Healing The Gulf of the Pandemic Divide: Seeking clarity amongst chaos

-Alexis Copland. Last updated June 2022.

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 who dissent is normalized? We do not know the size of the minority, nor has the minority any 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.

At the very least I prove using available evidence that mandates as we used them were unjustified in the and the current promotion of non-targeted vaccination misrepresents the available medical evidence.

Within the ideas below are answers that can only be realised by dialogue. The dialogue itself may dissolve many arguments if they start from a faulty premise. 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.

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 of the arguments, and an obsession with medical journals. 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.

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 nonet benefit to a healthy Omicron recovered 20 year old male by taking the booster, and there is no current evidence it will make those around him safer. Other groups may see varying amounts of benefit. 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 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) is still in favour. Perhaps the evidence  supporting the booster is limited to those in groups who are not efficient in producing antibodies, and does little to change outcomes in most groups. To be fair, much of the proof for boosters is nonsense. I am referring to the laboratory research where antibodies in blood samples are shown to neutralise the virus. Surely, the relevant factor is our mucosal response, not blood response (unless blood antibody response is perfectly analogous with mucosal antibody response).  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 hospitalisation benefit. 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 robust, yet all the NZ main stream media articles I’ve encountered imply the opposite without actually stating it. Government advertising states that immunization is recommended after recent infection, a theory which published studies do not 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, the FDA (Anthony Fauci specifically) constantly fuelled this debate for a year with knowledge of these FDA papers before finally accepting there “may be a case for it”. This was following a large Israeli study that points to 6 times higher hospitalisation rates amongst the vaccinated breakthroughs. It’s now more complex with Omicron and the waning vaccine but the current data shows the argument may still hold. 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 it’s weak science base. 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 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 the redeployment of a number of nurses who could demonstrate prior infection the option 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. This is likely to be at least a year to indefinitely depending on how many shots per year are administered to the vaccinated. The number of nurses who chose not to be mandated is reportedly 4-5 hundred.  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.

LONG COVID. The state of the evidence.
This article in a popular conventional science magazine states for those who experience breakthrough infections, vaccination might fall in the range of halving the risk of long covid, to having no effect on it at all. Research covering 12 million mostly male veterans recently found vaccination reduced Long Covid from 36% to 32% (media is widely reporting 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. The following study covers so many variables that it can’t be ignored. It is a good starting point for further research. It finds predicting factors regarding long covid in unexpected subgroups. Long covid is contentious because the symptoms are varied and are often the same for those who identify with long term vaccine injury. Studies underway will help us  arrive at more informed conclusions on this.

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 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.

MRNA VACCINE TECHNOLOGY. 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? I believe 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?

Surprising to many people, the evidence of vaccine harm is not just circumstantial. Many scientists have looked into the mechanisms by which the mRNA vaccine may interfere with DNA, and move around the body. 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. Given the all-cause mortality numbers outlined elsewhere we cannot dismiss these concerns without looking into them. 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. When the contrary became widely accepted based on bio-distribution studies, the media simply never mentioned it again. 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). This pre-omicron article provides a decent foil to some of these arguments, and may help put the overall discussion in context. The following is a fascinating theory on small fiber dysfunction that may tie together many of the problems being claimed. There are many more theories that can be backed up experimentally or clinically, and when different pieces of research come together to paint a coherent picture we should not be so quick to dismiss it. Here is a video clip and transcript from the Pfizer CEO on mRNA not being his 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. (I believe these documents were not available to Medsafe, so ironically, they had the ability to claim 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.

From what I have read, the heart muscle cannot repair itself (it scars easily) and historically, a very significant number of myocarditis diagnosed patients end up needing a heart transplant. The risk of heart problems among young people is now significantly higher after mRNA vaccination than after Covid infection. The newspapers seemed certain that heart problems were more common in the disease than due to vaccination even though the evidence did not match their confidence. There may be good reason for this in that prior to mRNA vaccines, myocarditis was not known to be caused by vaccination, though it is common among viral illnesses. 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 by simple syringe technique as a potentially helpful vaccination technique (Denmark’s (?) 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. 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 claiming 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 skipping breakfast, but from the Israeli and Nordic research linked above more may be vaccine. Putting pressure on an inflamed heart must be risky, even if the inflammation is sub-clinical. Therefore, perhaps males should have received the advice to skip their physical activity for a week following vaccination until more information became available. There are doctors who give this advice privately, but feel they wouldn’t safely be able to say so publicly. Internal government documents show warning signals of cardiac issues were there many months earlier than the public were told.

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. 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 investigate all safety issues independently to the pharma producers sooner rather than later. Albert Bourla (Pfizer CEO) says with a thick Greek accent: “Without IP 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.

Science is not definitive so we need the media to stop punishing leaders for changing their direction. As mentioned, strong Israeli data showed early last year those vaccinated under 40s were more at risk of myocarditis than the unvaccinated. Israeli research released April 2022 shows no increase amongst 4 million unvaccinated. The research is newsworthy but I didn’t notice it in the media. Official NZ data shows up to 9 per 100k amongst the vaccinated, well above the government’s expected number. What we know has changed. We need to foster an atmosphere where we do not expect the media or opposition to punish agencies for making statements that may contradict previous statements. 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 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 but not hidden and I shared it widely over the last 6 months. Instead, the media punished the MOH (through the framing of articles) only when it was announced they were 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.

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 their politicisation and monetization, this is no accident. The measles and polio vaccine were 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 could save the lives of millions of kids, according to unrelated researchers. 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 https://unherd.com/thepost/study-into-mrna/, though the AstraZeneca did.  Pfizer recipients had more non-covid medical issues that cancelled out the statistically significant benefit. The author also points that while negative non-specific events from vaccines are proven, once acknowledged they could lead to political fall-out. The WHO was alerted 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 the reduction in covid deaths is more important than the 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. There is very little research that directly contradicts this finding on overall mRNA vaccination and mortality, including Pfizer’s own trial, as I discuss later. In other words, there is no weight of evidence showing an mRNA vaccine mortality benefit, or otherwise, if we restrict ourselves to using what is described as Evidence Based Medicine. This is certainly not the only example of good evidence showing a medicine reducing the target disease yet increasing overall mortality. My understanding is the 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.

The Defence Medical Epidemiology Database (DMED) should provide some of the best population information available, but even this is debatable. Here, an analysist claims to provide proof beyond doubt the data has been altered. He argues over half a million undefinable illnesses were added each year from 2016-2020. This made 2020 the healthiest year on record. He also shows the cases of diagnosed covid got more acute after the vaccines came into use, with more doctors’ visits per case. The military responded to the changed data by claiming to have found and fixed a ‘glitch’. This might be more believable if the military’s revision had been acknowledged and noted in the database.

