OPINION
New Zealand Doctors Speaking Out with Science
A 13-year-old boy was found dead by his parents in his bed around dawn in 2021, 10 days after receiving his second COVID jab. This news came to us straight away, including his name.
A coroner’s report has just been issued on a case identical to this, 2.5 years later and suppressing the child’s name. We cannot find a legal basis for this coroner being able to suppress his identity, but we seem to live in an age of officials making up law to suit themselves, and others. Anyway, whoever this tragic boy was, the report seems like another desperate exercise in hiding the elephant.
Reading the mainstream outlets’ accounts of the coroner’s findings makes our hair stand on end, but they are not quite as full as usual of signs and symptoms of ABV disease – anything but the vaccine.
At least the vaccine he received was mentioned, if only as being impossible to rule out as a cause.
We say impossible is correct, because there is abundant evidence that post-vaccine myocarditis is real, targets especially teen boys after their 2nd mRNA shot, and we have posted (relentlessly) on the abundant proof of carditis after the jabs being very widespread if not universal, often hidden, and especially dangerous in his demographic.
Regarding that ‘tricky’ second jab, several S.E Asian countries moved to a single mRNA vaccine for children very early on in the rollout as worrying data emerged, and our own CV-TAG’s Dr Ian Town recommended initially that the government make the same change to our schedule. He was stonewalled by Dr Bloomfield, and subsequently officially acquiesced.
The boy’s coroner describes a “tiny bit of myocarditis” just in the “wrong place”, admitted to cause a cardiac arrest – and dreadful heartbreak for the family. What an exercise in mealy-mouthed diminishment of the fatal consequences of a quite common – not vanishingly rare – Comirnaty reaction.
Supposedly, low levels of two viruses were found, and presented to the coroner as a complicating issue for the finding. The body is full of microbes, and PCR traces of their previous presence, and the focus on these probable echoes is just deceptive semantics, as we have learnt with covid. And, as little research was done in Operation Warp Speed, how do we know that the jab myocarditis might not be provoked or worsened by a recent infection, trivial or otherwise? This is actual missing information, not misinfo.
An apparent expert from Otago University (Gates and GAVI-funded) is quoted telling the coroner a long-discredited lie: that C-19 causes more myocarditis than the jabs, and he gives a deceptively low rate for myocarditis after the jab of only 6 per million.
This figure is actually a background rate for myocarditis in the community, in “normal times”, nowhere as often as independent studies show happens after the modified RNA jabs, especially in the cohort of this tragic youngster. Consider that the Thai boys study and the Swiss study by Mueller et al both showed cardiac inflammation rates in the range of 2.5 to 3.5% (that’s 25 000 and 35 000 cases per million!), and this is only within a few days of the 2nd and booster doses respectively, not in the entire following 12 months.
Further, the last published Medsafe “safety report” ( in November 2022!) suggested a myo-pericarditis rate of around 1 report per 5000 patients, accepting however the significant under-reporting factor of anywhere between 20 and 100.
New Zealand’s own Myocarditis study is yet to be published, despite Health NZ stating the results would be out in early 2023. Later OIA requests asking for study details were declined on the basis that the study would be published in the first quarter of 2024. The first quarter is now complete and still no sign of a published study. If myocarditis is rare and mild, there cannot be much data so what is the hold up?
This case is NOT vanishingly rare, however shrill the shrieking from the media puppets.
Early on, the CDC released data, presumably by accident, showing that 12 to 15-year-old boys’ risk of myocarditis in the week following a COVID jab is over 140 times higher (at 72 per million) than in any ‘normal’ one week period without any vaccines (1 per 2 million). We know too that myocarditis can strike anywhere up to a year after a jab, and persist long term.
Our own Centre for Adverse Reaction Monitoring system was in disarray when the first (and seemingly especially toxic) batches were rolled out due to the volume of reports received, especially serious ones. Piecing together OIA responses to questions about the goings-on in 2021 leads us to conclude several things, not least from their chosen redactions.
Firstly, the volume of reactions MoH/CARM were expecting to deal with was computed from the known but never mentioned fact that the existing, fully registered vaccines cause myocarditis! But their staff simply weren’t ready for the sheer array of extra damage that the novel modified RNA platform could induce. Except that NZDSOS had tried to warn them at the start. Remember also, Ardern’s government of the day budgeted for 1.1% serious and long-term injuries, before our rollout even began, based on side effects seen overseas and from Pfizer’s (then secret) 3-month post-marketing study.
Secondly, there is still opacity – not helped by conflicting answers that we have discussed before – around exactly who attributes the degree of severity to the injury. Most injury reports are made, embarrassingly for doctors, by the patients themselves (or their advocates ). But was labelling a report as serious done by either of Prof Tatley of CARM in Dunedin or MoH (each said it was the other) or, more sinisterly, by Pfizer itself? The latter is looking more likely, especially as explanations for how post-jab deaths end up on the VAERS database suggest a casual and inconsistent process between Pfizer and Medsafe.
Thirdly, although the original Pfizer approval trial used a completely different product (process 1, approved by Medsafe) to the actual one rolled out to Kiwis (process 2), the trial did have a sub-group given the process 2 injection. These process 2 people had adverse effects at 2.5 times the rate of the process 1 group. That process 2 was already up and running is curious. Why wasn’t this process 2 product used for all 22,000 in the trial? Did the coroners know this, and know to look out for more serious adverse events than the provisionally-approving officials were led to anticipate in the process 1 product submission?
We have posted on other coroner’s cases with huge information gaps and contradictions, and written privately to pathologists and coroners involved, eg here, here and here, mostly with no substantive dialogue.
And what about the long list of similar sudden deaths in the young – often in bed asleep, during physical activity, or just at home in front of horrified family – that we have asked questions about. And very few had the ‘luxury’ of coroners’ deliberations.
That our all-cause mortality is at record highs is inarguable, as is the excessive burden of deaths and disease in the vaccinated. We have seen no government figures to prove this wrong. Perhaps it’s because there aren’t any.
The refusal to even acknowledge and engage, the reckless indifference, is the ultimate proof of wrong-doing.
Our coroners are all lawyers. Surely, not them too?