Dr Helen Petousis-Harris Testimony – RCI Public Hearing | WHO Vaccine Safety Expert
Dr Helen Petousis-Harris, Associate Professor at University of Auckland and former WHO Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety chair, outlines strategies for “managing vaccine hesitancy” during this Royal Commission of Inquiry hearing from July 2025.
Quoting WHO guidelines dating back to 2012, Dr Petousis-Harris presents what she frames as established science for overcoming public reluctance to vaccination. She focuses on cynical communication strategies designed to manipulate public behaviour rather than providing sufficient information for valid informed decision-making.
Tellingly, she describes vaccine hesitancy as a problem to be solved through better persuasion techniques, rather than acknowledging it might reflect legitimate concerns about safety, efficacy, or individual autonomy. Her framework treats public scepticism as a communication failure rather than a rational response to uncertainty. She expresses disappointment that established WHO manipulation strategies weren’t properly implemented.
Whilst acknowledging safety signals like myocarditis emerged early, still she dismisses these as temporary, rare events. Her defence of mRNA technology studiously avoids broader questions about the proven, multiple long-term harmful effects and the ethics of mass deployment of medical interventions.
The questions are pathetic and ignore the novel aspect of mRNA. Can’t blame the Dr. All her training etc is based on classic vaccine methodology.
It also ignores the reality of the medicine vs disease risk equation in this case.
Does the panel learn anything from these questions? If they do, they shouldn’t be there.
I’m bored by this interview.
This “expert” had the sound bites that she wanted to interject, regardless of whether she was answering the questions asked. They asked about risk communication and talked all about the fluffy theory around it but didn’t ask Petousis Harris if there was any risk communication in New Zealand during the vaccine rollout or when or if it happened. Most people fronting up for the jabs had no clue that there were any harms associated with them; hardly informed consent.
But the “Covid vaccine ” wasn’t a vaccine in the traditional sense at all. .
The vaccine benefits Dr Petousis- Harris was talking about were relevant to some traditional vaccines . Are mrna vaccines seeking to trade on the reputation of traditional vaccines? That seems like a scientific sleight of hand , using assumption.