On the Path to Truth : Why Can’t the Questions Be Answered if the Science is Settled?

Path to truth
Photo Credit - © Canva Pro Content License

A Contemplation of the Truth Divide Between Pro and Anti

Pro-vaxxers seem to be a shy bunch when invited by those with different opinions to have a discussion on divergent perspectives of the truth.  Not shy when they have the stage to themselves but reticent and reluctant if there is debate in the air.  Why is that?

Certainly, here at NZDSOS we have a multitude of members who wonder what our colleagues are thinking.  How can they justify the lack of informed consent?  What are the ethics of injecting pregnant women with a novel genetic agent?  Where is their line in the sand when it comes to forced medical procedures?  At what point, if any, would doctors say NO in the future?  Does First Do No Harm no longer apply? 

However, very few members have actually managed to have a meaningful conversation with colleagues.  When such questions are posed, there is a turning away, a lack of reply, a change of topic, a glazed, disinterested look or occasionally an unexpected vitriolic attack.  Next to no-one has reported a respectful conversation ending with a mutual understanding of the other side’s position.

It has been perplexing trying to comprehend the incomprehensible, from our perspective. 

We stand ready and willing for the discussion, but the other side retreats, puts up the barriers, goes on the offensive, ignores, denigrates, belittles, censors…

Recently though, people have been crossing the divide, venturing into the opposite (pro-vax) echo chamber and reporting back.  The following quote refers to what a person on the fence might observe.

There are many people who are vaccine-hesitant that do not have the capacity to read scientific papers and analyse data. They see two groups who are mirror images of each other.  Both sides think the other side is incredibly gullible, that they are listening to misinformation spreaders and are endangering the rest of us for their own personal gain.

They can also see the one big difference between the two.  One side is asking for an open discussion around this important issue.  The other believes that only their side should have the right to express themselves while the other needs to be silenced.
How do you think this is going to play out. Why would the undecided ever choose to follow the group that advocates censorship over debate?

That quote comes from Dr Madhava Setty, anaesthetist, who attended the World Vaccine Congress in Washington in early April 2023.  He wanted to engage with those with a different view.  He has posted a written report and has done a couple of post event interviews about what he learned here and here.  His insights are fascinating.

In group discussions at the Vaccine Congress, Dr Setty suggested on more than one occasion that perhaps the best way to deal with anti-vaxxers would be to talk to them, to bring them into a discussion and then dissect and/or discredit their arguments and views in a public debate.  Surely that would settle the matter once and for all. 

A number of fellow attendees thought this sounded like a good idea but some academics e.g. Associate Professor Katie Atwell from Western Australia, were quick to say that such a thing would not be possible and the idea of considering another perspective of the truth should not be entertained. 

“We cannot give any voice to the critic.  Once the public sees them on equal footing with us they may believe what they are saying.”

So, it would not be right to give antivaxxers a platform equal to pro-vaxxers.  The public might get confused and think anti-vaxxers had valid points.  No, the only thing to be done is to keep them shut out of the discussion, in order to protect one version of truth.

When the questions got too uncomfortable or probing, the conference moderators tended to move the conversations on.

Dr Setty tried to assess the level of knowledge and understanding of those promoting vaccines, and he was disturbed by their ignorance.  He found that a number of people had not engaged with the science and had not read the studies or looked at data from various countries.

He found himself sitting next to Dame Jennifer Margaret Harries, a British public health physician and chief executive of UKHSA (United Kingdom Health Security Agency).  She was not interested in discussing the fact that UK agencies had repeatedly demonstrated negative efficacy (increasing infections with increasing vaccinations) from the covid vaccines with their data.

The article and videos with Dr Setty are very interesting and recommended for those who would like to understand how vaccine advocates are thinking.

Del Bigtree of The Highwire also recently managed to have a discussion with mainstream science communicator and astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson.  Del wanted to explore how to converse with pro-vaxxers and have a respectful conversation that might enable vaccine science to progress towards a mutual truth.

This was a lengthy and interesting exchange and hopefully leads to some reflection on the part of Neil deGrasse Tyson as to how correct his apparent view of medical science is.  Perhaps he will be able to find a pro-vax medical professional willing to debate with Del, something that has not eventuated to date (and not for lack of trying).  Neil did not seem to appreciate the influence of pharmaceutical funding on the outcomes of medical science.

