Follow the moneyIn pre-Covid times, the world economy was on the verge of another colossal meltdown. Here is a brief chronicle of how the pressure was building up:June 2019: In its Annual Economic Report, the Swiss-based Bank of International Settlements (BIS), the ‘Central Bank of all central banks’, sets the international alarm bells ringing. The document highlights “overheating […] in the leveraged loan market”, where “credit standards have been deteriorating” and “collateralized loan obligations (CLOs) have surged – reminiscent of the steep rise in collateralized debt obligations [CDOs] that amplified the subprime crisis [in 2008].” Simply stated, the belly of the financial industry is once again full of junk.9 August 2019: The BIS issues a working paper calling for “unconventional monetary policy measures” to “insulate the real economy from further deterioration in financial conditions”. The paper indicates that, by offering “direct credit to the economy” during a crisis, central bank lending “can replace commercial banks in providing loans to firms.”15 August 2019: Blackrock Inc., the world’s most powerful investment fund (managing around $7 trillion in stock and bond funds), issues a white paper titled Dealing with the next downturn. Essentially, the paper instructs the US Federal Reserve to inject liquidity directly into the financial system to prevent “a dramatic downturn.” Again, the message is unequivocal: “An unprecedented response is needed when monetary policy is exhausted and fiscal policy alone is not enough. That response will likely involve ‘going direct’”: “finding ways to get central bank money directly in the hands of public and private sector spenders” while avoiding “hyperinflation. Examples include the Weimar Republic in the 1920s as well as Argentina and Zimbabwe more recently.”22-24 August 2019: G7 central bankers meet in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, to discuss BlackRock’s paper along with urgent measures to prevent the looming meltdown. In the prescient words of James Bullard, President of the St Louis Federal Reserve: “We just have to stop thinking that next year things are going to be normal.”15-16 September 2019: The downturn is officially inaugurated by a sudden spike in the repo rates (from 2% to 10.5%). ‘Repo’ is shorthand for ‘repurchase agreement’, a contract where investment funds lend money against collateral assets (normally Treasury securities). At the time of the exchange, financial operators (banks) undertake to buy back the assets at a higher price, typically overnight. In brief, repos are short-term collateralized loans. They are the main source of funding for traders in most markets, especially the derivatives galaxy. A lack of liquidity in the repo market can have a devastating domino effect on all major financial sectors.17 September 2019: The Fed begins the emergency monetary programme, pumping hundreds of billions of dollars per week into Wall Street, effectively executing BlackRock’s “going direct” plan. (Unsurprisingly, in March 2020 the Fed will hire BlackRock to manage the bailout package in response to the ‘COVID-19 crisis’).19 September 2019: Donald Trump signs Executive Order 13887, establishing a National Influenza Vaccine Task Force whose aim is to develop a “5-year national plan (Plan) to promote the use of more agile and scalable vaccine manufacturing technologies and to accelerate development of vaccines that protect against many or all influenza viruses.” This is to counteract “an influenza pandemic”, which, “unlike seasonal influenza […] has the potential to spread rapidly around the globe, infect higher numbers of people, and cause high rates of illness and death in populations that lack prior immunity”. As someone guessed, the pandemic was imminent, while in Europe too preparations were underway (see here and here).18 October 2019: In New York, a global zoonotic pandemic is simulated during Event 201, a strategic exercise coordinated by the Johns Hopkins Biosecurity Center and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.21-24 January 2020: The World Economic Forum’s annual meeting takes place in Davos, Switzerland, where both the economy and vaccinations are discussed.23 January 2020: China puts Wuhan and other cities of the Hubei province in lockdown.11 March 2020: The WHO’s director general calls Covid-19 a pandemic. The rest is history.Joining the dots is a simple enough exercise. If we do so, we might see a well-defined narrative outline emerge, whose succinct summary reads as follows: lockdowns and the global suspension of economic transactions were intended to 1) Allow the Fed to flood the ailing financial markets with freshly printed money while deferring hyperinflation; and 2) Introduce mass vaccination programmes and health passports as pillars of a neo-feudal regime of capitalist accumulation. As we shall see, the two aims merge into one.
Friday, 26 November 2021
Tuesday, 23 November 2021
Fix Section 5 of NZ Bill of Rights 1990 to end Covid vax mandates - who knows till one gives it a go..
The other issue would be that if there were no justified limitations on freedoms you’d get some absurd and dangerous results: for example, “freedom of movement” would mean that we couldn’t jail murderers, “freedom of expression” would mean that there could be no offence of possessing child pornography etc. Sorry to be so stark but you get the point: these are often nuanced balancing acts of competing rights and responsibilities in society.
We’re not wanting to accept the petition in case doing so would muddy those waters...
8 Right not to be deprived of life
No one shall be deprived of life except on such grounds as are established by law and are consistent with the principles of fundamental justice.
9 Right not to be subjected to torture or cruel treatment
Everyone has the right not to be subjected to torture or to cruel, degrading, or disproportionately severe treatment or punishment.
10 Right not to be subjected to medical or scientific experimentation
Every person has the right not to be subjected to medical or scientific experimentation without that person's consent.
11 Right to refuse to undergo medical treatment
Everyone has the right to refuse to undergo any medical treatment.
