It’s no use going back to yesterday: a news digest from the new normal

‘I could tell you my adventures—beginning from this morning,’ said Alice a little timidly: ‘but it’s no use going back to yesterday, because I was a different person then.’ – Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland, Lewis Carroll.

Alice knew all about clownworld.

Yes, the covid era has changed us all for better or worse, and the crazy just seems to keep coming. The theme of this edition of TLGs news roundup has turned out to be the lack of evidence, morals and sanity in any of our public institutions. Read and weep.

‘A great injustice’: High Court rules Pfizer roll out to five-to-11 year olds was legal

On 12 August, High Court Justice Gendall released his decision on the legal challenge from The ‘Hood, a group of parents, doctors, scientists and concerned citizens, against the crown over the approval of the Pfizer jab for five-to-11 year olds. He found in favour of the crown.

In his determination, Justice Gendall is reported to have said: “It was not my role when reviewing the process, to decide which experts were right or form my own view on whether the paediatric vaccine should be supplied in New Zealand. Generally weighing the benefits and risks of the vaccine, and the desirability of it being available in New Zealand, were matters for Chris James [of Medsafe] as the minister’s delegate.”

The ‘Hood said in an email they are still discussing the ruling internally and will release an official statement shortly, but were disappointed in the decision.

“It is disheartening to see that the Judge has not engaged in the mountain of evidence we provided, and that the failure of the system seems to be the biggest issue. The decision was largely based on legal process and fails to address the importance of the case, merely, that much power is given to health and government officials, with little necessity to justify this with transparency.“

On Telegram, The ‘Hood then said statements from their experts had been “woefully disregarded in a system that does not allow for merit based evidence, but restricts an argument to legislative parameters that are too tight to allow for a focus on what is truly important. We stand behind the experts in our case, and feel a great injustice was done in not referencing the crucial information they provided.”

The ‘Hood has now begun to publish the expert reports used as evidence in court on its website, starting with Dr Robert Malone, one of the developers of the mRNA vaccine platform. These have not been made public until now.

Guy Hatchard has written a worthwhile piece of analysis here .

Sign up to receive our newsletter

Courts ignored evidence on vaccine safety, doctor says

In a Free NZ webinar to discuss the upcoming NZTSOS legal appeal against vaccine mandates for teachers, Dr Alison Goodwin of NZDSOS described her impression of the initial proceedings, which took place in March.

In the legal challenge, the applicants (NZTSOS & NZDSOS) presented testimony from a number of international experts in a range of fields, while the crown presented evidence from one expert, Sir Ian Town, chief science advisor and former director general of health Ashley Bloomfield.

“Neither of them see patients, neither of them are experts in immunology or vaccine development, clinical medicine … we presented evidence from these international experts about the efficacy of the vaccine and the safety of the vaccine. And large amounts of that were just ignored,” she says.

In the determination, Justice Cooke states that factual matters were in dispute between the applicant and the responders (the crown). He had “two sets of evidence in parallel” and the court was unable to make findings on some of the more technical aspects.

Bizarrely, these were never really addressed, debated, or resolved during the proceedings, Goodwin notes.

“I expected there to be a lot more robust questioning, trying to get to the bottom of it, coming to grips with the science … he couldn’t make findings on a number of those technical aspects and didn’t appear to make an effort to make findings on it.”

Justice Cooke noted in his determination that the mandates were fundamentally inconsistent with usual medical practice and informed consent. He was aware that there was no long term safety data. (emphasis mine).

Even though the crown did not respond to the independent evidence, Goodwin noted that Justice Cooke still concluded that the crown’s decision-making was reasonable and demonstrably justified overriding the right to decline medical treatment and to mandate the jabs.

“It just seemed that, what was the point of it if there was that many holes in it?”

Goodwin then reminded viewers that the legislation underpinning mandates was passed overnight on 12 May, and became law on 13 May – with no parliamentary or public scrutiny.

The chain of events up until now has effectively left the public in a precarious situation.

“So overnight they made the legislation, then they can mandate it, and then when it’s challenged in court they can just ignore the evidence.”

Goodwin concluded that mandated medical procedures could be introduced again at the drop of a hat if they continue to go unchallenged and if the courts refuse to properly scrutinise the evidence.

“The whole of New Zealand can potentially be mandated with medical procedures and have limited ability to challenge that.”

Ministry of Health consults on pandemic ethics  

The National Ethics Advisory Committee, an independent advisor to the Minister of Health has released a public consultation on pandemic ethics.

