Inspired by the Canadian truckers, a number of New Zealand Freedom Convoys started out on February 5th from the tip of the North Island and the bottom of the South Island to converge on Wellington. Most of the South Island convoy is still camped at Picton (top of the South Island), unable to cross the Cook Strait by ferry. The North Island convoy arrived in Wellington early on February 8th and set up camp outside the New Zealand Parliament, blocking local streets with vehicles. While lacking central leadership and coming with a range of motives, all are calling for the lifting of mandated Covid health restrictions.
The anti-mandate protest camp outside Parliament poses a problem for Government authority. The Government’s response so far mirrors the effect (and often, it seems, motive) of the Covid public health orders in marginalising those who do not conform. The protestors have not been met by any politicians, as is the custom in New Zealand with protests against Parliament. They have been classified as an aggressive minority and have been accused of trespassing on Parliamentary grounds.
The Government’s dilemma is that to recognise any of the protesters’ demands will signify Government weakness, which – with declining polls – it can ill-afford. However, to take physical action to remove the protestors risks adverse publicity and the galvanising of more support. Yet to continue ignoring the protest – which appears to be there for the long haul – keeps it in the public eye, with the Government appearing reactive rather than proactive. There is no easy way out.
The Government has mishandled the situation so far. It should have realised that with every increase in restrictions and every mandate the protest movement would gather numbers, initially from those who are anti-lockdown, then anti-vaccine, then anti-mandate. With Government and opposition party apparatus all being so ‘on-message’ with health order controls, this blind spot is perhaps understandable, as few state workers would have raised concerns their bosses don’t want to hear, but as blind spots go it is a big one.
This protest is different to many previous high-profile protests in New Zealand’s history. Rather than a group campaigning on behalf of others, such as with the anti-apartheid protests, it is a group protesting about their personal treatment by the Government. They have ‘skin in the game’; the outcome significantly affects their lives.
On February 10th at around 8am, the police attempted to remove the protest group on Parliament’s lawn – estimated to be at least several hundred by official sources – one-by-one with tactics that resembled a rugby scrum. After taking most of the day to arrest around 120 protestors, the police withdrew. The police violence involved in removing a generally peaceful protest galvanised more people across the country to respond locally or join what they now call Camp Freedom. The central business district (city centre) roads in Wellington are gridlocked.
The inept state response this week shows the weakness of Government and its lack of strategy. Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, when questioned about the protestors at a news conference, replied that it was a police matter and not for politicians. This is a serious miscalculation; it is high-stake politics. The failed police operation to forcibly evict the protestors from the lawn was not viable from the start. Purely from a numbers perspective, the rate of protestor removal was never going to succeed. The demonstration of police aggression went viral on social media and brought more protestors to support. New Zealand (unlike, say, France) isn’t accustomed to this intensity of protest.
Parliament Speaker Trevor Mallard’s decision to turn on the lawn sprinklers was an act of desperation and source of ridicule. In the festival atmosphere, protestors have responded with humour.
The Speaker’s latest hare-brained initiative is to blast music and vaccine adverts at the protestors. The protestors have brought in food kitchens and first aid tents, and are being creative in responding to the weather challenges as support through social media – like the rain, but much more welcome – is flooding in.
What should the Government have done? With hindsight, the simple answer is to have recognised the limits to its authority when it breached accepted norms of human rights and medical ethics. New Zealand had the benefit of seeing the Covid experience in the rest of the world, but the Government seems to have learned little and failed to anticipate how quickly the situation changes. If it had provided a ‘route to normal’ by announcing end dates to mandates and other restrictions before the protest reached the Parliamentary lawn, it may have taken steam out of the movement. Good leadership unites by providing a clear plan and end destination. Ambiguity and coercion lead to suspicion and division.
What should the Government do now? One thing seems for sure: it needs a political solution rather than a police operation.
FROM our unique perspective in New Zealand there is probably no more twisted tale of the pandemic than the transformation of medical ethics. Due to our closed borders, NZ has so few Covid cases (18,000 at the time of writing) and almost no Covid deaths (53), that our pandemic medical history so far has been largely about isolation, vaccination and testing.
The political history of the pandemic has been about control of our borders, the creation of fear, and public assurances of the absolute safety of mRNA vaccines. In contrast, the official count of adverse effects of Pfizer Covid vaccination stands at 50,000 and the death toll at 130-plus. Both these figures are known to be huge underestimates. The excess all-cause non-Covid deaths during the vaccine rollout has been reliably measured at 2,000-plus.
Despite this, booster shots are being heavily advertised and mandated. At no point has there been any admission of our lack of knowledge of the long-term effects of mRNA vaccination. Certainly there is increasing evidence of harm from the jab. For example, data from the US military points to massive rises in disease rates including a threefold rise in cancers. There has been a concerted effort to keep this story out of the mainstream media. The cover-up is almost a bigger story than the actual data.
Along with reports of vaccine injury, a steady stream of papers published recently are beginning to elucidate very worrying mechanisms underlying vaccine injury. Initial expectations were that after stimulating spike protein production sufficiently to induce an immune response, mRNA genetic sequences in the vaccines would dissipate rapidly, and therefore safely. A study published in the journal Cell on January 24 shows that the mRNA sequences can persist in lymph node germinal centres for weeks causing greater spike havoc than Covid infection itself.
The official reports of vaccine adverse effects in NZ are running at 30 times the rate of reported injuries from previous flu vaccines. The fact that this has not rung alarm bells is incomprehensible. The fact that the government has persisted with its saturation advertising announcing the safety and necessity of Covid vaccination is doubly concerning. It is apparent from the failure to investigate alarming data that the practice of medical ethics has transformed to become almost unrecognisable.
A common framework used when analysing medical ethics is the ‘four principles’ approach postulated by Tom Beauchamp and James Childress in their textbook Principles of Biomedical Ethics. It recognises four basic moral principles, which are to be judged and weighed against each other, with attention given to the scope of their application. The four principles are:
Autonomy – the patient has the right to refuse or choose his or her treatment. This is rooted in society’s respect for individuals’ ability to make informed decisions about personal matters with freedom.
Beneficence – a practitioner should act in the best interest of the patient and family. In other words, healing is the aim of medicine.
Non-maleficence – not to be the cause of harm. Many consider this should be the primary consideration, that it is more important not to harm your patient than to do him good, which is part of the Hippocratic oath that doctors take.
Justice – concerns the fair distribution of scarce health resources, and the decision as to who gets what treatment.
In practice, however, many treatments carry some risk of harm. In some circumstances, for example in desperate situations where the outcome without treatment will be grave, risky treatments which stand a high chance of harming the patient could be justified. This is because the risk of not treating is also very likely to do harm. So the principle of non-maleficence (non-harm) is not absolute, and balances against the principle of beneficence (doing good). This has particularly affected debates around the promotion to doctors by drug companies of strong narcotics such as Oxycodone which is highly addictive and whose overuse commonly leads to respiratory failure and death.