That the House of Representatives amend Section 5 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 by inserting “and subject to section 5A”, and insert a new section 5A: “Unjustified limitations” to say “None of sections 4, 5, 6 provide any justified limits on rights and freedoms contained in sections 8,9,10 and 11”.
Section 5 Justified limitations
· Subject to section 4, and section 5A, the rights and freedoms contained in this Bill of Rights may be subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
Section 5A Unjustified limitations
None of Sections 4, 5, 6 provide any justified limits on rights and freedoms contained in sections 8,9,10 and 11.
Monday, 11 October 2021
The following is my paper to the Health select committee of the NZ Parliament in respect to the COVID-19 Public Health Response Amendment Bill (No 2)
COVID-19 Public Health Response Amendment Bill (No 2)
Evidence of Greg Rzesniowiecki 11 October 2021
To: NZ Parliament's Health Committee
Dear Health select committee Chair and members,
I oppose the Bill
I wish to appear in person before the select committee to provide further oral testimony and evidence
It is one thing to make a mistake and rectify it upon the discovery of superior knowledge, it is another thing entirely to isolate oneself from reason and truth by doubling down and compounding the error.
The politicisation of Covid-19 in New Zealand is a farce akin to Chairman Mao ordering the Chinese population to kill all sparrows and flies.
What is reported as science is a limited fraction of the available knowledge from critically minded clinicians, medical scientists and publicly available sources.
One piece of recent science research the committee would benefit from studying is an article published in Elsevier Toxicology Reports Volume 8, 2021, Pages 1665-1684
“Why are we vaccinating children against COVID-19?”
It might help to read this article in “Retraction Watch” about the above paper's claim that;
“Author Claims COVID-19 Vaccines Kill Five Times More People Over 65 Than They Save” 1
By Retraction Watch Staff October 05, 2021
Extract from Retraction Watch to make the point crystal clear;
The corresponding author of a new paper in an Elsevier journal that claims "there are five times the number of deaths attributable to each inoculation vs those attributable to COVID-19 in the most vulnerable 65+ demographic" says he "fully expected" the criticisms — and that the "real-world situation is far worse than our best-case scenario."
Ronald Kostoff and colleagues published "Why are we vaccinating children against COVID-19?" in Toxicology Reports in mid-September. In the paper, they colleagues conclude:
A novel best-case scenario cost-benefit analysis showed very conservatively that there are five times the number of deaths attributable to each inoculation vs those attributable to COVID-19 in the most vulnerable 65+ demographic. The risk of death from COVID-19 decreases drastically as age decreases, and the longer-term effects of the inoculations on lower age groups will increase their risk-benefit ratio, perhaps substantially.
About a week later, Samuel Klein, of the Berkman Klein Center for Internet and Society at Harvard, began tweeting criticism of the paper, which he has now gathered at his blog. One passage:
Overall, basic statistics is abused; sources misquoted, and standard knowledge and practice misrepresented, extensively, to confirm a desired result. The topline numbers claimed in the article differ by a factor of 5 million from the best serious estimates of risk/benefit analysis for the vaccines.
Klein noted that the paper reminded him of a paper by Harald Walach and colleagues that claimed two people died of COVID-19 for every three vaccinated. That paper was retracted — but later republished — and Walach lost a university post over the episode. The paper was one of two of Walach's about COVID-19 to be retracted.
Kostoff told Retraction Watch:
I'm well aware of the criticisms of our TR paper (which are an extremely small fraction of the copious and totally overwhelmingly positive responses), and I fully expected them. Given the blatant censorship of the mainstream media and social media, only one side of the COVID-19/"vaccine" narrative is reaching the public. Any questioning of the narrative is met with the harshest response. Front-line people (doctors, nurses, etc.) who are attempting to shed light on this situation are being fired, losing licenses, and having their reputations and finances destroyed. I went into this with my eyes wide open, determined to identify the truth, irrespective of where it fell. I could not stand idly by while the least vulnerable to serious COVID-19 consequences were injected with substances of unknown mid and long-term safety.
We published a best-case scenario. The real-world situation is far worse than our best-case scenario, and could be the subject of a future paper. What these results show is that we 1) instituted mass inoculations of an inadequately-tested toxic substance with 2) non-negligible attendant crippling and lethal results to 3) potentially prevent a relatively small number of true COVID-19 deaths. In other words, we used a howitzer where an accurate rifle would have sufficed!
Knowledge of Covid-19's relative low infectiousness and lethality were known early in the pandemic – two examples;
1. Diamond Princess cruise ship
The Covid outbreaks on cruise ships the Diamond Princess and Ruby Princess
Diamond Princess floating Covid-19 laboratory for epidemiologists
712 people out of 3,711 became infected (567 out of 2,666 passengers, 145 out of 1,045 crew), 14 people, all of them passengers, died.
Even amongst old folk most don't get it or die
Epidemiology supposedly provides a social health perspective to any disease outbreak and when the science is used properly can inform as to a disease's morbidity and lethality.
