The Silenced Dr. Guy Hatchard & His Open letter to New Zealand’s Covid Inquiry

December 3, 2025 Pam Vernon Leave a comment

The silencing of those who don’t comply with the official (lying) narrative! EWNZ …

From Dr Guy Hatchard
via expose-news.com

“…any existence of a relationship between Covid vaccination and all-cause mortality in the absence of Covid infection should have been a red flag…”

expose-news comment:
Due to his expertise, Dr. Guy Hatchard was invited to correspond with senior government advisors before the Covid vaccine rollout in New Zealand. By the end of October 2021, he was excluded entirely from email interaction with government advisors. “My input was cancelled,” he said.

Dr. Hatchard requested a meeting with the Royal Commissioners of New Zealand’s covid inquiry, “I was in a unique position to offer invaluable information to the Commission.” His request was denied.

The Commissioners are now preparing their report. To set the record straight and make a “sincere attempt to serve the needs of justice,” Dr. Hatchard has written an open letter to the Commissioners.

The following is an open letter written by Dr. Hatchard to the Royal Commissioners on Covid-19 Lessons Learned, Phase 2.

Dear Grant Illingworth KC and fellow Commissioners

I understand from your latest panui that you are currently assessing the evidence you have gathered in order to prepare your final report. Although the Hatchard Report submitted evidence to the Commission, our request for a meeting with yourselves was not granted. As I was in a unique position to offer invaluable information to the Commission, I believe an opportunity was missed. I would like to set the record straight in a last-minute, sincere attempt to serve the needs of justice.

In March 2021, immediately prior to the Covid vaccine rollout, I was personally invited to correspond with senior individuals who had been appointed to advise the government. These included a leading epidemiologist, a well-known business leader and a member of the Skegg Committee. My academic background includes the use of sophisticated time series analysis to test for causal factors in social and economic data. My early input was well received. For example, Professor Michael Baker replied to one of my comments:

“Thank you for that very lucid description of our current state of knowledge around Covid-19 and the uncertainties – which are large. I agree about the importance of trying to keep an open, evidence-informed debate about future options.”

I was well aware that mRNA vaccine technology was both novel and already well recognised in the scientific literature to involve unique risks. Early on, I took advantage of my contacts in the global biotechnology research sector to gather advice about these risks and to find out more about Covid origins.

There was a consensus among my contacts, who were actively doing research on genetic medicine, that Covid originated in a laboratory, but there was a reluctance to go public with this information for fear of losing their position. It was also apparent that, despite the known risks of mRNA vaccination technology, there was a reluctance to dismiss its use, rather my contacts believed the severity of the early variants circulating overseas dictated that Covid vaccination should be a matter of informed personal choice.

In other words, the risks should be a matter of public knowledge and discussion, and the effects of vaccination should be deeply researched and assessed. This was the extent of my understanding as my correspondence with government advisors commenced – I believed we should err on the side of caution. Government policy was keeping Covid out of the country, which could have bought us time to assess the safety of the vaccine as it was used overseas before we rolled it out here in NZ. In the pressured atmosphere of the early pandemic, this opportunity was missed.

It immediately became apparent to me that because NZ was almost completely free of Covid infection, due primarily to border controls, contact tracing and social isolation measures, we were in a unique position to assess any effects of the novel mRNA vaccine in the absence of confounding factors related to Covid infection. No other country in the world had this opportunity to the degree NZ enjoyed. Therefore, I took the responsibility of my contact with senior government advisors very seriously indeed. As the vaccine rollout began, I monitored published scientific papers on Covid and used my data skills to assess any vaccine effects.

Early on, I pointed out that lifestyle factors including diet and exercise, and alternative medical strategies to combat comorbidities could critically affect Covid outcomes and should be a factor in government policy to ensure a satisfactory long-term public health outcome.

But over the second quarter of 2021, as the vaccine rollout gathered pace, my correspondence with government advisors revealed that there was an overwhelming consensus that vaccination would contain Covid, despite the fact that overseas Covid data was not supporting this contention. By July a number of studies and assessments in the USA and Israel (with 59% of the population vaccinated at the time) revealed that Covid vaccination did not stop transmission and that any effectiveness at preventing hospitalisation fell dramatically within 10 weeks of vaccination and disappeared entirely within 180 days.

