A single action Colt cannot fire itself Alec

Whilst the pressure increases on Baldwin about who is to blame for his almost execution style “accidental shooting,” some legal eagles speculate that the only thing that will save Baldwin is his political alignment with the New Mexico Attorney General, who is a Democrat.

Other legal experts are not so sure and think Baldwin should not face any charges if he was told the gun was “cold”

Baldwin claims he feels no guilt for his part in the shooting. perhaps his legal team told him to say that as guilt is usually associated with an admission of wrong doing.

At this point Baldwin seems to be doing a good job of incriminating himself with his changing story and very public explanations of what happened on that day. Seems he is not interested in his right to remain silent

Let’s look at an expert handling a Colt the way it should be treated on a movie set and all the mechanisms that prevent the weapon firing itself.

If this was anyone else, I would hazard a guess that they would be looking at a minimum charge of involuntary manslaughter.

We shall see

Informed Consent eh?

The below text is from Dr Guy Hatchard who was one of the original doctors involved with providing assistance to the COVID response advisory team.

He recently lost a dear friend to adverse effects of the vaccine.

This is a subject that is touchy, given how many people have embraced or have been mandated into taking the vaccine. As it can not be undone it is always a difficult subject to broach. that is understanadble and therefore we can only hope effects are as minor as they can be.

Whilst the outlook for most is likely to be fine, it is the claim that the mRNA vaccine is both safe and effective with adequate testing that is something that is questionable at best. Particularly with the release of data from the FDA on the trials.

Dr Hatchard wrote a letter to Ardern raising his concerns about the safe messaging and after the death of his friend he has become somewhat of an actavist.

He posts on Facebook the following concerns.

“Upon the FDA releasing info on the Adverse reactions we find that it is likely Medsafe was not provided full disclosure on adverse events given the “safe and effective” mantra the government, celebrities and media outlets have been brainwashing New Zealanders with.

“Document released by Pfizer apparently as a result of a Freedom Of Information court order in the USA reveals a vast array of previously unknown vaccine adverse effects compiled from official sources around the world Pfizer concedes this is ‘a large increase’ in adverse event reports and that even this huge volume is under reportedOver 100+ diseases are listed, many very serious.”

This document was compiled by Pfizer in the very early days of the vaccine rollout in NZ but was possibly not supplied to our government

We examine the implications for government

Up until now, New Zealand GPs and hospitals have been provided with a fact sheet from Pfizer listing 21 possible adverse events as a result of vaccination. All of these are minor, requiring little or no treatment other than rest, with the exception of severe allergic reactions, myocarditis and pericarditis (inflammation of the heart). As a result, most of the many thousands of New Zealanders reporting adverse effects post vaccination have been sent home with little more than advice to take an aspirin and rest. Some have been told that their conditions may be unrelated medical events, psychosomatic, or due to anxiety on their part.

Relying on the short official Pfizer fact sheet as a guide, Medsafe, our NZ medicines regulatory body, has only accepted one out of the 100+ deaths actually reported to them as related to vaccination. Most are listed as unrelated, under investigation, or unknowable. By contrast, the NZ Health Forum and other groups have collected unofficial reports of adverse effects and death proximate to vaccination. Out of 670+ reports of death compiled by the Forum, 270 have already been investigated by medical professionals and closely linked to known adverse effects. Following the publication of the new Pfizer document many more are expected to be connected with vaccination. Reports describe symptoms such as chest pain, brain fog, extreme fatigue, neurological symptoms, tachycardia, stroke, heart attacks, and many more. Collected data suggests that as many as two-thirds of adverse event enquiries made to medical staff by vaccine recipients have not been reported to CARM—the NZ system of adverse event reporting. Medsafe itself estimates in its Guide to Adverse Reaction Reporting that in NZ only 5% of adverse events are reported. As a result the NZ public is completely unaware of the extent of reported possible risks of vaccination.

The just released Pfizer document which is being circulated widely in the public domain and can downloaded from websites is entitled 5.3.6 CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS OF POST-AUTHORIZATION ADVERSE EVENT REPORTS OF PF-07302048 (BNT162B2) RECEIVED THROUGH 28-FEB-2021 Therefore the reported side effects predate the vaccine rollout in New Zealand. The report itself was finalised by Pfizer on 30 April 2021. Did Pfizer supply this information to our government during the early days of our universal vaccination programme? If so the results should have been shared with our medical professionals, politicians, and the public. Many of the new 100+ listed new adverse event types now released by Pfizer in this 38 page document pose long term risks to health. Until very recently, the document was being withheld by Pfizer who maintained it should be kept confidential. There is a strong possibility that very large numbers of New Zealanders will suffer long term injury as a result.

How did this happen without anyone’s knowledge?

Even though the Pfizer vaccine had undergone very short trials and had provisional approval only, Medsafe did not update its CARM adverse event reporting system to make it mandatory rather than voluntary.

Medsafe did not advise GPs and Hospital staff to be on high alert for adverse events and report them rapidly and in detail.

The Government ignored the unprecedented numbers of adverse events being reported to Medsafe and circulating in the community and on social media.

The Government instituted a public relations, promotional, and media campaign advising the public that the Pfizer covid-19 mRNA vaccine was completely safe and free of serious side effects, giving the impression that there were no side effects—not even the known serious effects of heart inflammation that Pfizer had already admitted.

Unaccountably, conditions imposed by the contract that our Government signed with Pfizer for the supply of vaccines have not been made public. We suspect that the contract contains standard clauses similar to those used with drugs that have completed safety trials, such as a provision that public discussion of adverse events may only be undertaken in conjunction with the company supplying the drug. If this is the case, it will have hamstrung Medsafe and our Government in their approach to assessment and public discussion of adverse events.

What are the new risks of vaccination?

Anyone reading the new Pfizer adverse event report compilation will be staggered. The sheer density of the technical medical terms and disease names are nevertheless broken down into recognisable and serious categories of illness—kidney failure, stroke, cardiac events, pregnancy complications, inflammation, neurological disease, autoimmune failure, paralysis, liver failure, blood disorders, skin disease, musculoskeletal problems, arthritis, respiratory disease, DVT, blood clots, vascular disease, haemorrhage, loss of sight, Bell’s palsy, and epilepsy.

How has this affected New Zealand?

Whilst even the official Medsafe record of adverse effects and the unofficial lists show that the immediate risks of covid vaccination could be as much as 50 – 300 times greater than even the most risky of previous traditional vaccines (such as the smallpox jab), and whilst the long term effects are unknown, 90% of eligible New Zealanders have gone ahead with vaccination having accepted the assurances of safety and efficacy from the government, or having been forced to get vaccinated under threat of loss of employment and freedom of movement. Feeling the fear of covid that has been generated by reports in the international and local media, most people completing vaccination heaved a great sigh of relief—that is one huge worry off my mind, now I can get on with my life. Those finding that no immediate insurmountable reaction had surfaced (the majority) understandably agreed with the government: “What is all the fuss about? Why shouldn’t everyone do this, or be made to do this? It is a social good that will protect everyone”

BUT there is a huge iceberg in the path of the good ship New Zealand hidden under the waves of relief. Thousands are quietly suffering debilitating illness, unacknowledged and in some cases untreated by their doctors. For those who survived vaccination without immediate injury this was not a problem because they didn’t know about it apart from one or two complaints from friends that might just be random coincidences.

