Who is Telling the Truth About Covid-19 Vaccinations?
On 27 and 28 July eight parents supported by The ’Hood went to Court to challenge Medsafe against the authority’s decision to provisionally consent to the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine for 5 to 11 year-old children. They also sued the Minister of Health and the COVID-19 Response Minister for rolling out these products to healthy children. The parents claimed:
- The truth is that there is no risk to children from COVID-19;
- The truth is that the vaccine carried insignificant risk for children;
- The truth is that the vaccine is still in clinical trials and the medium and long-term effects are not known;
- The truth is that Covid-19 vaccines are totally ineffective in the Omicron wave.
Evidence to support these claims was provided from five international independent experts. You can read the evidence presented by these experts yourself here. NZDSOS have written about Covid-19 vaccination in childhood, for example here and here.
On Friday 12th of August the judge’s decision was released. He said the government agencies had complied with the law in making their decision. As to the issue of differing views on the evidence the judge is quoted as saying that it was not his role to decide which experts were right – or which are telling the truth.
So does that mean we have to accept that the government experts are right and always tell us the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
The CDC ‘Experts’ Didn’t Tell the Truth on COVID-19
In July 2022 the Centre for Disease Control (CDC) which is the American governmental agency responsible for their COVID-19 response:
- removed long-standing claims on its website that vaccine mRNA and the spike protein itself “do not last long in the body”. (Because actually, the truth is that they do stay in the body for a long time and this has been known since at least mid-2021);
- said that people don’t need to keep a 6 feet difference (2 metres in NZ) from each other (because the truth is that the rule was ‘arbitary’ – which means it was made up without any data to support it);
- said that there was no need to test people without symptoms for COVID-19 (because the truth is that screening of asymptomatic people was introduced in 2020 despite being unevaluated, underdesigned, and a costly mess and having no scientific justification). The truth is that the new and untested theory that people without symptoms can spread disease was used to justify not just testing of well people but universal mask wearing and lockdowns;
- removed any differences in advice for vaccinated and unvaccinated people (the truth is that studies in 2021, here and here, showed that vaccination did not stop infection or transmission or reduce viral load).
Furthermore, the CDC failed to publish large amounts of COVID data which may have helped policy makers and doctors work out the truth of the best response to COVID-19. It has also been criticised for a lack of transparency. That is a fancy way of saying they did not tell the whole truth.
The CDC director has just admitted that the CDC had made mistakes in its handling of COVID-19 and has been working on an overhaul of the agency. Trying to get ahead of something, perhaps the truth?
Does the NZ Government and Its’ Experts Tell Us the Truth?
So that’s the American government experts. What about our government experts? Are they keeping up with the evidence? Are they withholding data? Are they telling us the truth?
On 18 August, 2022 Dr Guy Hatchard wrote an open letter to the Prime Minister showing how New Zealand’s Current Pandemic Policy and Protocols Are Out of Date.
For example, Hatchard pointed out that NZ does not require vaccination status to be listed on death certificates. Why is this important? Because NZ, like many highly COVID-19 jabbed countries currently has more people dying than expected. A lot more – 35% more than the long-term average. That is an extra 220 people per week. Countries like the UK do require vaccination status of deaths. Their data shows a clear increase in risk of death for the vaccinated:
- 25% of the UK population are unvaccinated but they account for only 4% of deaths per 100,000 person years;
- 50% are double jabbed and boosted and account for 86% of deaths per 100,000 person years.
Yet the NZ government still advises everyone over 18 to have a booster, and people over 50 to have a second booster. But according to this UK data boosters are associated with an increased risk of death from any cause. Do you think people might want to know if this is true in NZ and if so why and how to prevent it? Well, it appears that the government disagrees, nothing to see here, move along. Safe and effective, safe and effective.
Dr Gaurav Sharma, a NZ Labour Member of Parliament has recently accused the Labour Party of bullying behaviour. In a recent interview with Newshub he made some startling revelations about this government’s attitude to transparency which makes a mockery of the government as our sole source of truth.
Labour was coaching new MPs on handling information it didn’t want to get into the public’s hands. Like the truth perhaps?
He said the intake of 2020 recently attended a workshop, where they received guidance on how to communicate with ministers.
“One was obviously, shut up, don’t talk about anything. Not about this, but anything. Don’t say anything for which the Prime Minister has to stand up and do a media stand-up. But also, how not to get an OIA’d issue, so how to talk to somebody without having a track record of it so nobody could track it down the road.”
Dr Sharma alleges staff in the Prime Minister’s Office wear two employment hats and pick which one they’re wearing when they receive information.
“They said the staffing arrangements are done in a way that some staff work part-time for Labour Leader’s Office and part-time for Prime Minister’s Office and when they want to prevent OIA, they just sort of make it that this is Labour Leader’s problem, this is not the Prime Minister’s office problem and then they can get away with it.”
The New Zealand Government Relies on Pfizer to Tell the Truth and Provide Updates on Vaccine Safety Reports
The Kid’s case also showed us that Medsafe gave approval for Pfizer kids’ jabs on the condition that Pfizer provided more information on adverse events and safety ‘as they became available’.
That is interesting. Pfizer and the FDA have not been very forthcoming in releasing follow-up safety data from their adult jab trial. The FDA said they would release the data they were given by Pfizer in 75 years. Because they didn’t have enough staff to do the photocopying, or something. What were they trying to hide? Perhaps the truth? But in January 2022 a judge made them release the data in batches over the next few years. More on that later.
In July 2022 Stuff published an article reporting that neither the pharmaceutical industry nor the FDA (the FDA is the American equivalent of Medsafe) can be trusted to tell us the truth. Here are some quotes from the article.
The pharmaceutical industry has a long history of behaving in an untrustworthy manner, with many court cases settled for billions of dollars.
The FDA has an appalling recent history of regulating pharmaceuticals in the US. It completely failed to address the prescription opioid epidemic that has led to 400,000 deaths and counting.
But don’t worry about that because the article author Ben Gray, an Associate Professor of Primary Health Care and General Practice provides this reassurance.
In New Zealand we rely on Medsafe to decide which drugs are safe to be released and Pharmac to decide which drugs should be funded.
That would be the same Medsafe that is waiting to hear from Pfizer to tell it the truth about whether there are problems with the COVID-19 jabs for kids.
The government has been questioned about their decision to grant indemnity to Pfizer (Pfizer does not get to pay for any COVID-19 vax related complications). In response to an Official Information Request (OIA) the person who vetted the supply contract with Pfizer, Simon Rae, Manager, International Science Partnerships of the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment (MBIE) wrote the following response, as reported by Dr Hatchard.
“We did not investigate Pfizer’s management team or its ethics as a company. We are satisfied that Pfizer has not been reckless in the development of its vaccine…we are confident that the vaccine is acceptably safe and effective…
…as of 16 March 2021, MBIE is not aware of any deaths or permanent disabilities that were caused by Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine.”
Oh. Seems that he should have had a chat with Dr Gray first.
The Truth About mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine Trial Data
More and more alarming information is coming out about the data from the adult mRNA vax trials.
In November 2021 a whistle blower who worked in one of the Pfizer American trial data sites went public with issues about how the trial was carried out. This was reported in the British Medical Journal. You can read a NZ summary of the claims here.
Many researchers around the world are looking at the court-ordered Pfizer/FDA data. And they are finding problems. Big problems. For example, in one batch of data 3.4 to 6.6% of people recruited to some centres either died or did not complete the study due to adverse events. At some trial sites only a tiny fraction of Case Record Forms seem to be present. Where are the rest of the people supposedly enrolled at that site?
In June 2022, a group of researchers released their analysis of Serious Adverse Events of Special Interest Following mRNA Vaccination in Randomized Trials.
They obtained data from the FDA and Health Canada websites, and combined results from journal articles that published the Pfizer and Moderna trials. They concluded that that the absolute risk of a serious adverse event from the mRNA vaccines (a rate of 1 in 800), exceeded the risk reduction in covid-19 hospitalisation. That data was with earlier variants of COVID-19 which caused more severe disease. We are now in the Omicron phase of a more transmissible and less severe variant for which the mRNA vaccines have little if any effectiveness to stop transmission. In fact, several suggest the immune changes induced could well facilitate infection and explain why.
In response to this Dr Aseem Malhotra, British cardiologist, and one of the earliest to receive two COVID-19 jabs in the UK, has called for the ending of all mandates and the release of all raw COVID-19 data for independent analysis. He is calling for a truthful analysis of the data. You can read his article here.
Dr Malhotra also noted that the Pfizer vax was widely publicised in the mainstream news as being 95% effective against infection. But this was not true. The 95% was a relative risk reduction, not an absolute risk reduction. The specific report on the trial data which underpinned the emergency use authorisation of the Pfizer mRNA vaccine actually revealed an absolute risk reduction (ARR) of 0.84%. In other words, for every 119 individuals vaccinated one person would be protected from being infected. Dr Malhotra points out that the trial data did not show any reduction of COVID-19 mortality over the 6-month follow-up period.
Dr Malhotra is concerned that
“…..vaccine mandates and lack of transparency in public health authorities effectively communicating the reasons behind such policies have had detrimental effects on public trust and vaccine confidence”.
He noted that there is no significant difference in transmission rates between the vaccinated and unvaccinated which makes any scientific case for mandates illegitimate.
The time has come to realise that governments and their ‘experts’ are following a political agenda and are less interested in the truth than we ever believed possible.
Those who do look at the data, who report the data and fight for truth are vilified, cancelled, de-platformed and sacked.
Who are you going to believe to tell you the truth? The future of your children and their children depends on it.
2 Comments
Comments are closed.