2. Dr John Ioannidis of Stanford is a preeminent epidemiologist who provided early and progress snapshots of the infection fatality rate of the Covid-19 distemper
Dr Ioannidis 10 min video from 4 April 2020; “Dr. Ioannidis on Why We Don't Have Reliable Data Surrounding COVID-19”
Which is based upon this 17 March 2020 article;
“A fiasco in the making? As the coronavirus pandemic takes hold, we are making decisions without reliable data”
From the article for your interest;
Projecting the Diamond Princess mortality rate onto the age structure of the U.S. population, the death rate among people infected with Covid-19 would be 0.125%. But since this estimate is based on extremely thin data — there were just seven deaths among the 700 infected passengers and crew — the real death rate could stretch from five times lower (0.025%) to five times higher (0.625%). It is also possible that some of the passengers who were infected might die later, and that tourists may have different frequencies of chronic diseases — a risk factor for worse outcomes with SARS-CoV-2 infection — than the general population. Adding these extra sources of uncertainty, reasonable estimates for the case fatality ratio in the general U.S. population vary from 0.05% to 1%.
That huge range markedly affects how severe the pandemic is and what should be done. A population-wide case fatality rate of 0.05% is lower than seasonal influenza. If that is the true rate, locking down the world with potentially tremendous social and financial consequences may be totally irrational. It’s like an elephant being attacked by a house cat. Frustrated and trying to avoid the cat, the elephant accidentally jumps off a cliff and dies.
Could the Covid-19 case fatality rate be that low? No, some say, pointing to the high rate in elderly people. However, even some so-called mild or common-cold-type coronaviruses that have been known for decades can have case fatality rates as high as 8% when they infect elderly people in nursing homes. In fact, such “mild” coronaviruses infect tens of millions of people every year, and account for 3% to 11% of those hospitalized in the U.S. with lower respiratory infections each winter.
Dr Ioannidis most recent paper (version July 2021) on the Covid-19 distemper's lethality places the overall infection fatality rate at 0.15% which is extremely age stratified and afflicts those already immune compromised and or with comorbidities.
“Infection fatality rate of COVID-19 in community-dwelling populations with emphasis on the elderly: An overview”
A summary of the findings here;
A study by Cathrine Axfors and John P.A. Ioannidis from the Departments of Medicine, of Epidemiology and Population Health, of Biomedical Data Science, and of Statistics, Stanford University.
In short here is the take-away data:
Age Infection Survival Rate of COVID.
70+ 97.6% (non-inst.)
70+ 94.5% (all)
This hardly looks like a pandemic.
Let that sink in..
Dr Ioannidis wrote a paper published 2016; “Why Most Clinical Research Is Not Useful”
This paper referenced the phenomena “disease mongering” perhaps it might be easily translated into a comprehensible term where we swap out the word “disease” and include “fear” as in “fear mongering.”
Specifically and in full context one of the attributes of useful clinical research according to Dr. Ioannidis referenced extract;
Features of Clinically Useful Research
The key driver to apprehend in the development of the Covid pandemic is fear.
From the outset of the Covid-19 phenomena every bit of information was politicised.
Fear was employed to drive people to seek security from the scourge of being infected with the Covid distemper.
All new spending must advance one of five government priorities: improving mental health, reducing child poverty, addressing the inequalities faced by indigenous Maori and Pacific island people, thriving in a digital age, and transitioning to a low-emission, sustainable economy. New Zealand’s change in policy represents a shift that economists have long theorized could be a more effective use of government spending. (source)
However, NZ Government spending has skyrocketed using the Covid response as pretext.
Who will be required to pay off these enormous amounts of public finance, given they are not fully funded, rather they are borrowings from banking sources whether NZ's Reserve Bank or other banking parties.
Where the NZ Government's costly Covid response leads to economic austerity in the future, it is self evident or obvious that the wellbeing framework was trampled in the rush to eliminate the virus (which may or may not exist).
Why is only one novel remedy for Covid the official policy of the NZ Government?
The NZ Government elimination strategy was doomed from the get go and failed to account for the holism that is wise public health policy ground in social and political economy.
What is a quality adjusted life year and how is it assessed for government accounting purposes?
Dr. Martin Lally has on several occasions considered the NZ Government's elimination strategy to assess the validity of Lockdown policies as a tool to mitigate against Covid-19 mortality/death and found them wanting when assessed using “quality adjusted life years” (QALY) as the economic measuring stick:
This paper has considered the costs and benefits of New Zealand’s lockdown strategy relative to pursuit of a mitigation strategy in March 2020. The estimated additional deaths from a mitigation policy are 1,750 - 4,600. The result is that the cost per Quality Adjusted Life Year saved by locking down is estimated to be at least 13 times the generally employed figure of $62,000 for health interventions in New Zealand; the lockdowns were therefore not justified.
Consideration of the information available to the government in March 2020 yields a similar ratio and therefore strongly supported adoption of a mitigation strategy at that time. If New Zealand experiences a new outbreak, and cannot contain it without resort to a nation-wide lockdown, the death toll from adopting a mitigation strategy at this point would be even less than had it done so in March 2020, due to the vaccination campaign and because the period over which the virus would then inflict casualties would now be much less than the period from March 2020. This would favour a mitigation policy even more strongly than in March 2020. This approach of assessing the savings in quality adjusted life years and comparing them to a standard benchmark figure ensures that all quality adjusted life years saved by various health interventions are treated equally, which accords with the ethical principle of equity across people.
The Covid-19 solution is early treatment not more oppressive jackboots and denials of human rights
In my February 2021 paper to your Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade select committee RCEP treaty examination I provided a research paper looking at Covid therapeutics which is extremely disparaging of health authorities and nations who politicise Covid-19 therapeutics and early treatment.