This has brought about a division in New Zealand society which the government created in the name of public safety. Thousands of dedicated servants of the nation including teachers, health workers, and others are being stigmatised and forced out of their jobs in a manner horrifyingly reminiscent of the treatment of Jews in Nazi Germany. The government did this despite knowing that the Pfizer vaccine was neither fully tested, safe, nor particularly effective. Judges handed down decisions in courts supporting the government mandates unaware of crucial mRNA vaccine safety data, all because Pfizer had withheld this information, and the government had not done its due diligence. Had the true position been known, the High Court’s NZ Bill of Rights analysis may well have been different and its provision which guarantees that every individual should be able to make their own medical choices might still be intact.

Pfizer’s conclusions

Pfizer concludes the released document with a statement “Review of the available data for this cumulative PM experience, confirms a favorable benefit:risk balance for BNT162b2.” PM stands for the Post Marketing data set they are evaluating of 42,086 reported adverse events. Pfizer makes this bald claim of benefit despite admitting that “the magnitude of underreporting is unknown”. This document contains no further substantive information in support of this claim of benefit:risk balance other than a mysterious reference to “the known safety profile of the vaccine”.

The benefit:risk argument is in essence saying: covid-19 is a serious illness and our calculations show that more people will be injured by the disease than are being injured by the vaccine, therefore there will be a net benefit. This argument falls over because of at least three very important factors: Firstly treatment options have improved and thereby the risk of serious illness and death from covid has been greatly reduced. Secondly the risk of covid is not evenly spread. People with comorbidities (other conditions) and the elderly are at very high risk. Most other people are at very low risk. Thus vaccination could subject people at low risk from covid to a higher risk from vaccination. Approaches to preventive health education can reduce the covid risk to people with comorbidities more than vaccination can. For example a study published in the BMJ found that people following a plant based diet have a 73% reduced risk of serious illness. Data from the UK Biobank has been analysed by researchers from Manchester and Oxford Universities and the West Indies who found that shift workers (who typically have disrupted bioclocks) have three times the risk of being hospitalised with covid. Preventive remedies include changes in diet such as the introduction of more fresh fruit, vegetables, and fibre, and reductions in known unhealthy habits such as smoking, excess alcohol consumption, an overly sedentary lifestyle, a predominance of ultra processed foods, and many more. The third and most significant reason the benefit:risk argument falls over is the sheer range of adverse reaction types observed by Pfizer and kept hidden until now.

How could a single vaccine have such a wide range of effects?

The technical reasons why mRNA vaccines can have such broad effects on human health are understood by those working in gene therapy. Perfectly stable DNA function is critical to life. In turn, cell function integrity is critical to maintaining DNA. Individual cells contain mechanisms to repair their own DNA as many as 70,000 times a day. From this perspective, the in vitro laboratory study recently published in Viruses 2021, 13,2056, is indicative. It suggests a possible mechanism for vaccine harm. The study found that the spike protein localises in the nucleus and inhibits DNA damage repair by impeding access of key DNA repair proteins. The findings reveal a potential molecular pathway by which the covid spike protein might impede adaptive immunity. They underscore the potential side effects of the full-length spike-based mRNA vaccines. Despite a degree of cellular autonomy, the nervous system and the physiology must and does function as a whole. The entire nervous system including the immune system is a ‘part and whole’ network. The whole is in every part, the DNA is in every cell, but cell function is also related to a generalised and interconnected genetic network—the holistic functioning of the physiological network is critical to its efficiency. Thus physiological network stability (health) can be impaired by the introduction of pieces of active genetic code (biologic instructions) like those contained in mRNA vaccines.

An analogy will make this clear. We are familiar with computer networks. A very common backbone of most commercial systems is produced by Microsoft. Each computer contains the Microsoft system and the network also runs under its system. The system is supported by computer code—a set of complex instructions written by Microsoft. Individual computers can perform standalone tasks and can communicate with other computers to keep the organisation running smoothly. This can be compared to the physiology. There are many systems in the body: immune system, circulatory system, digestive system, limbic system, homeostatic mechanisms, musculoskeletal structure, neural networks, and so on. They perform apparently stand alone functions, but all run on the basis of the same genetic code contained in our DNA and communicate with one another during the process of maintaining health. Back to our analogy: office staff sometimes send messages full of spelling errors to one another but this doesn’t harm the network. If however a computer virus written in code is sent by one computer it can overwhelm and crash network function because it affects the operating system. Some networks are protected by good firewalls and others are vulnerable. The Covid vaccine introduces a sequence of information written in genetic code into our physiology. It is no wonder that it could elicit such a very broad range of adverse effects, some of which are so serious as to be analogous to a computer network crash. Some individuals have strong immune systems and are little affected, others experience problems in one or other systems. The fact that a sequence of foreign code has been introduced into the physiology produces major risks to health, risks that those working in gene therapy for the last few decades are very familiar with. The extremely broad range of adverse effects revealed by the Pfizer document is the physiological signature of a general control system failure, a failure of the body’s overall integration and function. It is not plausible to suggest otherwise. That is why experts in genomics, even as I write, are pondering fundamental questions about the action and safety of mRNA vaccines. They are also urging caution.

Conclusion

The NZ government agreed commercial terms with a single company for vaccine supply. It is possible that vital information was withheld. The public was kept in ignorance of known risks. This has divided our society and undermined our fundamental Kiwi tolerance on the basis of not only incomplete but misleading safety data. The government is asleep at the wheel. Knowing full well that safety trials were incomplete, the government apparently accepted information supplied by multinational commercial interests at face value. This should be a ‘never again’ moment. There are huge lessons to be learned and an apology owed to the whole population. The provisions of the NZ BIll of Rights should be given constitutional status. The vaccine mandates should be withdrawn and those affected by them compensated. The proposed vaccination of 5 -11 year olds should be stopped.

below is the data from Pfizer that the FDA has just released you can scroll through it or download it.

It’s not about health, it never was

If you want evidence then look at this rant from someone who learned the hard way.

Why No EUA for Highly Effective, Anti-COVID fluvoxamine?

Published on December 5, 2021

Written by Steve Kirsch

The reason is simple. We tried. And after 6 weeks of waiting, we were told that to get an EUA for a repurposed drug, you have to partner with a drug company in the EUA application.

Because no drug company will partner with us, even if we pay all the filing costs, there won’t be an EUA. Ever. So most doctors will never prescribe it for COVID, even thought it works better than anything else.

And the NIH won’t do anything with fluvoxamine either like add it to their guidelines. It will never be upgraded on the NIH COVID treatment guidelines. It is currently sitting at “NEUTRAL” after two trials where it had a 100% risk reduction in both trials without any downside risk. In short, if deployed it would likely save a lot of lives and there is no risk of deployment since the risks of the drug are well known. It’s a very safe drug when properly prescribed. I took it myself and I couldn’t tell I was on it the side-effects were so negligible.

When the fluvoxamine Phase 3 study published in Lancet showed the drug worked better than any other drug (including the new antiviral pills from Merck and Pfizer), the NIH simply ignored the study. They didn’t even mention it.

Even 60 Minutes which did a story on fluvoxamine didn’t mention the Phase 3 study proved it worked when the study came out (normally, they’d do this at the end of a show to let their audience know they got it right).

Fluvoxamine provides a 12-fold reduction in death if you started the drug early, but the NIH basically said “Ho hum. Only 12X reduction in death? That’s better than anything including the vaccines (which according to the Pfizer 6 month Phase 3 study was only a 2X reduction in mortality). So not even worth mentioning in the guidelines. It would save too many lives. Best to ignore it. And if we ignore it, no doctor in America will dare to prescribe it. So the vaccine will be the only option just like we planned.”