Closer to home on Reality Check Radio Paul Brennan spoke with Kathryn Ennis-Carter, self-employed Public Management Consultant, on 13 April.  She attended the Otago University Disinformation Workshop in Wellington in February this year and had some interesting insights which she shared from about the 26.30 minute mark. 

Speakers at the event included Kate Hannah, Paula Penfold and Prof Michael Baker among others.

Kathryn described the incurious acceptance of the government narrative by the majority of attendees, and the lack of questioning, discussion or debate.  It was ‘scary to be in a room with such a level of group-think’ she reported.

There was discussion about inoculating people against misinformation, (‘psychological inoculation’) and ‘psychological herd immunity’, ‘pre-bunking’, using stories and emotions to engage people rather than providing facts, and using messaging that recognises the desire of people to be part of a group.

She heard that ‘misinformation’ and the ‘misinformation community’ was like a contagion in society that must be addressed through social controls and various tactics were discussed, including the need for more censorship of social media. The ‘misinformation community’ was accused of using fear to influence people. The importance of the role of authority in ‘countering disinformation’ was emphasised, including making the public understand that information is only ‘reliable’ if it comes from an ‘authorised’ source.

Labelling and defaming those people with opposing views with the labels we are all too familiar with – antivaxxer, conspiracy theorist, far-right extremist – enables them to be dismissed and removed from the discussion.

Kathryn described the stunning level of ignorance she observed.  Someone working in the health system or health bureaucracy did not understand the difference between mRNA and traditional vaccines.  She also joined a conversation between a couple of people from NZ Blood Service who were talking about Baby Will.  She asked what it was that the parents were actually concerned about with regards to vaccinated blood.  They said they never really found out and that the parents had been manipulated by conspiracy theorists.

It even got a bit weird at one stage with Kate Hannah speaking about the “deification of blonde and redhaired women and children”.  Kathryn was surprised by the lack of reaction to some of Kate’s bizarre comments.  Do we need to start wondering about the mental stability of some of those in the halls of power and influence?

Guy Hatchard has written numerous articles attempting to engage with those pushing the vaccines, asking questions many New Zealanders have and providing his educated interpretation of information he is able to obtain.  He recently wrote about damning health statistics from the Wellington region he had been provided with – large increases in a number of medical conditions (heart attack, kidney injury, myocarditis, miscarriage, stillbirth, stroke), correlated in time with covid vaccination. 

A member of the public provided his local MP Dr Deborah Russell (PhD in political philosophy not medical doctor) with the article and asked for comment.  This MP is Minister for Statistics and the Associate Minister for Justice, so you would expect her to be able to discuss statistical data and be interested in the wellbeing of her constituents. 

Guy reports on her reply.  (She has to be given credit for responding, something which other members of parliament have failed to do with any of our letters of concern.)  However, instead of engaging with the serious questions that affect the lives of every New Zealander, Dr Russell questions Guy’s credentials.  The Minister for Statistics should surely be able to engage in a debate if her view differs, and provide data and scientific references to back up her position.  Ad hominem attacks seem to be the only way our politicians know how to respond to tricky questions about increased mortality and morbidity.

Covid 19, it seems, has exacerbated an epidemic of inability to answer questions.

Prior to these recent forays into the opposite camp, and just before covid 19 entered the world stage, researchers had been working on how to engage with the undecided.  The numbers of ‘vaccine hesitant’ had reached such levels that this condition was deemed one of the 10 most pressing health issues to be addressed.

Heidi Larson of the Vaccine Confidence Project spoke at the Global Vaccine Safety Summit in Geneva in December 2019 on the topic of vaccine confidence and vaccine hesitancy.  She made three interesting observations –

  • Much of the ‘misinformation’ is NOT actually misinformation, it is people asking legitimate and valid questions.
  • Much more safety science for vaccines is needed.
  • There is a very wobbly health-professional front line which is beginning to ask questions.

So, the division between those promoting vaccines and those recommending caution and more science, has not just appeared with covid vaccines but it has widened, and the ability to have rational, calm, respectful conversations has diminished.

In summary, it seems the problem with anti-vaxxers is that they have too many pesky, uncomfortable questions.  Or perhaps that could be reframed to: the problem with pro-vaxxers is that they have too few answers to the important questions.

