Two years after covid hysteria hit we must come to terms with the sleight of hand used to buy our compliance, and face up to the devastating harm the injection has caused.
As commentator and scientist Guy Hatchard has often said, the fact that the manufacturers got away with calling the Pfizer and Moderna injections ‘vaccines’, is a coup that has made them very rich, and provided them with legal cover that means there will be little-to-no blowback on any of the, by now, blatant problems with the products.
“It was a very deliberate masterstroke to call this vaccination and it goes right back to 2017 when Tal Zaks the chief executive of Moderna gave a Ted Talk in which he said mRNA vaccination was going to cure virtually all diseases. When what it really was, was repurposed gene therapy,” Hatchard told me in February.
However, it’s been known since 2003 that RNA is active genetic material that can be integrated into a person’s genome, Hatchard explains.
“That immediately raises the possibility of mutagenesis, which means cancer. [Along with vaccine injury] that is another thing that we are not looking for, and can develop quickly. I have two friends who developed leukemia quite quickly after having taken the vaccination. That is a known side effect of gene therapy, yet there is no suggestion from their doctors that that is due to vaccination.”
The experiment in question was done in France and found that two out of nine subjects– a very high number – developed leukemia and was halted immediately.
“So, it is a real sleight of hand that companies have taken these techniques out of largely discredited gene therapy and then said they are perfectly safe. And we are not monitoring what is happening and they are not monitoring. And these are known as secondary effects.”
And then earlier this year a study showed that genetic sequences from mRNA vaccines can integrate into human liver cells in-vitro. What has been the response from the public health officials, ethicists and academics? Crickets.
How data manipulation has driven the Covid fear narrative
Queen Mary University of London Professor of Risk Management, Norman Fenton has been analysing this issue since March 2020. A mathematician whose work focuses on critical decision making and quantifying uncertainty using Bayesian networks, Fenton analyses covid data and exposes problems with the way they are presented to the general public.
“I have been motivated by a concern about the way that statistics were being used to drive the covid narrative and about the lack of evidence to justify lockdowns and vaccine mandates,” he says.
Fenton describes going from being respected in his field, to being censored, to getting cancelled, as a result of his work, a now very familiar story.
And yet he says it doesn’t take much to show that covid was not as lethal as claimed or the jab as safe and effective as claimed. The fundamental problems with covid data in the United Kingdom start with definitions. He provides some hypothetical case studies to illustrate this:
- Fred, who has no covid symptoms, tests positive in a PCR test for work. He doesn’t go on to develop any symptoms, but 13 days later is critically injured in a car crash and dies two weeks after being taken to hospital. Fred is classified as a covid case, a covid hospital admission and a covid death.
- Jane gets a covid vaccine and 13 days later tests PCR positive with symptomatic covid. Jane is classified as an unvaccinated covid case, because she is within the 14 days post-jab.
- Peter gets a covid vaccine and dies the next day from an adverse reaction to it. Peter is classified as an unvaccinated covid death.
All of the key metrics are driven by the definition of a covid case – the number of covid cases, the number of hospitalisations, the number of deaths.
Fenton then points out that even if the definition of a ‘case’ was something that everybody agreed on, the fact that we are not told these additional definitions means that the core data are fundamentally misleading.
Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests
But we can’t ignore the flawed PCR test, because it is essentially how a covid case is defined. Not by clinical analysis based on symptoms, but by a test. Fenton says because of that, and because of the high levels of false positives thrown up by PCR testing, ‘cases’ include all of these different classes of people.
- Has the virus with symptoms (true positive)
- Has the virus but is pre-symptomatic and develops symptoms some days later (true positive)
- Has virus but never develops symptoms (many doubt these people should even be included)
- No virus but has symptoms (false positive)
- No virus and no symptoms (false positive)
The vast majority of asymptomatic cases are false positives, he says.
It’s not surprising then that many people call the covid situation a ‘case-demic’ or a ‘pandemic of testing’. The more you test, the more cases you will find. Dr Sam Bailey does a great job at explaining this here.
It’s also no wonder we are seeing a huge increase in the number of ‘cases’ recorded in New Zealand, as Sam Bailey’s husband Mark Bailey points out in this article, given that Rapid Antigen Tests are now widely available.
“On 1 February, the government announced that ‘along with the 5.1 million tests already in the country, New Zealanders will have access to over 55 million rapid antigen tests in the coming two months.’ Two weeks later, ‘cases’ of the meaningless entity covid-19 went parabolic. In early March, RAT was said to be detecting 97 percent of these cases. By that stage, Rapid Antigen Tests were being provided for ‘free’ for all and sundry, with many feeling the need to test themselves or their children several times a day,” he notes.
Nb: The Baileys are prominent critics of virology, and challenge the claim that viruses have been proven to exist. Dr Sam Bailey is a co-author of the book Virusmania: How the medical industry continually invents epidemics, making billion dollar profits at our expense.
New Zealand’s misrepresentation of covid data
Hatchard has concluded that the Ministry of Health’s (MOH) statistics are also being used to try and show that unvaccinated people are more likely to be hospitalised than the boosted and more likely to die. Covid deaths are deliberately overcounted, he says.
“When addressing the public, both the Ministry and the media repeatedly use the largely irrelevant figure of all 223 deaths temporally related to Covid, and almost never use the more accurate subset number of deaths caused by Covid.” (emphasis mine).
