The Beginning of Healing or a Theatre of the Absurd?

NZDSOS

NZDSOS has delivered advice to Phase 1 of the NZ Royal Commission of Inquiry into Covid Lessons Learned. Our statements are posted here.

The inquiry has officially announced the details and personnel for phase two. In addition to newly appointed chair, barrister Grant Illingworth, the new commissioners are Judy Kavanagh, economist, and Anthony Hill, barrister and former Health and Disability Commissioner.

The full terms of reference have also been released. We are very disappointed and concerned that none of the commissioners has medical or scientific expertise in this phase – particularly now that vaccine lack of efficacy and vaccine harms are on the agenda. One accurate and courageous commissioner recognisable to the large number of disaffected Kiwis may have negated their suspicion and distrust of the Royal Commission process.

Our experience with the courts, lawyers and judges in the last four years is that they dislike considering ‘the science’. To date, they have gone out of their way to avoid discussing it, even if scientific evidence undermining the jab is basically uncontested by the Crown, as evidenced by not bringing its own references, or withholding important information, or Crown lawyers deceiving the judge. As examples, we quote our Bill of Rights Fluoride challenge (where it was wrongly claimed that the Supreme Court had tested the science), and the teachers and NZDSOS mandate appeal, where proof that healthcare and education settings rated very low for transmission risk was withheld.

It is our view that science and medicine need to play a big role in this phase of the inquiry if truth is to see the light of day. However, much of the evidence disproving the narratives is so plainly damaging and ‘in your face’ that it does not require high level statistics or quantum physics to understand. This evidence may be hard for the commissioners to face and they may have turned away thus far. It is now their duty and brief to look at this completely and impartially, no matter how it may affect them personally.

As an example, ‘safe and effective’ was repeated ad nauseam. It is still. However, what does ‘effective’ actually mean when referring to a pharmaceutical product? The Commission will need an understanding of ‘relative’ versus ‘absolute’ risk reductions.

When Medsafe assessed the original Pfizer data, it was aware decisions were being made on the outcomes of only 170 participants in the clinical trial (which had over 40,000 participants). The absolute risk reduction was only 0.84 per cent. The legal minds need to understand that this is the number that should have been used in the messaging to both the public and to doctors, not the relative risk reduction of 95 per cent.

Absolute risk examined a trial participant’s personal risk of getting Covid, and then how likely the jab was to stop their infection, not the differences between the treatment and placebo groups, which is the relative risk reduction. Isn’t it amazing how the same numbers can be tortured to confess such different outcomes? That’s marketing for you, and for the commission. The commissioners will be shown too that more people died in the vaccine than placebo groups, including twice as many cardiac deaths.

The court seems to dislike being troubled with medical ethics too. (Surely having their own apparent ethics, they would respect those of another sister profession.) However, the commissioners will need to have a good grasp of medical ethics, in particular informed consent and first do no harm, as well as the many human rights. However, we presume Anthony Hill, with his Health and Disability Commission (HDC) experience, will comprehend the significance of these issues. We have complained repeatedly that the government’s response breached every one of the items of the HDC Code of Patients and Disability Rights.

We have particular concerns about:

the purpose of the Inquiry – to “strengthen preparedness for future pandemics”. (If that is the case, the next alleged bug will have ‘made and patented in Geneva’ stamped on it, and we’d suggest not to repeat anything government did last time around).
the limited time frame – February 2021 to October 2022. Very contortionist legal and pharmacovigilance manoeuvres occurred – and continue – after this period which need examination, including the full approval of the Covid injections, and the endless boosters not needing medsafe approval, approval of vaccine for under fives on dubious data, and the cessation of safety reporting whilst thousands of serious reports were ‘lost in the system’ (subsequently found, but not shown to the public).
exclusions such as ‘the specific epidemiology of the Covid-19 virus and its variants’. Luckily, infection fatality rate, or lethality, is a clinical feature, not just part of the epidemiology.
the lack of power to determine the civil, criminal, or disciplinary liability of any person, although the ability to compel witnesses is still unclear.
uncertainty about whether there will be public hearings – which would be, admittedly, Wellington’s worst nightmare. However, without public scrutiny the process and findings are unlikely to be trusted.

We are pleased that ‘vaccine safety, including the monitoring and reporting of adverse reactions’ is on the agenda. Medical ethics, persecution of warning voices, and rank silence in the face of the terrible toll will surely be on ours. And we will have evidence for every thing we say.

With regards to the purpose of the inquiry, preparing for the future, it is important to note that true ‘pandemics’ are extremely rare events, if they even occur at all. An infection that has a high mortality rate, usually does not spread far as the hosts succumb. An infection that has high infectivity or ability to spread is less likely to be lethal. The commissioners will be shown the nonsense of the “unprecedented global health emergency” early on.

We argue that the limited resources of the health system would be put to better use by addressing the fundamental determinants of health – access to healthy food and water, employment, places and opportunities for exercise and connection with nature. Prevention, in other words. The best preparedness for a future ‘health emergency’ or ‘pandemic’ is a population with robust good health.

Important Note: just as we post this, news comes that Covid Inquiry minister Brooke van Velden is planning to withhold the report from the (just finishing) Phase 1 of the RCI, possibly until 2026. Why? All we have is supposition at this stage, but we note that 2026 will be five years post signing the Pfizer contract, and perhaps a clause in there lapses. But the Israeli contract compelled hiding of serious adverse effects for 10 years, and Pfizer expected 75 years of secrecy on their own post-marketing data. Thankfully a US court disagreed. Also, the Phase 1 commissioners seem to have shifted their narratives somewhat as their inquiry went on, and perhaps the two new barrister commissioners have spotted imminent risks to parliament. It is curious that ex-PM Hipkins is crying foul, so presumably he expects the first phase to be favourable to his part in the Covid response. A charitable freedom-minded person could wonder if Brooke wants to avoid a touchy feely whitewash, knowing what powerful evidence will be delivered to Phase 2.