Cliff Lane, who heads the guidelines committee, reports to Fauci. Cliff simply isn’t going to allow the NIH recommendation to be modified no matter what the science says. This is not about saving lives. It never was.

When the key opinion leader (KOL) panel of NIH, CDC, FDA and academia experts recommended fluvoxamine be used back in January 2021, the NIH ignored that too. Jeffrey Klausner, who convened the panel, wrote a great op-ed about it in the Washington Post right after the meeting so everyone would know. Doctors ignored it.

Klausner shopped the KOL meeting notes to 10 journals, all of whom refused to publish it. Truly stunning! Life saving drug and nobody would publish the recommendation of an expert panel to use it. Wow.

When the KOL meeting notes were finally published in the peer-reviewed medical literature on December 1, 2021, only 12 months after the meeting, the NIH again did absolutely nothing, ignoring the advice of these key experts, even though now they have more data from the Together trial showing it works.

Basically, the system is set up so that only proprietary drugs that can kill you are approved.

So I wasted a lot of time and millions of dollars on proving that fluvoxamine works against COVID. I was right it does work. But Fauci is only going to allow a big Pharma solution to be adopted. Doctors do not follow the science. They follow what the NIH says. I should have known better. All these scientists had promised me “once it is proven in Phase 3 trials, everyone will adopt it.” That was a big fat lie. I fell for it. I won’t be so naïve the next time.

Note: I didn’t used to be so cynical, but there is simply no other rational explanation for this. This isn’t about science. This isn’t about saving lives. This is about profits and big pharma. Get it? I finally did. It was an expensive lesson.

See my fluvoxamine article for more info about how you can use it to save your life if you get COVID. Don’t expect your doctor to tell you about it.

More at stevekirsch.substack.com

Study published in Lancet linked below

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/langlo/article/PIIS2214-109X(21)00448-4/fulltext

Definition of COVID Deaths in NZ

In case you weren’t aware of the New Zealand Ministry of Health definition of a COVID death, here it is word for word.

“Includes all cases that died who were classified as an active case of COVID-19 at the time of death. In some of these cases, the underlying cause of death may have been unrelated to COVID-19.”

This is also the definition of a COVID death for the global death tally we have been fixated with for the past 20 months.

Why not just people who actually died from COVID? And how many have actually died from COVID? we will never know the real number we will just be conditioned with this conflated number.

More good news on Omicron

76% of hospital cases in SA were incidental. That’s right they were in hospital for other reasons and just happened to test positive for the Omicron.

Furthermore wastewater testing is finding huge prevalence of the Omicron which means it is infecting huge numbers who are not ending up in hospital.

The reality that Omicron has been sent to give us herd immunity is looking more positive that each day goes by.

I wonder how the likes of Pfizer are taking this news. You would have to imagine they will continue producing vaccines for those that want to be safe and effective.

The WHO and Bill Gates will continue to create more reasons to vaccinate people. Bill is already working on reintroducing smallpox.

However until then watch some good news.

It’s bad news good news Monday

At least it is in the Herald

A single article on the herald app splits the articles on the Omicron. The article splitting the two headlines below is about what Northlanders think of the arrival of Aucklanders to their region.


https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/covid-19-omicron-outbreak-south-africas-new-virus-cases-double-in-one-day/ZK2L4P4X5AAG63UMCQKL3JYP4U/

Sounds bad doesn’t it? However once you have given yourself the heebee jeebees and fear of the Omicron, you can embrace it’s presence with some good news on it.


https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/covid-19-coronavirus-why-one-expert-says-omicron-variant-may-signal-the-end-of-covid/QUX2HI25576UZXGYAEVQTAQ2PQ/

The herald was previously busy sending fear that it’s now the children that need to be concerned, as the Omicron puts young children in hospital.

A fact so distorted it should be labelled fake news

Trying to quash the news that the variant is mild the following social media post from a “world-renowned” none the less epidemiologist.

“World-renowned Harvard-trained epidemiologist Eric Feigl-Ding responded to the news on social media.”

“Mild my ass,” he wrote. “The ‘highly transmissible’ Omicron variant is putting disproportionately large numbers of children under the age of 5 years old in hospitals.”

What is the real story?

Out of 1,511 hospitalisations the under nnes make up 113, and the kicker, all of them are considered mild and are being kept over night simply to ensure they can be monitored given the hospitals aren’t being over run. Sounds real bad

Here is the ever reliable Dr John Campbell on the real data.

New Zealand’s climate hoax

James Shaw skips MIQ and goes straight home after returning from a covid hotspot, why? Well, because he is just another entitled snake oil salesman Twat who thinks his quest to make New Zealand’s emissions lower gives him special privileges.

Flying himself and an entourage of cling-ons around the world to speak to a virtually empty room on how much better we will be at reducing emissions is as laughable as New Zealand emissions and why he spoke to an empty room. The only takeaway for James was a “how dare you” squarely directed at James Shaw from the global sensation that is The Greta. Blaming farmers is all Shaw could do because apparently it’s all about Methane now.

CO2 is so 2019.

Anyone who wants some education on methane can read an earlier rant below

What James forgets, ignores or downright lies about is our farming, and particularly beef farming is not the global warming inducing activity that needs to be hurriedly replaced with a bill Gates fully vaccinated vege burger.

It is a healthy co2 balance if you take the farming activity as a whole into account. Intense farming for beef or dairy sees an average of about 1 cow per acre. I’m no farmer so feel free to correct my numbers here

4000 m2 of grass land will provide CO2 sequestration of 4 ton per year. All gobbled up by the cow. In turn the cow will expel some methane which will oxidise after 12 years and turn into c02 and H2O.

That’s right cow farts last 12 years in the atmosphere. Unlike CO2 which stays around (until used for growing a plant again). The infinitesimally small amount of CH4 that escapes into the atmosphere, doesn’t even hang around forever.

If you read the methane story above you will understand just how little methane is created here in little old NZ or in fact that makes up the atmosphere globally.

James Shaw is just full of it when he suggests Farmers aren’t pulling their weight.

So you can kick cows off a farm, sell the land to a foreign organisation who plants a whole lot of Radiata Pine (classified as a noxious weed) and they get a carbon credit.

A fully grown Forrest will do a good job of removing CO2 out of the atmosphere however, the carbon credit of the CO2 that goes into growing grazing paddocks should not be ignored.

A cow will munch away on grass that removed 4 tons of C02 out of the atmosphere and give back 100 kilo of methane. Methane is meant to be 25 times worse than CO2 at warming. (totally unproven hypothesis on either but let’s run with that)

25 x 100kg = 2.5 ton equivalent that lasts for 12 years versus 4 ton of CO2 that has been turned into burgers. Do farmers get a carbon credit for that. No they get taxed.

So where is New Zealand’s increasing carbon footprint coming from then?

Our total emissions is 78.9 million ton of greenhouse gasses. So let’s give ourselves a carbon credit for growing grazing grasses. About 38% of nz land mass is in pasture. that is 268,000 square kilometres multiplied by 38%, which equals 101,840 square kilometres. 1,000 m2 of grass will absorb 1 ton of carbon. That gives us 101,840,000 of CO2 sequestration. Dairy and beef and all agriculture make up 48.1% of our emissions.

Total emissions = 78.9 million ton

Agriculture at 48.1 = 38 million ton

CO2 absorbed by grassland = 101.8 million

So 38 million – 101.8 million is -74.2 million

Below negative emissions

The increase in our carbon footprint comes from our growing reliance on burning coal from Indonesia for energy and the amount of cars and trucks on the road.

