proof reading -copied from msword without formatting

HEALING THE GULF OF THE PANDEMIC DIVIDE: SEEKING CLARITY AMONGST CHAOS. 

-Alexis Copland. Last updated July 2022.

Introduction
This is the perfect opportunity to reflect on our situation and where we are headed. There is a deeper context to the story we know. I have put significant time and patience into attempting to understand this most complex situation from multiple angles and I provide a rich set of links to evidence (please click on the underlined links) that may help to find middle ground.

Somehow, we have allowed families to be pulled apart by a lack of respectful public discussion. Do we risk regressing our society to a state where the disregard of large minorities is normalized? We do not know the size of the minority, and it has no real voice in the media. In the wake of the panic, this is the time to listen to each other. As the imminent pandemic treaty threatens to deepen existing divides, we should be open to sharing and listening. I argue we are not putting enough energy into learning from our experiences.

At the very least I prove, using available evidence and hindsight, that mandates as we used them were unjustified, and the current promotion of non-targeted vaccination misrepresents the available medical evidence. I show the pharmaceutical companies are not above manipulating research for profit, and prove there is a striking absence of good research suggesting safety.

Within the ideas below are answers that can only be realised by dialogue. The dialogue will hopefully resolve many arguments. The very idea of mandates, which deeply affect New Zealanders, should give us all an interest in finding out which arguments stand and which arguments fall. The official story is just one of many, and does not give us answers to many of the pressing questions.

Internet links are underlined and those in bold are highly recommended reading.

My arguments are the result of countless hours of cross referencing, attempting to expose myself to both sides, and an obsession with medical journals. I believe my fact checking is very reasonable and my attention to context is better than most, if not all NZ media outlets. I am not restricted by word-count. During the pandemic there have been very many details originally labelled as misinformation or dismissed by various media that have since been vindicated or proven. In most cases, when new information challenges existing media assertions, the media simply goes silent on the topic. Therefore, the biggest mistake the reader could make would be to disregard ideas because of their source. There will be complexities I have not properly grasped, so please feel free to take me to task on details that do not sound correct. If it is found I need to remove ideas from this lengthy piece of writing, all the better. I do not aim to present a unified argument, but to present a range of ideas as they relate to the New Zealand situation. I believe this collection of observations helps to provide context to the information melee we have experienced.

My writing is broken up into 4 sections. 1. Research and Consensus, 2. The Political Environment, 3. Governments and Conspiracy Theories, 4. Conclusion. Read time 90 minutes.

Research and Consensus

LONG COVID—The state of the evidence.  Research on Long Covid is often based on self-reporting, but recently there has been a number of illuminating studies published. A well-reviewed paper from May 2022 covers ground as it looks for predicting factors of Long Covid but finds little from diagnostic testing. We still don’t know a lot. Other research suggests Long Covid risk increases with the number of re-infections. Long Covid is currently classified by the WHO as symptoms lasting 8 weeks or more, though much of the research is done with the >4 week definition, which in my experience is unfair, as I would expect to spend a month recovering from a flu, anyway. Long covid is also contentious because the symptoms are varied and are often the same for those who have complications from other viral infections, or who identify with long-term vaccine injury. A large piece of research released in July 2022 muddies the water by comparing long covid symptoms in those with and without a recorded and confirmed infection (pre-omicron era). Using the >12 week definition, 5.4% of confirmed infections, but 4.3% of those without a confirmed infection had at least one symptom. We would need to correlate that with a prevalence estimate, but it does highlight the need to know the true rate of long covid symptoms in the never infected. The authors of this research made a point of including more individual symptoms than much of the previous research in order to more accurately reflect the sufferers. I found this research paper easier to read and more comprehensive in acknowledging its limitations than most. I recommend taking a look.

Vaccination may provide a little protection. Research covering 12 million mostly male veterans recently found vaccination reduced Long Covid from 36% to 32%. Media widely reported this ‘modest’ 15% (relative) drop. Long Covid appears more common in females, so the study’s skew to males may not be representative of the general population, and the study acknowledges this.

VACCINE VS PREVIOUS INFECTION-INDUCED PROTECTION. Every aspect of vaccine-induced immunity vs naturally induced immunity seems layered with complexity with no single source doing justice. My argument is not one for contracting the disease, but for listening to experts who are consistent with the evolving evidence. To give an obvious example, and one I think we will all agree on, there will be no net benefit to a healthy Omicron-recovered 20-year-old male in taking the booster. There is no current evidence it will make those around him safer. The landscape has, and will change with time. However, identifying susceptible people is not an easy task, and this is the strongest argument I’ve seen for boosting the under-40 population. Many people consider themselves ‘healthy’ who may have underlying conditions. Research and anecdotes from clinicians show a reduction in hospitalisations following the first two shots. However, there seems to be more of a split on boosters, though most published research (which is never up-to-date) has been in favour. Perhaps the evidence supporting the booster is limited to those in groups who are not efficient in producing antibodies, but we know it does little to change (clinical) outcomes in most groups. To be fair, much of the proof for boosters is not clinical. I am referring to the laboratory research where antibody levels are measured or even shown neutralise the virus. Surely, the relevant factor is our mucosal response, not blood response (unless blood antibody response can be shown to be analogous with mucosal antibody response). I quote from the this paper on Prevalence and Durability of antibodies  “…it is unclear how these antibody levels correlate with protection against future SARS-CoV-2 infections…”.

 I demonstrate later that there is a contradictory story, when I go into the officially published raw numbers of NZ, Canada, and the UK that do not show fewer hospitalisation numbers amongst the vaccinated. On the contrary, this official raw data suggests at the very best, that vaccinating the whole population has made some people more susceptible to hospitalisation with covid. There is so much evidence that points to natural immunity being more robust, yet all the NZ mainstream media articles I’ve encountered imply the opposite (but without actually stating it). Government advertising states that immunization is recommended after recent infection, a theory which barely any published studies support. Pfizer’s own post-marketing documents pointed to no difference between the two types of immunity, natural and vaccine-induced, for either infection or severe disease (see the last green highlighted point within the link above). However, Anthony Fauci and the CDC (US Centre of Disease Control) constantly fuelled this debate for a year with knowledge of these FDA (US Food and Drug Administration) papers before finally being pushed into accepting there “may be a case for it”. This was following a large Israeli study that points to 6 times higher hospitalisation rates amongst vaccinated breakthroughs last year. It’s now more complex with Omicron and the waning vaccine but the current data show the argument holds. The CDC seems to be the reason we believe vaccination on top of natural infection lowers the risk. The NZ media ran with this despite its** weak science base **(this link gives good background). We would all be better off if the government (or the reports provided to the government) exposed their sources of information. It is becoming understood that mandates were principally useful to encourage people to get personal protection from hospitalisation, as opposed to reducing transmission which now appears to be insignificant at best (see rolling averages graphs). It seems the newly available Pfizer documents show that attaining herd immunity due to vaccination was never on the cards, so it was dishonest to let this conversation fill our newspaper space for so long. It does not take much digging to find out the basic properties of corona viruses, which contradict much of what we have been told about herd immunity. Now, due to natural infection, many of us have immunity at least equal to the vaccine. The ability to log a proven infection on the vaccine-pass system would be a valuable gesture of good will. It would put very little extra pressure on the health system at this stage, as PCR tests cost at least $200 to the consumer in NZ. Logging natural infection and  giving it equivalence to vaccination may actually take pressure off the health system as it would allow a number of less-than-fully vaccinated nurses who could demonstrate prior infection to fill some of the thousands of current nursing vacancies, at least for the time it takes for natural immunity to dip lower than average waned vaccination. The number of nurses who initially chose not to be mandated was originally reported as 518.  There are a good number of published studies supporting the premise in this paragraph, and as mentioned, very little supporting the opposite. Of all the subject matters I cover, the science and observations supporting superior protection from infection is the most secure. I don’t have an answer as to why the government and media have dug their heels in on this aspect, as they have nothing to leverage on this. On a related issue, the nursing council statement from mid last year uses both the argument that vaccination in general is virtuous, and the rhetorical argument of needing to be shown to support policy. This statement gives no room for movement. It offers no acknowledgement we are in a changing unprecedented situation with conflicting observations and research results. This link provides more comprehensive, but still limited, reasoning for health professionals to take the flu-shot. This would be a good trial to run —remove the mandates from a handful of hospitals and see if a cluster of infections is observed. Do this before removing the blanket mandates for younger nurses.

Waning **& Reinfection.  I reference one piece of research here, covering the period up to June 2022. This is possibly the best information we have on waning immunity as it is based on a good dataset. The results indicate the waning of natural immunity mirrors that of vaccine immunity, but slower. Pre-omicron, it waned 3 times slower than the vaccine. Delta protected against Omicron for a year, while the vaccine protected against Omicron for under 6 months. Despite this, we saw little or no waning for severe covid in all groups. For perspective, infection with common-cold coronaviruses (and perhaps influenza) induces only year-long immunity against reinfection, but life-long immunity against severe reinfection. The research paper suggests we could be headed towards annual waves of benign infection. The takeaway from this follows the most logical possibility, that natural protection from infection is superior to vaccine protection. (I say logical because only infection or live vaccines stimulate a system-wide immune response). This says nothing of complications or long covid, however. It is confusing that this idea runs counter to what the advertising and media tell us. The media are currently holding up anecdotal examples of reinfection amongst the vaccinated, even the boosted. A recent preprint shows that 93% of the unvaxxed, but only 40% of the vaxxed develop anti-nucleocapsid antibodies (N-antibodies are not related to the spike protein and are less likely to mutate?), which are required for broad and lasting immunity. 

RISK.  Pfizer failed to include Absolute Risk Reduction in the assessment that led to the emergency authorisation of their vaccine. This overlooks FDA guidelines for communicating evidence-based risks and benefits to the public. The FDA’s advice is: “Provide absolute risks, not just relative risks. Patients are unduly influenced when risk information is presented using a relative risk approach; this can result in suboptimal decisions. Thus, an absolute risk format should be used.” Note, the omission in the Pfizer research paper was not because the correct numbers were hard to obtain. The Absolute Risk Reduction has been independently calculated by Peter Doshi of the British Medical Journal and others to be around 0.8% for the pivotal Pfizer document. I have looked in to this quite thoroughly (for example) and both values are necessary to portray a complete picture. To use the example from above, vaccination was found to reduce long covid from 36% to 32%. The relative reduction is 15%, and the absolute reduction is 4%.

MRNA VACCINE TECHNOLOGY UNKNOWNS. My first introduction to mRNA vaccines was from reading the newspaper. I remember being convinced that one of the technology’s greatest strengths was that the vaccines could easily be updated by swapping out the bit in the middle. Was this ever true? We are still vaccinating against the original Wuhan strain. I’ve read repeatedly that a principle reason corona virus vaccines have not come to market previously is that the virus mutates too quickly. Does anyone have anything they can add on this topic?

The evidence of vaccine harm is not just circumstantial, but it is true that much of the research into the mechanisms by which the mRNA vaccine could cause harm is based on circumstantial observations or models. No expert currently doubts harm can be caused, but we don’t know how exactly. The following two stanzas serve as an introduction to the topic. Proof of safety is often given by the following statement: ‘The vaccine only tells the body to make the spike protein, which is harmless’. End of proof. The proof that the spike protein is harmless is almost non-existent compared to the counterclaim. Despite the above well used simplification, we know the spike protein in the vaccine has been modified to make it ‘more stable’, but to what degree that measure was successful and safe is controversial. These two papers give** an introduction to a variety of biological mechanisms ** of potential harm, and are well referenced. Critics of theories on vaccine harm tend to only remind us the theories have not been tested (the contrary is also true), and that more study is needed. Contrary to implications by fact-checkers, pointing out weaknesses in research or statistics does not prove the theory is misinformation. It is encouraging to note that most research acknowledges flaws and reminds us not to draw firm conclusions. Many highly vaccinated countries are currently experiencing record high non-covid all-cause mortality numbers. (the official numbers in the link are fiddly to find, but ** this video gives a fair step-by-step representation). Until we know why, we should keep testing all theories.

MRNA vaccines are here to stay, yet there is reluctance to fund this necessary research. The following statements are from an obtained Pfizer document: “No safety pharmacology studies were conducted … as they are not considered necessary for the development of vaccines according to the WHO guideline.” and “pharmacodynamic drug interactions were not conducted as they are generally not considered necessary to support development and licensure.” and “No genotoxicity studies are planned…”. This is of concern as the technology has never gone to market before, and is recommended by government campaigns to most of the earth’s human population. I understand this research is expensive but we should cut no corners for a mandated (or any government-promoted) drug. Even mandating with the promise of soon-to-be-completed results would inspire more confidence in the regulatory system. We have heard over and over again that the lipid nano casings (with their contents) do not leave the deltoid muscle. The bio-distribution study from Japan shows it is not quite that simple (I repeat the above Critics of theories link here). I browsed a published paper recently that found the vaccine (LNP) at organ sites within 45 minutes. Another found reverse transcription into liver tissue in a petri dish. Recent research also tells of spike-protein production being detected months after the injection (supporting reverse transcription). The following is a fascinating theory on small-fiber dysfunction that may tie together many of the problems being claimed. This pre-omicron article (similar to the Critics link) provides a decent foil to some of these arguments, and may help put the overall discussion in context. There are more theories that can be backed up in the lab, but it is another thing to observe them in a real population. Here is a video clip and transcript from the Pfizer CEO on mRNA technology not being this most intuitive choice for the covid vaccines. We now have many of the regulation documents as public record, and it seems clear the FDAs confidence in some of the products has been grossly overstated. (these documents were not available to Medsafe, who were then able to claim safety with greater confidence.) I’ve read from many global sources that autopsies are not being done, or even being discouraged in cases of death after vaccination. “The vacuum in the official medical literature is being filled by information of variable quality presented on alternative platforms,”. -Association of American Physicians and Surgeons.

To me, the precautionary principle has seemed arbitrarily applied ever since I first came across it 20 years ago. I don’t have an instinct for which aspects are to be assumed and which should be being tested. Only now I realise that even experts sometimes struggle with this. It may take decades for someone to get around to studying a specific pathway of a drug, and as far as the shareholders are concerned, perhaps soon after the patent has expired (to clear the way for patented drugs) is the perfect time. With the entire population on the vaccination list it is worth putting the effort in to investigating all safety issues independently of the pharmaceutical companies, and sooner rather than later. Albert Bourla (Pfizer CEO) says with a thick Greek accent: “Without IP [Intellectual Property] we wouldn’t have the money we have. Everything we do we do with other people’s money. Their money—they can tell us do new research or give it back to us as dividends.“ This quote is from the Annual Meeting at Davos 2022 and represents half of the scenario. Big Pharma’s relationship with big media and with the regulators is the other half.

