Did the Vaccine Cause Adverse Events?

Hill’s criteria of medical causality list nine ways to determine whether a medical event is caused by a particular exposure. Among these, the first and most important is strength of association—the more times an illness occurs together with an exposure, the more certain we can be that the exposure caused the illness. The second of these is consistency—does the association occur in multiple settings? The third temporality is critical—does the exposure precede the illness? Mechanism, experiment and plausibility are also important.

Because Medsafe did not have access to global adverse event data, whether by accident or design, it was going to be very difficult for them to apply Hill’s criteria as they had too little data.

We have a small population. They should have sought more information on global adverse event data from Pfizer, especially when the more careful Israeli health system began to blow the whistle on adverse events and reducing vaccine effectiveness. In the event, Medsafe has taken a very lazy and unscientific approach.

They have rejected almost all of the very large number of adverse event reports they have received as either unrelated or unknowable.

In late October, they listed only 1 of the 97 reported deaths proximate to vaccination as caused by vaccination. If they had had access to the April 30th Pfizer report, they could not have reached this conclusion. Without a shadow of doubt, the unprecedented large volume of CARM reports should have alerted Medsafe, Pharmac, MoH, and MBIE and the other participants in the NZ Covid-19 Strategy Task Force that something was wrong.

What caused them to turn a blind eye to the obvious? The flow-on effects from this was to create a lot of misconceived ideas among politicians and GPs, and a lot of unnecessary suffering in the wider NZ population. The subsequent efforts which concealed and/or minimised information were to be even more damaging.

Is the COVID Vaccine Causing Deaths of Young Persons?

Sometime in August 2021, 12-19-year-olds became eligible for vaccination. In September, a case was reported in the media of a 17-year-old Auckland female vaccine recipient who suffered blood clots and died immediately subsequent to vaccination. A question was asked at a Jacinda Ardern press conference, her reply was sharp and dismissive—it was unrelated to vaccination and it was irresponsible of journalists to ask such questions.

She gave this answer to the press before any reliable causal medical determination could have taken place.

It now seems sure that there were more than just this one case of sudden death proximate to vaccination in this age group around this time. In fact, myocarditis is the third leading cause of death in children and young adults. The increased incidence of myocarditis among vaccinated individuals in this age cohort would have alerted Medsafe, the Ministry of Health, and Jacinda Ardern that young adults were being exposed to increased risk of illness and even sudden death. Vehement denial of this possibility was not an acceptable option. By this time, it was clear that Jacinda Ardern was aiming for very high vaccination rates. Any contrary or cautionary narrative was not welcome, whatever the risks were.

Responding to reports of adverse events including the sudden death of the young girl, my correspondent from the Skegg Committee wrote to me:

“I think it is fair to say that the benefit to the whole population is a factor here.”

In other words, the risks to young people could be discounted because transmission in the wider population would be reduced if youth were vaccinated. This response completely ignored the by then well-known result that vaccination does little to reduce transmission. This shows just how far the narrative was detaching itself from actual science rather than the science that Jacinda Ardern was citing.

On September 30, the NZ Herald reported that Medsafe had concluded that the death of the young girl was probably due to a medication that she was taking. What the article didn’t say was that the ‘other medication’ was a very common everyday medication very widely used by a high percentage of the population. Nor was it newly prescribed. This stretched credulity too far and I took the matter further. After pressing the issue I received this reply:

“I am not saying there is zero association of clotting with Pfizer. There is certainly well documented clotting association with the vector-based vaccines.”

To be continued…