Table of Contents
The Hood
The ‘Hood’s directors Sereca Friend and Nicola Culver recently held an eye-opening webinar for an exclusive group on May 26th 2022. The directors interviewed members of the legal team, barristers David Jones QC and Tom Molloy, along with legal case manager Katie Ashby-Koppens. Special guest Dr Matt Shelton made clear that there has never been such an important case for our children and next generations.
When this pandemic first hit New Zealand two years ago, the government and their experts assured us our children were safe to go back to school, sports and the general community because Covid posed very little risk to them. However, today that same government is insisting on vaccinations for these children, with a product different to the one used in the trial.
The Covid products were approved for emergency use during a pandemic, which we are arguably on the other side of. Throughout the pandemic, children (and healthy adults) were never at risk from Covid, even with the early strains, so there has never been a strong case to approve a vaccine for this age group and certainly not in December 2021 when the New Zealand government did.
Countries like Sweden, Norway and Denmark have chosen not to release this vaccine for children or removed it entirely given evidential toxicity concerns.
These world-leading countries have recognised this product is not something children require, yet our government continues to say our children need it. Why?
This is one of the questions we have asked and received no answers to. A court of law grants us an opportunity to engage and allows real debate, with evidence.
The Hood’s legal case manager said, “this case for our kids will be heard at such a crucial time, especially when both Moderna and Pfizer have sought approval from the FDA to use their products in infants and toddlers (6 months to <5 years). If we don’t take a stand now, where will all this stop?
There was all risk and no benefit in December 2021 when MedSafe approved the paediatric product for our kids. MedSafe had at that time received a 5000% increase in adverse event reports from the C-19 products; and the Ministry of Health had received briefing papers that the emergency had lifted and borders could reopen.
This court case for our kids is forcing a response. It is providing transparency around how our political and medical professionals weighed the risk versus benefit profile and what data they used in that process.
Our lawyers have worked closely with world-renowned experts, Dr Robert Malone, Dr Peter McCullough, Geert Vanden Bossche, Dr Phillip Altman, Prof Nikolai Petrovsky, Prof Byram Bridle, Dr Martin Lally and Simon Brown PhD. Reports submitted by these leaders in their fields expose inadequacies, dishonesties, insufficient data and research, complete lack of necessity, questionable practices, fudged information, and much more. This case for our kids needs to be heard.
The ‘Hood’s legal case manager spoke to more than 5000 pages of expert testimony, outlining why – even on the government’s own evidence – this medical procedure is simply not required for this age group.
Intelligent, objective open debate is a right. It is how we progress, how we discover and make brilliant breakthroughs. It is also how we protect our loved ones from harm. Critical thinking, research and questioning should be a celebrated part of humanity. Instead, we find ourselves in a censored society, where thoughts outside the perceived norm are often shunned, and people fear ridicule for asking questions on challenging topics. People run the risk to careers, income, friendships, family and social standing. The ‘Hood is taking a stand for our kids, in court and as individuals.
On Wednesday 1st and Saturday 4th of June, The ’Hood will host two more webinars, discussing the case, common questions and potential misconceptions prompted by mainstream media coverage, or lack thereof. We invite you to join them, find out more and support them in their legal fight to protect our future generations from what is scientifically shown to be an unnecessary and risk-prone procedure.
