.
In this article, written by one of our doctors, we discuss what happened to science and how this noble pursuit was hijacked government, regulators and academics, the very people that should have bee skeptical.
This is a long and technical read but worth your time. Skip to the end for a summary if you must but we encourage you do undertake many long and difficult reads. You’ll end up knowing more than your doctor – and knowledge is power.
Trust the Science – A Journey Into the Void
Science applied as intended, in the genuine spirit of enquiry is an honest attempt to answer questions in the pursuit of truth. Whatever the populace believes about the current state of science, it is a critical tool. While it may not yet be able to explain everything in the phenomenal world, it is framework for making controlled observations about any number of questions and if it’s fundamental tenets are carefully observed, it can draw us closer to approximations of substantive truth.
The events last two years have seen a surreptitious erosion of the scientific method and the shepherding of an unsuspecting public into an emergent false doctrine, guided by the errant ministrations of a proselytizing corporate media-government complex. Rigorous observation has been replaced with projections derived from modelling data, long-held definitions have been covertly changed, data has been doctored and withheld and expert opinion has been sold as the paramount and irrefutable truth. What has emerged is a carefully contrived facsimile, a doppelganger dressed in the vestments of science, using the vernacular of science but lacking in its objective foundation. The term “scientism” has been coined to differentiate this pseudo-scientific phenomenon from its authentic counterpart.
Science is chronological and sequential, advancing through the painstaking processes of accumulation and consilience, as information streams from converging lines of evidence are methodically assembled to produce a congruent body of data. It was clear early in the pandemic that the release of a new class of vaccines based on the mRNA gene transfer platform was intended to form a major part of the management strategy, as these products were rapidly brought to market under the Trump administration in an operation famously dubbed “warp-speed”.
While it might have been anticipated that certain liberties would be taken in the name of expedience, it is doubtful that anyone could have anticipated the extent to which the integrity of the scientific method was to be subverted. Rather than the congruent body of data that we might expect, we are faced with a data void, an unpopulated abyss, with its resultant scientific blind-spot. Expert opinion has been injected into the void, in an attempt to bridge the gap between the limits of our substantive knowledge and the contents of the rather emphatic public health messaging.
It is unfortunate that the general public are unaware that expert opinion in the absence of a supporting data has limited predictive value, particularly when new and uncharacterised technologies are involved. This limited capacity to predict, comprehend and impute complexity is a common human failing and this seems to lie at the foundation of the perfect storm which is emerging in the aftermath of the vaccination roll-out. So how did we get here? What are the boundaries which differentiate science from conjecture? And where has presumption surpassed and supplanted what can reasonably be inferred from the supporting data?
The roll-out of the marketing slogan “safe and effective” was an early tell. The unabashed use of a slogan standing in infamy, through its application to the marketing of Distaval (Thalidomide) by Distillers Ltd should have at least piqued a little curiosity.
The “safe and effective” mantra was recited ad nauseum in the pre-election leadership debates before the Covid-19 vaccines had even been brought to market. The messaging was issued repetitively throughout the debates, with a non-partisan uniformity that was almost unfathomable.
The early safety and efficacy data on the Pfizer BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine was published in the New England Journal of Medicine, giving rise to the infamous “95% effective” slogan which was heralded as the triumph of a human endeavour over nature. This became the clarion call for the miraculous intervention promoted as the only way to end the pandemic. Much has been said about the difference between absolute risk reduction (ARR) and relative risk reduction (RRR) and the inherent deception involved in the selective reporting of relative risk by government officials and their coordinating media outlets.
A blog report from the associate editor of the British Medical Journal, Peter Doshi identified anomalies in the recording and reporting of Pfizer’s data, an early warning that all might not be as advertised. As one of the most frequently recited messages of the pandemic the “95% effective” slogan became so entrenched, that few ever stopped to ask “95% effective” at what exactly. It has been assumed that this meant that any individual had a minimal chance of even catching SARS-CoV-2 and it still surprises so many, that the impact of the vaccine on its ability to attenuate transmission wasn’t even assessed as outcome measure.
If we stop to consider the role of a vaccine and what it is supposed to accomplish, the ideal measures of outcome can be determined empirically with a little rational forethought. Ideally a vaccine should attenuate transmission, reduce the rate of hospitalisation and reduce the risk of infection leading to death in vaccinated subjects, compared to unvaccinated controls. It may again surprise people that none of these were selected as outcome measures. So how then was the efficacy of the Pfizer BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine measured?
Efficacy was reported on the basis of non-critical outcome measures, namely a relative reduction in mild to moderate symptoms in vaccinated compared to unvaccinated subjects. Phrased appropriately in the correct parlance of evidence-based medicine, the outcome can be encapsulated in the statement: vaccinated subjects experienced a 95% reduction in mild to moderate symptoms compared to unvaccinated subjects over a 2-month period, the impact of the vaccine on transmission, hospitalization and mortality were not reported as outcome measures.
A recent publication evaluating the incidence of adverse events of special interest, have found that the excess risk of serious adverse events of special interest surpassed the risk reduction for COVID-19 hospitalization relative to the placebo group in both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccine trials.
With studies focused on surrogate markers as measures of outcome and a dearth of safety data, it is almost inconceivable that such studies became the basis for the derogation of human rights in many western countries. The coercive influence of governments and media outlets, operating under the rubric of public health policy, quickly shifted the issue off its scientific foundation, reframing it as a matter of morality and conscience, a proposition advanced through the leveraging of distorted and exaggerated representations of what the available data could reliably establish. The resultant narratives provided the impetus for western governments to act ultra vires, with the implementation of a pandemic measures that imposed upon the civil liberties of their populations with impunity.
Pfizer and Moderna seized the opportunity created by the pandemic and used it to advance a fundamental change in vaccine design, with the selection a of a novel lipid nanoparticle mRNA gene transfer platform, over the more traditional live attenuated or viral antigen-based vaccines. A synthetic mRNA transcript encoding the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein was selected as the antigen of choice for the vaccine under the presumption that it had suitable immunogenicity and limited toxicity. Despite the emphatic assurances of vaccine safety, peer reviewed data characterising the fundamental biological properties of the spike protein, raised significant concerns about their validity.
An early animal study on the vascular effects of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein in the hamster model showed that far from being non-toxic, the spike protein is a primary pathophysiological effector of the disease process in Covid-19. Researchers created a “pseudovirus” which was absent all viral antigens except for the spike protein. Experimental animals exposed to the “pseudovirus” experienced lung and arterial injury, with cellular injury in the vascular endothelium extending to the mitochondrial level. Researchers concluded that spike protein alone was sufficient to cause disease.
A well-known New Zealand vaccinologist made the unsubstantiated claim that such observations were of no clinical significance, as the vaccine only acted locally, remaining confined to the arms of its recipients and without distribution beyond the regional lymph nodes. Contrary to her claim, a Pfizer biodistribution study conducted in Japan using the rat model revealed a markedly different picture. The authors of this study reported a broad distribution of the lipid nanoparticles with focal bio-accumulation observed at a number of specific organ sites. The enhanced accumulation observed in the ovaries and the ability of the lipid nanoparticle to cross the blood brain barrier are two of the most concerning revelations.
It has been argued in the confused square of public opinion, that the observations made in this study are clinically irrelevant, however the arguments presented were all been based on the presumptive projections of thought experiments, rather than on well-designed studies that might serve to settle the matter objectively. The presence of absences and omissions in the data, should never be accepted as evidence in support of a product which has failed to behave as advertised.
Additional animal studies utilising immunohistochemical staining for the presence of spike protein within each of the organs affected in the biodistribution study, may have provided further insight into the potential complications that might arise from the clinical use of this class and design of vaccine.
There are obvious deficiencies in the scientific foundation supporting Covid-19 vaccines yet the media and government entities have engaged in a perpetual attempt to undermine, appropriate and redefine scientific standards.
The suggestion that the administration of billions of doses of these vaccines globally provides sufficient evidence to relieve these products of their experimental status, ignores one of the fundamental tenets of science. The science is not in the administration of the intervention, but in the subsequent period of observation and given the track-record of many pharmaceuticals, vaccines included, the longer the observation period the better. This novel experimental biotechnology has been shielded from both criticism and regulatory burden through its inclusion under the auspicious umbrella designation “vaccine”. The shield of vaccine orthodoxy has created a privileged pharmaceutical category which confers an almost unconditional presumption of safety and efficacy in the minds of the public.
As appropriately sequenced animal studies are absent, we are left to answer the remaining questions through the study of outcomes in vaccinated human subjects. Sadly, some of the more unsettling questions will be best answered through carefully conducted autopsies with appropriate organ specific spike protein and nucleocapsid immuno-histochemical staining. If there is genuine concern a about the safety of these products, as is claimed, necessary vigilance should include a post-mortem analysis for those passing in proximate relationship to the administration of these vaccines. Despite a reluctance by authorities to pursue this avenue with any enthusiasm, a small number of case reports are surfacing in the scientific literature which have served to provide a limited confirmation of our worst suspicions.
An early report by German pathologist Dr Arne Burkhardt set out with the intention of quenching fears about the safety of Covid-19 vaccines, he assembled an interdisciplinary team including nine international pathologists. They analysed and presented autopsy findings from a cohort of 15 subjects, autopsy findings for fourteen of the fifteen subjects implicated the vaccine as being significant to their passing. The cohort included subjects of various ages, all of which had passed unexpectedly outside of the hospital setting within 7 days to 6 months of receiving one of the Covid-19 vaccines available in Germany.
The analysis of tissue specimens confirmed the presence of wide spread vascular and para-vascular inflammation (vasculitis and para-vasculitis). Inflammation was present in the aortic specimens of 10 subjects with 6 specimens showing evidence of aortic dissection. Inflammatory lesions were associated with the presence of the spike protein which was detected through specific immuno-histochemical staining. The role of direct Covid-19 infection was excluded through the use of a specific SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid immuno-histochemical staining. All specimens in the series had negative nucleocapsid immuno-histochemistry, indicating that the observed changes were associated with the vaccine and not Covid-19. The observed vascular injuries are lamentably reminiscent of those documented in the early animal studies.
These findings were corroborated in a separate case study which reported on the autopsy findings for a 76-year-old man with known Parkinson’s disease, who passed within 3 weeks of receiving a third dose of a Covid-19 vaccine. The man had been vaccinated with a mixed vaccination protocol using two different Covid-19 vaccines. His third and final dose, was a second dose the Pfizer BNT162b mRNA vaccine.
The man was referred for autopsy by his family after he had exhibited remarkable behavioural and psychological changes and a rapid deterioration in his motor capabilities, leading to wheel chair confinement. Autopsy specimens confirmed the presence of both multi-focal encephalitis and myocarditis, with inflammation being particularly apparent in the small blood vessels. Immuno-histochemical staining confirmed that spike protein could be detected in association within the inflammatory lesions in the brain and heart, while immuno-histochemistry for the SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid protein was absent. These findings once again support the attribution of these changes to the vaccine and not to direct Covid-19 infection.
The pandemic has seen an increase in the frequency of a host of common pathologies and there have been attempts by media and government departments to characterise these as the sequela of Covid-19. This assertion is gradually being displaced by the growing body of peer-reviewed data which is implicating the Covid-19 vaccines. The eventual recognition that the Covid-19 vaccines were associated with myocarditis was met with claims that the risk of myocarditis associated with the Covid-19 infection exceeded the risk associated with vaccination.
The findings of a large prospective Israeli study have recently confirmed that the risk of developing myocarditis and pericarditis in Covid-19 recovering unvaccinated subjects is no higher than the background levels, helping to dispel yet another myth propagated by the media.
Increasing reports of early onset dementia are deeply concerning, as are the attempts of corporate media to once again assign attribution to Covid-19 infection. Immuno-histochemistry will be a critical tool of discernment, allowing for differentiation between deaths and disease processes which can be attributed to Covid-19 and its subsequent pathologies and those which can be attributed to the Covid-19 vaccines. As is often stated in science, further data is required to confirm the scale and importance of these findings; but one thing is certain, if we don’t look, we certainly won’t find.
Much has been said about the potential for mRNA vaccines to alter the genome of vaccine recipients through the reverse-transcription and retro-integrations of their mRNA transcripts. This issue has raised considerable concern, as it carries inherent mutagenic potential and also the uncharacterised risk associated with the chronic low-grade production of a poorly characterised viral antigen. Concerns have been subjected to the usual rhetorical minimisation through the issuance of vague assurances that it simply can’t happen.
The prominent vaccinologist mentioned previously, was active early in the vaccine roll-out in providing assurances that reverse-transcription and retro-integration of the synthetic mRNA transcripts in the Pfizer vaccine could not occur. She offered the explanation that it is not possible as there is no reverse transcriptase present in the vaccine. Such a doltish remark is at best un-educated and rather misses the point, reverse transcription does not require the presence of reverse transcriptase in the vaccine, as it is already present within human cells. Despite her blinkered assurances, concerns about this theoretical risk were recently shown to be valid.
A study conducted by Alden et al. (2022), demonstrated the reverse-transcription and integration of the mRNA sequence present in the Pfizer BioNTech vaccine in hepatocytes (liver cells) grown in in vitro cell culture. This again raises questions as to why such studies were not conducted prior to the deployment of this novel biotechnology on the population level. The likelihood of such an event occurring in vivo could have readily been determined with more extensive animal studies.
From the skeptical perspective, the last two years have seen a propaganda campaign using some well tested and dubious marketing slogans, a liberal over-interpretation of some fairly inconsequential safety and efficacy data, the stealthy assignment of a novel biotechnology to the venerated and privileged pharmaceutical category of “vaccine” through acts of re-definition and trojan-horse marketing.
Animal studies which are suggestive of the pathogenic primacy of the “spike protein” in the disease process of a Covid-19, an inconvenient biodistribution study which when considered in conjunction with concerns about the toxicity of the spike protein reveal not only safety concerns but a breakdown in the logical and sequential progressions of the scientific method. This has been accompanied by an increase in all-cause mortality in much of the western world and reluctance by the authorities to conduct autopsies to the necessary standard required to exclude the role of the vaccine.
The unwillingness of government departments and their designated “experts” to engage in open uncensored scientific discourse should stand as a dire warning. Science has always been dialectical, contentious and rigorously debated. It is this vital dynamism which breaks the grid-lock of entrenched dogma and facilitates progress. The problems associated with the pandemic and the scientific basis of its imposed interventions are too complex and enumerable to outline in a single short discussion. The aim herein, has been to isolate and accentuate a single logical thread from a complex tapestry, to relieve it of its obfuscation and to render it visible for all who wish to see.