It can readily be appreciated that the debate around how to apply ethics to medical practice has some grey areas and deficiencies. Medical misadventure is now the third-leading cause of death in the USA. Has this led to an acceptance of risk which should in fact be avoided? In large part the rules applied to drug approval are very strict. Double blind trials are required. Lengthy periods of assessment are mandated. Deaths following treatment are investigated and usually trials are suspended when these occur. Generally for vaccinations, assessment takes around ten years and two deaths per million recipients would be the maximum allowed in a finally approved product.
In contrast, the pre-approval trial periods for Covid-19 vaccines have been of the order of six months. The critical assessments of secondary effects have not been undertaken. These are aimed to check that general health outcomes for trial participants such as cardiac conditions and cancers do not exceed population norms. Note the US military data here. Clearly serious injury and deaths associated with Covid-19 vaccinations have exceeded the traditional limits by a massive margin. Moreover outcomes reported cover a wide range of conditions. Have professional medical bodies raised the alarm? No. Why?
Initially there were reports that Covid-19 was a very serious illness with mortality rates as high as 5 per cent. Figures as high as 180,000 deaths in NZ were predicted.
This alarmist assessment rapidly dissipated. Published studies put mortality rates well under 1 per cent and there was a realisation that serious Covid outcomes and deaths primarily occurred among those who were already seriously ill or physically weak due to other causes including advanced age. During the early months of 2021, it was also apparent that mRNA vaccines waned in effectiveness rapidly and did little to stop transmission. The only principles of medical ethics that seemed still to be appropriate were those of justice and beneficence. Reports suggested that Covid vaccination reduced the severity of illness; might it not be beneficial to the individual and save our over-stretched health service from becoming overwhelmed by unvaccinated Covid patients, thereby helping patients requiring treatment for other conditions? Despite doubts about the outcome data and mounting evidence of vaccination harm, the answer given to this by the NZ government was a big YES. It decided to mandate vaccination to the extent that the unjabbed would lose their right to employment. It thereby overruled the first principle of medical ethics, autonomy orpatient choice, a degree of coercion which ensured vaccination rates in NZ rose above 90 per cent among those eligible.
The Health Forum NZ is a Facebook, Telegram and MeWe site with 50,000-plus members which has served as a meeting and information place for the vaccine-injured. NZ has a population of 5million so HFNZ members comprise 1 per cent of the population. HFNZ has received reports of 600-plus deaths proximate to vaccination. More than 300 of these have been investigated and confirmed by the voluntary group NZ Doctors Speaking Out on Science.
The most common among the thousands of reports of vaccine injury are chest pain, arrhythmia, shortness of breath and persistent extreme fatigue and debility. Sometimes these develop as cardiac events, clotting, stroke and death. There are many experiences of patients being assured that they were over-anxious and being sent home with an aspirin, only to suffer immediate complications necessitating hospital admission. Sometimes sufferers find that the doctor is uninterested and dismissive when he hears that the injury followed vaccination.
Our government decided early on not to take the reporting of adverse effects following vaccination seriously. It denied repeated requests to make reporting adverse events mandatory with the result that there is no way of knowing the extent of vaccine injury. The health authorities already knew that the voluntary had a history of catching only 5 per cent of adverse events. Their decision flouted the most important principle of medical ethics – do no harm. It also enabled the government and the whole medical establishment to avoid any public discussion of adverse events. Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern arranged for the hurried deletion of over 30,000 reports of adverse events from her Facebook account.
Why did our authorities do this? The government opted for a stand-alone vaccination strategy because it believed assurances of safety and efficacy from Pfizer. Almost immediately, and before any decision on mandates, we found out vaccine effectiveness waned rapidly and did little to reduce transmission, directly contradicting Pfizer trial results. The government and the Ministry of Health switched arguments – ‘millions of people have received the vaccine worldwide so it must be safe and effective’, a vacuous argument from a scientific point of view. Almost a hundred thousand people were prescribed thalidomide before it was realised that it was unsafe.
The medical ethics criteria of public good and patient well-being are not usually weighed in the absence of considerations of maleficence and autonomy. Thus the stance of the government, to sweep vaccine injury under the carpet, departed radically from previous ethical practice. This kind of departure has previously been entertained only in times of war when the threat to the nation is judged to be sufficient to mandate military service call-up and tolerate the inevitable heavy casualties of conflict. This condition was of course not met in any way by the Covid pandemic.
The mounting numbers of individuals reporting vaccine injuries should have rung alarm bells to a point that detailed investigation of their extent became a priority. Instead and inexplicably, hiding their occurrence rose to the top of the government’s agenda. Jacinda Ardern lashed out at a journalist asking questions about the death of a 17-year-old girl who had a stroke immediately following vaccination, labelling the journalist as irresponsible and denying any relationship with vaccination before there had been any time to assess causation. A few medical professionals were disciplined for raising similar questions. This was enough to discourage any public consideration of the ethics involved.
The government decided further to reverse ethical practice. Dr Ashley Bloomfield, Director General of Health, has personal responsibility for granting vaccine exemptions to those injured by the first shot. In almost all cases, he refuses exemptions including among those hospitalised and still ill, even when there is supporting documentation from specialists.
Now that extensive research has concluded that the outcomes for Omicron patients are similar for both the vaccinated and unvaccinated, there is no longer a valid scientific argument for justice and beneficence. All ethical arguments for mandates are moot, but why is there still no move to protect individuals from the adverse effects of vaccination?
As mounting evidence has been ignored, government decisions verge towards the criminal. There are floundering attempts by the media to label mandate protesters as variously Right-wing extremists and uneducated Luddites. The arguments in support of mandated vaccination are still being presented to the public through strident political rhetoric unsupported by science publications. The government must realise that there are serious scientific and ethical failings involved. It must mount an honest attempt to change the debate from politics to science, and adjust public policy accordingly. At this stage, anything less is culpable.
New Zealand – The Medsafe report Adverse events following immunisation with COVID-19 vaccines: Safety Report #39 – 31 December 2021 lists 46,000 adverse events reported since the start of the Pfizer vaccine rollout in New Zealand. Historically this is 30 times the rate of adverse effects reported for flu vaccines. More than 50 per cent of these adverse effects are reported by medical professionals and about 40 per cent by affected members of the public via the CARM (Centre for Adverse Reactions Monitoring) website. Prior experience published by Medsafe concludes that only 5 per cent of adverse events are reported to CARM. A total of 8.1million doses have been administered in NZ.
The ten most common adverse events
Some 44,000 of the 46,000 adverse events are dismissed by Medsafe as ‘non-serious’—a number which has been echoed by politicians across the NZ political spectrum and by our Ministry of Health as evidence that the Pfizer vaccine is safe. The ten most common adverse events (all rated as non-serious) are as follows (from Medsafe). The total number of events below is more than 44,000 because many people experienced multiple symptoms.