"Multifaceted highly targeted sequential multidrug treatment of early ambulatory high-risk SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19)" published 30 December 2020
The paper is relatively recent and thus a comprehensive criticism of those in media and authority positions of power who were complicit in killing millions by withholding therapy that was available all through 2020 - the crime becomes increasingly apparent as the scale of the subversion and knowledge of the many anti virals and agents that could have been repurposed to alleviate Covid-19 sufferering and mortality.
The reason for; "2021 is the year of the vaccine" is because the murderous leaders politicised the cure, then went to town denigrating those who pointed to the truth of the Covid phenomena.
A number of pharmaceutical corporations are developing novel antiviral treatments for Covid-19 symptoms, including Pfizer and Merck who recently publicised their candidate molnupiravir;
Merck who created ivermectin has a new anti-viral treatment for Covid which they are seeking emergency use approval from the FDA:
"Molnupiravir was studied in patients who had tested positive for Covid-19 within the first five days of showing symptoms, who also had at least one “risk factor” such as old age, obesity or diabetes that meant they might become seriously sick."
"Merck said it expected to produce 10 million courses of the treatment by the end of the year. The US government recently signed a deal to procure approximately 1.7 million courses of the drug at a cost of $1.2 billion (€1 billion), and the pharma company also has agreements in place with several other countries."
From a pecuniary perspective it's no wonder Merck didn't want ivermectin approved as a treatment for Covid-19 symptoms.
Someone has worked out that is USD$700 per course/dose of molnuoiravir whereas ivermectin is $45 for a box of 8 pills and $79 for 20 pills in the US, probably cheaper elsewhere.
Molnupiravir's action to inhibit Covid bug is lethal mutagenesis which may impact host cells leading to human catastrophe in the form of more cancers:
Merck's antiviral molnupiravir's action inducing “lethal mutagenesis" in the target, discovered also in the host animal which includes human animals who swallow the snake oil.
Every big pharma Covid-19 cure appears to drive downstream Disaster Capitalism opportunities for more costly non-cures.
A direct comparison of the therapeutic effects of molnupiravir and ivermectin; “Drugs Shown to Inhibit SARS-CoV-2 in COVID-19 Disease: Comparative Basic and Clinical Pharmacology of Molnupiravir and Ivermectin”
When one assesses the comparative safety profile of ivermectin to the unknown and potentially mutagenetic molnupiravir and the likely price differential ivermectin a few dollars versus over NZD$1000 for a course of molnupiravir a sensible and frugal administration concerned in respect to Pharmac's budget might take some heed!
Pharmac does not fund Covid-19 vaccines, however, it will be required to cover the cost of Covid-19 therapeutics presumably.
Some context on the utility and efficacy of ivermectin for a host of indications the following from a 2011 science paper "Ivermectin, ‘Wonder drug’ from Japan: the human use perspective"
"There are few drugs that can seriously lay claim to the title of ‘Wonder drug’, penicillin and aspirin being two that have perhaps had greatest beneficial impact on the health and wellbeing of Mankind. But ivermectin can also be considered alongside those worthy contenders, based on its versatility, safety and the beneficial impact that it has had, and continues to have, worldwide—especially on hundreds of millions of the world’s poorest people. Several extensive reports, including reviews authored by us, have been published detailing the events behind the discovery, development and commercialization of the avermectins and ivermectin (22,23-dihydroavermectin B), as well as the donation of ivermectin and its use in combating Onchocerciasis and lymphatic filariasis.1–6) However, none have concentrated in detail on the interacting sequence of events involved in the passage of the drug into human use."
And this one from May 2021 on the global conspiracy to deny ivermectin as an effective Covid treatment
The article opens with the following passages;
What if there was a cheap drug, so old its patent had expired, so safe that it’s on the WHO’s lists of Essential and Children’s Medicines, and used in mass drug administration rollouts? What if it can be taken at home with the first signs COVID symptoms, given to those in close contact, and significantly reduce COVID disease progression and cases, and far fewer few people would need hospitalisation?
The international vaccine rollout under Emergency Use Authorisation (EUA) would legally have to be halted. For an EUA to be legal, “there must be no adequate, approved and available alternative to the candidate product for diagnosing, preventing or treating the disease or condition.”
In January this year, the several months long, Ivermectin research, meta-analysis of Randomised Control Trials (RCT), commissioned by WHO was released. The paper showed that Ivermectin reduces death by 74% and is 85% effective as prophylaxis. The trial leader, Dr Andrew Hill, was on Zoom meetings saying that governments should secure their source before demand outstrips supply and that it would be immoral, not to roll it out. The same month, two other independent, unsponsored meta-analysis confirmed a similar range of effectiveness at various stages of the disease. While effective at all stages of the disease, Ivermectin is most effective as a prophylaxis and about 80% in early treatment, depending on dose used.
The WHO currently have no advice or recommendation’s for early treatment apart from recommending against self-medication. If you don’t heal in the first week, when symptoms are generally mild, by the time you have to go to the hospital with breathing problems, your chances of dying have increased significantly. The use of Ivermectin and other repurposed drugs, could prevent that. As its safer than paracetamol, it should be available over the counter. As is happening in Mexico City and some states in India, anyone testing positive or feeling sick should take it, and give it to those they are in close contact with. It may be possible, if you want to attend a large social event or travel in a plane, that you take a pill, four hours before, and you will have significant protection for a few days. Lockdowns could end.
