Dr Alison Goodwin and Dr Matt Shelton analyse Helen Petousis-Harris’s presentation to the Royal Commission of Inquiry

Hi, thanks for this. I would raise a few questions as well that might tie a couple things together. One: The rollout in the US was under the legal equivalent of martial law and was treated as such through DARPA’s rapid distribution of the vials. “EUA” or “Emergency Use Authorization” therefore meant our civil liberties and human rights were suspended and no criticism was allowed. This may have been in the Pfizer contract, combined with an NDA to that effect (which may be why it has not been released, so that we can all read its terms). This martial law, or EUA, would also mean that any data collected would not be made available to citizens but considered military secrets. This also explains the overblown reaction to whistleblower Barry Young. Two: “The Pfizer Papers” were released under the American version of OIA and found that Pfizer already knew of thousands of adverse effects, which they conveniently failed to report. One of the adverse effects was listed as ‘death’, yet the term was, curiously, mentioned quite some way down on the list when it might have been or should have been at the top had this ‘medical emergency’ been managed by medical experts instead of handled under martial law. While the US indemnifies vaccine companies for injury claims, there is nothing in that law that says vaccine companies would be indemnified if their product did not deliver what it promised, and / or lied about efficacy, such as by saying ‘95% safe and effective’ (incidentally, this may be why they did not list ‘ingredients’ on the product factsheet). In short, it’s in Pfizer’s legal interest to avoid all mention of a lack of effectiveness and to sideline questions of safety. Three: It would be useful to know how much tax-payer money was spent on social media and mainstream media to make us believe Pfizer was ‘safe’, and to ask whether any amount is still being spent to achieve this continuing barefaced lie, when almost the entire world, barring Helen, has woken up to their unsafe and ineffective nature. In sum, Helen appears to be not only unaware of the reported dangers, injuries and deaths which indeed make her seem naive but her actively relying on her proximity to the vaccine industry and government officials to shield herself from disclosing even the bare minimum of what she should know about the Pfizer product, implicates her in a conspiracy to defraud the NZ public of their life and liberty, their health and their property.

I heard H P-H comments to to the Royal Commission, and my impression was of a person who was completely in denial, or horribly and abysmally ignorant. But I wasn’t surprised, given the way the whole sorry event was handled by everyone concerned.
I still get angry when I think how New Zealanders were manipulated and at how many members of the medical professions fell obediently in to line.