from the BFD —
The government has been actively trying to cover up the truth.
At long last, the truth is coming out. Where to from here, one wonders?
As you can imagine, the hardy folk at ACC are tasked with investigating all claims thoroughly to avoid any benefit fraud. Vaccine injury falls under their jurisdiction, so ACC staff have, uniquely in NZ, been immersing themselves in the torrid details of vaccine injury.
As all injuries go through this single department, ACC knows more about vaccine injury than any other sector of our government or society at large. The avalanche of claims (which could top 100,000 if the government were to admit liability) and their severity has shocked ACC staff to such an extent that a great many staff members are rightfully concerned that they should not be compelled to vaccinate or boost.
The government, who have been trying to hide the extent of vaccine injury from the public and are eager not to be caught out, have reportedly caved in to ACC staff demands and extended the deadline for mandated vaccination into an uncertain future.
This is pure vindication for those who were hesitant over the vaccine. I am double jabbed. But now I am not so sure. Just the fact that we had to wait 6 months… then 4 months… now 3 months for a booster means no-one knows what the hell is going on. If the original ‘vaccinations’ only lasted 3 months then I have been unprotected since October. It is obvious we are all being lied to – by Big Pharma, by the Ministry of Health and, most of all, by the government.
Simultaneously we have heard that the government wishes to avoid liability by arguing that vaccine injuries are not actually accidents but the result of free choices by individuals to undertake an experimental treatment.
Nice try, but it won’t wash. How many people were coerced into the vaccinations in order to keep their jobs and their livelihoods? From nurses, doctors, police to supermarket workers, many more would not have been vaccinated if they had had a “free” choice.
Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has famously told the public that “the Government should be your sole source of information”, in her words all other sources of information especially social media are worthless “grains of salt”.
As the vaccine rollout progressed, it became apparent to those adventurous enough to diverge from Jacinda’s strictures by reading foreign media sources, that the mRNA vaccine is rather ineffective and rapidly wears off. More importantly, the number of people suffering from vaccine injuries is so large, that almost everyone has a few friends, (I have almost a dozen), who have succumbed to serious injury.
And the government has been actively trying to cover this up. Remember Jacinda’s Facebook page where her minions were removing the comments as fast as they were being posted? This is from the office of the prime minister!
The vaccine injury blackout that the government has been able to exert over the media has been so total that the vaccine safety narrative at first proved very robust. Despite the injury stories circulating among friends and on social media, it was always possible for the government to dismiss the fate of one’s injured friends as rare and unfortunate (if indeed they ever mentioned it).
But we were being lied to all the way through the pandemic.
The Prime Minister – and hr cabinet – are so divisive. Ardern’s “The Team of 5 million” is an insincere load of spin. Government has deliberately cultivated division. It is both a smokescreen while government rams through poor law like Three Waters and at the same time achieves “divide and conquer.”
Don’t rubbish it as a conspiracy theory.
Politicians have long been at this tactic.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary.”― said H.L. Mencken, in 1918 in his now famous quote.
Politicians and bureaucrats will go to extreme lengths to cover up their mistakes and misdeeds. The ACC situation over post-vaccine is a current example.
A parallel is some years ago a NZ government took people off the unemployment benefit and put them on the health benefit so as to distort figures and show unemployment dropping!
Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has famously told the public that “the Government should be your sole source of information”, in her words all other sources of information especially social media are worthless “grains of salt”. Actually, what she DID say if my memory serves me correctly was “The government will be your sole source of TRUTH! YEA RIGHT!
Medical procedures and therapies are supposed to be on the basis of informed consent without any persuasion or coercion.
The person consenting to having anything done to his or her body ought to do so on the basis that the likely personal benefits will significantly outweigh the potential risks.
All medical procedures and therapies have some potential risks.
That is why the practice of Medicine is regulated.
Vaccination has been of great benefit for people.
A vaccine is a product that contains a real pathogen that has been rendered harmless by attenuation or killing it.
The immune system is thus exposed to the whole organism and not just a part of it and responds by creating antibodies to a part or parts of that organism.
The immune response generated might vary from person to person.
These new mRNA products are NOT VACCINES as we understand them. They do not contain pathogens that have been rendered harmless.
The mRNA “instructs” the mechanism inside cells to fabricate a structure of amino acids like the spike protein that is present in the Sars Cov 2 virus. The recipient’s own cells are therefore induced to manufacture a substance that their own immune system regards as a dangerous antigen.
This new type of biological products has not been through the accepted and rigorous series of investigations by which medical products are approved.
Approval was granted “for emergency use” because of the fear that the worst case “covid” predictions might actually occur but have not occurred.
Anyone freely consenting to being exposed to these biological products ought to be asking some important questions.
1. Why should I care?
There is abundant evidence that almost all younger, healthy people have little to fear from exposure to this virus and it’s inevitable variants.
The usual consequence of exposure is either no illness or cold and flu symptoms that resolve in 7 to 10 days.
Older people and especially those with 2 or more serious illnesses are more at risk but most would not become critically ill or die either.
2. Why should I trust you?
This mandatory jabbing is being recommended by politicians, bureaucrats, big pharm and media personalities.
These groups of people are not renowned for their honesty and integrity.
Doctors, who would normally help patients through the decision making process are threatened with punishment if they do not comply with the mandatory jabbing.
3. What’s in it for me?
Apparently not much.
Most younger, healthy people probably don’t need these new products in the 1st place.
They are not as effective as we were told.
The evidence is clearly indicating that the “protection” is incomplete and does not last very long.
They are not as safe as hoped.
The evidence shows that there are many adverse side effects, some of which might be fatal.
Why are so many people agreeing to be injected with experimental biological products that will provide little personal benefit, are not all that effective and are mush riskier than was hoped?
Let’s be honest.
It is because we have been misled, coerced, bullied, denied the right to informed consent and threatened with punishments for disobedience.
Labelling anyone who applies the process of informed consent and decides not to be jabbed as an ANTI-VAXER who is endangering other people’s health is irrational and absurd propaganda and coercion.
Firstly, these new biomedical mRNA products are not really vaccines.
Secondly, declining medical therapies is a stated CIVIL RIGHT in the Health and Disability Commissioner’s Code of Consumer’s Rights. This decision is not “anti-vax” it is just accepting the risks related to the virus instead of the risks related to experimental biomedical products.
Thirdly, those who believe the claims that the products are effective and safe would have developed the immunity to protect them from possible transmission of the virus from others. So why should they care what others decide?
Finally, it looks very much as though these products are not very effective and so those people who decline the jabs are probably no different from those who agree to have them.
Jab or no jab — Your choice.
We all know that’s not true.