The document purports to be guidance for future pandemics, but does nothing but try to justify the disastrous covid policy response we’ve endured for the last two and a half years and entrench it for the next time around. There was simply nothing ‘ethical’ about this document.

On the section titled, Vaccine Development and Use, it explains that their justification is to allow the public to ‘regain their rights’ – as if those rights can be negated:

“In some pandemics, vaccines are likely to be the critical enabler: allowing us to emerge from confinement, regain our right to freedom of movement and engage in economic,
cultural and social activity, while keeping the risk to individual lives at a manageable level.”

It then goes on to say that herd immunity is something a community gains only when a critical mass of people are vaccinated.

Until about five minutes ago, herd immunity was widely accepted to be something gained by the majority of people catching and developing natural immunity to infection, and sometimes in combination with vaccination.

Along with the definition of a pandemic, herd immunity was one of the covid language casualties – the WHO simply changed these definitions to make it easier to declare a pandemic and to eliminate the notion of natural immunity.

Without a hint of irony, the document goes on to state that despite extremely high levels of vaccination in Israel (New Zealand could equally be used as an example), covid-19 infections were rampant.

“Israel’s experience of covid-19 suggests that even highly vaccinated populations can remain at risk from mutations.“

So, vaccines that don’t work, would allow us to ‘regain our rights’ in the event of a pandemic?

Another section is called “Levels of Coerciveness”. Keep in mind this document is about ethics. The two terms are mutually exclusive in the minds of most sane people.

“Where possible and appropriate, vaccination should be voluntary rather than non-voluntary. However, the justifications for restricting choice… would apply.” Elsewhere in the document a laundry list of measures that vary in their degree of coerciveness are set out as potential policies in a future pandemic. They include fining the unvaccinated, and removing an individual’s decision entirely.

It then goes on to assert that non-voluntary public health interventions support freedom.

“Non-voluntary interventions, such as mandatory mask wearing or using contact tracing apps, may also be preferable if they prevent the need for more restrictive interventions, such as lockdown, later. Such minor restrictions ultimately help promote the ethical principle of liberty.”

That was just a wee glimpse into this 80 page Kafkaesque window into how the government wants to manage pandemics in the future. Since it’s a consultation, let’s all let them know what we think of their ‘ethics’.

It’s well worth reading Guy Hatchard’s critique here.

Just. Wow.

Human Rights Commission jammed by mask and vaccine complaints

Just as the MOHs medical ethics appear to have taken a vacation, another story this week illustrates just how far social engineering around vaccines has warped our senses.

An official information act request revealed that the Human Rights Commission saw thousands of complaints – 9932 – in the 2021/22 financial year, creating delays in processing.

The backlog is cited as being caused by complaints and inquiries about vaccinations and mask exemptions.

“Prior to the onset of the covid pandemic in January 2020, we rarely had a backlog of matters waiting to be allocated to mediators,” the HRC response said.

The headlines say it all: ‘Human Rights Commission bogged down by vaccine, mask complaints’.

‘Those pesky people complaining about government overreach affecting their right to bodily autonomy are getting in the way of real human rights abuses’ – seems to be the subtext here.

With so many Kiwis clearly concerned about threats to their bodily autonomy, one might have thought that would be reflected in the headline? Maybe an editor would consider it worthy of a deep dive? Not in 2022.

To illustrate just how bigoted New Zealand has become towards people who are aware of the risks associated with vaccines, with government and media sanction I might add, I offer up these two gems.

At a counter-protest to Brian Tamaki’s recent Freedom and Rights Coalition Auckland protest, this sign was spotted.

And on twitter, comments were posted this week about un-pfizer-ed midwives asking for their jobs back.

Just a little bit of new normal fascism to end the week.

Psychiatrist Emmanuel Garcia on masks, covid absurdities, and the public health response

A new interview in the excellent series Perspectives on the Pandemic by Journeyman Pictures came out this week. Pyschiatrist Emmanuel Garcia talks about how one day he woke up and realised he was living in a “totalitarian country”, and laments the lack of doctors speaking up for science and basic rights, such as informed consent. “These people have been silent,” he says.

Instead, there has been a pandemic of “naiveity, ignorance and fear.”

With his professional cap on, Garcia says mask wearing ‘rituals’ have been used to keep people enchanted. The rules around their use have obvious logical problems, but the “absurdities are essential” for capturing people into submission.

He also discusses the injections, adverse events and the brutal end to the parliament protest in March, as the state cracked down on dissent. Well worth your time.

Stay curious …

Sign up to receive our newsletter

Sign up to receive an email when I publish a new post.

We don’t spam!