Our Government knew about vaccine-induced myocarditis, then ignored medical advice and directed any mention of it be removed from press releases and information about the vaccines. Proof positive that this Government had evil intent when pushing harmful vaccines on people as young as 12 despite the known risks of permanent harm from myocarditis. Thomas Cranmer has lifted the lid by releasing OIA documents that are alarming in every respect, from pushing a harmful substance on children to censorship and suppressing the very information that would have properly allowed people informed consent.

The Cabinet paper for 16 August, prepared by New Zealand’s Covid Minister, Chris Hipkins noted that, “subsequent advice from CV TAG in August, supported the inclusion of all children aged 12 to 15 years in the Immunisation Programme”. The paper continued, “based on the advice received from the Director-General of Health, I recommend that Cabinet agree to proceed with using the Pfizer vaccine for children aged 12 to 15 years”.

At a press conference at 1pm on 19 August, Prime Minister Ardern announced the decision to the country in the following manner:

As you know, it’s imperative that we get as many people as possible vaccinated. When we make a decision on who is eligible, though, our No. 1 priority is the medical advice of our experts. You will remember that in June, our regulator, Medsafe, granted provisional approval for the Pfizer vaccine to be given to 12 to 15 year olds in New Zealand. Similar decisions have been made by other regulators in Europe, the US, Canada and Japan. The advice was then considered by an additional group of experts, who also supported an extension of eligibility to young people. On that basis, Cabinet has agreed to make the Pfizer vaccine available for 12 to 15 year olds. This is not a decision we have taken lightly.

Many of us are parents ourselves and take this duty of making decisions about other people’s children extremely seriously, but it is safe, and it’s the right thing to do. So 12 to 15 year olds can become eligible and book, along with everyone else that we are opening up to from the 1st of September.

The Prime Minister stressed that the first priority was the medical advice of our experts but how accurate was her claim?

Thomas Cranmer Substack

Well, it turns out not very accurate at all. In fact, it was deliberate disinformation.

CV TAG had considered whether to recommend extending vaccinations to the 12 to 15 year old age group from June 2021. In their meeting of 22 June, CV TAG recommended deferring vaccination of this age group for several reasons, noting that “there is a potential safety signal for myocarditis in people under 30 years who receive mRNA vaccines (e.g., Pfizer/BioNtech and Moderna), which requires ongoing consideration”.

On 20 July CV TAG again advised that vaccination of the 12 to 15 year old age group should be deferred. CV TAG was however preparing draft recommendations in anticipation of giving the green light to priority ‘high risk’ groups at a later date. 

Then something happened, and the advice was rescinded, despite clear warning signals:

… on 13 August – three days before the Cabinet meeting – Dr Town sent Dr Bloomfield a brief one page memo titled ‘Extending the age groups who can receive Covid-19 vaccine’ which appeared to override the recommendations made in CV TAG’s memo nine days earlier. Instead of vaccinating ‘high risk’ 12 to 15 year olds CV TAG was now recommending that all children in that age group should be vaccinated.

The short memo simply stated:

The memo appears almost deliberately ambiguous in its brevity. It does not explain why CV TAG “convened by email” nor what the reason was for CV TAG’s abrupt change of mind after months of planning. Its lack of detail suggests that this was the result of a hasty political decision that was being rubber-stamped by the advisory group.

The effect of CV TAG’s 12 August decision was that it jumped ahead of their UK and Australian counterparts in the approval of vaccination of all 12 to 15 year olds. It wasn’t until 27 August, that ATAGI finally approved the extension of vaccination to that age group with a recommended dose interval of three to six weeks.

But Medsafe also knew of the risk of myocarditis from the Pfizer vaccine:

Medsafe, New Zealand’s medicines regulator first started to receive advice on the myocarditis risk on 24 May 2021 when it was advised of “two cases of potential myocarditis associated with the Comirnaty (Pfizer/BioNTech) vaccination”. The Independent Safety Monitoring Board (CV ISMB), chaired by John Tait, convened on 27 May to consider this and other safety signals.

During CV TAG’s 20 July meeting, the group also considered the myocarditis risk. The next day, the Chair of the group, Dr Town, sent Dr Bloomfield a memo headed ‘Myocarditis following vaccination: COVID-19 Vaccine Technical Advisory Group (CV TAG) recommendations on the use of the Pfizer vaccine’.

The memo notes that “Emerging data from countries such as the United States of America (USA) and Israel, indicate that there is a risk of myocarditis and / or pericarditis following Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccination. The risk appears to be higher following the second dose, in males and in younger age groups.

Medsafe knew, Dr Ian Town knew, Ashley Bloomfield knew… and they all suddenly toed the line and agreed to ignore the safety signals and approve the vaccines for children ahead of other countries for what seems purely political reasons.

Whatever happened to “first, do no harm”?