If you’re in the early stages of myocarditis, you might have mild symptoms such as chest pain, rapid or irregular heartbeats, or shortness of breath. Some people with early-stage myocarditis don’t have any symptoms. The signs and symptoms of myocarditis vary, depending on the cause of the disease. Common myocarditis signs and symptoms include:
• Chest pain
• Rapid or irregular heartbeat (arrhythmias)
• Shortness of breath, at rest or during activity
• Fluid buildup with swelling of the legs, ankles and feet
• Fatigue
• Other signs and symptoms of a viral infection such as a headache, body aches, joint pain, fever, child dizziness, a sore throat or diarrhea
Sometimes, myocarditis symptoms may be similar to a heart attack. If you are having unexplained chest pain and shortness of breath, seek emergency medical help.
Of the ten most common adverse effects of Covid-19 vaccination reported to CARM in NZ, you can see eight are listed as symptoms of myocarditis by the Mayo Clinic. Given that myocarditis is the most common known severe outcome of Covid-19, why have the eight common vaccine adverse effects also known to be symptoms of myocarditis been characterised as ‘non-serious’? Is this a glaring case of misdiagnosis? If so, why?
NZ GPs and medical personnel had a naive expectation of vaccine safety
The first point to note is that most NZ medical professionals had expectations of vaccine safety based both on years of experience with vaccination programmes and the extensive medical education they had received. They had no prior experience with drugs or vaccines which had not already completed years of testing and safety evaluation. It was for them therefore virtually unthinkablethat the Pfizer vaccine was unsafe. Moreover the Pfizer vaccine trial results had already characterised the common adverse effects as non-serious. For this reason the very common reports of chest discomfort and shortness of breathfollowing Covid-19 vaccination, which according to prior protocols should have led to intensive investigation and treatment, were dismissed as non-serious without investigation and in most cases without reporting to CARM. Perhaps their very common occurrence fostered an attitude of indifference and dismissal which many victims suffered in NZ when they reported such symptoms to their GP or to hospital staff.
Rates of Myocarditis symptoms are higher than realised
The prevalence of a wide range of known myocarditis symptoms is probably indicative of a very high rate of subclinical and mild myocarditis following Pfizer vaccination. The important point to note is that the recommended treatment for mild myocarditis is rest. Most people recover if it is treated early with sufficient prolonged rest. If left untreated, myocarditis can restrict the capacity of the heart to pump blood which can lead to serious cardiac events such as heart attack, stroke, and arrhythmia. It is wrong to undertake vigorous physical activity including sport while suffering from myocarditis. It is clear from this that insufficient precautionary instructions were given to vaccine recipients about the risks they faced and the steps that they needed to take to avoid these risks. This may have contributed to cardiac problems including among some recipients undertaking vigorous physical exercise.
The possible extent of these cardiac events is indicated by multiple reports to voluntary organisations. An important point to note here is that reporting to CARM is not mandatory, a very unfortunate yet unforgivably deliberate omission. Medsafe attempts in its Safety Report #39 (referenced above) to dismiss the significance of adverse events by comparing their rate to population norms. In the absence of mandatory reporting, especially considering that Medsafe knows adverse events are grossly under-reported, all such comparisons are statistically meaningless.
A public information campaign is essential
Belatedly Dr Ashley Bloomfield, Director General of the Ministry of the Health, struck a note of alarm about myocarditis in his December 15 2021 letter to directors of district health boards, but this concern did not alter much the processes being applied. Individuals experiencing myocarditis following their first vaccination are still being denied exemptions. Those suffering strokes and heart attacks are in some if not most cases being denied Accident Compensation Commission (ACC) assistance. There is also a virtual data black-out on rates of cardiac events and hospitalisations and on ACC claims. Anecdotal and whistleblower reports here and overseas suggest these might be high but considering that data collection has been haphazard due to the ‘non-serious’ label, these might be hard to quantify unless the government makes an honest attempt to inform the public of risks and ask people to come forward who are already affected. This is particularly important as many stroke, cardiac and other serious adverse event sufferers have already been emphatically informed by their GP or other medical professionals that their symptoms must be unrelated to the Pfizer vaccination – an egregious form of victim-blaming lacking any scientific basis.
If there is a historical precedent for the truckers’ revolt in Canada, and the populist protests in so many other parts of the world, I would like to know what it is. It surely sets the record for convoy size, and it is historic for Canada. But there is much more going on here, something more fundamental. The two-year imposition of bio-fascist rule by diktat seems ever less tenable – the consent of the governed is being withdrawn – but what comes next seems unclear.
We now have two of the most restrictive “leaders” in the developed world (Justin Trudeau of Canada and Jacinda Ardern of New Zealand) hiding in undisclosed locations, citing the need to quarantine following Covid exposure. Streets globally have filled up with people demanding an end to mandates and lockdowns, calling for accountability, pushing for resignations, denouncing privileged corporations, and crying out for a recognition of basic freedoms and rights.
Note too that these movements are spontaneous and from “below:” they are populated mostly by the very workers whom governments shoved to face the pathogen two years ago, while the ruling class hid behind their laptops in their living rooms. It was the lockdowns that sharply divided the classes and the mandates that are imposing segregation. Now we are facing a modern allegory to the peasants’ revolt in the Middle Ages.
For a long time, the workers complied bravely but have been forced to accept medical shots they neither wanted nor believed they needed. And many are still being denied freedoms they took for granted only two years ago, their schools non-operational, businesses wrecked, places of entertainment closed or severely restricted. People turn on the radios and televisions to listen to lectures by ruling-class elites who claim to be channeling the science that always ends in the same theme: the rulers are in charge and everyone else must comply, no matter what is asked of them.
But then it became screamingly obvious to the world that none of it worked. It was a gigantic flop and the sky-high cases of late 2021 in most parts of the world put a fine point on it. They failed. It was all for naught. This clearly cannot continue. Something has to give. Something has to change, and this change probably will not wait for the next scheduled elections. What happens in the meantime? Where is this going?
We’ve seen what revolutions look like against monarchies (18th and 19th century), against colonial occupation, against totalitarian one-party states (1989-90), and against banana-republic strongmen (20th century). But what does revolution look like in developed democracies ruled by entrenched administrative states in which elected politicians serve as little more than veneer for bureaucracies?
Since John Locke, it is an accepted idea that people have the right to rule themselves and even to replace governments that go too far in denying that right. In theory, the problem of government overreach in democracy is solved by elections. The argument made for such a system is that it allows for peaceful change of a ruling elite, and this is far less socially costly than war and revolution.
There are many problems with matching theory and reality, among which that the people with the real power in the 21st century are not the people we elect but those who have gained their privileges through bureaucratic maneuvering and longevity.