Covid causes many strange effects in the body. We see headlines such as ‘Hospital overrun with patients (NZ Herald)’, Dunedin Hospital close to ‘Code Black’ full capacity, and we see emergency services call-outs have increased here and overseas. We need to look for evidence the virus is actually causing this, and if we find it, it will inadvertently also be evidence for gain-of-function. I provide strong proof later that current science has a better understanding of general corona virus characteristics than we have been lead to believe.  SARS-CoV2, however, breaks the mould, 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.

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. From my understanding, evidence based medicine is a world where one or more studies, each ideally looking for exactly the same outcomes, leads close to certainty. Policy is then based on this single outcome (which 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 that there is 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 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 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 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, Vinay Prasad, has come up with an interesting Proposal: When applying for a research grant, scientists are also agreeing to the possibility of being drafted for 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 possibly 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 recommend against masks in 2020. Masking did not work for other viruses including influenza. There was a meta analysis confirming this. Then suddenly, using the same data there appeared a meta analysis claiming the opposite. A covid specific RCT (Bangladesh) was done and my understanding is 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 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 (PHD in Evidence Based Medicine) states there was not a single cluster randomized controlled trial done in the US on mask use despite the lack of supporting overseas research. 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. With ivermectin effectiveness there was strong evidence on both sides, both showing low risk, yet the science was claimed to be settled. I do not implicate our government in any pro-active poor decision making, our small country seems to have followed the lead of American influences or WHO recommendations (they don’t always agree). The media, however, should have filled out the story on both sides. Our emotive response is not consistent. We ‘do all we can’ as we mandate the vaccination of children and mask wearing, yet we don’t apply the mantra to other interventions that have perhaps even less ambiguity in the body of research. Do we have unconscious bias? Do we see vaccination as more virtuous than medication?  The body of research on ivermectin efficacy is from slightly worse than benign, to very effective. Does Evidence Based Medicine not allow us to put analysis into the context of the compromising issues outlined in my previous paragraph? Note that masks and ivermectin both have evidence against their use (i.e. neutral efficacy), but only the drug has strong evidence FOR its use (high efficacy). Before any large trials were even started for this out-of-patent drug, the main manufacturer, Merck, came out against its use for covid. According to the Tokyo Medical Association last year those jurisdictions wanting to try the drug for themselves are out of luck because Merck had cut supplies.

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 be worth just as much as those that use the most effective protocols. This is what I learnt from my following the research into 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. Peer review should mean very little if the reviewers do not disclose themselves, and nothing if conflicts of interest are at play. Reviewers, I’ve been told, look for plausibility, and seldom get the raw 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 bodies 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. Is it possible the additional financial incentive (amounting to tens of billions lost to the industry if it were found to be effective) could of outweighed the cost of the potential lives lost amongst those waiting for the vaccines?  I think Pfizer has told us how they approach would approach such a question in their reluctance to give global access to that apparently most important initial dose. Why did Merck restrict access to this WHO designated “essential medicine” instead of simply recommending against it for covid use?

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 fall into this trap. 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 and presumably all kids (18% of hospitalised) 22% of population;
  • partially (8 cases / 3% of hospitalised) 1% of population;
  • double vaccinated (68 cases / 26%) 27% of population;
  • Received booster (127 cases / 49%) 51% of population;
  • unknown (7 cases hospitalised/ 3%)

Below are numbers from the RNZ rolling averages of new hospitalisations bar graph (from 24 April). I have reworked 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 near zero risk of severe disease, and we may be exposing them to the potential increased longer term risk of transmission and hospitalisation (the numbers and research on this is currently very unsettled). We can no longer say with conviction, that we vaccinate ‘to slow transmission’. As of May we were still using advertising saying “Protect your Whanau”. This rational 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. (citation missing -I can find it if you’re interested)

Using RNZ numbers:

  • Unvaccinated (9.7% of newly hospitalised) 8.2% of population. (an external party has worked this out to be 2.6 per 100,000);
  • partially vaccinated rounded numbers too small;
  • double vaccinated (41% of hospitalisations) 31.5% of population. (2.5 per 100,000);
  • Received booster (48% of hospitalisations) 59% of population (1.6 per 100,000);
  • Any Vax (89% of hospitalisations) 91% of population

It is interesting how different these Flourish/RNZ numbers are, for whatever reason. All these are just numbers with no weighting applied, they raise questions but provide no answers in themselves. Why do the single and double vaccinated look so vulnerable? Will the booster look this way with waning in a few months? Reviewing this RNZ graph again now in May shows the trend worsening. The booster looks like it protects somewhat from the waning effect, but protects more against the waning of the primary course than compared to the unvaccinated. If it is found the unvaccinated denominator is higher, the numbers will look even worse. Official data showing the double vaccinated are worse off than the unvaccinated also spills over into mortality is not limited to NZ.

dOfficial 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 for 55yo and 25yo females (march):

  • Unvaccinated 303 (55yo) 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. As expected, there is no benefit even to those boostered 25 year olds (they are not at risk), but the over 40s do see genuine short term benefit. The single shot number (74) represents a staggering three times risk. 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 can get rid of double death rates or worse. 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 very well against death with covid in most age groups. I don’t feel I need to go over this as the media have covered this aspect at length. The UK explained higher infection rates by citing the healthy vaccine effect (with no evidence given), but this would need to apply to hospitalisations as well, an area where the vaccines are/were known to be ‘very effective’. Critics should be forgiven for considering hypothesis such as ADE, given mRNAs history of Antibody Dependent Enhancement prior to 2019. Also, 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 a more care-free attitude. Published studies usually go against the intuitive interpretation of the current official raw data. I guess we are to assume it is all in the weighting, but I’m having trouble seeing how. The argument posed by many conventionally published studies is explored in my opening paragraphs, but the studies never show us the data they start with, so it is a matter of faith. It’s a moot point, but emergency authorization was granted on the vaccines ability to stop infection, not to prevent covid hospitalisation and death. It is interesting they have failed at their prime purpose but succeed decently at the latter. 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 and now due to the data cut-off date of November 2021, but provides some fascinating incites. 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.

THE WHO & FDA & Gates
In an interesting twist, the WHO is developing a pandemic treaty / accord. The flaws in this idea are obvious unless we believe the WHO is willing to address the problems that critics of the pandemic response hold. Here is a rather opinionated view of the treaty that is worth a read. Do we trust our government not to sign this treaty without a decent amount of discussion? I agree with aspects of this article that suggest WHO’s director general is using ideology, rather than science. Would the NZ people need to have implicit trust in Bill Gates, and the FDA (the two largest sponsors of the WHO) 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 it’s partners) a legal say in how we negotiate pandemics? Would this mean whistle-blowers will be hit harder in the future than currently, and censorship increased? To put this in context, I believe we are already signatories to WHO guidelines, but the treaty would put legal ramifications onto decenting countries.