The reaction of the government team was instructive. A member of the Skegg Committee wrote to me suggesting that Covid was being spread in the general population by children who, at that stage, were not yet vaccinated. This suggestion did not have any supporting data; it merely reflected a predetermined policy to get everyone vaccinated as soon as possible. I wrote back, warning about the dangers of an overconfidence in Covid vaccination that did not fit the actual data.

In August, a preprint paper reported that the natural immunity acquired through Covid infection was 13 times more effective at preventing reinfection than Covid vaccination in the absence of prior infection. I circulated this among government advisors. The Skegg Committee member wrote back:

“A protective immune signature is often elusive and vaccines are actually quite primitive in design, and often don’t need to be anything other than that. For covid vaccination, we are actually still in the first generation and there will be lots of improvements – to dosing, dose interval, boosting and adjusting for variants. The fact that one has to give them to everyone to protect the few from falling victim (death) is unlikely to ever change I wouldn’t have thought. And the chances of other ‘interventions’ having anything like their protective effect is remote in my view.”

In other words, even though data was showing that mRNA Covid shots were not proving effective, there was such a deep-seated faith in the principle of vaccination that the actual data and the novel nature of mRNA vaccines was being ignored in the expectation that vaccine developers would get it right in the end. But by September, it became clear that the data showed Covid vaccination was not preventing deaths. I emailed the government team:

“I ran a linear regression for 190 countries between percentage of the population vaccinated and deaths per million during the last seven days. There is no significant correlation (+0.034) … I believe this points to a general principle that: it is factors and policies other than vaccination which primarily affect outcomes in a nation. Determining those factors is critical in understanding the pandemic and its possible solutions. From this point of view I am increasingly of the opinion that the current government messaging is becoming misleading. The majority emphasis on vaccination targets is giving the impression that a high level of vaccination alone will guarantee freedom from Covid.”

My early correlation finding was subsequently supported by a published study. The Skegg Committee member wrote back to me:

“I think you are right that studies have also shown that high vaccine coverage will not alone contain outbreaks. And that, given our still low 2-dose vaccine coverage, we are presently in a very risky situation.”

In other words, in his opinion, the solution to the lack of Covid vaccine effectiveness was more frequent mRNA vaccination. This did not appear to make sense, especially as reports of high rates of vaccine adverse effects were multiplying. Studies were beginning to be published showing that the risk of Covid infection for younger age groups was very low but the risk of adverse effects of Covid vaccination might be higher. These were red flags which were being ignored here in New Zealand.

In October, I received a reply from the Skegg committee member to my concerns about a teenage girl who had died suddenly following Covid vaccination. He dismissed this as a likely adverse effect of the oral contraceptive, not a possible effect of Covid vaccination. I raised other similar cases of sudden death following Covid vaccination but by the end of October, I was excluded entirely from email interaction with government advisors. My input was cancelled. By this time, the government was set on a policy of vaccine mandates, despite the growing evidence of harm. Universal Covid vaccine mandates for some professions and movement restrictions on the unvaccinated were extended during November. At this point, I believed there was an overwhelming public interest to raise my voice, to go public with my concerns and put analysis of NZ Covid data on a scientific footing.

Data for weekly all-cause deaths by age was available. Weekly Covid vaccine totals by age were being announced. It was therefore possible to undertake a time series analysis to determine whether increases in vaccine rates were followed by increases in deaths. I undertook this analysis for the 60+ age cohort. I compared weekly vaccination numbers in New Zealand with weekly deaths (all causes) for the 60+ age group between 7 March 2021 and 31 October 2021. This period corresponded to the exclusive rollout of the Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine. There were very few cases of Covid-19 active in the community during this period and therefore the effect of the Pfizer Covid vaccination could be studied largely free of the confounding factors of Covid deaths. My time series analysis found a positive effect of vaccination on deaths (all causes) at a lag of one week (t(33) = 1.74, p = 0.045 one-tailed). Tests showed the results cannot be plausibly attributed to spurious regression due to nonstationarity. The analysis found that vaccination was associated with 434 additional all-cause deaths during the week following vaccination among individuals aged 60+. This age cohort received a total of 2.8 million vaccine doses during the experimental period. The finding of additional deaths is roughly consistent with available reports of all cause deaths proximate to vaccination that were reported. The full text of the analysis is available at Research Gate.

