Yesterday the New Zealand Herald, our most-read legacy media newspaper, published an article ‘Australian woman reveals heartbreak as ‘loving’ husband sucked into conspiracies’. The article purported to tell the story of an anonymous woman in Western Australia whose “gentle kind loving husband” had fallen into an “anti-vaxxer conspiracy cult.”

According to the woman, her hapless husband erroneously believed the vaccine was experimental since no long-term studies had been completed. He asserted that it did not provide immunity from infection or prevent transmission. He also warned of adverse effects which might result in death.

The woman professed to love her husband dearly and mentioned his high IQ, but referred to him as a “freedumb fighter” whose stance on mRNA vaccine safety amounted to “domestic abuse.”

The article drew on the expertise of Kim Cullen who I found has a master’s degree – not a doctorate – in organisational psychology, not a clinical qualification. She described a range of possible sources for the husband’s opinions including a personality disorder, feelings of vulnerability and isolation, pride and superiority, asserting control, the internet, and crucially the need to cling to unfounded false beliefs to avoid embarrassment.

At this point in the pandemic, I think you must be aware that mRNA does not stop covid transmission, infection or indeed reinfection, so you may be harbouring secret feelings of sympathy for some of these views. You might also be wondering if it is the NZ Herald editorial staff who are “clinging to unfounded false beliefs to avoid embarrassment.”Why on earth did the Herald print this appalling article?

A few days ago, Ministry of Health (“MoH”) researchers secured publication of their preprint paper in the Lancet: ‘Adverse Events Following the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine (Pfizer-BioNtech) in Aotearoa New Zealand’. The paper reveals there is a statistically significant association between Pfizer mRNA vaccination and both myocarditis and acute kidney injury (“AKI”). Here in little New Zealand, you wouldn’t know AKI was a potential side effect of mRNA vaccination. The Herald has not covered it. Instead choosing to print the dreadful tripe above.

Read the paper HERE

Many Kiwis are no longer able to follow the Herald uncritically because it doesn’t fit with reality on the ground. We are living in a country with an unprecedentedly high rate of excess all-cause mortality and an overwhelmed health service. I now have four vaccinated friends who have developed debilitating kidney disease since the shot, but if you want to read more about the NZ study, you will need to read about it in the British press. 

The MoH study only looked at mRNA vaccine outcomes for 21 days after the shot, validating the husband’s point – the long-term outcomes remain unassessed. Or are they really unknown? Read THIS Substack article assessing the evidence for longer-term serious myocarditis outcomes following mRNA vaccination.

Nor are long-term outcomes unknown to the relatives of those adversely affected by mRNA vaccines – there are tens of thousands affected in NZ – but they would be unknown to those relying exclusively upon the NZ Herald. They would naturally still believe against all up-to-date published evidence that the vaccine is protecting them from serious illness and death – it isn’t.

So, the NZ Ministry of Health has started to come clean, but corporate media hasn’t. Why? We don’t really know. We are left with speculation. Do sources of advertising revenue come with conditions attached? Does the media have signed agreements with the government that preclude coverage that might lead to vaccine hesitancy, possibly conditions of generous government subsidies?

If that is the case, it is undermining our Kiwi culture which is one of trust. For a long time, there has been an assumption of honesty. In 2021 New Zealand retained top ranking as the world’s least corrupt nation. The Hon. Kris Faafoi, Minister of Justice commented:

“New Zealand has a well-deserved reputation for being relatively free of corruption, with a high level of public trust in government built on a foundation of transparency.”

At that time in January 2022, Faafoi thought the government pandemic response would send New Zealand into the stratosphere of anti-corruption scores, but by mid-year, much like Ardern, he decided to exit parliament to “spend more time with his family”and by some lucky chance almost immediately landed a job as head of a lobbying and public relations firm.

Our culture of transparency has been eroded during the pandemic, the government used the historical record of Kiwi trust as a cover for their absolute rejection of concerns about mRNA vaccine safety. As it has turned out, transparency would have served us well. Instead, we have been subjected to a “safe and effective” media narrative for two years paid for through government grants and reinforced with unfounded attacks against counter-narratives funded directly by the Prime Minister’s office. 

We have learned a lot about society during the pandemic. The glue of public trust is truth and transparency. Without it, we are left with the fog of uncertainty and fear of the unknown. This equates with elevated levels of individual and social stress well known to be associated with negative social outcomes including crime, low educational achievement, family violence, economic underperformance, and high rates of illness.

Despite having the data to do so, the MoH has not undertaken any investigation to determine if there is any correlation between all-cause deaths and vaccine status over the longer term. This simple procedure would settle any controversy. It hasn’t happened. We are being kept in the dark. Requests put to the Minister of Health have been met with deafening silence. Why?

It may seem to politicians and corporate media that there would be a downside to admitting inaccuracies, mistakes, or dare I say “fault,” but it will eventually all come out, it already is. The UK has abandoned mRNA vaccination for the under 50s, as have a number of other countries. A growing number of senior UK medical specialists are asking questions about hugely elevated rates of heart disease and rapid onset or recurrence of cancers.

There is now not only no point in postponing a reckoning with the emerging scientific picture of a very wide range of long-term adverse effects but there will be a huge downside if it is delayed any longer. In the weird Herald article, the husband clearly had some valid concerns about mRNA vaccines, while the woman was misinformed by corporate media. A carefully curated discussion in the media along with some public debates will put everyone back on an even playing field. 

The opportunity to undertake cross-examination of government witnesses in high court actions has also been so far missing in action. Curiously the courts have deferred to the government for scientific advice. Since when was scientific verity the sole prerogative of government departments?

It is clear that detailed knowledge of the adverse effects of mRNA vaccines would enable GPs and hospital staff to deal appropriately and sympathetically with injury. It would also enable doctors and medical staff to relay factually informed consent to patients. This has not happened so far. 

Transparency would also help to heal some family rifts like the one reported so one-sidedly by the Herald. Under the circumstances, the husband should be exonerated for thinking that truth doesn’t count for much when it comes to modern democracy and mainstream news reporting. How many extra sudden deaths are required before the media grows a conscience and starts asking questions? It is time to level up.

Our new Prime Minister Chris Hipkins promises he is going to re-evaluate unpopular Labour policies. Is he also going to re-evaluate misleading ones? We hope so. No point in postponing the inevitable. As Shakespeare said: “The truth will out.”

About the Author

Guy Hatchard, PhD, was formerly a senior manager at Genetic ID a global food testing and safety company (now known as FoodChain ID). You can subscribe to his websites HatchardReport.com and GLOBE.GLOBAL for regular updates by email. GLOBE.GLOBAL is a website dedicated to providing information about the dangers of biotechnology

Science and our health authorities told us that “myocarditis is much more frequent from Covid than from vaccination.”

The thing is, it was not true.

A new study from Scandinavian countries is out:

The authors worked for health departments of the four Nordic countries. They were tasked with looking at their entire populations (and their computerized records), seeking out instances of myocarditis. They had vaccination records for all people as well.

It turned out that in their countries:

• 530 people had myocarditis from the vaccine
• 109 had myocarditis from Covid-19

As far as deaths go:

• 27 persons died from vaccine myocarditis
• 18 died from Covid-related myocarditis.

So please, tell me, how could it be true that “Covid causes more myocarditis”?

The Real Outcomes are Likely Worse

Several known facts make the picture even worse than the article presents. Numerous myocarditis cases caused by vaccines result in sudden deaths and not hospitalizations.

The University of Heidelberg study shows that 20% of sudden post-vaccination deaths that they autopsied are due to myocarditis.

CDC Lied about Vaccine Myocarditis Being Mild: 20% of Sudden Deaths Caused by Myocarditis

When our health officials talk about Covid vaccine victims, we always hear the same story: Deaths are unrelated to vaccination Myocarditis is mild, and nobody dies of it They refuse to autopsy the victims This gaslighting became an art form for Covid vaccine advocates, with fact-checkers and social networks suppressing any discussion…

Those sudden deaths are NOT included in the numbers presented by the Scandinavian scientists.

Also, the study notes that some people had vaccines, Covid, and myocarditis in one 30-day interval. For those people, the cases were added to the vaccine or Covid counts based on what happened later (vaccine or Covid).

So, for example, a person who had a vaccine on day 1, then Covid on day 15, then myocarditis on day 20 would count as a Covid myocarditis case. I do not personally agree with such an approach.

Some of the “Covid myocarditis” cases happened in vaccinated people who happened to have Covid “despite” (or because of?) their vaccines. Those are counted as “Covid myocarditis,” even though vaccines played a role in these illnesses that happened to vaccinated persons.

Much talk was also directed at creating an impression that myocarditis happens only to young males. It helped Pfizer and Moderna make money by keeping older people less alarmed. However, Scandinavian researchers found that vaccine myocarditis also happens to older people.

Vaccines Did Not Help Prevent Covid

The most important addition (brought up thanks to Peter Kust’s comment) is that the vaccine-caused myocarditis was all for nothing. The vaccines ended up not preventing Covid-19. First, someone would get vaccinated, then vaccine myocarditis might follow, then they would have Covid, and more myocarditis could occur. That’s a bad deal!

Potential Objections and Exposure Time

Some people trying to debunk this story may ask, “what about the background rate of myocarditis”? What if the persons listed in the above study as having “vaccine myocarditis” actually had it for unrelated reasons?

It is not a bad question and needs to be explored.

My answer to those objections is that approximately the same number of people had Covid by the time the study period ended in 2022, as was the number of vaccinated people. So, the “exposures” to vaccines and Covid are roughly equal. And yet, the incidence of myocarditis after vaccines is about five times greater than after Covid.

Science Lied, People Died

Promoters of Covid vaccines always appealed to “science,” which was paid by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation or the NIH, both of which had a vested interest in pushing Covid vaccines.

However, officials unrelated to either of those proved that myocarditis from Covid is much rarer than vaccine myocarditis.

I have a science degree. In the past, I always was an admirer of science. Science was fascinating, world-changing, and deserving of my interest and trust. The Covid pandemic shattered these beliefs, and my default attitude to any science with social, climate or political implications is mistrust and skepticism.

Do you still trust science? Do you try to discern if perhaps there is something underhanded going on when certain topics are discussed?