The Gates foundation and Fauci’s NHS are the largest contributors to the WHO and between them likely fund the majority of research the WHO sees. The US provides about $600m to the WHO, the Gates foundation $430m, Gates’ GAVI gives $315m and donations from other Gates supported organisations add millions more to his influence, ultimately significantly topping the US contribution. Under Fauci, for the last many decades, the US has seen a decline in health and lifespan, and in the last few years 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. Fauci has dodged the opportunity to fund quality research into his countries 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 this in his book: ‘The Real Anthony Fauci’. There will be citations available for the above paragraph in his book. I can find them if requested.

There are 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 in interview “Fauci, whom I previously admired, behaved like a mob boss just to create an illusion of consensus that didn’t exits. … 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 Standford university) has been belittled by Fauci as ‘fringe’ for voicing his opinion. It seems clear from my reading of a variety of sources that doctors or scientists can loose funding, and loose 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 studied, and would therefore show the measures 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. OIA releases show Fauci essentially ordered these hit pieces. He also believes America’s high death rate was partly a result of not protecting he elderly i.e. infected elderly were not removed from nursing 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 bloodwork. High exposure with low mortality should indicate vaccination will be of little value, for example, 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? The internet has many stories to tell of how the WHO and Gates have exploited African communities. Much of Robert F. Kennedy Jr’s book is dedicated to exploring the projects Fauci and Gates fund, and how much impact those projects have, and how much distraction and financial misdirection they create. The projects they invest in are said to channel public, NPO and NGO money into privately owned Western contracts and patents, including ones owned by Fauci, (according to Kenedy). He describes in minute detail how the illusion of consensus was generated. An honest look around the world at what worked and in what situations is needed before the world commits itself to an agreement with repercussions. If not for our protection, then for third world countries who are historically penalized out of proportion by western institutions. (I have a lot of citations that I could add to these sections, time permitting).

After H1N1 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 followed. I see these are very similar points to my discussion against 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. Note the WHO did not have a stance on Pfizer trying to keep the vaccine safety data confidential for 75 years (an entire lifetime), and 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 interested in the track record of those most influential in public health? Support of this accord under these conditions can only lead to further fracturing of our society.

The government distances itself from reason when it says things like “we will continue to be your single source of truth”. 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 the right setting. Bare 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.) due to the theories of conspiracy. 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. This is highlighted by their catch phrase ‘safe and effective‘ looking more and more shaky (single and double shots no longer effective against hospitalisation, third shot very limited in duration, and the court-ordered Pfizer releases leaving the word safety ringing hollow).

Bill Gates has built himself infinite positive media spin. He appears to have funded much of the debunking of experts we have seen during the pandemic. He has few critics, and many 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 Gates foundation bankrolled a 2016 report resulting in guidelines on how newsrooms can maintain editorial independence from philanthropic funders. One of the heavily biased tools I have used to strengthen 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 recieving that money as a mistake and refer to 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. ‘University departments become instruments of industry… critics of industry face rejections from journals, legal threats, and the potential destruction of their careers’ (BMJ).

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 malaria. That Bill Gates and the WHO still want to channel a few billion dollars worth of vaccines into Africa would seem to say political will is strong for vaccines irrespective of need. 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 what other countries have experienced. Looking forward, a systematic review suggests sub Saharan Africa currently has 65% immunity despite Africa having limited vaccine coverage. Recent research has identified a particular gene that makes certain groups significantly more susceptible to covid. The gene entered our genepool after we left Africa and it supports the continent’s resilience to the virus. A few other regions share the gene, including the Japanese. This further supports the need to keep decisions local. New variants being more likely to emerge from unvaccinated populations could be a ploy to get Africa vaccinated. Some virologists have convincingly argued that vaccination has historically driven new variants. I have yet to hear a convincing counter argument, though the rhetoric is strong. In hindsight, I believe the social damage/poverty caused by lockdowns far outweighed the likely lives saved in Africa. I think it is clear to everyone now that computer modellers have been giving us flawed data (I think we need to define ‘worst case scenario’ , because you can change parameters only so much before it becomes fraudulent). The pandemic treaty would be disastrous for Africa, in my view.

It is probable that political or medical decisions lead to the more transmissible variants we have seen. Vaccination should provide a hostile environment for the vaccination target. Before the vaccine kicks in (the first 2 weeks) a viral infection gets to test the still developing immune response. Mutations that by chance overcome the still developing repsonse get the chance to multiply and then transmit as a immune evading variants. This theory is not hindsight, it is well established in virology. This means it was Fauci the politician, not Fauci the virologist who made the call for mass vaccination. I have not been able to find any good information supporting mass vaccination during outbreaks, but a mountain of information on it’s follies. If correct, this implicates our own NZ government, unfortunately, as even in the height of Omicron, we allowed the mandating of non-critical sections of society. The theory recommends only the vulnerable be vaccinated during such times.

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 in my view. The owners and advertisers are often, or even usually the same people. I can trace the the top 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 document court case. 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. There is no way media outlets would want cover stories that jeperdise that relationship. There is also no way the US media does not 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. Has this helped us stay true to the rhetorical ‘team of 5 million’. This seems to be continuous (funding round 3 now?), and the amounts fluctuate. I don’t imagine any agency would want to jeperdise that, as some outlets are essentially 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 drugs demise. Here is the study, and here is a non-main stream media critique of the study. You decide which article is the most misleading. Here is the NZHerald article. Are the main stream 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.

INDEPENDANT 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 it’s 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. There is no suggestion the government can/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 its 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 currently justified? (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 making 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. 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 it’s loyalty to Gates (who funds journalism and guideline committees, as detailed elsewhere). To demonstrate the relevance of US based lobby groups, 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 the comments section of the BMJ 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 was merely a rumor. 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 impact of vaccination on fertility was, and still is misinformation to an extent. 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. Any other drug would have disclaimers displayed in fine print on all the advertising.

The ‘Trusted News Initiative’ is a global pact of big media companies who ironically and constantly call out conspiracy and misinformation on issues for which the evidence is only just emerging. Members run smear pieces on highly credentialed academics and promote medical research papers that are not representative and do not attempt to put them in context. The global media environment influences NZ. Annocdotally, the highest number of misleading articles I’ve read come from the BBC and Reuters. It is only now I see the link, as they are both high profile members of the pact.

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 outburst from a senior doctor at 28 minutes who feels he had to watch his patients die due to his treatments being taken away from him. He then described how his character was assassinated. This whole video gives a good insight to the censored side of the issue.

We can now talk about many things that would once be met with by a FB ban for ‘misinformation’. Eg. The immune suppression (low white blood cells) that occurs for the first week following the first jab. This was hinted at in an early clinical trial, yet talking about it led to people having their FB accounts suspended. Now we see from the court released documents that this was known by Pfizer 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) . Another example: The harms of lockdowns were denied by the US establishment, that is, until proven beyond doubt. The lab leak theory was attacked and suffered FB censorship until it’s 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 I have tried to give my points good references, and where I give my own opinion I am at least as careful as main stream 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. That sometimes truth is a point of view due to differing balance of importance.


