Substantial
Minority
The presentations the Royal Commission should have heard
// In August 2025 they cancelled a whole week of public hearings.
// They refused to hear these researchers, whistle-blowers, and citizens in person.
// We filled the vacuum.
THE EVIDENCE THE COMMISSION STILL NEEDS TO HEAR. BEFORE FEBRUARY 2026.
The Story
Officials promised New Zealand a Royal Commission that would examine the government’s pandemic response. Then the decision-makers refused to be publicly examined.
Former Prime Ministers Ardern and Hipkins, Finance Minister Robertson, and Health Minister Verrall declined to face public questioning – and the Commission cancelled the entire week.
Many independent researchers, doctors, and whistle-blowers who had lodged formal submissions asked to present in person. Most were ignored or declined. However, they could have filled the void left by refusenik politicians.
The New Zealand public deserves their week of hearings.
This December, we are publishing a series of concise, evidential video presentations that should have been heard inside the Royal Commission hearing room.
Key Questions the RCI Must Answer
The Phase 2 report lands February 2026. These questions remain unanswered.
Why were independent researchers with peer-reviewed excess-mortality data refused a public hearing?
Researchers who analysed official mortality data and identified concerning patterns were denied the opportunity to present their findings to the Commission in person.
Will the Commission acknowledge plasmid DNA contamination found in the Pfizer vials?
International laboratory findings have identified potential contamination issues that warrant public examination and explanation.
Why were whistle-blowers who risked everything never called to speak in person?
Individuals who stepped forward with insider knowledge at great personal cost deserve to have their testimony heard in a transparent, public forum.
Where are the periodic safety reports that were required under provisional consent?
The provisional consent for the Pfizer vaccine specified periodic safety reports. OIA requests reveal these have been withheld from the public under claims of commercial confidentiality.
Why was the adverse event reporting system decommissioned mid-rollout, despite escalating evidence of harm?
The CARM system used to track vaccine reactions was replaced during the rollout with no transparent procurement process and no public explanation.
Why did government agencies need to use behavioural psychology techniques?
Evidence shows the Nudge Unit and Mindspace strategies were deployed to influence public compliance. No approval was sought or given for these psychological interventions.
Get notified when new presentations drop
Comments
Part of NZDSOS Covid-19 Inquiry Evidence Hub
Share This Evidence
“I just watched evidence the Royal Commission refused to hear in public. This is the Substantial Minority series → nzdsos.com/substantial-minority”
Thank you all so much. You are truly wonderful.
We are staggered too that so much complacency greets new research that validates our position.
Thank you for your courageous work
to keep us informed and to keep pushing back against corrupted medicine. “The heart is deceitful above all things.” ( Jer. 17:9) May God bless and protect you.