40.7% of our emissions come from energy use. However there is no conveniently forgotten carbon absorbing grassland attributed to those emissions.

But it is simply easier to blame the farmers even though James Shaws cohort to the COP26 expanded our carbon footprint more than any modern farmer.

The return of the Flu

Sweden has done such a good job with the Corona Virus that the Flu feels safe to return.

Nothing like getting on top of an invasive species to get the native fauna to rebuild their numbers

So is this welcome news? I guess it is if you are a flu vaccine manufacturer. Being jabbed is so popular at the moment there may be a two for one special Pfizer could bring out for Christmas.

Get double jabbed and a flu jab thrown in for good measure.

When I used to get my annual flu jab, so many used to tell me it was a waste of time. It’s only 50% effective at best, it is last years strain so will not protect you, all sorts of reasons as to why. The funny thing is I have never had the flu. I probably had my first flu jab at the age of about 35 and before that day or after, I don’t believe I have ever had the Flu. Not a bad dose of it anyway. The long and short of it is I will never know if the 15 years of flu jabs helped me or not. However, how have peoples attitudes towards vaccines changed?

The ones that never bothered getting a flu jab are now some of the biggest advocates of Covid Vaccines. Ironically many of those that were once passionate about the benefits of vaccine are now more skeptical.

A doctor once said that Antivax Doctors are usually a lot more educated on viruses and vaccines than most other doctors. It is an interesting statement and one that for some reasons would be true.

How most doctors, who don’t specialise in something more technical such as microbiology, learn their trade is very much a monkey see monkey do process. That is they learn the passed-down knowledge that has been accepted into the syllabus where they learn.

This in itself is a pretty standard education model, but it does mean that there are areas of knowledge that are destined to become “group think’ in nature.

Someone like Siouxsie Wiles is a research professor, who rather than just spouting the regurgitated knowledge from med. school, she is actually testing the paradigm of medicine. It’s just a shame that she is compromised through her political connections and self promotion desire to be a celebrity.

However, the point being that there are those that recite the medical knowledge that we have garnered at the time they stopped studying, and those that continue to test the unknown. Doctors have the same, if not more opportunity to jump down rabbit holes, as the rest of us. Vaccines and viruses certainly provide many doctors with such rabbit holes.

To this day there are highly educated professors who deny the existence of the measles virus. Largely due to it has never been proven to exist, but this is a debate for minds much sharper than mine.

Having worked in various capacities at a learning hospital, it is amazing how much we still have to learn. Being exposed to the weekly “oops we got it wrong” sessions AKA the Grand Round, you soon learn the shortcomings of our diagnostic abilities. This “Grand Round” is where the doctors present cases that they had failed to diagnose the issue of a person presenting with an ailment, most of the time ending in a fatality and having the treating doctor sharing the outcome of what they tried. Thus advancing our knowledge in that age old way of, if you fail try, try again.

One of the first lessons/realisations anyone who studies medicine at the same time as working in a hospital is – avoid getting sick, there is no guarantee there is a cure for your ailment.

So back to the Flu

As you can see from the graph above Sweden is welcoming back the Flu. The reality is the Flu will return in places where there is a significant rate of natural immunity towards the COVID-19 virus.

The Flu mysteriously disappeared from everywhere which lead a lot of people to believe that the COVID pandemic was just the flu rebranded.

The return of the flu will diminish this belief and this disappearance phenomenon is due to the replacement of viruses by a more dominant virus. A bit like how Omicron is about to replace the Delta.

This slight reemergence of the flu could be quashed by something like the Omicron, as the numbers so far are pretty small.

It seems we are at a cross roads in the ever changing COVID world. We may see a collapse of the Delta to make way for a surge of flu illnesses (I wonder if we will see everyone dashing out for a flu jab). Or we could see the Omicron wipe the floor with both the Flu and Delta. Who knows.

What will Santa bring us? by Christmas we should be well aware of what is going on as the Omicron is definitely more transmissible than the delta, but what will the Flu have to say about all this?

Stay tuned for our upcoming edition of

What’s hot and what’s not.

As the globalists start to resume the global warming scare tactics, we can happily report that while it is warm in NZ right now (we are the warm blob at the moment), the global temperature for November was 0.08C of a degree warmer than the 30 year average.

The year so far has averaged 0.12 degrees above the 30 year average. That means that in the past 30 years we have warmed just over one tenth of a degree. That’s 0.04C degrees per decade based on the past 11 months.

Big problem!

Labour/Greens can no longer form a government.

Based on the latest poll that was conducted prior to Collins shooting herself in the foot. There is no longer enough support for the left parties to allow them to form a government without support from another party, such as the Maori Party.

The interesting aspect to the Roy Morgan pole is two stats they publish. The age and sex of voter sentiment and if they believe NZ is heading in the e right direction.

In regard to whether NZ is heading in the right or the wrong direction, there has been a 6% increase in the wrong direction statistic – which now has the right direction sitting on 46% (-2) whilst the wrong direction is at 44.5% (+6)

As we jest on here a bit, it is the lady’s keeping the left in power. Below are the stats by above 50 and below – by sex

  • All voters +2.5%
  • Women +17.5%
  • Men -13%
  • Women under 50 +32%
  • Women over 50 +0%
  • Men under 50 -12.5%
  • Men over 50 -13.5%

So we can isolate it even further down, that it is younger ladies keeping Ardern in power. It makes sense that a young female leader resonates the most in the young female voter demographic .

The big question is, will Luxon draw enough young woman to the right sphere of politics.?

The good news is it seems Ardern is doing a pretty good job of shedding voters on her own. funny that.

Serving the unvaccinated 😱

The media are reporting on a phenomenon that will no doubt have the self appointed Gestapo up in arms.

Some businesses and government departments are allowing the unvaccinated into the premises and even are serving them.

Oh noooooo the humanity

Taranaki city council are one such organisation and to date they have received five complaints.

Libraries have been one service that has a different set of rules wherever you might find yourself. Many are forbidding the pure bloods from entering their establishments, but a big shout out to Taranaki for not joining the apartheid. Perhaps I need to be living in our energy region.

The best sign displaying the condition of entry was a cafe in Auckland stating that the condition of entry was, “no one speaketh of the vaccination.“

I bet if we all stopped talking about the virus, it would magically disappear. In absence of that reality however, let’s hope Omicron does what Pfizer couldn’t and provides us all with a safe and effective immunity to the RONA.

If you had the J&J vaccine you need a booster after 2 months. I bet a few people are a little miffed at that reality. That’s really putting the ef in effective.

Well it would be nice if there were a business directory for the pure-bloods. Let us lower class citizens know where we can congregate without being persecuted against. Those brave vaccinated people can come and mingle with us if they choose. Or they can stay where one lady on the 6pm news said last night . “I feel safe knowing that I am sitting with only vaccinated people.” Bless you dear, you sit wherever you feel safe, even if you are just as safe from an infected vaccinated person as you are from an infected unvaccinated one.

Last time I checked the only person you can’t catch covid off is someone who doesn’t have it.

But that logic has been scrambled from the info emanating from the podium of truth.

We shall keep monitoring the social divide that Labour have brought to the virus response. Has someone told Ardern yet that whilst you need to break a few eggs to make an omelette you don’t need to seperate the yokes from the whites.

How to manage COVID and vaccination data with mental gymnastics.

