Our Truth Project is One Giant Witness Statement

All the Truth Project posts can be opened individually here, or read on a continuous scrolling page here, though without dates. The most recent appear first.

Professional accounts which can cement correlation to causation

NZDSOS has been consistent that people have been killed and terribly hurt from the mass marketing of the mRNA gene products. We have analysed and presented numerous pathways of harm to officials and anyone else who might listen, from large public datasets to accounts of individual New Zealanders suddenly dead or disabled.

We have painted a picture of stark indifference from officials whose ongoing decisions produce further predictable fatal and disabling illness, and whose denizens attack any doctor speaking and acting for patients and medical ethics. 

Although many people still have their defence mechanisms kick in against the reality of this assault by government, patient stories should strike at the heart of what it means to be human – to relate to the suffering of others and, more pragmatically, to understand the possible implications for own lives. But our ideological opponents are too ready to dismiss them as merely unrelated anecdotes on the one hand – whilst appearing to pay off some injection-harmed people and families with the other, outside of the tortuous ACC compensation system, hidden from OIA scrutiny and with gag orders in place.

But there is another type of story which has much to tell us and is less easily dismissed than the pleadings for help by any one vaccine-injured patient or bereaved loved one.

When patterns refuse to be ignored

Over the past several years, we have gathered a series of accounts from professionals working across New Zealand –The Truth Project – all of whom describe changes in their respective fields which deviated from what they  previously saw as normal, and which, more importantly, are being observed across multiple domains that do not ordinarily intersect in any co-ordinated way. 

These accounts are not confined to a single discipline, nor are they the product of a coordinated network; rather, they come independently from radiology, oncology, midwifery, surgery, emergency and general practice nursing, insurance, legal services, and from those working at the end of life, including undertakers and embalmers. These differing arenas each bring a distinct vantage point, yet together describe patterns that, in their consistency, paint a broader (and bleaker) synchrony.

A radiologist’s account is worth featuring in full, as it tempers experienced observation with necessary caution, and models the open-minded pattern recognition that all clinicians ought to practice.

 An oncologist, again quoted here in full for the illustrative value, reflects on changing clinical practice, is more definitive and he was moved to investigate the scientific basis for what amounts to a major increase in cancer burden. Look out for the devastating comment on doctors’ apparent reluctance to properly physically examine worrying symptoms; this specialist wonders if this is a consequence in part of the move to telemedicine (under cover of the “deadly pandemic”, of course).

In every department, it seems the same

From midwifery, the observations are equally confronting, with one practitioner noting:

“I could make a text book from photos of all the abnormal placentas we see. How some of them supported a living baby I just can’t imagine.” 

This is alongside reports of increased miscarriage and stillbirth, all pregnancy complications (especially haemorrhage), and greater demand on neonatal intensive care services. 

A surgeon, working within both public and private systems, described patients presenting with more advanced disease than would previously have been typical, in the context of a system under significant strain, where delays and reduced capacity are now routine, not least due to staff sickness.

Emergency and practice nurses describe a rise in chest pain presentations which far exceeded what was typical. An ED physician, injured himself, reports an avalanche of acute strokes on the initial rollout, and deaths in the community arriving by ambulance.

Just as we write this, we are just posting testimony of a hospice nurse from a different region. Her observations are highly similar to the cancer doctor quoted above.

Dentists and GPs report many more deaths amongst their patients, and their social circles, as well as cancer, clots and autoimmune pathology.

Pharmacists speak of changing illness patterns in their communities, and dispensing patterns suggest a sharp rise in premature menopause, autoimmune disease and changing approaches to blood clots in the face of established drugs no longer working as well. 

There are many other accounts of overload from across the health care system, not just nurses and doctors, but also air ambulance crew, admin, support workers and a medical photographer.

Outside of healthcare, it’s the same pattern

Beyond clinical medicine, similar observations are emerging in professions that operate further downstream. Insurance professionals speak of shifts in claims patterns sufficient to concern the industry, while those working in funeral services describe increased workloads overall, with more still births, rapid cancer deaths in the young and a brand-new syndrome of bizarre white clots in many deceased people. We grouped interviews with four NZ funeral professionals into one separate post, here. A new embalmer contacts us this week with clot photos and work stories. Probate lawyers report a rise in death estate work, particularly in younger people suddenly dying without wills. Insurance agents see increased claims for death benefits and unexpected health insurance claims. A business owner describes heartbreaking illness in her many employees, customers and acquaintances. 

What does it all tell us?

Individually, any one of these observations might possibly have been set aside as anecdotal or attributed to confounding factors, including the oft-quoted disruptions associated with the pandemic period, such as delayed presentation, reduced screening, and sustained pressure on healthcare systems. Where is the proof for this though? None is offered, so where is all the extra health system demand coming from?

Taken together however, the accounts show a pattern of convergence that suggest one unifying factor in particular might plausibly account for it.

For the hard of accepting out there, we mean the mRNA covid jabs, of course.

See no evil, hear no evil…

There is another wrinkle to these reports however. Many document willful blindness by ‘the system’ and threats, bullying, denials and systemic failures in injury reporting by colleagues.

These accounts ought not be regarded as final proof, but they are a good substitute for formal epidemiological analysis, in the absence of freely available public comparative data. But neither can they be dismissed out of hand, particularly when similar themes emerge repeatedly across disciplines that have no structural reason to produce alignment.

Surely common sense and decency require us to consider the probability that these professional observations are real and corroborate the large amount of data suggesting numerous mechanisms of harm from the covid jabs.

A medical and ethical failure

But public health authorities continue to maintain that they are, yes, safe and effective, and that position “reflects the current scientific consensus”. However, medicine does not derive its ethical authority from consensus alone – might is usually wrong in medicine and in life – but from its willingness to observe honestly, and question when patterns suddenly do not fit.  Aren’t we supposed to investigate without fear or favour when concerns arise?

The ethical failure here is not that uncertainty is rejected – it is inherent in all evolving scientific questions – but that there is no openness within the system to examine signals that undermine established narratives. When professionals across multiple independent domains describe patterns that are persistent, internally consistent, and deeply concerning, the appropriate response must not be silence nor dismissal, but urgent, transparent inquiry.

The question is not whether every individual account is correct, but whether the convergence of so many observations can be responsibly ignored.

If these patterns are benignly explainable, then this should be made clear, supported by accurate data, and open to scrutiny. Instead there is silence, and the implications are highly serious; no less so than all the other aspects of what points to an apparent crime against humanity.

Because in medicine, the failure to investigate alarms from inside it is not a neutral act of treading water, but an indefensible decision that carries life and death consequences – and, by now, criminal culpability.

For health workers and other professionals whose pattern recognition and morality are active, please send your reports to www.nzdsos.com/actions/the-truth-project/ They are thoroughly anonymised before posting.