Title Fight: Lynch vs Hatchard

On the right is Dr Guy Hatchard, author of the Hatchard Report, and a long standing critic of Labour’s Covid Policies, and in the left corner is Stuff’s Explainer Editor,  Keith Lynch, representing everything from lockdowns to mandates.

On March 13th Dr Guy Hatchard received correspondence from Keith Lynch requesting answers to some questions. Keith was writing an article on Dr Hatchard and his so-called ‘anti-vax’ messaging on social media. Guy responded with his answers and Keith’s article was duly published on Stuff’s website on March 15th.

There has been a dearth of public debate about Covid and the Vaccine. So, finally, after two years, are we going to have an exchange of ideas from two opposing views, about which covid policies would have been the most effective? What worked and what didn’t? Are the vaccines safe? Do they work?

Armed with peer-reviewed studies, statistics, and evidence gathered from multiple fields of science – was this is going to be the match I have waited so long for?

Let the fight begin!

Round One

Keith Comes out swinging with a brutal combo in the opening paragraph… First claiming Guy is leading the anti-vax movement, (this will surely discredit everything Guy has to say) and that he has no background in vaccination to be in a position of “an expert”

This fight looks like it might get dirty.

However, Guy parries, stating his wife’s sister died after receiving a Polio vaccine and his Mother suffered disabilities after infection from Polio. His publications reference no opposition to Vaccines. He is opposed to mandatory mRNA vaccines and is adamant that medical procedures should be informed choice. The 2nd punch is easily blocked  – Keith is not a vaccine expert either.

Keith bounces back – accusing Guy of implying Shane Warne’s death was caused by the vaccine. There is no evidence for this, but Guy was just asking the question – could it have been? The symptoms were typical of other mRNA vaccine Injuries. But some will take Guy’s question as proof of death due to vaccine, so 1 point to Keith.

When you are making a case for a perspective that is NOT the consensus, you need to be careful you only present verifiable data. At this stage, only the Pro-vaxers have the luxury of pulling crappy evidence out of thin air (like making the vaccinated status seem more protective, by conflating the data for Delta and Omicron, and including periods when there was very little vaccination). However, there is a serious lack of investigation into vaccine injuries and Stuff have lost a considerable amount of credibility for not researching this further.

The rest of the round proceeded to get increasingly boring. Keith explained that Guy has an unexceptional following but his unverified views of Covid Vaccines are able to be spread far and wide by some of his followers that have a significantly larger audience. I can see where we are going here. Misinformation, and how alternative media is not regulated.

I’d give Keith some points here if he actually specified what Guy was saying about the vaccine that was wrong – other than “demonstrably flawed claims about the vaccine” or “claims that are highly objectionable”. What are these claims, are the sources high quality or not, are the findings misinterpreted?

Sorry, no cigar – not even close.

Round Two

Keith comes out from the corner with a wild swing. A credentials punch – Hatchard is not an epidemiologist, so can’t speak with any authority on the vaccine – ouch, that’s got to hurt.

But he ends up punching air. There are four reasons I don’t give points for this.

1. Anyone who is going to have a forced injection of something, and for something that no-one really fully understands yet, has a right to question and seek answers about it. And if the answers aren’t forthcoming, it is entirely conceivable they will go looking elsewhere.
2. The mRNA vaccine is new. So too is Covid, which presents itself with unusual behaviors; ones that are constantly changing. I’m finding it difficult to see that there are any real experts in regards to the current pandemic.
3. There are a lot of immunologists, virologists and epidemiologists that oppose the mandatory use of vaccines – just check out the Global Covid Summit for a long list of names. I’m sure Guy is following, and getting information from a number of these doctors and scientists.
4. The argument that only an expert in their field can contribute to the debate is immensely flawed. Covid and the vaccines cover many overlapping fields – just a few examples include, epidemiology, that investigates all the factors that determine the presence or absence of diseases. Epigenetics and Natural Health, how humans have evolved to survive alongside pathogens, and how we can mitigate the impact modern life styles have on our immune system. (This is a field of which Guy is an expert), Data Analytics, understanding what the data means, and how it should be interpreted (another area in which Guy seems to have some expertise) and law. What impact does breaching peoples rights have on society? And anyone looking at the history of litigation involving pharmaceutical companies should also be concerned about any data they release.

No one field can possibly have all the answers to getting us through the pandemic. And many times in history, paradigm shifts have occurred from people in different fields.  Because of the need for consensus and groupthink, it is often too difficult for those on the inside to challenge authority.

Keith continues to swing widely, but in my opinion, is still missing the mark. Hatchard he claims, is heavily influenced by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and practices Transcendental Meditation. As if this is a negative thing. Guy sides steps, avoiding the punches “I have never said that the teachings of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi shaped my ‘beliefs’ about Covid vaccination, which in any case are not beliefs and are actually based on published research. As Maharishi died in 2008, it is strange for you to suggest that he had opinions on mRNA Covid vaccines.”

I thought our beliefs were protected under the bill of rights, but apparently, Keith seems to disagree. If beliefs appear to Public Health to operate outside the realms of modern science, then they should be overruled by the government.

The problem here is twofold. Firstly, if there is an argument for possibly overriding people’s rights in cases where beliefs can cause harm to others. Authorities need to be extremely careful when forcing restrictions on those beliefs. They should have an accurate grasp on all areas of the debate – in the case of Covid, Public Health, clearly don’t. And secondly, much of lifestyle medicine is not actually quackery, it is backed up by a considerable amount of research. It seems that most of the medical profession and public, including some journalists, are misinformed. Science demonstrates that spirituality, religion and the practices of their practitioners have many significant health benefits.

I would suggest Keith looks into the evidence on the benefits of Meditation, and natural health. Maybe he could even go on a retreat with Wim Hoff and discover what the human body is really capable of.

Keith goes on to discuss Matthew Remski, a cult survivor who has written extensively about yoga, spirituality and wellness… and ‘some’ Ayurvedic practitioners. What on earth has this got to do with Dr Guy Hatchard?  He isn’t responsible for what other Ayurevdic practitioners say and do. This is like saying all lawyers are drug dealers because a few launder money for cartels.

Keith has gone AWOL and is now sparring with his shadow in the corner of the Ring.

Round Three

Keith tries to deliver a Bolo punch, accusing Guy of leaning heavily on his background in genetics when writing about vaccines, after spending some time attempting to cast doubt on his credentials in genetics. From what I have read on Dr Hatchard’s website, it is his analysis of the data that is interesting. Guy delivers a superb left hook, “I fact check in great detail how the presentation by Stuff articles of relative risks as opposed absolute risks is designed to make Omicron seem frightening when in actuality Covid has evolved to become a relatively mild illness.” 

The rest of round 3 sees Keith continue his shadow boxing as he isn’t talking with Guy, just about him.

Keith goes on to explain that Guy was an avid Supporter of Labour policies and its response to Covid, but has since changed his mind. So, questioning a course of action when it doesn’t appear to be working is a bad thing? What’s that saying about doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different result?

The claim is made that Guy just seeks attention – “Hatchard is a man who wants to be a valued contributor to important conversations”. Maybe… Most people want to be valued contributors. Or it could be that he sees a government strategy that just isn’t working and is causing harm, and Guy might have a genuine concern for his fellow citizens. Dr Hatchard’s relationship with health officials deteriorated after he expressed concerns about the safety of the vaccine.

Just as the bell rings, Keith takes one more jab – Some of the Hatchard report has been shared for review with Facebook third-party fact- checkers. In the eyes of Stuff, this may be a point, but for the Hatchard supporters, it is not. Firstly, the reports were only shared with Facebook, but they didn’t breach community guidelines. And secondly, the credibility of ‘Fact Checkers’ is in the toilet. The fact-checking companies are not independent; they are owned by companies that also own MSM, Big Pharma and Big Tech. Facebook, admitted in a recent court case brought by journalist John Stossel, that fact checks are just opinions.

I came away with the view that Guy won this Match, but I am biased. While there may be views of Guy’s that I disagree with, I’m firmly in the natural health camp. The science is crystal clear, the best way out of the Covid pandemic is to avoid stress, eat real food, exercise and maintain a healthy body weight, rather than a strategy, based on exotic medicines, dictated by politicians, public health and pharmaceutical companies, who are considerably better funded than those promoting lifestyle medicine.

Dr Hatchard’s articles have been a breath of fresh air in a discourse where there is a dearth of data and scientific information. But ultimately I was disappointed in Keith’s article, in which I was hoping for a critique of Dr Hatchard’s evidence. There was no data, no studies, there was absolutely zero analysis.

His article was an attack on who Dr Guy Hatchard is, instead of what he says. While my views do not align with the current consensus, I’m not a conspiracy theorist. I’m prepared to change my mind – but I want to see Public Health argue its case.

I’m left wondering if I will ever see an in-depth debate on the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine. I understand 2 million dollars has been offered to anyone who will debate Dr Peter McCullough, but as yet, no one has stepped forward. Steve Kirsch and a group of scientists had set up an online debate with a group of Vaccine Champions who at the last minute, refused to show up. None of the US regulation bodies, MSM, or representatives from the Pharmaceutical industry turned up to senator Johnson’s panel for the vaccine injured.

I’d love to see Michael Baker square off with Dr Guy Hatchard in the same room, exchanging arguments and evidence in real time. Maybe Dr Bryan Betty vs Steve Kirsh, or Siouxsie Wiles vs Jessica Rose (the immunologist, not the UFC fighter).

The argument presented by advocates of the status quo – that they don’t want to give a platform to the opposition, just isn’t good enough.

The only reason a contender won’t get into the ring with a champion is that they are scared they will lose.