Guy Hatchard; the High Court of New Zealand ducks responsibility
A Conspiracy of Silence and a Litany of Lies
Part 2
Guy Hatchard
Yesterday I wrote about the High Court decision rejecting a petition questioning child mRNA vaccinations.
Last night I was able to read the full judgement in detail which was something of a revelation.
Justice Gendall wrote (Clause 54) that he thought the government’s approval of child mRNA vaccinations was reasonable because:
“…earlier, all pharmaceutical regulators from Australia, United Kingdom, United States, Europe, Singapore and Canada reached the same conclusion on all the expert evidence before them to approve the Paediatric Vaccine in their jurisdictions.”
Perhaps Justice Gendall was unaware that Medsafe is a member of the International Coalition of Medicines Regulatory Authorities (ICMRA), as are all the other regulators in the countries he mentions.
In fact, ICMRA has forty members. It is a non-governmental organisation heavily influenced by the pharmaceutical industry and the World Health Organisation.
ICMRA members closely coordinate through a shared database which means that most of the medicines regulatory authorities around the world have used the same ICMRA-supplied information templates to reach their decisions—information co-created by pro-pharmaceutical funded sources.
Even our government may be unaware just how much influence the pharmaceutical industry has on our Ministry of Health decisions through the back door of ICMRA.
Globalists are anxious to control little people in New Zealand and stave off any original and constructive thoughts they might entertain. Control of information is a vital part of the process. Our government has uncritically facilitated this.
In fact, the very computers that we often think are setting us free are actually also tools of global control. Databases and AI systems can rigidly control what lands on the desks of compliant and complacent minds sitting in government offices.
There are many philosophical elements and indeed myths contributing to a global takeover strategy:
- The decline in original writing and thought and long format reading, which has been supplanted by cutting, pasting, and sharing imposed ideas.
- The idea that there are infallible global sources of information and authority; which runs parallel to the cult of international personalities and wealth.
- The rejection and suppression of anything natural because it can’t be patented, along with legal mechanisms to monopolise patents.
- The rejection of the role of subjective, intuitive, and cultural knowledge in favour of solely objectivised mechanical concepts; which silently reject the quantum mechanical self-referral nature discovered by modern physics.
- The decline in individual and national self-sufficiency. Essential items in every country are now made overseas and controlled by global capital, leaving every nation vulnerable to decisions they cannot influence.
The acceptance and proliferation of these and many other ideas has been gradual, almost imperceptible. The growth of computer controlled mechanisation has led to a great deal of comfort, but it has also led to the loss of a great many personal skills.
Globalists would like us to define ourselves through which machines we own, what medicines we take, what global brands we wear and consume. All of which are monetised.
Overwhelmed with this object-referral concept of reality, we have forgotten just how powerful our own mind is. The ancient health system of India, Ayurveda, defines this forgetting as the essential source of disease—becoming disconnected from who you really are, referred to as the ‘mistake of the intellect’.
This mistake includes relinquishing authentication of ideas and truth to third party ‘authorities’. Thus Justice Gendal was able to delegate and bypass a thorough assessment of safety research. He ruled:
Clause 42 “I need to say at the outset that, as I see the position, it is not the role of this Court on judicial review to decide which experts are right, nor to form its own opinion on the desirability of the Paediatric Vaccine being supplied in New Zealand. [that he said is the role of government experts].
The judge responded to evidence as follows:
Clause 62 “The applicants in their submissions raise numerous concerns regarding the safety of the Paediatric Vaccine, pointing to what they contend are adverse event reports following vaccination…
He continued: “the rate of vaccine-induced myocarditis across all age groups appears to be very low, being about 30 per million in New Zealand [a ridiculously low figure supplied by the Ministry of Health without any evidence to corroborate it. See this study, the measured real world risk is as much as 10,000 times higher].
He continued: “That risk, too, is substantially lower for children [also unsubstantiated by definitive evidence, but accepted by the judge on the authority of the MoH]”,
Clause 63 “… there is no real-world evidence that exists to demonstrate these are actual risks of the vaccine ….[thus naively accepting the MoH’s ridiculous assertion that temporal association can be ignored and discounted when assessing causality]
Clause 64 “This Court has also rejected claims that …. the absence of longer-term safety data was a cause for concern.”
Since when did courts believe that the longer term safety of children should not be their legitimate concern? In all this, we seem to have forgotten that we are dealing with human life. The loss of a life cannot be reduced to a mere statistic.
Nothing illustrates the direction this sort of thinking can take more than the evolution of euthanasia laws. In Canada, which arguably has the world’s most permissive laws, people with disabilities and treatable conditions like hearing loss or mental health issues are being permitted to end their lives.
There is some suggestion that doctors have acted improperly to encourage the vulnerable and even the young to end their own lives. It is just a small step to realising that people suffering medical misadventure or side effects such as those caused by genetic experiments could be euthanized, all paid for by the government.
Today Stuff newspaper, with a documentary entitled Beyond the Fringe (a title shared by a popular BBC radio comedy show), has sought once again to demonise the voices questioning the safety of mRNA vaccination. According to Stuff, their aim is nothing less than a plot to make New Zealand ungovernable (???).
To bolster its case, Stuff describes a local councillor’s suggestion that the Pfizer mRNA vaccine is an experimental drug as “a frequently made, but inaccurate claim.” An appalling and laughable criticism of a simple truth.
Stuff might do well to investigate the strange case of the disappearing CDC claims about safety. In the most recent version of CDC advice about mRNA vaccine safety, the section entitled “The mRNA and the spike protein do not last long in the body” has been quietly removed.
Multiple research findings indicate that the spike protein is both very toxic and very persistent following mRNA vaccination—a safety busting revelation. No doubt the CDC removed the offending paragraph in order to avoid falling foul of the punitive American courts.
In addition, on 11 August, the CDC completely back tracked on pandemic quarantine measures:
- Those exposed to the virus are no longer required to quarantine
- Unvaccinated now have the same guidance as vaccinated people
- Students can stay in class after being exposed to the virus
- It is no longer recommended to screen those without symptoms
In other words, the pandemic is over, except in isolated New Zealand and Australia, where the courts and mainstream media are determined to back extensive and misguided government restrictions to the hilt.
I want to finish here with the view from Sweden (and all the Nordic nations). They do not share the views of the New Zealand courts about forcing pandemic measures on our children. They rejoice that they have escaped such excesses and harmful mistakes. After the latest myopic court ruling in New Zealand, you might find this article refreshing, entitled Sacrificing Children’s health in the name of Health.
Here is part one
The High Court of New Zealand Ducks Responsibility
A Conspiracy of Silence and a Litany of Lies
The Director General of the Danish Health Authority, who last week halted Covid-19 vaccination for under 18 year olds citing absence of any evidence of benefit, has been giving interviews.
He acknowledged that the prescription of Covid vaccines for young people had been a mistake and said they never would have approved them if they had known then what they know today.
Thai Study Finds High Levels of Cardiac Risk Among Adolescents
It is possible that the Danish Ministry of Health and other health authorities around the world, including ours, were aware of risks.
Certainly, they could have been fully aware of the dangers if they had undertaken their own appropriate investigation and made unbiased assessments early on.
A study of adolescents undertaken in Thailand and published last week illustrates what could have been done.
Cardiovascular Effects of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine in Adolescents
The study examined the cardiovascular effects on 300 students aged 13 years to 18 years receiving their second Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine injection. Data being collected included demographics, symptoms, vital signs, ECG, echocardiography and cardiac enzymes. These were collected at baseline, Day 3, Day 7, and Day 14 using case record forms.
Although it is admitted that myopericarditis can be a side effect of mRNA vaccination, our Ministry of Health advised DHBs that it is rare and estimated that it may only affect 3 in every 100,000 recipients.
The Thai study found 29% (not 3 out of 100,000, but 3 out of every 10 students) registered cardiovascular effects, including tachycardia, palpitation, shortness of breath, chest pain, and myopericarditis. The overt symptoms subsided within 14 days (the duration of the study).
There was no follow-up of subsequent health outcomes, and therefore the long term effects remain unassessed. The authors concluded that adolescents receiving mRNA vaccination should be monitored for side effects.
It is notable that this study is an assessment of cardiovascular outcomes based on objective measurements, not on subjective assessments and estimates as was primarily the case in New Zealand.
If such simple objective measurements had been taken early on in the vaccine rollout, it would have been normal procedure to pause the programme pending more detailed investigation of the cardiovascular effects. BUT this was never done.
There was an unjustified assumption of safety based on recommendations of safety from Pfizer itself, who stood to profit greatly from our Covid-19 mRNA vaccine rollout.
The High Court Says its Views Cannot Overrule Medical Decisions of the Government
Yesterday (Friday, 13 August 2022) a judgement was released by the High Court in Wellington confirming the legality of the approval process for Covid-19 children’s vaccine (aged 5-11 years).
Stuff newspaper reported on the decision. Although I have not yet seen the full judgement, the quotations from it in the newspaper raise some serious questions about our legal system.
Justice David Gendall said the decisions of our Ministry of Health complied with the law and the court shouldn’t substitute its own views for the decisions of the various Ministry of Health officers and committees. These included Medsafe group manager Chris James, the Medicines Assessment Advisory Committee, a separate technical advisory group, and Dr. Ashley Bloomfield, Director General of Health.
The judge acknowledged that the applicants to the court had called their own expert witnesses and submitted evidence, contrary to that submitted by the government, weighing the risks and benefits of the vaccine. BUT according to the Stuff article, the judge 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 as the minister’s delegate.”
The judge noted that Chris James had given his consent on conditions that included Pfizer giving further information as it became available, including periodic safety reports.
Somehow the judge failed to acknowledge that Pfizer has persistently sought in US courts to withhold such safety information (for up to 75 years). Nor did Stuff newspaper reveal whether James or the Ministry of Health had reviewed any court ordered safety information released to date.
If the study of adolescents in Thailand is anything to go by, 3 out of 10 vaccinated children in New Zealand over the age 5 may already have suffered cardiovascular problems with varying degrees of severity, and there still could be more to come.
Was the High Court Judge Just Following Legal Precedent?
There is much legal case history and discussion centered around the need for the state to take responsibility for the application (or indeed withdrawal) of medical treatment for seriously ill children; if necessary against the wishes of the parents if they are found by the courts to be mistaken in their views. See for example this recent paper published just prior to the pandemic.
The accepted interpretation is that courts should adjudicate in disputed cases by weighing the evidence of risks. In the present case, the life of a seriously ill child was not at issue. The arguments were scientifically complex and moreover there was no unanimity among scientific professionals and in the published scientific literature.
Crucially the risks involved were open ended—not fully identified or quantified. This is because the long term effects of the vaccine are still unknown.
Typically, vaccine safety trials take 10 years to complete.
The court failed to fully take account of the fact that the risks for the children from Covid were certainly low and from the vaccine possibly high—there was an imbalance and uncertainty concerning risk.
The situation does not appear to have met the accepted justification for state intervention—serious illness of a child requiring treatment.
In summary, the court failed to address the nature of the health risks involved and avoided doing so by deferring to the government as the ultimate authority.
In other words, like Pontius Pilate, the judge carefully washed his hands of the matter and left our children’s fate in the hands of the NZ government and its officers.
Did the government responsibly complete its due diligence throughout the course of the pandemic and in its dealings with Pfizer?
Simon Rae, Manager, International Science Partnerships of the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment (MBIE), who vetted the vaccine supply contract with Pfizer and advised the government accordingly, wrote on 22nd March 2021 in response to an OIA request:
“We did not investigate Pfizer’s management team or its ethics as a company. We are satisfied that Pfizer has not been reckless in the development of its vaccine…we are confident that the vaccine is acceptably safe and effective…
“MBIE advised the Minister of Finance to grant an indemnity to Pfizer on the basis that doing so was in the public interest. It is not unexpected for pharmaceutical companies to seek indemnities from governments in circumstances where clinical trials are restricted, or where a purchase agreement is concluded before full trials are completed…as of 16 March 2021, MBIE is not aware of any deaths or permanent disabilities that were caused by Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine.”
MBIE asserted this, despite the fact that Pfizer already had records by 28th February 2021 (prior to the MBIE statement) of more than 42,000 injuries and 1,200 deaths subsequent to its Covid vaccination.
Did our government know of these deaths and injuries but decided to believe assurances from Pfizer that they were unrelated? If so, were there any valid reasons for the Ministry of Health and MBIE to assume that these serious effects post vaccination were unrelated and proceed to grant Pfizer indemnity?
If MBIE and the Ministry of Health didn’t know of the deaths, why had they not sought this information from Pfizer whom they certainly knew had been collecting such post marketing data?
Why is the Government Along With All Opposition Parties Unanimously Behind Pfizer?
It is notable that the judge in the just announced High Court judgement acknowledged that the decision of the Medicines Assessment Advisory Committee (whose up to 12 members are anonymous) was unanimous in support of childhood vaccination.
This runs parallel to the unanimous approval of government pandemic policy by all members of parliament of all parties and their refusal to meet or listen to questioning voices.
Given the paucity of evidence of benefit, the incapacity of the vaccine to stop transmission, and the high rate of adverse effects and deaths, the unanimity stands in need of explanation.
BUT there has been no meaningful explanation offered except vague references to the social good of vaccines and the questionable reliability of Ministry of Health experts.
MPs have preferred to remain silent and accept the apparent assurances of the Ministry of Health that the reported 50 times greater incidence of adverse effects following Pfizer mRNA vaccination (when compared to previous vaccines) is somehow normal.
In my experience, such unanimous silence on the part of MPs of all parties is highly unusual.
Forgive me for paraphrasing the judgement of Justice Mahon following the Erebus disaster—this hints at a conspiracy of silence and a litany of lies.
Young innocent children are being herded towards vaccination through the minimisation of risks, misinformation, and consequent peer and societal pressures to conform to pharmaceutical medical orthodoxy.
An orthodoxy which has embraced universal applications of novel biotechnology and gene therapy without acknowledging or properly investigating the serious risks.
In fact, seeking to hide such risks from public knowledge or discussion. Risks that can potentially blight young lives and persist through generations.
The Danish Ministry of Health was right to acknowledge and correct their mistakes about Covid vaccine safety for the young based on updated information. They discontinued mRNA vaccination for the under 18s.
When will our Ministry do so, and when will our courts recognise the overriding need for caution?