Rather than clear categories identifying how many shots a recipient has had, if any, MOH data puts the unvaccinated and the single dose people into the same group in the death charts, which means we don’t have the data to show how many deaths have occurred in the unvaccinated, he says.
New Zealand doesn’t count a recipient as vaccinated until a week after their jab, but Hatchard says there is evidence suggesting that people may be at greater risk of contracting covid in that first week. While if someone catches covid in the first week after having their booster they are counted as a two dose covid case, or death if they die.
“This will lead to the booster having fewer cases/deaths, and the two doses having more [in the charts], thus creating an impression of greater booster efficacy.”
A video just released by Grant Dixon using MOH data published at the end of March demonstrates hospitalisations in vaccinated and boosted groups exceeded those from unvaccinated groups.
Dying ‘with’ and ‘of’ covid
The news reading public may have noticed a change in the way the New Zealand media reports covid deaths lately. I don’t know when the change began exactly, but you will see headlines now such as “X number of people died with covid-19 yesterday”.
The key being the word ‘with’, meaning that is not the primary cause of death, which if it were, would be recorded as dying ‘of’ covid. This was not a differentiation made for a very long time and I’m guessing enough people got wise to it they had to begin differentiating. I’m not sure they have explained this particular piece of context to the public, however.
So, without further information on each individual death cited as ‘dying with covid’, we can assume they were in hospital for something else but tested positive for covid while there, miraculously becoming a ‘covid death’.
US covid statistics were overcounted all along
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, along with individual US states are backtracking on covid death statistics. On 14 March, 72,277 covid deaths were removed from the official tally, including 24% of deaths attributed to children under 18. This was noted quietly in its Footnotes and Additional Information section, rather than by press release.
A faulty algorithm that counted deaths from drowning and drug overdoses as covid was blamed. Remember the New Zealand case of a man shot in the head last year being classified as a covid death? This has happened all over the world. The UK has been through its own reckoning of data.
New data on the Vaccine Fatality Rate from Columbia University
Columbia University researcher Spiro Pantazatos was interviewed for the excellent video series Perspectives on the Pandemic, by Journeyman Pictures last week.
In the shocking interview, Pantazatos reveals that in a six-month period last year, covid injections killed between 150,000 and 180,000 Americans, which is consistent with data released by the insurance industry reporting a 40% rise in mortality among people aged 18-to-64, relative to the pre-covid era in the US.
The paper is called Covid vaccination and age-stratified all-cause mortality risk.
“There does appear to be a positive correlation between vaccine doses and all-cause mortality. The more doses you have the more likely it appears that you are going to have an adverse effect.
“And so, this was seen with the first two doses. Most people had their severest reaction on the second dose and it appears that it’s not going to be any different with the third dose.”
Unsurprisingly, Pantazatos has come in for criticism for undertaking the analysis from his peers, and scientific journals appear uninterested in publishing his research.
“I’ve been submitting it to a lot of journals and it has been desk-rejected by most all of the medical journals that I have submitted it to. Desk-rejected meaning they don’t send it out for peer review … Typically, the reasons they give are not that substantive.”
Pantazatos explains that the job of an editor alongside validating work, is to take into consideration its importance for the public interest. He believes many editors are failing in this duty. He points out well documented corruption in medical journals, essentially acting as advertisers for pharmaceutical companies.
He also notes that publishing policies are also problematic. At MedRxiv, it’s explicitly stated that work that challenges or could compromise accepted public health measures on infectious health measures, immunisations and therapies would be screened out.
“In my view the editors are not doing what they are supposed to be doing,“ he says.
Pantazatos says the politicisation of science publishing in this respect is a strategy to stigmatise inconvenient science.
The position that anything that undermines confidence in vaccination, or causes ‘vaccine hesitancy’ can’t be given a public airing – either in journals, or in the media, is now widespread. Most legacy media outlets for example, will not open comments on stories about vaccination as it invites unpopular views to be expressed, which could be considered giving oxygen to ‘dangerous ideas’.
Hatchard himself has recounted how a prominent radio personality in New Zealand told him this exact thing – any views or information that could lead to vaccine hesitancy was absolutely off-limits.
In Australia health practitioners have been explicitly warned that views expressed on social media, or even when authoring papers, must be consistent with public health messaging.
“Views expressed which may be consistent with evidence-based material may not necessarily be consistent with public health messaging.” (emphasis mine).
In New Zealand the Medical Council similarly gagged doctors and censured and de-registered those who dissented.
The problem with this is that it is essentially anti-journalistic and anti-scientific and anti-democratic. So that even in the face of overwhelming evidence of harm from vaccination – see the most recent VAERS data – whether it be the covid injection or any other, the public will not be informed about it, lest it cause people to not trust vaccines.
Bureaucratic propaganda now holds more weight than the opinion of practising clinicians and researchers. They can put public relations material on the homepage of their websites while practitioners are gagged. This ideological stance belongs in the soviet era and is far more ‘dangerous’ than allowing science to be publicly debated. People are being harmed and dying and nothing is being done about it because it has been made taboo.
Perhaps in a sign the cultural mood might be shifting, last week Judge Stephen Harrop ruled the Medical Council wrongly suspended Dr Matt Shelton and Dr Peter Canaday for expressing concern about the safety of the Pfizer injections. The suspension must be reversed.