If they…

1. Die from Covid and are unvaccinated = covid death

2. Die with covid from pneumonia but are unvaccinated = covid death

3. Die from covid and vaccinated in vaccine trial = pneumonia was cause of death

4. Die in vaccine trial but received placebo = covid death

5. Die in vaccine trial from adverse effects = disqualified from trial

6. Die from gun shot wound and posthumously test positive to covid = covid death

7. Are vaccinated and die from a heart attack within a few hours to days from receiving vaccine = inconclusive but unlikely from vaccine

8. Are vaccinated and alive – no privacy issues with disclosing vaccination status.

9. Are unvaccinated and died from covid = disclosing vaccination status not a privacy issue

10. Are vaccinated and died from covid – vaccination status disclosure is a privacy issue

11. Are unvaccinated = go get effective vaccine

12. Are double vaccinated = vaccine no longer effective get more vaccinated.

This may seem like a joke but it is how the data is recorded.

On the Pfizer trial more people with the vaccine died than with the placebo but suddenly that was pneumonia not covid.

Funny how the data recording changes depending g on the circumstances.

All in the name of safe and effective

Sad day, same bird different wing.

The only good aspect of this post were many of the comments called this for what it is. National support the apartheid.

I had high hopes for Erica but whilst I was prepared to cut her some slack on supporting striking students for climate change. Promoting this shit is poorly thought through. Seems some of her followers agree…

Now I know for every complainer there is 7 or 8 people under the ether of this vaccine propaganda, but it doesn’t excuse the division, fabrication of the truth and the purposeful vilification of those that don’t consent. Not for a big that is 99.6% of a threat and only to those that are very unwell.

Every day medical practitioners are waking up to the fallacy that is a safe and effective vaccine.

Don’t get me wrong there is such a thing as a safe, effective and tested vaccine. This vaccine doesn’t satisfy any of those 3 requirements.

More letters being written, more warnings of the mistakes and for every medical professional that tries to wake people up to the insanity, a politician further restricts the liberty of its people. Germany is about to start fining those who are unvaccinated.

With zero opposition to this Tyranny what will stop that occurring here. Obviously Mrs Stanford will not be standing g on the way.

And those masks, masks that have been proven to be useless against stopping the respiratory disease. Guess where billions of those are going Erica? That’s right into the ocean.

A sad day it is when supposedly intelligent people gleefully post their support of apartheid on social media.

I hope you wake to what you are doing, many are. I look forward to your awakening.

But until then, Shame on you Erica.

Disseminating Dr Guy Hatchard’s letter

Part 3 – The Need for Mandatory Reporting of Adverse Events

What we will learn in part three is the real criminality of the information coming from the podium of truth and the people responsible to inform us of the quality of the science such as medical journals and the political advisory groups

Dr Hatchard talks about the recent investigations into the testing of the vaccine versus the safe and effective message.

“On October 28th I wrote to all MPs and urged the government to put in place mandatory reporting of adverse events, so that their extent could be properly assessed.

At the time, Michael Baker, my gene therapist colleague, myself, and almost everyone else were unaware of the inadequate protocols that had been used to test the novel covid vaccines. Of course the trials had to be almost impossibly short because of the sense of urgency, but their other shortcomings have only recently come to light. Being short trials there was always going to be uncertainty about the long term effects, but we presumed that any immediate dangers of vaccination were going to be detected and documented before approval for emergency use. Journal papers had already been published reporting that the vaccines were highly effective and very safe.

Early in November, the BMJ blew the whistle on shortcomings at one trial location for the Pfizer vaccine—some data had been falsified. Alarming though this sounded, we hoped the errors were minor and resulted from the logistics involved in the short time frames and from the sloppy quality control of one contractor. Last week this hope was dashed by an investigative journalist from Australia, Maryanne Demasi PhD. Ms Demasi found that the Pfizer and AstraZeneca trials used new digital apps to gather patient data on adverse effects. The reporting options on these apps had only limited predetermined choices and gave little or no opportunity to describe symptoms if they departed from the multi-choice scheme of mostly mild adverse events.”

Hasn’t this been swept under the carpet. A major medical journal publishes the dodgy going ons of a company known to happily mislead people and it nothing to see here. the Safe and effective message is broadcast to all the happy vaccinated people ignoring those that are now suffering.

“Brianne Dressen was a participant in the AstraZeneca (AZD1222) trial. She suffered a severe adverse reaction after the first injection and became disabled. She was ‘unblinded’ from the trial, her smartphone app was disabled, she was advised not to have the second injection, and crucially the reports of her adverse event were never recorded in the final publication of the trial in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM). As participants suffering serious adverse events like Ms Dressen were withdrawn, it is no wonder that whilst the occurrences of mild adverse events were reported as significant, occurrence of serious events was reported as insignificant. Ms Dressen complained to the editor of the NEJM, but he refused to correct the inaccuracies, thereby blinding the public, governments, and scientists to the possibility that adverse events could be very serious indeed.”

That’s one way of minimising adverse events, delete them from the study.

“Ms Dressen’s experience was not an isolated event, there were others. The recent Pfizer trial results of 12-15 year olds states there were “no serious vaccine-related adverse events”. But Ms Demasi reports a serious adverse event excluded from this study also—a thirteen year old girl now confined to a wheelchair. Moreover the AstraZeneca protocol had excluded adverse events resulting in death for the five weeks immediately after the first inoculation—a fatal safety testing flaw.

Medsafe seem to have the same attitude just read their reporting on deaths. its all about inconclusive ya de ya

“What is the take home lesson from this? Drug side effects are known to be the third leading cause of death. In 2009 Pfizer paid out $2.3 billion in damages for criminally misbranding drugs. The Ministry of Health should have been more suspicious. Knowing that the safety trials were short, they should have alerted GPs and hospital staff to expect the unexpected, report all adverse events, and send accurate and complete reports to Medsafe promptly. This didn’t happen.

More importantly the number of adverse events and deaths that Medsafe did receive was large, many times greater (possibly around 50 times greater) than any previous vaccine programme. There should have been a vigorous effort on the part of Medsafe to find out what sort of people were at greatest risk. Ignoring this was not just an oversight, it is possibly criminal. It may have affected the health of a very large number of recipients. Some of these only consented to vaccination under threat of loss of employment. Moreover the Ministry of Health largely refused to issue vaccine exemptions to people who had already had an adverse reaction to the first covid dose or to a past vaccination. This was without doubt an imposition of personal medical risk by the government in contravention of the Bill of Rights.

This is criminal, it is a cover up an abuse of power and a lie that now billions of people can not un do. I have said it before Ardern has blood on her hands.

“The failure to alert the public that there was a measurable and significant risk to vaccination was compounded by false government assurances that there was no risk. Jacinda Ardern herself cannot have been unaware of potential risks, yet on occasions she dismissed questions at press conferences about adverse events, giving the impression that such concerns were without foundation. The 33,000 comments on her Facebook page, after she advised people to enquire of their vaccinated friends whether they were unharmed, should not have been ignored nor quickly deleted. Her rejection of safety concerns and possible long term risks can only be described as an inexcusable failure to inform herself, or could it possibly have been fuelled by a deliberate attempt on the part of Medsafe to hide or downplay the significance of adverse event data?

Ardern’s face book page seems to have become a forum for people suffering adverse events.

“The safety reassurances Ardern, Bloomfield, and Hipkins gave repeatedly at press conferences and advertised to the public, also mitigated against adverse effect reporting. I know of a number of people who did not suspect that their cardiac events subsequent to vaccination could be related. The public perception of safety has become so entrenched that individuals posting about their adverse event symptoms on social media are often mercilessly trolled. Medsafe has maintained that the very high level of adverse events is not necessarily related to vaccination, because they knew of no proven mechanism which would cause them.”