The offer is out there.  We’d love to have a public discussion or debate.  We’d love to have a respectful conversation.  We need to hear what the pro-vaxxers think and to understand how they are interpreting the science. Lives depend on this. 

In the meantime we still wait, while aware of the following:

The truth will set you free.
The truth will prevail.
The truth is like a lion.  You don’t need to defend it.  Set it free and it will defend itself.

We will keep speaking the truth as we see it, more and more sure of the facts that support it, as the evidence continues to emerge. 

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 278 Average: 4.8]
Share this post

Similar Posts


  1. Thank you so much, all you fine people, for your dogged defence of truth in the face of a world tipped on it’s axis. For me, I hold my line in the sand when everything we hold dear is collapsing into a cauldron of lies, deceit and corruption; where those intent on destroying us, barely even attempt to dress-up their lies anymore. However, it’s increasingly exhausting and unbelievable to witness it all being doubled down on with little push-back from the masses. If anyone seeks more answers and information on where our Country sits globally, Redacted, Sky News (Australia) and other global independent news outlets have a pretty good handle on us. Again, thank you from my heart!

  2. I wrote a complementary post and when I pressed send, the word “forbidden” came up and it seems it has disappeared.

  3. I appreciate all that NZDSOS do for peoples’ wellbeing, for standing up. Thank you. Standing for the light.

  4. I appreciate all that NZDSOS is doing for the people and for their courage to stand up. Standing for the light.

  5. The distinction between dying from Covid and dying after testing positive was mentioned for a short time in the msm reports. Now it has reverted back to only saying deaths from Covid. Can we remind people of the difference and ask for greater detail around age and cause of death? Confidentiality does not need to be broken so what is the problem?

  6. I believe there is what I would call a psychic element to this. Coming from a yoga teacher background, I was taught certain techniques for let’s say shutting down parts of the mind so that I as the facilitator of the meditation class can work on specific parts of the mind without interference from say the senses. This manifests in a physical form, and when I came out of lockdown, went to meet my friends at a bar, I hadn’t got halfway through the first beer before realising that something was wrong with them, they had been put in what I would call a ‘psychic lock’, I could tell by looking at them. As time has passed this observation has only been strengthened, particularly amongst people that have ‘rose tinted glasses’ on, and I’ve come to the conclusion this is a massive psy op and these poor folk had no psychic protection. They are incapable of questioning it as that part of their mind has been ‘locked down’. Just an idea….

  7. Interesting article. I was listening to RNZ last night, and a doctor was discussing tramadol, and the importance of giving patients informed consent, and using a risks / benefits analysis. No doubt this doctor went along with the whole Covid Jab shenanigans if he was on RNZ representing the medical council so all I could hear was hypocrisy with his every word!

  8. Thank you for a well reasoned and respectful commentary. You give me hope that not all in the medical profession have lost their ability to think, reason, and respect the rights of patients as humans rather than objects to be experimented on.

  9. Great article, and how interesting to discover that our problem (us foolish anti vaxxers) is we don’t have answers to reasonable questions, like for example ‘whats the long term safety data’ and so many more simple thoughts to anyone with a few brain cells. The worlds gone mad….

  10. Yes, my rating is five out of five, not as it registered. As for the efforts to engage the pro-vaxxers, if it be gently and judiciously done, much can be learned, but there is a big catch, or maybe two or three.
    Human society is at a juncture where it has split, again, bifurcated as it were, as to an understanding of where people are at, or want to be. This is at heart a spiritual issue, inexorable and impossible to bridge as a divide.
    The religious impulse is present even when people are not spiritual/religious. That means almost without exception, people have an innate need to believe. Any belief will do. So, ideology rules, and divides.

  11. This whole evil, divisive scheme has destroyed countless businesses, jobs and lives. The government’s Hitlerish tactics MUST be exposed, prosecuted and utterly condemned in the World Courts. All perpetrators of this evil must be punished – especially the super-rich ogliarchs who believe their money entitles them to use us, and the whole planet, as their plaything – their toy. We are many. They are few. In my humble opinion they all need to be imprisoned for at least 3 years ( the time they imprisoned all of us ).