MYOCARDITIS. From what I have read, heart muscle cannot repair itself (it scars easily) and historically, a very significant number of myocarditis-diagnosed patients end up needing a heart transplant. According to research on a high quality data-set,** heart problems are significantly higher after mRNA vaccination than after infection. **The Israel National Emergency Medical Services data allows comparison of three timeframes: pre-covid, pre-vax, and post vaccination. The Israeli vaccination campaign was swift and effective, adding to the integrity of the data. The research states “increased rates of vaccination … are associated with increased number of [cardiac arrest]…”. The inclusion of a baseline makes this research potentially more reliable than previous research.

The voluntary US system of reporting vaccine adverse effects, VAERS, was used to come up with 105 cases of myocarditis per million doses after the second shot in 16-17 year old males. Nearly all were hospitalised. We know under-reporting is a problem with all such voluntary systems. How many boys were undiagnosed or not hospitalised and will have a sub-optimal heart for the rest of their lives? I have only seen very loose estimates on this. These boys will not necessarily receive the advice not to exercise for 3-6 months (as recommended by American Heart Association).

The newspapers seemed certain that heart problems were more common in the disease than following vaccination. This was consistent with the first research papers, but an additional reason for this assumption is that prior to mRNA vaccines, myocarditis was not known to be caused by vaccination, though it is perhaps common among viral illnesses. I note there were fewer media articles making this claim after the Israeli study came out in May 2022. Nobody covered the new research in NZ, and google shows it was not covered abroad, either. In NZ we have accepted evidence that a longer duration between shots amongst the young is preferable, but I have never read a NZ article on using aspiration, as a potentially helpful vaccination technique, to reduce the chance of injecting product into a blood vessel (Denmark’s myocarditis rates allegedly dropped when introduced, Germany followed).

As if it were a separate issue to the pandemic, the media are trying to explain heart problems in new ways. Very little of it is being connected to the vaccine, some of it is being blamed on the virus, but the changing dynamics of heart problems are being blamed on other things. We are blaming increasingly poor lifestyle choices, cold weather, hot weather, sex, skipping breakfast, watching TV, flight-path noise, the young over exercising, gardening, even climate change is driving excess mortality, along with Sudden Adult Death Syndrome. These articles are all dated since the vaccines were released. I suspect there is plenty of grant money currently available for heart research that could investigate our increase in strokes. There is more talk of strokes and scarring in kids as if it is something we just need to accept in this new era. What do we believe about the cardiac problems in athletes? This article claims we are currently running very many times higher than the probable baseline of 50-80 training deaths per year. Some may be covid, some may be increasingly skipping breakfast, but from the absence of research showing safety, the Israeli research linked above, and the Nordic research linked below, more are likely to be vaccine-related. Putting pressure on an inflamed heart must be risky, even if the inflammation is sub-clinical. This health article covers triggers for myocarditis amongst athletes, but makes no effort to suggest young males should dial back their exercise in the week following mRNA vaccination or suspected covid infection. With the body of evidence we now have, it is negligence not to use the precautionary principle here and make the simple recommendation. There are ways of doing this, I’m sure, that do not tarnish our pre-existing schedule of vaccines.  

According to the headlines, covid causes many strange effects in the body. Dunedin Hospital close to ‘Code Black’ full capacity, Christchurch Hospital overrun with patientswe see emergency services call-outs have increased here and overseas. We need to look for evidence the virus is actually causing this. I provide strong proof later that current science has a better understanding of general coronavirus characteristics than we have been led to believe.  SARS-CoV2 appears to break the mould. That is, unless we find some of these non-specific vaccine effects don’t occur in the unvaccinated. For the sake of the general health of our children, we should value our control group.

SCIENTISTS and LEADERS CHANGING THEIR MIND. Science is always developing. We need to stop punishing leaders for changing their direction. We now even have recent and seemingly good research that shows no increase in myocarditis from natural infection amongst 4 million unvaccinated. This all adds to the body of knowledge, and our media should not portray fabricated certainty.  Official NZ data shows up to 9 cases of myocarditis per 100,000 amongst the vaccinated, well above the government’s expected number. What we once knew has changed. We need to foster an atmosphere where we do not expect the media or political opposition to punish agencies for making statements that may contradict previous positions. The very idea of taking an unmovable stance is anti-scientific and harmful in society. It is, unfortunately, beneficial in politics but we can overcome this.  Perhaps we need start calling out politicians who state definitive truth, as being fundamentally anti-science?

For example, the time for the NZ media to point out the problem of inflated vaccination numbers was over the period in question, while the damage was being done. The information was obscured in the official documents but not completely hidden. I shared it widely over the last 6 months, but few were interested. Instead, the media punished the Ministry Of Health (MOH) (through the framing of articles) only when it was announced the MOH was going to fix the problem. This is simply lazy reporting. They would not listen to critics at the time it could have made a difference, then act surprised and let down when the agency itself made their tardy announcement.

NON SPECIFIC VACCINE EFFECTS. Looking at numbers with freshman eyes allows me to see patterns and look into issues that may be easy for trained eyes to dismiss. This sounds counterintuitive, but consider that the leading medical journals, the worlds’ leading medical schools, a large number of American hospitals, many American politicians, the NIH, Medsafe, and most importantly, medical text books all have significant input from big pharma. I think being a step removed and independent provides valuable perspective. Enter the critically understudied field of Non-Specific Vaccine Effects. We tend to see vaccines as a virtuous cause, irrespective of their individual traits. Looking at the history of vaccination and its politicisation and monetization, this is no accident. The measles and polio vaccines were both found to protect against all cause death far beyond the reach of its target disease, but only if they were living vaccines (LAV). This article presents the evidence for the MMR vaccine as a protector against covid. The opposite is also true for some non-live vaccines. Curiously, the authors of the following study found even the administration of a live vaccine following a dead vaccine negates some of the negative effects of the dead, particularly in girls,  which apparently, could save the lives of millions of kids. The authors looked for differences in all-cause mortality between the current covid vaccine options. Unfortunately,** the mRNA vaccines did not produce an over-all mortality benefit, **though the AstraZeneca did.  Pfizer recipients had more non-covid medical issues that cancelled out the statistically significant benefit. The author also points out that while negative non-specific events from vaccines are proven, once acknowledged they could lead to political fallout. The WHO was alerted to a suspected example of this 20 years ago, but politics got in the way and it was never followed up. One of the arguments Politifact makes against the ideas in this paper is that reduction in covid deaths is more important than overall mortality effect. Though I don’t understand this argument, I cannot discount it because many people seem to genuinely believe we should reduce covid-specific deaths at all costs. Sadly, many of the comments in the comments section are regarding the courage needed to publish research with results like this. Such results revealing possible vaccine dangers have a history of ending careers, for reasons I shall explain later. In Evidence-Based Medicine there is no weight of evidence showing an overall mRNA vaccine mortality benefit, including Pfizer’s trial findings. This is certainly not the only example of good evidence showing a reduction in the target disease can correspond to an increase in overall mortality. It seems evidence in support of a patented medicine is always held in higher regard than the evidence against, and the opposite holds true for unpatented medicine. There are obvious reasons this should be the case, as described in the next sections.

Meticulous Datasets. The Defence Medical Epidemiology Database (DMED) should provide some of the best population information available, but even this data is compromised. Here, an analyst shows convincingly the data has been altered. He argues over half a million undefinable illnesses were added each year from 2016-2020. These changes lead to 2020 appearing to be the healthiest year on record. He also claims proof that cases of diagnosed covid got more acute after the vaccines came into use, with more doctors’ visits per case. The military responded to the accusations of changed data by claiming to have found and fixed a ‘glitch’. This might be more believable if the military’s revision had been openly acknowledged and the amendments noted in the database. After all, the military is known for its meticulous medical record keeping. Since then, 60,000 US armed force personnel have been cut for failing to meet a mandate deadline in 1 July 2022. This leaves the military with a recruitment problem.

The other people that keep meticulous records are the global** health insurance industry. An insurance industry CEO was fired for presenting data that showed** a large increase in working age deaths. The data shows a vaccine risk seven times higher than the PEI (the UK CDC equivalent) estimates. Apparently it takes a doctor half an hour to report a suspected vaccine event. This data is** compared with a report from Israel. Analyst, Edward Dowd uses CDC data to backup what some in the insurance industry are claiming. Specifically, that adults under 40 experienced the highest mortally of any age group during 2021. This newsreel covers the insurers Lincoln National, Prudential Insurance, Northwestern Mutual, and One America. These 4 insurers claim non-covid deaths are at a record high. One America claim this is a one-in-200 year catastrophe. Reuters counters this, putting the blame on the disease, stating insurance company data shows 40% of U.S. COVID-19 deaths were of people under 65. Reuters claim is counter to all the evidence and would be classed by many as disinformation.

MANDATES and EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE. We have been taught circumstantial evidence is worthless in topics of health. “Evidence-Based Medicine” seems to me the narrowest possible way to view a situation. Policy can then be based on a single outcome (which since covid, is seldom anything to do with mortality) with no consultation with other scientific fields. For policy to work we need to account for all forms of conflicted interests and publication bias. We need effective regulation to ensure all research is published whether or not it supports the hypothesis (drug companies can currently bury or halt unfavourable studies). We need to know that the scientists involved come from a variety of backgrounds and affiliations (a company-sponsored phase-three trial whose data is the basis of authorization should not be solely designed by that company’s scientists). We need to know the stated research findings represent the underlying data (there is no requirement to release data). To top it off those who sit on regulation boards need to be liable for serious misconduct for not disclosing conflicts of interest. In the current context, New Zealand health officials can only make decisions with the certainty that the current environment allows. For reasons largely out of their control,** mandates become circumstantially unjustifiable as the above scientific environmental needs are not met. Perhaps an international health regulator could be set up to mitigate these problems. It would have national bodies as stakeholders (no not-for-profits funded by compromising interests) and regulate those drug manufacturers or pharmaceutical companies who supply transnationally. It would be an agency working for its stakeholders of nations, completely independent of other institutions. This could not be a subsidiary of the WHO, as its stakeholders are too varied, and include some very wealthy and invested NPOs and NGOs. It is curious that neither the WHO or the US National Institute of Health (NIH) officially acknowledges any of these problems.

Those who make policy in NZ do not disclose their sources other than to say they are ‘monitoring the research’. Perhaps we assume the media monitor the research also. Perhaps we assume our doctors monitor the research. If doctors had the time, perhaps this would be true. A professor with a unique speciality in evidence-based medicine and policy, Vinay Prasad (University of California San Francisco), has come up with an interesting Proposal: When applying for a research grant, scientists are also agreeing to the possibility of being drafted into projects of public interest. This would, in theory, lead to the break-up of self-interested teams working together to achieve a desired outcome (and therefore, presenting their findings as uncompromised). The proposal also mixes scientists of different fields so teams become more rounded, and reports more balanced. I’d love to read or hear some feedback on this. Prasad’s instant principal covid-system fix, however, would be a series of Oxford-style debates. He points out that in the current environment department deans can be fired on a whim, so this is unlikely to happen. Sadly, the UN has neither dedicated time to, nor acknowledged, misinformation as being a function of lack of transparency at the recent meetings in Davos. We see no acknowledgement from the WHO on this either.

Evidence-Based Medicine -EXAMPLES. Anthony Fauci has been given a hard time over his inconsistency. The fear of being inconsistent stifles discussion and truth. An example of his flipflops is advice on masks. Fauci was simply reflecting the state of the research when he recommended against masks in 2020. Masking did not work for other viruses including influenza. There was a meta-analysis confirming this. Then, apparently, using the same data there appeared a meta-analysis claiming the opposite. A covid specific Randomised Controlled trial (RCT) from Bangladesh was done and the trial failed to show significant benefit. Further studies were done with the aim of showing benefit, but in the end we only have good evidence for the slowing of the velocity of particles from an infected wearer, with no benefit to those breathing ambient infected air (i.e. it may help marginally in a shop, but not an office space). A better leader than Fauci would have been able to diffuse this. He could have simply said  “the evidence is inconclusive, so we recommend you wear them while we conduct further research”  However, I will point out that Vinay Prasad states there was not a single cluster-RCT done in the US on mask use over the pandemic, despite mandates and despite the lack of supportive  research internationally. Masks are of particular interest to Gates, (as we learn from his book), so the lack of studies despite available money makes even less sense. A review released April 2022 (Europe) only re-enforces the evidence against masking. There is, of course, evidence in favour of masking, but it cannot compete in quality with the evidence against, which often relies on laboratory settings, or in the CDCs case, on a masked cohort catching the downward wave after an outbreak and claiming success.

Masks and ivermectin both have strong evidence against their use (i.e. neutral efficacy), but only the drug has strong evidence for its use (high efficacy). We see evidence on both sides yet the science was claimed to be settled. I think most NZ doctors would be surprised by the number of positive published RCTs and epidemiological data. Our emotive response is not consistent. We have held mask use as virtuous, and demonised ivermectin to the extent that no-one can use it. Comparing the quantity and quality of ivermectin covid research to that of Paxlovid  and Remdesivir is also enlightening. The body of research on ivermectin efficacy is from slightly worse than benign, to very effective and very little suggests the toxicity of Remdesivir, or the reactivity of Paxlovid. Many have been asking for a trial directly comparing Remdesivir and Ivermectin.  We ‘do all we can’ as we mandated the vaccination of children and mask wearing, yet we don’t apply the mantra to other interventions that have similar ambiguity in the body of research. According to the Tokyo Medical Association last year those jurisdictions wanting to try the drug for themselves were out of luck because Merck had cut supplies. Before any large trials were even started for out-of-patent drug, ivermectin, the main manufacturer, Merck, came out against its use for covid. The next paragraph gives light on why this may have happened. There being such polarised views on the evidence suggests there is something wrong in the world of Evidence-Based medicine. The next paragraphs give light on how this may have happened.