Leadership in the USA is confirmed to be heavily invested in vaccines and other interventions. 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 23bn. 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 arina 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/vaccine access/manufacture to poorer nations. It initially had broad international support and I believe this scheme could have also helped to rebuid 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 that upheld IP (also backed by the WHO) that supported business as usual. Gates’ preferred model retains the relationship of a powerful donor, and subordinate beneficaries, as opposed to allowing the relationship to slowly change 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 this point was misdirection. The story framed in this way tells of a philanthropist/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. 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.

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/Genevia meetings whose words 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, is it going to attract people who are driven mostly by financial wealth? And how much diversity is going to be present?

US regulators and the pharma industry are clearly very 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 it’s own products. There is evidence to believe the FDA was the only regulator to see much of Pfizers 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 government information on Remdesivir, for example). It appears Medsafe and the UK equivalent was not given information that would have been necessary for informed concent (see the FDA court released documents). That being said, a rushed approval and rushed campaign could have been in NZs best interests as we were not yet in a pandemic, and I understqnad 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. However, failure to report adverse events is a bit more serious. They refer 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.

The US has gone from having decent public health outcomes to appalling heath outcomes, their medicine prices are the highest in world and medication is a leading cause of death. Many think it all comes down to Fauci, who has been on the face of the decline for a staggering 50 years. His errors and controversial decisions can often be 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) very lucrative, he has managed to become one of the two most influential individuals in global health care. He was caught funding an organisation that was sending the money to Wuhan to support gain-of-function research (forgive me for using the term ‘caught’, as I watched an interrogation where he repeatedly denied this, and months later was proven by paper trail), and is not afraid to buck the trend on science interpretation (look up research on remdesivir). He likes to think of himself as the authority on science, and says earnestly ‘disagreeing with me is disagreeing with science’. Like Gates, he makes or brakes careers by granting the universities of scholars that back him, and has the ability to take down critics. His influence on pharma and the public dwarfs Gates. I feel our policies line up closely with the US as compared with most other OECD nations, despite Fauci’s outrageous failure as a guardian of public health. There appears to be much evidence that he has actively made a bad situation worse.

Briefly 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: WIV 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. 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. 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). 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 payed content).

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, and 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. 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 it’s members. From another angle its a top down attempt to impose one mans ideology on an nonsupporting 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 FDA is a failed example of this ideology, 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 courts, allows the industry to organise it’s own safety committee, and organises public money to develop IP for products which are then sold at market value back to the public. Under this arrangement public health has deteriorated, the public are the most medicated in the world, and the medication itself is the 3rd leading cause of death. Is it unfair for me to project this as a possible outcome of Schwabb’s proposal (even if it is unintended)? It seems to fit the definition of pubic-private partnership. Some believe the great reset is the endgame of a conspiracy that involves the planned pandemic. 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, just like powers have done throughout history. Again, I only implicate our own government as far as not keeping up with publicly available research and a failure to assess it and incoming recommendations in the context of the environment in which they are presented. Powerful companies like Pfizer who are clearly not behind the Great Reset principles as they exist on paper, but are nevertheless members of the WEF could influence the Stakeholder Capitalism framework in dangerous ways. We need open debate on the pros and cons before we sign our governments rights away further. I include this idea here because the stated goals of this group have become much closer to reality during the pandemic, whether by luck, or leverage. If the investment company Blackrock already has more resources than nations such as Germany and Japan, I would argue that it already has more power and we have seen a taste of what is to come. Does the stakeholder capitalism model simply mean that Blackrock and it’s subsidiaries will call the shots on protecting the environment, our health and the media available to us? They will certainly be a louder voice than our respective governments due to the lobbying directed towards those governments. 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 overall of one of the cornerstones of our society, but 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 driven, not just what should the change be. 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 more informed decisions at the ballot box. We feel informed, but only by a 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. Companies will own their own products, which become services. Shareholders will not be #1. Products, I imagine, will therefore become more durable, unless the government becomes a middle man. I imagine we will continue to loose personal skills as we contract more out, thereby loosing a lot of personal power. Without ownership we will be more vulnerable, just as renters are vs homeowners. This will be a generational change in NZ, as many of us would find it hard to adjust to sharing space in the manor 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.

THE UNITED NATIONS. The extreme wealthy have been meeting in Switzerland Devos, providing a co-ordinated global direction for the last decade. So, how is their track record? Are we closer to curbing global emissions? Have the controlling elite put any onus on themselves to reduce their own emissions, or have they developed a system whereby they can offset their own luxury by paying for others to plant trees for them? Where are the checks and balances that promote responsibility even amongst the lowest hanging fruit, those with the largest carbon footprint (i.e. those in the club)? Are we closer to a form of global peace that serve anyone else but the West? Have we seen these people try to earn our trust through respectful actions, or does it look more like they are trying to construct trust? I suspect many of the individual major players have not changed over the decades, so its possible a lack of success amounts to a lack of genuine will on many counts. What of opening up medical trial data and other types of transparency? What of commitments for pandemic billionaire benefactors to be more lenient with prices during emergencies? From reading through the Davos meeting agendas, I am disheartened by what is missing. Do the UN members vote on the leadership of the WHO? One attending reporter called Davos the world’s biggest networking event. The WEF also meet in Switzerland (Gineva) at the same time. I feel that structural institutional failures 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 people working for them. Most of the leaders will be there to make a positive difference but there is always those niggly few that are most interested in finding a positive spin for the status quo. The security council may also have within them people who cannot see beyond their own representative self interest. The framework has to be right from the beginning, as this becomes institutionalised very quickly, and as such, becomes invisible and unquestionable.

We can probably explain most pandemic anomolies without having to resort to cross-agency corruption (other than turning a blind eye) or organised conspiracy. There are a few details that would still need to find an explanation such as the lack of autopsies on post vaccine deaths, which is a phenomenon occurring across countries. My theory relies on pharmaceutical sourced propaganda and an American PR machine that uses sponsored media and channels such as ICMRA to promote the idea that anything could be misinformation, no matter how strong the apparent evidence is. I may be wrong, and if we end up with a global programmable digital currency, I guess I’ll eat my hat. The following outlines a few of the anecdotal facts that drive key conspiracy theories. Key influences on the 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 global corporations. This is a place where truth becomes enigmatic, and fear takes over. In an unfortunate choice of words 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 governments, including ours, feel in pushing pivotal legislation through without the support from the public. I have said the same of previous governments pushing unpopular legislation through in order to support international agreements. Significant political capital is lost 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, but is showing alignment through her actions and governments legislation. Note, the NZ media was keen to promote the idea of Canadian influence without following through to what the Canadian protests were about, and if the same issues were at stake. I was looking for indepth analysis surrounding the accusations at the time, but none was forthcoming. There are large and powerful institutions trying to unite the world to common ends. Whether we see those goals as the solution to issues that need addressing, or as an ideologically driven agenda, the fact they are not openly spoken about invites people to try and join the dots with limited information. I support discussion, as even if it causes short term discomfort it is less likely to cause long term damage (poorly executed or misguided regulation, and systemic mistrust). Strong governments have a tendency to pass legislation under urgency, or under distraction when they don’t want debate.

