Last Friday, 16 July, Stuff itself announced in an article headed “NZ On Air dishes out $9.6 million to journalism” on its website that “Stuff will receive $591,465 for its The Whole Truth project which is designed to counter misinformation where it occurs about Covid-19.“

It’s now become apparent what this means: Stuff has employed people on behalf of the government to add counter comments to anyone making adverse comments about the government mandated China virus “vaccines” on all NZ non-Mainstream websites that take a critical editorial attitude to government announcements — these include sites like Murial Newman’s Centre for Political Research, Bassett, Brash and Hyde, the BFD, and ourselves. 

Social media platforms like Facebook are monitored by two teams employed by the Jacinda government, who clearly have the power to issue bans of 1 day to 30 days and add a “false information” warning” to the posts/comments they make.  The sources for the “false” claims when investigated are not particularly convincing ones. 

Websites are a different matter, so these people make counter comments, and usually with pseudonyms.  This latter aspect is worrying.  In the case of the anti-1080 Campaign, those paid by DoC to issue government-justifications for the mass eco-poisoning have used real names. One in Kapiti we have encountered is Sue Jensen Boyde.  

But for the government’s Cv “vaccine” campaign, it seems these people don’t have the courage to use their real names, despite the fact that the real names of the opponents of these rushed and highly dubious substances are public.
We have now received such counter-comments on skeptical China virus “vaccine” posts from 4 separate individuals, but 2 of these have had the same IP address, which we have traced to a building very close to Victoria University of Wellington (see the satellite view).

A few of the comments we allowed as the Jacinda government’s viewpoint needs to be presented to provide balance.  But as the comments have become increasingly off topic and intended to attack a previous commentator or our editors, they have been deleted.

As has been stated before, we are not ‘anti-vaxers’; the general issue is one we are neutral about. The data that is available indicates that the number of reported adverse reactions to other virus vaccines on the market relative to the number of doses administered is not sufficient to negate the possible benefits from their use.  But this is not the case with the Experimental Medical Treatments issued late last year for the China virus, including the Pfizer one.  We believe the China virus vaxing campaign is premature for public release and should only be treated as experimental with willing volunteers who get paid by the pharmaceutical companies for the risk they are taking.