We are aware that many nationally and internationally have commented on Chris Hipkins’ remarks in a recent press meeting where he said that there was no compulsory vaccination, and that people made their own choices.
As an aside, Dr Garcia, psychiatrist, gives his perspective on the Prime Minister’s words in this RCR interview.
We are as outraged as anyone by those statements. However, in the same clip, Mr Hipkins has also said two other noteworthy things that need to be addressed.
He has said that there is a process for those injured by medical procedures. Yes, that process is through ACC (Accident Compensation Corporation) and people injured by vaccines can claim for a ‘treatment injury’.
What Chris Hipkins omitted to say is that ACC is putting every obstacle possible in the way of someone receiving any form of help or compensation.
For a person to claim ACC, the potential connection between the medical event or death, and the vaccination, needs to be recognised.
Since we have repeatedly been told that the vaccine is safe and effective, many do not realise that their medical event (odd neurological symptoms, a stillbirth or premature delivery, a blood clot, myocarditis, stroke etc etc.) or loved one’s death, may be connected.
If a connection is made, a health professional needs to fill in the form. This requires the health professional to acknowledge that there may be a connection, which a number are reluctant to do, thanks to the Medical Council’s infamous ‘Guidance Statement‘. Not to mention the issue of asking people responsible for, and receiving incentives to, promote and administer the product in question, then being required to consider the possibility of having caused harm.
Once ACC starts assessing the claim, their ‘experts’ are brought in to show that the vaccine had nothing to do with the new diagnosis. The process takes months or years, and the injured person is fighting a system hellbent on discrediting their experience.
Vaccine injured people are being expected to provide scientific evidence to prove that their condition is caused by the vaccine. This is despite the fact that the vaccine was in phase 3 of an ongoing clinical trial when it was administered, is now in the post-marketing phase and still only has provisional consent in NZ. They are being expected to provide scientific evidence that does not yet exist. Vaccine injured New Zealanders are part of the evidence assuming their details get reported to CARM and CARM actually counts them.
In addition, in most cases the vaccine injured are not scientists or doctors and many are severely damaged and not able to function at their pre-vaccine level. A number have brain fog, fatigue, and trouble thinking or remembering.
They are then placed in an adversarial system having to face medical and/or legal experts from ACC all on their own. Some have not been able to find their own legal or medical support as advocates, lawyers or doctors will not take on their cases, with some professionals not even bothering to respond to requests for help.
The ACC process is chaotic and unfair and appears to be set up to decline compensation in the case of vaccine injury.
Chris Hipkins’ other comment is about the Royal Commission (“The Royal Commission can look at whatever it wants in regards to the covid response.”) and shows he is misguided and out of touch. Perhaps he hasn’t even looked at the Terms of Reference which do not mention the words ‘safety’, ‘injury’ or ‘harm’ at all. ‘Vaccine’ is only mentioned once and that is in the list of exclusions with reference to vaccine efficacy. No-one is even going to consider whether the vaccine did what we were told it would do, let alone consider the damage it has caused!
The stated purpose of the inquiry is “to strengthen Aotearoa New Zealand’s preparedness for, and response to, any future pandemic by identifying those lessons learned from New Zealand’s response to COVID-19 that should be applied in preparation for any future pandemic”.
In effect the Royal Commission is not interested in how much damage and harm was caused to society by the measures imposed and by the vaccine; it is interested in how to do it all again better, harder and faster next time.
Chris Hipkins is gaslighting New Zealanders and is out of touch with a large segment of our society. He is not fit to remain in his current role.