After having spoken to people regarding our PM, there are some dominating reasons for the anti-Jacinda rhetoric we are seeing. I include this to help people understand the arguments, not to make comment on their strength.

  • fear of her connection with Klaus Schwab (the WEF)
  • a perceived governmental preference for centralizing decisions (this is often expressed as a fear of socialism)
  • and obviously sexism. I feel Adern’s situation could be most comparable to that of Justin Trudeau, though perhaps politically stronger because of the dynamics of a small isolated country.

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 list that includes Gates, Merkel, Blair, Branson, founders of Google, FB, Wikipedia. There were a few WEF Young Global Leaders in office during the pandemic: Jacinda Ardern, Emmanuel Macron (France), Sebastian Kurz (Austrian Chancellor), Viktor Orbán (Hungary PM). I have no idea on what the significance of this is, other than to say if this information is new to you, then the conversation is not being had. We should not assume large media companies will not try and shape the discussion on this topic. The main shareholders of NZME trace back to the main shareholders of Pfizer, Pepsi, the main weapons manufacturer etc. The owners will find people they trust to populate the boards, is it that simple?


The NZDSOS website has posted this deeply troubling idea suggesting the government may support the pandemic treaty without entering public debate. If correct, it suggests that most of my writing is either largely untrue, or there is a deep politics we are involved with that our government can’t escape from. If my understanding has some truth regarding Gates’ PR capabilities, Fauci’s unwillingness to investigate fraud in the pivotal vaccine trials, my assessment of rift between the WHO’s certainty of pandemic science vs the actual changing landscape of evidence, and NZ not acknowledging our own scientific critique, then we are in for a rough ride if we are not open to fully debating the pandemic preparedness treaty with a sense of urgency. The lack of debate is eerie. Is our hand being co-erased? Does our government genuinely support it and is that with or without knowledge of the WHO’s stance on transparency and ethics? Does our government look beyond the UN affiliated institutions for it’s information? If the treaty pushes everyone into the same interventions whether or not they have defendable boarders, rich , poor, found to be genetically resilient, irrespective of seroprevalence, and without publishing raw rct data, then it will be nothing more than another example of rich white guys pushing their own ideology. It will also be a conceringly anti-science stance to take, as it reduces channels of inquiry. I repeat, that any mandate should be contingent on the imposing authority making available the raw rct trial data whether it be supportive or unsupportive. This is a big weakness of Bill Gates (see his book How to Prevent the Next Pandemic (scroll down to the seemingly well read Kevin Pezzi, MD review), and the WHO, neither of whom have shown an interest in the need for transparency. My scientific sensibilities are offended, but that doesn’t mean the bigger picture will not prove me too tied up in the detail. There are a couple of points I would take issue with in the letter. The main one being I believe that a NZ lock down with fewer than 100 cases could be justified even without Tedros’ letter, assuming boarders could be controlled until vaccines arrived (refer to the rationale of Jay Bhattacharya elsewhere in this document). However, there is a lot of conflicting information about the course of the virus before the WHO declared the pandemic. At that stage the WHO’s largest financial influencer had already set himself up as a pandemic expert via his 2019 event 201 involvement. Having reviewed this event I believe it was based on a set of pre-existing assumptions. The participants’ input was valuable only to confirm everyone was aware of what the other was doing. I am unsure if the chair’s job was to actually learn anything that might challenge the existing assumptions. That is to say, the health expert and event sponsor (Bill Gates) used the event as a networking tool to spread his ideas throughout various industries of what should happen during a pandemic. It is possible this desktop event was concurrent with active SARS-CoV-2 transmission, as bloodwork research points to existing antibodies in various community well before SARS-CoV-2 and Covid were identified. As the most influential individual in global health it is possible Gates had inside knowledge of a dangerous contagion, particularly as US government money had recently gone to one of the two places globally studying bat corona viruses. Incidentally, this timeline discounts the ‘Plandemic’ idea proposed, but may have served as inspiration to take action.

The New Zealand Government, (namely, the PMs office) employs the services of Sanjana Hattotuwa’s covid-startup-company to provide covid models. This is the same company that produced this paper. Newspapers all around the country have used Hattotuwa’s authority to back up single sided news stories on misinformation. He defines misinformation in his research paper, but in the media the definition seems is used as a blanket term applied to the ideas of critics of any qualification level. These overly-sensationalised articles choose the most inflammatory examples that exasperate the division that runs through our country. These articles, at worst incite hate from those in the strongest position (roughly identifying with majority views) towards vulnerable newzealanders, and at best stifles much needed dialogue between groups.
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/hijacked-the-inside-story-of-how-nzs-convoy-lost-its-rudder. Biden attempted to create a misinformation governance board in April/May. He appointed a known anti-free speech chair and critics immediately pointed out she herself was a misinformation spreader. This embarrassment spelt the end of the initiative, which I suspect was more war than covid-inspired.


Experts are not engaging with critics on safety. Illness + Death were not CLINICAL ENDPOINTS in the Pfizer trial on which emergency vaccine use was based, and therefore perhaps official Pfizer data does not need to show overall benefit to vaccine recipients. However, instinctively I would feel better if the study did show there was an overall benefit. ( page 11- ‘Any serious adverse event‘ is perhaps the most relevant safety number we need from such a trial -it is clearly defined here as an event worthy of a hospital trip, and does not require a doctor to make an assessment on an unknown entity. However, it was not a clinical endpoint, and the trial was not designed to give any significance to this number. For what it’s worth, the serious adverse event number shows a 10% relative, or 0.1% absolute risk increase). (I am unsure what the deaths in this chart refer to, as 20 vaccine recipients died in total). The marked benefit shown in the study relates to covid only. These figures I mention are said to be not overly relevant, but from all the studies available, they appear to me to amount to a significant portion of our safety data as they encompass unsolicited events in a new technology that we don’t fully understand. It is one of the few pieces of data that can potentially address the question of the scope of overall vaccine benefit. It is a pity they cut the study short (i.e. they broke the protocol on the placebo arm). Please read this abstract, and note the ‘Similar article’ links provided that show Overall Survival (OS) is a robust clinical endpoint that a trial should not fail. If we realize that countries are generally not publishing coherent data on deaths by vaccination status we realize we need to do the interpreting ourselves, which is not ideal. Two professors from a university in the UK look for explanations for the anomalies in the UK mortality data. The official UK mortality data spikes in the unvaccinated coinciding with the peak of vaccine rollouts. We know vaccination classification kicks in only after a few weeks, so had these people received a vaccination or not? This research paper could not find a publisher, publishers preferring the (I think statistically weaker) idea that the spikes were driven by denominator for the unvaccinated quickly reducing in rest-homes. This is not misinformation by any stretch, as it is simply a logical potential explanation of some confusing data.

