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)
https://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2021/0068/latest/whole.html#LMS552303
-----
COVID-19
Public Health Response Amendment Bill (No 2)
Evidence
of Greg Rzesniowiecki 11 October 2021
To:
NZ Parliament's Health Committee
Email:
HealthSubmissions@parliament.govt.nz
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?”
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221475002100161X
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”
By
Retraction Watch Staff October 05, 2021
https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/960299
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
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_on_Diamond_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”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUvWaxuurzQ
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”
https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/17/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”
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.08.21260210v1.full.pdf
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.
0-19 99.9973%
20-29 99.986%
30-39 99.969%
40-49 99.918%
50-59 99.73%
60-69 99.41%
70+ 97.6%
(non-inst.)
70+ 94.5% (all)
This hardly looks
like a pandemic.
Let
that sink in..
Disease
Mongering
Dr
Ioannidis wrote a paper published 2016; “Why Most Clinical
Research Is Not Useful”
https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1002049
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
Problem
Base
There
is higher utility in solving problems with higher disease burdens.
However, context is important. Solving problems with low prevalence
but grave consequences for affected patients is valuable, and
broadly applicable useful research may stem from studying rare
conditions if the knowledge is also relevant to common conditions
(e.g., discovering the importance of the proprotein convertase
subtilisin-kexin type 9 [PCSK9] pathway in familial
hypercholesterolemia may help develop treatments for many other
patients with cardiovascular disease). Furthermore, for explosive
epidemics (e.g., Ebola), one should also consider the potential
burden if the epidemic gets out of control.
Conversely,
clinical research confers actual disutility when disease mongering
[4]
creates a fictitious perception of disease burden among healthy
people. In such circumstances, treated people, by definition, cannot
benefit, because there is no real disease to treat.
Data
show only weak or modest correlations between the amount of research
done and the burden of various diseases [5,6].
Moreover, disease mongering affects multiple medical specialties
[4,7,8].
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.
Why
would a government that prides itself on facilitating societal
wellbeing including using wellbeing
indicators to frame its budget
use fear to attain a nefarious agenda?
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.
https://oag.parliament.nz/media/2021/controller-february
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:
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.15.21260606v1.full.pdf
Extracted
conclusion;
5. Conclusions
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.
https://rcm.imrpress.com/EN/10.31083/j.rcm.2020.04.264
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:
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/us/covid-19-antiviral-pill-halves-risk-of-hospitalisation-and-death-merck-1.4688991
"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."
and
"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.
https://www.jordanthrilla.com/post/details-behind-viral-conspiracy-theory-merck-publicly-smeared-ivermectin-because-of-molnupiravir-antiviral-pill/
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:
https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8188802/
and
https://drugdiscoverytrends.com/early-safety-concerns-accompanied-mercks-molnupiravir-the-first-potential-oral-covid-19-therapy/
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”
https://austinpublishinggroup.com/pharmacology-therapeutics/fulltext/ajpt-v9-id1149.pdf
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"
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3043740/
Extracted opening;
"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
https://www.biznews.com/thought-leaders/2021/05/12/mailbox-ivermectin
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.”
and
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"
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7410805/
More recently World
Council for Health early treatment guidelines
https://worldcouncilforhealth.org/resources/early-covid-19-treatment-guidelines-a-practical-approach-to-home-based-care-for-healthy-families/
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;
https://medsafe.govt.nz/Medicines/regulatory-approval-process.asp
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.
https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1981/0118/latest/DLM55428.html
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”
https://doctors4covidethics.org/covid-vaccine-necessity-efficacy-and-safety-3/
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;
https://web.archive.org/web/20210213150844/https://www.lexisnexis.co.nz/en-nz/about-us/rule-of-law.page
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:
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/comment/the-director-general-of-new-zealand
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.[1]”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:
https://www.treasury.govt.nz/information-and-services/nz-economy/higher-living-standards/our-living-standards-framework
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.
It includes:
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.
General Observations
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:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgCABsRgaH8
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.”
Recommendations
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:
https://www.parliament.nz/resource/en-NZ/53SCFD_EVI_104189_FD177/e80f0867c2b32ac39bbb06b499116c630d2f679b
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:
https://values-compasspointsinaposttruthworld.blogspot.com/2021/08/hate-speech-proposal-proponents-hate.html
Ends.
