From nzdsos.com
By Mary Hobbs

Many people, especially ignorant people, want to punish you for speaking the truth, for being correct, for being you. Never apologize for being correct, or for being years ahead of your time. If you’re right and you know it, speak your mind. Speak your mind. Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is still the truth.
-Mahatma Gandhi

The Royal Commission of Inquiry-2 (RCI-2) revealed that COVID ‘vaccine’ safety concerns were concealed from Cabinet. Recommendations to limit mRNA vaccine use in children from 12 to 17 were ignored and put them at risk of myocarditis. Winston Peters reported that “Those risks, forced under mandate, directly affected over a hundred thousand children aged between 12 – 17 years old. This cannot be ignored.”

New Zealand First is now calling for a Select Committee Inquiry into the NZ Covid vaccine harm. The Hon Winston Peters stated that the RCI-2 did NOT go far enough in regard to vaccine harm. He is absolutely right, for throughout the RCI-2 report it alleges the so-called vaccine is “safe and effective”. How could children from 12 to 17 be at risk of myocarditis for a ‘vaccine’ touted as “safe and effective”? And how could this “risk” magically disappear at 18? What happens at 18? Or is the risk of myocarditis one of many side effects for all ages— as listed in the nine pages of adverse events published by Pfizer in 2021 (pages 31 – 38)? It is.  The government knew of the nine pages of adverse events of special interest that could be anticipated and for which specific observation and monitoring was to happen. The nine pages of adverse events was published in early 2021, but the government didn’t tell New Zealanders or put a hold on their programme to get as many as possible injected. Many, many New Zealanders suffered from such adverse events. Why wasn’t the product immediately withdrawn? Why isn’t it withdrawn now?

This information should have been nation-wide news, but it was heavily censored and those who tried to make it known were ridiculed, labelled “anti-vaxxers”, conspiracy theorists, spreaders of “mis-information and dis-information”, and more. The experimental gene-based jab should have immediately been withdrawn, but it wasn’t. Please note: For those who were forced to get this experimental injection, or for anyone who took it, there is hope and there are ways that you can help to detox your body. A good start would be to consult the clinic at www.nzdhhc.co.nz for a chat.

Since at least July 2021, likely earlier, it has been known that the government knew there were potentially serious side effects. The courageous NZDSOS — New Zealand Doctors Speaking Out with Science made this clear in an article published on 15 July 2021. That article can be seen here.

Additional proof that the former government knew of the dangers was confirmed when it was disclosed by Doctor Lily Nightingale that the government was aware of the nine pages of adverse eventspublished by Pfizer (at the insistence of a US Judge). This was before any experimental injections were given in this country. It is worth viewing this five-minute interview with Dr Nightingale, by Liz Gunn of Free NZ Media. (Links below the interview – since my writing of this article – no longer work. It showed the government was aware of the nine pages of adverse event.) It stated in response to an OIA: “However, I can advise that as a part of the provisional consent for the Comirnaty COVID-19 granted in New Zealand under the Medicines Act 1981, Pfizer has provided the same data, albeit in a form that meets the company’s legal obligations in New Zealand.”

It also stated in part of the OIA, “Death is not a side effect to vaccination but a possible outcome of a side effect …” But if the experimental injection had not been given, there would be no side effect, and no death as a result of the side effect. They write and speak in riddles. Dr David Martin doesn’t. He explains in the link that the genetic experimental injection is a bio-weapon. He is well-qualified to say that.

Why would a government and mainstream media censor such vital information? Why didn’t the government of that time, the Medical Council of New Zealand (MCNZ) and the Nursing Council of New Zealand (NCNZ) alert their members to this and call for an immediate withdrawal of the product? Why would the MCNZ order all doctors to tell patients it was safe and effective when it was not? Why do they threaten, fine, de-register and censure doctors who suggested caution and who disagreed? This interview with Bruce Dooley, by Liz Gunn of Free NZ Media, provides some illumination.

Why wouldn’t the government immediately order a stop to this harmful injection? Then — and now. Who do they really represent? Why did the RCI-2 not ask hard questions of the government of that time and order key MPs, Ardern, Hipkins and the Director-General of ‘Health’ to appear before them to answer questions in relation to this damning information?

Why did the RCI-2 dismiss valid, truthful, dissenting information presented to them as “misinformation and disinformation” and advise more mandates next time when they had such damning information before them?

