The Covid Steamroller: How New Zealand’s Leaders Ignored Expert Advice and Harmed Our Children

New Zealand’s Leaders Ignored Expert Advice, Suppressed Safety Information, and Harmed Our Children

For three years, New Zealanders were assured that their government was “following the science” and that the covid-19 vaccine rollout was “safe and effective” as it drove its imperative to mass-vaccinate the nation. The Royal Commission of Inquiry into Covid-19 Lessons Learned Phase Two (RCI2) concluded in February 2026 that the response was “balanced and reasonable” and that decisions were “considered and appropriate”. However, five years of research gives us 100% certainty this is wrong. A trove of official documents, expert testimony, personal accounts and court evidence – much of it ignored or downplayed by the Royal Commission – tells a very different story.

It is very cold comfort indeed to see some medical scientists who were roped into the covid tent finally illuminate the political imperatives that were obvious from the start.

Our jab concerns are huge and wide-ranging, but the narrow media story emerging  (confirming some of our earliest concerns) is one of a government that knew its vaccine mandates for children were medically unjustified; that actively suppressed information about heart inflammation risks to accelerate the rollout; and that prioritised vaccination speed over the safety and informed consent of young people and their parents. It is an important but solitary chapter in the story of a steamroller imperative, ending with injured and dead children and young people, devastated families, and a whitewash that has let the architects of this disaster remain unaccountable.

This article draws quotes from the meticulous documentary research of lawyer and journalist Philip Crump (www.cranmer.substack.com) and the investigative reporting of Derek Cheng in the New Zealand Herald. We commend them both. The findings (and omissions) of the RCI2 and the direct testimony of affected families also form the evidence. We place New Zealand’s experience in international context, drawing parallels with Germany’s “RKI files” scandal and Australia’s ATAGI controversies, where expert caution was overridden and adverse events in children were hidden. This lockstep aspect is relevant to our narrative of a global assault on humanity by dark forces, but it is our local officials who are directly responsible and whom we can most easily call to account.

Precautionary Advice Ignored

On 9 December 2021, the Ministry of Health’s own technical advisory group – CV TAG – sent a memo to Director-General of Health Sir Ashley Bloomfield. The memo stated that “the individual risk to young people of severe disease is very low” and that “for them to make an informed decision not to get a second dose of the vaccine, eg, due to potential myocarditis risk, is justified”. It warned that “the 2 dose schedule, particularly when administered in the shortest possible clinical timeframe, may add unnecessary risk to increasing the likelihood of myocarditis as an outcome in this population”. CV TAG notably recommended that “those aged under 18 years only being required to have received 1 dose of Pfizer vaccine to meet the vaccine requirements for employment“. Our italics, and note the CV-TAG assumption at that point that only 12 to 17 year olds doing paid work might be affected by mandates.

This was not the first warning. On 20 July 2021, CV TAG had recommended that “people aged 16-29 years receive their second dose at least 8 weeks after the first dose”, noting that a longer interval may reduce side effects – a clear reference to myocarditis. Despite this, the government extended the interval only to six weeks, then reverted to three weeks on 6 October 2021, prioritising speed over safety. Further, by this time an altered kids formulation had arrived containing a different buffer. If it was safe to start with, why the change to this different product?

The 9 December memo directly challenged the two-dose mandate. According to the Herald, Bloomfield – who is refusing interviews currently – received the advice but did not act on it. We allege he actively rejected it, forcing a change in CV TAG’s position. He did not recommend dropping the two-dose requirement for 12-17 year olds. The requirement remained for vaccine passes and workplace mandates, excluding young people from sports, social activities, and in some cases education. 

Professor Peter McIntyre, a CV TAG member and head of Otago University’s Department of Paediatrics and Child Health, has since broken his silence. He told the Herald: “I personally think it’s unequivocal that the vaccine requirements were a bad idea. And it’s absolutely 100% gold-plated that they were a bad idea for 12- to 17-year-olds.” (our italics). He added that “the predictable harm to social interaction and educational opportunity from exclusion of this age group far outweighed any uncertain benefits”. We disagree that these non-physical harms were the worst, but nevertheless here is a member of the government’s own expert advisory group, on the record, condemning the policy as indefensible. The Royal Commission had access to Professor McIntyre but did not call him as a witness.