Ivermectin has been used in humans for 35 years and over 4 billion doses have been administered. Merck, the original patent holder, donated 3.7 billion doses to developing countries. 2015 the two individuals who developed Ivermectin were awarded a Nobel Prize for medicine. While known primarily as an anti-parasitic, Ivermectin has powerful anti-viral and anti-inflammatory properties. Its safety is documented at doses twenty times the normal. Only 19 deaths are known and side-affects are generally mild and short. As a comparison, approximately 450 US citizens die from paracetamol every year.
Some thoughts about gaining Medsafe and/or Ministry of Health approval for early treatment for Covid-19 symptoms using off label and repurposed drugs
This first published in August 2020, Dr Peter McCullough and peers published; "Pathophysiological Basis and Rationale for Early Outpatient Treatment of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) Infection"
More recently World Council for Health early treatment guidelines
C-19 Legacy is an interesting site which highlights the numbers murdered globally account the denial of early treatment
https://c19legacy.com/ The murder count is approaching 3 million dead
Early treatment study https://c19early.com/
https://ivmmeta.com/ is a review of ivermectin and other early treatment protocols with considerable data and sourced references
Medsafe medicine approval process this page links to the necessary forms and approval process;
Whereas all the drugs and therapeutics listed in the early treatment guides are already approved for their respective indications in New Zealand. Thus approval for new indications would fall under Sec 29 of the Medicines Act.
29 Exemption for medicine required by medical practitioner
(1) Neither section 20 nor section 24 shall prevent—
(a) the supply by any person to any medical practitioner, on the medical practitioner’s request, of any medicine required by that medical practitioner for the treatment of a particular patient currently under that medical practitioner’s care; or
(b) the administration by any medical practitioner of any such medicine to any such patient.
(2) Every person who, for the purposes of subsection (1), sells or supplies to any practitioner any medicine that is a new medicine by virtue of paragraph (a) of the definition of the term new medicine in section 3(3) before the consent of the Minister to the distribution of that medicine has been notified in the Gazette shall, as soon as practicable after the end of every month in which he has so sold or supplied any such medicine, report that sale or supply to the Director-General in writing, naming the practitioner and patient, describing the medicine, and identifying the occasion when and the place where the medicine was so sold or supplied.
(3) Without limiting section 48, if any person fails to comply with subsection (2), the Minister may, in the manner prescribed in that section but without complying with subsection (2) of that section, prohibit that person from selling and supplying any new medicine to which subsection (2) applies before the consent of the Minister to the distribution of that medicine has been notified in the Gazette.
Medsafe unapproved medicines: https://medsafe.govt.nz/profs/RIss/unapp.asp
Which contains the following information;
Summary for prescribers
An authorised prescriber is anyone with prescribing rights as authorised by the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003 and includes nurse practitioners, optometrists, dentists, registered midwives, and designated prescribers.
A medical practitioner is a health practitioner registered with the Medical Council of New Zealand as a practitioner of the profession of medicine.
To prescribe is the process of advising and authorising the use of a medicine for someone, usually in writing.
Authorised prescribers can:
prescribe an approved medicine for an unapproved use
obtain an unapproved medicine for a known patient under their care (eg, direct importation or by requesting a pharmacy compound a medicine) but cannot prescribe unapproved medicines supplied from within New Zealand under section 29 of the Medicines Act 1981.
Medical practitioners can:
prescribe an approved medicine for an unapproved use
obtain an unapproved medicine for a known patient under their care (eg, direct importation, by requesting pharmacy compound a medicine)
prescribe unapproved medicines that have been manufactured in New Zealand or imported into New Zealand under section 29 of the Medicines Act 1981.
All prescribers need to be aware that:
supply of an unapproved medicine or an approved medicine for an unapproved use requires patient consent and must comply with the Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers' Rights.
patients supplied with an unapproved medicine under section 29 must be advised that information about the prescribing will be kept by the importer and supplied to the Ministry of Health.
some medicines that are controlled drugs cannot be used for an unapproved use without Ministerial approval. Contact Medicines Control
New Zealand Doctors Speak Out with Science https://nzdsos.com/ landing page highlights early treatment in its introduction under the heading “Covid-19 and Vaccine Risk.”
What is the balance of risk versus benefit of the Covid-19 vaccines particularly the experimental mRNA gene therapy injections such as Pfizer's Comirnaty jab being forced upon New Zealanders?
Doctors for Covid ethics website; https://doctors4covidethics.org/ hosts many articles and resources including this review article last updated August 2021; “COVID Vaccine Necessity, Efficacy and Safety”
Which states in it's abstract
Abstract: COVID-19 vaccine manufacturers have been exempted from legal liability for vaccine-induced harm. It is therefore in the interests of all those authorising, enforcing and administering COVID-19 vaccinations to understand the evidence regarding the risks and benefits of these vaccines, since liability for harm will fall on them.
In short, the available evidence and science indicate that COVID-19 vaccines are unnecessary, ineffective and unsafe.
Necessity: immunocompetent individuals are protected against SARS-CoV-2 by cellular immunity and a memory-type antibody response. Vaccinating low-risk groups is therefore unnecessary. For immunocompromised individuals who do fall ill with COVID-19 there is a range of medical treatments that have been proven safe and effective. Vaccinating the vulnerable is therefore equally unnecessary. Both immunocompetent and vulnerable groups are better protected against variants of SARS-CoV-2 by naturally acquired immunity and by medication than by vaccination.
