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.

Loading spinner
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x