Then it went even further: they extended the time period between shots, presumably to lessen any impact, then rescinded that too:

Despite slightly differing views between CV TAG and CV ISMB, on 12 August Dr Bloomfield publicly announced that the interval between the first and second dose of vaccine had been extended from three weeks to six weeks. Without giving any specifics, Bloomfield noted that, “a small number of well-designed studies show that an extended duration between doses of the Pfizer vaccine gives at least an equally robust immune response, with no additional safety concerns”.

The press release continues: “The larger interval is also consistent with the advice from the COVID Technical Advisory Group (CVTAG) for an extended interval between doses.”

Another NZ government press release on the same date is identical to the Ministry of Health communication but in relation to the sentence quoted above, it includes a reference to myocarditis and pericarditis

And that would be the last time myocarditis and pericarditis are ever mentioned as potential alarming side effects. Why?

The inconsistency in the two press releases is explained by the minutes of CV TAG’s 17 August meeting which somewhat concerningly records that a request had been made that references to increasing dosing intervals as a method of potentially providing some protection against myocarditis should be removed from public communications:

Who made this request, and on what basis was it in the public interest to remove information which would inform the public of the reason why a sensible action could be taken to mitigate against a known risk? It appears that a communications strategy took precedent over providing accurate medical advice to the public which was a necessary element of informed consent.

The request also suggests that there was a reluctance within government to fully articulate the myocarditis risk to young people, provide them with advice, for instance, on resting after vaccination as was given in Singapore, and give consideration to offering the adenovirus vector vaccine to young males.

That, my friends, is why I call Jacinda Ardern and her Government evil. They knew about the risks, they hid those risks from the public, they then ignored both the risks and the medical professionals and proceeded with great alacrity in getting as many jabs into the arms of unsuspecting children as possible. That is sick, it is deliberate and it is evil. It is also potentially illegal.

To make matters worse they then reverted to a three-week interval between jabs and lied about it from the ‘podium of truth’.

On 6 October another seemingly inexplicable decision was announced. The government reversed its position on dose intervals by announcing that it was going back to a three week recommendation for everyone eligible for vaccination. It left journalists in the parliamentary press conference that day utterly perplexed as to what was happening. Please listen to Minister Hipkins and Dr McElnay answer questions from journalists on this point. McElnay states:

… we certainly have sought further advice from our technical advisory group on this particular issue because a number of health professionals have said to us at this moment in time when um we really want to get as many people as possible fully vaccinated, ‘can people be vaccinated before the six weeks?’ And the technical advisory group has come back and said ‘yes, there never was any um, ah, safety concerns with um vaccinating at the three week’ and so from a practical, pragmatic perspective at this moment in time if you’ve had your first dose, and the only thing that’s stopping you from getting your second dose is waiting for a six weeks mark, the advice is that that can be done sooner …

Really, Dr McElnay?

Because that statement is completely at odds with the formal recommendations set out in the CV TAG memo titled ‘Myocarditis following vaccination: COVID-19 Vaccine Technical Advisory Group (CV TAG) recommendations on the use of the Pfizer vaccine’. McElnay received a copy of that memo on 21 July.

Remember now that we were told that the only truth was from those standing at the podium. Both Ashley Bloomfield and Caroline McElnay were rewarded in the New Year’s honours for their work, which seemingly includes deliberate lying and mis/disinformation leading to the potential harm of children. It appears they neither cared nor worried about public safety and are still maintaining their “safe and effective” lies to this day.

New Zealand’s policy reversal, however, obviously had potentially significant implications for people under 30, including for those who were subject to mandates that required them to be vaccinated with two doses not more than six weeks apart despite a CV TAG recommendation that they be permitted at least an eight week interval due to their increased risk of myocarditis.

It also affected children aged 12 to 15 who had only recently been approved for vaccination at a time when the recommended dose interval had been extended to six weeks and who were also within the age group that was at an increased risk of myocarditis from the shorter dose interval.

This is why I think this borders on criminal. Especially the hiding of the information about the risks. That was deliberate, that makes their advice clear as disinformation, and it potentially exposed thousands of people, many of them children to lifelong issues from myocarditis.

The media were the Labour Government’s main disinformation superspreaders here, constantly uttering the refrain that these vaccines were safe and effective, when even the medical advisors knew this to be not true. Predictably they are utterly silent on these revelations.

They’ve gaslit the entire nation by stating that myocarditis was likely caused by Covid infection, not the vaccine. Now we know they deliberately hid that information. They’ve now been proven as disinformation superspreaders.

People got their children vaccinated based on incomplete information because key facts were deliberately hidden. That should result in criminal charges, against all involved.

It would be great to know which one of them decided “we need to control the narrative” because someone clearly did say that. We need to start there and open that can of worms to see what else we can find.

This is appalling and outrageous. We need now to hold those responsible to account.

Help Fund Our NewsDesk

We are building a NewsDesk, hiring journalists and taking the fight to the mainstream media. Will you help fund our NewsDesk?

Your Donation
Donation Period *

Please share this article so others can discover The BFD.

As much at home writing editorials as being the subject of them, Cam has won awards, including the Canon Media Award for his work on the Len Brown/Bevan Chuang story. When he’s not creating the news,...