Efficacy: Covid-19 vaccines lack a viable mechanism of action against SARS-CoV-2 infection of the airways. Induction of blood-borne antibodies by vaccination cannot prevent infection by an agent such as SARS-CoV-2 that invades through the respiratory tract. Moreover, none of the vaccine trials have provided any evidence that vaccination prevents transmission of the infection by vaccinated individuals; urging vaccination to “protect others” therefore has no basis in fact.
Safety: The vaccines are dangerous to both healthy individuals and those with pre-existing chronic disease, for reasons such as the following: risk of lethal and non-lethal disruptions of blood clotting including bleeding disorders, thrombosis in the brain, stroke and heart attack; autoimmune and allergic reactions; antibody-dependent enhancement of disease; and vaccine impurities due to rushed manufacturing and unregulated production standards.
The risk-benefit calculus is therefore clear: the experimental vaccines are needless, ineffective and dangerous. Actors authorising, coercing or administering experimental COVID-19 vaccination are exposing populations and patients to serious, unnecessary, and unjustified medical risks.
Repeating the last passage for emphasis;
The risk-benefit calculus is therefore clear: the experimental vaccines are needless, ineffective and dangerous. Actors authorising, coercing or administering experimental COVID-19 vaccination are exposing populations and patients to serious, unnecessary, and unjustified medical risks.
Recommendation arising; That the Health select committee recommend that the NZ Health Minister, Minister for NZ's Covid response, and Director General of heath prioritise the approval and promotion of Covid early treatment protocols using cheap repurposed and off label drugs and therapeutics to ensure New Zealanders who contract or are infected with Covid-19 symptoms are cared for and cured in the shortest timeframe, which would have the additional advantage ensuring Pharmac's budget for medicines is protected.
The evidence is overwhelming that society doesn't need more novel expensive drugs and vaccines with dubious safety profiles. Where early treatment is afforded Covid-19 symptom sufferers the much vaunted overrun of New Zealand's hospital capacity will be avoided now and into the future where there is the necessary reopening of the nation to foreign travellers and returning NZ residents.
Regarding the specifics of the COVID-19 Public Health Response Amendment Bill (No 2)
I oppose it and recommend you desist with it.
I object to the short time frame for public dissection and input of the Bill to the Select Committee. Where I had time I would provide a more detailed perspective.
This Bill attacks the civil liberties of all New Zealanders whether currently in New Zealand or stranded overseas and trying to return.
Control orders envisaged by the Bill run counter to a number of rights protected by the BORA. These rights are fundamental.
Rule of Law is trampled in this Bill and the Government's general approach in respect to the Covid-19 legislation and orders.
Rule of Law is a fundamental to democracy. The origins of law and common law are reflected in statutes, the Cabinet Manual and ancient English statutes such as the Magna Carta 1297.
Fundamental principles of the Rule Of Law are being flouted by this government with this legislation. Including that: everyone is subject to the law (including the Government); the law should be clear and clearly enforceable; legislation should be consistent with the dignity of the individual and the presumption in favour of liberty.
This archived webpage is the most superior definition for Rule of Law that I have discovered;
My testimony and evidence is that the original Covid Response Act is an unlawful imposition in that is unnecessary and more harmful to society than the 'non pandemic' it aims to prevent.
My reference to 'non pandemic' is an attempt to identify the hype and politicisation that are automatic supporters of any new twist and turn in the Covid saga.
In his article ex MP Peter Dunne provides some acuity in respect to the enlarged role afforded the Director General of Health, Dr. Ashley Bloomfield; “The director-general of New Zealand” published 7 October 2021 on Newsroom:
Read the whole thing, but indicative as well as unsupportive of this Bill are these extracted passages;
The double-act of the Prime Minister and the Director-General at media conferences has led to an inevitable politicisation of the Director-General’s role. No longer does he appear as the impartial adviser offering considered, detached professional advice to the Government, but rather more as the explainer, amplifier, and defender of the Government decisions, in a manner that not even many ministers demonstrate. The Prime Minister’s recent admission that the Director-General attends Cabinet meetings when Covid-19 is being discussed reinforces the worrying reality that the Director-General is now no longer an impartial public servant, but an unelected quasi-minister participating in the Cabinet’s decision-making in a way that no public servant previously has ever been allowed to do, no matter the crisis at hand, or which party has been in government.
Last weekend, the Director-General announced that the country should not expect to ever return to Alert Level 1 the way it used to be. This was a major policy announcement that, if it is in fact government policy, should have come from either the Prime Minister or the Minister of Health, not a public servant. The fact that there has been no official rejection of his comment suggests it is in fact government policy, so he was either making public something that had already been decided but not yet announced, or, worse, that he was telling the nation and the government at the same time what he expected to be the case. Either way, it goes beyond the normal brief of the Director-General, and is further confirmation of the unhealthy politicisation of the role.
The Covid-19 emergency legislation was due to expire next May after two years, but the Government has recently introduced legislation to extend it for a further year. That is no real surprise but will exacerbate the situation that has been allowed to develop with the Director-General. The question will still arise then about his future role. How will the position be transitioned back to the more standard role of a department chief executive, like every other chief executive? How does the Director-General step down from the quasi-ministerial current situation he will have been allowed to enjoy for nearly three years to the more routine one, sitting outside with every other chief executive waiting for the Cabinet’s decisions on matters affecting their portfolios, rather than sitting inside the room actively participating anymore?
In many ways, the unhealthy relationship between ministers and the Director-General undermines the usual separation between ministers and officials and, by extension, the impartiality of the public service. The longer it goes on, the more difficult it will be to return to a more normal situation. In that regard, and in fairness to the Director-General, ministers need to be thinking about severing the umbilical cord that binds them sooner rather than later, and certainly well before May 2023.
Considered Covid Observations
Most people do not become infected and/or suffer severe Covid-19 symptoms besides there's early treatment protocols. To deny fundamental freedoms to healthy people through medical mandates and non pharmaceutical health interventions in the Covid Acts and Orders is anathema to the innate needs of humans to socially interact and connect. Social isolation is detrimental to the cohesion of society and it's indwellers' physical and mental health.
It has also caused untold destruction to the New Zealand economy.”Keep them safe” has prevented treatment for a multitude of illnesses (leading in some cases to death due to lack of treatment) and the negative repercussions will impact these same citizens for decades.
The Covid response is diametrically opposed to the NZ Government's commitment to budgeting and operating in accord with it's Wellbeing Commitments here:
Extracted opening statement on the objects and purpose of “our living standards framework” is;
Our living standards framework
The Living Standards Framework (LSF) represents the Treasury’s perspective on what matters for New Zealanders’ wellbeing, now and into the future.
The LSF is a flexible framework that prompts our thinking about policy impacts across the different dimensions of wellbeing, as well as the long-term and distributional issues and implications.
the 12 Domains of current wellbeing outcomes;
the four Capital stocks that support wellbeing now and into the future; and
risk and resilience.
Distribution – across people, places and generations – matters across all three of these dimensions.
The New Zealand Government's Covid response has negatively impacted all the areas mapped to underpin and facilitate social and individual wellbeing in “Our living standards framework.”
Where the real pandemic is of equivalent morbidity and lethality as a severe influenza season, the New Zealand Government response is extravagant, excessive and based on untruths and a false narrative framework. It has been forged through driving the population with fear.
The problems with this Bill
I concur with the Voices For Freedom evidence and testimony to the select committee and reinforce their acute observations, specifically;
This Bill measures move well past the minimum necessary to achieve public health aims and into the realm of totalitarianism. Many of the current and proposed measures are not proportionate, reasonable or necessary. They are not motivated by public health. Rather a political agenda that fails to have the interests of New Zealanders at its core.
Clause 4(3) amends Section 3 - Extends the period of time that Act is in force until 13 May 2023. Already the Covid Act has been in existence beyond the period of any real health emergency. To maintain such powers of segregation, intimidation and detention equates to at least maintaining a totalitarian regime.
Clause 7 amends the original section 11 of the Covid Act by adding significant further provisions. One such provision, section 11(4), provides that goods prohibited from entering a port or place by a COVID-19 order are prohibited imports for the purposes of the Customs and Excise Act 2018. This provision is unjustified and contrary to the public interest and the rights and obligations of the medical profession. It appears to be a means to prohibit the import of antigen tests and safe and effective medications effectively and efficiently adopted and utilised by many other countries (such as India in their early treatment protocols).
Clause 9 replaces section 12. The proposals are subjective and vague and seek to confer a right on Government to make any order, impose any restriction, decide any detainment, and restrict any treatment other than such treatment as the government should determine. Whilst at the same time bamboozling the average person.
Under clause 10(b) the Minister’s ability to use delegated legislation to delegate discretion to any third party is contrary to the Rule of Law and public law principles. Further, the provision is subjective and vague and therefore fails this fundamental constitutional principle test.
Clause 12 amends section 22 to allow a class of persons identified solely by their ancestry to have powers to block roads under the ’supervision’ of a constable, but there is no definition of what ‘supervision’ entails. This provision is in contravention of the Rule of Law principles that everyone is equal before the law.
Clause 13 proposes increasing the fines by a colossal amount making them unequitable and beyond any level of appropriate or reasonable punishment. The changes proposed regarding fines are outrageous and warrant that a significant part of our submissions be focused on them. These proposals transgress the minimum necessary to protect public health aims and instead into the realm of deprivation and punitive action. Fines can be issued in much the same way as a person is issued a parking ticket. The first the person may be aware of his or her obligation to pay $4,000 for an alleged breach could well be weeks later when the person receives a notification in the mail. The amendments sought in respect of the massive increase in fees and fines are unreasonable, irrational and out of all proportion to the purpose they seek to achieve. They are yet another example of our government seeking to undermine the Rule of Law.
There is no justification whatsoever for either the original powers to be extended or additional powers added. Since the early days of the emergency measures in 2020 there has been a plethora of data which should have been incorporated into any measures used, especially when these measures take away fundamental freedoms.
Lockdowns are not working in New Zealand.
Other countries such as Sweden have in the main not had draconian measures such as hard lockdowns or mandated mask wearing and yet continue to have consistently low death rates. Sweden has trusted its citizens to take personal responsibility and has adopted logical science backed measures. Florida, USA has taken a similar approach. Norway and Denmark have recently lifted all restrictions and are “living with the virus”.
Covid Plan B and the Barrington Declaration all have pathways out which manage the risks without the requirement draconian laws or the removal of fundamental freedoms. It is important to note that the Covid Plan B plan explains that asymptomatic people do not spread Covid. Without asymptomatic transmission there is no justification for lockdowns, masks or the Covid Act.
There is a conspicuous absence of any educational drive from the Government to look at any other solutions. For example, there is no encouragement for those at risk of the virus to take responsibility for their health, lose weight, eat healthily, exercise and ensure they get sufficient vitamin D, C and zinc. Instead, the measures imposed have added to these health concerns by keeping people inside and sedentary and stressed. All efforts have focused on an experimental medical intervention and punitive lockdowns.
And all this for a virus with a less than 1% mortality rate even in the vulnerable. As discussed above, the measures adopted do not work and cause immeasurable damage, socially and economically.
The Government has not sought to expand medical capacity to deal with increased hospital admissions (if any) that it continues to expound will be the result of unmitigated spread.
Nor has the Government looked at therapeutics and the successes in other countries with tried and tested drugs as early intervention measures and to reduce hospital admissions.
The up-to-date health information requires a fresh approach and an open discussion of the path out of this ‘crisis’ with the full spectrum of scientists from across the world. Any measures need to be proportionate, taking account of the risks. The Government must be open and transparent with robust debate and accountability through checks and balances.
Science turns into religion the moment you cannot question it.
Last words from your parliamentary colleague and peer in Australia.
MPs attempt to silence Craig Kelly MP in Parliament over Australian medical researchers innovation and discovery of uses for Ivermectin:
The Australian TGA has banned ivermectin as a medicine able to be prescribed for Covid-19 symptoms.
Summary of Findings
1. It is one thing to make a mistake and rectify it upon the discovery of superior knowledge, it is another thing entirely to isolate oneself from reason and truth by doubling down and compounding the error.
2. What is reported as science is a limited fraction of the available knowledge from critically minded clinicians, medical scientists and publicly available sources.
3. Dr John Ioannidis, Stanford epidemiology, most recent paper (version July 2021) on the Covid-19 distemper's lethality places the overall infection fatality rate at 0.15% which is extremely age stratified and afflicts those already immune compromised and or with comorbidities.
4. The key driver to apprehend in the development of the Covid pandemic is fear.
5. The Covid-19 solution is early treatment not more oppressive jackboots and denials of human rights
6. The murder count caused through health authorities refusing early treatment for Covid-19 sufferers is approaching 3 million dead
7. The risk-benefit calculus is therefore clear: the experimental vaccines are needless, ineffective and dangerous. Actors authorising, coercing or administering experimental COVID-19 vaccination are exposing populations and patients to serious, unnecessary, and unjustified medical risks.
8. The evidence is overwhelming that society doesn't need more novel expensive drugs and vaccines with dubious safety profiles. Where early treatment is afforded Covid-19 symptoms sufferers the much vaunted overrun of New Zealand's hospital capacity will be avoided now and into the future where there is the necessary reopening of the nation to foreign travellers and returning NZ residents.
9. My testimony and evidence finds that the Original Covid Response Act is an unlawful imposition in that is unnecessary and more harmful to society than the 'non pandemic' it aims to prevent. (My reference to “non pandemic” is an attempt to identify the hype and politicisation that are automatic supporters of every new twist and turn in the Covid saga)
10. The New Zealand Government's Covid response has negatively impacted all the areas mapped to underpin and facilitate social and individual wellbeing in “Our living standards framework.”
1. I oppose it and recommend you desist with the COVID-19 Public Health Response Amendment Bill (No 2).
2. That the Health select committee recommend that the NZ Health Minister, Minister for NZ's Covid response, and Director General of health prioritise the approval and promotion of Covid early treatment protocols using cheap repurposed and off label drugs and therapeutics to ensure New Zealanders who contract or are infected with Covid-19 symptoms are cared for and cured in the shortest timeframe, which would have the additional advantage ensuring Pharmac's budget for medicines is protected.
Previous papers to the NZ Parliament, NZ Government or its agencies relating to the Covid matter for a larger perspective;
1. My February 2021 paper the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade select committee RCEP treaty examination:
2. My thoughts on the NZ Government's; “Incitement of Hatred and Discrimination in Aotearoa New Zealand” uploaded to google blogger were so alarming as to gain a content warning for any who open the link, Nevertheless, where one is sufficiently intrepid one would find it is pertinent as it addresses aspects of larger lies and their framing plus provides evidence and testimony to illuminate some truths about the Covid phenomena;
“Hate speech proposal proponents hate freedom” published 6 August 2021:
1Note that NZ's alleged deaths from and or with Covid now number 27 people including at least 5 who were not tested for Covid rather their status was determined from clinical observations, balanced against the many reported deaths and or adverse reactions from Covid vaccination. NZ Doctors Speaking Out with Science write to the Prime Minister, Ministers and Health Authorities identifying hundreds of deaths post jab in correspondence dated September 2021 https://nzdsos.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/210839-2nd-letter-alerting-the-authorities-to-C-19-injection-death.pdf NZ's Medsafe acknowledge 68 post vaccination death reports in their most recent report 6 October (data as of 18 September) https://www.medsafe.govt.nz/COVID-19/safety-report-29.asp Globally thousands have died from the various Covid vaccines – this data from US VAERS site https://openvaers.com/covid-data