There is one large controlled study that attempts to prove safety by using 25 discrete/solicited outcomes, but they do not set out to answer the big question “Do people who take the vaccines have less illness and death than those who don’t?” I understand the idea of the mRNA vaccines causing harm is foreign to many. However, this would not have been classed as a vaccine in 2020 (though this is due to the definition changing from ‘protection against disease’ to ‘stimulation of the immune system’). It was, and is something quite different to what the world has used before. It is misinformation to compare the repertoire of possible side effects to a heritage vaccine, as it is unfair to compare its benefits until we get to the bottom of why there are so many people who claim to be injured. Both the lipid casings and the mRNA are the focus of great interest (they do not stay in the muscle as promised), and the idea of the spike protein being harmless does not seem to be well backed up either. This is the reason the vaccine can induce covid symptoms, is it not? In an interesting twist, the Thailand government seems to have bucked the trend by acknowledging both death and disability due to vaccination. It would be good to know the full story here. The argument that 11 billion doses given is proof of safety or efficacy only works if we are acknowledging injuries, and being transparent with our numbers. Is it fair to say: Authorities that apply mandates don’t have the right to imply health concerns are not warranted without speaking to the representatives of the complainants.

Non-specific effects from vaccines are understudied, but seen from all-cause mortality research. In a surprising find 40 years ago, a measles vaccine in Africa improved mortally well beyond the disease’ prevalence in the community. A disease effecting 15% of kids reduced mortality by 50%. On the other hand, it’s not unheard of for a drug to reduce the target illness but increase the overall mortality risk. Research from Denmark comparing various covid-19 vaccines shows a mortality benefit from the AstraZeneca, but not from the Pfizer. Pfizer recipients had more non-covid medical issues that cancelled out the statistically significant benefit. Numbers are small, but because authorities are not funding studies, it adds to the sparse data we have on the topic. (Politifact tied itself in knots over this one). The author also points out that while negative non-specific events from vaccines are proven, once acknowledged they could lead to political fall-out. The WHO was alerted a suspected example of this 20 years ago, but politics got in the way and it was never followed up. [Off topic: The author speaks of research showing live vaccines are more effective than dead ones and that administering a live vaccine as the last one given is beneficial, particularly in girls. Other researchers believe this tiny piece of knowledge could save a million kids.] Sadly, many of the comments are regarding the courage needed to publish research with results like this. Among our oldest generation, all-cause -mortality in the very short term is possibly improved by a fourth shot.

Here are a few links regarding the findings from the court order released (including post marketing) documents. I’ve mentioned it was hoped these would not be resealed during our lifetime. FDA Fails to Mention Risk of Heart Damage in Teens. Pfizer recruits 1800 full time staff to process adverse reaction paperwork. (FDA redact the number of shots given which leaves us knowing nothing but assuming the worst). Children & Pregnancies over represented in AEvents. In this FB link Senator Gerard Rennick (Australia) refers to the documents as he describes the shortcuts Pfizer made in development of the vaccines. There is so much about safety that could have been studied, but we are just left to assume. Many more females had adverse effects but this was not concidered important. Recipients were generally over 16yo (there may have been some younger (off-script) recipients. Age range of adv ease effects was .01 to 107 years. We probably take this as breastfeeding? 136 died within 48 hours, 1200 within 90 days but no baseline given.

Michael Baker, Guy Hatchard, and others have had a go at estimating all cause mortality in NZ. Here is an interesting analysis comparing 2020 with 2021. Hatchard, along with other scientific critics have had their character targeted by journalists. Their science is overlooked completely. Here is a relatively simple look at UK numbers showing the same. With reductive journalistic behavior we will not 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 the same. Releasing more data on the causes of overall mortality could put this whole issue to rest. Some believe we will see a notable increase in cardiac deaths. This post provides a great overview of the information available -I recommend this short read.

The closest the decenters 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 PMs office. David Seymour (Act Party) wants to get rid of then human rights commission. If the commissioners office is failing to add value, 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.

The other people that hold the information that can prove safety is the global health insurance industry. This example showed a large increase in working age deaths (before the data was taken down). A third example apparently also shows a marked increase in non-covid mortality. It is alleged that adults under 40 experienced the highest mortally of any age group during 2021 according to CDC data. I have spoken to one doctor who claimed the Pfizer vaccine is the safest vaccine we have ever had. This is the PR machine at work as neither CDC or EMA, nor NZ evidence confirm this (read sentence below table one in link). This report shows there is no evidence the vaccines are dangerous, but does not provide proof of safety, either. Many citations come from the  CDC  but they have proven over and over they are not a trusted source.

Epidemiologists put themselves in the position of gatekeepers. Scientists should be able to be seen as independent, be able to identify flawed data, and speak openly on it. It is hard for epidemiologists in this situation because their main goal is to get everyone vaccinated. The BMJ has recently published a very critical letter from a member of the U.K. independant Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) entitled: ‘If we are no longer “following the science,” what are we following?’. The main argument people give to excuse inconsistencies in the NZ governments approach is ‘they’re doing their best in an impossible situation’ does not apply to our gatekeepers, who are outside of politics. Our own statistics are now showing trends that are not being talked about in scientific terms.

I see that the MOH has fixed the problem of vaccination rates reaching the impossible 100% (briefly they exceeded 100 in parts of Canterbury) by using the term >99%. It should be made clear where these numbers are derived from. Regarding the calculation of vaccination rates, the MOH says: “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). 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. Significantly lower for Maori. Is Michael Baker or any other epidemiologist able to confirm the information we read on vaccine rates, and therefore unvaccinated hospitalisations rates are based on good data? If the MOH numbers are now inferring the ‘fully vaccinated’ are now worse off than the unvaccinated anyway, perhaps this becomes a detail.

mRNA vaccine safety data was limited due to the short trial and the deviation from the trial protocol (the control group was almost eliminated after 2 or 3 months), so the obvious thing for Ashley Bloomfield to do was collect information that can be scrutinized. We were in a unique situation due to our boarders. This would have been a service to the entire world, providing data to reduce vaccine hesitancy more than the court-ordered ongoing release of Pfizers safety data. Bloomfield has stated “An accurate measurement of all adverse events is not required”. This is fine, but is he collecting an accurate measurement of any adverse events? Michael Baker did not criticise this decision, or publicly demand that any robust information be collected. Naturally, every time someone tries to analyze the VEARS or CARM data, they are met with the sentiment described by Dr Petousis-Harris as “garbage in, garbage out”. This may be true, but as the numbers are said to be a ‘warning system’, the high numbers should persuade governments to release analysis of hospitalisations or other data, otherwise, as we have seen, suspicions will grow. Just to provide perspective, VEARS provides a myocarditis vaccine risk of about 79x normal in 16-17yo males. The risk in this study is 105 per million, and the background incidents are 1.3 per million. In contrast, Pfizers confidential post marketing only give a number for all over 16yo, serious heart issues in 7.5 per million, all heart issues, 11 per million. Note the redactions in that document that would give us the number of new staff required to process adverse events, and the total number of shots given over the time period. It appears to me some redacted numbers did slip through, so I have used these.