There are limitations to this analysis. There is no doubt that the collection of vaccination totals by week would have been to an unknown extent subject to haphazard data collection and recording due to the rush involved, but any existence of a relationship between Covid vaccination and all-cause mortality in the absence of Covid infection should have been a red flag. Moreover, the possible association should have been obvious even to a casual observer of the above graph which was widely publicised at the time and fully available to those in government and the medical establishment who should have been assessing the possible effects of the Covid vaccine rollout.

As many others will have pointed out to you, the government became tardy in publicly acknowledging the risks of Covid vaccination. For example, it was not until fully six months after the risk of myocarditis and pericarditis was well known in scientific literature that Dr. Ashley Bloomfield wrote to DHBs to warn them. The failure to alert the public to proven risks had dire consequences. In 2022, a prospective study in Thailand found 30% of teenagers suffered adverse cardiac symptoms following mRNA vaccination. In April 2023, we reported data from the Wellington region showing an 83% increase in hospitalisation for heart attacks. In 2024, we reported a staggering increase in ED visits for chest pain among people under 40 and a 188% rise in mortality risk among NZ teens following Covid-19 vaccination. More recently, high-quality large population studies have found relatively higher cancer rates among the Covid vaccinated compared to the unvaccinated. In 2025, our St John ambulance emergency calls remain at record highs, 60% above pre-pandemic levels. Health insurance premiums have doubled over the same time frame. Our health system is overwhelmed.

These alarming health statistics result from some key mistakes that were made in the early years of the pandemic that could have been avoided, which I summarise as follows:

A. There was a failure to take account of the known character and depth of the serious risks posed by novel genetic interventions as used by the Covid vaccines. The adverse outcomes of past gene therapy trials and the results of prior animal studies were ignored. Warnings of some internationally prominent microbiologists were wrongly dismissed as conspiracy theories.

B. Instead, authorities followed a policy which naively and wrongly assumed the risks and possible adverse effects of mRNA vaccines were similar to prior traditional vaccines. In this way, they limited the number and type of conditions which might conceivably be related to Covid vaccination. They dismissed as unrelated, high rates of red flag adverse vaccine reactions including neurological effects, kidney damage, immune deficiency, psychological effects, cardiac issues and sudden deaths which were occurring at unprecedented high frequencies.

C. The absence of any studies of the longer-term effects of Covid vaccines should have led to rigorous pharmacovigilance monitoring. Instead authorities assumed that any adverse effects would only surface during the first 21-30 days following vaccination, thus crippling their potential to assess and understand potential Covid vaccine outcomes, including cancers. Border controls and contact tracing largely excluded Covid infection in NZ during 2021, giving NZ a unique opportunity to assess the effects of Covid vaccination in isolation from Covid infection. This opportunity was lost.

D. Authorities actively sought to suppress and discredit those asking questions and raising concerns on both local and international platforms, including valid scientific results and discussions. They made repeated public assurances of safety and efficacy in the face of contrary evidence and sought to control media and social media content and discussions, apparently in order to suppress Covid vaccine hesitancy. They severely disciplined doctors offering informed consent.

E. The government sought scientific advice mostly from committed vaccine advocates who had a very limited understanding of gene technology. They too readily accepted the clearly biased communications from Pfizer advising safety and positive trial outcomes. Crucially, ignoring the alarming details of wide-scale high-frequency adverse events contained in the document ‘5.3.6 Cumulative analysis of post-authorization adverse event reports of Pfizer bnt162b2 received through 28-feb-2021’, a version of which our government received in 2021 and whose implications have been thoroughly analysed in the published scientific literature.