When you have to indemnify the company you are buying drugs from should raise at least some concerns surely?

“With the recent publication of a number of scientific papers suggestive of risk, this position cannot be realistically maintained, even if it ever could be. In the last month alone Circulation reports that the average risk of a cardiac event after vaccination rises from 11% to 25% as measured by biochemical markers of heart inflammation used in the standard PULS test. Viruses reports that the covid spike protein inhibits DNA repair in vitro. The New England Journal of Medicine reports that the spike protein may impair long term immune function. Cell Discovery reports that post vaccination symptoms mimic covid itself. Other research suggests that the spike protein can be long lived in the bloodstream and that the cell nucleus is not as well protected from mRNA vaccines as we thought.”

these are all issues we have raised here at planet B. Oh how these facts are discounted, predominantly from those who have been vaccinated who now have no interest in the down sides. It is understandable. I now have a cold dark feeling and I can only hope that every thing ends up okay. Never take experimental medications unless you are a willing part of the experiment. So many aren’t.

“Clearly the lack of clinical research expertise in the field of genomics, and specifically gene therapy risk assessment, on the Skegg Committee meant that such tentative concerns are not being factored into any discussion. The possible extent of adverse events is unknown and apparently being ignored. BUT, and it’s a big BUT, the main ignorance here concerns the possible long term effects of covid vaccination with an mRNA vaccine or a viral vector vaccine. It cannot be over emphasised enough that these risks are unquantified and in a completely new field of bio technology unknowable within a short time frame. Certainly there are some very highly qualified and respected leaders in the field who have struck a very cautious note when airing their views publicly. Did anyone ever have an honest conversation with Ardern about this? Should mandates be enforced when they are in essence a gamble with uncertain and unknowable odds?”

I can answer that question… NO!

“in summary, Ardern set the pre-conditions for vaccine mandates as “safe, effective, and tested”, we have seen that none of these are reasonably satisfied. Yet she went ahead and ‘bet the farm’ on vaccine mandates. The watch word of my early dialogue with advisors was ‘caution’. At the beginning they recognised the limitations of current knowledge. They ‘knew’ we had to explore all the options. This sensible approach has seemingly been replaced by a misplaced professional stamp of vaccine approval along with the exercise of political Jacinda power.

In the first world war, trench warfare was a failed strategy but its continued use was promoted by the establishment despite the horrendous loss of life. As we now face new variants, possibly impervious to vaccination, do we continue to maintain the fiction that universal mandated vaccination is a stand alone strategy? Are we going to meekly submit to regular booster shots at shorter and shorter intervals, and to embrace new genetic vaccine formulations? Or do we recognise that we are at a turning point in our civilization whereby our most successful strategy will be improvements in our habits, our lifestyle, our diet? Do we recognise that, as in so many fields of endeavour, we have brought ourselves to our knees, and need to think again about the fundamentals of personal health and the environment?

It would Guy, it really would if this was about health. But it isn’t is it?

“Do I think that the NZ public can handle a mature and honest discussion? Yes. The decision to not only keep the public in the dark, but promote an entirely exaggerated and in some aspects false narrative appears as a misguided crusade. The scapegoating of the unvaccinated, despite the fact that the vaccinated can and do transmit covid easily, appears as a Machiavellian political plot. The wilful suppression of the large scientific uncertainty surrounding many covid ‘facts’, through selective editing or blocking of information comes straight out of the playbook of tyrants. The lack of an early and dynamic effort to understand and evaluating early intervention treatments was an error that could lead to increased fatalities. The gap between evolving scientific knowledge and government fiction has become a gaping chasm.”

The good Dr is waking up.

“A final word—why oh why hasn’t the media dug deeper? Where is well researched investigative reporting to be found? Why is there no balance? The media reporting of Covid in NZ is a lesson in itself and another story to be told at a future date by some brave and clear-minded investigator. The origins of one-sided reporting are not hard to discern when you recognise that the government has discouraged the cash strapped media from investigating or striking a critical note using a well- financed carrot and stick approach. Large grants have been made to media outlets. Independent vaccine lobby groups have also financed media outlets. Yesterday in Stuff, a long, rambling, and selective piece of reporting, entitled Covid-19 NZ: Just how deadly is the virus?, concluded with the comforting thought that the vaccine makes you younger. Praise the lord—the long lost elixir of eternal life has been discovered by the independent Stuff media group.”

Guy Hatchard PhD has a background in statistical analysis and was an employee of Genetic ID, a global safety testing and certification company.

He has awoken, so are Ardern and co criminal, what do you think?

Below is the full letter. We stand with you Guy!

Disseminating Dr Guy Hatchard’s letter

Part 2 – The Risk of Vaccine Adverse Events

The opening of the letter dated November 20, 2021 is the following paragraph

“Yesterday morning I woke up to some unwelcome news. My best friend from university days has passed away. He was an active fit man looking forward to enjoying retirement. Early on he had a mild stroke, his heart became inflamed and the valves were damaged, unfortunately his immune system was too depleted to respond to treatment. His story is familiar in these Covid times and shared by millions, yet nevertheless a deeply personal tragedy for his family. He was doubly vaccinated.”

As many are starting to wake up to, there are adverse reaction to the vaccines. The question is, is it justifiably acceptable? You know, the greater good and omelettes require broken eggs and all that,” but how many broken eggs are an okay amount. And can we really call these vaccines safe and effective?

Let’s look at Dr Hatchard’s experiances prior to his best mate dying.

“By late August I had become aware that a number of my friends and friends of friends had suffered illness at some point following vaccination. My best friend at university was one of these, he never did have Covid, but he was doubly vaccinated.

I exchanged a number of emails with my government advisor correspondents on this topic. I provided details of specific serious events including death proximate to vaccination, and quoted studies documenting vaccine adverse effects such as myocarditis. I was met with a vigorous defence of the safety of vaccination.

One of my correspondents wrote of social media reports (often the last resort of people injured by vaccination)

“I have learnt the hard way, that the vast majority prove to be fictitious, and as such will have no bearing on my perspective.”

This was misguided prejudice, pure and simple. Another conceded:

“There is certainly well documented clotting association with the vector-based vaccines,”

but maintained this was not common enough to cause concern.
Did the Skegg Committee have the myopathy associated with narrow disciplines? Michael Baker however shared my concerns and responded:

“I am hoping that the intense surveillance of adverse events following immunisation will give us a good steer about the risk of these events.”

I researched the NZ reporting procedures to which he referred (known as the CARM system) and found to my dismay that these were voluntary. Under normal circumstances a new vaccine arriving on our shores would have already undergone rigorous long term testing. As a consequence, adverse events following vaccination have never been significant and the relevance of the CARM system has been largely academic and of little concern to GPs, hospital staff, and Medsafe (the ultimate NZ authority). Vaccines are assumed to be safe. Such is the reassurance and power of the word ’vaccine’, mRNA covid vaccine adverse events have been grossly unreported. Many people suffering adverse reactions have been sent home with the advice that they may be overly anxious. Some reactions are readily dismissed as unrelated coincidences. Moreover hospitals and GPs are often at a loss to suggest treatment options.”

Unfortunately this is how adverse reactions are met with from doctors all over the world. It seems they don’t want to know or are so caught up in the safe and effective message that they are cognitively dissonant to anyone who approaches dr’s with adverse reactions. Kyle Warner the cyclist was prescribed anti depressants when he presented with myocarditis among other conditions.