In the current environment where there are such allegations of undue influence, I would expect to see our officials making extra efforts with their paper trails. I was disappointed to see this NZ FOI response to a remdesivir inquiry. In this particular case, though not legally obliged, the extra effort should have been made to be transparent. The maker of this drug is very close to the FDAs covid treatment panel and is said to be the first authorised treatment, but has also been pulled from trails in the past due to toxicity. Research was originally designed to demonstrate improved mortality, but later changed to a lesser endpoint. The WHO advise against using this drug. Real world data from another extremely high value drug, Paxlovid, shows it may exasperate problems in the <60 vaccinated (or naturally immune). As you consider the real world information of these two high value drugs, it may be appropriate to compare it to what we know of out-of-patent drugs. My bet is a direct comparison would be quite embarrassing for the industry.

Overall benefit from lockdowns. All of this is highly relevant to NZ, but not much is NZ specific. I think NZ has been lucky. We were one of the few countries that got measurable benefit out of lockdowns. From the epidemiologist perspective, they could be justified only because our infection rates were so low it could stop spread. But this is true only if vaccines were coming, as keeping a population ‘naive’ long term is not a solution. Starting with the premise that we had to build herd immunity at some stage (meaning there is enough community immunity for infections not to increase), we needed either a sterilising vaccine, or a sterilising variant. Some of us believed the assumption coming out of the US that Omicron was less severe due to vaccination. I have not seen studies that confirm this. NZ’s plan was to use lockdowns to stamp out a We were lucky due to what followed our lockdown. (I am not saying the booster did not reduce Omicron hospitalisations).

A trio of world class epidemiologists (including one of the most cited in the world, if that makes any difference) have argued lockdowns have prolonged the epidemic, and caused unnecessary death and misery. This paragraph is made up of their story. 100 million people have been thrown into poverty since lockdowns, eating into the billion that have been lifted out of 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. People skipped cancer treatments, people skipped heart treatments, people skipped diabetes management. In June of 2020, one in four young adults reported to the CDC that they had seriously considered suicide. Even brief school closures can be seen to impact children’s futures. Research estimates over 10 million life years lost from US school closures in 2020. I don’t believe everything I read but I have not read any record of education experts and epidemiologist having had these discussions and I do not think it would be fruitful if I used the OIA for the minutes of meetings. Bare in mind that at the contemporary covid strain was not spreading amongst children (I can cite this easily enough). These 3 academics have co-written an article that compares mortality from countries with respect to the measures they took. African regions have been hard hit. One of the authors conducted one of the early prevalence 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. The former method is more scientific, but there is evidence from OIA documents that fear was an important behavior tool. Our authors criticized this number in the Wall Street Journal. For those infected under the age of 70, there was a 0.05% mortality risk and their Barrington Declaration is based on targeted protection. “Move heaven and earth” for the vulnerable without the social cost. Fauci responds, “If you let infections rip, as it were and say, ‘Let everybody get infected that’s going to be able to get infected and then we’ll have herd immunity.’ Quite frankly, that is nonsense, and anybody who knows anything about epidemiology will tell you that that is nonsense and very dangerous.” The trio replied that we have done exactly that in a drawn out way. “We didn’t even attempt to protect the vulnerable”, and the death rates back that up. Note Fauci did not appear to have read the proposal and just rephrased his own pre-vaccine plan in a derogatory way. Vaccines were still to come. Lockdowns only protected people who didn’t lose their jobs, that is, what Bhattacharya calls the ‘laptop class’. (those who could work from home). Fauci’s form of lockdowns resulted in rich neighborhoods had 1/3 the death rate from COVID than in the poor neighborhoods. 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 officially leading US public health. His decisions significantly impact us in NZ. The message to us has been the science is settled, and to trust the officials. The science is in no way settled. 60k health professionals have signed the Great Barrington Declaration (despite google and FB suppressing it), and people loose their jobs over simply signing it.

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.


When we use 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 evidence. Are we paying too little attention to a study author’s affiliations? Does science contribute to misinformation?. There is even concern that much current published research findings are false. Somehow, Bill Gates has got himself into the middle of this.

  • 1. Example of Misleading use of a research paper. 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 this study’s conclusions (pre Delta) were not backed up by the body of evidence. Now, with Omicron, I am not sure how much things have changed, but children do seem to be transmitting more. The media, while acknowledging children were not at risk of complications, have many times repeated claims made in this study. I don’t need a medical degree to see 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 over-represented in the study, yet less relevant to the NZ media purported purpose of the study. It is worth noting the study’s limitations states there were “NO DIFFERENCES” between the children with covid and those without. If 3% of PCR-Positive under 18yo experienced severe outcomes, but we do not know the % of PCR-Negative kids who suffered severe outcomes, I fail to see its relevance. It bugs me they don’t mention if there were any deaths related to covid. I would say it is unlikely. Of all the studies I have read, this one takes the cake for ambiguous use of language. There are some reports linked to from the CDC website that also explain things in an anti-intuitive way.

Here is another paper that comes to inappropriate conclusions. This time, analyzed by an expert.

2. Incorrect numbers. 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 deaths by a quarter. Population deaths were reduced by 72,000. The error was corrected shortly after a court agreed to hear a related case. The UK also is not without it it’s flimsy numeracy.  

3. Lack of critique. Pfizer’s pivotal covid vaccine trial was funded by the company and 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 by court order in March 2022, we have learnt there were no agency representatives on the safety committee. Both the FDA and Pfizer fought the high court when it ruled that it’s vaccine trial data be publicly released in order to reduce vaccine hesitancy. It seems worth noting that the FDA effectively asked the judge for 75 years to release the data. The judge gave only 8 months. 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 comercial manufacturing not able to meet the value in the original applications, and of course, means the clinical trials do not refer to the version of the vaccine we are all taking. According to this video, any batch that comes out with over 72% mRNA integrety is “essentially getting a toxic dose… we have never seen such instability”. Batches in Australia get as high as 80%. The Indian government would only buy Pfizers 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 Pfizers requirement for legal protection over side effects. Again, this is standard in India. Pfizer refused on both counts and India went with other options. Pfizer accepting the oversight of an independent regulating body would have been like an olive branch from the worlds least trusted corporation. It certainly would have made financial sense in one of the worlds largest markets.

Additional facts we know from the court-released documents and otherwise: Outcomes for many test subjects appear to be not included in the original authorization analysis (this is probably a representative example). The number of adverse reactions on a percentage basis are much higher than previously disclosed. Other potential treatments have not been judged by the same standard as the vaccines. The CDC withheld information on the effeteness 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. Informed consent was originally denied to recipients due to the urgency of the situation with specific regard to hospital space. This has not been restored.