So what is strong evidence? There is a well-established hierarchy of evidence that puts the opinion of experts and the outcome of modelling at the bottom, and randomized double-blind controlled trials at the top. Surprisingly, RCTs that use inappropriate protocols can end up being valued just as much as those that use the most effective protocols. They are sometimes praised for their convenient result over the quality of their protocol. They don’t seem to be penalised for ignoring previously known properties. This shouldn’t be surprising as according to the expert below, perhaps 80% of drug RCTs are payed for by the pharmaceutical companies and I prove these points with some very influential examples below. It has even been pointed out that lead researchers are selected for their manager/CEO type personalities (people who can “get stuff done” at the expense of enquiry and empathy), leading to the kind of result that will be most likely to lead to future funding. (The linked video from Vinay Prasad is very informative). “We are training people to be good in the industry, not to be critical thinkers”. Some of this I saw in my research on ivermectin. As I chose what to include in my writing I was constantly looking at the strength of the evidence, whether it be formal research or circumstantial. This bought me to the conclusion my own vetting and provision of context is more robust than that of many mainstream outlets, who obviously feel a responsibility to support specific measures.

Misleading use of a research paper  -Ivermectin. The Welcome trial and the I-Tech trial that were used to regulate against the drug both have well-criticized problems, some of them even an untrained eye can pick up. I don’t go into details here but recommend the above link, which criticises the committee overseeing the data as being a farce. Peer reviewers do not disclose themselves, and will often have conflicts of interest. Peer review is performed or delegated by journals, which receive most of their money from pharma advertising. Reviewers seldom get all the data. The more I look into this particular case, the more I believe that if we were to weed out the trials that did not take ivermectin with food, that neglected to add zinc (that makes ivermectin bioavailable to the body’s cells), and remove all the trials that were under dosing or single dosing, we would get repeatable results. There are studies that fit these criteria but the most pessimistic trials do not disclose acknowledgement of these conditions. Some research in support has been redacted, though this is not too uncommon in this age. This reflects badly on the researcher, but I’m not sure it reflects badly on the body of evidence. It is possible the additional financial incentive (amounting to literally tens of billions lost to the industry if it were found to be effective) could have outweighed the cost of the potential lives in the pre-vaccine year.  I think Pfizer has told us how they would approach such a question in their reluctance to give global access to that apparently most important initial vaccine dose. Pfizer and Merck have both been known to manipulate studies (New York Times article from 2008) and cause harm in the pursuit of profit, eg. Neurontin, Vytorin, Vioxx, and there is now indisputable proof the covid BNT162b2 vaccine trial data was also manipulated (I go into this later). So why did Merck restrict access to ivermectin, a WHO designated “essential medicine”, before good research was published instead of simply recommending against its for covid use?

We must remember when we cite evidence, we are not providing proof. Even science reporters forget this. I cannot prove any theories here, other than it being foolishness to dismiss them without looking at the totality of evidence. Are we paying too little attention to a study author’s affiliations? Does science contribute to misinformation?. There is no doubt that much current published research findings are false

Misleading use of a research paper -Risk to children. A seemingly massive study on children who presented to the ED while being PCR-positive appears to be designed to focus on risk factors in various age groups under 18years old. If this was the purpose, we cannot tell by the title of the paper. Authors were sympathetic to big pharma (ie. have received money from). The study has been inappropriately used by NZ media to imply not risk factors, but prevalence. A more appropriately written article on this same study appears here. I looked over as many freely available studies as I could find showing the risk to children from (pre-omicron) Covid-19 complications and found the conclusions of the study in question (pre Delta) were not backed up by the body of evidence. The media, while acknowledging children were not at risk of complications, have many times repeated claims made in this study. I noted the results in the abstract are justified by the inclusion of 2 particular cohorts (the 10-18yo and <1yo) that are both significantly more at risk and grossly over-represented in the study. It is worth noting the study’s limitations states there were “NO DIFFERENCES” between the children with covid and those without. The study includes a meaningless percentage figure that has no reference. 3% of PCR-Positive under 18yo experienced severe outcomes, but we do not know the % of PCR-Negative kids who suffered severe outcomes. They don’t mention if there were any deaths related to covid, but imply in suspiciously non-precise language there were four. Of all the studies I have read, this one takes the cake for ambiguous use of language and numbers.

Follow this link to read an expert analysis of another paper that comes to inappropriate conclusions. An experienced peer reviewer enlightens us with an example review of the following paper:  “Effectiveness of the BNT162b2 [Pfizer covid vaccine] vaccine among children”. In short, the paper has many short comings. Among other things, it recommends vaccination and facemasks, but does not support these recommendations from within the study. For example, at 28 days vaccine effectiveness for infection in 5-11year olds was only 12%, and there were not enough hospitalisations to give a confident number against hospitalisations, but again, it showed rapid waning. It gives no data at all on facemasks. This paper has been sitting unpair reviewed or published since the end of February. It has had 17,000 tweets and 330 media links. This is an ** article that puts the research paper into context with the other significant pieces of research on the topic.

All evidence needs to be weighted by the context in which it was gathered. If half of the trial data is missing, or the protocol changed half way through, our level of certainty needs to reflect that. If we want robust evidence-based policy, we need to find a way of collecting evidence that is not connected to shareholders.

HOSPITALISATION FIGURES PRESENTING NZ AND ENGLISH DATA
In August 2021 a poll in the US found that 90% of people overestimated the risk of hospitalization for the unvaccinated. I feel nearly all commentators in the NZ media fell into this assumption. This is a snapshot of our hospitalisation numbers from the MOH website for the 24th April. Compare this to the RNZ snapshot further below. Follow the link for other daily examples. (my population percentages for 24 April came from Flourish/RNZ.)

  • Unvaccinated together with all kids were 18% of hospitalised; 22% of population;
  • partially vaxed were (8 cases) 3% of hospitalised;  1% of population;
  • double vaccinated (68 cases) 26% of hospitalised; 27% of population;
  • Received booster (127 cases)  49% of hospitalised;  51% of population;
  • unknown (7 cases hospitalised) 3% of hospitalised

Below are numbers from the RNZ rolling averages of new hospitalisations bar graph (from 24 April). I have represented the % to exclude under 12yo, who are unknown and have no place in the graph. From this data it could be that overall vaccination ends up making us more susceptible to hospitalisation in the medium term. Kids have a very low risk (before Omicron it was near zero) of severe disease, and by vaccinating the young, we may be exposing them to increased risk of transmission and hospitalisation over the longer term (the numbers and research on this are currently very unsettled). We also can’t say with conviction that we vaccinate ‘to slow transmission’. As of May we were still using advertising saying “Protect your Whanau”. This rationale has not been relevant for many months now. With no currently known transmission benefit, no research showing statistically relevant reduction in hospitalisation in kids, and underwhelming estimations on long-covid reduction, we seem to be vaccinating children on reasons of ‘virtue’. Pfizer’s own documents state outright that younger age groups have “less mild” adverse events after vaccination.

Using RNZ numbers:

  • Unvaccinated were 9.7% of newly hospitalised; 8.2% of population;
  • partially vaccinated rounded numbers too small.
  • double vaccinated were 41% of hospitalisations; 31.5% of population;
  • Received booster were 48% of hospitalisations; 59% of population;
  • Any Vax are 89% of hospitalisations; 91% of population;

For the same date, it is interesting how different these Flourish/RNZ numbers are, for whatever reason. All these are numbers with no weighting applied, they raise questions but provide no answers in themselves. Why do the single and double vaccinated look so vulnerable? Is this the same data being used by the Director of health when he tells us the unvaccinated are more vulnerable to covid? The numbers mismatching the statements have been a consistent source of confusion. Reviewing this RNZ graph again now in May and June shows the trend of the vaccinated population being over-represented in hospitals worsening. The booster looks like it protects somewhat from the waning immunity effect, but protects more against the overall negative efficacy of the primary course, providing no benefit over the unvaccinated baseline. If it is found the unvaccinated denominator is higher, the numbers will look even worse. Unfortunately, this data shows the double vaccinated are worse off than the unvaccinated in mortality also, as demonstrated by the numbers below.

Official UK data (please download the latest reference table and look at table 5)gives us all-cause and covid-related mortality broken down by vaccination status and age.

Using UK all-cause mortality numbers (all per 100, 000)

                                                        for 55yo and 25yo females (march):

  • Unvaccinated       (55yo) 303      and 24 (25yo) deaths per 100,000;
  • partially vaccinated        795      and 74 deaths per 100,000;
  • double vaccinated           491      and 20 deaths per 100,000);
  • Received booster                         208      and 25 deaths per 100,000);
  • Any Vax                           498      and 40 deaths per 100,000

These numbers are typical of numbers in the dataset. As expected, there is no benefit even to those boosted 25 year-olds (they are not at risk), but the over 40s do see short-term benefit. The single shot number (74) represents a staggering three times risk compared to the unvaccinated ‘control’ group. Here is some of this data laid out in a series of well presented graphs. If these numbers are representative as they stand, the risks need to be disclosed to each age group as part of the informed-consent process. If they are not representative, then statisticians will need to find valid weightings that account for the high death rates in the double-vaccinated. Boosters look appealing to those wanting to get themselves out of the most at-risk groups. But even these numbers suggest we are vaccinating on faith. To be clear, I am not suggesting the vaccines do not work, they appear to work against death with covid in some age groups. I don’t feel I need to go over this as the media have covered this aspect at length. There is a recent UK research paper that shows a safe vaccine. It concludes the opposite of what we observe from the Omicron data. But note, the research period started in December 2020, when all deaths would have been in the unvaccinated. It has no control for stabilising the denominator that I can see. Therefore, the raw data above is a much fairer way to assess safety as the denominator is consistent. The UK initially explained higher infection rates by citing the ‘healthy vaccine effect’, whereby those vaccinated are more likely to mingle. No evidence for this was given. The  healthy vaccine effect is the exact opposite of what I’m seeing in my own community. That is to say, more shots received do not equate to a more care-free attitude. In all, the current statistics and science are not strong enough to justify any level of fear of the unvaccinated, but fear is still present, adding to division in our society.

How do we explain the negative efficacy against death? Supporting the official numbers, there is some research, albeit underpowered, that points to double shots leading to an immune function lower than baseline. As we look for explanations we should be forgiven for considering hypotheses such as ADE, given some vaccines have a historical link to Antibody-Dependent Enhancement. Published studies usually go against the intuitive interpretation of the current official raw data. Blood antibody testing is an unreasonable shortcut to prove efficacy. It’s a moot point, but emergency authorization was granted on the vaccine’s ability to stop infection, not to prevent covid hospitalisation and death. We are all hoping the official all-cause data (NZ, UK, Canada) has a reasonable explanation. The research by Ariel Karlinksy into global excess deaths (the well publicised WHO affiliated research) provides no clue as to what is happening here due to the data cut-off date of November 2021, but provides some fascinating insights. I think Sweden and Japan among others have a significant story to tell. The author pointed out there will be pressure on governments to show that excess mortality does not exceed covid deaths.

In ADE theory using analogous terms: Each vaccinated person creates the same (Neutralizing) antibodies to the vaccine spike protein (the Wuhan strain), which may be non-neutralizing with respect to a later strain. This also selects for further mutations that avoid the vaccine-induced antibodies and makes them more prevalent. This theory has been noted in other viral immune responses and can also happen with natural infection. The first variants were trying to solve a variety of problems, which made them seasonal (remember the delta wave that confused us by creeping snail-paced across the US? The politically divided country tried to claim blue states were getting sick because they were not taking precautions). Remember also, the first variants were unlikely to infect children (medical journals from the era did not come up with any safety signals for kids -I monitored this closely). After the routine of vaccination against an extinct variant, the virus has lost its seasonal preference, has no problem infecting children, and waves of re-infection between subvariants are happening in very short order amongst highly vaccinated nations. Many are questioning if we would have all these vaccine evading variants if we had not been continuing to vaccinate against the original extinct strain.

Evolutionary biologist Bret Weinstein has gone through data from historical pandemics and found no other event that lasted longer than 18 months. PCR testing has confirmed the Spanish Flu pandemic retained the same variant that went into endemicity. There is no reason to assume we are not seeing viral enhancement related to our own antibodies –Antibody-Dependent Enhancement. Humans have tried, but never successfully made a coronavirus vaccine, as these viruses mutate too quickly. Test animals suffered apparent ADE on reintroducing them to the virus, so our expectations were perhaps optimistically unrealistic.  

The Political Environment

THE WHO & FDA & Bill Gates. In an interesting twist, the WHO is developing a pandemic treaty / accord that will direct and supersede individual Government decisions. Do we trust our government not to sign this treaty without a decent amount of discussion? The NZ people would need to have implicit trust in Bill Gates, and the FDA (the two largest sponsors of the WHO) based on accurate information for this to work. Would we see a confounding of bias if the number of voices around the world were to be reduced? What are the benefits in giving the WHO (and therefore its partners) a legal say in how we negotiate pandemics? Would this mean trial whistle-blowers will be hit harder in the future than currently, and censorship increased? This article suggest WHO’s director general is using ideology, rather than science –an argument that is unavoidable while much of WHO’s funding is dependent on Bill Gates. To put this in context, I believe we are already signatories to WHO guidelines, but the treaty would put legal ramifications onto dissenting countries.

Depending on the year, the WHO receives about $600m annually from the US and well over $700m from Foundations under Bill Gates’ influence. (The Gates Foundation and GAVI give $430m and $315m respectively). Much of the research the WHO sees comes from money and institutions reliant on Fauci and Gates and most voluntary funding (75% to 85%) is earmarked for specific purposes. Under Fauci, for the last many decades, the US has seen a decline in health and lifespan, and in the last few years Fauci’s health dictate has presided over a significantly higher covid mortality rate than every other OECD country. According to Robert Kennedy Jr his ‘mistakes’ always fall ‘one way’, that is, in favour of the pharmaceutical companies. One mistake was authorising Paxlovid for the vaccinated population despite no positive trials in that group (the trial in vaccinated people was done post-authorisation and showed the drug to be entirely unhelpful (or in some cases detrimental) for most vaccinated people -by this time the US already had a program to make the drug freely available to those testing positive). The argument continues that Fauci has dodged the opportunity to fund quality research into his country’s increasing health problems, for which suspected potential causes can be narrowed down to a fairly short list. NZ would benefit greatly if this research was to be done. This appears not to be from a lack of money or directive, as Kennedy outlines in his book: ‘The Real Anthony Fauci’.