“On August 19 vaccination was made available to 12-15 year olds. This again resulted from a vaccination bias. People under thirty are at minuscule risk from covid, but they are at risk from vaccination. The point of vaccinating the young is not to protect them, they will be better served by the strong immunity gained after recovering from the illness rather than the very short term protection from vaccination. The point of vaccinating the young is to protect their parents in case they bring the illness back from school. There is an argument here that vaccination will expose children to a greater risk than covid. The research data is equivocal on this point and not in any way conclusive of benefit. Despite this, the government Covid messaging took a new turn. Young people were appearing in adverts to assure the public that they had received the vaccine and it was both safe and beneficial. No mention was made of the high risk of myocarditis (a serious illness) among especially vulnerable young men and boys.”

Yep people who have virtually no chance of any harm coming to them from the virus, are being told it is safe and effective to be jabbed where they actually have a higher chance of adverse effects.

“On September 21st Jacinda Ardern emphatically claimed that those who refuse vaccination would face no penalties at all. Curiously Ardern added:

“anyone who doesn’t take up an effective and trusted and safe vaccine when it becomes available, that will come at a risk to them.”

Clearly at this point, since it was available, Ardern knew that the Pfizer vaccine did not fit all the criteria: effective, safe, and tested. In actuality we were to find out soon enough that it does not fit any of these criteria.

On October 3rd, realising that productive dialogue with my private correspondents was at an end, I wrote an open letter to Jacinda Ardern. This was very widely read and shared. In this, I discussed the uncertainties around vaccine outcomes and safety. I urged the government to adjust its message that vaccination would enable personal freedoms to be restored, and to broaden its message to include preventive approaches to improve health. I received no reply and my correspondents among government advisors ceased responding altogether. I had overstepped an unwritten rule—no doubts about vaccine safety were to be raised in public.

On October 11th Cabinet announced sweeping vaccination mandates for staff in the education and health sectors. From this point on, vaccine mandates were floated as the way ahead to the lifting of lockdowns and ‘freedom’.

Clearly between September 21st and October 11th something happened to radically change Ardern’s mind about mandates. She must have started to either believe that the Pfizer vaccine was both safe and effective or decided to ignore these criteria—her own pre conditions for mandates. From my earlier correspondence with government science advisors and their subsequent public comments, it seemed clear that they remained cautious about the wisdom of lifting lockdowns and should have been able to recognise the limitations of vaccine effectiveness. Business advisors less so, but even they were emphatic that they would defer to science advice.

And hasn’t the message changed. Who will ever forget Ardern’s bold agreement that she has purposefully created a two class system between those that have happily or forcefully taken the vaccine and those that have not.

There was a fundamental mistake in Jacinda Ardern’s perception and use of ‘science’. Science was being treated as a monolithic body of knowledge. In fact scientific disciplines contain competing ideas, paradigms, and theories. Separate disciplines have overlapping expertise but often their practice is so seperated that experts in different fields are unaware of each other’s conclusions. Ardern had come to rely on the advice of epidemiologists whose profession was dominated by a fear of infectious agents and a deep belief in vaccination.

What other factors influenced the change in government policy? Perhaps during this time political decisions began to take precedence over science. Clearly the natives were getting restless in Auckland which had been under near total lockdown for two long months. During this period Israel, the other country exclusively using the Pfizer vaccine, was in the middle of a surging third wave of cases and deaths. Therefore Ardern should have known that the vaccine was not effective enough to support her aim of control and elimination.

There was also a mistaken statistical and methodological idea that rolled over from early calculations of herd immunity. If the effectiveness of the Pfizer vaccine remained at 95% as was believed early on, herd immunity could have been achieved with 60% to 70% of the population vaccinated. As it became known that the effectiveness of the Pfizer vaccine waned, this figure was revised up to 95% and even to 99% by some. This would have been a powerful motivation for vaccine mandates. But the calculation was in most respects inappropriate. Firstly the vaccine allowed transmission rather easily and secondly real world data showed that even countries with 100% vaccination like Gibraltar and Portugal were experiencing waves of covid infection. Also vaccine effectiveness drops to zero after 7 months, completely negating any possibility of herd immunity. This left the justification for mandates clinging on to one last hand hold—vaccines reduce hospital admissions. Our overstretched health service might just need this in order to cope. The significance of this pales in the face of a hard truth, covid mortality is still primarily related to comorbidities and age. Smokers, diabetics, immune compromised persons, the elderly and infirm, and the unhealthy are most at risk.

Podium of truth didn’t tell us about that now did they. But it gets worse…

“This is compounded by something disturbing hidden in real world data, figures published by UKSHA showed that for individuals over 19, the rate of transmission was almost twice as high among the vaccinated when compared to the unvaccinated. These calculations should have sounded alarm bells. They didn’t, they were rejected as obviously false, a rejection that had no basis in science. Some experts in genomics however have taken them very seriously and have begun to research biochemical pathways and mechanisms which would possibly allow vaccination to facilitate susceptibility. This underlines the as yet unknown and the ‘in progress’ research projects. Any government rigidly enforcing mandates and speaking in absolutely certain terms, as Ardern is, has lost the thread of the science.

Did the government take advice from Medsafe on safety? Did Medsafe’s reluctance to classify reported adverse effects and deaths as related to vaccination convince her that the Pfizer vaccine was safe? Medsafe is a member of the International Coalition of Medicines Regulatory Authorities (ICMRA). ICMRA is well connected to the commercial vaccine industry and was known to be writing pro vaccination covid policy statements which were distributed to its members via the data sharing channels ICMRA had established.

“If Ardern had consulted with other governments, she may well have found they shared similar views about mandates just because the same policy papers of ICMRA had found their way to every government desk—a phenomenon well known in network theory. ICMRA had since its formation in 2015 cemented a central place in the medical regulatory network (known as a centrality effect). In effect it had created an unbalanced network, whereby all medicines regulatory bodies around the world were receiving the same information and advising their political decision makers in the government accordingly. Political decision makers however were unaware of the centrality of ICMRA policy briefings. If one Government head were to speak to their counterpart in another country they would be gratified and reinforced to find that they had similar ideas about mandates. If they spoke to several at an international meeting of heads of state, they would be reinforced many times over in an opinion that had actually been fed to all of them by a single vested interest. This phenomenon is known as reflection in network theory and systematically creates network bias.”

This is what a lot of people don’t realise is going on with these global organisations such as the WHO etc. It is common for people to brush off comments that go against the governments narrative by simply claiming that you can’t get everyone in the world to fabricate information like this.

You can if everyone is getting their info from one source (sound familiar)everyone has the same song sheet.

Some countries did things a little differently than others, but when it comes to vaccines most messages around the world mirror each other.

In the next edition we will learn how an urgent need is required to make adverse effects reporting mandatory. It gets way worse.

Disseminating Dr Guy Hatchard’s letter

This blows the whole thing wide open and should not be ignored.

Upon the death of a good friend, a whistleblower of sorts has penned the facts and the lies around Ardern and her Governments push on vaccinations.

It is a lengthy letter so we will cover off each of the juicy parts of the letter in separate articles. This is the making of a criminal series and one day hopefully those involved will be tried for their part in this con.

Part 1. The Advisors behind the Advice

Originally Dr Hatchard was open minded and positive about a vaccine stating, “In January 2021, I was invited to correspond with some government advisors. Possibly my knowledge of network theory and my advocacy for the safety of natural health products were seen as useful skill sets to help ‘persuade’ a reluctant cohort of the public to trust a new vaccine technology. I had an open mind and entered into the conversation with enthusiasm”

So far so good for the health professional. He was enthusiastic about how the Government had been handling the pandemic and felt that Ardern was doing a wonderful job. It is important to note that Hatchard is an expert and advocate of eating healthily and one would suspect he is a vegetarian. We won’t hold that against him however, as some of my best friends are vego’s.

“As a statistically aware and competent person, I was already alert to the main risk factors for severe covid—comorbidities and age. My first contribution to the debate in January was to suggest:

1. The NZ Government (including Jacinda’s star power) can take a lead in encouraging other countries to recognise the need for a global elimination strategy to be put in place quickly.

2. Given the non-uniformity in outcomes and symptoms, there is a need to step up research to locate which historical health, diet, behavioural, and lifestyle factors correlate with severity of symptoms.

It was clear that 99+% of people would recover from Covid. Somewhere around 75% of people would do so rapidly without any lasting symptoms. As a scientist I thought it was vital to understand what it was about these people that kept them so healthy. Neither of these thoughts greatly energised my correspondents who were naturally absorbed in the possibilities of the vaccination campaign that was just getting going.”

It seems early on that Hatchard was aware of the fact that all our eggs shouldn’t be put in one basket when it comes to treating the virus.

“But by July, I was well aware from Israeli data that the Pfizer vaccine waned in effectiveness quite rapidly, as were my correspondents. There were obvious uncertainties in what approaches would work. I considered that vaccination could not be a stand alone solution, at the very least it had to be paired with early treatment options. Epidemiologist Michael Baker concurred and wrote to me on 2nd August:

Thank you for that very lucid description of our current state of knowledge around Covid-19 and the uncertainties – which are large. I agree about the importance of trying to keep an open, evidence-informed debate about future options.” and “I agree with you about caution”.

At this point a member of the David Skegg committee—the Strategic Covid-19 Public Health Advisory Group— was drawn into the conversation. He too struck a cautious note writing:

“It is important to realise that the vaccines are only in their first iteration. Israel is effectively Pfizer’s real life laboratory”

“A protective immune signature is often elusive and vaccines are actually quite primitive in design”

“I think you are right that studies have also shown that high vaccine coverage will not alone contain outbreaks.”

“The recommendations in the Skegg report should be considered in the light of their recommendation for frequent review i.e. the possibility that what we know in November might lead to a significant change of timing or content of the response in 2022.”

So far it seems that all is going pretty well with an open minded team of advisors that are ready to listen, learn and act in a measured fashion. Then we learn of the content of the advisors in the Skegg Committee.

“The Skegg Committee has eight members. Four of the members are epidemiologists with a focus on public health measures such as vaccination. Three are statistical modellers and one is an immunologist—an expert on vaccines. One member has an interest in respiratory diseases. It goes without saying that given the make-up of the committee, it was designed to make recommendations about how to roll out and monitor vaccination. Distinguished and experienced though the membership was, it was not designed to evaluate questions and evidence about the physiological and genetic effects of mRNA vaccines. Nor did it have enough of a knowledge base to consider questions about covid treatment options. In essence a decision had been taken early on that vaccination was going to trump early treatment in designing NZ’s response to the pandemic. From my correspondence it was clear that in the beginning the committee were satisfied that the Pfizer vaccine was highly effective and that they expected improved, even more effective vaccines to become available with time. In hindsight this was a naive view, mediated by the rosy picture of 95% effectiveness that Pfizer was projecting. A cursory glance at the history of attempts to control influenza through vaccination should have alerted them and everyone to the fact that treatment protocols were going to play a major part in our efforts to control the pandemic and reduce mortality. The aura of invincibility surrounding the word ‘vaccine’ was leading everyone to underestimate the challenges ahead.”

Hatchard lobbied the group to look at education around health and diet given it was obvious it was an illness of the unhealthy. Rather than dividing New Zealand into the vaccinated and unvaccinated it would be more sensible to look at the differences between the healthy and the unhealthy, with age being a very large factor. The latter two populations being the most at risk. The response to this suggestion was very telling.

“My Skegg committee correspondent had an initially positive response to my suggestion that we needed to do more to educate the public about healthy habits saying:

“I think you may be right – in that opportunities should be taken to promote preventive health measures now and at all times.” But added a rider “the chances of other ‘interventions’ having anything like the protective effect [of vaccination] is remote in my view.

“This last sentence revealed the bias governing Skegg committee decisions. As a result the committee was going to miss key signals. These include a study published in June by the BMJ which found that severity of Covid symptoms is reduced by 73% in those following a plant based diet. There were other vital indicators like this one, missed early on. For example, a UK study found that shift workers are three times more likely to be hospitalised. 15% of people exposed to covid never even develop the illness, why is that? This is a vital question that got forgotten in the rush to push vaccination as a stand alone answer.

On August 7th the Delta variant escaped quarantine in Auckland and the long lockdown began.”

So we know that the drive was for a rushed through vaccination to save NZ. the propaganda machine was turned on and the new class system was introduced.

In the next part of the letter we will learn about the Adverse Events and the denial

Stay tuned as this is just a tease of what is to come.

Ardern worth $25 million

Lately speculation has been brewing over the value of our beloved PM Ardern.

I had to look into this when a reader was adamant Ardern is on the Pfizer payroll and worth a shitload more than the wealth of owning some his and hers property in the Mt Albert vicinity, and her humble $9,000 per week for being P.M.

Fortunately Ardern is a celebrity so she gets her very own “I’m fabulous just ask anyone” set of web pages, usually found by googling celebrity net worth. The below search is one that has her worth $25 million.

I was surprised to see a few pages claiming ardern is worth between $10 to $25 million depending on which incredibly reliable source you choose to believe.

We know that being an elite in politics has its rewards, but is Ardern really making 10 X more from her extracurricular activities than being the boss of NZ?

We of course don’t know how the celebrity net worth websites calculate the value of those in the limelight, but perhaps they know more than we give them credit for. They claim “her major source of income is from her private businesses.” Really? Perhaps she secretly owns a fish and chip chain somewhere she hasn’t told us about?

In NZ it is a requirement for the politicians to list what they own, owe and receive as gifts. This is called pecuniary interests which lists houses retirement savings and business interests of all of our politicians.

Ardern has nothing listed as assets but a home in the Mt Albert electorate and some retirement schemes, certainly no businesses creating millions of dollars in revenue. The list is copied below if you are nosey and want to see what our politicians own.

Interestingly, we know that the she and the other celebrity in the family, Clarke Gayford, purchased a house in Sandringham after she got up the duff, so there are at least two houses in the PM’s portfolio. So perhaps Gayford is the one holding the dosh.

A quick Company Office search finds only that Gayford was a shareholder in a company called Shonky Productions, which is Ben Boyce’s company. He is the Ben from Pulp Sport fame among other comedy shows and radio broadcasting. However outside that there is no Businesses owned by either of the First Man and his soon the be wife PM.

So it would seem either the celebrity net worth sites have it wrong, or the PM and the fisherman have some good accounting and legal advice on how to hide the money she is allegedly receiving from Pfizer and or her business empire.

On available info we will have to call it Fake News, but feel free to send any evidence of the PM secretly being paid off by the dodgy dealings of a drug company that received the largest fine ever for misleading people.

Any thing is possible.

LA Firefighter Placed on Leave For Wiping Butt With Vaccine Mandate Letter

Oh I dare the armed forces, police and Fire Fighters here to do the same.

Even better send it to Ardern after.

“The unnamed firefighter is under investigation for pulling down his pants and wiping his behind with a noncompliance letter from Fire Station 69 in Pacific Palisades — then throwing it on the ground.”

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/11/la-firefighter-placed-leave-wiping-butt-vaccine-mandate-letter/