4. I would not be surprised if the Vitamin D question suffers from some level of biassed 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. He puts the onus on governments to fund trials that address hospitalisation. When faced with limited optioned and evidence based medicine fails to provide an answer it would seem reasonable to be open to advice from experienced doctors. I feel we have been expressly told not to follow this advice as it is said to fall under the umbrella of false informaiton. I am unsure where the MOH stands on this. 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. I believe the two groups respond differently to Paxlovid (the trial that was submitted to the the regulator declined to include vaccinated people, perhaps because vaccinated people suffer re-bound when they come off Paxlovid). Is there any other reason the cohort in the trial did not reflect the population to be receiving the drug? Why was this group given the drug if there was not data supporting it? Was the drug company just trying it’s luck? 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. For controversial & safe (ish) products that the WHO frown upon, this may apply specifically to those who have done their research and understand how to get the most out of the products.

5. Ivermectin is 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 the definitive review of Ivermectin on which the WHO was to base its decision on. He described a “tricky situation” in which he saw 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. 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. As a culture would we be better served if we were to disclose conflicts of interest in the peer review process?

I have thoroughly read all the studies the Cochrane Library included in its ivermectin review.  I can confirm that about half are able to show at least some 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 studies disagreed with that statement?

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 unapologetically correcting 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 with its newly found negative reputation not backed up by science. The current FDA information page has been edited again, becoming even more moderate now that it is no longer in the spotlight.

The following paragraph uses Robert F. Kennedy Jr’s research as a source. 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 safety concerns. News stories appeared claiming EDs were inundated with ivermectin poisonings, yet the very same EDs were denying they had seen increases. Countries that actively use this drug invariably have lower mortality rates. I have not even scraped the surface of this story, but the more verifiable detail that comes to light of suppression, the more it looks like countries that use ivermectin really do have better outlooks. Look at the studies. What I’ve leart -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 comes into context when we see how the drug remdesivir came to market. Fauci had done a study a few years earlier against ebola, and the drug was pulled due to toxicity. Against covid RCT studies from China, the EU, and the WHO point to toxicity, but Fauci’s own study returned an improvent. In what I would call Fauci’s most exposing moment, he made the drug a ‘standard of care’. He and his agency have large financial stakes in it’s success. The WHO has recently given remdesivir a weak/conditional okay.

Here is an example of a write up of an ivermectin study that oversteps it’s reach. It is Omicron based, which makes it more relevant, but the study is based on computer models.

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 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 drug with many supportive ‘low quality’ papers and 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). Why not include mortality in the clinical outcomes and in the analyses?
  • Why is it preferable to allow desperate people to take the veterinary version thereby letting them overdose, than to use the very safe pharmaceutical version?
  • Why is the threshold for calling out ‘falsified’ data so much lower for early intervention drugs than for the vaccines? There was no fuss made when we found that 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 potential preventative? 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.


This is me going off on a tangent, but it helps me with perspective. These existential questions are sparked from the belief 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 harms way to prolong the lives of others? Yes, absolutely. The opposite is quite deranged. So now we need to think of degrees. Is taking 5 years off millions of people worth prolonging a hundred thousand lives. Maybe, I don’t know. Is the reversing of the poverty trend by forcing 263million people below the poverty line a fair price to pay for 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? Is 10,000 people knowing/worrying about their prostate/breast cancer, and equating to a certain number of accumulative years lost a fair trade for a similar number of years gained? I don’t know. Perhaps it all comes down to how scared the individual is of death, vs how much they enjoy life. Do mammograms or prostate screens prolong life of the effected demographic? I’d love to know. Does screening lead to shorter lives for some individuals? Yes. Does screening lead to longer life for some? Yes. Should medical interventions be exempt from the environmentalism debate? I don’t know. 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, no-one is virtuous in this debate. Mandating while at the same time hiding data is virtuous to those who believe the means justifies the ends, and the contrary is also true. It is all subjective, and framed by our society and experiences.

There are people who release theories of conspiracy that are malicious, or as a joke. Sometimes they are jumping to conclusions on information. The theory that there is an organised rich club trying to reduce the population of the world is possible, but it is not necessary to go that far in order to explain the anomalies. From my understanding of the information, it is possible the likes of Gates and Klaus genuinely believe we can reach a kind of utopia, and that medical sacrifices must be made to expatiate the goal due to the likelihood that the visionary (Gates) will not live to see it through. But in my view, money making, and control are simple enough to explain everything, and that is the only way to explain Fauci’s actions. What if the mRNA vaccines do interact with our DNA? There are reasoned theories that it does, and no proof that it doesn’t. Authorities are not funding the necessary studies. Fauci and Gates both have a history of this that goes back decades and has been unfortunate for the test populations. The latest theory is that we are going start to talk about HIV or AIDS (an accomplished researcher believes he has found an HIV edit in the covid-19 virus)(I haven’t specifically gone into the verifiable evidence to support the LAB release theory in this writing, but suffice to say the theory should never have been dismissed). Acquired immunodeficiency has been proven in previous attempts at mRNA vaccines, and has been theorised in the current vaccines. We shall see if this amounts to anything over the next few months, though I would expect it to be attributed to something other than the technology in question.

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.

THE RABBIT HOLE . Even if after looking at the links you want to dismiss a third, or a half of my points, the remainder should prove 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 the un-mRNA-vaccinated. I cannot claim to be unvaccinated but we skeptics seem to be the only ones keeping an eye on the detail of the science. I would love to have a discussion on basic scientific fundamentals sometime.

I was asked where the rabbit hole led to in response to a column I wrote for the Gisborne Herald. I can now answer that with certainty. It leads to the funder of the studies. We are looking at one single man who demands self-censorship and whose policy recommendations never ignored. If he knows the science is against him, he simply doesn’t provide the funding. The most bewildering part is that his track record of outcomes prove without a doubt he has specifically not funded the most relevant research to the problems the US has faced in the last few decades. If anyone can point me towards information that logically concludes that NZ has followed the evidence using tried and tested scientific rhetoric (such as ‘do no harm’, and using the hirachachy of evidence) I will most definitely read it.

Assuming there is at least a single valid point in this:

  • 1- Am I taking exception to anomalies in a system that is trying to save us from a nasty virus. In which case, it is good to talk about this to make sure the process can run more smoothly next time. OR
  • 2- these anomalies are indicative of a system that is designed to work in the interests of the worlds most resourced lobby groups. In which case, it is good to talk about it.

Thank you for reading. Comments welcome. I’d love to hear which parts are the hardest to swallow, as there may be some edits I need to make.

Alexis P Copland

Former BlackRock Portfolio Manager, Edward Dowd explains how it came about that half of the FDAs budget comes from the private companies it regulates, and how it gives certainty to the industry. The relationship is described as a revolving door.

One response to “Healing The Gulf of the Pandemic Divide: Seeking clarity amongst chaos”

  1. Thanks for the good collection of links, and well done finding a way to approach so many of these developing topics of discussion.


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: