Did Medsafe and the Govt Hide the Truth?

Did Medsafe and the Government Seek to Hide the Association between Vaccination, Adverse Events, and Deaths?

We have already indicated that the apparent lack of an attempt to research a larger data set of adverse events hamstrung any attempt to rationally assess any causality. A casual look at the large publicly available VAERS database in the USA would have told Medsafe that there are many thrombotic events associated with Covid vaccination, too many to be dismissed as coincidence.

Was there political pressure exerted on Medsafe to categorise sudden deaths as causally undetermined events? Did they receive misleading or incomplete advice from the International Coalition of Medicines Regulatory Authorities (ICMRA)—a non-governmental body to which they belonged? A body that is heavily influenced by pharmaceutical interests. Was there a growing desire on the part of the government to hide anything that would disturb the “completely safe” narrative the government was very strongly promoting and financing throughout the media and advertising sectors? How far would they go to ensure there was no reason in the public domain to be hesitant about vaccination? Did this perhaps have something to do with the indemnity clause in the vaccine supply contract?

Documentation was always going to be very sparse. In addition to the foregoing, we are left with isolated facts and fragments of conversations, but taken together they are indicative of an all court press to restrict information.

There are reports on social media from individuals suffering from myocarditis subsequent to vaccination who have been admitted to hospital and found multiple other cases on their ward. One commentator said that her nurse told her “they are not allowed to talk about the volume of cases publicly”

Jacinda Ardern suggested on her Facebook page that everyone ask their vaccinated friends about safety. This gathered in excess of 33,000 comments, almost all of which reported adverse reactions. Apparently, Jacinda had her staff in the Beehive working late to delete them. She certainly didn’t respond to these or investigate them.

One of my correspondents among senior government advisors wrote to me:

“[Social media] stories [of adverse events] such as this go straight to my rubbish bin – I have learnt the hard way, that the vast majority prove to be fictitious, and as such will have no bearing on my perspective.”

Another correspondent in the coronial system warned me not to speak publicly of my concerns about adverse effects of vaccination.

A well known investigative reporter queried about media silence responded by admitting that he had concerns, but said he would lose his job if he spoke up. He had a mortgage and a family to support.

An RNZ commentator wrote to me suggesting I should change my message because it was putting people off a largely safe vaccine. A naive view.

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) wrote to me following my complaint that government Covid-19 advertising was claiming complete safety of the vaccine—an obviously false claim. ASA declined my complaint saying:

In accordance with the findings of the Court of Appeal, the Advertising Standards Authority was required to “tread carefully” and ensure that it did not substitute its opinion for that of the expert body [such as Medsafe].

Treading carefully does not mean that the ASA should not consider the complaint, but rather should do so in-depth and with care. Something it was not prepared to undertake. The ASA is designed to be an independent body that can operate without fear or favour. From this, it is increasingly clear that all those sectors of society relying on government funding are feeling the heat.

The Broadcasting Standards Authority is similarly uninterested in investigating complaints of one-sided and misleading Covid vaccine safety claims. The Ombudsman hardly knows where to start.

Does the NZ Pfizer vaccine supply contract place the New Zealand government under an obligation to pay settlements on behalf of Pfizer pursuant to vaccine injury? If the NZ contract is similar to other examples that could be the case. NZ individuals and families affected by vaccine injury may even be able to pursue claims against Pfizer in a US court in which case settlement amounts could be very large indeed. Under contractual arrangements, our government would be obliged to defend these and pay settlements. There are multiple unconfirmed reports circulating of pressure, possibly even financial incentives being used in NZ to encourage families of Covid-19 vaccine victims to accept and affirm that the adverse events suffered by a family member are not connected to vaccination. If this is the case, consent could regarded as due to inappropriate pressure.

In addition, there are many New Zealanders with conditions such as chest or stomach pain following vaccination who have received insufficient public information to realise they may be due to vaccination. Such people may not realise they need to seek medical attention. Others certainly have sought medical attention and been informed incorrectly that their condition has no relation to vaccination. In the atmosphere of public disinformation that has been deliberately created, there is huge scope for medical misadventure.

Is the Pfizer vaccine a genetically modified organism under the HSNO legislation?

Prior to vaccine supply, our government sought and obtained a ruling under Hazardous Substances and Noxious Organisms (HSNO) legislation that the Pfizer vaccine was not a ‘new organism’ under the terms of the act. If the Pfizer vaccine had been classified as an organism, its use would have been constrained by the stringent safety protocols of HSNO legislation pertaining to genetically engineered organisms. The favourable ruling obtained should certainly be viewed as controversial. It is probable that the US EPA played a role in this classification. The decision process should have included a NZ public consultation that is a necessary component of HSNO processes. Is the mRNA vaccine in fact a genetically active organism? A research paper published in 2020 certainly suggests this might be a valid view.

https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.12.12.422516

The reported experiments suggest a mechanism for an overall process: Viral infection stimulates cytokine production in the infected cells, which in turn induces expression of reverse transcriptase, which makes DNA copies of viral mRNAs, which are then integrated into the cellular genome. This work was all done focusing on the question of whether DNA copies of the Covid-19 mRNAs could be inserted in the genome of our cells during Covid-19 infection. The conclusion was, yes, this in fact does happen, with apparently high frequency. Essentially, this research shows that the Covid-19 virus can genetically alter the cells of the person who is infected.

Although the focus of this research was the effects of viral infection itself, this research is also relevant to Covid-19 vaccines. Since vaccination also elevates cytokine levels, it is quite possible that expression of the endogenous RTase is induced during vaccination and could lead to generation of DNA copies of the virus mRNA that is present in the mRNA vaccines. These DNA copies could, in turn, be integrated into the DNA of the cells of the person who was vaccinated. Thus, this research also points to a mechanism by which the vaccination process could genetically alter the cells that take up the lipid nanoparticles that carry the virus mRNA.

If the government had allowed a public consultation to take place, this research finding may well have alerted the authorities and the public to potential drawbacks of mRNA vaccines.

To be continued…