A video summary released 2nd April 2022 by Grant Dixon shows through a series of graphs how the effects of boosters have worn off rapidly in New Zealand, especially since the BA2 variant started circulating. 

By Guy Hatchard PhD

Grant Dixon has been carefully following the NZ Ministry of Health Covid statistics during the last 15 months. By the start of April the rate per 100,000 of Covid hospitalisations for the boosted overtook the rate of hospitalisations for the unvaccinated. Watch the video, the magnitude of the change is very obvious.

Even prior to the pandemic, it was realised that vaccines that allow transmission could drive the evolution of more highly virulent pathogens:

The NZ data speaks for itself. It is hardly necessary to comment that government policy has failed to take account of the concerning growth of infections among the vaccinated. Instead it is continuing to drive the population towards more boosters in an ill-conceived and doomed attempt to outwit the trend. It is promoting failed technology sold to us by a US pharmaceutical giant more interested in its bottom line than the well being of New Zealanders.

How could the government have become so reckless?

Yesterday my wife and I had a conversation about our food processor. We have had it for a long time, but it never has worked as well as we hoped. In contrast, our mixer is a dream. How is it that most people have a very clear idea of what works and what doesn’t when it comes to domestic appliances, but a complete lack of clarity when it comes to medical interventions?

Our everyday appreciation of what works and what doesn’t is based on common sense and personal experience. If we buy an appliance and it doesn’t work, we immediately take it back and cease trusting the brand. If in addition it cuts off the hands of one percent of the people who used it, we would call in the police.

You can see where I am going with this. In a recent release I pointed out that in February 2021 Minister of Health Chris Hipkins and Droector General of Health Ashley Bloomfield expected that the adverse effects of Covid mRNA vaccination would run at over 1% of recipients. In fact it proved to be much higher than this.

Scientific criteria of effectiveness and safety are being misused by PR.

For a long time now the criteria being used by medical researchers to justify the use of new drugs has been drifting far away from what is commonly understood to be proof of effectiveness, but this has reached new heights during the pandemic. 

To get any paper published you need to at least exceed a probability of 95 parts in 100, 95%, or 19 in 20. This sounds like a reasonable threshold, but dig a little deeper and you realise that all this really means is that it is almost certain that one specific thing happened. There could be lots of other effects of the drug that are simply not covered by the trial. This is precisely what happened in the case of the Pfizer mRNA vaccine trials. The rushed trials did not examine secondary effects of the vaccine—the long term effectiveness and the extent of adverse effects were unknown.

By how much, how safely, for how long, and what else happened are issues that might not be covered by the quoted significance of a drug trial. Up until the pandemic, the medical safety criteria being applied to drug trials were relatively clear cut. They had to be long trials. If deaths occurred subsequent to trialling a drug, it would have been a very serious issue that paused trials and led to reevaluation. Not so now.

The reported adverse effects following mRNA vaccination are running at 30-50 times that of earlier vaccines. Yet our government is still telling us they are safe. As we now know, mRNA Covid vaccines are not only unsafe, but also completely ineffective against Omicron. This situation has crept up on the government. It has known for some time that the effectiveness of mRNA vaccination wanes rapidly, but the potential extent of this and the potential implications of viral evolution coupled with repeated injections have been largely ignored.

This has happened as a result of a drive to promote a product which has not been adequately researched. If mRNA vaccination were a domestic appliance, it would have been banned months ago, money refunded, and the culprits summoned to court. 

Public debate, which lies at the heart of the democratic process, is being suppressed 

The public are beginning to work it out for themselves through personal experience—even if you are boosted, you can catch Covid and it can be serious in some cases. There is also a growing reluctance to accept booster shots and second child vaccinations. Our government is desperately countering this by telling us that the unvaccinated are worse off and we are all in dire peril unless we get boosted. Grant Dixon’s video shows that the reverse is true. The government should know this. 

Either we are being deliberately and criminally misled or our government, the Ministry of Health, and their chosen scientific advisors are completely incompetent. Take your pick.

This week former MP Matt King and I invited one prominent NZ scientist, who is often quoted in the media, to an independently moderated publicly broadcasted debate on the above topics. He replied:

“While I am happy to outline the scientific evidence around vaccine efficacy and safety to the public (and have done so on a number of occasions over the past year to various audiences), I do not think a debate, whether live or pre-recorded, is likely to be a productive forum for communicating the science.”

The New Zealand public is quite able to make up its mind if it is allowed to hear the rational arguments. How long will mainstream media keep denying them this opportunity? Our government pandemic policy no longer deserves to be propped up and shielded. The scientific evidence is unequivocal.

---

Guy Hatchard PhD was a senior manager at Genetic ID a global food safety testing and certification company (now known as FoodChain ID)