How could the Inquiry possibly regard this genetic jab as “safe and effective” — which they stated many times through their report — in light of the above information, and the fact that, on a voluntary basis, New Zealand doctors logged over 35,830 adverse event reports of patients who received the experimental gene-tech injection? Those doctors must have felt sure of their findings to spend up to an hour of their time making those entries. The ability to do this was halted in 2024. Why, too many? Why was nothing done by Medsafe and government then? Is this because it was an embarrassing record for the government that proved the term “safe and effective” to be a lie? Embarrassing? It is more than embarrassing. It seems more like a crime scene.

Then there is the ‘awkward’ statistic with ACC who made it extremely difficult for New Zealanders to successfully claim for their ‘vaccine’ injury. Even so, over 18 million dollars in ACC claims has been paid out, with many more pending. How does that qualify as “safe and effective”?

New Zealanders came to the RCI-2 with their stories of heartbreak, illness, and the death of loved ones, after having an experimental gene-based therapy injection, falsely labelled a vaccine and alleged to be “safe and effective”. They did not present hearsay, or misinformed thoughts. Many had confirmation from two specialists their ill-health was caused by the experimental gene-based vaccine. It was a product that was unsafe, ineffective and could kill.

It took enormous effort and courage for many New Zealanders to testify before the RCI-2. Most harboured little in the way of hope that they would be genuinely heard by the Royal Commission of Inquiry-2 (RCI-2). Or that justice would be done, or that the evidence compiled would be thoroughly studied and taken into account. Including evidence from peer-reviewed studies by international specialists.

It was a fragile hope. One that burned brighter when over 30,000 New Zealanders took the time to write in confirming the factual reports of harm, illness, death and destruction that are so apparent throughout New Zealand today.

These New Zealanders were flanked by outstanding professional doctors and medical staff, such as NZDSOS — New Zealand Doctors Speaking Out with Science — amazing nurses, and other incredible souls, who steadfastly stood by their Code of Ethics, the Hippocratic Oath, the Nuremberg Code, and the New Zealand Bill of Rights. These professionals have endured a torturous road with shocking threats, inquisitions and harassment from the Medical Council of New Zealand (MCNZ). Other medical staff suffered in a similar manner through their respective professional councils. They also take their marching orders from dubious international off-shore organisations of which much has been exposed. Alongside them stood Voices for Freedom and Reality Check Radio. The gracious Lynda Wharton with True Stories of the Health Forum was there too, also with a wealth of factual data, accompanied by some of the New Zealanders who have been shockingly harmed from this injectable. The information from these sources was irrefutable, undeniable. Rock-solid.

Packed, factual information was presented to the RCI-2 by NZDSOS in a 382-page report entitled: Critique of the Official New Zealand Covid Response with a Focus on the Use of Vaccines: What the Evidence Says. RCR/VFF presented their 250+ page report, The People’s Position. And from Lynda Wharton of The Health Forum there was more. Each detail was studiously checked, rechecked and confirmed correct. There were many more from Dr Guy Hatchard, the Nurses Collective, the teachers, and thousands of others of New Zealanders.

These heroes and heroines, and over 30,000 other great New Zealanders, took the time to write in to the RCI-2,  in the hope that the RCI-2  may be lions for the truth, just as the revered Justice Mahon was when he courageously exposed the orchestrated litany of lies he discovered while leading an Inquiry into the Air New Zealand crash on Mt Erebus. Justice Mahon left the perfect blueprint for such an Inquiry as this.

Truth alone will endure. All the rest will be swept away before the tide of time.
-Mahatma Gandhi

---

NZDSOS and VFF/RCR gifted the Inquiry acres of proof. Hard, professional, factual data, painstakingly prepared and professionally presented by doctors, lawyers, and other valued New Zealanders, that ultimately did the job of the Inquiry. Instead, the RCI-2 chose to listen to (now refuted) statements from Professor Le Gros— among others — despite being alerted to this on 11 August 2025 by NZDSOS.

These courageous souls appear to have been betrayed. The RCI-2 may as well have ripped their intricately prepared pages of proof into confetti and thrown it throughout the country.

Proof that the injection was dangerous and ineffective was presented throughout the NZDSOS report, the People’s Position, and those of the thousands of New Zealanders, whose testimonies backed this up. It appears to have been neatly disposed of by filing it under the heading of “disinformation and misinformation”.

The RCI-2 appears to have wiped their hands of these truths. The “safe and effective” lie was peppered through the Inquiry report. In so doing, every New Zealander was betrayed, as it has perpetuated the lies of a deeply harmful psychological operation that has held New Zealand and the world in its grip for the past five years, with the RCI-2 strongly suggesting more of the same treatment for the “next” plandemic, at the same time as several States in the US are calling for it to be labelled the bioweapon it is, as defined by Dr David Martin. The question leads one to ask: Who is this RCI-2 trying to protect?

NZDSOS also included documentation to the Inquiry that proved the government knew that COVID-19 was not particularly dangerous or transmissible: “In NZ a Memorandum of Understanding between the Ministry of Health and Office of the Chief Coroner dated 18 Mar 2020 noted According to the Director of Public Health, COVID-19 does not have a particularly high mortality rate and it is not particularly transmissible.” 

“John Ioannidis, a world leading epidemiologist, wrote a paper in May 2020 (published Oct 2020) setting out the infection fatality rate (IFR) from c-19 during the period before vaccines with the allegedly more serious variants. His calculation was that c-19 had an IFR less than 0.2% in most locations. In a later paper, he estimated the IFR for those aged 0 to 69 in high income countries to be to be 0.098% That is 99.9% of those under 70 years of age would survive a c-19 infection. These death rates would have been further reduced by improvements in treatment.”

It was disappointing to hear that the night before the RCI-2 was due to interview RCR/VFF they were notified that the questions they were to be asked, for which they had extensively prepared, had changed. New questions were emailed. Regardless, they worked most of that night to prepare for the new questions. The next day, the new questions were asked out of order and caused unnecessary confusion. NZDSOS experienced a similar occurrence.

Why did the Inquiry seek to do this? There were no reports of it happening to Crown witnesses. The attitude towards those presenting dissenting evidence was also markedly different. Why was that? Why was their outstanding evidence ignored?

Could it have been even more disappointing than this? Apparently so, for as Dr Guy Hatchard notes in his recent article on this topic: “. . . the Commission is suggesting that its report should guide the implementation of new legislation which will set in concrete many of the biggest mistakes of the Covid era including the power to enforce vaccine mandates . . .”  This is in direct violation of the New Zealand Bill of Rights.

The Inquiry failed to interview the key figures of government or expose the lies told. Instead the lies have been perpetuated with suggestions to further cement the draconian, authoritarian mandates before the next plandemic.

It leaves many New Zealanders asking if that wasn’t the purpose of this RCI-2. Was it always the intention to briefly give the idea that the people had been ‘heard’ and to ring-fence dissenting groups and voices under the subtitle “misinformation and dis-information”? That would make it easier for government to then proceed to set up an increased authoritarian rule mandating all future gene-technology jabs for future ‘pandemics’, combined with lockdowns and increased loss of freedom, including digital currencies that police what you spend your money on and how far you travel? A digital prison? And we have already been told by eugenicist Gates (named in the Epstein files) and those associated with big pharma, that the ‘next’ plandemic will be ‘severe’. (It doesn’t take much to join the dots between that information with Dr David Martin’s classification of the last so-called vaccine as a bio-weapon, along with the relatively recent proliferation of cell-phone towers, apparently defined by the US military as Direct Energy Weapons.)

The RCI-2 also locked away key submissions, apparently forever. We don’t know what they said but surely they should be able to be viewed by the public who pay the wages of these public servants and the government? They have a right to know the contents of the submissions from Chris James, the Group Manager of Medsafe and from Dr Town, the chief science advisor to the Ministry of Health since 2019.

It is understood that Chris James noted he was unable to approve the so-called vaccine, so the government stepped sideways and had it approved by the Medicines Assessment Advisory Committee, MAAC. Chris James required 52 conditions be met, concerning manufacturing/quality data, with six more regarding additional clinical or safety information updates, before he would approve it. These were later signed off, although it is unclear by whom. Yet, as Lynda (Wharton) from True Stories from The Health Forum stated on 12 March 2026: The Ardern government ignored safety recommendations and refused medical exemptions.

An earlier account of Chris James hesitation was shown by The Health Forum here. On this link, Lynda, on a FB post on 27 February 2026, provides the clip of Chris James and the DG of ‘Health” Dr Bloomfield making the announcement about the approval of this experimental gene-tech injection. Lynda also enlarged on the back-story of Chris James and the granting of approval:

Medsafe’s clinical assessment found: (P95)

The duration of the vaccine protection has not been established beyond two months

At this stage, there is limited evidence of protection against severe disease.

There is no long-term safety follow-up information.

Vaccine prevention of asymptomatic infection and disease transmission has not been established.

The benefit risk balance of Comirnaty (COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine) is not clear.

At this stage, there is evidence only for short-term protection, and longer term safety data are lacking.”

Medsafe concluded: The benefit/risk balance of the vaccine was not clear because of data limitations (p96). On that basis Medsafe also concluded: Due to the unresolved concerns and additional quality, safety and efficacy data to be provided at the time of completion of the evaluation, Medsafe is unable to recommend that this product be granted consent.