F. In assessing the massive volume of scientific publishing on Covid-19 which runs to many more than 100,000 papers, there was a failure to take account of the known hierarchy of evidence. The results of prospective studies, time series analysis, studies of large populations, studies comparing outcomes of vaccinated and unvaccinated populations and studies examining longer-term outcomes should have taken precedence. If this had been followed, dangers would have been apparent and problems averted.

G. As time went by and evidence of harm in the population both here and overseas began to accumulate, authorities attempted to limit access to key NZ source data, especially concerning specific parameters such as vaccine status, cardiac disease, cancer, excess mortality, etc. Those figures that remained accessible or were leaked painted a very grim picture of accelerating ill health since 2020, which continues to be ignored by Health NZ or erroneously blamed on factors that have remained largely unchanged since 2020. Yet it has become ever clearer that the rate of Covid vaccine injuries reported to CARM is only the very tip of the iceberg. A Covid death whistle-blower Barry Young is still facing prosecution. Doctors raising questions about Covid vaccines are still being censored.

It is apparent that long-term public health outcomes have been harmed by the combination of Covid infection and vaccination. Both of these almost certainly resulted from biotechnology experimentation. The failure of the government and Health NZ to come to grips with the implications of the health data needs to be exposed and discussed publicly. Your role as Commissioners requires a full examination of the scientific data that has been so far ignored here in NZ. I remain available to discuss these issues, they are within the Commission’s terms of reference. They should not be omitted from your final report. This is a matter directly affecting public health and longevity.

Yours sincerely
Guy Hatchard PhD, 1 December 2025

Guy Hatchard, PhD, Biography

Guy Hatchard is the creator and principal contributor to the Hatchard Report. He has been a life-long advocate of food safety. He was formerly Director of Natural Products at Genetic ID, a global food safety testing and certification company now known as FoodChain ID. Genetic ID developed techniques to test for the presence of genetically modified organisms in food and provided services to bulk food trading companies like ADM, Cargill, and many others in order to facilitate access to export markets and increase consumer trust. He has presented his findings to governments and industry leaders around the world. He appeared before the NZ Royal Commission on Genetic Modification and has been a key figure in discussions since 2017 which eventually led to the repeal of the Natural Products Bill. He has written a book Your DNA Diet which is available from Amazon.

He received his BSc Hons. from the University of Sussex, UK, in Logic and Theoretical Physics with a special focus on the scientific method. He qualified with a Certificate in Teaching from Canterbury Teachers College, Christchurch. His MA thesis at Maharishi International University (MIU), Iowa, analysed outcomes of mastery learning in Mathematics. His PhD thesis in Psychology at MIU investigated the impact of human factors on national competitive advantage using time series analysis. Maharishi International University (MIU) is fully accredited by the Higher Learning Commission (HLC) which is recognised by the US Department of Education and the Council on Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA). It incorporates principles of consciousness-based education (CBE). CBE includes traditional subjects while also cultivating the student’s potential from within. He has published papers in peer reviewed journals and was the keynote speaker at the 1996 annual conference of the British Psychological Society on Crime.

Featured image taken from NZ Royal Commission Covid-19 Lessons Learned

digital ID, News, Surveillance

Quietly introduced last June, From December 27, Every Internet Search Will Require Digital ID Verification in Australia

December 2, 2025 Pam Vernon Leave a comment

The noose tightens … by degrees … EWNZ

From David Strom
via Robin Westenra @ substack

I did not know this until I ran across a post on X, but come December 27, 2025, every internet search any person makes will require Digital ID verification before it can be completed.

If the search engine provider fails to check for your ID, they face a $50 million fine. For each “breach” of the law.

Needless to say, I am pretty sure that search engines will comply with the law.

Australians will soon be subjected to mandatory age checks across the internet landscape, in what has been described as a huge and unprecedented change.

Search engines are next in line for the same controversial age-assurance technology behind the teen social media ban, and other parts of the internet are likely to follow suit.

At the end of June, Australia quietly introduced rules forcing companies such as Google and Microsoft to check the ages of logged-in users, in an effort to limit children’s access to harmful content such as pornography.

But experts have warned the move could compromise Australians’ privacy online and may not do much to protect young people.

“I have not seen anything like this anywhere else in the world,” said Lisa Given, professor of Information Sciences from RMIT, who specialises in age-assurance technology.

“As people learn about the implications of this, we will likely see people stepping up and saying, ‘Wait a minute, why wasn’t I told that this was going to happen?’”

From December 27, Google — which dominates the Australian search market with a share of more than 90 per cent — and its rival, Microsoft, will have to use some form of age-assurance technology on users when they sign in, or face fines of almost $50 million per breach.

The search results for logged-in users under the age of 18 will be filtered for pornography, high-impact violence, material promoting eating disorders and a range of other content.

Despite the apparent magnitude of the shift, it has mostly gone unnoticed, in stark contrast to the political and media fanfare surrounding the teen social media ban, which will block under-16s from major platforms using similar technology.

It’s for the children, you see. Because of course it is. Everything is for the children.

Read at the link below

SOURCE

Image by Oleksandr Pidvalnyi from Pixabay

agenda 21/30, GMO, News

They’re deliberately planning to starve us to death (Dr Vernon Coleman)

December 1, 2025 Pam Vernon Leave a comment

From Dr Vernon Coleman MB ChB DSc

Back in 2020, in a video which was censored and removed almost before it appeared I warned that the conspirators wanted to starve us and freeze us to death. The video was called `They’re going to starve us and freeze us to death’ and it was published on the 1st July 2020. (You can read the transcript in my book `Covid-19: The Greatest Hoax in History’.)

That was the plan then.

And it is still the plan. It is the reason why energy and food prices and soaring and why food supplies are becoming scarcer. Remember, nothing bad is happening by accident.

Starvation is being created quite deliberately as part of the plan to reduce the world’s population.

Encouraged by cultist-controlled politicians, vast quantities of the world’s crops of corn, soy bean and so on, are being used to make biofuels so that motorists can continue to buy cheap petrol for their motor cars. A while ago, a list of 51 things you and I can do to prevent global warming was published. Number 1 on their list was headed ‘Turn food into fuel’. This, it was claimed, would have a ‘high impact’ on the global warming problem. It was suggested that ethanol is the alternative fuel that ‘could finally wean the US from its expensive oil habit and in turn prevent the millions of tons of carbon emissions that go with it.’

This is dangerous nonsense. When more land is used to grow biofuels, so that ‘green’ motorists can drive around feeling virtuous, there is less land for growing food and an increase in the number of people starving to death.

The demand for biofuels has been soaring for years (despite the knowledge that, as a result, people are starving) and the increased use of biofuel is a major force behind the rise of food prices. If greens keep promoting biofuels then there is going to be a global shortage of food and millions more are going to die as a result.

There are other problems with our food supplies, of course.

Big American seed companies have been busy patenting the rights to many individual seeds. They have done this so that they can force farmers around the world to buy their products. One result has been that small farmers in India are no longer allowed to grow seeds from crops that their families have been planting for generations. If they do, then lawyers for American multinationals will smother them with writs and injunctions.

As a result, the incidence of suicide among small farmers in developing countries is terrifyingly high.

Finally, large modern farms are remarkably (and surprisingly) inefficient. When the fuel used to build tractors, make fertilisers and pesticides and so on is taken into account, it turns out that the energy cost of a kilogram of corn has actually risen in the last few decades. Soil erosion, the loss of pollinators (such as bees) who have been killed by chemicals, evolving chemical resistance by pests and numerous other environmental problems have also reduced farm crops.

The result of all this is that food is becoming scarce and prices are rising. This is not a cyclical change (with prices falling or rising due to changes in the weather). It is a structural change and it is, I fear, permanent.

As far as food prices are concerned, the conditions really are optimum for a ‘perfect storm’. At first glance it appears that things really couldn’t get much worse.

But, actually, they could.

Governments everywhere are preventing people growing their own food, keeping chickens or trying to look after themselves. They don’t want citizens to be independent.

Taxation systems are being used to discourage farmers and the number of farms is disappearing rapidly. In the UK, 13,000 farms have just disappeared and the average British farmer is 59 years old because young people see no future in growing food. `I don’t know what’s wrong with the Government,’ said one naïve farmer earlier this week. `It’s almost as they’re trying to get rid of farmers and close down all the farms.’

Extraordinarily, most farmers have no idea what is going on. Around the world, farmers still assume that they’re dealing with incompetence rather than a malignant conspiracy to destroy everything we hold dear. Farming, health care, energy supplies, education, transport and the economy are all being systematically and deliberately destroyed to take us through Net Zero into the terrifying Great Reset.

`You will own nothing and be happy,’ isn’t just a slogan. It’s the future they have planned for us.

Food rationing takes place more often than people realise. Supermarkets carry three to five days of stock and every slight problem leads to shortages. In 2010 there were 61 food banks in the UK – today there are 2,500 and that isn’t enough. And the UK is supposedly the sixth richest country in the world. Rickets and scurvy are coming back and there is a malnutrition crisis. Millions eat nothing but junk and there is an obesity crisis too. The National Health Service in the UK spends £6.5 billion a year on obesity. Doctors and politicians want more people to be given weight loss drugs which I consider too dangerous to be used as landfill. Naturally, no one agrees with me (though as the side effects become apparent a few people are noticing that there is a huge price to pay for a jab that helps you lose weight without the pain of dieting). Meanwhile, only the wealthiest can afford decent food.

Re-wilding schemes are used to make farming impractical or impossible. Forever chemicals are put into our food to poison us. There are hormones in beef and chlorine in chickens. Even the packaging is dangerous. Would you believe it? (You should). They’re poisoning our air, our water and our food and they’ve even poisoning the damned packaging. It would be easier for them to just shoot us all but they’d have to pay for the bullets. This way we poison ourselves.

American genetic engineers have been ‘modifying’ food for years to make it more profitable. No one knows what effect their modifications will have on the safety of food for human consumption. No one knows what other horrendous side effects there might be. The risks are unbelievably dangerous. So, for example, if every farmer in the world grows the same ‘brand’ of potato and that potato is hit by a deadly disease then there won’t be any potatoes.

For those in Europe and America all this is not yet quite critical.

But for those in many other parts of the world this is already an outright disaster. In some countries nearly half of all children are malnourished. And things are getting worse and will continue to get worse. Rising prices and falling quantities of food available for eating (as opposed to filling petrol tanks) will result in massive starvation around the world. The fake coronavirus hoax, and the consequent economic problems which will devastate economies everywhere, will exacerbate the problem. As a result, the incidence of global starvation is set to rocket.

It’s no good saying that the planet isn’t overcrowded (it isn’t) or that there is plenty of food (there is), for the inescapable fact is that as a result of policies controlled by international organisations controlled by the United States of America, at least five million infants and small children die each year – in a good year. That figure is set to rocket in India, Nigeria and the Congo and elsewhere. The number of people in extreme poverty around the world could soon double to over 200 million.

The racist and elitist policies of the climate change enthusiasts who want us to stop using oil will, if they are successful, be responsible for billions of deaths. And, of course, as I have repeatedly warned, spraying chemicals into the sky to block the sun is making things far, far worse.

The billionaires assume that they know best about everything (because they are rich) and that the end always justifies the means. Their arrogance has also helped them become ever richer. In the last two decades billions of dollars have moved from the middle classes to the billionaire classes. Real wages have been falling and the value of savings, investments and pensions has fallen steadily while the billionaires have got ever richer. It is difficult to avoid the feeling that the conspirators have for years now been on a very effective mission to destroy American and Europe from within.

The unavoidable truth is that everything needs energy and without energy everything stops. The climate change believers have pushed energy costs ever higher and if they are able to understand even the simplest scientific evidence, they must know that renewables will never replace carbon based fuels. However, it is largely thanks to the efforts of bankers and politicians that capital spending on fossil fuels has fallen dramatically and fuel production has dropped 30% since 2020.

The bottom line is that disaster is closer than most people imagine.

NOTE
The above essay is based on Vernon Coleman’s book `Their Terrifying Plan’.