The Suppression of Information

Even worse than ignoring expert advice was the active suppression of safety information. The minutes of the CV TAG meeting on 17 August 2021 record: “It was requested that references to increasing dosing intervals potentially providing some protection against myocarditis be removed from communications.” The identity of the person who made this request has never been disclosed and the RCI2 did not investigate.

The government knew that a longer dose interval could reduce the risk of myocarditis, yet it ordered this information kept from the public. Parents and young people were unable to make fully informed decisions. Communications strategy was prioritised over informed consent. This was reflected in Dr Petousis-Harris’s testimony at the RCI2, where she stated that her response to loss of trust was to message more effectively, rather than investigate safety concerns.

This pattern was not limited to dose intervals. On 10 February 2021 – six months before de facto mandates were imposed on all secondary school children – a briefing from Bloomfield to Minister Chris Hipkins stated that “we do not yet have conclusive evidence on the effectiveness of the Pfizer vaccine at preventing or reducing transmission”. The same briefing noted that “mandatory vaccination is unlikely a justified limitation of the right to refuse medical treatment under Section 11 of the Bill of Rights Act”. The legal justification for mandates depended on transmission prevention. Without that evidence, the mandates were blatantly untenable from the start and, as the nation has experienced for itself, most people got covid – either showing mostly mild symptoms or from a very discredited PCR test.

The Cruelty of the Exemption Process

The steamroller imperative was highly evident in the medical exemption system. Bloomfield stated that the “general principle” was that “the bar should be quite high to help support the integrity of the policy decision”. Ardern told the Royal Commission that “there were people who should have been granted exemptions who were not” and that the regime was not “operationalised appropriately”. 

Ardern recounted meeting a woman who experienced myocarditis after her first dose but was denied an exemption because the form asked whether “alternative vaccines” were available – yes there were, but none that lacked the myocarditis risk. Ardern conceded this “would not have been our intention”. Really? The exemption system systematically failed the very people it was supposed to protect. We have had many accounts of this cruel and dangerous behaviour, some covered in our whistleblower Truth Project.

Who Was Involved?

The Temporary Medical Exemptions (TME) Panel operated in complete secrecy, its members’ identities fully redacted from all OIA releases – a decision upheld by the Chief Ombudsman on harassment grounds. While protection from harassment is legitimate, the total anonymity of a panel exercising coercive power over citizens’ lives and livelihoods represents a severe failure of democratic transparency. It has prevented any scrutiny of members’ qualifications, conflicts of interest, or adherence to the Bill of Rights Act.

Who sat on this panel? Who denied exemptions to people with genuine medical concerns, including children who might have later suffered myocarditis or died suddenly? The Ministry of Health and Health New Zealand have refused to say. The RCI2 did not investigate. The names of the TME Panel members, the Independent Chair, and the registered health practitioners, particularly, must be disclosed.  Were they real doctors, who are supposedly bound by medical ethics? 

 A Demand for Transparency

The evidence points to a chain of responsibility including senior officials, ministers, and the Prime Minister’s office.

Sir Ashley Bloomfield then Director-General of Health who was found everywhere inside the spider’s web of committees and decision points, received the 9 December 2021 CV TAG memo directly. He did not act on it. In February 2022, he opposed dropping the education mandate, citing the need for “clear, consistent messaging”. A public official who subordinates children’s safety to “consistent messaging” has lost sight of his primary duty.

Rt. Hon. Chris Hipkins as Covid Minister (and later PM) fronted much of the response. The CV TAG advice was summarised in a Cabinet paper in his name in March 2022. He told the Royal Commission he did not recall the advice ever reaching ministerial level. (NZ Herald, 16 April 2026.) A Cabinet paper in one’s own name is not a document a minister can plausibly claim never to have seen. As ex-party leader Rodney Hide told us: the buck stops with the minister. Every time.

