We are pleased to feature this important contribution from a founding member of New Zealand Doctors Speaking Out with Science (NZDSOS).

Who Knew? What Did They Know? And When Did They Know It?

I was in the USA when the “novel Coronavirus” was announced to the world in February 2020. All legacy media outlets in the USA incessantly used the word “novel”. I was exhausted with this word after a few days and decided I would find out what was so novel about it.

Immediately, upon a cursory search of the PubMed data base, I found a paper published by Dr J Claude Perez in February 2020 describing the “synthetic origins of the novel coronavirus” (see reference 1).  It detailed what seemed to be a gene-spliced bioweapon with fragments of prior infectious agents known as HIV, influenza A, and SARS-1. It was clear that that the intention behind this “novel” construct was to make a highly transmissible illness combining the flu and SARS-1, and preferably also make it capable of causing chronic immune suppression and recurring illness. It seemed the bioweapon industry wanted for it to be “the gift that keeps on giving” (to them).  So far, the hopes of its developers seem to be fulfilled and no major penalties have been incurred.

If “little ol’ me” could find this article, I am certain that the eminent Dr Fauxci (dis-spelled deliberately) and his NZ proxy, Dr Bloomfield were able to find this article in the public domain. Yet the mass hysteria of the Chinese wet market theory ensued. This allowed the officials to have plausible deniability of the synthetic bioweapon and created a “natural” explanation of how the bioweapon might have acquired its ability to target the human vascular ACE-2 receptor (the pangolin apparently has an ACE-2 receptor that most resembles those in humans – publications in 2020, references 2,3). Most of us never heard of a pangolin until the last frame of The Jungle Book (was this Hollywood foreshadowing in 2016? NZDSOS has written about media being used for predictive programming here).

He Knew! Evidence of a Pre-plandemic

Dr Anthony Fauxci had announced, with certainty, at a NIAID meeting in 2017 that “Donald Trump would be faced with a serious pandemic during his presidency”. Thus it was cold and calculated. In December 2016 (after Trump’s election the month before) congress had quietly agreed, to lift the moratorium on “Gain of Function research” that had been put in place during the Obama administration in 2012. This technology was originally developed at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. It was exported to Wuhan in 2012 and subsequently funded through the Eco Health Alliance, with US taxpayer dollars, and with Dr Fauxci’s full knowledge and support. All of this information is in the public domain and beyond dispute.  

Dr David Martin has catalogued the intellectual patents involved with all of this, and the many other public health false flags, since especially around 2012, but actually following the money trail back to 1999. Voices raising these issues continue to be censured.  There remains no accountability for the wrongs that have been suffered around the world.

The Active Deployment Scenario

Personally, I do not actually think it was a “lab leak” that killed so many people. I say this because Washington State was among the first states to close down after a single case of covid-19 was diagnosed in an individual in an aged care facility who had not travelled to China or had any visitors who did so. Perhaps this was a nod to the Gates Foundation, which had given the University of Washington about $1.5 billion in aggregate for several years prior to the plandemic? Washington state was to then serve as the example for other states to follow. In my reasonable belief, there was active deployment of the bioweapon to major cities around the world from late October 2019 up until the global pandemic was announced. Early in the pandemic response, Dr’s Fauxci and Birx were seen wearing white lab coats bearing the seal of the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington. The University of Washington and Johns Hopkins (hugely funded by the Rockefeller Foundation, and the epicenter of the infamous Flexner report which ushered in petrochemical medicine) became America’s “podium of public health truth”.

Cranking Up the Fear

I watched the USA propaganda machine (85% funded by Big Pharma, especially Pfizer) churn fear every day to create terror in the world’s population and drive demand for relief. The madness of virtue signaling by wearing a mask in your car alone became commonplace. I walked the dog every day without a mask. Terrified people would leave their yards when they saw me and seek shelter in their homes even though I was over 40 feet away. President Trump closed USA borders to China but really wanted to keep USA shops open to save small businesses. Drs Fauxci and Birx knew better…. Like New Zealand, small businesses in America were obliterated by their pandemic response and our respective western economies have still not recovered to this day.

The Suppression of Treatments and the Vaccine Push

From April 2020-August 2020 New Zealand was in lockdown and I could not return to what had become my home since 2010. It was clear to me that the globalist public health agenda was to suppress available potential treatments for the pandemic and have people die waiting for the communion wafer vaccine in order to pressure Big Pharma funding from Congress. 

So-called cases were created by overly sensitive PCR tests that were picking up random gene fragments including of influenza (which all but disappeared from 2020-2021). Never mind that it was settled public health science to avoid vaccination in the midst of a pandemic as this results in the clonal expansion of new variants that are not prevented by the vaccine (Omicron and Delta developed when the vaccine targeted the Alpha strain, etc). The globalist corporations needed more public desperation to force Trump’s hand and get the American public’s intellectual buy-in to a vaccine being the “only scientific approach”. The grand scheme compelled the US Congress to approve a trillion dollars for the pandemic response. The NZ parliament put forth an estimated over $60 billion NZD of taxpayer’s hard-earned money for the NZ pandemic response.  India purchased $5.00/person covid packs with Zinc, ivermectin and 2 weeks of doxycycline to manage secondary bacterial infection, whilst New Zealand spent about $14,000 per person on an untested gene product that was dangerous and did not reduce transmission.

Hydroxychloroquine: The Buried Solution 

Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) had been shown to be effective against SARS-1 for almost 20 years. Early in 2020, President Trump had suggested HCQ as a plausible treatment of SARS-2 (covid-19). But the concurrent disease known as Trump Derangement Syndrome prevailed. Trump’s suggestion obviously horrified Dr Fauxci and his Big Pharma handlers who had aspirations of Emergency Use Authorisations (EUAs) and the deployment of mRNA technology without FDA oversight. Trump faced profound ridicule and humiliation from his own public health officials for advocating the use of HCQ for the critically ill. It was all but buried as an option, simply due to politics.  

Any USA physician who prescribed HCQ for covid-19 faced severe scrutiny and censure from their medical boards. Pharmacies were told to sequester the supply to prevent it from being disseminated for people in need, as it did not fit the narrative “that there was no effective treatment” as they pushed for EUA for mRNA technology that was never appropriately tested.  Scientific fraud ran rampant as medical journals jockeyed for Big Pharma funding and, in retrospect, it is very clear which journals were working for and against the public interest during this time. Will they ever be held accountable?

My Communications with the NZ Government in August 2020

In August 2020 the first lockdown had ended, the New Zealand border had opened, but quarantine was required. I finished 60 hours of Continuing Medical Education whilst in quarantine. I was very worried about being able to travel freely in the future, so I wrote to the key members of the NZ government to discern what might be their future plans. I advocated for “Plan B” that Dr Simon Thornley had put forth (no further lockdowns, no mandates, not isolating the healthy, etc). I sent them the articles listed in references 3-6 citing the safety and efficacy of treatment with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin in addition to dexamethasone for people with serious illness from covid-19.  

Public health officials had made much ado about cardiac risks from HCQ, but this had been previously debunked by a 2016 study which they all ignored (reference 6). Innumerable studies showing therapeutic efficacy for Ivermectin then followed, along with prevention by healthy vitamin D levels (7). This was all available prior to our NZ vaccine roll out and big public spend. Despite these multiple treatment options available in 2020, New Zealand public health officials were only allowed to consider treatment with the untested experimental inoculation for covid-19. Why???  

They all knew, in August 2020, that there was effective treatment for covid-19 and thus no indication for an EUA which allowed them to proceed with the investigational mRNA inoculation without proper scrutiny and regulatory oversight. The information that I provided on dexamethasone and HCQ was ignored, the EUA granted, and we then squandered countless lives and treasure in 2021-2023, on an ineffective mRNA inoculation that failed to reduce transmission and caused myocarditis and blood clots resulting in thousands of deaths (as documented in Pfizer’s own documents that they attempted to “classify” for 75 years).

The NZ Government’s Role and Accountability

The then Health Minister, Chris Hipkins, has since tried publicly to side-step any responsibility of the Labour government for the covid vaccine debacle and their imposed restrictions on social gathering, travel restrictions, working unless jabbed, creating a “two- tiered” society, social distancing, mask lunacy, hypnotic traffic light nonsense, etc.  He just gave it all a shrug and said, “it was never a government mandate”. It technically wasn’t because it was actually “WorkSafe” that was the enforcer and held the power to shut down businesses unless their employees were in compliance with the government recommendations. So…we only really had to do it if we wanted to keep our jobs so that we could feed our families and pay our bills? This, by any other name, is called “economic extortion” and the Labour government was totally on board with it. We should never forget this. 

Neither should we forget the fracture of friendships and families caused by these ridiculous authoritarian policies. We learned how quickly we could become a nation of sanctimonious snitches who gave up our freedom and played into the global plans to create cashless societies and usher in their digital controls. The programming of society to think of cash as contagion (instead of freedom and privacy) was introduced. Would we do it all again? We will likely have another test of our mettle in the near future.

Bloomfield Trashes Medical Safety of  Pregnant Women

Sir Dr Ashley Bloomfield was always in lock step with advice from USA doctors Fauxci and Birx. He knew, or should have known, about the risks to pregnant women. Dr Fauxci knew this risk, as has been shown in his text messages released just recently. The public were deliberately defrauded regarding these injections being “safe and effective” for pregnant women. The New England Journal of Medicine provided “cover” for them and simultaneously introduced the woke concept of “pregnant persons” although there were no pregnant men in the study (8). Its former editor-in-chief, Dr Marcia Angell, was a longstanding critic of pharmaceutical-industry influence on medical research and journals, and later wrote extensively about concerns surrounding industry-sponsored clinical research (9).

With the understanding that spike proteins attacked the ACE2 receptor of blood vessels, it was totally logical that this mRNA inoculation would cause miscarriages, since a developing baby must have a healthy blood supply. I recall that our highly esteemed and decorated, Sir Dr Bloomfield pounded away, day after day, recommending an unproven and poorly tested mRNA inoculation to pregnant women in New Zealand and eventually to teens and to children.  In their vulnerable state, pregnant women were afraid not to have the injection. I am personally aware of midwives who were censured and lost everything for standing against this. 

Any midwife paying attention would have noted a substantial drop off in live births after the covid-19 mRNA inoculation was rolled out to pregnant women. Many couples are now facing the inability to conceive as a result of the mRNA inoculation. Will Sir Dr Bloomfield retain his order of merit?

Betrayal of the Nation Used to be a Capital Offence

To me, every politician in office from 2019 to 2023 has betrayed our nation. Some were paid handsomely for their participation in big pharmaceutical contracts in exchange for our lives and treasure, to the gain of foreign corporations. In my view, Big Pharma absolutely abused New Zealand, as severely as it did the USA, and gave a few politicians lots of money, to enroll our citizens in a large-scale un-consented biological experiment. The profound regional death disparities, brought to light by whistleblower Barry Young’s Health NZ data, confirm that there were many different batch toxicities (aka sub-experiments), some more lethal than others. Peer-reviewed papers presented to officials by NZDSOS are strong corroborating evidence. 

In my view, not one politician in a major party stood against the government covid response when it really mattered. The Labour government literally destroyed small businesses throughout New Zealand and thereby gutted our economy. These chickens have come home to roost under Chris Luxon, but they were hatched under Chris Hipkins and the Labour party. David Seymour was even more strident than Jacinda Ardern in advocating for restrictive public health policies in 2021 and cannot be trusted despite now making noises about government fiscal restraint.

Fear For our Future

When Kiwis are in pain, they are prone to congregate under the perceived soft underbelly of a Labour government. Our memories of how we got to our present economic downturn seem to have faded much too quickly. I do not like the division sown by our current government and the dismantling of our cultural heritage. The biggest fear of our government is that the people of NZ will rise above the government race-baiting and become one voice for our free land. The Tiriti O Waitangi, and its secondary legislation, remains the best defense against an outright takeover of our land and resources by multi-national corporate interests. The wolf, in the sheep’s clothing of co-governance, is at the door. 

This is precisely why and how our Parliament is trying to weaponise Te Tiriti against us to bring more in the way of race-based fragmentation. I do not like the wholesale laying down of our sovereignty to technocrats and multinational corporations that is the end-game of successive governments (Gene Technology Bill, AI data centres etc) whose only functional arm seems to be the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (through which foreign investment is funneled). On election day, I will pray, hold my nose, and try to select the least of the evils before me. The instinct to scorn the lot of them runs strong, but there are some new freedom-minded candidates in the mix, bless their yet to be bloodied socks.

A Call to Bring to Account

I will continue to hope that those who deliberately “pulled the wool over our eyes”, and cost too many lives and generations of wealth, will be held accountable. We must not be too quick to forget history, lest we repeat it. We cannot afford the sequel that awaits us if we are unwise or if we tolerate less than “free and fair” elections. Key people in Government (Ardern, Hipkins, and Bloomfield, to name but a few) knew in August 2020 (if not before) that there was probably no need for the EUA for the covid mRNA inoculation and yet they did it anyway. They would have known people were being hurt later but carried on anyway then too. 

Be strategic with your vote (whilst knowing you are playing in a system which is hurting us badly). Stand with those who stood for you or who will do so now – and let’s welcome back those who are only just recovering their senses. May God Defend New Zealand from all of her enemies within and without.

References:

1.  Jean- Claude Perez. Wuhan Covid-19 Synthetic Origins and Evolution. Int Journal of Research 8(2) 285-324. Feb 2020.

2. Zhang, T, et al. Probable Pangolin Origin of SARS-CoV 2 Associated with the Covid-19 Outbreak. Current Biology, Vol 30 issue 7, April 06, 2020.

3. Wang, NS, et al. Molecular basis of cross-species ACE2 interactions with SARS-CoV2-like viruses of pangolin origin. . 2021. EPA (Hero ID 7696973).

4. Arshad, S, et al. Treatment with Hydroxychloroquine, Azithromycin and combination in patients hospitalized with Covid 19. International J Infectious Disease; June 2020

5. Horby, et al. Dexamethasone in Hospitalized patients with Covid-19-Preliminary Report, NEJM 2020

6. Sharma, TS Hydroxychloroquine use is associated with decreased cardiovascular risk in Rheumatoid arthritis patients. J American Heart Association 2016.

7. L Borsche, et al. Covid-19 Mortality risk correlates inversely with Vitamin D3 status, and a Mortality rate close to zero could theoretically be achieved at 50 ng/ml 25(OH) D3: Results of a Systemic Review and Meta Analysis. Nurients. 2021 October 14;13 (10).

8. Shimabukuro TT, et al. Preliminary findings of mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine safety in pregnant persons. N Engl J Med. 2021;384:2273-2282.

9. Angell, M. Industry-Sponsored Clinical Research: A Broken System. JAMA. 2008;300(9):1069-1071.


Below we have examined yet more cases of fatal myocarditis in New Zealand since 2021.  In most of these cases the coroner does not appear to have asked the obvious questions.

In making the point yet again that these cases are poorly assessed, we note that far more people get pericarditis and myocarditis than go on to die suddenly from it. Are all these people similarly diverted from understanding a likely cause? Certainly not the many hundreds whose vaccine causation is accepted by ACC. But what about those who never know to make a claim, or who are turned down as they haven’t waited up to 2 years for a cardiac MRI?

Watch: Ashley Bloomfield Announcing Myocarditis 21 July 2021

We are aware that sudden death from myocarditis happened prior to covid, often ‘presumed viral’ but with no virus documented.

However, a provisionally-consented (due to absent safety information) genetic intervention, acknowledged to be a cause of myocarditis, was introduced into the population in 2021.

(Un)common sense suggests it should be on the list of things to consider when determining what caused someone’s death. And we know there is a long queue for coronial investigations of deaths which are now years ago. And these delays have been the reason given too for refusing to release up to date cancer death figures we have been chasing.

In some of the cases below the person is said to have died from myocarditis caused by covid infection, but if they have previously been vaccinated how is it ascertained whether it was vaccination, infection or both? We know how this could be done, but such testing is not accessed in NZ.

The information below comes from NZ coroner (lawyer) reports.  We have not seen post-mortem (doctor) reports for these people and it is possible there is further relevant information contained in them.  However, for deaths reported to the coroner, the coroner’s report is the official public record noting a person’s cause of death.

Case 1:

A 42 yr old woman, working in the mandated education field was found dead at home after she failed to respond to phone calls in early 2022.  In this case the pathologist and coroner have commented on covid vaccinations noting she had had three covid vaccinations. 

The coroner documented that the cause of death was acute lymphocytic myocarditis and that it “may be idiopathic, or due to viral, fungal or bacterial infection, or autoimmune or hypersensitivity disorders”. 

The pathologist noted that, “given the time since administration of COVID vaccination doses (13 July 2021, 3 August 2021, and 23 January 2022), and given it is a lymphocytic myocarditis (not the eosinophilic myocarditis seen in vaccine-related myocarditis), the development of myocarditis in this case is not related to vaccination”.

Really??  How did she determine that?  What did cause the myocarditis then? Sudden death following silent myocarditis CAN happen months or even years later. And various immune cells can predominate in inflamed tissues. In medical speak, idiopathic means “just one of those things”. But there is ALWAYS an explanation for sudden death, if you look hard enough and consider all information. 

By the time she died, all four of the New Zealanders who have officially been recognised as being killed by the covid vaccination were dead.  Only one of these deaths was from eosinophilic myocarditis (eosinophils and lymphocytes are different types of white blood cells found in inflammation), and that was the first recognised death – a 57 yr old lady whose case was written up in a medical journal.

Rory Nairn died from myocarditis, the 13 yr old Wellington boy from acute lymphocytic myocarditis and Amanda Smees from myocarditis in the post vaccination period.

Was her death reported to CARM?

Did the Independent Safety Monitoring Board (ISMB) review her case and undertake a formal causality assessment?  What was the outcome?

Or was the pathologist’s declaration sufficient?  If so, is the pathologist trained in pharmacovigilance?

Where does the responsibility lie – with the pathologist, the coroner, CARM, ISMB, GP, ACC, someone else?

Should the mandating institution bear any responsibility if her death was due to covid vaccination?

Curiously Coroner R Kay was the coroner responsible for determining cause of death for the teen who we say died of post-vaccine acute lymphocytic myocarditis.  The coroner said he couldn’t rule it out.  The pathologist’s opinion is odd in this case – that lymphocytic myocarditis does not occur post covid vaccination!​​​​​​

So many questions, incorrect evidence, and no-one to answer.

Case 2:

A previously healthy 33 yr old Fijian-Indian healthcare worker (presumably subject to covid vaccine mandates) collapsed suddenly at a party in early 2022.  She was resuscitated sufficiently to get to hospital.  However, she died 5 days later and post mortem examination showed myocarditis as well as a small focus of inflammation in the brain (encephalitis).

The coroner, despite noting that myocarditis “is usually viral in origin, but it can also be due to drugs, other infections, autoimmune diseases etc.”, has not recorded consideration of a particular drug known to cause myocarditis (i.e. covid vaccination).

The pathologist concluded that this person had “a subclinical viral infection” but the coroner has not documented evidence of any particular virus.  Her family was referred to the Cardiac Inherited Diseases Group (CIDG) for assessment but no outcome from that assessment is included in the coroner report.

Cause of death: 
•    Hypoxic/ischaemic encephalopathy (brain damage due to lack of oxygen)
•    Myocarditis (presumed viral)

This lady had inflammation in two critical organs.  The late German pathologist Dr Arne Burkhardt provided second opinion post mortem findings for family members who were concerned that covid vaccination was involved in a loved one’s death.  He discussed some of his findings prior to his death in 2023.  Of relevance to this case, he described finding inflammation and vasculitis in most of the brain samples he examined but said often it was subtle and could easily be missed if not specifically looked for. 

Did anyone ask the appropriate questions?

Watch: Dr Arne Burkhardt Discussing Brain Inflammation

Courtesy The Last American Vagabond, link here.

Case 3:

In mid 2022 a 45 yr old went surfing but told a friend he was not feeling well as he came out of the ocean.  He went to his vehicle and collapsed.  Prompt resucitation failed.  He had had ‘cold’ symptoms the week prior but had not tested for covid.

He worked in a mandated school setting.  The coroner noted he had received his last covid vaccination in 2021.  

On post mortem examination, the pathologist found both lymphocytic myocarditis and lymphocytic aortitis (inflammation of the aorta which is the large artery in the chest and abdomen).  The pathologist noted that this combination was well-described in the case of covid-19 infection.  He did not mention that they are also both well recognised adverse effects of covid vaccination.

A post-mortem PCR test for covid-19 was negative. 

Toxicology was negative for relevant drugs.

The coroner accepted the pathologist’s explanation that a negative covid PCR test did not exclude covid-19 infection contributing to the death “because the myocarditis identified was a late event which could occur days to weeks after the onset of infection and is an autoimmune phenomenon”.

Official cause of death:
•    Lymphocytic myocarditis
•    Recent COVID-19 infection

More relevant and likely, myocarditis and aortitis are both autoimmune and/or inflammatory phenomena that follow covid vaccination!

How long can the Pfizer mRNA persist in an individual person?  How long can the spike protein get produced for?  How long can the spike protein persist? Peer-reviewed research has answered: up to YEARS.

Are the risks of infection following previous vaccination cumulative i.e. following two vaccines, does a covid infection equal a third dose of spike protein?

It is our view that covid vaccination is much more likely to be the cause of death than an unproven covid infection.  This is another case where more than one organ has been affected.

It remains essential to ask: was this death referred to CARM and the ISMB?  Did a pharmacovigilance expert do a causality assessment?

Should an ACC claim be made for vaccine failure?  We were all advised that covid vaccination would stop us getting sick and stop us dying!  It was approved to PREVENT covid-19. This man may have had his life prevented yet his cause of death is supposedly due adverse effects from covid infection.

Watch: Ardern Announcing, “You Won’t Get Sick and You Won’t Die”

Case 4:

A 22 yr old young man collapsed in early 2023 while out deer-stalking with friends.  He was unable to be resuscitated. 

His cause of death is recorded as sudden cardiac death with features of cardiomyopathy and myocarditis.

In the brief report there is no documentation of covid vaccination or infection status or cause of myocarditis.

Had he received covid vaccines, which dates, which batch number(s)?

Was his death reported to CARM? Has anyone done a causality assessment? 

Did anyone ask the relevant questions?

Case 5:

A 21 yr old young woman died suddenly at work in late 2023.  She had recently seen her GP for migraine headaches, dermatitis, anxiety, tremors, sweaty hands, and a random racing heart.  Post mortem showed changes in the lungs and heart consistent with a recent viral infection that had involved the heart.  However, no virus was identified in the coroner report.  Myocarditis was widespread, which could cause death through the generation of a cardiac arrhythmia.

There was no underlying genetic condition on testing.

Cause of death: lymphocytic myocarditis.

We don’t know if she had received covid vaccination(s) but the list of complaints she had seen her GP with certainly sounds similar to what many other vaccine-injured Kiwis are experiencing.

Did anyone ask whether she had received covid vaccinations.  If so, how many, when, what batch numbers?  

Has anyone done a causality assessment?

Case 6:

A 44 yr old caregiver (so possibly mandated) died in her sleep in early 2025.  Her health had been deteriorating for a few months prior, and she was awaiting an urgent neurological appointment.  She had lost all the strength in her legs on the day before her death.

A post mortem examination determined that she experienced sudden cardiac death due to myocarditis (lymphocytic).  However, features of motor neuron disease were also present which would explain her worsening neurological symptoms.

This is another unusual case – with two separate serious diagnoses in a relatively young woman.  Covid vaccination could provide a single causative factor with its delivery to the heart and nervous system and propensity for causing autoimmune disease. No mention of this possibility in the coroner’s report.

Once again did anyone consider what might have caused these two conditions and exclude the obvious?

Do You See a Pattern Here?

As previously noted, we are more than disappointed and concerned by officials apparently looking the other way. In fact we are outraged at the shonkily explained loss of life and the derelict job these poor families are getting.

We have been unable to get answers.  It is up to each and every New Zealander who can smell a rat to ask questions at every opportunity and demand change in the system.

NZDSOS publishes the following letter with the permission of its author, supporter John Matthews. John wrote to Health Minister Simeon Brown in response to recent reports of the University of Auckland research investigating the use of covid-19 mRNA vaccines in cancer treatment.

The letter raises concerns about the safety, unpredictability, and long-term effects of mRNA technology, and calls on the Government to examine emerging evidence before expanding research or clinical use.

Source: University of Auckland, “Testing if the Covid vaccine helps fight cancer”, published 26 August 2026. “Image captured for criticism/review and reporting current events under Fair Dealing – The Copyright Act 1994”

Read: Letter to Health Minister Simeon Brown on Unpredictable and Dangerous mRNA technology

August 27, 2026


Hi Simeon,

When I saw this story on Seven Sharp on Tuesday night, my immediate thought was that Professor Fraser must not have medical qualifications. But I was wrong. I see that he’s a molecular medicine and pathology researcher and the former Dean of the Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences at the University of Auckland.

For that reason you’d be forgiven for believing he could be onto a good thing.

And for that reason, I feel the need to offer you some counter-arguments.

Professor Angus Dalgleish testified before the US Senate in June this year that the Covid-19 mRNA medicine triggers relapses in cancer patients. I quote from this article:

“The pattern first emerged in early 2022, Dalgleish told lawmakers. Six melanoma patients under his care relapsed within six weeks. All six had recently received COVID-19 booster shots.

Melanoma is an aggressive skin cancer, but these patients’ cancers had previously been controlled by T-cells—immune cells that identify and destroy malignant cells. Dalgleish suspected the vaccines had disrupted that protection.

He later observed similar patterns in colorectal, breast, prostate, blood cancers and gliomas. Some cases appeared in younger patients than expected. Some progressed more aggressively than standard protocols predicted. Some cancer treatments appeared less effective than they should have been.”

Professor Dalgleish’s clinical findings have been collaborated by many other eminent oncologists. There is widespread global belief that the mRNA vaccines suppress T-cells, thereby allowing cancers to grow, often rapidly.

Oncologists at the NZ Ministry of Health are no doubt well aware of this but I understand from speakers at the 2024 NZDSOS Conference that they are strongly discouraged from speaking out.

Simeon, I believe we need to take such experts seriously. Professor Fraser could be putting cancer patients in unnecessary danger.

Our own Ministry of Health knows that this is true. They will of course have studied the health outcomes of the vaccinated versus the unvaccinated (who are 23% of the population) because the law requires them to do so. They have the data.

OK, so have they published any findings in five years?

No. And there’s only one logical reason for that. They don’t want us to know. 

Now why is that, exactly?

One thing we can say for certain. They absolutely did not find that the vaccinated people suffered less cancer than the unvaccinated.

Otherwise they’d have published in a nanosecond. And the same goes for any differences in the health outcomes of many other ailments.

Simeon, I recommend that:

  1. You urgently require the Ministry of Health to report to you what the cancer outcomes of the vaccinated versus those who’ve not taken any doses at all are by age band since March 2021, including:
    • The number of people who’ve died of cancer in each cohort
    • The number of people who’ve required treatment for cancer in each cohort
  2. If the Ministry pushes back on that, try asking a few oncologists.
  3. When you have those data, ensure that Professor John Fraser receives them.
  4. Cancel Government funding of all mRNA research at New Zealand  universities.
  5. Immediately halt all injections of mRNA Covid-19 vaccine pending full investigation by the Ministry of health.

I believe that the matter is urgent because while it goes on, people continue to be harmed and killed.

Regards,

John Matthews.

Two major international open letters are calling for independent inquiries into covid-19 vaccine safety, while in New Zealand, questions swirl about what was known about myocarditis risks for young people and when.

The Hart Group Letter: A Call to Britain’s Prime Minister

A group of 160 doctors, scientists, health professionals, and public figures has written to recently appointed British Prime Minister Andy Burnham requesting an independent examination of outstanding questions about covid-19 vaccine safety. The letter, primarily drafted by cardiologist Dr Aseem Malhotra, makes a clear and simple request:

“We are not asking you to accept our conclusions. We are asking you to ensure that the evidence is examined.”

The signatories argue that legitimate, unresolved questions remain about adverse events following covid-19 vaccination, including:

  • Cardiovascular events
  • Increases in cancer
  • The causes of excess mortality and increased long-term sickness since the pandemic
  • The adequacy of systems for identifying vaccine injury
  • Whether those who believe they have suffered serious harm have been adequately investigated and supported

The letter draws parallels to past UK scandals, including Hillsborough, the infected blood scandal, and the Post Office scandal, where people raising concerns were dismissed for years before institutions were eventually forced to confront what had happened. 

The signatories express disappointment that the UK Covid-19 Inquiry chaired by Baroness Hallett failed to examine the full body of evidence they submitted concerning vaccine safety and efficacy. The Inquiry chose not to publish witness statements from dissenting groups, deeming them not “sufficiently relevant”.

Three signatories have also travelled to Washington to testify before a United States Senate subcommittee examining concerns surrounding covid-19 vaccination and scientific research into potential harms. The letter also notes that the UK’s own All-Party Parliamentary Group on pandemic response concluded that the MHRA is failing to flag serious harms from the covid-19 vaccine.

Signatories include:

  • Dr Aseem Malhotra, cardiologist
  • Dr Rosamond Jones, retired Consultant Paediatrician
  • Dr Clare Craig, diagnostic pathologist
  • Professor Angus Dalgleish, Emeritus Professor of Oncology
  • Woody Harrelson, actor
  • Rob Schneider, actor and film maker
  • Gurinder Chadha OBE, film director

Full letter and list of signatories: https://www.hartgroup.org/a-second-letter-to-our-fifth-prime-minister/

The Canadian Letter: A Call to Halt mRNA Vaccines

Canadian scientists and clinicians have written a separate open letter to Canadian politicians and health officials calling for an immediate halt to the use of covid-19 mRNA vaccines in Canada. The letter, supported by the Canadian Citizens Care Alliance and RéInfo Québec, states that emerging safety and quality data demonstrates a shift in the balance of harms versus benefits.

The specific concerns raised include:

  • Poor clinical trial data and lack of efficacy
  • Concerning levels of residual plasmid DNA found in vaccine vials
  • Undisclosed SV40 promoter-enhancer DNA sequences used in production, which can facilitate DNA integration into the human genome
  • Ribosomal frameshifting leading to unintended protein production
  • A shift toward IgG4 antibodies associated with immune tolerance and auto-immune conditions

The initiative has attracted thousands of signatures and is supported by dozens of professors, researchers, and physicians across Canada. The letter has been sent to federal and provincial representatives and public health officials.

Key signatories include:

  • Steven Pelech, PhD, Professor of Medicine, University of British Columbia
  • Byram W. Bridle, PhD, Associate Professor of Immunology and Virology, University of Guelph
  • Patrick Provost, PhD, Expert in RNA and lipid nanoparticles, Université Laval
  • Claudia Chaufan, MD, PhD, Associate Professor of Health Policy, York University

Full letter and list of signatories: https://www.call2halt19.ca/

The NZ Context: Transparency Wrongdoing Over Myocarditis Is Just the Start of the Needed Disclosure

These international calls for honesty mirror disturbing facts in New Zealand about what was known and when, especially regarding myocarditis risks for young people receiving the covid-19 vaccine. Yes, there are far more serious side effects than myocarditis alone, but NZDSOS has long presented evidence that heart inflammation is far more common than admitted, and a healthy heart is obviously central to the health of everything else. 

Philip Crump, NZDSOS and some mainstream outlets have chronicled extensively that in December 2021, the Covid-19 Vaccine Technical Advisory Group (CV TAG) advised that a two-dose schedule for the Pfizer vaccine “may add an unnecessary risk of myocarditis” for children under 18, recommending a change to one dose for the 12-17 age group.

This advice was not provided to ministers at the time. The Royal Commission described this failure as “significant.” Yet a Cabinet paper in then Minister Chris Hipkins’ name shows he was aware by March 2022, by which point 92% of the 350,000-400,000 young people in that age group had already received two doses. That meant about 30,000 were yet to have a second dose when Hipkins became aware of the risk. But in yet more hypocritical and frankly bizarre comments from then health Minister Dr Ayesha Verrall, she says these stats – produced under the Official Information Act – are “fake news”. 

Official papers suggest Hipkins chaired a Vaccine Ministers meeting on 13 August 2021, and shortly thereafter the CV TAG minutes note that references to myocarditis risk had been removed from official communications. Records from the 13 August meeting have not been identified by the Ministry of Health, and the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet says meeting minutes do not exist, despite holding related briefing material which it has refused to release.

Hipkins has defended his actions, telling the Herald that sharing medical advice around vaccinations was not his area: “In terms of my conscience, I never communicated medical advice around vaccination.” He said he did not recall the Cabinet paper and that any suggestions of a cover-up were “just utterly wrong,” adding that by March 2022 the information was “not sort of material information” because most employers were mandating two shots.

Dr Andrew Old, deputy Director-General of Health, had a medical licence and so WAS able, and supposed, to communicate medical advice. He acknowledged a “significant failing,” accepting there had been a delay in providing that information to ministers and a failure to clearly communicate it to the public “in a timely way”.

Expert, not Expert

These admissions echo a theme NZDSOS has long championed – that officials pushed “safe and effective” whilst having a bob each way and admitting data gaps and not doing their homework. 

Another example is vaccinologist Dr Petousis-Harris, a government advisor and co-director of the Global Vaccine Data Network, who has herself acknowledged critical failures. In November 2023, she admitted at an IMAC conference that New Zealand was “over a year too late” with background safety rate data, that association studies were “delayed” and “not transparent,” and that active surveillance introduced during COVID “had limited use.” 

Back in June 2021, the CV TAG she sat on acknowledged “limited data available to date” on myocarditis in younger age groups and advised delaying until more safety data was available – advice that was not followed. In October 2022, she admitted on RNZ (interview now unavailable) that expectations for bivalent boosters “exceed the evidence” and that she saw “no evidence” a fourth dose would benefit her personally. Then she told Sean Plunket on The Platform that deficient advice (i.e. her own!) from the MoH left her struggling to provide correct advice around covid jabs for her teenage sons. Even her own 2020 article warned that deploying a vaccine without a functioning safety monitoring system was “reckless and irresponsible” – a warning that appears prophetic in hindsight.

Back in the current day, New Zealand First leader Winston Peters has called the situation “a disgrace to a modern-day democracy” and demanded a select committee inquiry into covid-19 vaccine injuries, telling Parliament that hundreds of thousands of young people could have been impacted as a consequence of the double dose, and can look forward to future health problems. His words are very true. 

Conclusion: How Long Can They Keep Silent?

Two international open letters are demanding governments take vaccine safety concerns seriously and commission independent examinations of the evidence. In New Zealand, the question is no longer whether myocarditis is a genuine adverse event associated with mRNA vaccines. It is, and even ACC agrees.

The question is whether governments and health agencies have been candid about the scale and nature of the risk, particularly for young people. The mounting disclosures about withheld advice, missing records, and removed communications raise profound questions about transparency, informed consent, and the duty of governments to be honest with their citizens.

As the Hart Group letter states:

“Public confidence in vaccination and medicine cannot be restored by insisting that people trust institutions. Institutions have to demonstrate that they are worthy of trust. That means publishing evidence, acknowledging uncertainty, investigating possible harms and being willing to change course when evidence demands it.”

Meantime, NZ hospitals seem to be swamped with people whose immune systems no longer cope with winter infections, and a major review collates multiple lines of evidence showing the cancer epidemic is real, and somehow related to the covid response. 

Leadership requires honesty and without it, trust collapses. But, being honest ourselves, we wonder if that horse has bolted. 

Before we start, a reminder that this NZDSOS article is written, like many, by people for whom the scale of medical-driven death and serious injury is inarguable, outrageous, without justification, and apparently criminal in terms of the knowledge of accruing harms held by some officials who still carry on anyway. 

So, to reflect the inner truth we have arrived at through very hard work and constant self-questioning, what we write is increasingly concordant with our deeply held assessment. It has to be. We are good and true people. We are offended to the core of our beings at the loss of life, the pain and sadness of the bereaved and grieviously harmed, the cowardice of our colleagues and – above all – angry for the potential stolen future for our own loved ones. We make no apology for offending wrong-thinking people who may read. 

How a play on words is being used to disguise serious engineered risks to Kiwis’ food and another push on the vaccine compliance button.

If you have been following the global health-industrial complex for any length of time, the current news cycle around H5N1 bird flu in New Zealand will feel alarmingly familiar. The script is identical: a new viral threat emerges, warning bells ring, emergency measures are implemented, and soon, the messaging turns inexorably toward vaccination with the same unanswered questions trailing behind.

The pieces are falling into place with remarkable speed. We predicted no less. 

Goodness knows, we have been calling a bird flu pandemic for years, and not because nature is inevitably mischievous and careless – unless you count all humans as part of nature. Of course we are, but the behaviour of some would make you wonder. 

Flockdowns Begin

In mid July 2026 New Zealand recorded supposedly its first known case of the H5N1 strain in a wild brown skua on Petone Beach. A couple of days later a second miraculous 40-cycle (ie meaningless) PCR detection followed in a native kāhu (swamp harrier) in the Wairarapa. Within days, Mainland Poultry which supplies nearly 40 percent of the country’s eggs locked down over half a million free-range hens.

“We had a pretty busy weekend closing off the pop holes,” said CEO John McKay. Free-range eggs make up about 45 percent of the market, but consumer preferences are now secondary to the perceived threat. The chickens, we are told, “would hate being locked up,” but it is better than being “wiped out.”

Farmers report being “flockdown ready.” The infrastructure for mass animal containment is already operational.

By mid August a third bird (a northern giant petrel) tested positive in the Wairarapa.

The Standard Playbook Unfolds

In the background, we are seeing the familiar pattern of a “One Health” approach linking animal and human health authorities. The Department of Conservation is rushing to jabbinate breeding pairs of critically endangered native species, but with a different vaccine than the one that was tested in 2024. MPI is conducting surveillance, urging the public to report sick birds, and warning people not to touch dead wildlife.

Meanwhile, the Ministry of Health is working alongside the Ministry for Primary Industries and Health New Zealand as part of this “coordinated preparedness campaign”.

Perhaps they should combine to form the Ministry of Mental.  You can almost hear the obscene excitement of the unhealthy globalist slobs as they get to cut down the choices of the clued-up and health conscious. We are reminded of the attempt in 2016 to pathologise people who were proactive about their health, ate organic, took targeted supplements etc. Orthorexia nervosa was the term proposed. You can bet that many of the focused and informed orthorexics won’t swallow any jabs lies incoming. 

The Vaccine Question, Again

So, that inevitable question: when will the push for human vaccination begin?

As we noted in previous analyses, the planning for a human H5N1 vaccine in New Zealand, as part of a general readying of council-level and national bird flu responses,  is already quite far advanced.

NZ’s shiny new pandemic plan of 2024 says the following:

“Depending on transmission rates, the severity of the illness and the efficacy of vaccine in preventing transmission and reducing poor health outcomes, the government may consider imposing restrictions under legislation on people who choose not to accept vaccination, in relation to work, access to premises and other activities. If legislative measures of this nature are adopted, consideration needs to be given to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, legitimate exemptions, international travel requirements and public acceptability in light of the wider framework of response measures.”

The Panvax vaccine has been sitting in the National Reserve Supply for years, and its provisional consent was most recently renewed in 2024 – but now as a different formulation. It contains 30 micrograms of haemagglutinin per dose, is adjuvanted with aluminium phosphate (0.5 mg per dose), and is formulated in embryonated chicken eggs, a production method that carries its own concerns for those with egg allergies, despite the data sheet’s reassurances. At least there is some data this time, and it is not an mRNA “zero risk medical product”, so beloved of the Medical Council. 

The data sheet itself is revealing. It notes that clinical trials with “prototype pandemic vaccines” have been conducted, but admits: “There are currently no defined levels of serum antibody responses known to correlate with clinical protection against infection with pandemic influenza viruses.” In other words, we do not actually know what antibody level means protection, if any. We have learned a lot about the failure of injecting vaccines into the blood for what are predominantly airway infections – and developed a deep scepticism about “viral immunology” in general, thanks to the covid bioweapon assault.

Predictably, in line with the sickening new normal of medical unethics, the vaccine’s safety in pregnancy has not been studied. Healthcare providers are told to “assess the risks and potential benefits … on a case by case basis.” Well, at least that is better than the covid jab advice most NZ women got about pregnancy. 

Where Are the Safety Assessments?

Our prior work has repeatedly highlighted the lack of long-term safety data for rapid-deployment vaccines. And we have been shown how truly, madly, deeply disastrous that can turn out. Cancer, heart damage, rubbery white clots found in many, and not just after death.

The same pattern emerges here. The Panvax vaccine has been given provisional consent, but where is the comprehensive safety assessment for the New Zealand population? Oh yes, now we remember that provisional consent means there is NO REQUIREMENT for safety or efficacy data, nor proof of good manufacturing practice. The US equivalent, Emergency Use Authorisation (EUA) under the PREP Act, does not even require informed, or any, consent.

Health NZ’s Medicines Adverse Reactions Committee (MARC) minutes show that “a subset of the studies should be conducted in New Zealand to reflect our population, or at least recruit Māori and Pacific Peoples”. This admission that the existing studies are not representative shines more light at the engineered inadequacy of the evidence base.

There are three potential vaccines mentioned in those minutes. It does not say they will be used for bird flu, but must be used in accordance with the NZ Pandemic Plan.

“The Australian Risk Management Plan (RMP) for the following influenza vaccines manufactured by Seqirus was submitted to Medsafe:

Panvax H5N8 pre-pandemic vaccine
Panvax pandemic influenza vaccine
H5N1 influenza vaccine”

The Threat to Ourselves and the Food Supply

As of late 2025, Public Health and Forensic (PHF) Science reported 41 human cases in the US, mostly among dairy farm workers, with mild illness and “no evidence of human-to-human transmission”. We are reminded of the initial dire warnings by the now deputy chief of the World Hijack Organisation, Jeremy Farrar of imminent bird flu in Vietnam in 2004/5. But now, if the news channels are to be believed, the virus is vaulting species and gaining function like a true champion. Billions of years of natural barriers to this viral anarchy have just fallen away apparently, completely coincidental to the era of globalism.  

But if we quiet our beating hearts, bird flu is described as having “generally poor ability to transmit to humans”. The Johns Hopkins risk assessment rates the overall risk of widespread transmission as “low” even in scenarios where the illness is widespread in cattle.

https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/h5n1-bird-flu-what-to-know

At the same time, we are being told that free-range eggs, nearly half the market, could be affected. Woolworths has issued statements urging calm and asking consumers not to hoard. But the signals are mixed. If free-range birds are locked indoors long-term, their “free-range” status may be affected, potentially impacting supply chains.

Farmers are already reporting the emotional toll of culling and the lack of insurance coverage for avian influenza outbreaks. The cost of repopulating layer flocks is high, and replacement chickens could become scarce.

Disruptions to the food supply were clearly telegraphed, and now they are here. The race has been between the next plan-demic and the incoming diesel crisis. And so, the pressure to accept interventions including vaccinations intensifies. Is this the techno-Marxist wet dream again? 

Will This Be the Stick?

Many have forecast exactly this scenario for years, as has the Hollywood/Netflix pipeline, churning out several decades of predictive programming of a viral zombie apocalypse. So here’s Covid 2.0, as another novel virus emerges. The media amplifies fear, little Hitlers roll out containment measures and before you can say “befuddling sudden deaths” the public health emergency becomes the justification for pushing medical products with negative safety data.

The question is: will this be the stick that gets Kiwis the prick? Surely, not nearly as many this time. The pattern from covid is unmistakable. Fear of illness, concern for loved ones, economic anxiety, and social pressure all combined to drive uptake last time – but are so many still so trusting?

However, with the added dimension of a threatened food supply, the pressure may be even more acute. The message is already being crafted: vaccinated birds protect the food supply; protected food supply protects the nation; therefore, vaccination is essential.

What We Should Be Asking – Apart From, Are You Effing Kidding Me?

  1. What are the long-term safety data for Panvax in the New Zealand population? Where are the studies specific to Māori and Pacific peoples that the MARC committee itself recommended? We learnt from Comirnaty that provisional consent requires NO safety data.
  2. What is the actual risk to the general public? With no evidence of human-to-human transmission and most cases being mild, is mass human vaccination justified at all let alone proportionate?
  3. Why was the vaccine stockpiled in the first place, and at what price? What evidence supported this decision, and has that evidence been made public?
  4. What is the exit strategy? If the alleged illness cannot be eradicated in wildlife as authorities themselves acknowledge, what is the endgame?
  5. How will informed consent be ensured? Given the data sheet’s admissions about limited safety data in specific populations, how will these risks be communicated?

The pieces are in motion. The question is whether we will once again be passive recipients of a predetermined outcome, or whether we just refuse to play this time.  At least we can demand the transparency and evidence that any medical intervention of this scale warrants.

This article is intended for informed supporters of NZDSOS who have followed these issues closely over the years. The pattern is repeating. The harms remain ignored.

The Hidden Cost of Roadside Drug Testing: Parliament Does It to Us Again.

If ever there was an opportunity for parliament NOT to alienate further a growing chunk of the nation, it has just failed spectacularly, by doing it all again and passing the Roadside Drug Testing Act. It is almost as if this is deliberately provocative, a middle finger into the faces of Kiwis already stripped of rights and forced into medical assault. 

Silent on sudden deaths in the young proximate to their covid jabs, widespread immune failure, rapid cancers and the amyloid-like rubbery structures growing quietly in many people’s blood vessels, now the Overlords are concerned to find and remove impaired drivers from our roads, whilst ignoring climbing mortality and declining fertility.  

But the current random roadside drug testing in New Zealand is not a test of impairment. By wiping the test pad on the tongue it detects the presence of substances which may or may not be causing impairment in the human body. The substances may be legally prescribed. We agree that impaired drivers should not be on the road behind the wheel but randomly stopping people who are driving normally and safely and coercing them into an invasive test is not a way to achieve this which restores trust and community support. Of course there will always be some people who welcome every rule and regulation which makes their lives feel safer. 

But the current approach tests for presence rather than impairment. Cannabis traces linger in the body and appear in saliva long after any high has passed, making saliva testing a relatively poor proxy for impairment. THC can remain detectable in regular users for days or even weeks, even though its intoxicating effects may last only a few hours. That means a medicinal cannabis patient who took a prescribed dose the night before, or a habitual user with high baseline levels, could test positive while driving safely.

For the other targeted drugs, methamphetamine, cocaine and MDMA, the connection to driving impairment is also unclear. At lower doses, stimulants can even improve certain motor skills. The risks are instead tied to perceptual shifts or lapses in attention, which a saliva test cannot detect. Because these drugs remain illegal globally, it is difficult to conduct the controlled studies needed to link presence and impairment. Of course, mixing them, or adding to alcohol, can raise impairment risks considerable. 

So what about the rise in single vehicle crashes and those caused by a “medical event”? Might there be other explanations? Goodness knows authorities are looking well away from all the jab harms. And what about working harder on the importation and distribution of highly destructive drugs like methamphetamine, rather than demonising and punishing private citizens who are legitimate users of medical cannabis? In our view it is highly ironic that many jab injured patients otherwise unhelped, if not ignored completely, by the medical system may find some comfort and respite from medical cannabis – but risk their licenses.

The Bill of Rights and Informed Consent

As doctors, informed consent is fundamental to our work. Informed means being advised about the test, what is in it, what it will be used for, rate of false positive and false negatives, and being able to read a datasheet. Consent means agreeing freely without coercion or duress. Significant penalties constitute coercion. And assent – accepting you must do something – is NOT consent.

Section 11 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 states that “everyone has the right to refuse to undergo any medical treatment” https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1990/0109/latest/DLM224797. It is our view that taking a fluid sample from a body cavity for the purposes of testing for substances is a medical procedure which in theory one has the right to decline. The Health and Disability Commissioner confirms that a competent consumer may refuse medical treatment, even if the treatment would be in their best interests.

The Attorney General’s report into the legislation, written by Judith Collins in July 2024, found it was inconsistent with the Bill of Rights Act, specifically the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure, and the right not to be arbitrarily detained. “The intrusion on an individual’s privacy that arises from the taking of a bodily sample for the first oral fluid screening test appears disproportionate where there is no basis to suspect the individual driving is under the influence of an impairing drug,” she wrote https://www.justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Publications/NZ-BORA-Advice-Misuse-of-Drugs-Pseudoephedrine-Amendment-Bill-for-publication.pdf. Yet parliament passed the legislation, signalling further erosion in the contract which says we give you our money and you govern us in our interests.  

Some Specific Concerns

Our concerns with roadside testing include:

A Critical Legal Distinction: Compliance versus Consent

There is a subtle but potentially powerful legal argument that has not yet been widely tested. The legislation creates a specific infringement offence for “failure or refusal to undergo an oral fluid screening test or provide an oral fluid sample” (our italics)  https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2025/0012/latest/LMS965616.html. 

An OIA request to Police asked specifically whether an individual may provide saliva by spitting onto the swab instead of placing it directly on their tongue. The response was clear: “A driver may not spit on the screening device. The screening device requires a driver to wipe the device pads down their tongue” https://fyi.org.nz/request/33263/response/138989/attach/3/OIA%20Response%20letter%20IR%2001%2025%2045451.pdf.

OK, but: if a person is willing to comply with the law as written by providing a saliva sample, the state should not be permitted to insist on a specific method that risks the introduction of unknown substances into the body. The question of whether the discretion is unlimited or whether it must accommodate alternative methods where no material difference in the result exists is a question that will be tested in court.

For those who wish to challenge the regime:

  1. Offer to provide a sample by spitting, dribbling or ladling. Make it clear you are willing to comply in a way that avoids the potential for ingestion.
  2. State your objection. If the officer refuses, state clearly that you are willing to provide a sample but object to the specific method required.
  3. Record the audio of the exchange if possible, to establish that you did not refuse to provide a sample but rather objected to the method.
  4. If you are penalised, seek legal advice immediately.

The Manufacturer’s Instructions and Coerced Compliance

There is a further legal tension worth examining. The manufacturer’s instructions for the device, the DrugWipe 3 S, were written presumably for a scenario of a voluntary or willing subject, and that assumption is so implicit that surely police cannot claim the technical instructions alone make the test enforceable against consent. The instructions are technical: the driver wipes the device pads down the front of their tongue to absorb a sample. This is a physical procedure, and the manufacturer’s safety claims are based on this use. Police have stated that the public is not exposed to hazardous substances during roadside testing, that there are no chemicals on the device pads, and that Police is assured by manufacturer assurances and independent safety analyses of the device. Sound familiar? [https://www.police.govt.nz/advice-services/drugs-and-alcohol/roadside-drug-driving-testing/health-and-safety-and-privacy. The notice approving the DrugWipe 3 S for use was issued by the Minister of Police on 11 November 2025 [https://www.legislation.govt.nz/secondary-legislation/pco-drafted/2025/246/en/latest/.

The law requires you to comply, but that compliance is obtained under the threat of severe penalties. This is coercion, not consent.  In a legal context, we think this distinction should be critical, but we have all been here before. A consent is not legally valid if it is obtained under duress or coercion. 

This specific legal tension does not appear to have been examined in the public legislative process, or in the Attorney General’s BORA report. The Attorney General’s review focused on broader constitutional issues, such as the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, and arbitrary detention, rather than the technicalities of the biomedical consent question. The focus of the debate was on the power to test, not on the biological safety of the test.

Your Rights and Duty,  and Police Obligations

Despite understandable anxiety or resistance to engaging with the police, even when legally compelled to do so at a traffic stop, there are clear rules and laws the police must follow.

They must identify themselves, state the reason for any search, and name the Act under which it is being conducted unless impracticable https://legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2012/24/en/2025-04-05/#DLM2136536. 

They cannot detain you for longer than 15 minutes solely to establish your identity https://www.police.govt.nz/sites/default/files/publications/traffic-patrol-techniques-270325.pdf. 

They must inform you if you are arrested or detained of the reason and your right to consult a lawyer without delay https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1990/0109/latest/DLM225525.html. 

They must treat you with humanity and respect for your inherent dignity https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1990/0109/latest/DLM224801.html.

In response to emerging stories of overreach and aggression by police officers during these stops, this is our understanding:

Under the law, motorists must stop when asked, show licence, give name and address, agree to any testing, and not resist arrest (even if you think the grounds may be unlawful; for instance, before forcibly removing a person from their car, the grounds for this must be stated and a warning given). Drivers do NOT have to answer any other questions, and they do not have to consent to the vehicle being searched.

General good policy is to be polite and calm but not overly friendly. You do NOT have to answer questions like “do you know why I stopped you”, “where are you heading”, “where have you come from” or “have you had any alcohol”. These are questions designed to give police reason to claim suspicion. The overarching question if the officer keeps you talking or seems to not be closing the encounter is: “Officer am I under arrest or am I free to go?”

Current law says that refusing the “saliva test” is punishable by a $400 fine and 75 demerit points and a 12 hour ban from driving https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1998/0110/latest/LMS822839.html. 

The Sovereign Citizen Issue

We should all be free men and women of course, although this is resisted by the state. Police and judicial officers such as Justices of the Peace (JPs) are being enabled to compile a register of non-compliant people, and sovereign citizens, and to spot and deal particularly harshly with them in the case of the police. We are aware of such cases.

The Police have formalised updated advice for dealing with sovereign citizens, reinforcing a clear message to Police Association members to treat every interaction professionally and lawfully but recognise “the heightened risks and plan accordingly”. https://www.policeassn.org.nz/news/advice-on-fronting-sovereign-citizens-refined#/

Risks of and plan for what, exactly? Being schooled on human rights? The recently released Sovereign Citizens chapter in the Police Manual brings operational tactics, legal guidance and intelligence requirements into a single framework. This includes a requirement to record interactions with sovereign citizens in the National Intelligence Application and notify the Security Intelligence and Threats Group. Clearly, Know the Signs is alive and well. 

Only those people who are highly experienced and confident from past success should go down this route. We are in dangerous times that do not respect the oldest streams of law and a century of modern human rights legislation.

Summary

In the light of the tremendous harms and deceptions by the pandemic government and its police agents, it is reasonable for some to be a) anxious or stressed in their presence, and b) sceptical of a safe and effective testing device where there is no list of ingredients let alone a safety data sheet which might allow informed consent.

If New Zealanders accept this sort of bodily invasion – guess what, we did from 2021 on – then what is next? That is how totalitarianism appears, by small incremental steps that people go along with. People need to ask themselves, at what point would I say NO? 

Parliament rightly recognises that police should not be the ones scraping someone’s tongue, but violation of autonomy is just that whether by someone else or forced by your own hand. Come to think of it, why didn’t Ashley Ardern-Kins try this: “all the jabs have arrived but you are too many so if you want it you’ll have to jab yourselves. It’s easy, anyone can do it.” 

NZDSOS is an organisation focused on biomedical science and safety. We do not condone drug-impaired driving. We insist that public health interventions be based on sound, transparent science and respect for individual rights.

Introduction

Discussion about myocarditis caused by the covid vaccination has reached the mainstream media in the past few months following release of the NZ Royal Commission Phase 2 covid inquiry report. However, the discussion has been very narrow and focused on who knew what and when regarding recommending and mandating the vaccine to 12-17 yr old New Zealanders.

The public discussion should be much broader. Previously myocarditis was very rare, with most doctors never seeing it and cardiologists perhaps only diagnosing a handful of cases, or fewer, in their whole careers. Now, everyone has heard of it or knows an affected person.  There are hundreds, if not thousands, of adversely affected New Zealanders ranging from those who have damaged hearts but don’t know it, to those who have very obviously damaged hearts affecting their everyday life to those officially recognised as having died from post-vaccine myocarditis.  There are also an unknown number who have died suddenly, often during or following sporting activities or in their sleep, without a clear diagnosis or even proper attempt at one.

Symptoms

Myocarditis is inflammation of the heart muscle.  The most common symptoms are chest pain, heaviness or tightness, shortness of breath, palpitations (awareness of the heartbeat), fatigue.  Other symptoms could include feeling dizzy or lightheaded or sudden collapse.  Sudden death from an arrhythmia is also possible. Pre-covid it was always regarded as a very serious disease, with around 1 in 5 patients not surviving to the 5 year mark. 

In some cases these serious symptoms have been brushed off as ‘anxiety’ or ‘panic attacks’ when people have presented to medical services post vaccination.

The symptoms may be transient and last for a few days, or they may persist for weeks, months or years.  They could be intermittent or continuous.  Some might experience mild and barely noticeable symptoms, while for others they could be severe and impossible to ignore.  Further encounters with spike protein either by repeat vaccination or covid infection, will exacerbate symptoms for some.

Diagnosis

Myocarditis is diagnosed based on symptoms (as above), physical examination findings, blood tests, ECG, echocardiogram, cardiac MRI scans and in some cases, endomyocardial biopsy (sample of heart tissue taken to be looked at under the microscope).  It can be diagnosed on post mortem examination also.  If subtle, or with inadequate sampling, it can also easily be missed on post mortem examination.  It will certainly be missed if it is not looked for. 

Treatment

There are various treatments ranging from rest and avoidance of exercise, to medications such as anti-inflammatory drugs or colchicine, to medications for heart failure, to a need for heart transplantation in severe cases.

If myocarditis has been caused by mRNA vaccination, some doctors are recommending supplements to help remove vaccine products and resultant spike protein from the body.  As this is a novel and highly complex medical condition, treatments are evolving.  However limited resources are being put into researching optimal treatment. There are various protocols of prescription and non-prescription products based on observation and experience which have helped some people, though modern medicine regards spike protein syndromes as difficult to treat and little understood. This document, an action plan advising on testing and treatment, was prepared for Advisory Committee on Immunisation Practices (ACIP), the US CDC vaccine approval committee, that was likely to rein in the mRNA products before a judge ruled the committee to have been formed unlawfully. We covered this recent step on the bumpy path to honest disclosure in our article here. Take heart, a similar committee is being formed in a legally watertight way.

Myocarditis can cause death

The four NZ deaths officially recognised as due to covid vaccination have all been caused by myocarditis.  It is our view that there are a number of other New Zealanders who have died from post vaccine myocarditis who have not been recognised, acknowledged or compensated. [It is also our view that there are many more New Zealanders who have died from other adverse effects of covid vaccination.]

Official Covid Vaccine Deaths New Zealand – all from myocarditis
  1. 57 yr old Chinese woman died Jul 2021, death written up in medical journal
  2. 26 yr old Rory Nairn died November 2021 
  3. 13 yr old Wellington boy died October 2021
  4. 42 yr old Amanda Smees died February 2022

We have also recently written about a number of other sudden unexpected NZ youth deaths; some are acknowledged to be due to myocarditis (but not attributed to any underlying cause) and others are also likely to be so, despite the coroners stating cause of death was ‘unascertained’ or from ‘presumed natural causes’.  

Unless the family have asked, the coroners have not commented on the covid vaccination status of these young people and have not determined whether covid vaccination had anything to do with the myocarditis or the sudden death.  We consider this a serious failing of our coronial system.

Despite the public only being advised of 4 deaths due to covid vaccination, ACC has paid out for 6 ‘fatal injuries’. 

Long term sequelae

Inflammation of the heart muscle may cause immediate symptoms and risks, but when the acute inflammation dies down, scarring can be left in its place.  Heart muscle cells do not regenerate when damaged and scar or fibrous tissue replaces the damaged cells.  If only small areas of the heart are affected, heart function may remain relatively normal for a period of time with the potential for a reduction in pumping capacity occurring later.  However, if significant areas of the heart are affected, heart function can reduce rapidly precipitating heart failure.  Cardiology services are noticing an increase in heart failure presentations, and these are being seen in younger cohorts than previously.

In addition to heart failure, scar tissue in an electrical pathway can predispose to sudden arrhythmic death weeks, months or years after the initial myocarditis.

Is it actually worse from covid infection?

Repeated pronouncements from politicians and doctors alike claim that the risk of getting, and/or severity of, myocarditis is far higher from covid infection than from vaccination.  We have not seen any NZ data to support this and have presented numerous peer-reviewed papers to officials that show the opposite.

A word about pericarditis

This is inflammation of the pericardial sac which surrounds the heart. It is not fatal nor typically a cause of heart failure unless there is a large amount of fluid which compresses the heart. But the symptoms can be very frightening, with chest pain, palpitations and breathlessness which can go on for years. 

Myocarditis in New Zealand

A substantial number of myocarditis and pericarditis cases have been reported to the Centre for Adverse Reactions Monitoring (CARM) but these likely only represent a small subset of the true number of cases.

The following graphs are made from the data available in the line listing spreadsheet linked at the bottom of the last Medsafe Safety Report to Nov 2022.  

The first graph (below) shows the dates the reports to CARM were made.  As there was a surge in vaccination numbers with the vaxathon/Super Saturday (16 Oct 2021) event as well as approaching mandates, there is a surge in cases being reported. Note that the first NZ cases were reported as early as Apr and May 2021.

The second graph (below) shows the age and gender distribution of the NZ myocarditis cases reported to CARM.  It is not known if these are representative of the whole population which includes all the unreported cases.  Many cases went unreported and unrecognised as those who presented to medical services were often told they were anxious.

The limited messaging that got through to the public suggested that myocarditis was most common in young males following the second dose.  The graph shows the largest total number of cases is in 30-39 yr old males and that females are also significantly affected. [Note that this shows the number of detected cases, rather than the incidence rate, as it doesn’t include the total cohort (including undetected cases) of each age band.]

The third graph (below) shows the cases of myocarditis by dose number with both doses 1 and 2 having substantial reports. Note this is at odds with supposedly reassuring messaging that the 2nd dose tends to be the problem. 

Graph of cumulative cases reported to Medsafe as per Safety Reports.  The numbers used for the graphs above are from the line listing which appears to have recorded only cases diagnosed and presenting within 30 days of the injection.  A total of 499 cases.

However, according to the chart within the final Safety Reports at the end of November 2022, there were 974 reports of myocarditis and pericarditis.

NZ Myocarditis Study

NZ Myocarditis study: In late 2021 NZ researchers decided to study the ‘long term’ outcomes for those affected by myocarditis post covid vaccination.  This meant people had to be at least 90 days past their diagnosis.  [It is our view this represents short, or at most medium, term outcomes.  It also excludes all those who died suddenly shortly after their vaccination and weren’t alive to be included at 90 days.]  The researchers approached the people who had reported a diagnosis of post vaccination myocarditis to CARM and asked questions of those who consented, along with their doctors, to get an idea of what they experienced.

The publication date was delayed many times and although the initial date was supposed to be in early 2023, it was eventually published over 18 months later in Sept 2024.  It documented that for a large number of people symptoms had not resolved, lives were significantly impacted and their treatment within the health system was dismissive and sub optimal.

No further study has been published following up what has happened to those people though we understand research is being undertaken at Auckland University.

Pathology

There are various mechanisms of injury including autoimmunity when human cells produce a foreign protein inviting (a predictable) attack from the immune system; an over-zealous inflammatory response; the lipid nanoparticles themselves being toxic to mitochondria and provoking inflammation in their own right; and immune tolerance to the damaging spike protein caused by repeated injections actually suppressing its clearance (IgG4 class shifting).

There are few to no inflammatory cells present in normal heart muscle tissue.  When myocarditis is present, there is an increase in inflammatory cells e.g. lymphocytes.  There can also be disruption of the muscle fibres.  When the individual muscle cells die damaged cells and fibrous scar tissue remain, and many normal cells may not function properly with surrounding disruption.

More information can be found in the publication ​​​​​​​mRNA Vaccine Toxicity Section 4.4.1

Dr Peter McCullough

Many times we have posted Dr Peter McCullough’s emphatic call that all sudden death in a vaccinated young person is the vaccine until proved otherwise, which must be done properly.

Post Vaccine Symptom Check (PVSC)

Myocarditis was known to affect young people particularly, yet these very people were not monitored by Medsafe’s active monitoring system.  For some unknown reason the 12-17 yr old group were not included in any of the Post Vaccine Symptom Check surveys!!

OIA  HNZ00202118 Response:

“Post Vaccine Symptom Check (PVSC) surveys were limited to individuals aged 18 years and over.  People aged 12-17 years were not sent PVSC survey invitations, and no PVSC data was collected for that age group in 2021-2024. In 2022, there was a survey dedicated to collecting information from the guardians of 5-11-year-olds who had received the Comirnaty COVID-19 paediatric vaccine.”  

Coroner’s Reports

We have reviewed a number of pathologist and coroner reports of suddenly dead young Kiwis from 2021 to current, often at the family’s request. Some of these mention myocarditis as the cause of death and some describe features consistent with myocarditis without calling it such.  Cardiomyopathy (pathology of the heart muscle) is mentioned in other reports with no particular cause determined.

It is our opinion that coroners are avoiding looking for or commenting on the possibility of covid vaccination causing or contributing to heart damage and sudden death.

Members of the public can ask for coroner’s reports as they are publicly available documents.
[email protected]

Revelations re what the Government ministers knew and when

A lot of information has come to light recently re who knew what and when. We have posted here here and here. 

Freedom NZ has done a lot of detective work digging up documents showing an apparent hiding of safety information, clearly to protect the mass vaccination juggernaut. This appears to be unlawful. 

Reality Check Radio has put out a piece detailing the results of its OIA request about the number of teens affected.  

Philip Crump, on his substack did a lot of early work on possible wrongdoing, and continues to dig into the legal tactics used to allow this situation still to be in play.  

Derek Cheng of the NZ Herald has packaged up the above into various articles for a wider audience between April and July, but paywalled, here, here, here, here, here and here.  

What now?

Regular readers will know our position. A horrendous medical crime has occurred and the public’s response should match the seriousness of what has happened to many tens of thousands (at a minimum) of Kiwis already. At least according to official figures there are many far more common serious adverse effects than cardiac inflammation, but we have shown evidence repeatedly that the actual amount of cardiac harm is far higher than the talking heads portray. In the end, however, no organ or system in the body can expect immunity from the biological consequences of this toxic gene product given to billions, and the evidence of this is piling higher – in academic papers and under the carpet. 

Clearly, NZ’s proper public reckoning must include an audit of how many people may be affected.
A review of coronial cases is also needed, not to mention uncovering the mechanisms by which coroners seem to have been co-opted into pharmaco-somnolence.

We believe all the teens who got at least a second dose need to have cardiac assessments before anyone else.

Perhaps all the people who were dismissed as having anxiety when they presented with chest pain and palpitations, and abnormally high blood pressure and fast pulse (even for stress), need to be examined specifically to rule out carditis.

Dr Peter McCullough has proposed a risk stratification for vaccinated individuals who may be concerned that they or their loved one experienced heart damage from covid vaccines. 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/389318741_Risk_stratification_for_future_cardiac_arrest_after_COVID-19_vaccination 

New Zealand’s public health system is unlikely to have the capacity to undertake this as word has it that cardiology clinics are already overwhelmed.

Private providers, and insurance companies such as Southern Cross, are clearly in the frame to help in any attempted clean up, but will be come to be seen as both hero and villain. Many private cardiologists see very well what is happening – their patients tell us – and we know from deep inside the medical insurance industry that claims (and the premiums) are skyrocketing, and that – by the time the rest of us were hit with mandates – industry back channels were flashing major warning signals about jab harms. 

In our view, there are victims of jab-induced heart damage at the hands of wrong-doing by officials. The key point is that the emerging information suggests they KNEW, but pushed on anyway, trying to cover up along the way. The degree to which all this may be criminal is being investigated by Justice Watch NZ, and NZDSOS has no shortage of evidence that we showed officials.  They must have a heart and withdraw the jabs.  ​

Foreign Minister and New Zealand First leader Winston Peters has emerged as the most direct political voice demanding accountability for the covid-19 vaccine rollout. Support him or not, his words are not merely political theatre; they carry the weight of official findings and a personal stake that should not be dismissed. But the ground he stands on was prepared by many others who worked in obscurity or faced censorship and outright persecution, all while the captured media lauded the powerful.

Royal Commissioner Does a Favour

The current government has largely rolled over to the second Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI2) into covid-19 in accepting most of its recommendations. Senior Ministers were quick to talk up its criticism of the Ardern government’s economic carnage, but there was zero reference to the various accounts of those who “believed they were harmed” by the covid injections.  

Winston Peters will always be the man who pushed for the second Royal Commission but could not negotiate adequate terms of reference with the coalition on the strength of the election results.  Of course the RCI2 was the obvious real-time whitewash many of us predicted, but it did confirm one disturbing fact whilst attempting to insulate government from responsibility for poor external advice: in November 2021, the Covid-19 Vaccine Technical Advisory Group (CV-TAG) advised the Ministry of Health that the two-dose schedule posed an “unnecessary risk” of myocarditis for 12–17-year-olds, covered here in reluctant fashion by Stuff (who would never mention our name in a month of Sundays!) and also in our own articles, the NZ Herald (pay-walled) and the Freedom Party’s Facebook page. 

The Commission concluded that this advice was never passed on to Ministers or the public. It described this failure as “significant”. The report confirmed that the advice stated: “risks associated with the transmission of covid-19 … among those aged under 18 are insufficient to justify mandating a 2-dose schedule of the Pfizer vaccine”.

Yet the mandates and vaccine passes remained in force. An OIA by Reality Check Radio uncovered that 311,000 young people in that age group received a second dose, despite the risk-benefit assessment being determined negative by CV-TAG.

Peters Joins us to Demand Accountability

Mr Peters has been remarkably direct and has named names in Parliament. He has called for a select committee inquiry into vaccine injuries, arguing the Royal Commission did not go far enough. We disagree that would be a trustworthy forum. Notwithstanding, he has named former ministers Chris Hipkins and Dr Ayesha Verrall, along with epidemiologist Dr Michael Baker, as figures who should face accountability. This is sweet music to the ears of many who have stood up to the war on humanity and worked to help the casualties.

In an interview with Chris Lynch Media, Peters was asked directly whether he believed previous ministers should be charged. He said yes. Asked whether he meant criminally, he said yes again.

Referring to the dangerously double-dosed youngsters he said, “Many of those people are going to have truncated and difficult lives as a consequence as time goes forward,” he said. “Mark my words, you’ll see what happens”. 

We cannot emphasise how seismic these statements are, nor thank Mr Peters enough, against a background of silence, obfuscation and outright lies from many officials on the consequences of the covid jab tragedy. We have presented evidence to them over and over of the jabs’ many dangerous problems. Some effects may have been silent initially but are showing up now and will continue to do so long into the future. 

A Personal Stake

Peters has revealed a personal dimension to his crusade. He has referred to a condition affecting his daughter that he says followed vaccination. His question cuts through political abstraction: “What are you going to say to that young person when they’re 19, 20 years of age, maybe 25 years of age, they get a condition that’s brought on by them having the second vaccine that they were warned not to have?” 

The Debt to Those Who Dug for Truth

The evidence Peters is now running with was uncovered through painstaking work by researchers and journalists who were dismissed as conspiracy theorists while they dug for the truth.

Sue Grey and Aly Cook of the Freedom Party (formerly the NZ Outdoors & Freedom Party) spent countless hours on forensic research through Official Information Act requests. Their work uncovered:

  • A critical August 13, 2021, meeting where ministers – including Jacinda Ardern, Chris Hipkins, Grant Robertson, and Andrew Little – met via Zoom to finalise the youth vaccine strategy.
  • A briefing paper delivered just before that meeting with a directive to sanitise public messaging: “It was suggested that the wording around the potential benefit that an extended dosing interval may have with regard to myocarditis risk should be removed or re-worded”.
  • Subsequent OIA denials claiming records of such a meeting “do not exist” – until the agenda finally emerged.
  • Meeting records scrubbed from ministerial diaries, with Robertson’s diary altered on that meeting only and placed out of chronological order.
  • That many, if not all, of the Vaccine Minsters’ meetings were unminuted.

Aly Cook has stated: “We were referred to as conspiracy theorists and now we are proven to have been correct. Information was withheld. There are people who died from the vaccine and who have injuries with ongoing suffering, one is my son and this fight is only just beginning”.

Derek Cheng of the NZ Herald has done the journalism that gave these findings wider exposure. His investigations tracked how Hipkins’ name appeared on a Cabinet paper showing he knew about the increased myocarditis risk for teens as far back as December 2021. Cheng’s work has connected the OIA material to the public record in a way that the mainstream media largely failed to do during the pandemic itself.

A Polarising Messenger, But a Necessary One

Peters can be a polarising figure. Labour leader Chris Hipkins has reminded reporters that Peters originally supported vaccine mandates, even calling for them to be a requirement for welfare and parole. 

But Mr Peters, like many others, now knows he was tricked in the Ardern years, and has said during campaigning he uncovered for himself evidence that the rationale for the long Auckland lockdown was based on an implausibility. Many believe the same is true for the South Island lockdown, blamed on a solitary case in Queenstown. It is clear now that the various vaccination drives reaching preset government targets coincided nicely with the lockdowns being lifted. 

Peters has said someone else posted the mandate comments and they did not reflect his views. But however one thinks of the messenger, the questions he is asking are now on the table, and they require answers.

The Genie Is Out

This is not a position Peters can retreat from. Once a politician of his mana names names and talks about criminal charges, it’s not a position he can walk back. The issue now has its own momentum.

The story is being covered across local and international outlets. The genie is out of the bottle, and even Peters himself cannot put it back, and he seems sincere enough on this not to want to.

We have to say though, that as a Minister and recent Deputy PM, his office has received many of our letters of concern. Indeed he accepted by hand an Open Letter at parliament, though what happened to it after that is still unclear to us. 

The aware people in our community, who are awake to the many threats against our peace and freedom, have bemoaned that we lack honest and brave politicians, such as the handful of senators in Australia like Alex Antic, Gerard Rennick and Malcolm Roberts, and Ron Johnson and Rand Paul in the US. Well, now we have elder statesman of NZ politics Winston Peters who is putting vital questions on the table – questions which the rest of us have been screaming into the void for years. 

However, his first-term MP Tanya Unkovich did manage to get mention of the vaccine injured, and the fact of NZDSOS speaking out, into the debating chamber before she later quit the party. This was after several meetings with a group of vaccine injured involving her and a senior NZF official, and later with Lynda Wharton of The Health Forum NZ.

The Great Realisation

Why was the risk to our youth hidden from us? Why were the questioning and dissenting voices silenced? Why is there such resistance to a full inquiry into the vaccine rollout?  How many dead and injured children and young people are there in NZ as a result of the deception? Not to mention all the older people dead before their time?

We know some of the answers. Because the vaccination imperative was an order. Get it done, and nothing and no-one must get in the way – even the law, apparently.

But there is so, so much more for the NZ public to learn. They could do worse than read our open letters, our evidence document for the Royal Commission and many others like Voices For Freedom’s People’s Position, our own project of expert interviews (Substantial Minority) for the Commissioners and our Truth Project of many whistle-blower accounts. 

The Freedom Party’s investigation, now picked up by journalists and carried into Parliament by Peters, has moved this from fringe concern to mainstream political debate. Whether this messenger has always done the right thing or is late to the party he must be supported and enabled to continue.  And the answers will not be easily suppressed.

Acknowledgement: This article draws on the investigative work of Sue Grey and Aly Cook of the Freedom Party, whose OIA requests uncovered the August 2021 meeting records and the directive to suppress myocarditis risk information. Philip Crump at www.cranmer.substack.com deserves credit too. Their work, together with the journalism of Derek Cheng at the NZ Herald, has brought these facts into the public domain where they can no longer be ignored.

WATCH: Winston Peters in His Own Words

WATCH: Tanya Unkovich in Parliament

FREE PRESS SUSPENDED IN NEW ZEALAND? (AND THE SEQUEL)

Photo Credit: © Mary Hobbs

Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must undergo the fatigue of supporting it.
– Thomas Paine

On Tuesday, 4 August 2026, at approximately 11 am, the Daily Telegraph online paper mysteriously disappeared, as did email contact to the editor, and barrister, Malcolm Dreaneen. It has not been back online since.

The editor spent three days trying to find out what had happened and why. There were several key possibilities Malcolm came up with, and IT expert and legendary whistleblower Barry Young concurred. As Barry summarised, it was either: An admin error where the domain name had expired, or something similar; a provider error on the server side, or a potential hack, or a government takedown.  The latter was the most chilling, because of what it signals to New Zealand.

Malcolm had been working on elimination of all of these possibilities since Tuesday. By Friday he had traced it back to the most likely explanation being that of a government takedown within the department responsible for domain names, logically named the Domain Name Commission (DNC).

It is understood that if the DNC intends to take a site down then they must ensure that the holder of the site is notified in writing or by phone before it disappears. They must ensure they make contact with the owner of the site. That did not happen.

Once Malcolm had isolated the most likely perpetrator of the takedown he contacted the DNC and was advised that they would be in touch within two working days. That date was Tuesday, 11 August 2026. The date came and went with no word. Nothing.

The byline on the DNC is “Keeping .nz fair for everyone.” Oh, the irony.

The Daily Telegraph has had a constant and reliable presence in New Zealand for the past six years. The editor has at all times been true to the code of freedom of speech for the Press. This included the freedom for commenters to give their opinions on any of the articles without censorship.

This online paper uniquely gave New Zealanders what is so sorely lacking in the once mainstream media: The truth. The writers consistently shone a light on matters of great concern to our people, our country and its sovereignty. They were steadfast and undaunted in their aim to provide New Zealanders with uncomfortable truths that the government wanted to remain hidden. They did not follow the propaganda, they uncovered it, in a world where censorship was increasingly becoming the norm. The editor and writers for the Daily Telegraph exposed the truth and offered alternative views.

Photo Credit: © Mary Hobbs

Truth never damages a cause that is just.
– Mahatma Gandhi

Over the past six years there was a slow-dawning realisation — even among those who had initially called them “conspiracy theorists” or worse — that the editor and writers of the DT demonstrated the courage to call out the corruption, and also suggest what could peacefully be done to safeguard democracy in our beautiful country. There are many, many, other legendary New Zealanders who work tirelessly in effective groups — such as NZDSOS, Lynda Wharton of The Health Forum, RCR, JWNZ, the Nurses Collective, among others, along with outstanding journalists who do the same, as well as countless individuals in the Freedom movement — but Malcolm built the only online newspaper of its kind from nothing and combined it with online news of the day with key writers who contribute to the Opinion section — from PhDs, to doctors, writers and freedom-loving New Zealanders. They stood up, spoke out, and provided factual references and links to back up their articles. This created the space to enable thousands of New Zealanders to also speak out – with relevant links to solid references – and call the government to account on serious issues that never saw the light of day in the so-called ‘mainstream’ media.

As a result, New Zealanders increasingly turned to the Daily Telegraph for balanced editorial and news. One Kiwi reader of the Daily Telegraph, Martin Hanson, provided feedback on the likely takedown of the online paper:

“If the government is involved, I think it is in danger of backing itself into a corner, if it doesn’t immediately reverse course on the DTNZ.

Ardern’s “sole source of truth” had strong totalitarian implications, but the shutting down of a newspaper that challenges the official narrative hammers a new nail in the coffin of our “democracy”. They can shut down the DTNZ, but they can’t silence Malcolm. Social media will have a field day, and it could go international via, for example, Liz Gunn and NZDSOS to mention a couple. 

In view of the driving force of US Senator Rand Paul over Fauci’s criminality, the clock may be ticking for the public exposure of the Covid disaster, with all that it implies for the criminality of Ardern and Hipkins, along with all of the others involved, including those who were complicit.

The DTNZ is the perfect antidote to the corrupt mainstream media, which are nothing less than stenographers for the powerful.”

The Daily Telegraph became a bastion of light in a world increasingly dominated by the darkest evil and the most corrupt influences imaginable. The Press of old has long been compromised for they are owned by those behind most governments, Left or Right, today.

They have been for a very long time.

From the 1860s to the 1870s, John Swainton was the editor of the New York Times and in the 1880s he spent time as an editorial writer for the New York Sun. At this retirement speech to his staff he said:

There is no such a thing in America as an independent press, unless it is out in country towns. You are all slaves. You know it, and I know it. There is not one of you who dares to express an honest opinion. If you expressed it, you would know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid $150 for keeping honest opinions out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar salaries for doing similar things. If I should allow honest opinions to be printed in one issue of my paper, I would be like Othello before twenty-four hours: my occupation would be gone. The man who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the street hunting for another job. The business of a New York journalist is to distort the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the feet of Mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread, or for what is about the same — his salary. You know this, and I know it; and what foolery to be toasting an “Independent Press”! We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are jumping-jacks. They pull the string and we dance. Our time, our talents, our lives, our possibilities, are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes.

The Daily Telegraph was none of those things. Yet most can see that key mainstream media are producing exactly what John Swainton described – in some form or another.

If the government took down this site, it raises serious issues because it crosses the line into overt censorship.  It comes dangerously close to tipping from the current façade of democracy to either fascist or communist rule. Fascists and communists have censorship and the axing of freedom of the press in common. To do this, especially immediately before an election, would also indicate a reckless disregard for the democracy so many of our ancestors gave their lives to preserve.

The government would also be in direct violation of The New Zealand Bill of Rights 1990 with #13 and #14, particularly relevant:

Freedom of thought, conscience, and religion

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion, and belief, including the right to adopt and to hold opinions without interference.

Freedom of expression

Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form.

It is less than three months before the country goes to the polls. Already key freedom parties are being dealt curve balls that are distracting, along with other ways to cancel them out, stretch their resources, and weaken them in every possible way, such as the media pretending they don’t exist, while fawning over communist-type alternatives such as the TOP Party that mysteriously pops up before recent elections with a strange 5% in polling while most New Zealanders don’t have a clue who they are, except for their communist plans, like Labour, and others, to tax New Zealanders to oblivion on their homes every year after they have worked hard to pay off their mortgages with money that has already been taxed, for property that already carries hefty property taxes from councils. (Labour of course has similar policies, along with the Greens. (Other Parties give cause for other serious concerns.) Yet the media give TOP key focus as an “alternative”.

The Freedom parties, ignored by mainstream, were always welcome to give their opinions at the Daily Telegraph.

In essence, the Daily Telegraph is a labour of love for the editor and its contributing writers. Why? Because they care. Because they have compassion. Because they value freedom, good health and happiness, and count unpolluted food and water as both a necessity and a Right. Because they want to alert fellow New Zealanders to what is really going on so everyone can find their voice and insist on the protection of their human rights. Because they want their descendants to grow up in freedom and in a country that holds their Bill of Rights sacrosanct.

It is now Thursday 13 August 2026. The Daily Telegraph has been down since 4 August 2026. There is still no word. Still, the government department (DNC) ignores their own requirements. No notification. No response. No denial. Nothing.

How long do we continue to pay government for no representation? For ignoring the New Zealand Bill of Rights? For hastily erecting the framework for 24/7 digital surveillance carte blanche, on a public that pays for representation, not digital prisons?

It seems it’s about time for some noisy, but peaceful, desk-thumping at your local MPs office — or any MP you think may listen — and to all would-be candidates for the upcoming election. Demand that the Daily Telegraph be put back up and that it is back up this week, not next year. Insist that we have our freedom of expression and that the government adheres to the New Zealand Bill of Rights. Also, please take up the invitation on the Domain Name Commission (DNC) website and make a complaint. Inform them that the Daily Telegraph website has been taken down and must be put back up immediately and dialogue must open with the Editor to swiftly resolve any issue. (We don’t want New Zealanders to end up like the little character on the front page of their site who seems to be looking for something in the distance that never arrives.)

For the past, most dire, six years in the history of this Nation, the Daily Telegraph has shone a light on the lies and courageously brought you the truth. It took at enormous amount of grit and dedication for Malcolm to have built this all up from scratch and steadfastly maintained it for over six years. It has involved countless hours days, weeks, and years of unflagging contribution. Now we can throw our support around this brave soul, for all that he created with such effort and dedication.

With Malcolm at the helm, the Daily Telegraph lit a flame that will never go out. It will always burn strongly, but we must continue to make that so. As Thomas Paine, so eloquently stated, “Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must undergo the fatigue of supporting it.” That includes all of us.

Wherever you are in New Zealand, if for any reason you feel you are unable to speak up, please help by contributing to those who do, as our country is teetering on the brink of falling into tyranny. In addition to a complaint to the DNC, another positive way to help is to contribute to Justice Watch New Zealand and/or New Zealand Doctors Speaking Out with Science. Alternatively, join local groups who share your concerns about the creeping loss of our freedoms, the violations of our New Zealand Bill of Rights, censorship, datacentres, the attempted enforcement of gene-tech and many other major issues that have been raised by us all. Messages of support for Malcolm would also be a wonderful lift for him at this time. Feel free to leave them beneath this article.

A brief note to all who found my articles on the DT of value: They will continue to be available at nzdsos.com in their “Articles and Commentary” section. I have over 70 in-depth articles and most have been published by nzdsos.com as well. I continue to write. Feedback, as always, is welcome and there is space to comment beneath each article. My articles will also be on the DT again as soon as it goes back online.

New Zealanders, together, let’s make this flame of truth, compassion and love for our people and our country shine through.

Photo Credit: © Mary Hobbs

Freedom of speech is the great bulwark of liberty; they prosper and die together: It is the terror of traitors and oppressors, and a barrier against them.
– Benjamin Franklin

THE SEQUEL

On Thursday 13 August 2026, a few hours after this article was completed and sent to be published, I received a call from the editor of the Daily Telegraph (DT) who said that the government department (the Domain Name Commission) had just been in contact by phone. The editor was advised the website would be put back up and he would receive confirmation in writing. The man speaking for the department explained that they had tried to contact the editor some weeks ago to verify the website but never heard back, so they took the site down.

Their efforts to communicate to the editor included emailing and trying to make contact through an old website of the editor’s father who had not used that website for five years.

The editor was unable to respond to any email as the takedown had included removal of his email address and all communications connected with the DT. The editor was further advised it would be at least another week before the site could be back up again. At the time we spoke there had been no email confirmation of this welcome news.

The editor was left pondering why the department representative had not simply called him. Just as he had done on the afternoon of 13 August 2026 when he was advised the site would go back up.

I am not sure what prompted me to type in www.dailytelegraph.co.nz on the browser a few hours later. Intuition maybe? Expecting a miracle? I didn’t really anticipate seeing anything other than a notice telling me the site didn’t exist, but there, to my astonishment, was the site! It was a great moment. The editor, when notified, was equally amazed.

We both agreed, it was like having an old friend back.

The story still stands, because it needed to be told. But for now, all who know and love the Daily Telegraph are just enjoying the magic of having it up and running again.

New Zealanders need this precious online independent voice.

Whoever talked to the department: Thank you.

Imagine the best outcome. Then expect magic. And miracles.
– Mary Hobbs

An update for the aware community

IMPORTANT:  on the day we publish this, major new research is released that builds on and follows from everything below. The preprint paper is summarised here. Peer-reviewed publication is expected to follow as both collaborating organisations have a reliable research track-record.

On the Precedent for Ignoring Medical Catastrophes

Jeremy Hunt was UK Health Secretary between 2012 and 2018 and was variously critical of clinicians and NHS managers for institutional cover-ups and evasion. He wrote a book on reducing needless deaths in the NHS, in the wake of the Infected Blood Inquiry (curiously avoided in his book), which examined the scandal of HIV-infected blood products imported, despite warnings, for UK patients between the 1970s and early 1990s. There are various documentaries available, including the Emmy award-winning In Cold Blood.

Hunt described sitting at the top of a “rogue system” and said the Department of Health and NHS were complicit in cover-ups. He described how the corrosive consequences of such thinking led to managers being recycled rather than held accountable. He had testified to the Commission of Inquiry that “institutions and the state close ranks around a lie, sometimes,” and that this was what happened in the contaminated blood scandal. 

We think the ‘covid white clot crisis’ – and its cousins of turbo cancer, immune failure, cardiac damage and neurodegenerative disease – is eclipsing all other medical cover-ups so far. This may seem a giant call, but the WHO’s bare-faced crowing about the 12 billion injections given does set the scene for the scale of damage done and to come. True to form though, the medical and political establishment has been deaf and blind, even though evidence so far does suggest the covid spike protein is a likely cause.

Understanding and Answers are Appearing Through the Fog of War

The science on the anomalous white fibrous clots is now moving rapidly and we have been calling attention since 2022. Three independent research streams have converged on a consistent picture. Each team has used different methods and different analytical frameworks. Yet they have arrived at the same fundamental conclusion: these are new, very abnormal, and can only be dangerous.

This post acknowledges the contributions of each team, situates them carefully within the scientific framework (in the way Bruce Rapley has called for in his recent Substack essays) and then asks the question that must not be ignored: how can these structures be compatible with any kind of healthy life?

The Three Streams of Contribution

The Rapley/Shelton trilogy of preprints, currently in peer review as a single paper, was the first comprehensive characterisation of these Anomalous Intravascular Casts (AICs). Using morphology, elemental analysis, and proteomics, they established three critical facts:

  • They are morphologically distinct from normal clots
  • They are biochemically abnormal
  • They are profoundly resistant to breakdown

The Santiago/Harrison Team’s Raman Spectroscopy Paper (July 2026).

This team provided a definitive structural characterisation. Using Raman micro-spectroscopy at the HUN-REN Wigner Research Centre for Physics, they confirmed:

  • These casts are beta-sheet enriched: the molecular hallmark of many proteins (including amyloid)
  • They seemed to show a stage-dependent maturation process
  • They are strongly stabilised by multiple chemical forces

Both these parallel projects were profiled in our write-up here.

Dr Kevin McCairn’s Forensic Investigations (2025–2026)

We have not discussed the insights of Dr Kevin McCairn, a systems neuroscientist with over 25 years of expertise in neurodegenerative disease modelling. Daniel Santiago has profiled his work.  He has conducted a highly detailed forensic analysis of these structures. His contributions are published privately and are substantial:

1. Comprehensive Multi-Modal Characterisation: 
McCairn’s team applied a broad range of techniques: gross morphological inspection, cryosection histology, Thioflavin T (ThT) fluorescence staining, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDX), real-time PCR, Raman spectroscopy, and Real-Time Quaking-Induced Conversion (RT-QuIC) assays.

2. Near-Definitive Amyloid Confirmation: 
His SEM imaging revealed characteristic ultrastructure of amyloid-like protein pathology: fibrils with a distinct rotational twist, nodular topography, and lateral aggregation features—hallmarks of pathological protein assembly. Thioflavin T staining confirmed beta-sheet rich amyloid domains, and the structures displayed strong intrinsic autofluorescence under UV excitation, consistent with highly ordered molecular architecture.

3. Elemental Characterisation: 
EDX mapping showed high abundance of carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, and sulfur—consistent with proteinaceous material—and notably, no signal for transition or heavy metals (iron, zinc, copper), ruling out metal-driven aggregation. This supports an endogenous (produced by the body) biochemical origin.

4. Preliminary Seeding Evidence: 
RT-QuIC assays, which detect prion-like seeding activity, showed elevated ThT signals consistent with templated misfolding when the clot material was challenged against human plasma. As McCairn notes, the findings are “suggestive but inconclusive for prion-like activity”. This is not a definitive proof of transmissibility, but it is another worrying signal. 

5. Documentation of Pediatric Pathology: 
McCairn has published the first documented case of “amyloidogenic microclots” in a child with in-utero mRNA vaccine exposure. The girl was born at 35 weeks, one week after the mother’s second Pfizer dose, without vital signs and requiring resuscitation. At three years of age, her blood showed ThT-positive fibrillar structures, widespread autofluorescence, and dense clotting patterns. This case is deeply concerning and should have triggered immediate formal investigation. It has inspired him to investigate solutions. 

6. Clinical Diagnostic Work: 
McCairn has developed fluorescence-based amyloid assessment protocols and has been analysing blood samples from living patients, including social activist Elizabeth Glass, who went public to raise awareness. His work with a Japanese hospital has contributed to the McCairn-Edogawa Protocol, a two-phase treatment pathway combining physician assessment, dual filtration plasmapheresis, laboratory analytics, and clinician-directed regenerative support.

A Note on Scientific Language: Dr Rapley’s Caution

Bruce Rapley’s recent Substack essays – When A Hypothesis Gets a Passport and Amyloid or Amyloid-like? – ask an important scientific question: has the evidence truly earned the label “amyloid”?

Bruce argues that the suffix “-like” is not a minor qualifier but a fundamental scientific safeguard. It preserves the distinction between observation and interpretation, between resemblance and identity. He notes that:

“When investigators report that a particular specimen exhibits amyloid-like structural characteristics, they are making a specific scientific observation. They are describing the behaviour observed using a particular analytical technique under particular experimental conditions. Such observations are valuable because they raise important questions worthy of further investigation.”

His concern is valid: the word “amyloid” carries immense weight in biology and medicine, with associations to Alzheimer’s disease, systemic amyloidosis, and specific pathogenic mechanisms. To move from “amyloid-like” to “amyloid” requires more evidence – the specific precursor protein, fibril ultrastructure (cross-beta X-ray diffraction pattern), and a clear pathological consequence.

However, Rapley’s caution should not be mistaken for dismissal. As he states:

“The purpose of this article is not to argue against the possibility that some components of some Anomalous Intravascular Casts may ultimately prove to possess canonical amyloid architecture. That remains an entirely legitimate scientific hypothesis deserving careful investigation.”

Sure, agreeing the distinction is important, but it should not be used to delay investigation. The analytical evidence already accumulated – Raman beta-sheet signatures, Thioflavin T binding, SEM fibrillar morphology, protease resistance, seeding potential – is substantial, quite apart from the major visible data point: embalmers discovering large bizarre ugly structures filling blood vessels. It is not about whether these structures are concerning but how concerning and what do we do about it.

The Urgent Question: How Can These Structures Be Compatible with Life?

This is the question that governments must answer. Whatever the precise molecular terminology, the physical reality is now well-documented:

  • Large, rubbery, white fibrous casts are being found in the vasculature of many deceased individuals, according to large surveys of embalmers.
  • Clearly silent and tolerated in blood vessels, up to a point
  • Amyloidogenic microclots are being identified in the blood of living patients .
  • These structures are resistant to breakdown, deficient in plasminogen, and stabilised by multiple cross-linking mechanisms.
  • They exhibit hallmarks of prion-like behavior: self-templating propagation, protease resistance, persistence (and potentially infectious to others).
  • They are being found in children with in-utero exposure to mRNA injections.

Two Associated Conditions; One Loud Alarm Bell

Amyloidosis, once established, is a serious condition. Without treatment, the life expectancy of someone suffering from systemic amyloidosis can be as short as six months to four years, after the amyloids have infiltrated tissues and organs. There is no cure.

Similarly concerning is that prion disease looms large. This is inflammation and degeneration propagating in a falling domino-fashion caused by tiny fragments of mutant proteins interfering with cellular activity. Perhaps the best known prion diseases are Creutzfeldt-Jacob Disease (CJD) and Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE), or mad cow disease, both causing fatal dementia.

The possibility of prion disease was raised early on by experts, and here, and famed Nobel prize-winning virologist Luc Montagnier final paper was a case series of recently vaccinated patients who then developed a rapid CJD dementia. 

[As noted at the start, a just published review adds significantly to our mechanistic understanding of these harmful processes, and offers one potential way forward therapeutically]

Swedish Researchers Provide a Molecular Mechanism

Nystrom and Hammarstrom and others have provided one explanation for the formation of these persistent clots which encompasses amyloid and prion concerns. Their work has shown that the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein contains seven sequences with amyloidogenic potential. In their experiments, they focused on a subset of these sequences. When exposed to neutrophil elastase – an enzyme abundant at sites of inflammation, and found by Rapley in his proteomic analysis – the spike protein is broken up by this enzyme, releasing fragments that form amyloid fibrils. ​​​​​​​One specific fragment, designated Spike685, has been shown to induce fibrin clots that are highly resistant to plasmin-mediated breakdown. The same research group has also demonstrated that these spike-amyloid fibrils can cross-seed the misfolding of other amyloidogenic proteins, including the prion protein-associated with CJD and the amyloid-beta peptide associated with Alzheimer’s disease. This provides a plausible mechanism not only for the formation of plasmin-resistant microclots, but also for their potential to propagate pathology through a prion-like seeding mechanism.​​​​​​​

The End Result…

If these types of structures are accumulating in a significant proportion of the population – as McCairn’s findings suggest, with reports of 20-40% of deceased and a high proportion of vaccinated individuals showing these markers – then we are facing a public health crisis of unprecedented scale. Conjecture is inevitable about some aspects still, in order to connect the pieces we have gathered and use them for good, but we must be brave and speak about the discoveries which are reasonably certain.

The denial of this reality must end because the evidence speaks for itself.

What Still Needs to Happen

  1. Large-scale population studies to determine the prevalence of amyloidogenic microclotting in the general population—both vaccinated and unvaccinated.
  2. Formal investigation of the pediatric cases documented by McCairn and others, with appropriate ethical oversight and transparency.
  3. Independent replication of the RT-QuIC seeding findings, with controlled experiments to determine whether these structures are truly self-propagating and possibly even infectious.
  4. Development of accessible diagnostic tests for amyloidogenic microclots in living patients, beyond the current specialised fluorescence microscopy methods.
  5. Evaluation of treatments, including the McCairn-Edogawa Protocol’s use of dual filtration plasmapheresis, with urgent but properly controlled clinical trials.
  6. Immediate withdrawl of all mRNA products in every form – injected, inhaled, self-amplifying etc.

Conclusion

The science is moving forward, making the institutional denial harder to sustain. The issue is no longer whether these structures exist – they do Mr President, Mrs Prime Minister, Director-General, Your Highness, Mr Chairman – but what they mean, and what you are going to do about them.

The three research streams and other efforts profiled here have all contributed essential pieces to the puzzle. Their work is complementary, not contradictory. And Bruce Rapley’s call for scientific precision is not a rejection of the findings, but a direction for the rigor that will ultimately make them unassailable, and treatable.

The path forward is through science, integrity, and persistence.  The awful truth of massive misconduct is becoming harder to ignore, even for the State. And the urgency of the question – how can these structures be compatible with any kind of healthy life? – demands attention that the establishment cannot be allowed to evade.

As we finish writing, St James Infirmary Blues comes on the playlist. For anyone who knows the song, as well as the movie Jaws, the following may resonate:

We’re going to need a bigger mortuary.