I’ve read claims from a variety of sources that scientists are afraid to speak up against Fauci’s understanding of science. Prof. Jay Bhattacharya makes the claim in an  interview “Fauci, whom I previously admired, behaved like a mob boss just to create an illusion of consensus that didn’t exist. … In the US, if you want to further your career in bio-sciences you need to secure a NHS grant, it’s like a marker of success, and you are not going to jeopardize that.” Bhattacharya (Professor of Medicine at Stanford university) has been belittled by Fauci as ‘fringe’ for voicing his opinion. It seems clear from a variety of sources that doctors or scientists can lose funding, and lose their jobs for as little sharing research on social media that go against the ‘consensus’. Bhattacharya did an interview in April 2022 which I thoroughly recommend, from which some of the information here comes. He published a paper that showed 3% of people already had antibodies to covid in April 2020. This proved covid was already well established in the American population, and therefore the measures currently being taken were not going to lead where promised. It also meant the mortality rate was lower than stated (0.2% in the community from this research –(note this is not the case fatality rate)). The response to the pre-print was a series of ‘hit pieces’ from the media on him and his family. Apparently, Official Information request releases show Fauci essentially ordered these hit pieces. Bhattacharya also believes America’s high death rate was partly a result of not protecting the elderly i.e. infected elderly were not removed from retirement homes.

The WHO has many genuine professionals trying to improve the world, but top level influence from the two major donor personalities are said to pull the agency away from an evidence base and into the world of ideology. We should listen to the stories of African nations in context with the WHO sponsored African review (I speak of Africa elsewhere). The research gives an estimation of covid exposure from examining bloodwork. For example, high exposure in a national population with low mortality should indicate vaccination will be of little value, though the African review does not cover mortality. Did the African countries that boldly showed resistance in that first WHO treaty discussion session in June have significant negative experiences with western institutions? There are stories of how the WHO and Gates have exploited African and Indian communities. This case study outlines how the Gates foundation is used to relocate drug development (phase three trials) to poorer countries with less regulation, sometimes leaving those experimented on devastated. Outcomes have variously included narcolepsy, sterility and death in test populations. It is a heart-breaking read, but is it true? (See next paragraph). Pharmaceutical companies primarily develop drugs to make money, i.e. to sell to wealthy nations.  So after the Randomised Controlled Trial is done in a third world country (the companies will get better results if their control arm is beneath the US standard of care), the medication is typically not available in that country. An honest look around the world at what has worked is needed before the world commits itself to an agreement with repercussions. We need to notice and respect those third world countries who historically have been penalized out of proportion by western institutions. (I have a lot of citations that I could add to these sections, time permitting).

There is a claim that the Gates foundation was involved with a Polio vaccine that caused 48,000 indian paralasis cases. Politifact gives a resounding FASLE verdict to the wilder claim 496, 000 children were paralysed, though the proof relies mostly on the Gates Foundation rebutting it. The 48, 000 number comes from a report that links an increased rate of paralysis to the regions with a higher uptake rate of the Gates funded polio vaccine. The BBC (with a history of printing flattering Gates articles) suggested the additional paralysis was down to increased monitoring. However, there is no will to confirm this. Gates’ GAVI is essentially a privately funded and run offshoot of the WHO, and (as outlined in one of my links) has unique legal status, being protected from legal (or at least criminal) enquiry. For balance, I include this current MSM and WHO story on a vaccine induced polio epidemic that includes two paralysed kids, and an ongoing wild polio epidemic. It points out 46 polio vaccination campaigns had been suspended across Africa due to the coronavirus pandemic.

After 2009’s H1N1 swine flu the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) made a number of recommendations to the WHO including greater transparency, better public health governance, safeguards against undue influence by vested interests, public funding of independent research, and, that the media “avoid sensationalism and scaremongering in the public health domain.” None of the recommendations were implemented. I see these are very similar points to my discussion around evidence-based medicine. I’ve read a number of scientists asking for this, including the British Medical Journal editor, and including a scientist who suggests we can remove bias even further by outsourcing data analysis to non-invested data-focused industries such as engineering firms. As I detail later, the WHO did not have a stance on Pfizer’s supporting (in court) the slow release of the vaccine trail data, a trickle of information that would take half a lifetime to release in full. It did not notice that Fauci’s statements were having a significant misleading effect on countries outside his jurisdiction. Why are we considering writing a treaty in the current environment when extraordinarily qualified experts are being censored for providing critique, and the media are suggesting a consensus that does not exist? Why are we not debating the track record of those most influential in public health? Support of this accord under these conditions can only lead to further fracturing of societies around the globe. Support for the pandemic treaty should be contingent on the restructuring of industry and regulators. The way the formal discussions and informal debate has gone so far, it feels as if our governments are not even interested in putting safeguards in place.

THE BALANCE OF FREE SPEECH AND CENSORSHIP. Governments around the world are currently working on internet censorship laws. Our own NZ government distances itself from reason when it says things like “we will continue to be your single source of truth“. Especially when, as outlined below, so many rumours have been now validated. This is not unlike Fauci’s sentiment: to disagree with me is to disagree with science. However we feel about our government, this attitude is not conducive to debating an internet censorship law. We need an update to our existing censorship laws, but the current environment is not right to impose restrictions that will affect all future internet traffic. Bear in mind media companies did immediately, and without regulation quickly remove footage of the 2019 gunman, but a new law would no doubt deal with the live-streaming aspect. From what I hear, live-streaming of the police-protester push at parliament was blocked. (Could someone confirm this?). Politically (domestically), this may not be the best time for the government to go ahead with reforms that unnecessarily align us with other global powers (Canada, U.K.). Perhaps a government with such strong numbers should not take on the task of defining words such as ‘misinformation’, no matter how well-meaning their intentions. Especially in light of their catch phrase ‘safe and effective‘ looking more and more shaky (single and double vaccine shots no longer obviously effective against hospitalisation, third shot very limited in duration, and the official post-marketing Pfizer documents leaving the word ‘safety’ ringing hollow).

One of the most influential voices of the pandemic, Bill Gates has built himself infinite positive media spin. He appears to have funded much of the debunking of experts who present inconvenient findings and opinions we have seen during the pandemic. Critics often feel they need to stay anonymous. “He is treated liked a head of state, not only at the WHO, but also at the G20,” a Geneva-based NGO representative said, calling Gates one of the most influential men in global health. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation bankrolled a 2016 report resulting in guidelines on how newsrooms can maintain editorial independence from philanthropic funders. It is ironic that one of the tools I have used to support arguments in this piece of writing is PolitiFact, who receives money from the Gates Foundation.  This article summarises Gates’ uncontested expertise: “… the media has given Gates an outsized voice in the pandemic, the foundation has long used its charitable giving to shape the public discourse on everything from global health to education to agriculture“. In 2016 the Cochrane library received $1.1m from the Gates foundation. Some saw their acceptance of that money as a mistake and now refer specifically to the ‘old Cochrane’ as a source of unbiased information. One of the founders of this institution is horrified by what the Cochrane has become. The foundation has given substantial money to many US universities. Bill Gates has an extraordinary amount of influence over pandemic science (this link is an example research directly funded by the foundation). ‘University departments become instruments of industry critics of industry face rejections from journals, legal threats, and the potential destruction of their careers’ (British Medical Journal).

A medical officer in Uganda echoes the words of Gates: “Omicron is the vaccine we failed to make”. However, in contrast to Gates’ disappointment, Dr. Wefwafa sees this as “a gift from God”. He goes on to say that instead of buying Africa covid vaccines, money would be better spent on dealing with malaria. If Kenya is representative of the region, this study suggests Africa has been hit harder than the official numbers suggest. However, it is still likely sub Saharan Africa has escaped the impact of covid that other countries have experienced. A  systematic review suggests sub Saharan Africa had 65% seroprevalence as of late 2021. The following article covers these two pieces of research but fails to mention the other things (such as a lack of access to local markets caused by lockdowns) that have contributed to the death toll. The harms of lockdowns are detailed later. Also, with much lower levels of known contributing factors on the continent (such as asthma, obesity, and an older population), we would not expect high death rates from the disease. What about genetics? Medicine and vaccines should not be colour blind, as the risk-benefit analysis will be different for different ethnic backgrounds. This article from 2020 provides detail of the importance of genetics regarding the outcomes of infectious diseases. According to another article, published in 2022, the majority of all clinical research is still being done on individuals of predominantly European descent. It references a recent paper that found 80% of individuals of African ancestry carried a protective gene variant. From reading other articles, a similar gene may be present in the Japanese population. In theory, perhaps a globally centralised agency would be in a good position to follow this research on behalf of the countries it represents, but an enforceable treaty led by an organisation that is not representative is not the way to do this.

The WHO (and especially Bill Gates) have been emphasising the possibility of variants coming from Africa. There is evidence for this, but it is not as strong as supposed, as Omicron has been retrospectively dated to other countries before its first detection in South Africa. Perhaps the strongest theory in support is based on the wide genetic variance that exists in Africa, as explained in the 2020 article above. WHO modellers have been unfair to Africa. I think it is clear to everyone now that modellers have been using poor hypotheses to come up with flawed projections (I think we need to define ‘worst-case scenario’, because a small tweak in parameters can lead to a projected outcome that becomes pure fantasy). I understand the political need to spell out doom and gloom in order to persuade, but we need to change the norm of providing figures without their context. According to Bhattacharya, the African-modelled projections were unrealistic because they ignored the known exponential increase of risk due to age. Africa had very few of the known risk-factors, and most significantly, a young population. For this reason alone the pandemic treaty would be disastrous for Africa. Models should come from a team of experts with local knowledge. Perhaps the WHO could provide scholarships or training if there is a lack of expertise? It is worth mentioning that nearly all WHO or Gates sponsored research in third wold countries is led by western academics.

THE EMERGENCE OF VARIANTS. It is possible that political or medical decisions created the environment for the more transmissible variants we have seen. Some virologists argue that vaccination drives new variants, some argue the opposite. In theory, vaccination should provide a hostile environment to the vaccination target. However, some research has noted most covid infections happen in the first two weeks after vaccination, before the body has manufactured specific antibodies (the link to an example of recent research is elsewhere). Other research backs this up by showing there is a drop in general immunity during this period. This is also the period that an infection is most likely to lead to mutations that will escape the still developing immune response. Another idea put forward by virologists is that due to the encoding of a only a portion of the spike protein, the vaccine is not designed to provoke a multi-faceted immune response to a variety of structural viral sections. Therefore, naturally induced antibodies will be more resistant to viral mutations because a variety of antibodies will be produced to target a variety of targets. Also, blood antibodies are not the same as mucosal antibodies. They do not target the initial entry pathway of an airborne virus such as corona viruses. Intuitively, measuring blood antibodies seems irrelevant to respiratory infection, but perhaps relevant to progression to severe disease –am I understanding this? This is made all the worse by continuing to mass-vaccinate during a pandemic of a different variant such as omicron. Whatever the reason, I’ve read from a number of qualified virology sources ‘you cannot vaccinate your way out of a pandemic.’ If this is a firm rule of thumb, perhaps it was politicians, not scientists who made the call for mass vaccination. Certainly, the prediction came true. The advice to vaccinate only the vulnerable during such times is backed up by this 2015 research paper titled ‘Imperfect Vaccination Can Enhance the Transmission of Highly Virulent Pathogens.’  Let us consider the official narrative. It relies on facts that from the beginning have been underwhelming.The narrative in the link relies wholly on viral replication numbers, and ignores the 7 to 14-day stand-down period where mutations are more likely to successfully evade the developing antibodies.  

PFIZER’S and MERCK’S INFLUENCE. Currently, the Reuters chairman (previously the CEO) also sits on the board of Pfizer. In 2009 a study showed that all major media outlets except CBS in the USA share at least one board member with at least one pharmaceutical company. [I recently came across this 2008 headline ‘How Independent Are Vaccine Defenders?’. It was an unexpected MSM topic, until I realised the publisher was CBS. NZ is missing a whole side of the story as we import all our pharma-related information from pharma-affiliated outlets]. Sadly, I see no reason we would see international agendas discussed in the media. It is not in the interest of either the ownership or the advertiser. The owners and advertisers are often, or even usually, the same people. I can trace the shareholders of Pfizer to the top shareholders of the companies that own NZME and Warner (between them they have most of the New Zealand media covered). There are plenty of perfectly verifiable newsworthy stories that are ignored because they are not consistent with the government message ‘safe and effective’. This has become more obvious since the Pfizer/FDA post-marketing safety and regulatory document releases. The agendas of various global agencies tend to look good on paper, but our job is to make sure the detail stays true to the stated intention. I disagree with statements suggesting the public are not interested, and I doubt there is any research to back those statements up. Our lively (but heavily weighted) discussion on FTAs were testament to that. Big pharma spends about 6.5 billion on US direct consumer advertising per year. 4.5 billion goes on TV advertising. Media outlets will not willingly cover stories that jeopardise that relationship. The US media influence our own media. It would be interesting to see how much journalism we import, and from where. NZ On Air has given some very generous grants to nearly all NZ media outlets throughout the pandemic. This has the effect of removing media independence, and has possibly helped us stay true to the rhetorical ‘team of 5 million’. The funding rounds keep coming, and the amounts fluctuate, so I don’t imagine any agency would want to jeopardise that relationship. Some outlets are getting journalists for free.

In March both the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal made an attack on the drug Ivermectin. The NYTimes article follows the story of the drug’s demise. Here is the study, and here is a non-mainstream critique of the study. Here is the NZHerald article. Are the mainstream media leaving room for honest debate? In contrast, here is a collection of analysis for early treatments put together by those who think debate has been limited. More on Ivermectin later.

INDEPENDENT MEDIA. I appreciate that Michael Baker did an interview with a non-government-affiliated media entity, Sean Plunket’s The Platform. The interview went well, and it is the first time I’ve heard Baker held to answering difficult questions. I think this in itself validates the need for independent media. The Platform is currently not competing in the same NZ On Air funding pool or for the same advertising dollars as all other main stream media, and according to Plunket “is not in the pocket of any corporate” . Colin Peacock (of RNZs Media Watch) contests the relevance of this claim, but nevertheless, states this is ‘the first of its kind in NZ media’. I value this opportunity to learn a little more about the way Baker sees the pandemic as he gives us a rundown and some opinions. As of May 2022, NZ has 1/1000 covid deaths, which is the same as the seasonal flu, stressing this is because of vaccination, not because Omicron is ‘mild’. This includes ‘with’ and ‘by’ covid. Baker gave no suggestion the government can or wants to speed up the processing of the two contentious death designations, which is done by panel. Even gunshot mortalities need to go through this 2-year process.

“[Omicron] hasn’t suddenly become less harmful”. He does not mention the bulk of the research is split on this, however.

Baker’s answer on masks is the most troublesome. Plunket: “When will we get rid of the masks? Will we ever?” Baker: “It depends on your health status.” Plunket: “No, it depends on whether the government mandates it or not.” Baker then answers by comparing masks to wearing seat belts. Pushed further, he deflected again “we have written a lot about revising mask policy because it’s important in schools.”

