OPINION
Dr. Guy David Hatchard
Guy is an international advocate of food safety and natural medicine. He received his undergraduate degree in Logic and Theoretical Physics from the University of Sussex and his Ph.D. in Psychology from Maharishi University of Management, Fairfield Iowa. He was formerly a senior manager at Genetic ID, a global food safety testing and certification laboratory. His published work uses the statistical methods of the physical sciences to analyse social data.
As you know we live in extraordinary times, of note not just because of our technological achievements, but also because of the pervading mood of science fiction that sits easily with those leading us and a population schooled to accept the dream. We are continuously sold promises of health breakthroughs that are just around the corner but forget they have been just around the corner for decades. We are told technology and especially biotechnology will enable us to live longer, healthier lives in greater comfort, yet publicly available statistics show we are now living shorter lives with greater stress, greater wealth divides, and ever growing rates of chronic and serious illness including cancers.
I was forcibly reminded this week that it is heresy to deny the imagined march of progress. The burgeoning class of highly paid government technocrats, regulators and consultants along with the medical establishment will do almost anything to protect their imagined future, and that appears now to include the loss of life. Just remember that one murderer or the work of a serial killer is invariably tracked down, but actions that kill millions can be passed off as the price of progress or peace.
A discussion between Dr. John Campbell and Mr. John O’Looney, funeral Director from Milton Keynes UK published on YouTube laid bare the deceit of the UK authorities in denying justice for victims and information to the public. The discussion detailed the refusal of coroners and pathologists to investigate the well-documented formation of unusual fibrous clots in many COVID-vaccinated individuals, including some young people who died suddenly as a result of the consequent thrombosis. The excuse of the senior authorities: the clots must have formed after death, a complete impossibility as death ushers in decay but never growth.
The speakers pointed out that the denial of vaccine damage goes right up to PM Rishi Sunak. To acknowledge that novel mRNA vaccines might be unsafe is truly off limits for our medical practitioners, researchers, administrators, and the leaders of once great nations.
Unfortunately it is also happening here in trusting New Zealand.
A paper published in the journal Vaccine on 2nd February entitled “The impact of Covid-19 vaccination in Aotearoa New Zealand: A modelling study” authored by a group of NZ academics is a case in point. The Abstract claims that between January 2022 and June 2023:
“Our results estimate that vaccines saved 6650 (95% credible interval [4424, 10180]) lives, and prevented 74500 [51000, 115400] years of life lost and 45100 [34400, 55600] hospitalisations during this 18-month period.”
They concluded that: “Covid-19 vaccination has greatly reduced the health burden in New Zealand”
The paper itself, as the title suggests, is a mathematical modelling of the effect of vaccines, masking, and antiviral drugs on the rates of Covid infection, hospitalisation, and deaths. The above claims appear to be at complete variance with the overall statistics for excess deaths in New Zealand during the study period which was amongst the highest in the world when compared to the pre-pandemic period and also at variance with the continuing reports that Health NZ is overwhelmed with high volumes of illness.
So who is right?
The paper does not investigate differences in health outcomes between the vaccinated and unvaccinated and thus falls flat at the first hurdle. It completely ignores the issue that overall mortality is ~20% higher about 5 months after vax roll-out compared with historic trends and continues high until the present. A key point is found in the paper’s supplement which describes their model.
“The antibody titre is assumed to be a correlate of protection and a given titre is generally more protective against more severe clinical endpoints, in line with the findings of [5].”
Translated, this means, the authors assumed that the vaccine was effective against death and severe Covid and just projected the benefits of the vaccine based on this assumption. They never even considered the possibility that the vaccine was not beneficial, which is what the all-cause mortality data in New Zealand is indicating. In simple terms, vaccine harm was considered unthinkable.
It is actually very hard indeed to deny the existence of continuing high excess deaths, they are after all official published figures. The leaked vaccination/death data only adds to the misery of officials who are fighting a rearguard action to deny the obvious. Here is a recent reply to an OIA request made to Health New Zealand. The original request was made almost a year ago and asks Health New Zealand among other things for:
“Data regarding the vaccination status and age brackets of All Cause Mortalities in New Zealand each month since 2019 to present”
This is of course the holy grail of Covid data if we are ever to learn what is causing the collapse of our health system and the blow out in excess deaths. Health New Zealand explained that after a miserly one hundred hours of work over a whole year to try to track down the information, they have put it in the too hard basket and are refusing to answer the request because they say it would involve them in too much work.
However, that is not the whole sorry story. The Health New Zealand reply includes this revealing admission:
“To provide some context, those who have been vaccinated/had boosters are more likely to have high all-cause mortality risk (additional to being aged) than those who did not. Therefore, vaccination will likely be misinterpreted as being associated with increased risk of death.”
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to conclude that whatever the one hundred hours of work yielded, it almost certainly confirmed a higher rate of all-cause mortality among the vaccinated.
This admission is extraordinary and damning.
The author of the Health NZ reply hedges bets by saying that the differential mortality is “likely” due to “residual confounding”. They are suggesting here that the vaccinated population had some unidentified different characteristics from the unvaccinated which predisposes them to die at a greater rate.
However 87% of the population has been jabbed and/or boosted, this is not a group who were selected because they were sick, old or on the verge of death, it was almost everyone. Because of mandates, healthy working-age people had cause to be vaccinated. To suggest that they might be dying in greater numbers as a result of some uninvestigated statistical bias which Health New Zealand is refusing to assess, because of lack of time, resources, and presumably inclination, is utterly absurd and exhibits a blatant disregard for life,
In fact, Health NZ is continuing with a counter factual narrative that biotech vaccines are safe and effective, as such they are refusing to face reality. The public are the losers here, left in the dark and continually urged to get boosted. The unvaccinated are still being labelled conspiracy theorists.
Health New Zealand and its employees are sworn to protect our health. In that light, this question is of the essence: Is the Covid mRNA vaccine safe or is it killing people? Apparently, even Health New Zealand is afraid that it is killing people, but they are refusing to investigate. Because of their deep faith in one word ‘vaccination’ and their enthusiastic embrace of our biotechnology future, they have decided to stonewall any attempt to address the situation. In effect, they are prepared to let people die in order to defend their faith.
So what is the right approach here?
Pre-pandemic, the most important criterion of safety in drug trials was any effect on mortality. This paper entitled “All-Cause Mortality in Randomized Trials of Cancer Screening” from 2002 spells out the overriding importance of looking at all-cause mortality as an indicator of drug safety or harm, saying:
“All-cause mortality, (in contrast to disease specific mortality), does not require judgments about the cause of death. Instead, all that this end point requires is an accurate ascertainment of deaths and when they occur. Furthermore, all-cause mortality is a measure that can capture unexpected lethal side effects of medical care. Because of the concern that some cardiac interventions may cause non-cardiac deaths, for example, there has been a trend toward the use of all-cause mortality as the primary end point in cardiac drug trials.”
The paper in the Vaccine journal cited previously and the OIA reply from Health NZ are relying on discussion based on Covid-specific outcomes alone, they are ignoring the huge rise in all-cause mortality. They are ignoring the canons of accepted scientific assessment, in doing so they are failing in their duty to protect public health and life.
So what do we think of all this?
Clearly a huge number of people, many associated with the medical profession, have formed a mutually supportive network of communal amnesia in the face of fact and standard procedure. Incredibly, it appears they are prepared to put even their own lives at risk, let alone the public’s in order to justify their opinions.
There is of course more to this story and I am very grateful for those well versed in scientific practice with whom I correspond and hold discussions. As you know, the Pfizer vaccine was never subjected to long-term testing prior to its release, so there was no opportunity to assess its impact on all-cause mortality. This is something that can be, and desperately should be corrected right away.
So why did the government allow a novel experimental biotech-engineered vaccine into the country and mandate its use on virtually the whole population? This document from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) explains the twisted logic that was used to bypass the obvious safety issues. The EPA decided that the mRNA vaccine was not an ‘organism’ according to their interpretation of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (HSNO) Act and therefore did not require regulation. In reaching this erroneous conclusion that suited the government of the day, the Decision Making Committee (DMC) of the EPA worked closely with Pfizer and concluded:
“The DMC decided that the only thing that BNT162b2 was capable of producing was the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, and not more copies of itself. On this basis, the DMC determined that BNT162b2 did not meet any of the criteria for it to be called an organism.”
The EPA never investigated whether the mRNA vaccine might be a hazardous substance, they decided it was safe in the absence of any long term testing which for novel vaccines would normally take place over at least ten years.
If gain of function experimentation, biotechnology innovation, military exploitation and casual public exposure to increasing risks of novel medical interventions are allowed to continue unchecked and in fact enthusiastically funded and defended, there is little doubt that there will be another pandemic and there will be a deepening of our medical crisis. Given the existing illusion of biotech safety and efficacy still governing the thoughts and actions of those in charge, the future response of governments and medical authorities will be unpredictable, likely draconian, and possibly catastrophic.
I think you will agree with me that such a pervasive alliance of deliberate scientific amnesia directly involving the medical authorities and their regulatory agencies which has firmly established itself over four years will probably now be very hard to shift. Despite this, please make a submission to the Covid-19 inquiry which is seeking public input to expand its terms of reference, you may do so at the following website: Covid-19 Commission Inquiry Have Your Say.