by Guy Hatchard
A Conspiracy of Silence and a Litany of Lies
The Director General of the Danish Health Authority, who last week halted Covid-19 ‘vaccination’ for under 18 year olds citing absence of any evidence of benefit, has been giving interviews.
He acknowledged that the prescription of Covid vaccines for young people had been a mistake and said they never would have approved them if they had known then what they know today.
Thai Study Finds High Levels of Cardiac Risk Among Adolescents
It is possible that the Danish Ministry of Health and other health authorities around the world, including ours, were aware of risks.
Certainly, they could have been fully aware of the dangers if they had undertaken their own appropriate investigation and made unbiased assessments early on.
A study of adolescents undertaken in Thailand and published last week illustrates what could have been done.
The study examined the cardiovascular effects on 300 students aged 13 years to 18 years receiving their second Pfizer covid-19 ‘vaccine’ injection. Data being collected included demographics, symptoms, vital signs, ECG, echocardiography and cardiac enzymes. These were collected at baseline, Day 3, Day 7, and Day 14 using case record forms.
Although it is admitted that myopericarditis can be a side effect of mRNA vaccination, our Ministry of Health advised DHBs that it is rare and estimated that it may only affect 3 in every 100,000 recipients.
The Thai study found 29% (not 3 out of 100,000, but 3 out of every 10 students) registered cardiovascular effects, including tachycardia, palpitation, shortness of breath, chest pain, and myopericarditis. The overt symptoms subsided within 14 days (the duration of the study).
There was no follow-up of subsequent health outcomes, and therefore the long term effects remain unassessed. The authors concluded that adolescents receiving mRNA vaccination should be monitored for side effects.
It is notable that this study is an assessment of cardiovascular outcomes based on objective measurements, not on subjective assessments and estimates as was primarily the case in New Zealand.
If such simple objective measurements had been taken early on in the vaccine rollout, it would have been normal procedure to pause the programme pending more detailed investigation of the cardiovascular effects. BUT this was never done.
There was an unjustified assumption of safety based on recommendations of safety from Pfizer itself, who stood to profit greatly from our Covid-19 mRNA vaccine rollout.
The High Court Says its Views Cannot Overrule Medical Decisions of the Government
On Friday, 13 August 2022 a judgement was released by the High Court in Wellington confirming the legality of the approval process for Covid-19 children’s vaccine (aged 5-11 years).
Stuff reported on the decision. Although I have not yet seen the full judgement, the quotations from it in the newspaper raise some serious questions about our legal system.
Justice David Gendall said the decisions of our Ministry of Health complied with the law and the court shouldn’t substitute its own views for the decisions of the various Ministry of Health officers and committees. These included Medsafe group manager Chris James, the Medicines Assessment Advisory Committee, a separate technical advisory group, and Dr. Ashley Bloomfield, Director General of Health.
The judge acknowledged that the applicants to the court had called their own expert witnesses and submitted evidence, contrary to that submitted by the government, weighing the risks and benefits of the vaccine. BUT according to the Stuff article, the judge said:
“It was not my role when reviewing the process, to decide which experts were right or form my own view on whether the paediatric vaccine should be supplied in New Zealand. Generally weighing the benefits and risks of the vaccine, and the desirability of it being available in New Zealand, were matters for Chris James as the minister’s delegate.”
The judge noted that Chris James had given his consent on conditions that included Pfizer giving further information as it became available, including periodic safety reports.
Somehow the judge failed to acknowledge that Pfizer has persistently sought in US courts to withhold such safety information (for up to 75 years). Nor did Stuff newspaper reveal whether James or the Ministry of Health had reviewed any court ordered safety information released to date.
If the study of adolescents in Thailand is anything to go by, 3 out of 10 ‘vaccinated’ children in New Zealand over the age 5 may already have suffered cardiovascular problems with varying degrees of severity, and there still could be more to come.
Was the High Court Judge just following Legal Precedent?
There is much legal case history and discussion centered around the need for the state to take responsibility for the application (or indeed withdrawal) of medical treatment for seriously ill children; if necessary against the wishes of the parents if they are found by the courts to be mistaken in their views. See for example this recent paper published just prior to the pandemic.
The accepted interpretation is that courts should adjudicate in disputed cases by weighing the evidence of risks. In the present case, the life of a seriously ill child was not at issue. The arguments were scientifically complex and moreover there was no unanimity among scientific professionals and in the published scientific literature.
Crucially the risks involved were open ended—not fully identified or quantified. This is because the long term effects of the vaccine are still unknown.
Typically, vaccine safety trials take 10 years to complete.
The court failed to fully take account of the fact that the risks for the children from Covid were certainly low and from the vaccine possibly high—there was an imbalance and uncertainty concerning risk.
The situation does not appear to have met the accepted justification for state intervention—serious illness of a child requiring treatment.
In summary, the court failed to address the nature of the health risks involved and avoided doing so by deferring to the government as the ultimate authority.
In other words, like Pontius Pilate, the judge carefully washed his hands of the matter and left our children’s fate in the hands of the NZ government and its officers.
Did the government responsibly complete its due diligence throughout the course of the pandemic and in its dealings with Pfizer?
Simon Rae, Manager, International Science Partnerships of the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment (MBIE), who vetted the vaccine supply contract with Pfizer and advised the government accordingly, wrote on 22nd March 2021 in response to an OIA request:
“We did not investigate Pfizer’s management team or its ethics as a company. We are satisfied that Pfizer has not been reckless in the development of its vaccine…we are confident that the vaccine is acceptably safe and effective…
“MBIE advised the Minister of Finance to grant an indemnity to Pfizer on the basis that doing so was in the public interest. It is not unexpected for pharmaceutical companies to seek indemnities from governments in circumstances where clinical trials are restricted, or where a purchase agreement is concluded before full trials are completed…as of 16 March 2021, MBIE is not aware of any deaths or permanent disabilities that were caused by Pfizer’s covid-19 ‘vaccine.”
MBIE asserted this, despite the fact that Pfizer already had records by 28th February 2021 (prior to the MBIE statement) of more than 42,000 injuries and 1,200 deaths subsequent to its Covid ‘vaccination.’
Did our government know of these deaths and injuries, but decided to believe assurances from Pfizer that they were unrelated? If so, were there any valid reasons for the Ministry of Health and MBIE to assume that these serious effects post ‘vaccination’ were unrelated and proceed to grant Pfizer indemnity?
If MBIE and the Ministry of Health didn’t know of the deaths, why had they not sought this information from Pfizer whom they certainly knew had been collecting such post marketing data?
Why is the Government Along With All Opposition Parties Unanimously Behind Pfizer?
It is notable that the judge in the just announced High Court judgement acknowledged that the decision of the Medicines Assessment Advisory Committee (whose up to 12 members are anonymous) was unanimous in support of childhood vaccination.
This runs parallel to the unanimous approval of government pandemic policy by all members of parliament of all parties and their refusal to meet or listen to questioning voices.
Given the paucity of evidence of benefit, the incapacity of the vaccine to stop transmission, and the high rate of adverse effects and deaths, the unanimity stands in need of explanation.
BUT there has been no meaningful explanation offered except vague references to the social good of vaccines and the questionable reliability of Ministry of Health experts.
MPs have preferred to remain silent and accept the apparent assurances of the Ministry of Health that the reported 50 times greater incidence of adverse effects following Pfizer mRNA vaccination (when compared to previous vaccines) is somehow normal.
In my experience, such unanimous silence on the part of MPs of all parties is highly unusual.
Forgive me for paraphrasing the judgement of Justice Mahon following the Erebus disaster—this hints at a conspiracy of silence and a litany of lies.
Young innocent children are being herded towards vaccination through the minimisation of risks, misinformation, and consequent peer and societal pressures to conform to pharmaceutical medical orthodoxy.
An orthodoxy which has embraced universal applications of novel biotechnology and gene therapy without acknowledging or properly investigating the serious risks.
In fact, seeking to hide such risks from public knowledge or discussion. Risks that can potentially blight young lives and persist through generations.
The Danish Ministry of Health was right to acknowledge and correct their mistakes about Covid vaccine safety for the young based on updated information. They discontinued mRNA vaccination for the under 18s.
When will our Ministry do so, and when will our courts recognise the overriding need for caution?