His final word on the matter was even with higher vaccination rates, “We have to sort out indoor air quality.” I think it’s fair to say Baker dodged the specific question, and the encompassing question here: Are mask mandates justified in the literature? (my supporting link here is a little cheeky, but it is entertaining and shows the folly of scientists getting messed up with policy making). The Gisborne Herald has published a wider range of viewpoints than I have seen elsewhere, and it may be due to the fact it is one of only two independently owned daily newspapers currently in NZ.

INTERNATIONAL CENSORSHIP. Us  Medical Journals, US Medical schools, and most US mainstream media all have significant direct input from the drug industry. These American institutions are highly relevant to us here in NZ and Australia. First, we rely on decisions for inclusion or exclusion of research in a journal to be fair. Much has been written on the quality of research routinely published. Please read this opinion piece ‘the illusion of evidence based medicine (British Medical Journal). It is said research going against current policy is slower to be published and given a harder time. Second, I believe our own medical academic content is influenced by the textbooks exported from this conflicted system. Third, direct sponsorship and advertising from pharma is currently framing US mainstream media content, which spills over to us directly as imported content in NZ newspapers. The NZ Herald imports a lot of material from the NY Times, which can’t escape its loyalty to Gates (who provides funds to journalism schools and the guideline committee mentioned below). To demonstrate the relevance of US-based lobby groups in NZ, along with the US we are the only countries that allow direct-to-consumer advertising of drugs. It is hard to find evidence that this policy has done any good for either country, but hopefully the good relationship got us cheaper or prioritised vaccines. Somehow, I doubt it. To understand the illusion of evidence-based medicine better, please read this comments section of the British Medical Journal article referenced above. It is fascinating.

The British Medical Journal got into trouble with Facebook, and a Cochrane Library review got blocked by Instagram. When TrialSite reported that Slovakia authorized ivermectin for a six-month emergency period during the pandemic Facebook scrubbed the posting as “misinformation.” Tokyo’s Medical Assoc. Chairman recommended ivermectin in Aug2021. An American misinformation campaign told selective truths leading the American public to believe it was merely a rumour. Research on masks published in the Annals of Internal Medicine was labelled by Facebook as misinformation. Nor did FB appreciate links to peer-reviewed papers on vitamins. Further, I have found too often the verdicts of fact-checks come down to ‘while technically correct, the claim is lacking context … therefore: FALSE’. Facebook possibly wanted to do the right thing by offering their services to Fauci, but should have gone neutral on the posts discussing medical publications. Here is Reuters’ shot at damage control. The suggestion we were going to take regular booster shots was even labelled ‘conspiracy’. Discussing data that relates to fertility was, and still is, frowned on. There is still only one ‘acceptable’ reason for our plummeting birth rates, yet another reason exists that has a strong temporal correlation. On the one hand, I understand covid is dangerous during pregnancy, but on the other, informed consent is seen as a human right in NZ. How many people are aware there was no vaccine safety data on pregnancy, or what the post-marketing documents suggest on this? (Here, just for interest I include a fascinating paper on pregnancy and immunology). Any other drug would have disclaimers displayed in fine print on all the advertising.

In this video a US senator chairs a meeting with professionals who have been censored or persecuted for their treatment beliefs. There is an emotional moment from a senior doctor at 28 minutes who feels he had to watch his patients die due to his treatment options being taken away from him. He then described how his character was assassinated. This whole video gives good insight to the difficulties faced by the US health professionals who believe they have been shut out. These people have been portrayed as disingenuous ego filled enemies, but I believe they are genuine in their grievances, and that the rules really did change underneath them. I can’t comment on whether their beliefs are correct or not but it appears from the video it is not ego that is driving these health professionals.

We can now talk about many things that would once be met with by a Facebook ban for ‘misinformation’. For example:

1. The ** immune suppression (low white blood cells) that occurs for the first week following the first jab. This was first hinted at in the original Pfizer trial, and then repeatedly in subsequent research, yet talking about it led to people having their FB accounts suspended. Now we see from the Pfizer’s official post-marketing Official Information request (FOIR) documents that this was known by Pfizer and the FDA from the beginning, and could explain the extremely high hospitalization rates in partially vaccinated people that have periodically been seen in official data (during certain months running at 3 – 8 times that of the unvaccinated going from graphs from the RNZ website) .

2. The harms of lockdowns were denied by the US establishment, that is, until proven beyond doubt.

3.The lab-leak theory was attacked and suffered FB censorship until its strongest opponents were shown to have funded the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

My writing here has also been censored (i.e. FB removed the link), though I’m not sure which sections I would need to remove to make it compliant.

As Facebook reads this post, could I point out that I have tried to give my points good references, and where I give my own opinion I am at least as careful as mainstream media (MSM) not to state it as fact. That it is good to acknowledge flaws in a system in the hope they can be understood and improved. That there is a need to understand all sides of an argument and that single-sided viewpoints have split families in my country. That it is very hard to know what is true and what is not in a media world with so many conflicting interests.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. Leadership in the USA is confirmed to be heavily invested in vaccines, covid medicines and tests. Google/Alphabet has investments in a vaccine company, Bill Gates is the public figure with the most personal investment in vaccination, and has pushed hard for lockdowns and masks. During 2020 his wealth increased by $23b. I find it curious that Gates has strong positions on some aspects that are not well grounded in evidence, yet he doesn’t fund the research needed. Fauci is a long term lobbyist for mRNA vaccine technology: his legacy in the public health arena to this point seems to have been in patented pharmaceutical drugs.

Gates has for decades campaigned on gifting vaccines to the third world. Yet both Gates and the WHO were not able to motivate Pfizer to donate any significant number of vaccines to Covax, despite Pfizer both accepting large covid development grants from governments and making huge profits in a very short time, and despite Pfizer, Gates and the WHO all agreeing that unequal vaccine distribution drives the emergence of covid variants. Gates undermined the 2020 efforts to create a WHO-backed covid intellectual-property pool (c-tap). This was designed to share information to speed up development and guarantee drug or vaccine access or manufacture to poorer nations. It initially had broad international support and I believe this scheme could have also helped to rebuild historical trust issues held by some African communities. Just weeks after the idea was agreed upon, Gates essentially killed it with his own counter scheme (also backed by the WHO) that upheld intellectual property and supported business as usual. Gates’ preferred model retains the relationship of a powerful donor, and subordinate beneficiaries, as opposed to supporting the transition to a more equal relationship as the scientific technology is taken up. India, Africa, even Cuba have the facilities to manufacture vaccines given the chance, but Gates made it quite clear that the risks of letting non-western countries manufacture vaccines was too high. Please read this article on Cuba, and this article on Baltimore demonstrating Gates either misdirected or misunderstood the situation. The story framed in this way tells of a philanthropist and businessman essentially deciding it was better to chance low vaccination rates than to chance de-centralised manufacture. I am arguing this is not the decision of a public health expert, but of a businessman. If this framing of the story is representative of events, then market-based decisions made by a significant influencer led the WHO to promote an inferior scheme that failed to deliver. This demonstrates a vulnerability the WHO must overcome if it is to gain our trust. We must get the funding model right before proposing a pandemic treaty.

US regulators and the pharma industry are clearly very much involved in each others’ affairs. Policy makers end up on private-sector boards. Wall Street analysis, Edward Dowd goes into detail on how corruption slowly creeps into these institutions. Regulators make decisions based on reports pharma writes about its own products. There is evidence to believe the FDA was the only regulator to see much of Pfizer’s paperwork. It may be the FDA’s emergency authorization was then used as supporting material for our own authorization. (An OIA shows an incredible lack of  NZ government information on Remdesivir, for example). It appears Medsafe and the UK equivalent was not given information that would have been necessary for informed consent (again, see the released Pfizer documents). That being said, a rushed approval and rushed campaign could have been in NZs best interests as we had not yet joined the pandemic. I understand the textbook approach is not to vaccinate during a pandemic for fear of promoting variants. This medical journal article speaks of** captured university deans and captured regulators, and even goes as far as to propose fixes to the current problem. We have been told to trust the science over and over again, but anyone who reads the “wrong” science has been ridiculed. The BMJ article above points to reasons we were not meant to read the science for ourselves and reminds us there is no compulsion for a company to release a failed or negative trial. It also appears, however, there was a failure to report adverse events. The article refers directly to the Pfizer product that was mandated in NZ. What would the public-private stakeholder model do in this space? Shareholders would need to reduce their rights significantly.

UNDER-REGULATED. Pfizer’s pivotal covid vaccine trial was funded by the company, designed, run, analysed, and authored by Pfizer employees. Credible allegations of falsification of data did not trigger the expected response from the FDA. As of information released on March 2022, it appears there were no agency representatives on the safety committee. The FDA failed to respond to a Freedom of Information Request regarding the Pfizer trial data. When the court was asked to step in, both the FDA and Pfizer fought the US court system when it ruled that it’s vaccine trial data be publicly released as a matter of urgency in order to reduce vaccine hesitancy. In an environment such as this, concerns about privacy and intellectual property rights should not hold sway according to this article published in the BMJ. Looking at the main Pfizer study, we see people at risk of covid complications were not included in the research, yet such people (that is, vulnerable people) were the first to be offered the vaccinations by governments. Global regulators dropped the mRNA integrity requirement to 50% after authorisation was granted. This was due to commercial manufacturing not able to meet the value in the original applications, this means the clinical trials do not refer to the vaccine manufacturing tolerance we are all taking. According to this video, any batch that comes out with over 72% mRNA integrity essentially gives an unstable result. There are reports of batches in Australia that go as high as 80%. Pfizer did not seek the oversight of an independent regulating body, despite its reputation as worlds least trusted corporation. The Indian government would only buy Pfizer’s product if it were allowed to conduct a local safety study. Apparently this is a standard requirement in India. It also did not agree to Pfizer’s requirement for legal protection over side effects. Again, this is standard in India. Pfizer refused on both counts. However, Pfizer did allow Japan to do additional research, which added significantly to the body of knowledge.

Additional interesting notes from the post authorisation documents: Outcomes for many test subjects appear to be not included in the original authorization analysis (this link outlines what is probably a representative example). The number of adverse reactions on a percentage basis are much higher than previously disclosed. The CDC withheld information on the effectiveness of boosters, hospitalisations, wastewater analysis, infections and deaths broken down by age and vaccination status citing concerns that the data could be misinterpreted and cause vaccine hesitancy. There is a growing mistrust of the CDC and its publications. The paediatric vaccine did not go through any real trial. Robert Malone uses the trial on under 12y olds as an example of how a peer review works. Adverse events in children may be higher according to this research.

A brief comment on Wuhan: A 100,000 page leak reveals some scientists (including Fauci, but not his bosses) know a lot more than they let on. I will condense VanityFair’s article: Two months before the pandemic was officially declared, the Wuhan Institute of Virology took down its database of 22,000 virus sequences and refused to restore it. Fauci’s NIH issued $3.7m to an NGO in 2014 to help “Understand the Risk Of Bat Coronavirus Emergence”. $600,000 of this went to the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV). The US and WIV have a moratorium that allows each to be able to ask the other to delete records without explanation. An unsuspecting scientist found this bat research, wrote a paper, and uploaded it to a medical server. The implicated scientists banded together to write the infamous Lancet letter. The letter was used to label the Lab Leak Theory as a conspiracy theory on social media and global print media (including in NZ). An evolutionary biologist has pointed out how unexpected it is to find coronavirus spreading to remote organ tissues that provide no obvious evolutionary advantage. This breaks from our understanding of coronaviruses, and according to him supports the accidental lab leak-theory. Fauci has previously supported gain of function as “worth the risk”, so this is not outside the realm of what our system is capable of. More recently, This article from the NYTimes references research which I can only see as mitigation. (Note: some of my provided links are to free versions of paid content). Realistically, I don’t think a full investigation is politically possible. No-one wants the theory to be true, and it would make things impossibly complicated for China and America both internally and internationally. The BBC has written a fair overview, mentioning Fauci’s engagement, the Vanity Fair investigation, the leaked emails, and the US funding grant to the Wuhan Institute of Virology. It does not cover the Lancet letter saga, however.   

To be fair to Fauci, I need one of his advocates to help me understand his actions. I feel he defies best practice when it comes to science, in favour of politics. I can’t get past him not needing to know the Absolute Risk Reduction, not needing to know the overall health outcomes of the drugs he is regulating (think Remdisivier, and various AIDS medications, Paxlovid), allowing his staff to receive royalties for drugs that get developed and authorised with public money, not asking for autopsies for people who die after taking newly developed drugs, and allowing company insiders to sit on authorisation and safety boards for their own products. He has the power to address these problems. I’m very open to someone correcting my bias on this man. This paragraph was designed to be provocative in the hope it may lead to me learning something more endearing. I feel I don’t know the full story here!

THE WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM AND THE GREAT RESET. The World Economic Forum paints a positive picture of the future in what they call the Great Reset. It appears to be compatible with the UNs 2030 agenda. Klaus Schwab (WEF founder) probably genuinely believes we can change the balance of power for the better, using his Stakeholder capitalism model, though he appears blind to some of the realities. From one angle the WEF is essentially advocating for decision-making on a global scale outside of the democratic process. From another angle it is a hollow attempt at white-washing the actions of its members. From another angle it is a top-down attempt to impose one man’s ideology on an unsupportive business community. The reason I can’t take this at face value is because the membership seems diametrically opposed to the spirit of the proposal.

The 600 page WEF 2010 report on the great reset principles focusses on global interdependence and public-private governance. “The government voice would be one among many, without always being the final arbiter.” A very fair  review of the report can be found here. I count 147 mentions of transparency in the 600 page report, and Schwab uses the word in his talks. However, I keep returning to the fact the UN and WHO have not even given lip service to the PACE recommendations on drug trial transparency (details above) and that the food and pharmaceutical industries seem incompatible with responsibility. At this point the argument becomes circular. We will never allow the great powers to realise their dream of global currency and leadership openly. People seldom knowingly surrender their power.

The FDA is a failed example of pubic-private partnership, though Schwab would probably say this is a bad example. With the well documented and accepted corruption at the Ventavia vaccine trial site in mind (see below) I see a regulator partnered with industry in such a way that the regulation itself becomes meaningless. The regulator ignores trial corruption, conspires with industry to bury inconvenient safety records, stands with the industry against the public interest (requiring legal intervention), allows the industry to organise its own safety committees, and organises public money to develop intellectual property for products which are then sold at market value back to the public. Have I missed anything?Under this arrangement US public health has deteriorated. The US public pay the most, are the most medicated in the world, and the medication itself is the 3rd leading cause of death. Fauci, who has been on the face of the decline for a staggering 50 years, makes decisions that are criticized for benefiting the pharma industry at the expense of public health. As a non-elected official who has managed to make his government department (NAID) a very lucrative partner of the pharmaceutical industry, he has managed to become one of the two most influential individuals in global health care.

