But Wait, There’s More. Is The Coroner’s Decision Evidence of a Cover-Up?
Having shared some thoughts on the basis of a newspaper article, we are now privy to the written Coroner’s Decision in the case of Divya Simon. A few pertinent details were missing from the newspaper reports.
Coroner’s Report Detail
Despite a lengthy delay to having access to a defibrillator, Divya appears to have been resuscitated sufficiently to be admitted to ICU. She was not pronounced dead until more than 12 hours following her admission to hospital so her heart and lungs must have been functioning to some degree.
She had an angiogram so cardiac output must have been restored. This angiogram failed to show the cause of her heart attack.
An important piece of information in the coroner’s report that is missing from the newspaper article is that Divya suffered from a dissection of the left anterior descending (LAD) coronary artery. This is when moving blood gets in between the layers of the artery and may lead to its complete rupture.
The LAD is the blood vessel which supplies a large part of the main pumping chamber of the heart – the left ventricle. Damage to this blood vessel would mean that the downstream part of the heart would be compromised or die (massive acute left ventricular myocardial infarction) and the heart would cease being able to pump blood around the body (acute cardiac failure). Dissection of such an important artery is a catastrophic medical event.
In the setting of properly functioning pharmacovigilance, recent vaccination (4 days prior) would usually be considered causal UNTIL PROVEN OTHERWISE. The Coroner’s report does not mention any other cause, instead referring vaguely to a “likely underlying weakness of the coronary arteries”.
The full pathologist’s report does not accompany the Coroner’s report so it is impossible to know what the pathologist saw down the microscope when examining the coronary arteries and the heart muscle.
Presumably conditions such as Ehlers Danlos Syndrome and Marfan’s Syndrome were considered and excluded as a cause of vascular dissection as there is no mention of them. Or perhaps that is something the Cardiac Inherited Disease Group is looking into. Surely however, the case should not be closed until this is determined.
Was there evidence of ‘vaxculitis’? Although the Coroner’s report confidently states that the pathologist “could find no evidence to suggest that the vaccination was in any way contributing or causative of her death”, what exactly did he look for?
Determining Vaccine Injury as Cause of Death
According to the this article about the coronial inquiry into Rory Nairn’s death, “there is no current test that will show the Covid-19 vaccine in the heart tissue”, so how were the pathologist and coroner able to exclude this? Detection of vaccine-induced spike protein is possible using immunohistochemical staining, but presumably not in New Zealand.
German pathologist Arne Burkhardt has been doing post mortem examinations in people who have died following covid vaccination. He has used staining to demonstrate the presence of vaccine-induced spike protein, often associated with inflammation, in multiple body tissues and organs.
He and his team have specifically noted that dissection of blood vessels due to vasculitis is found in people who have died post covid vaccination and is often the cause of death. When the tissue is stained appropriately, it is possible to see a preponderance of spike protein in the vessel walls causing an inflammatory response. This causes a weakening of the blood vessel, leading to swelling (aneurysm), separating of layers (dissection) or bursting (rupture).
He has done a recent presentation on his team’s findings and this short section discusses cases of coronary artery vasculitis (inflammation of blood vessels).
Even if the pathologist could find no evidence it was the vaccine, in the absence of proof of an alternative cause of dissection of the coronary arteries, it should be determined that the recent medical procedure (covid booster 4 days prior) was the cause. That is how attribution would usually occur in phase 4 of a clinical trial (post marketing surveillance).
CARM (Centre for Adverse Reactions Monitoring), however, is on board with the pathologist, nothing to see here, no connection to the vaccine, another case dismissed.
We have been asking since early 2021 how MedSAFE’s independent safety monitoring board (ISMB) determines whether a death is due to vaccination or not. We have received no satisfactory answers and now our questions are ignored. We have NO CONFIDENCE that MedSAFE or the coronial service is acting in the best interests of New Zealanders.
Once again we mention the ambulance service which seems unfairly to bear the brunt of responsibility. There is no curiosity or commentary about WHY the ambulance service (like the rest of the ‘health’ system) is not functioning optimally, rather just a description of its perceived failings.
We say, and wait patiently to be proven otherwise, that staff have been mandated out of work, staff are off sick due to adverse reactions to the vaccine, staff are unable to work when they have a sniffle due to covid ‘rules’ and there is an increasing workload with people having serious adverse events (heart attacks, strokes, blood clots, infections, neurological disorders etc.) due to the vaccine.
Coroner Louella Dunn has determined that there is no need to open an inquiry. “I am satisfied that there are no circumstances relating to this death which make an inquiry necessary or desirable.” She is presumably satisfied that there is nothing for NZ to learn from the death of a healthy 31 year old mother and nurse four days after an experimental medical procedure, and nothing to learn about the state of the NZ ambulance service. Really?
Dr William Makis, a Canadian doctor recording post-vaccination deaths of healthy, working Canadian doctors has written a commentary on this case also. His experience in Canada is that the deaths of health care workers in close proximity to vaccination are being deliberately covered up, more so than those of the general population. His reasoning: “The state needs doctors and nurses to enthusiastically push COVID-19 vaccines on their patients, and it needs these same doctors and nurses to stay silent about COVID-19 vaccine injuries and deaths.”
How many other New Zealanders have been fobbed off with such poor quality and superficial coronial reports? And this is before the changes of the Coroners Amendment Bill come into force!
Join with us in asking questions and demanding answers.