Medsafe then passed the product application to another drug advisory committee (MAAC).

Seven days before this video Chris James wrote to Pfizer Australia saying: “Having reviewed the information supplied in your initial application and in your further responses, I am not satisfied that I should give my consent to the distribution of this product.” (P119)

MAAC then met on 2 February to consider the application. The minutes do not record MAAC making any independent evaluation of the Benefit/Risk Assessment. At this meeting MAAC decided to recommend the Provisional Approval of the Pfizer mRNA vaccine and they stated (referring to lack of data for elderly, frail, immunocompromised, Maori and Pasifika): However the clinical picture on efficacy and safety will become clearer over time as more people receive the vaccine. (P128). At the same meeting MAAC noted: “The data on long terminal half-life of the lipid nanoparticles was considered unusual but unlikely to be a safety concern, as only two doses are intended to be administered.” (P127).

They also noted: “The need for more information on potential safety signals such as reactogenicity, anaphylaxis, vaccine-associated enhanced disease and facial paralysis.”(p129).

---

True Stories from the Health Form also posted a copy of minutes from Medsafe from February 2021 where they state that the Pfizer ‘vaccine’ is a new vaccine employing a novel technology (mRNA) and they also note “The product is a high risk prescription medicine . . .” All while New Zealanders were told it was “safe and effective”. On the same day of this post (6 March 2026) it was noted that NZ ACC fatal mRNA claims payment(s) had now reached $1,284,253. That certainly doesn’t sound safe and effective.

This Health Forum FB post shows a video of the Director General of Health and the Group Manager of Medsafe, Chris James, who, as Lynda observed, looked downcast. They both knew of the above safety concerns — copied above — yet Bloomfield stressed the safety and efficacy of the Pfizer mRNA.

Why would an Inquiry that is meant to be open, hide the submissions of two key government employees? What has been kept hidden? These submissions should be released. After all, it is already widely known that there were concerns expressed by Chris James of Medsafe in regard to the safety and effectiveness of the injectables. As mentioned, New Zealanders have a right to know the details of their submissions. The Inquiry has left New Zealanders in more peril. That should not be the result of such an Inquiry.

An interview by RCR this week with trusted professionals at the coalface, Dr Matt Shelton, Dr Guy Hatchard and Lynda Wharton, gives an excellent summary of the RC-2. It can be heard here.

As Dr Matt Shelton commented this week: “The country is a crime scene . . .and the Royal Commission just left the doors wide open.”

The Inquiry does act as a Code though. New Zealanders are learning that whatever is alleged to be and safe and effective is the opposite. Whatever should be avoided is probably good for us. Those labelled as speaking “misinformation and disinformation” are the truth-tellers. It is they who will have the evidence that the government and the government-paid Inquiry teams don’t wish us to know. It almost seems futile to have further Inquiries as at this stage many thousands of New Zealanders consider government committees little more than deputised foxes in the chicken-house. They simply parrot the government lines and do their bidding, no matter what facts are presented, especially if this is anything to go by.

Winston suggests a Select Committee of Inquiry. That may work, but only if it has members on it who are courageous and ethical enough to immediately withdraw this product, expose the truth, call those responsible for the damage to account, and demonstrably help those who have been injured and/or bereaved.

It seems we need to bypass the sources of corruption that have repeatedly failed New Zealanders and, instead, include genuine representatives of the people on an Inquiry — those who have held fast to their Code of Ethics over the past six years, despite appalling treatment. Any such Inquiry must give them the power to do all that is enlarged upon in the above paragraph.

A criminal investigation would possibly have teeth, but again, only if we can be assured there is no bias. Perhaps there could be a Justice Committee — something like the new Justice Watch group that recently wrote an Open Letter to the Prime Minister about the findings of the RC-2 in regard to the dangers of the experimental injectable given to children between the ages of 12 – 17.  Again, they must be able to have the power to bring justice.

The Inquiry has contributed to the growing crescendo of protesting New Zealanders. Any fragile trust tentatively given for this process, and in government, has plummeted. Any remaining sliver of trust has vanished.

But the trust we have in each other is stronger than ever.

The truth will always come out. Right now, its bursting at the seams.

This is just the tip of the iceberg.

When I despair, I remember that all through history the way of truth and love has always won. There have been tyrants and murderers and for a time they seem invincible, but in the end, they always fall… think of it, always.
-Mahatma Gandhi

SOURCE

Image by Andrea Spallanzani from Pixabay