The Pfizer CEO uses words to obfuscate the fact he has focused solely on selling covid vaccines to wealthy nations. There seem to be many attendees of the Davos-Geneva meetings whose words concerning climate change and sustainability are diametrically opposed to their actions. If to be a member of the WEF it costs USD60k, and only members can buy tickets to the Davos event, it is likely to attract people who are driven mostly by financial wealth. And how much diversity is going to be present? Would there be even a single cooperate voice attneding that did not feel conflicted between justifying their salary and the need to speak out about the need for transparency? This brings us to the UN.

THE UNITED NATIONS. The extremely wealthy have been meeting in Davos, Switzerland, providing a co-ordinated global direction for the last decade. So, how is their track record? Are we closer to curbing global emissions? Is there any onus on the controlling elite to reduce their own carbon footprint? Do carbon credits put any onus on the wealthy to reduce their own emissions? Can excess or luxury be offset by simply using money to ‘externalise’ the true cost (i.e. by purchasing carbon credits)? Are we closer to a form of global peace that serves anyone else but the West? Have we seen these people try to earn our trust through respectful actions, or does it look more as if they are trying to manufacture trust? [Some of the individual major power players have not changed over the decades, so it’s possible a lack of progress amounts to a lack of their genuine will on many counts.] Have they opened up access to medical trial data and other types of transparency? Where are the moves by billionaire pandemic-benefactors to be more lenient with prices during emergencies? From reading through the Davos meeting agendas, I am disheartened by what is missing. One attending reporter called Davos the world’s biggest networking event. The WEF also meet in Switzerland (Geneva) at the same time. I feel that structural institutional problems with the UN, Davos and WEF (overly influenced by rich men and their clubs) will often lead to implementation failures. This said, the UN, like the WHO, can’t help but do a lot of good, as there are so many genuine and and highly effective people working for them. And most of the leaders will be there to make a positive difference within their political constraints but there are always those niggly few that are most interested in making no effective change and spinning resulting talking points positively. The security council may also have within them people who cannot see beyond their own representative self-interest. The framework has to be fair and right from the beginning, as it becomes institutionalised very quickly, and as such, becomes invisible and unquestionable. I include this paragraph because the UN appears to support the WHO in its present form, and therefore is not supportive of the PACE recommendations. The WHO is an agency of the UN.

Incidentally, an Oxfam report from this year (2022) titled ‘Profiting from Pain’ states 573 people became billionaires during the pandemic while “millions of people are facing impossible rises in the cost of simply staying alive,”. 263 million will “crash into extreme poverty”. Also that billionaires’ wealth has risen more in the first 24 months of COVID-19 than in the previous 23 years combined. Pandemics in themselves, therefore, centralise power. The world’s ten richest men own more wealth than the bottom 40% of humanity. “Over two years since the pandemic began, after more than 20 million estimated deaths from COVID-19 and widespread economic destruction, government leaders in Davos face a choice: act as proxies for the billionaire class who plunder their economies or take bold steps to act in the interests of their great majorities“.

Governments and Conspiracy Theories

Some believe the “great reset” is the endgame of a conspiracy that involves the planned pandemic and similar disasters that are designed to put stress on populations over the next few years. At its most basic, the main conspiracy narrative is of unconsensual centralisation of power which is being expediated through carefully planned events. The evidence I’ve seen does not exclude this, but it is more likely powerful global players are simply using pre-existing circumstances to strengthen their position. For reasons I don’t understand our own NZ government seems to need to keep pace with certain other countries against a growing mountain of evidence. We would have started out in good faith, complying with Tedros’ letter from the WHO, reading and believing the advice from the WHO, which would be reinforced through our membership with ICMRA and perhaps other channels, then gaining confidence from our early successes. In an error of judgement we payed an advertising firm ultimately owned by the same owners as Pfizer to do our PR, thereby entrenching our trajectory and making it impossible to adapt to the evolving situation. I believe we suffered a complete failure to assess incoming recommendations in the context of the current viral and political environment. The outcome was limited success against the virus and significant social harms that that the public never saw coming.

THE ENDGAME. The stated goals of the UN and WEF have become much closer to reality during the pandemic, whether by luck or leverage. Powerful WEF members like Pfizer who are clearly not behind Schwab’s vision of the Great Reset principles as they exist on paper could hijack the Stakeholder Capitalism framework. With diluted democratic voices, would the show be run by the loudest bullies? The investment company Blackrock already has more resources than nations such as Germany and Japan, and this model would codify/embedd their power. Does the stakeholder capitalism model simply mean that Blackrock and its subsidiaries will call the shots on protecting the environment, our health and the media available to us? They already have a hold on the US government so the decisions of the corporates would be supported by the largest (most lobbied) governments. We may end up with no voice in our own country. Is it significant to us that the Blackrock CEO wants to use the Ukraine attack as leverage for a fully digitized global currency? This would rationally be the spark of a decent debate as it suggests a structural overhaul of one of the cornerstones of our society. The newspapers gave it only a cursory mention. As we approach the UNs goals for 2030, we need to ask how do we want change to be driven, not just the nature of the change. Do we want it driven by the most powerful lobby groups through governments, or by the lobby groups directly? Because the only other possibility I see is through transparent discussion (without sponsored content being prioritised on FB or traditional media), and then through nations making better informed decisions at the ballot box. We feel informed, but only by media owned by those prescribing the change. This link contains a piece of writing sponsored by the WEF, painting an idealised view of the world, post great reset. It is worth a read. A central theme of the goal is that individuals in society will own nothing. Companies will own their own products, which become services. Shareholders will not be #1. The remainder of this paragraph are my own projections. Products, I imagine, will therefore become more durable, unless the government becomes a middle man and controls what is available. I imagine we will continue to loose personal skills as we contract more out, thereby losing a lot of personal autonomy. Without ownership we will be more vulnerable, just as renters are vs homeowners. This will need to be a generational change in NZ, as many of us would find it hard to adjust to sharing living space in the manner suggested. Overall, I suspect this will be detrimental to the general wellbeing of the population, unless independent psychologists and sociologists have a significant hand in the systems design. However, multi-discipline implementation does not seem to be in fashion.

Well Presented Arguments. Like the US military data, Australian data may have been manipulated. This example from NSW presents a convincing theory that explains anomalies in the NSW numbers and explains the actions of those presenting them. Arguments such as Kahn’s should be easy to mitigate if the will was there. For example, when changing over from one definition to another, perhaps they could transition over the course of a month, where they would use both definitions. The extra work would be minimal compared to the energy put into fighting the respective sides of the information war. The benefits of this approach could probably be seen in mental health alone. Kahn is proving foul play using data he claims comes from the health department. But what if his screenshots and Official Information request data are fabricated?  What can we deduce? The New Zealand RNZ visualizations data was looking very damning last month. This month all data that includes the unvaccinated has been removed. In the end it is not clear who to trust. The American authorities are having trouble with this too. However, if authorities really cared about misinformation they would keep unvaccinated data clean and not pool it with unrelated data (such as the ‘unknowns’ (in Aus) and ‘ineligible’ (in NZ)). In the latest MOH update (as of writing mid July) the MOH still lump the unvaccinated with the not eligible and include deaths who have recently been boosted (up to 35 days (7 days from vaccination plus 28 days from the covid test)) in the double vaccinated. When the RNZ charts were taken down, the double vaccinated were starting to look worse than the contaminated unvaccinated numbers.  Using the standards of Politifact as a model, we can safely say the assertions made from contaminated data is misinformation. The official statements of vaccine protection cannot be confirmed by the released numbers.

Is the government doing the best it can in an impossible situation?  We can probably explain most pandemic anomalies without resorting to cross-agency corruption or organised conspiracy. However, there are a few details that I cannot put down to being short staffed, having poor data, or contentious personal opinion. By stating these out loud I hope to find an answer.

1. Why have no national health authorities been doing autopsies on deaths after vaccination? Vaccine hesitancy is higher with this vaccine than any other, and national reporting systems (the infamous VAERS, CARM, and EudraVigilance) around the world show higher rates of mortality following mRNA vaccination than with any other vaccination program. With pandemic status, all hands are on deck, so a lack of autopsies can’t be from a lack of resources or need.

2. The push to get vaccinated against the Wuhan strain even after natural infection is another policy we must be getting from abroad, because there is no publicly available published evidence strong enough to support the policy at this stage.  

3. Why the NZ government is not softening its advertising of the vaccination program in light of the very high rates of hospitalisation amongst the vaccinated and the difficulty in obtaining clean data (see previous paragraph).

It seems there is global consensus not to do autopsies and this may be based on common information the authorities are getting through the WHO, the International Coalition of Medicines Regulatory Authorities (ICMRA), or some other industry channel.  My theory is that pharmaceutically sourced propaganda and an American PR machine control information, using sponsored media and channels such as ICMRA. They use the idea of misinformation as a tool to dismiss opposition, no matter how strong the evidence appears. Gates has this capability. (this is a reused link). Here are a few of the facts that drive people’s belief in conspiracy theories. WEF trustees are the former Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund, the President of the European Central Bank, Queen Rania, and the CEO of BlackRock. The WEFs members include nearly all the major global corporations. The lack of consistent information creates shadowy area where truth becomes enigmatic, and fear takes over. In an unfortunate choice of words WEF founder Klaus Schwab has said he is “proud” his people have “infiltrated cabinets”. The “narrow window of opportunity” provides a sense of urgency which may or may not explain the urgency that governments, including ours, feel in pushing pivotal legislation through without the support from the public. I have been critical of previous governments pushing unpopular legislation through in order to support international agreements. In the case of the 2014 Food Hygiene act, the stated goals will never be realised because they were never the true aim. We simply aligned our legislation with that of our trading partners. In the case of the three waters restructuring, I have no idea what the government hopes to achieve, but again, they have lost political capital for no obvious gain. From recent statements we know Canadian PM Trudeau is one of Schwab’s ‘people’. I feel that to retain political capital, Adern should be distancing herself from this group, but is continuing to show alignment through her actions and governments legislation. There are large and powerful institutions trying to unite the world to common ends. Do we see those goals as the solution to issues that need addressing, or as an ideologically driven agenda? The push for global governance is not openly spoken about and this invites people to try and join the dots with limited information. I support discussion, as even if it causes short-term discomfort, full discourse is less likely to cause long term-damage (such as poorly constructed regulation, and systemic mistrust). Governments with a strong majority tend to pass legislation under urgency, using distraction when they don’t want debate. I am not saying the overall motives of the government are not virtuous, I am saying I don’t know what they are and they are not being communicated.

JACINDA ADERN. I include this section to facilitate discourse amongst factions, not to make comment on the strength of argument.

 After having spoken to people who hold various views regarding our PM, there are three categories I would place the anti-Jacinda rhetoric into.

  • fear of her previous connection with the WEF, Schwab, and similar globally focused movements
  • a perceived governmental preference for centralizing decisions (this is often expressed as a fear of socialism)
  • Overt sexism.

I can speak to the first and second point. The great reset is scary to many because it represents an unknown future, and either fairly or unfairly, Adern has been implicated by association. Here is a rather opinionated take on the WEF Young Global Leaders group that attempts to associate Gates, Merkel, Blair, Branson, founders of Google, FB, Wikipedia with WEF Young Global Leaders that were in office during the pandemic: Jacinda Ardern, Emmanuel Macron (France), Sebastian Kurz (Austrian Chancellor), Viktor Orbán (Hungary PM). I am unsure what the significance of this is, other than to say if this information is new to you, then the conversation is not being had. There is no verifiable information on what happens at the WEF workshops, but it is Schwab’s pet project, participants attend them over a number of years, and networking is an important aspect.

NZ and THE PANDEMIC TREATY  This NZ website has posted this deeply troubling idea suggesting the government intends to support a legally binding pandemic treaty without entering public debate. This lack of debate regarding the centralising handover of power to the WHO is eerie. First, we must accept that the centralisation is an ideology, not necessarily good or bad. Second, we must accept that it reduces lines of research enquiry to one source. Hence, centralisation is likely to amplify successes and failures while giving little opportunity to use comparisons to assess merit. It does not make scientific sense to support a system that publishes the same recommendations to all global regions across varied environments. The relevant factors that come to my mind seem to be ignored: do they have a defendable border systems against the virus, are they rich, poor, found to be genetically resilient, what is the local seroprevalence, do the recommendations have verifiable RCT data supporting them, does the age of the population put them at risk, what resources are available locally to offset the harms of interventions? The first question we need to ask ourselves is, using the current situation, how did countries that followed WHO guidelines perform in a variety of metrics. I reiterate, neither the WHO or its two largest sponsors have shown any interest in the need for research trial transparency. Our government failed on this count by not requiring detailed data from the vaccine companies. To be fair, vaccine mandates should be contingent on the imposing authority making available scrutinisable Randomised Control Trial data. The data should be complete and it should not show increased mortality. Failure to meet these requirements could perhaps justify authorisation, but not mandates. Bill Gates is concerningly quiet on any real transparency (see his book How to Prevent the Next Pandemic -scroll down in this link to Kevin Pezzi’s review). The proposed treaty raises too many issues to slip through undebated.

ASSUMPTIONS MADE REGARDING THE COURSE OF THE VIRUS. There is a lot of conflicting information about the course of the virus prior to the WHO’s calling of the pandemic at the end of 2019. Bill Gates had been articulating his concern over the risk of a pandemic for up to a decade, but ‘event 201’ was the first major desktop simulation to include both the public and private sector, and occurred during October 2019. On comparing the footage of the event to the way the covid pandemic was handled, the exercise may have done more harm than good. Many critics note the authority’s handling of the pandemic followed closely the template laid out in the exercise, and did not respond well to curveballs. A cynic could almost say Bill Gates used the event as a networking tool to spread his ideas throughout various industries. It is clear he was not simply following science or scientific principles. Combatting misinformation and maintaining control of information was dealt with at length in the exercise. To make matters worse, it is possible the exercise was concurrent with real world active SARS-CoV-2 transmission, as bloodwork research points to existing antibodies in various communities well before SARS-CoV-2 and Covid were identified. As arguably the most influential individual in pandemic science, it is possible Gates was aware of a dangerous unknown contagion circulating. If so, he certainly would have been aware of the possibilities, as US government money had been recently granted to one of the two places in the world that were known to be studying bat corona viruses. Incidentally, this timeline discounts the ‘Plandemic’ idea proposed by some, as the virus pre-dated the simulation by around six months.

OVERTLY POLITICISED MISINFORMATION. The New Zealand Government, (namely, the PM’s office) employs the services of the covid-start-up-company Te Pūnaha Matatini to provide covid models. Te Pūnaha Matatini also runs the Disinformation Project under Sanjana Hattotuwa, which claims to be independent. The Disinformation Project produced this research paper which is heavily criticised by academic Guy Hatchard. Newspapers around the country have used Hattotuwa’s authority to back up single-sided news stories that dismiss all critics regardless of their qualifications. These overly-sensationalised articles often choose inflammatory examples, fuelling division that runs through our country. At their worst these articles incite hate from those in the strongest position (roughly identifying with majority views) towards vulnerable New Zealanders, and at best they stifle much-needed dialogue between groups. There is well organised propaganda coming from the anti-government camp, but it appears cabinet are condoning a very divisive campaign.

From what I see, the closest the dissenters got to discussing their issues with covid officials appears to be through the Human Rights Commissioner, who noted sections of society were ‘pulling away from one another’. It took over 3 months for the PM to grant the Commissioner a meeting. I am not sure whether it is the Commissioner who failed here, or the PM’s office. David Seymour (Act Party) wants to get rid of the human rights commission. If the commissioner’s office is failing to add value, uphold and highlight human rights, or is not respected by the government, then we need to consider a new proposal. It would be good to know this story from the PMs point of view. It looks as if authorities have disregarded concerns without even speaking to the complainants’ representatives. A concerning example is the Director General of Health’s declining of exemptions. Even for people with myocarditis after vaccination, the best he could do was grant a ‘recovery’ period before the next dose.

The US attempted to create a Misinformation Governance Board in April/May. The administration appointed a known anti-free-speech chair, and critics immediately pointed out she herself was a misinformation spreader. This embarrassment was too much to bear, and the board was abandoned.

Widely believed misinformation is real, and coming from all sides.

Example 1.  I have found no compelling evidence there are seven official pages of adverse effects that relate directly to the Pfizer mRNA vaccines. I have read these Pfizer-sourced pages and the list could easily stem from known general vaccination side-effects. The official documents simply do not clarify what the seven pages refer to, other than being ‘of interest’.

Example 2.  The FDA allegedly tried to “hide documents for 55 years before releasing them”. This is not quite accurate. The FDA failed to respond to a Freedom Of Information Request to release the Pfizer trial documents. 18 months passed between the time of the FOI Request and the end of the ensuing court case (January 2022). But the 55 or 75 years stems from the FDAs submission to the court that it was only capable of releasing the documents at a speed of 500 pages per month. The main documents possibly numbered around 392,000 pages, equating to 5 years. Add to that the incidental documents that were subsequently requested, and the last released page could conceivably be decades down the line. However, the district court ordered a release rate of 55,000 pages per month, so we should have the entirety within 8 months. The strangest part is that Pfizer stepped in to support the FDA’s case for the slower release rate. There is a great deal more to this story, with no single source giving the whole picture.

Are There Any Certainties? Some of the arguments are strong enough that they cannot be marginalized. So what do we actually know without any doubt? We know there are claims being made on safety that are scientifically unjustified. (See chapter on ‘Unless endpoints’). We know what the research has to say about naturally induced viral protection. (See vaccine vs previous protection) . We know the vaccine Pfizer trial was not credible. We know vaccines (and medication) in general can cause harm, or be beneficial (see non specific vaccines effects). We known NZ had very low mortality rates compared to the rest of the world in 2020. We know authorities are currently releasing data that does not support continued mandates (see hospitalization figures). We know the FDA and Pfizer have transparency problems (see PACE and BMJ references). We know there is no review that shows those following the lead of the WHO, Gates, or Fauci had significantly better outcomes than those who did not. We know there are a few individuals globally have extraordinary influence on global health policy (see the balance of free speech). We know NZ is not officially releasing information that compares vaccinated outcomes with unvaccinated outcomes (see Well Presented Arguments).

We also know a large group of New Zealanders have been marginalized by the officials and media. This is the point that proves we are treading new territory. Officials have chosen to nurture the majority at the expense of the minority by allowing one group to believe they are superior. Officials do not treat ANY other social issue this way. Instead of working through the issue, officials have decided the problems are the result of an inability to assess information likely stemming from mental imbalance. Those afflicted suffer from a weakness and irrationality not comparable to smokers and junk-food addicts.  Officials provide no support.  To be clear, this was not put down to a difference of opinion, but difference in mental capacity. The majority was protected from the ideas of a minority who was depicted as unclean or dangerous. We are treading new ground, and we cannot fairly assess what is possible, and what is not.

What do we assume? We can’t say much about covid mortality. The flue and Omicron currently have the same death rate according to Michael Baker.  We can’t say much about long covid. It can occur with or without vaccination, and with or without recognizable infection. We can’t claim to have a robust method of scientific enquiry, bringing into question whole trends in recent research. We can’t say much about fact checkers, as they have got a great deal wrong over the last few years. We are assuming too much.  This is outside our experience so we should not assume we know what kind of pressure our government is under.  

Scientific Anomalies and Record-Keeping

USELESS ENDPOINTS AND PROVING SAFETY. Experts are not engaging with critics on safety. The Pfizer trial itself has nothing to say about transmission and does not suggest safety. The assumption from those trained in evidence-based medicine is that the trial would have shown a reduction in death and hospitalisation if the trial had been large enough. But Illness + Death were not Clinical Endpoints  and as such, the numbers on this are regarded as noise. I will present these numbers, as they are supported by other sources, many of which you have been reading about. On page 11 of the Pfizer Trial Supplementary material we see the numbers for ‘Any Serious Adverse Event’. A Serious Adverse Event is defined here as an event worthy of a hospital trip. We see a 10% relative (or 0.1% absolute) risk increase in the vaccine arm against the placebo. I am unsure what the 3 deaths in this chart refer to, as the parent research report shows 20 vaccine recipients died in total. Pfizer never finished this trial –they broke the protocol in the placebo arm. The reason for this is the efficacy was so high it was the only ‘responsible’ thing to do. Perhaps they never considered the trial was to be used to justify mandates in various countries. The worst reading of this is that the trial had to succeed due to the promises made, and that Pfizer wanted to be dominant provider badly enough to put a stop to the trial before the safety numbers got any worse. Please read this abstract, and note the ‘similar article’ links provided that states ‘Overall Survival is a robust clinical endpoint that a trial should not fail’.

It is curious to note that trials on ivermectin usually have more survivors in the active arm compared with the placebo group, but the trials can still give the drug a fail because ‘overall survival’ is not usually used as a clinical endpoint. This appears to be down to flaws in trial design, which would usually need to be larger if they were to give certainty to such an outcome. It appears a clinical endpoint can be anything, and can even change halfway through a trial. A single trial arm can even halve in numbers during the trial period due to participants being excluded by researchers for various reasons as the trial progresses (creating a severe imbalance) and still be upheld as research strong enough to base policy on. ‘Evidence-Based Medicine’ is not what it seems.

A clinical trial failing a drug on ‘soft’ outcomes while overlooking more objective measures can be illustrated in the following example. The I-Tech ivermectin trial used the subjective measure of ‘progression to severe disease’ as the primary outcome. The drug failed against this measure. However, the same trial would have easily passed the drug if less subjective measures such as lowered numbers on mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit admission, or death were taken into account (ivm 3 deaths vs placebo 10). Ivermectin was rejected on the basis of this and two other highly flawed research papers. The article above on ivermectin puts forward a robust argument showing the weakness of our ‘Evidence-Based Medicine’ methodology, and how easily it can mislead us.

Two professors from a university in the UK looked for explanations of anomalies in the UK mortality data. The official UK mortality data shows spikes in the unvaccinated coincide with the vaccine rollout peaks. So how do we explain this? Vaccination ‘status’ kicks in only after two weeks, so had these victims received a vaccination or not? This research paper was rejected for publication (with no reason given), but possibly because the hypothesis would enhance vaccine hesitancy. At the same time, another paper (that was published) put forward a more palatable theory suggesting the most vulnerable were skipped for vaccination. This hypothesis directly contradicts the official statement from the controlling authority that the most vulnerable were vaccinated first. Like the first, the paper put forward an unfounded hypothesis to explain the enigma. There are now a few studies showing covid rates go up in the first week after vaccination (before people are classified as being vaccinated or boosted), so the first hypothesis is looking plausible. Both hypotheses should have been published.

According to this NIH report from 2021 titled “Post-vaccination COVID-19 deaths: a review of available evidence and recommendations for the global population”, significantly more people died after these vaccinations than expected, but these victims nearly all had underlying conditions. The report gives examples of clusters of deaths following covid vaccination then dismisses their relevance as not necessarily related. However, there does not appear to be any statistical analysis in the review. Evidence is based on death certificates, autopsies, and medical records on a case by case basis, ensuring any existing trend is missed. But we know with certainty that globally, authorities were not doing the background research to make this method plausible (lines of enquiry were and are dismissed), and that autopsies have been avoided. Therefore, with no evidence supporting the conclusion, this report can be used to support policy. From its outset, the review looked like it was going to address the data that shows many more times the post vaccination deaths than expected. It doesn’t. This is an example of the many reports that offer no analysis but dismisses the information we have (VAERS, CARM, and EudraVigilance) as unremarkable. The report offers clues as to how we come to the inflated mortality numbers in the unvaccinated. Nearly all of these people would have died within the 14 day stand-down period, making their status ‘unvaccinated’ in the official sense (7 days in NZ). This ends up supporting the unpublished hypothesis of the UK mortality numbers in the previous paragraph which suggested that vaccines were given to the most vulnerable first, which lead to the observed spikes in the ‘unvaccinated’ that coincided with the peaks of the vaccine rollout in each age group. The report does not support the more palatable hypothesis above that was based on presuming those near death skipped vaccination. It is worth extracting this quote from the large piece of research mentioned above (under the Long Covid heading) that “81% of patients vaccinated before infection in our cohort were infected with SARS-CoV-2 within 2 weeks of vaccination, which would be before acquiring immunity from vaccination”.

There is one large controlled study that attempts to prove safety by investigating 25 predicted outcomes, but they do not set out to answer the big question “Do people who take the vaccines have less illness and death?”. Research papers up to now have tended to skirt around this obvious (and rather non-trivial) question. Neither the Pfizer data, the FDA data, the Israeli data, the UK data or even the New Zealand data suggest safety at this point. Even the US military DMED data after the ‘glitch’ was fixed does not suggest safety. The strongest proof of safety comes from older published research that did not look to directly answer the question. We are treading new ground, not just with mRNA technology, but even in our idea of what a vaccine should be able to do. The CDC changed the definition of a vaccine during the pandemic from ‘protection against disease’ to ‘stimulation of the immune system’. In this article on the change of definition we can notice some misinformation. The article clearly states the vaccines were never meant to prevent infections. In truth, authorisation was based solely on outcomes that showed the vaccines prevented infections, not disease. It is also misinformed to compare the repertoire of possible side effects  of a mRNA vaccine to a heritage vaccine. The argument that 11 billion doses given is proof of safety or efficacy only works if we are recording and acknowledging claims of injury, doing autopsies, and being transparent with our numbers.

Michael Baker, Guy Hatchard, and others  have had a go at estimating all-cause mortality in NZ over the first year(s). Hatchard, along with other  critics of NZ health policy have had their character targeted by journalists, while their science arguments receive no critique whatsoever. Here is another breakdown, this time using UK numbers. With reductive journalistic behaviour it is hard to know which aspects of our pandemic response need to be improved. When I had a chance to write my column in the newspaper I was met with attacks on my character, but not one single idea was rebutted.

ERRORS FALLING ONE WAY.  There seems to be no riskier place for a child to be during this pandemic than the USA. That is, until mid-march when the CDC corrected a long term ‘coding error’, and cut its child covid deaths by a quarter & population deaths by 72,000. The error was corrected shortly after a court agreed to hear a related case. The UK also is not without it its controversial numeracy. As mentioned earlier, the US military health data last year secretly corrected an undisclosed ‘glitch’ that resulted in the revision of half to a million armed services health records, thereby making 2021 appear exceedingly healthy compared to the rest of the country. Also, the numbers we have been given for vaccine compliance are inflated. In April the MOH fixed the problem of vaccination rates reaching the impossible 100% (briefly they exceeded 100% in parts of Canterbury). They currently use the term >99%, which is still practically impossible, and the underlying data they use for the denominator of total population proves my point. “If more people receive a COVID-19 vaccine than used health services in 2020 for a specific population sub-group, we see a coverage rate of over 100%” (this is from the first appended file under the heading ‘Details’ in the previous link). The “number of people who used health services in 2020” is clearly not representative of the whole NZ population, but happens to represents the people most likely to get vaccinated. Data is also derived from StatsNZ data, which probably refers to the online 2018 census which gives us “full or partial information for only 90%” and had to be padded out from other sources. This particular census was particularly inaccurate for Maori. These important statistical weaknesses are glossed over by media and experts alike.

“An accurate measurement of all adverse events is not required” -Ashly Bloomfield. Such official data is missing globally. Officials everywhere seem to be avoiding the job of collating this important data. The Pfizer trial lost its control group after 2-3 months, and the data we currently have needed a court-order to release it. Why did no media friendly scientists alert us to this?  When statisticians try and analyze the VEARS or CARM data, they are met with the sentiment described by Dr Petousis-Harris as “garbage in, garbage out”. This is unfair as the numbers are said to be gathered as a ‘warning system’. Just to provide perspective, the US adverse reporting system (VAERS) provides a myocarditis vaccine risk of about 79x normal in 16-17yo males. A study published in JAMA gives the rate of 105 per million, with a background incidence are 1.3 per million. In contrast, Pfizer’s post-marketing documents for over 16yos gives serious heart issues occurring in 7.5 per million, and all heart issues as 11 per million. Pfizer’s document includes redactions that hide the number of new staff required to process adverse events, and obscure the total number of shots given over the time period. We are fortunate that the redacted numbers are revealed inadvertently in one of the pages. Of the 42,086 case reports over the covered three months, 1223 listed ‘death’ as the outcome. 9400 of the case reports list ‘unknown’, and 11,361 case reports list ‘not recovered’ as the outcome. These numbers give no confidence in the ability to gather vital data, and they make a joke of any statistical analysis that is done on the remaining intact data.