Rt. Hon. Jacinda Ardern, Prime Minister of Covid, set the overall direction and carries the ultimate can. Asked why the education mandate for 12-17 year olds was not changed, she replied: “I cannot tell you why, but I wonder if it’s because essentially no one under the age of 17 essentially ended up being covered… The intention of Cabinet has been that it’s obviously adults that it’s covering.” This is demonstrably false: the mandate applied to “workers over the age of 12 years” and school kids were subjected to actual and community pressure to protect grandma.  Ardern’s wondering is not a defence; it is an admission she did not know her own government’s policies.

Dr. Ian Town, Chair of CV TAG, authored the 9 December memo. He has not explained publicly why he did not escalate his concerns when that advice was ignored. His private testimony to the RCI remains unavailable to the public.

Chris James of drug regulator Medsafe was responsible for its assessment. Medsafe’s own evaluation concluded that “the benefit risk balance of Comirnaty…is not clear” and that there was “evidence of only short-term protection, with longer-term safety data lacking.” Yet ministers repeatedly told the public the vaccine was safe and effective. The RCI2 may have asked James about this discrepancy but, again, we do not know as his evidence is also concealed.

Unknown person(s) made the request to remove myocarditis information from public communications. That person has never been identified.  The RCI2 did not investigate. Was it a senior communications official? A minister’s advisor? The Director-General himself? 

The government must release unredacted copies of all CV TAG minutes, all communications between CV TAG and the Minister’s office, and all documents relating to the suppression of myocarditis information. It bears saying again – the names of the Exemption (Refusal) Panel members must be disclosed and the doctors involved must face scrutiny.

International Context – New Zealand Is Not Alone

In Germany, the “RKI files” revealed that government officials overrode expert caution on masking, blaming the unvaccinated, and child vaccination, instead pushing for mass vaccination despite internal advice that benefits were uncertain and risks not negligible. Politicians prioritised coverage over precaution, and cautious experts were marginalised.

In Australia, drug regulator ATAGI faced scrutiny over failing to disclose child deaths following vaccination in a timely manner, with internal communications showing reluctance to investigate adverse events for fear of undermining confidence! Do all these people truly not understand how public trust is best served, through transparency and honesty?

These parallels suggest a systemic pattern. New Zealand’s CV TAG, Germany’s RKI, and Australia’s ATAGI all produced evidence that the two-dose schedule for young people carried unnecessary risks. In each country, that evidence was either ignored, suppressed, or disclosed only after significant delay. In each country, children have died and many more are maimed, possibly for life.

The Human Cost – Testimony from Families

Ashley Beulink was 14 years old when she received her second dose in February 2022. The next morning, she woke up with chest pain radiating into her neck and jaw. She was diagnosed with vaccine-induced pericarditis – frightening, painful, and potentially disabling long-term. She missed most of the first term of school. Her mother, Paula, told the Herald: “It took a real toll, on Ashley’s health and my mental health as a parent, and it could’ve been avoided.” She added: “I personally don’t think they were justified in including that 12 to 17 age group in the vaccine passes. The government wasn’t transparent with that information. I believe they were just more concerned about getting their vaccination rates up.” (NZ Herald, 16 April 2026.)

Marie Butel, a Wellington teacher, had two teenage sons heavily involved in rowing. Her preference was for one dose, not two, but the two-dose requirement for the sport forced her 15-year-old son to receive a second dose. He developed pericarditis. “It’s not okay to put young men at risk because you want everybody to get two doses,” Butel told the Herald.

Ashley and Marie Butel’s son are among the 1,740 successful ACC claims for vaccine-related injuries, which includes 6 deaths. This number certainly understates the true toll. One 13-year-old died of myocarditis; the coroner, despite serpentine contortions, could not rule out the vaccine as the cause.  NZDSOS has covered many similar cases never investigated, let alone acknowledged.

These abstract statistics represent real children who trusted their community, and whose parents trusted the experts. That trust was betrayed and never deserved in the first place as the facts illustrate.

The Royal Commission’s Whitewash

The RCI2 was supposed to provide a thorough and independent accounting. It has failed to deliver even a basic acknowledgement of the laws that were broken.

The Commission found that the CV TAG advice “was not provided to Ministers”.  This is technically correct but deeply misleading. The advice was provided to Bloomfield, the government’s chief health advisor. It was summarised in a Cabinet paper in Hipkins’ name. The Commission’s narrow framing obscures that the advice did reach the highest levels of the public service.

The Commission also found that “there was insufficient monitoring of the use and impacts of vaccination requirements” and that “the lack of monitoring has made it difficult to assess the extent to which the impacts…were unforeseen.”  This is a damning admission. The government imposed one of the most extensive systems of vaccine mandates in the democratic world, affecting up to one million workers and tens of thousands of young people, yet it did not bother to monitor publicly the consequences – of an experimental genetic intervention with some known toxic ingredients, and other components redacted completely.

The Commission acknowledged that “some vaccination requirements were introduced too slowly, some lasted too long and some went too far” and that “the inclusion of family carers was later found to be unlawful.”  Yet its overall conclusion was that decisions were “balanced and reasonable”. That conclusion cannot follow from the evidence the Commission does acknowledge, and certainly not from everything it has ignored.

The Commission did not call Professor Macintyre, scrutinise Medsafe’s initial “not clear” benefit-risk assessment nor the lack of repeat assessment as more information became available. It did not examine biodistribution of “not for human use” lipid nanoparticles to ovaries and other organs. It did not demand disclosure of the TME Panel’s members. The Commission’s report is not a genuine inquiry. Actually it is worse than a whitewash as it seeks to dismantle citizens’ rights protections for “the next time” and makes dissent into an enemy of social cohesion. Justice Watch NZ has examined the legal and moral failings in detail from a fairly simple first principles basis. 

Ardern’s Own Words Back to Haunt Her

In a follow-up interview on 7 October 2025, Ardern conceded that the government did not quantify the labour market impacts of the mandates and just assumed that people who lost their jobs would return once mandates were lifted. (Ardern follow-up interview, page 20.) This assumption proved false for many.

Finally, Ardern – currently in NZ promoting her memoir – admitted she failed in her second objective: “to keep people together”. When asked whether she had succeeded, she replied: “No, and I’ve been very clear on that.”  A rare moment of self-criticism maybe, but it does not excuse the harm caused. The answer to why the government was so slow to correct its errors is obvious: speed and scale of rollout were paramount; science and safety be damned.

The Truth Will Out

The steamroller imperative of New Zealand’s Covid response is a documented fact and, regarding children, the government knew the two-dose schedule for 12-17 year olds carried unnecessary risks. It knew there was a lack of evidence of transmission prevention and that the legal justification for mandates was non-existent. It suppressed safety information, operated a cruel and secretive exemption system, and failed to monitor the consequences of mandates. Many people including children were harmed. Some have died. Already a rightfully aggrieved demographic of parents are demanding accountability and wondering what else the government knew.

As the information trickle becomes a torrent, many will be shocked at the scale of risk-taking and the resultant harms that have been ignored and suppressed. Sudden deaths, DNA contamination, cancer, white clots, infertility – and who knows what else to come? For some, this will be simply too much to bear.

The Royal Commission avoided it all and failed to hold anyone accountable. It is time for the courts to perform their much vaunted search for the truth.

Given the disclosure that 2022’s Operation Talla in the UK saw its police force stood down (unlawfully) from investigating potential covid crimes, we don’t doubt the same skullduggery operated in NZ and in many other places. We saw evidence for ourselves when NZ Police batted back our list of very suspicious sudden deaths in young people, saying the public interest would not be served by investigating. Perhaps they were deceived themselves, by officials who had painted any inevitable complainants as conspiracy theorists and a danger to the public good. 

We call on the Attorney-General to instruct the Crown Solicitor to investigate the evidence and to consider whether a prosecution is warranted. We can assure you there is plenty, as documented in our extensive open letters and other evidence streams at www.nzdsos.com. We call on the Ombudsman to investigate the suppression of myocarditis information and end the secrecy of the TME Panel. We call on the Ministry of Health to release all unredacted documents. And we call on every person who was deceived or coerced, every worker who lost their job, and every citizen who values bodily autonomy to demand accountability.

Awful truths required brutal suppression, but captured doctors are breaking free, the Herald is producing proper journalism, and some documents are public. Now it is time for the people to demand the law to do its work.