There are many strange features of the last two years but one of them that stands out to me is how utterly undemocratic the trajectory of events has been. When they locked us down, for example, it was the decision of elected autocrats as advised by credentialled experts that were somehow sure that this path would make the virus go away (or something like that). When they imposed vaccination mandates, it was because they were sure that this was the right path for public health.
There were no polls. There was little if any input from legislatures at any level. Even from the first lockdowns in the US, occurring March 8, 2020 in Austin, Texas, there was no consultation with the city council. Neither were citizens asked. The wishes of the small business people were not solicited. The state legislature was left out entirely.
It was as if everyone suddenly presumed that the whole country would operate on an administrative/dictatorship model, and that the guidelines of health bureaucracies (with plans for lockdowns that hardly anyone even knew existed) trumped all tradition, constitutions, restrictions on state power, and public opinion generally. We all became their servants. This happened all over the world.
It suddenly became obvious to many people in the world that the systems of government we thought we had – responsive to the public, deferential to rights, controlled by courts – were no longer in place. There seemed to be a substructure that was hiding in plain sight until it suddenly took full control, to the cheers of the media and the presumption that this is just the way things are supposed to be.
Years ago, I was hanging out in the building of a federal agency when there was a change of guard: a new administration appointed a new person to head it. The only change that the bureaucrats noticed was new portraits on the wall. Most of these people pride themselves in failing to notice. They know who is in charge and it is not the people we imagine to elect. They are there for life, and face none of the public scrutiny much less accountability that the politicians face daily.
Lockdowns and mandates gave them full power, not only over the one or two sectors they previously ruled but the whole of society and all of its functioning. They even controlled how many people we could have in our homes, whether our businesses could be open, whether we could worship with others, and dictate what precisely we are supposed to do with our own bodies.
Whatever happened to limits on power? The people who put together the systems of government in the 18th century that led to the most prosperous societies in the history of the world knew that restricting government was the key to a stable social order and growing economy. They gave us Constitutions and the lists of rights and the courts enforced them.
But at some point in history, the ruling class figured out certain workarounds to these restrictions. The administrative state with permanent bureaucrats could achieve things that legislatures could not, so they were gradually unleashed under various pretexts (war, depression, terror threats, pandemics). Moreover, governments gradually learned to outsource their hegemonic ambitions to the biggest businesses in the private sector, who themselves benefit from increasing the costs of compliance.
The circle has been completed by enlisting Big Media into the mix of control via access to the class of rulers, to receive and broadcast out the line of the day, and hurl insults at any dissidents within the population (“fringe,” etc.). This has created what we see in the 21st century: a toxic combination of Big Tech, Big Government, Big Media, all backed by various other industrial interests who benefit more from systems of control than they would from a free and competitive economy. Further, this cabal leveled a radical attack on civil society itself, closing churches, concerts, and civic groups.
We’ve been assured by David Hume (1711-1776) and Etienne de la Boétie (1530-1563) that government rule is untenable when it loses the consent of the governed. “Resolve to serve no more,” wrote Boetie, “and you are at once freed. I do not ask that you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, but simply that you support him no longer; then you will behold him, like a great Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled away, fall of his own weight and break into pieces.”
That’s inspiring but what does it mean in practice? What precisely is the mechanism by which the overlords in our time are effectively overthrown? We’ve seen this in totalitarian states, in states with one-man rule, in states with unelected monarchies. But unless I’m missing something, we’ve not seen this in a developed democracy with an administrative state that holds the real power. We have scheduled elections but those are unhelpful when 1) elected leaders are not the real source of power, and 2) when the elections are too far in the distant future to deal with a present emergency.
One very easy and obvious path away from the current crisis is for the ruling class to admit error, repeal the mandates, and simply allow for common freedoms and rights for everyone. As easy as that sounds, this solution hits a hard wall when faced with ruling-class arrogance, trepidation, and the unwillingness to admit past errors for fear of what that will mean for their political legacies. For this reason, absolutely no one expects the likes of Trudeau, Ardern, or Biden to humbly apologize, admit that they were wrong, and beg the people’s forgiveness. On the contrary, everyone expects them to continue the game of pretend so long as they can get away with it.
The people on the streets today, and those willing to tell pollsters that they are fed up, are saying: no more. What does it mean for the ruling class not to get away with this nonsense anymore? Presuming that they do not resign, they do not call off the dogs of mandates and lockdowns, what is the next step? My instincts tell me that we are about to discover the answer. Electoral realignment seems inevitable but what happens before then?
The obvious answer to the current instability is mass resignations within the administrative state and among the class of politicians that gives it cover. In the name of peace, human rights, and the renewal of prosperity and trust, this needs to happen today. Bury the pride and do what’s right. Do it now while there is still time for the revolution to be velvet.
Jeffrey A. Tucker is Founder and President of the Brownstone Institute and the author of many thousands of articles in the scholarly and popular press and ten books in 5 languages, most recently Liberty or Lockdown.
Now that Covid restrictions are being rolled back, various commentators are declaring victory over the miserable virus. Lockdowns, we are told, worked. Only a fool could argue otherwise.
Devi Sridhar, the Chair of Global Public Health at Edinburgh University, who was formerly an exponent of the Zero Covid strategy of completely eradicating the virus, has recently announced in the Guardianthat “delaying and preventing infection as much as possible through this pandemic was a worthwhile strategy. In early 2020, there were few treatments, limited testing and no vaccines. The costs of those lockdowns were big, but the effort to buy time paid off”.
At the other end of the political spectrum, Tom Harwood of GB News says much the same. Lockdown sceptics, he writes in CapX, are “bizarrely claiming victory now that restrictions are coming to an end”. The sceptics, Harwood asserts, ignore the success of vaccines. “There is a blindingly obvious distinction between the need for non-pharmaceutical interventions amongst a non-immune population, verses [sic] one with incredibly high levels of immunity.” He points to a lower death toll from the Omicron variant which appeared after the “stupendously successful vaccine rollout”. In conclusion, Harwood writes that to “deny lockdowns worked to reduce spread is to deny logic”.
Let’s examine the logic. If lockdowns bought time for the rollout of vaccines, then we would expect fewer Covid deaths in places that locked down early and fast. That is the case in Australia and New Zealand, which early in the pandemic sealed their borders against the virus. But the trouble with this policy, as our Antipodean friends are discovering, is the difficulty of exiting. Their policy of national self-isolation has lasted nearly two years, and continues in large measure even after most of their population has been vaccinated.
By contrast, in Europe there is no evidence that lockdowns significantly reduced Covid deaths. Sweden, which never locked down, has the same number of deaths per million as Austria, which did (see chart below). It’s true that Swedish deaths ran higher somewhat earlier than Austria, but this ‘bought-time’ doesn’t appear to have changed the final tally.
The evidence from the United States points to a similar conclusion: the Covid death rate (as a share of the population) in Florida, which largely avoided lockdowns, is slightly below the U.S. national average and far below that of New York, which had (and continues to impose) relatively tough restrictions.
It’s true that mass vaccination has reduced the risk of hospitalisation and death from Covid. But lockdown exponents imply that vaccines alone are responsible for the decline in the infection fatality rate. The evidence from South Africa, whose vaccination rate is around a quarter of the European average (49 doses per 100 people versus 180, or 27%), suggests otherwise.
It appears that either Covid has evolved to become less virulent, as the South African doctors suggested back in December, or South Africa’s population has built up strong natural immunity from prior infection – a possibility overlooked by most commentators. It seems likely that both factors have played a role in reducing the virulence of the disease. Even if lockdowns had succeeded in reducing Covid deaths until the vaccine rollout that wouldn’t necessarily justify their imposition. From the start, lockdown sceptics were concerned about the collateral damage caused by closing down the economy, shuttering schools, neglecting conventional health care and forcing people to isolate in their homes for months on end. They railed in vain against the cruelty of lockdowns: mothers giving birth alone, old people dying alone or left for months without visitors in nursing homes, the damage to children’s education, funerals unattended, small businesses crushed and so forth. Finally, the public appears to be waking up to these cruelties. Hence, the fury at the hypocrisy of Downing Street officials who imposed harsh rules for the nation which they didn’t scrupulously follow themselves.
Then there are lockdown’s immense financial costs. At the time, these could be ignored since governments financed them with interest-free loans from central banks. But all that money-printing is now fuelling inflation that will lead to further immiseration in the coming years. The sceptics argued that lockdowns were never subject to a proper cost-benefit analysis which took social and economic costs into account. That remains the case. Thus, not only has there been no ‘victory’ in the war on Covid – on the contrary, the highly contagious Omicron variant appears to be overcoming all attempts to constrain it – but the argument over lockdowns has yet to be decisively won by either side, so that lockdowns are either accepted as a tool of sound public health policy or roundly condemned as a colossal mistake. The sceptics’ work continues.
The Government should be your single source of truth
SEPTEMBER 4, 2020 – New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said in Parliament: ‘I want to send a clear message to the New Zealand public: we will share with you the most up-to-date information daily. You can trust us as a source of that information. You can also trust the Director-General of Health and the Ministry of Health . . . dismiss anything else. We will continue to be your single source of truth.’
This is one of the most oft-repeated and misleading lies of Jacinda Ardern. Whistleblowers from within government departments including nurses, doctors and officials have reported that they have been instructed to refrain from revealing to the public the true extent of adverse events and deaths following vaccination, thus hiding the real risks. The excuse presented to employees by the government was that ‘a medical emergency’ justifies the expedient of hiding the truth. Moreover the risks of Covid itself have been consistently overblown to stoke the fear narrative. Based on this lie, the government has refused to acknowledge the import of published research.
The virus spreads because of the unvaccinated
October 4, 2021 – Jacinda Ardern quoted in Stuff: ‘The vast majority of New Zealanders eligible now are being vaccinated, but the virus is finding our unvaccinated individuals. A boundary is not an ironclad way of protecting ourselves against Covid; a vaccine is.’
The government failed to call out false information in articles published by the media and sponsored by vaccine interests pretending that Covid spreads 20 times more easily among the unvaccinated. This created unnecessary fear of the unvaccinated and overconfidence among the vaccinated. It has divided our nation. It has led to an economic disaster for businesses who are required to discriminate against the unvaccinated. It has caused personal hardship for thousands of highly qualified and experienced NZ professionals and greatly reduced the pool of qualified individuals in NZ. This lie was the false basis for mandates.
The vaccine is entirely safe
22 October 2021 – Jacinda Ardern quoted in the NZ Doctor: ‘The vaccine we are using in New Zealand is safe and effective.’
This lie has been repeated again and again in the saturation government advertising which has cost millions. Individuals known to be vulnerable to vaccination adverse effects including people with a history of anaphylactic shock, past reactions to vaccination etc, have been denied information which might enable them to make informed choices. They have also been denied exemption to vaccination. Young people who have very little risk of serious Covid outcomes, yet a relatively high risk of vaccine injury, have been left completely uninformed.
There is no need to require reporting of vaccine adverse events
December 15 2021 – Astrid Koorneeff, Director, National Immunisation Programme: ‘An accurate measurement of all adverse events [subsequent to vaccination] is not required.’
This is among the most damaging of lies. Faced with a novel vaccine with a short period of testing developed by a company with a history of medical harm lawsuits against it, the government refused to institute mandatory procedures which would correctly evaluate the extent of any adverse effects. Instead they continued with a voluntary system. A Medsafe website records that only 5 per cent of adverse effects are reported. This has enabled Jacinda Ardern and the government to deny the extent of adverse events and death following vaccination by pleading insufficient information.
Heart disease affects only 3 out of 100,000 vaccinated individuals
15 December 2021 letter – Dr Ashley Bloomfield, Director General of Health: ‘In New Zealand, the true incidence of vaccine-associated myocarditis is unknown as the onset of symptoms occurs in the first few days after vaccination and is potentially under-reported. However, the overall rate of this event in New Zealand is reported to be around 3 per 100,000 vaccinations.’
How can any rational person say in the same paragraph that incidence of myocarditis and pericarditis is underreported in NZ, but also assert an absurdly low rate for incidence? In fact a new study puts the risk of myocarditis to be higher among vaccinated males under 40 than from Covid itself. The latest careful assessment of incidence of perimyocarditis in the published literature puts the incidence as high as 1 in 2,000, not 3 in 100,000.
Multiple reports from individuals reveal that it is common practice to turn away recently vaccinated individuals experiencing symptoms of myocarditis from NZ general practices and hospitals without treatment or a report of cardiac problems. This is mediated by another myth that myocarditis is a ‘mild’ disease that is short-lived. That’s a frightening lie. The damage to the heart from acute viral myocarditis is typically permanent, and the three- to five-year survival rate for myocarditis has historically ranged from 56 per cent to 83 per cent.
Whistleblowers from emergency rooms around NZ report that facilities are being overwhelmed with cardiac cases among vaccinated individuals.
Taken together, the misinformation effort by the NZ government led by Jacinda Ardern has irreparably changed the character of our society and caused needless suffering for thousands.
Veteran New Zealand doctor René de Monchy’s career came to an abrupt halt after refusing to be vaccinated. Wanting to remain “vaccine-free,” the physician of over 48 years was fired, banned from his hospital, and not allowed to say goodbye to his patients.
The general practitioner and psychiatrist is shining a spotlight on the Globalist forces using Covid to help them seize control of New Zealand. The brave doctor questioned why doctors and patients receive monetary “vaccine” incentives. Furthermore, Dr. Monchy believes the actual number of people who have died from the vaccines is not reported, and relatives of those killed from the injection are receiving “hush money.”
Critical From The Begining
From their inception, Dr. Monchy was very critical of the “experimental, never-before-used mRNA vaccines.” The Doctor disagreed with the vaccine’s “lack of a control group and long-term outcomes,” reports the Doctors Collective. Even more so, the Doctor is outraged that the injection is being promoted to children and pregnant women,
… what closed the door for me was when the vaccines were also given to children, who are absolutely not at risk with corona infection. In addition, the mRNA vaccines were also promoted for pregnant women, which is completely contrary to any medical and scientific tradition of carefully weighing the pros and cons. The immune system, especially of a child, is a delicate interplay. It is like a symphony orchestra with several sections; the winds, strings, and percussion, all of which must fill in at just the right time. By administering vaccines whose effects are still largely unknown, you are going to disrupt this interplay. We have every reason to be cautious.
“Peverse”Monetary Incentives
Since the arrival of the gene-therapy injections, New Zealand has pushed to have 90% of its population receive two injections. In December, the country successfully reached its milestone. To achieve its 90% “vaccination” goal, Dr. Monchy explained that every citizen who received the injection was bribed with a voucher of 20 NZD (12 euros). At the same time, doctors have been given 359 NZD (216 euros) per vaccine.
Just five weeks ago, New Zealand had a so-called “vaxxathon,” a kind of festive campaign, with the sole purpose of giving as many people as possible a shot. Dr. Monchy reported that one health center made 175,000 NZD (105,000 euros) during that vaxxathon. “There is a perverse incentive for doctors to participate in this kind of campaign,” stated the Doctor.
No Vaccine Exemption
Vaccine exceptions were initially allowed in New Zealand, but were soon withdrawn by the government. The only exception now is if someone has suffered anaphylactic shock or a pulmonary embolism after the injection, explains the doctor. “I have had patients who suffered a stroke or Guillaume Barré after the first injection. But what do you think? No exception was given for a second vaccination.”
Similarly, in Australia, Senator Gerard Rennick condemned his government for forcing citizens to take a second shot if they suffered an adverse event from the first.
Chance Of Fine Or Jail
Those who don’t get pricked are demonized as anti-vaxxers and increasingly socially excluded. Since November 18, an unvaccinated person is no longer allowed to work in health care, education, or air and sea transport. Following the introduction of the Corona Pass on December 3, the unvaccinated are no longer welcome in hospitality, sports, cultural events, and non-essential stores. Those who fail to comply risk a fine of NZD 12,000 (€7210) or six months in prison. We have become a segregated society, explains Dr. Monchy.
Because the Doctor works in healthcare, he was also required to get vaccinated. On the day the deadline passed, the manager called him in her office. She asked if he had been vaccinated. He replied, “no.” Immediately his computer account and swipe card were blocked. He was unable to say goodbye to patients and colleagues. He received a restraining order from the hospital, “like a hooligan receiving a stadium ban,” stated Dr. Monchy.
One of the doctor’s closest colleagues told him that there is no talk about the people forced to leave the hospital. The doctor’s co-workers are afraid of losing their livelihoods. The rumor is that doctor’s medical licenses will be revoked, which has already happened to three colleagues.
The doctor is sporadically working under the radar. He sees patients through teleconsultations. His only hope is to continue doing the work he loves.
Posthumous PCR Positive
At the onset of the corona crisis in early 2020, the doctors were initially shocked by the extreme outlook we were presented with, states Dr.Monchy. However, it soon became apparent that the mortality rate was much lower than predicted; in New Zealand, exactly 46 people have died from Covid-19 from January 2020 to date, according to official statistics. Anyone who dies within 28 days of a positive PCR test is counted as a corona death, regardless of other circumstances. Recently, the police in New Zealand shot and killed a criminal. Posthumously, the PCR test turned out to be positive. As a result, he, too, went down in the books as a corona death explains the Doctor.
Leaders Do Not Care About People’s Health
Standard ways of improving health are not encouraged, such as diet, exercise, and fresh air, but rather suppressed. Moreover, any dissent by doctors is being dealt with harshly, either in the media or through the Medical Councils (professional organizations), states Dr. Monchy. “At some point, it dawned on me: this is not so much about health, but more about politics, money, power, and social manipulation.”
Globalists Have Seized Control Of New Zealand
New Zealand is a testing ground for international organizations wanting to roll out systems worldwide, explains Dr. Monchy. For example, credit cards and PIN payment (EFTPOS) were first introduced in New Zealand. In addition, the country is remote and easy to manage, as the population is generally accommodating.
The Doctor slammed the country’s globalist Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern,
She is intelligent, but also shrewd woman, who has mastered political maneuvering to her fingertips. After the attack in Christchurch, she was able to count on much goodwill among the population. Ardern has a degree in communications which you can see, she knows how to play to the masses. What has also helped her is that the press was completely in her hands, and still is by the way.
Jacinda Ardern is closely connected with World Economic Forum (WEF) and was its selected Young Global Leader. RAIR Foundation USA recently reported on her and the Young Global Leaders school, which was established and managed by Klaus Schwab of the WEF. Arden, like many of the school’s famous for Covid dictator attendees are exploiting the pandemic with the aim of crashing national economies and introducing a global digital currency.
Arden’s Labour party has an absolute majority in parliament. The Doctor explains that this allows Arden’s party to publish laws on Thursday, and her government will quickly and quietly push them through on Monday. The leader operates at a pace that the public is supposed to struggle to keep up with.
The Prime Minister has already said that there will be no end to vaccines. The latest Covid-19 law is far-reaching: the Minister of Health can declare a location an emergency area, after which agencies have the right to enter a home, test the people present, and provide mandatory “treatment.” All court cases brought against this type of measure, up to the Supreme Court, have been lost.
“It would be a mistake to think that this system is unique to New Zealand or that only here will it be so extreme.” I think the system is only being perfected here before it is introduced in other places, explains the Doctor.
Powerful international organizations, such as the WEF are out to bring about an overall social transformation. A new plan is launched almost every week in our area, such as a general smoking ban. So much is unknown, but what the Doctor feels sure about is, “so much power should never be in the hands of a government.”
“It is fascinating but creepy to see how a small group of people around Jacinda Ardern have taken control of this country,” states the Doctor. He questions why a majority of the population goes along with this?
Why do we allow ourselves to be split into “good citizens” and the “anti-vaxxers” or “outcasts”? I have noticed that it is precisely the more intellectual people who fall for it. That includes, unfortunately, many fellow physicians, when you cannot possibly maintain that this regime of vaccines and measures is good for public health. I think the scale of the deception certainly has something to do with it. It is simply too big to grasp. The moment you see through it, you lose much of what you have assumed to be valid up to that point. Intellectuals have more invested in the system; they, therefore, have more to lose. Perhaps our greatest fear is that we will lose our minds. To give up confidence in this corona system is maddening; many people do not yet dare to do so.
Sums Of Hush Money
According to official figures, 117 deaths have been reported as “possibly associated” with the Pfizer vaccine, of which only one case has been assessed as “probable.” The rest are still under investigation, or the deaths were dismissed as “not related to the vaccine.”
These are entirely different figures reaching us through the unofficial route, explains the doctor. We have collected 220 cases via next of kin in which the vaccine is most likely the cause of death. For example, a healthy 50-year-old man or a 15-year-old youth died a day after their shot. He reports that “there are indications that relatives are being offered sums of hush money.”
History Repeating Itself
The doctor grew up in the Netherlands and was conceived around the liberation. His father was active in the underground, helping Allied pilots to escape. But, of course, this was dangerous, so his family lived in a certain tension.
During his childhood, the war was never far away. He grew up playing in the bomb craters in the street. His family regularly discussed the war in their home; it was not taboo. Dr. Monchy’s father described how the occupying forces gradually tightened the thumbscrews: “identification requirements, more and more restrictions, then excluding entire groups.” Exactly as is happening now in New Zealand and elsewhere worldwide, explained the doctor. Unfortunately, it is the known way to take control, as history has repeatedly shown.
Hope For New Zealand
The doctor has not lost hope and praised activist organizations like Voices for Freedom for doing fantastic work in New Zealand. Demonstrations are held in many cities almost every week and attract hundreds or even thousands of people. The Globalists can only suppress human beings for so long stressed the doctor,
You have to remember that our “opponents” see us as interchangeable, as expendable units. For everyone the same vaccine. For all the world the same QR system. There is no place for our sense of self in their human vision. But this clashes with the uniqueness of the human being. You can suppress the sense of self for a while, but not for very long. Once people have rediscovered themselves, they start to see the seriousness of the current situation and the turnaround comes.
In April 2021, doctors, dentists, pharmacists and veterinarians set up an organization, New Zealand Doctors Speaking Out with Science. Their group objected to pharma companies actions and the harsh consequences they faced for voicing their concerns,
Our group formed around an open letter to the New Zealand government that expressed our concerns with the Pfizer Comirnaty Covid-19 injection, as well as the implication from our regulatory bodies that we would be considered incompetent in our duties if we provided fully informed consent about this procedure.
The organization is growing quickly as hundreds of doctors, nurses, and other paramedics have been fired for being vaccine-free – they deliberately do not call them “unvaccinated.” When the first side effects of the gene therapy injections appeared, people noticed that their complaints were brushed aside, as was the personal experience of nurses in hospitals. Their organization tries its best to help these brave individuals.
Seeking Connection
Many colleagues Dr. Monchy speaks to express open doubts about the harsh corona policy in private. They wonder whether the measures still have to do with public health. The doctor is glad that they are expressing their doubts and seeking a connection with other medics. “For myself, I will remain true to my principles. I stand for individual freedom and responsibility, for ‘Respect for Life.’ No one can judge me on that.”
“In some circumstances a person with COVID-19 may be eligible for assisted dying”. – NZ government
Are patients ‘eligible’ in the same way that we are all ‘eligible’ for vaccination and need to have our arms twisted by forcing us out of normal life?
Patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 can die by euthanasia if doctors decide they might not survive, the New Zealand government has declared.
The Ministry of Health confirmed that a right to a lethal injection under a new euthanasia law could extend to patients who were either dying from the coronavirus or suffering unbearably from its consequences.
In response to a request for clarity on a euthanasia law which came into force last month, the government declared that “in some circumstances a person with COVID-19 may be eligible for assisted dying”.
The admission that COVID patients were eligible for a lethal jab came after Henoch Kloosterboer, editor of the anti-euthanasia The Defender website, made a request under the Official Information Act – the New Zealand equivalent to the 2000 Freedom of Information Act.
He said the policy left “the door wide open for abuse” of elderly and vulnerable patients – especially if the country’s health service came under pressure from a COVID surge.
He said: “It would not be hard to envisage a situation in which a speedy and sizeable rise in COVID-19 hospitalisations could result in pressure to utilise euthanasia and assisted suicide as tools to resolve such a serious crisis.”
The euthanasia law, he added, “has now made the COVID-19 pandemic potentially even more dangerous for the people of Aotearoa New Zealand”.
The 2019 End of Life Choice Act is considered to be one of the most extreme euthanasia laws anywhere in the world, and critics say the safeguards are so flimsy that they are easily circumvented.
It permits both euthanasia and assisted suicide for adults suffering from an illness which would be terminal within six months, or who were in an advanced state of irreversible physical decline or who were suffering unbearably.
The law, ratified following a referendum in 2020, guarantees all residents the right of access to a doctor who will kill them within a period as short as four days from receiving a request.
Doctors receive a government fee of $1,000 plus expenses for every euthanasia death they perform.
Just 96 of the country’s 16,000 doctors have offered to participate, however, and all but one of the nation’s 32 hospices have indicated that they will not permit euthanasia.
The one exception – Totara Hospice in South Auckland – has agreed to allocate space on its premises for the practice while its staff will conscientiously object to any participation.
In the UK, Baroness Finlay of Llandaff, a professor of palliative medicine, said the New Zealand euthanasia law contradicted the fundamental purpose of medicine and health services to heal the sick.
She said: “It is bizarre that a country which has been trying to protect it citizens by closing down completely from a virus from which people can fully recover … is now suggesting that these patients should be killed by their doctors.
“It turns the ethos of medicine on its head,” she said.
“You really cannot predict death 100 per cent,” she added. “So why not support them while they are dying and leave the door open in case they are in the group that defies all odds and recovers completely?”
At present, Baroness Meacher is seeking to legalise assisted suicide in England and Wales through her Assisted Dying Bill, which in October received its Second Reading in the House of Lords.
The crossbench peer, who chairs the campaign group Dignity in Dying, has also tabled an amendment to the Health and Social Care Bill in an attempt to make assisted suicide a part of palliative care.
In Scotland, Liam MacArthur, the Liberal Democrat MP is intending to introduce an assisted suicide Bill and in politicians in Jersey last month agreed in principle to legalised both assisted suicide and euthanasia.
The overwhelming majority of palliative care practitioners and all 12 disability rights organisations in the UK fiercely oppose a change in the law, however.
They argue that assisted suicide and euthanasia would be discriminatory and dangerous and open to abuse irrespective of any safeguard, posing a grave threat to the safety of patients and other vulnerable people.
They also say that the experience of other countries suggests that even a modest assisted suicide law would serve as a beachhead for broader, liberalising amendments which will remove initial safeguards as ‘barriers to access’.
Last month, it was revealed that Nancy Russell, a 90-year-old Canadian woman, chose to die by assisted suicide rather than endure another COVID lockdown in her care home that would isolate her from her friends and family.
An Official Information Act reply to #DefendNZ, from the Ministry of Health, which says that patients with COVID-19 could be eligible for euthanasia, has left National MP Simon O’Connor disappointed but not surprised.
Palliative care improves the quality of life of patients and their families facing life-threatening illness. It provides holistic care (medical, psychological, social and spiritual) to those who are experiencing serious health related suffering due to a life threatening disease.
This video describes six essential components required to provide optimal palliative care with an integrated and people centred approach.
Wellington City Council has designated some 160 “Significant Natural Areas” in the District Plan. This policy will give protected status to part or all of 1693 private properties, mostly the back gardens of suburban homes. As a consequence of this high-handed action, homeowners:
Lose the right to use and enjoy their property as they wish;
Suffer a loss – often dramatic – in the value of their property.
Are experiencing extreme distress as a consequence.
The Council’s SNA policy is:
Counter productive: Council’s weaponising of native bush provides a huge disincentive to encourage native regrowth.
Undemocratic: there has been no public debate; this was not a declared policy by any candidate at the last local election. Efforts to inform affected owners or the public at large have been inadequate.
Dishonest: native plants regenerating on former farmland, toxic weeds, camellias and agapanthus do NOT constitute significant indigenous biodiversity of national importance under the RMA.
Unlawful: The Council claims authority from the Resource Management Act, Section 6 (c). There is nothing in the RMA that justifies the forced rewilding of environmentally insignificant land in private ownership.
Unconstitutional: Legislation Guidelines adopted by Cabinet in 2021 recognise respect for property as a fundamental constitutional principle: “People are entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of their property”.
Totally contrary to New Zealand values, and the values of a modern democratic society.
The purpose of the policy is to forcibly rewild private property, riding rough-shod over the rights, wishes and interests of Wellingtonians, and to normalise land expropriation.
Furthermore, by overlaying existing reserves with an SNA designation, there are implications for the use, management and development of public parks and open spaces.
Wellington City Councils SNA policy is unworkable on multiple levels. The Council must:
Remove all reference to SNAs in the district plan;
Apologise to landowners for unjustifiably causing angst and expense.
New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has candidly revealed that “there’s not going to be an end point to this vaccination program.”
Yes, really.
“So long as there’s people who are eligible who haven’t been vaccinated, we’ve got work to do,” said Ardern.
“Do you know, I don’t think I’ll ever be satisfied so long as there’s someone who is eligible and hasn’t been (vaccinated),” she added.
“There’s not going to be an end point to this vaccination program,” the Prime Minister revealed, while calling on people who got jabbed six months ago to come back for another shot.
Ardern delivered the message while adopting her familiar passive-aggressive smiley mannerism, as seen many times before when she casually revealed the next step in COVID authoritarianism.
People who fail to continually get vaccinated will face the same fate as those who have continued to resist compulsory shots, they’ll be out of work, face social ostracization and God only knows what else in the future.
Enjoy your lifetime booster shots and enjoy not being able to travel, visit a restaurant or eventually go in a shop if you miss out on just one.
Remember, if you don’t take the Pfizer jab for life, you’ll never be “fully vaccinated”.
The [New Zealand] government’s refusal to let GPs, midwives, and other specialist medical staff who are unvaccinated continue to work has no medical foundation and is simply punishment because of their refusal to be vaccinated.
That situation has nothing to do with patient safety.
It is now firmly established that both vaccinated and unvaccinated medical professionals can pass on corona virus to their patients so barring those unvaccinated from working is actually punishment of their patients as well.
A GP could have up to 25 people of mixed vaccination status in his home celebrating a birthday, yet those same 25 people could not attend his medical practice and consult him on their medical issues.
A midwife could have up to 25 people of mixed vaccination status in her home celebrating a christening yet she is unable to attend to the birthing needs of the pregnant mothers and expectant fathers in that same group professionally.
A dentist could have 25 people of mixed vaccination status in his home celebrating a house-warming yet those same 25 people cannot attend his dental surgery for treatment on their teeth.
Not only has the government’s medical mandate taken away the livelihoods of those health professionals but more importantly it is punishing patients by denying them the ability to get the medical care they need from the people they choose to provide it.
If the government was serious about patient safety, as it says it is, then it would allow patients to sign an acknowledgement of risk and consent form – the very same process that patients go through before an operation in hospital – and then let them consult the medical professionals they wish in the premises they wish.
Those medical professionals can then get back to work doing what they are highly trained for and what we desperately need them to do – provide the health care their patients deserve.
Given that both vaccinated and unvaccinated medical professionals can pass on corona virus to their patients, anything less will simply prove that punishment, not patient safety, is the reason for denying patients access to their chosen medical professional.
A sample consent form is below.
Disclaimer:
Social Credit is not against vaccination.
Social Credit is not aligned with Voices For Freedom or any other similar organisation.
Social Credit does stand up for the right of people to choose the medical treatment they deem appropriate and that includes vaccinations.
Social Credit does stand up for the right of people to refuse medical treatment should they so choose.
Children as young as 12 are now being excluded from their hobbies, recreational activities and school activities due to the vaccine mandates.
The 12-17 year old age group is not susceptible to serious adverse affects from covid-19. This age group IS susceptible to mental health issues – we have one of the worst statistics in the world. Sports and activities can help maintain good mental health. Being excluded from these activities could increase the likelihood of depression and anxiety within this age group.
The vaccine has not be tested for long term effects, so it’s unclear whether it will cause harm to these kids in the future. Short term effects show adverse reactions to the vaccine are relatively high in the age group compared with the older age groups.
It is fundamentally WRONG to exclude children based on their / their parents health choices
By Irfan Chowdhury | Palestine Chronicle | July 18, 2020
… Israel has been carrying out the longest-running military occupation in modern history and the longest-running siege in modern history. These two facts alone render Israel unique in terms of the scope of its brutality and criminality.
There are other respects in which Israel stands out from other countries in its use of terror and violence; for example, it is one of the most aggressive countries in the world, having waged wars of aggression against Lebanon in 1978, 1982, 1993, 1996 and 2006, and against Gaza in 2004, 2006, 2008/9, 2012 and 2014, killing huge numbers of civilians in the process (all while issuing threats and carrying out various covert attacks against Iran, which are all in violation of the UN Charter). … continue
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
The anti-mandate protest camp outside Parliament poses a problem for Government authority. The Government’s response so far mirrors the effect (and often, it seems, motive) of the Covid public health orders in marginalising those who do not conform. The protestors have not been met by any politicians, as is the custom in New Zealand with protests against Parliament. They have been classified as an aggressive minority and have been accused of trespassing on Parliamentary grounds.
SEPTEMBER 4, 2020 – New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said in Parliament: ‘I want to send a clear message to the New Zealand public: we will share with you the most up-to-date information daily. You can trust us as a source of that information. You can also trust the Director-General of Health and the Ministry of Health . . . dismiss anything else. We will continue to be your single source of truth.’
“Peverse”Monetary Incentives
Aletho News 