WE ARE NO LONGER FOLLOWING SCIENCE. Our doctors are required to support the health policy of the day. So does NZ  have qualified independent epidemiologists and other scientists who are able to identify flawed data and speak openly on it? To what degree should we allow policy to be criticized?  Newspapers do not print the opinion of qualified critiques and actively slander qualified critiques on other platforms. Science requires discourse. Abroad, the British Medical Journal has recently published a very critical letter from a member of the U.K. independent Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) entitled: ‘If we are no longer “following the science,” what are we following?’. This is a must read.

I was disappointed to see this NZ FOI response to an inquiry which confirms double standards with regards to remdesivir and ivermectin. In this particular case, though not legally obliged, extra effort should have been made to be transparent due to the controversy. The maker of remdesivir is represented on FDAs covid treatment panel and Anthony Fauci strongly supports it. The drug has also previously been pulled from trials due to toxicity. In the case of remdesivir, research was originally designed to demonstrate improved mortality, but later changed to a lesser endpoint.  Remdesivir has fewer drug interactions than the newcomer, Paxlovid, but it is said to be harder to show a mortality benefit. The WHO originally advised against using remdesivir for covid, but more recently has given it a conditional okay.

Real world data from another extremely high value drug, Paxlovid, shows it may exasperate problems in the <60 vaccinated. Paxlovid was authorised and funded for the general population on the basis of its success on unvaccinated people. We know there is a rebound issue where the vaccinated (not the unvaccinated) may get returning symptoms after coming off the medication. Pfizer’s CEO suggests these people should simply take a second course of the drug (but there is no evidence it will help). The US drug buying agency spends 530USD per course. This highlights the double standard being used for Vitamin D and Ivermectin.  UPDATE: There is now a trial for Paxlovid amongst the vaccinated. It doesn’t shorten the course of the disease for most people, but according to this research it reduces mortality in the vulnerable if taken early. The trick is to identify the appropriate patients, as there is risk that Paxlovid rebound may be driving new variants if given too widely.

Overall benefit from lockdowns. NZ may have been one of the few countries that got measurable benefit out of lockdowns. Globally, however, the research is inconclusive. A trio of world class epidemiologists (including one of the most cited) have argued lockdowns have prolonged the epidemic, and caused unnecessary death and misery. This paragraph tells their story as of early 2022. 100 million people have been thrown into poverty since lockdowns, eating into the progress made on poverty over the last few decades. Nearly 250,000 children had died of starvation as a consequence of the economic dislocation from lockdowns in south Asia. Health providers cancelled or postponed cancer, heart and diabetes treatments. In June of 2020, one in four young adults surveyed reported to the CDC that they had seriously considered suicide. Even brief school closures have been seen to impact children’s futures. Research estimates over 10 million life years lost from the US school closures in 2020. I have not come across any suggestion that education experts and sociologists have been involved in policy discussions. Bear in mind that the circulating covid strain was not spreading amongst children when they closed schools in 2020. The trio of academics have co-written an article that compares mortality from countries with respect to the measures they took. African regions have been hard hit, suffering increased starvation from lockdown measures. Bhattacharya conducted one of the early seroprevalence studies. Using people who had contracted the disease (people with antibodies) as a denominator, the mortality rate for Alpha was 0.25%. The WHO, using a case based denominator, came up with 3% mortality, overstating mortality by a factor of ten. The former method is more scientific, but there is evidence from OIA documents that promoting fear was an important part of the official toolkit. This brings me to reiterate one of my main concerns -was advice on using fear and social distancing sought from a wide range of experts? If so, on what basis did we decide the young could cope with the dysfunction? Of the 30 or so people on the three NZ official covid committees that ultimately report to the government I only see one psychologist, and he is on what looks like the lowest tear. We could have lessened the impact on young people, who are now paying a high price. The Great Barrington Declaration is based on the idea of targeted protection and has 60, 000 signatures from health professionals. – “Move heaven and earth” for the vulnerable until vaccines were available, without the extreme social cost. During the 2020 lockdowns those infected under the age of 70 had a 0.05% mortality risk, so it was argued that even without vaccines, allowing the virus to spread amongst the resilient would achieve herd immunity with minimal damage—”We didn’t even attempt to protect the vulnerable”. I believe Fauci has always promoted the idea that the virus is a danger to everyone, so only full lockdowns made sense to him. However, in some countries, those without welfare, lockdowns only protected middle-class people who could work remotely from home, that is, what Bhattacharya calls the ‘laptop class’. Fauci’s form of lockdowns in the US resulted in rich neighbourhoods having 1/3 the death rate from COVID than in the poor neighbourhoods. “It was almost a reverse focused protection. It was a catastrophic misapplication of precautionary principle.” When Fauci was confronted with these harms, he effectively said ‘that’s not my job’. Fauci is the face of US public health, and its largest influencer. His decisions also significantly impact us in NZ. The message to us has been ‘’the science is settled’, and to trust the officials. There was no good science supporting community lockdowns, though they may have seemed obvious if no alternatives were given. Once again, the WHO need to disclose the necessary analysis (along with the supporting data) of how lockdowns effected different communities. Their largest sponsor is an advocate of the ideology (refer to Bill Gates’ book How To Prevent The Next Pandemic), so in theory there should be plenty of rescourses allocated to the analysis.

VITAMIN D RESEARCH polarised. I would not be surprised if the Vitamin D question suffers from some level of biased trial design or other interference. Some doctors believe VD is an important part of prevention, the same doctors tend to believe in ivermectin. We seem to have two large contradictory pieces of research. As with Ivermectin, we have research that demonstrates outstanding protective effect, and we have research that shows no difference in infections. However, neither research was large enough to assess severe covid. According to this side-by-side comparison between the two studies, both are decent studies but the interpretation of the non hopeful trial would benefit from various sub analysis being conducted. The reviewer puts the onus on governments to fund trials that address hospitalisation. A curious note is that the no-benefit study says nothing about Vit Ds protective roll in the unvaccinated population, as this is the group claiming it’s overwhelming success. There may be a president for this as the two groups respond very differently to Paxlovid. Like ivermectin, the potential benefit according to all the available evidence of taking VD during an outbreak seems to outweigh the reasons not to take it.

IVERMECTIN the Villan. This a fascinating story with a clear potential motive behind it’s demonization. I make no claims on ivermectin other than it makes a great case study. It seems Dr. Andrew Hill was responsible for what was to be  one of the two definitive reviews of Ivermectin on which the WHO was to base its decision on. He described a “tricky situation” in which he acknowledged clear evidence that Ivermectin was going to save lives but his financial sponsor was demanding a ‘say’ in his final report. If the non-profit Unitaid was involved in peer reviewing Hills work, then there is a conflict of interest as Dr. Hill was an advisor both to Unitaid, and to Unitaid’s principle source of funds, the Gates foundation. There is non doubt Gates is heavily invested in patented covid medicines. Hill clearly acknowledged his belief that his own report to the WHO included summaries that did not represent the evidence, and he showed that he understood his report in its current state would lead to many thousands of deaths.

Unitaid, a charity funded by the Gates foundation awarded Dr. Hill’s university a $40 million grant a few days before Dr. Hill’s review swung away from being pro Ivermectin. These links contain a video and a  transcript of the emotionally loaded conversation between Dr Hill and another review author.

I have thoroughly read all the studies the Cochrane Library included in its ivermectin review.  I can confirm that at least half are able to show some kind of benefit, though often not significant. The other half are neutral. Somehow, the conclusion felt it was able to state it was “uncertain” if ivermectin worsened the disease when 100% of the included studies disagreed with that statement? (I have my notes on this)

Ivermectin was publicly vilified with an FDA misinformation campaign claiming the drug neither had antiviral properties, nor was it safe for humans. Along with the US media they got the message out loud and clear before the FDA unapologetically corrected their website to imply it was a human medicine used to treat some parasites. I do not have access to the original FDA page but I personally read it at the time. The FDA website retained the image of a vet with a horse. In reality it is a very safe drug listed as an essential medicine by the WHO, and is used by millions daily. Its newly found negative reputation is not backed up by science. The current FDA information page has been edited again, becoming even more moderate now that ivermectin is no longer in the spotlight.

Merck has been the largest manufacturer of ivermectin for 40 years, has distributed billions of doses, and has never spoken of worrisome safety signals. Suddenly, as Merck prepares Molnupiravir for the antiviral covid market (at $700 per course) ivermectin has new found toxicity. A news story appeared claiming EDs were inundated with ivermectin poisonings, yet the very same EDs were denying they had seen any increases. (I note even the BBC ran the story without checking it’s sources, only to delete the story when it was found to be bogus). Countries that actively use this drug often have lower mortality rates  (though Japan and Africa are thought to have protective genetics, which complicates ivermectins story somewhat). I’ve learnt a great deal with regard to the interoperation of research -Look for uneven demographics; look for less than useful primary clinical outcomes; look at mortality, whether or not it is a primary clinical outcome. All this becomes highlighted on reading Robert Kennedy Jrs account of how the drug remdesivir came to market. Fauci had done remdesivir research a few years earlier against ebola, and the drug was pulled due to toxicity. Covid specific RCTs from China and the EU, pointed to toxicity, but Fauci’s own study returned an improvement. The story goes he had to change the primary outcome away from mortality to get his positive study. In what may be Fauci’s most exposing moment, he made the drug a ‘standard of care’. According to Kennedy, he and his agency have large financial stakes in it’s success. The WHO has recently given remdesivir a weak/conditional okay, in striking contrast to Fauci’s approach, which was to recommend it as a standard of care.

There are many trials on Ivermectin that do, and do not show benefit. We have been told there is fraud involved. The goal posts for out of patent drug trials are high compared to patented drugs.

Here is a short list Logic problems that make me suspect there is something sinister going on with this drug:

  • Is it logical to ban a relatively harmless drug and cancel the practicing certificates of Ivermectin supporters during a healthcare and staffing crisis? These doctors all swore they were getting lower fatality rates than their peers, and universally claim authorities did not review their patients outcomes.
  • Why would a highly studied drug with very few papers showing risk impart such wrath from the FDA and media?
  • It is theorized by some detractors that IVM results are only positive when they come from countries with significant parasites, so why discourage it’s use in those very countries?
  • Here is the latest JAMA study that outwardly fails IVM. Note however that only 3 of the study group died (vs 9 in the control). According to EBM it is not statistically significant but is there a point where if it happens in a high enough proportion of trials it starts to prove safety at least?
  • Why is it preferable to allow desperate people to take the veterinary version thereby letting them overdose, than to use the safe pharmaceutical version?
  • Why is the threshold for calling out ‘falsified’ data lower for early intervention drugs than for the vaccines? There was no fuss made when we found that an unknown amount of bad data had gone into the Pfizer trial, but journalists were highly motivated to highlight bad data on IVM.
  • Why is every country following the same advice on a controversial drug? The controversy is not over the risk, but the efficacy.

It is worth noting the vaccines could not be authorized for emergency use if a treatment had been available.

For those people believing these issues are less relevant now, the claims from a Helen Clark lead panel report early last year still feel relevant. “The world cannot afford to focus only on Covid-19. It must learn from this crisis, and plan for the next one,” I argue that we can do our bit by talking about the problems that divide us into the trusting, and the untrusting.

Conclusion

SELF IMPORTANCE AND THE SANCTITY OF LIFE  -SELF REFLECTION
This is my personal check on perspective. These existential questions are sparked from the realisation that the current medicine trend is to focus on a narrow set or outcomes at the expense of reducing overall sickness and death. Should we put everybody in harm’s way to prolong the lives of others? Yes, this is the premise of any medical intervention. So now we need to decide to what degree. Is taking 5 years off millions of people worth prolonging a hundred thousand lives. Maybe, I don’t know. What about 10 years and one million? Is the reversing of the poverty trend by forcing 263million people below the poverty line a fair price to pay for preventing X number of deaths? I don’t know. Most of us move on from grief. Most of us do not move on from poverty, and it projects into the next generation. What is the real damage caused by 573 new billionaires during the pandemic? Do mammograms or prostate screens lead to shorter lives for some individuals? Yes. Do mammograms or prostate screens lead to longer life for some? Yes. Of the people knowing about their cancer, for some, treatment or the stress of worrying over a benign growth equates to years lost. Is this a fair trade for the similar number of years gained by others? Does it matter whether or not there is a net benefit? Perhaps it all comes down to how scared the individual is of death, vs how much they enjoy life. Is it fair to see our situation in these terms?

Should medical interventions continue to be exempt from the environmentalism debate? Is a life in the present worth more than a life in the future? Yes, but how much more? Perhaps giving someone an extra average 10 years while taking away an average 1 year of 10 times as many people should be seen in context of projected environmental conditions will be for our kids, and perhaps it shouldn’t. I don’t know.

The only take away from this, is with or without all the information, the answers are subjective. Our individual opinions are framed by our society and experiences, therefore no-one is virtuous in this debate. Mandating while at the same time not calling for data disclosure is virtuous to those who believe the means justifies the ends. Sometimes the journey has value, sometimes it is traumatic.

From my understanding of the information, it is possible the likes of Gates and Klaus Schwab genuinely believe we can reach a kind of utopia. Perhaps they believe that medical sacrifices must be made to expedite the goal.  But in my view, money making and the desire for control are simple enough to explain everything, and that is the only way to explain Fauci’s actions, which are transparent. What if the mRNA vaccines do interact with our DNA? There are reasoned theories that it does, and (obviously) no proof that it doesn’t. Authorities are not funding the necessary studies. Fauci and Gates both have a history of not funding appropriate studies.

I think I have proven beyond doubt that single sources of information, whether they be medical journals, governments, or media organisations must be understood in the context of one another. Even if after looking at the links you want to dismiss a third, or a half of my points, the remainder should prove that there is ample room for other points of view, and going by MOH and Flourish data (via RNZ) there is absolutely no reason to fear people who are unvaccinated. I cannot claim to be unvaccinated myself, but we sceptics seem to be the only ones keeping an eye on the detail of the science.

I was asked where the rabbit hole led to in response to a column I wrote for the Gisborne Herald. I can now answer to that with certainty. It leads to the US funding system. Universities competing for grants pass over qualified applicants to hire well connected deans that attract favour from NGOs and the US NHS. It leads to corporate hospitals with ties to the pharmaceutical industry. It leads to head researchers who need to keep funding on their side.

Am I taking exception to anomalies in a system that is trying to save us from a nasty virus. In which case we need to talk about this, to make sure the process will run more smoothly next time.

Or, are these anomalies indicative of a system that is designed to work in the interests of the worlds most resourced lobby groups. In which case, we need to talk about this.

Thank you for reading

Alexis P Copland

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Create your website with WordPress.com
Get started
%d bloggers like this: