Drs Goodwin and Shelton Rebut Prof. Graham Le Gros’ Hearing Testimony at the NZ Comission of Inquiry into C-19
Join host Anna McLoughlin as she sits down with Dr Matt Shelton and Dr Alison Goodwin from NZDSOS for a comprehensive analysis of Professor Graham Le Gros’ testimony to the Royal Commission of Enquiry on 10th July 2025. The doctors provide crucial corrections to what they describe as fundamental scientific errors presented to New Zealand’s highest inquiry.
Speaking as practising clinicians bound by medical ethics, the doctors highlight the concerning disconnect between Le Gros’ theoretical perspective as a scientist and their real-world experience treating vaccine-injured patients. They address his reluctance to discuss adverse events in detail on a day specifically designated for examining vaccine safety concerns, particularly troubling given their belief that thousands of New Zealanders have been harmed.
The discussion reveals significant disagreements with Le Gros’ characterisation of mRNA technology as “old” when no fully registered product had ever been used for mass immunisation before COVID-19. The doctors examine his claims about localised distribution, presenting evidence from Pfizer’s own biodistribution studies showing the technology spreads throughout the body within 48 hours, not remaining in the arm as suggested.
Critical issues addressed include the use of novel industrial lipid compounds never intended for human use, synthetic mRNA modifications designed to produce spike protein for extended periods, and the immune system’s subsequent attack on the body’s own cells. The doctors present recent Ministry of Health data showing a 16-fold increase in myocarditis reporting, contradicting Le Gros’ dismissive stance on cardiac injuries.
Perhaps most concerning is their revelation about manufacturing differences between clinical trial products and what was actually administered to the public, along with DNA contamination issues that Le Gros appeared to dismiss. They also examine his troubling endorsement of shutting down scientific debate “for the greater good” and the practical consequences seen in exemption denials for seriously injured individuals.
Drawing from decades of clinical experience and extensive peer-reviewed research, the doctors present their case that New Zealand received inadequate scientific representation at this crucial hearing, with significant implications for public health and informed consent.
I too was horrified by Graham Le Gros’s dismissal of the questions around the vaccine ingredients and production. The questioner did not have sufficient knowledge on the topic to realise that his answers were entirely inadequate nor to know what follow-up questions to ask. It really would not have taken too much reading for her to brush up on the facts and be better prepared, but she clearly had not done so.
I had mentioned those things in my submission as concerns I had had. The mRNA has a much longer polyA tail than naturally, precisely in order to make it last longer. And the pseudouridine base substitution makes it entirely more difficult to break down. I remember reading some scientific article studying how long the mRNA lasts in the body and it was surprisingly long… certainly the vaccine spike protein has been found still being produced many months after ‘vaccination’.
And the two different production processes are public knowledge if they cared to read about it, resulting in very different products. The one rolled out to the public was highly contaminated with millions of pieces of double stranded bacterial DNA, including oncogenic SV40 promoter sequences.
And then there are the lipid nanoparticles, risks of reverse transcription of contaminant DNA into our genomes… the list goes on.
Mr Le Gros is either a very ignorant expert or he was lying.
Well done NZDSOS for persisting in the face of such wilful ignorance and bias.
Thank you all for your persistence. One of the most infuriating aspects of this entire debacle has been the inconsistent and inaccurate statements put out by officials and pro-vaccine sources all while repeatedly decrying “misinformation “. From ” it stays in the arm” to ” it prevents transmission ” we have being subject to messaging that the manufacters themselves knew was untrue and should have never entered the public arena. Unfortunately there is no accountability for those making such remarks.
Thank God for you.
Thanks Alison, Matt and the whole team for your contributions. You put into words what many of us feel about the way the gene therapy was forced on us along with the tragic consequences for many. Keep up the good work.
Is the Commission getting this information? It appears unsatisfactory for incorrect and misleading information to be provided to the Commission, without them receiving critiques like this.
Yes , good question. I certainly hope they are , they need to be
The thought that people who had adverse reactions basically being forced to continue on with the jabs is horrific. Those responsible MUST be held to account!