  12. This even goes on in my own home an I know also in many others homes. Now that its all over, ‘they’, the pro vaxxers don’t want to engage in conversation. The answer is always: “Its finished now. Lets forget about it”
    I attended the Papamoa Anzac Morning Parade recently. The speach contained the word `Freedom`. What our young boys died for in 1915 in Gallipoli. My first thought was: cindy ardern. The one that attempted unsuccessfully to take these freedoms from us. Not just cindy, but the Global Elites.
    So, “Lest we Forget” all those who were affected by all these bullying tactics and all those who protested peacefully for our freedom in Wellington on our green lawns infront of Parliament.
    Lest we Forget
    Bernard Kramer

  13. I apologise, I thought I would have to press each star in turn on the rating, so my response was recorded as 1 star, whereas I intended it to be 5!

  14. Industrial Society and Its Future, the 1995 anti-technology essay by Dr Ted Kaczynski, the math professor who became a terrorist, describes exactly the sort of mental illness we are dealing with. (Kaczynski was an amoral murderer, but otherwise a brilliant and stunningly sane man). For more than half a century, there has been a filtration process in our universities selecting for mentally weak people with psychological tendencies towards ‘feelings of inferiority’ and ‘oversocialisation.’ Independent minded people were weeded out as ‘loose cannons’ or ‘bulls in china shops’. Oversocialised people are putty in the hands of those generating the narratives du jour, as their powerful need for tribal affiliation compels them to believe whatever nonsense is currently the party line. They were ‘The Borg’ decades before Covid-19, and had full control of the western universities by the 1980s. The more wrong they are, the more they double down on their beliefs due to cognitive dissonance. We will NEVER reach these people!
    The best we can hope for is that the technocratic society will self destruct due to the overwhelming hubris and corruption of its rulers and utter incompetence of its brainwashed minions. With the control system in tatters, people capable of critical thought will once again have a competitive advantage. John Boorman’s 1974 science-fantasy movie, Zardoz, is a fine parable about where humanity is heading, and where hope ultimately lies. In the movie, it all unravels in the year 2293, but IMO, collapse is more likely to happen well within our current century. After all, the very same people who are 100% pro mandatory mRNA gene therapy are also 100% in favour of using “depleted” uranium munitions on Russian agricultural soil and cities. This too won’t end well.

  15. We have just travelled the length of the SI and are currently in Dunedin.
    So far it has been a horror trip, much illness, friends and acquaintances with cancer, and other normally well people with drastic weight loss issues.
    BUT , the worst aspect has been peoples acceptance of death.
    ie., such and such died all of a sudden, oh dear how sad, moving right along.
    My wife and I , ( unmaxed) liken ourselves to a couple of meercats, standing up and seeing this ‘ devastation ‘ around us!
    Wokeness is alive extensively in Dunedin, could be because of it being a University town.
    Can’t wait to get out of the place!

  16. I have a question :
    What were administrators / deliverers of this covid INJECTION paid for doing it ?
    Does anyone know the accurate figures ?
    I have heard that some “ professionals” were paid up to $300 per injection
    I have observed over my lifetime that more than 50 percent of individuals will sell their souls for enough money. Eg multi level companies , various individuals selling miracle hogwash etc

  17. I have a question :
    What were administrators / deliverers of this covid INJECTION paid for doing it ?
    Does anyone know the accurate figures ?
    I have heard that some “ professionals” were paid up to $300 per injection . Is this true ?

  18. why? Why did the NZ government press ahead with the covid vaccine when the medsafe report they received said the vaccine was neither not safe?

    Why did Jacinda go on the TV (post receiving the medsafe report) to tell all NZers the vaccine was safe and effective?

    Why is the Labour Party still advertising and recommending the vaccine for our children when they are aware that NZ all cause mortality has been running at approximately 120% since the COVID vaccine was rolled out.

    Why are heart attacks up by 83%?

    We need to know why?

    Only a forensic investigation into the pfizer money trail will reveal the answer.

  19. When did science stop examining every possibility ? That’s the whole basis of good scientific enquiry. That’s how we make progress and move past what we thought we knew as fact. Any government or organisation that wishes to prevent discussion and examination of all possibilities, is intentionally halting real science and the only reason can be that they are afraid of exposure.

  20. Anthony Fauci had just written again, scientifically, recently about how we got to where we are with resourat viruses.

  21. It’s been standard policy from those trying to force the narrative to never debate the issue. Call people names, deflect to another topic, and just deny.
    Whether it’s covid vaccinations, the existence of viruses, climate change. There is never a debate because that would reveal that they are all a house of cards.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *