I'm for justice and equity for all peoples everywhere. I am also for exposing lies and corruption, particularly the lies of the corporations that have a tight grip on humanity, all for profit and control. A grip that has been instrumental in the rape and pillage of indigenous peoples planet wide, for centuries.
This interview was recorded approximately a year ago, but nearly every word remains valuable. Since then, the predictions made have proven disturbingly accurate. Ozempic has been approved for expanded use and is now widely reimbursed by insurance companies.
The pharmaceutical industry has created a system where every major institution—medical schools, research organizations, professional societies, media, and even civil rights groups—profits when Americans get sick and stay sick. These companies pay doctors directly to prescribe their products, fund the research that claims their drugs work, control the medical education that teaches doctors what to prescribe, and buy off the news media that should be investigating these practices.
The result is that 80 percent of American adults are overweight or obese, rates of diabetes and prediabetes continue to climb, and the proposed solution is a drug that costs $20,000 per year, must be taken for life, causes severe gastrointestinal problems in many patients, and doesn’t address the root cause of the problem. The fact that this drug was fast-tracked for government funding while metabolic disease continues to worsen reveals the moral bankruptcy of the system.
With grateful thanks to Tucker Carlson and Mr. Means, here is their interview. It was edited for readability.
Obesity is not an Ozempic deficiency. This simple fact exposes the fundamental corruption at the heart of the pharmaceutical industry’s latest blockbuster drug. When 80 percent of American adults are overweight or obese due to environmental factors—subsidized junk food, corrupted dietary guidelines, and a food system designed to addict—the answer is not a $20,000-per-year injectable drug that must be taken for life.
Yet that is precisely the solution the pharmaceutical industry has sold to America. Through systematic manipulation of medical research, regulatory capture, and direct payments to doctors and institutions, drug manufacturers have positioned Ozempic and similar GLP-1 drugs to become the most expensive medical intervention in U.S. history. The predictions made when this strategy began have proven disturbingly accurate. The drug received expanded approval, widespread insurance reimbursement, and government funding. Lawsuits over severe side effects have materialized. The corruption has continued. And obesity rates keep climbing—because the system profits from managing disease, not curing it.
If you clean a dirty fish tank, you clean the tank—you don’t drug the fish. In America, the tank is filthy. Fifty percent of teens and 80 percent of adults are overweight. This happened in one generation. Americans didn’t systematically become lazier over the past 40 years. Something in the environment changed.
The Medical Problems
Novo Nordisk, the Danish company that makes Ozempic, surpassed LVMH to become the most valuable company in Europe. European regulators do not allow Ozempic as a first-line treatment for obesity, so almost all of its revenue comes from exploiting the broken U.S. healthcare system, as American insurance companies now widely reimburse for it.
The drug works by paralyzing the stomach, preventing proper digestion. This mechanism causes severe gastrointestinal problems in many patients. Nearly 3,000 lawsuits have been consolidated in the Pennsylvania federal court alleging gastroparesis, intestinal blockages, and ileus. The FDA has updated Ozempic’s warning label multiple times since 2023—adding warnings for ileus in September 2023, severe gastrointestinal reactions in January 2025, and pulmonary aspiration during anesthesia in November 2024.
Even patients who receive the drug for free through insurance coverage cannot tolerate it. 30% discontinue use within 3 months despite full reimbursement. The gastrointestinal side effects are that severe. Those who stop the drug regain the weight—a fact Novo Nordisk acknowledges. The company markets Ozempic as a lifetime drug precisely because patients regain weight after stopping. This creates the perfect business model: a drug that never cures the condition it treats, ensuring permanent revenue.
Vision loss is one of the most serious complications. Multiple studies published in 2024 and 2025 link semaglutide use to non-arteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy (NAION), a condition causing irreversible blindness. Patients with obesity taking semaglutide for weight loss face more than seven times the risk of developing high rates of NAION compared to those not using the drug. Diabetic patients on semaglutide face four times the risk. The World Health Organization issued a warning about this in June 2025. Hundreds of patients have filed lawsuits claiming permanent vision loss from these drugs.
The European Union launched an investigation into suicidal ideation caused by Ozempic. This connection is not surprising. Ninety-five percent of serotonin, which regulates mood and contentment, is made in the gut. A drug that paralyzes gut function disrupts serotonin production. When you interfere with the gut and serotonin simultaneously, mental health problems follow. Reports of increased depression, anxiety, and suicidal thoughts from Ozempic users continue to accumulate.
Research published in January 2025 revealed additional side effects beyond gastrointestinal and vision problems: kidney stones, arthritis, fainting, and drug-induced pancreatitis. Nearly 40 percent of hypoglycemia cases and 15 percent of gastrointestinal cases required hospitalization. Studies have also linked GLP-1 drugs to reduced bone density when used without exercise, raising concerns about long-term musculoskeletal damage. An aging population taking a medication that weakens bones while simultaneously causing balance problems from blood sugar fluctuations represents a fracture epidemic waiting to happen.
Patients suffer severe side effects. Many cannot continue taking the drug. Those who stop regain the weight. The drug does not address why Americans got fat in the first place. It manages a symptom at astronomical cost while the underlying dysfunction continues.
How the Corruption Works
The pharmaceutical industry has refined a systematic approach to corrupting medicine over the course of decades. This playbook operates at multiple levels, involving doctors, researchers, medical societies, civil rights groups, and media organizations. Understanding this system is essential to understanding how Ozempic became the preferred solution to obesity despite its problems.
Pharmaceutical companies pay doctors directly to prescribe their drugs. Studies show that 94 percent of physicians have some relationship with the pharmaceutical industry. These relationships include payments for continuing medical education, speaking fees, consulting arrangements, and research grants. The payments influence prescribing behavior without making doctors feel bought. The industry frames these payments as compensation for expertise, not bribes. Research demonstrates that physicians who receive industry payments are two to three times more likely to prescribe name-brand drugs than their peers who don’t receive payments.
Beyond individual doctors, companies engage in “ghost management” of medical research. In this process, company representatives design studies, collect data, analyze results, and write research papers. They then pay prominent academic physicians to add their names as authors. Industry-sponsored research masquerades as independent academic work, borrowing the (supposed) legitimacy of medical science while serving corporate interests. When studies are funded by the company that sells the drug, the outcomes are substantially more favorable for that drug than in trials run by independent researchers. This systematic bias doesn’t come from poor methodology that traditional quality measures would catch—it comes from the funding itself.
Pharmaceutical companies fund the majority of continuing medical education for doctors, which is required to maintain medical licenses. By controlling this education, companies introduce bias toward their products while maintaining the facade of objective medical instruction. Studies of company-funded educational sessions consistently show bias toward the sponsor’s products.
Professional medical societies, which have statutory authority to set standards of care, receive substantial funding from pharmaceutical companies. The organizations that determine which drugs doctors should prescribe are funded by the companies that profit from those drugs. This obvious conflict of interest goes unaddressed because the arrangement is so pervasive that it’s considered normal.
Novo Nordisk is the largest spender on foundational obesity research, the largest funder to medical groups like the American Academy of Pediatrics, and one of the largest funders of civil rights groups. The company paid the NAACP to frame opposition to Ozempic funding as a civil rights issue, and the NAACP is now a registered lobbyist for Ozempic. It argues that not supporting government funding is racist because obesity disproportionately affects specific communities. When a pharmaceutical company can pay civil rights organizations to accuse critics of racism, the corruption has reached a new state of depravity.
The American Academy of Pediatrics recommended Ozempic as a first-line treatment for obese teens based on a 68-week study. This study led the AAP to recommend that every obese or overweight teen—50 percent of American teenagers—receive weekly injections for life. The study duration was just over one year. No long-term safety data existed, yet the medical establishment recommended universal adoption.
Pharmaceutical companies are the largest spenders on television news advertising—approximately $4.8 billion per year on direct-to-consumer advertising alone. This spending does not primarily aim to convince consumers to request drugs from their doctors; it is bribery for the networks. Media outlets that depend on pharma advertising dollars do not investigate pharmaceutical industry practices or report critically on new drugs. When 50 percent of television news funding comes from pharmaceutical companies, journalists do not ask hard questions about those companies’ products.
Dr. Fatima Stanford, head of obesity research at Harvard, has received tens of thousands of dollars in direct funding from Novo Nordisk, as well as millions in research grants. She appears regularly on major media outlets—including CBS’s 60 Minutes—advocating for Ozempic without disclosing these payments to viewers. On 60 Minutes, she stated that people should “throw willpower out the window” because obesity is a brain disease, not a food problem. She told viewers to take Ozempic and not worry about what they eat.
The NIH awarded 8,000 research grants to university professors who had direct conflicts of interest with the topics and drugs they were studying. This practice isn’t discussed because it’s so universal that it’s considered normal. These grants compromise NIH’s entire research program.
The opioid crisis is the template for this corruption. In 2012, a panel of outside experts convened to recommend guidance on opioids. The head of that panel was Dr. Philip Pizzo, dean of Stanford Medical School. At the time of his appointment, Stanford received a $3 million grant from Pfizer, a major opioid maker, for pain research. Dr. Pizzo appointed 90 percent of the panel members, who also received direct research and personal consulting fees from opioid makers. They released relaxed “non addictive” opioid standards that had a major impact on the opioid epidemic. This exact pattern—conflicted panel members making recommendations that benefit the companies paying them—is now repeating with obesity drugs.
Major pharmaceutical companies have paid billions in criminal and civil settlements for fraud, bribery, and misleading research. GlaxoSmithKline and Merck, two of the largest vaccine makers, settled some of the biggest criminal penalties in American corporate history for bribing doctors and producing false research. Yet these companies continue to operate with minimal oversight and maintain market dominance. The fines they pay represent a cost of doing business, not a deterrent.
The Food Stamp Connection
The food industry operates the same corruption model as the pharmaceutical industry. It spends 11 times as much on foundational nutrition research as the NIH. By controlling the research, food companies generate studies that support their products while appearing to be independent science. This corrupted research then influences government dietary guidelines, medical education, and public perception of nutrition.
The USDA has thoroughly corrupted the guidelines that set nutrition standards. Food companies fund 95 percent of the members of the guideline committee. These corrupted guidelines state that a two-year-old can consume 10 percent of their diet from added sugar. Agriculture subsidies in America send more money to tobacco than to vegetables. Ninety percent of subsidies go to highly processed foods that cause obesity.
Nearly 15 percent of Americans—roughly 50 million people—depend on food stamps for nutrition. Ten percent of all food stamp funding goes to soda. That’s over $10 billion per year flowing from the federal treasury to soda companies. The United States is the only country in the world that allows food assistance dollars to purchase this, and sodas are the number one item purchased with food stamps in America.
Calley Means worked as a consultant for Coca-Cola early in his career. The company paid the NAACP and other civil rights groups to frame proposals to limit soda purchases with food stamps as racist. They rigged the debate through systematic payments to these trusted institutions. The government subsidizes the products that cause obesity, then proposes a lifetime pharmaceutical solution that costs $20,000 per year. This is the business model.
The Financial Projections
Wall Street openly celebrates this corruption. As Ozempic gained momentum, food stocks dropped, and pharma stocks surged. Analysts openly project that obesity rates will continue to increase. Novo Nordisk became the most valuable company in Europe based on growth projections that assume higher obesity rates over the next decade. The financial models underpinning pharma stocks assume Americans will get fatter and sicker.
Medical centers seeking financing for new obesity treatment facilities base their loan applications on projections of increasing obesity. The largest and most expensive buildings in American cities are new pediatric obesity and cardiology centers. If these medical centers projected declining obesity rates, they couldn’t secure financing. The entire healthcare industry profits from worsening disease rather than improving health.
Medicare now covers Ozempic for diabetes and kidney disease. In November 2024, the Trump administration announced an agreement with Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly to expand Medicare and Medicaid coverage of GLP-1 drugs. The manufacturers reduced prices to $245 per month in exchange for access to millions of new patients. This government funding boost was predicted years ago and has now materialized exactly as expected.
The numbers are staggering. Medicare spent $5.7 billion on GLP-1 diabetes drugs in 2022 alone. Total U.S. spending on GLP-1 drugs in 2023 reached $71.7 billion across all payers, including private insurance, Medicare, and Medicaid. With 80 percent of American adults overweight or obese and expanded coverage being implemented, treating tens of millions of Americans at even the reduced price of $245 per month would cost over $1 trillion per year.
That $1 trillion annual cost would manage a symptom, not address the root cause. The environmental factors causing the metabolic health crisis—subsidized processed food, food stamp programs paying for soda, corrupted dietary guidelines, and a healthcare system that profits from chronic disease management—remain entirely unaddressed. Ozempic does nothing to fix the poisoned food supply. It doesn’t reform agricultural subsidies. It doesn’t stop the government from paying people to drink soda. It manages the consequences of these policies through lifetime pharmaceutical dependency.
The COVID Comparison
The scale of this financial disaster dwarfs previous pharmaceutical interventions. Total U.S. government spending on COVID vaccines from 2020 to 2023 was approximately $30 billion for development, manufacturing, and distribution. The per-dose cost to the government was $19.50 to $39 for negotiated bulk purchases. Treatment duration was 2 to 4 doses per person. The total cost per person was $40 to $160.
Ozempic is on an entirely different scale. Total U.S. spending in 2023 alone was $71.7 billion—more than twice the entire three-year COVID vaccine program. Medicare spending on GLP-1 drugs grew from $57 million in 2018 to $5.7 billion in 2022. Projections suggest spending could exceed $13 to $26 billion annually on Medicare alone if only 10 percent of eligible beneficiaries use these drugs. If usage increases beyond that modest 10 percent, costs will multiply accordingly.
Per patient annual cost runs $11,000 to $20,000 at list price, though the negotiated government rate is $245 per month, or roughly $3,000 per year. Treatment duration is lifelong, for patients regain the weight when they stop the drug. The total cost per person over 20 years ranges from $60,000 at the negotiated rate to $400,000 at the list price. The target population is 80 percent of American adults, roughly 200 million people.
If Ozempic receives full government funding for the 80 percent of Americans who are overweight or obese, even at the reduced price of $245 per month, annual costs would exceed $600 billion. At list prices, yearly costs could reach $1 to $2 trillion. This equals 20 to 60 times the entire COVID vaccine budget every single year, forever. The COVID vaccine program cost taxpayers roughly $100 per person, including the whole series. Ozempic would cost $3,000 to $20,000 per person per year for life. A person on Ozempic for 20 years would cost taxpayers 600 to 4,000 times more than their entire COVID vaccination series, depending on the price point.
These numbers do not include the downstream medical costs from Ozempic’s side effects: treating gastroparesis, managing vision loss, addressing mental health crises, dealing with kidney stones, treating fractures from reduced bone density, and managing the metabolic chaos when millions eventually go off the drug. The true cost will be substantially higher than the drug price alone.
The Long-Term Unknowns
The visible costs and side effects represent just the beginning. The gastroparesis, vision loss, mental health issues, and astronomical financial burden are what we can document in the first few years of widespread use, but terrifying unknowns remain.
What happens to gut microbiomes after decades of paralysis? The gut microbiome manages immune function, produces vital nutrients, and impacts mental health. Decades of pharmaceutical-induced stomach paralysis will disturb these systems in ways we can’t predict. The gut-brain axis links digestive health to cognitive well-being. Disrupting this connection over a lifetime may lead to mental and neurological effects that won’t become apparent for years.
What are the long-term neurological effects of disrupted serotonin production? Serotonin not only regulates mood; it also affects memory, learning, sleep, and appetite. Decades of disrupted serotonin signaling in the gut could influence brain development in adolescents and accelerate cognitive decline in older adults. No studies of this exist.
What are the combined effects on bone density and muscle mass in aging populations? Osteoporosis and sarcopenia already affect older Americans. Introducing a drug that worsens both conditions could lead to an epidemic of fractures and disability. The healthcare costs for treating these issues could surpass the drug costs themselves.
How will Ozempic interact with the many other medications people take? The average 65-year-old American takes seven prescription drugs. These medications interact in complex ways that are poorly understood, even without adding Ozempic into the equation. As more people develop multiple chronic conditions and take multiple drugs, these interactions become exponentially more complicated and unpredictable.
Yoho comment: Drugs are never studied together.
What happens when millions stop using the drug—whether because of cost, side effects, or supply issues—and quickly gain weight along with metabolic chaos? The rebound effect after stopping Ozempic is well-documented. Weight returns swiftly. However, we don’t know what occurs physiologically when someone cycles on and off these medications over decades. The metabolic stress from repeated weight cycling is likely worse than never taking the drug at all.
Making a population of 200 million Americans depend on a single drug class gives manufacturers extraordinary power. Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly would be destroying the metabolic health of half the American population. The pharmaceutical companies would hold more sway over American health than anything else.
The ongoing pharmaceutical dependency makes it impossible to address root causes because everyone is already on medication. Once 100 million Americans depend on weekly Ozempic injections, the political will to reform the food system disappears. Why change agricultural subsidies or restrict food stamp purchases of soda when everyone is medicated? The drug becomes the accepted fix, and the real problems are never addressed.
Every major pharmaceutical disaster follows the same pattern: initial enthusiasm, widespread use, then long-term disasters. Opioids took 15 years to show their full damage. Thalidomide caused birth defects before anyone made the connection. DES led to cancer in the daughters of women who used it. Vioxx caused heart attacks after years of use. The pattern is always the same: by the time we realize the full harm, millions are already affected.
We are conducting a mass experiment on metabolic intervention with a lifetime drug that paralyzes digestive function. The five-year data is already alarming. The 20-year data does not exist. We are asking Americans to trust pharmaceutical companies that have paid billions in criminal settlements for fraud and deception. We are asking them to ignore the corrupted research, the paid doctors, the captured regulators, and the obvious conflicts of interest. We are asking them to take a drug for life based on 68-week studies.
A Different Path
The metabolic health crisis did not exist one generation ago. Environmental factors created it rapidly, which means that environmental changes can reverse it rapidly. The president could issue executive orders tomorrow that would fundamentally change the landscape without spending a dollar.
The FDA could ban pharmaceutical advertising on television news, which no other developed country allows. This advertising does not influence consumers—it is used to bribe the news media. Eliminating this spending would remove part of the financial leverage that prevents critical reporting. Journalists could investigate pharmaceutical companies without risking their employers’ revenue. The policy would cost nothing and would immediately improve the information environment.
The NIH could stop giving research grants to investigators with conflicts of interest. This seems like common sense, but it would trigger screams of being anti-science from the corrupt establishment. 8,000 NIH grants go to conflicted researchers.
Agricultural subsidies would ideally shift from processed foods to vegetables. The government spends more on tobacco subsidies now than on vegetable subsidies, and ninety percent of agricultural subsidies go to highly processed foods. Redirecting even a small share of these subsidies to fruits and vegetables could change the economics of farming and make healthy food more affordable than junk food.
The revolving door between academia and industry has turned medical schools into research-and-development labs for pharmaceutical companies. Requiring disclosure and restricting financial ties would help restore some independence to academic medicine.
Medical groups with statutory authority to set standards of care—the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Diabetes Association, the American Heart Association—must be prohibited from taking pharmaceutical funding. These organizations determine which drugs doctors prescribe. They should not be funded by companies that profit from those prescriptions.
Americans respond to incentives. The healthcare system could reimburse doctors for prescribing exercise and nutrition interventions instead of drugs. These interventions are proven to reverse metabolic dysfunction. Changing the reimbursement policy would immediately change behavior.
A child with prediabetes often has obesity, hypertension, and heart problems. That child becomes a lifelong customer for multiple drugs, none of which cure anything. One medication leads to another as side effects cause new conditions, requiring more prescriptions. This corruption wastes human potential and strains the federal budget. Healthcare is the largest and fastest-growing industry in America. If trends continue, it will be 40 percent of the federal budget in 15 years. As costs rise, health outcomes get worse. This is unsustainable.
The Verdict
Everything predicted about Ozempic has come true. The drug received expanded approval and government funding. Lawsuits over severe gastrointestinal injuries appeared. Cases of vision loss surfaced. Mental health problems emerged. The corruption continued exactly as expected. Stocks rose on Wall Street. Obesity rates keep climbing, and the healthcare system profits from managing disease rather than creating health.
We are watching a pharmaceutical disaster unfold in real time with full knowledge of how it will end. The pattern has been repeated many times before.
Selected References
1. Calley Means’ website: calleymeans.com
2. Novo Nordisk financial reports and investor presentations documenting U.S. revenue concentration and obesity growth projections, available at novonordisk.com/investors.
3. Multiple studies linking semaglutide to non-arteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy (NAION), including research published in JAMA Ophthalmology and other peer-reviewed journals in 2024-2025 showing 4-7 times increased risk.
4. FDA label updates for Ozempic documenting warnings for ileus (September 2023), severe gastrointestinal reactions (January 2025), and pulmonary aspiration during anesthesia (November 2024), available at accessdata.fda.gov.
5. Consolidated multidistrict litigation in Pennsylvania federal court (MDL No. 3:24-md-03094) documenting nearly 3,000 lawsuits alleging severe gastrointestinal injuries including gastroparesis from GLP-1 drugs.
6. Sismondo, Sergio. “Epistemic Corruption, the Pharmaceutical Industry, and the Body of Medical Science.” Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics, 2021, documenting ghost management of research and systematic bias in industry-funded studies.
7. Medicare spending data showing GLP-1 drug expenditures growing from $57 million (2018) to $5.7 billion (2022), with total U.S. spending reaching $71.7 billion in 2023, available through CMS and industry analyst reports.
8. USDA agricultural subsidy data and food stamp spending patterns, including documentation that 10 percent of SNAP funding ($10+ billion annually) goes to soda purchases, the highest single category.
9. European Medicines Agency regulatory decisions on GLP-1 drugs for obesity treatment and European Union investigation into suicidal ideation associated with Ozempic use, launched in 2023.
10. American Academy of Pediatrics recommendation for GLP-1 drugs as first-line treatment for obese teens based on 68-week studies, along with documentation of Novo Nordisk funding to the AAP and other medical societies.
11. Historical case studies of pharmaceutical fraud settlements, including GlaxoSmithKline’s $3 billion settlement (2012) and Merck’s $950 million settlement (2011) for bribing doctors and producing misleading research, representing some of the largest criminal penalties in U.S. corporate history.
Yoho wrapup:
As of December 2025, nearly 3,000 lawsuits have been filed and consolidated into multidistrict litigation in the Pennsylvania federal court. These lawsuits allege serious gastrointestinal injuries, including gastroparesis, intestinal blockages, and ileus. The FDA has updated Ozempic’s warning label multiple times since this interview—adding warnings for ileus in September 2023, severe gastrointestinal adverse reactions in January 2025, and pulmonary aspiration during anesthesia in November 2024.
Multiple studies published in 2024 and 2025 have linked semaglutide use to irreversible blindness caused by non-arteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy (NAION). The World Health Organization issued a warning about this risk in June 2025. Hundreds of patients with it have filed lawsuits.
Research published in January 2025 revealed additional concerning side effects beyond what was discussed in this interview. The study found increased risks of kidney stones, arthritis, fainting, and drug-induced pancreatitis in patients using GLP-1 drugs. Nearly 40 percent of hypoglycemia cases and 15 percent of gastrointestinal cases required hospitalization. Studies have also linked GLP-1 drugs to reduced bone density when used without exercise, raising concerns about long-term musculoskeletal health.
The prediction that this would become “the highest-funded drug from the US taxpayer in history” is also coming true. We’re conducting a mass experiment on metabolic intervention with a lifetime drug that paralyzes digestive function. The 5-year data is already alarming; the 20-year data doesn’t exist.
I know; I copied the other guy’s homework. And although I shortened it, it was too long. I got so much out of this that I felt compelled to share it. I do not know how anyone still trusts the Pharma motherf*****s with another poison shot, but I guess there is a sucker born every minute.
After two long days at Wellington District Court, with minimal info coming through to the public, Whistleblower Barry Young’s case is adjourned until next year!
Thanks to Steve for this video. It really makes sense now. Why the store bought bread disagrees with the gut. This goes right back to medieval days and the origins of bread ingredients. EWNZ
There’s a significant issue with the bread we consume today. While bread was once a fundamental part of civilizations, sustaining families and armies, modern bread often causes gut issues, blood sugar spikes, and leaves us feeling unsatisfied. This food history explores how the bread industry has changed, contrasting today’s offerings with the traditional bread that nourished our ancestors. We conduct a food industry case study, examining how the history of bread, including ancient grains and sourdough, shows a stark difference from what we find on shelves now.
So you’ve decided to switch to Linux. But what’s wrong with Windows, anyway? And isn’t it hard to make the switch? Joining us today to walk you through the switch to Linux is Rob Braxman, aka The Internet Privacy Guy.
These images were captured in the Taupo Region in 2016, images of contorted deer that have died a slow agonizing death from 1080 poisoning. For over 50 years the New Zealand Government has been systematically dropping massive amounts of food, laced with this cruel and universally toxic poison into its forest ecosystems. Enough poison every year to kill the entire population of NZ four times over. No other country is doing, or ever has done, anything remotely similar on such a scale.
If you’re new to the independent information about NZ’s favourite poison for ‘saving’ birds (one aerial 1080 drop in 2002 killed an estimated 10,000 birds … Landcare’s own data) a must see is the GrafBoys’award winning doco, Poisoning Paradise.
Explore our 1080 pages (main menu) or use the drop down box, left hand side of the page. Animals die a very cruel death with 1080. A Veterinarian has explained death by 1080 as slow electrocution. The NZ authorities tweaked the Animal Welfare act to exempt the spreaders of aerially dropped 1080 poison from prosecution for cruelty!
Finally, they want rid of all non-natives. They are not telling us that directly of course. Jenese James describes NZ’s Pest Free agenda in her article, Who is driving PFNZ?:
Quote from Barry: We’re witnessing ‘the destruction of an Act of Parliament in real time’
End of the day summary
Sue Gray could not give anything away
Click on the image for the video
RCR Radio –
This morning, whistleblower Barry Young shared a few words outside court. Here’s what he had to say…
click on the image for the video
Live at Wellington Court reporting by John Ansell @BarryYoungNZ turning up at the closed court while NZ Police protect the corrupt judicial system that allows blocking the public access to the facts of the case
The pariahs that rule over us … they cannot claim ignorance! Hear them all laugh at the banker’s statement! They know. TVNZ broadcasted about this ponzi schem 12 years agoon Youtube “CONFIRMED: Loans & Mortgages are created out of thin air by the Banks” (In the article below you can hear the statement and the laughter at the X link).See our Money pages @ main menu. EWNZ
A banker at the New Zealand Reserve Bank (NZRB) joked about what modern central banking is really all about. On February 12th, 2024, during a parliamentary committee meeting, NZRB Governor Adrian Orr cracked a joke about the modern central banking system, which was met with laughter.
“We actually fund ourselves and then decide what dividends to pay.
“It’s a great business to be in, central banking, where you print money and people believe it.”
Tap the image to watch the video
According to CoinTelegraph, ‘The hearing was part of the central bank’s annual review. During the meeting, Orr said he was “critically concerned” with the rise of decentralized digital currencies such as Bitcoin, which he argued lacks the three main properties of money.’
Orr said, “It’s neither a means of exchange, it’s not a store of value and it’s not a unit of account.” Orr is also not that big of a fan of stablecoins, believing that they do not compliment central bank issued currency. “They’re only as good as the balance sheet of the person offering that stablecoin,” he added.
The WinePress News is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
AUTHOR COMMENTARY
Proverbs 22:7 The rich ruleth over the poor, and the borrower is servant to the lender.
This isn’t anything shocking if you have a modicum of knowledge and understanding concerning the current economic framework. It’s all about cheap, easy, helicopter money; and those inflated notes ultimately make them and their rich criminal friends who gamble in the markets, wealthier at our expense because they have to transact in them.
Proverbs 10:15 The rich man’s wealth is his strong city: the destruction of the poor is their poverty.
But there is an actual term for this when central banks print all this money: it’s called the “Cantillon Effect;” those closest to the money printer reap the most benefit, whereas when the money starts to funnel and “trickle down” into the broader economy it’s worth a lot less, and we pay for it as a tax that way. It is the single greatest Ponzi scheme ever concocted.
For more on this, see my study on this deliberate money failure:
New Zealand today stands in the jaws of a recession deeper and more structural than anything we have seen in decades. Businesses are folding. Workers are fleeing. Families are giving up hope. And yet, somehow, among all the noise, one catastrophic act of economic vandalism continues to escape the national reckoning it deserves:
The deliberate destruction of New Zealand’s only oil refinery at Marsden Point.
Not downgraded. Not mothballed. Destroyed — with no replacement, no transition plan, and no economic modelling worthy of the name.
This was not incompetence. This was government-induced economic terrorism against the long-term interests of the New Zealand people.
And it began under Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern.
The Refinery That Anchored a Nation
Marsden Point wasn’t just an industrial site — it was the beating heart of New Zealand’s energy security. Built in 1964, expanded repeatedly, and modernised as recently as 2018 with a $365 million Te Mahi Hou project, the refinery produced:
NZ’s petrol
NZ’s diesel
NZ’s jet fuel
NZ’s bitumen
NZ’s chemical feedstocks
NZ’s industrial gases
NZ’s fertiliser inputs
It reduced emissions. It added resilience. It protected our sovereignty.
And then, with ideological zeal dressed up as climate virtue, Ardern’s government backed its closure. Not because it was failing — but because Wellington wanted “alignment with global decarbonisation trends,” a phrase now exposed as vacuous marketing gibberish.
The government knew — yes, knew — that New Zealand would become 100% dependent on imported refined fuels. They knew that we would lose:
60 days of crude storage, replaced by just 8 days of refined fuel reserves
All domestic bitumen production
All domestic jet fuel resilience
All domestic ability to refine crude in an emergency
They knew a natural disaster could sever our lifeline. They knew a geopolitical conflict could choke our supply. They knew global refiners could charge whatever they wanted.
And they did it anyway.
“We now only have 8 days of fuel reserves compared to 60 days when Marsden Point was operational… New Zealand is totally reliant on imported fuels… We are without fuel security for the first time in 60 years.”
Ardern’s Legacy: Dependency and Decline
New Zealand is now one shipping delay away from grounded aircraft, immobilised logistics, and a nationwide economic choke-hold. This is not hypothetical — basic supply-chain maths confirms it.
And four years later, the current government under Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has done nothing to reverse or even question this national insanity.
Political cowardice has replaced political leadership. Corporate appeasement has replaced national resilience. And ordinary New Zealanders — the workers, the truckers, the small businesses — are paying the price.
The Economic Reality: Cheap Energy Builds Nations
Every wealthy nation has one thing in common:
Abundant, cheap, reliable domestic energy.
Not imported fragility. Not ideological wish-casting. Not the childish delusion that a country can “transition” by destroying what sustains it.
The closure of Marsden Point was not a transition. It was a surrender — a forced de-industrialisation. A deliberate kneecapping of national capability.
New Zealand now imports bitumen, jet fuel, and diesel from overseas refineries operating under far poorer environmental and labour standards — including, in some cases, the use of child labour in raw material supply chains.
This is what the so-called “clean energy transition” looks like: pollution exported, sovereignty surrendered, illusion maintained.
A nation without energy security is not a nation. It is a client state.
Karl Barkley: One Citizen Doing More Than the Entire Government
While Parliament sleeps, one man — Karl Barkley, engineer and farmer — is fighting to restore what politicians destroyed.
His letter speaks for millions:
“We now only have 8 days of fuel reserves compared to 60 days when Marsden Point was operational… New Zealand is totally reliant on imported fuels… We are without fuel security for the first time in 60 years.”
He has launched KIWI REFINING COMPANY LTD with a vision to bring the refinery back to life, under public ownership, for the public good.
A single citizen, doing the work Cabinet refuses to touch.
Because he understands what the political class either cannot — or will not — accept:
A nation without energy security is not a nation. It is a client state.
The Truth: We Are on the Brink of National Failure
New Zealand is:
Losing skilled workers at record rates
Watching businesses collapse weekly
Facing rising energy bills and grid instability
Running a government addicted to debt and slogans
Led by politicians who refuse to confront the damage already done
Cheap domestic energy is the foundation of economic recovery. We had it. We destroyed it. And we were told this was progress.
It was not progress. It was sabotage.
The Question for Every New Zealander
Who authorised this? Who benefits from a dependent, weakened New Zealand? Who gains when we cannot refine our own fuel, build our own roads, or power our own industries?
And why — four years later — has no government lifted a finger to fix it?
Final Word
This is not politics. This is survival.
Marsden Point must be rebuilt. Energy security must be restored. And the politicians who orchestrated or tolerated this national vandalism must be held accountable.
New Zealand cannot chart a prosperous future while running on imported fumes.
And we cannot stay silent while our leaders dismantle the economic foundations our children and grandchildren will rely on.
Today we’re launching Substantial Minority: The Missing Covid-19 Inquiry Presentations. Why? The RCI was supposed to hold two weeks of public hearings – one hearing from affected New Zealanders, one questioning the officials who engineered the response. But Ardern, Hipkins, Verrall and Robertson all refused to appear. The Commission cancelled the entire week rather than hear from the Kiwis still waiting to speak. Their research deserves to be heard. So we’re putting it on the record ourselves – before the final report drops in February.
→ Erika Whittome — Withheld safety reports and hidden procurement exposed through OIAs
→ Sue Grey — The legal battles that changed the Medicines Act overnight
→ Dr Alison Goodwin — Pharmacovigilance failures and buried symptom data
→ Ursula Edgington PhD — How behavioural psychology was used to nudge the nation
→ Jodie Bruning — Scientific evidence excluded and legislation passed in secret → And more testimonies the commissioners should have heard coming soon
Ursula Edgington: How a Nation Was Nudged Dr Ursula Edgington analyses the “Nudge Unit” strategies, MINDSPACE report, and propaganda techniques used in New Zealand’s Unite Against COVID-19 campaign.
Sue Grey: The Legal Battles New Zealand Didn’t See Lawyer Sue Grey details three High Court cases challenging New Zealand’s vaccine rollout and mandates, including the case that prompted overnight law changes.
Jodie R Bruning: The Science That Was Excluded Jodie Bruning of PSGR NZ examines how Health Act obligations were ignored, scientific debate was suppressed, and legislation was passed in secret.
Here’s what we’re asking:Watch what speaks to you. Share it with one person tonight.This evidence needs to reach as many New Zealanders as possible before February.
Closed court, last minute submissions of evidence by an epidemiologist, NZ lawyer Sue Grey not allowed in because she is not vaccinated, ‘evidence of a complete stitch up’ says Andrew Bridgen (surprised?) … must hear discussion with Andrew Bridgen (UK), Liz Gunn and whistleblower Barry Young ahead of court today 9am in Wellington NZ.
Admission by Health New Zealand that they recommend the COVID vaccines and flatly refuse to look at their own data or make their own data public for researchers to review.
They admit they don’t look at the evidence of harm and in the same document assure the public there is no evidence of harm.
“We assure people there is no evidence whatsoever that vaccination is responsible for excess mortality in New Zealand and that they can continue to have confidence in vaccines.”
So how can they reassure people that there is no evidence of harm if they haven’t looked at the evidence? They even admit they haven’t looked at the data in the same document:
Health NZ has never engaged in an analysis of the data … publicly released by Mr Young with a view to testing the accuracy of his misinformed claims.
I’ve asked them for their analysis of their own data showing I’m wrong, and they did not reply.
“We will not accept Kirsch’s invitation for a public discussion on the NZ data”
I’ve asked them if I can have a public conversation with their epidemiologists to show me how I got it wrong so they can publicly expose me as a “misinformation spreader” and they refused to do so. Why would they do that? Doesn’t misinformation cause harm? They could easily stop it by accepting my offer.
We will not autopsy anyone who relatives believe were killed by the COVID shots
AI analysis: “Health NZ isn’t practicing science, they are practicing public relations.”
EWNZ comment: do review our glyphosate pages at the main menu. I looked at this topic in the Rangitikei during 2013-2016, attempting to switch the council’s weed control to steam. At the end of the day, it appears that councils NZ wide prefer to use poison … surprised?Comfortably in bed with Agrichem.
“Millions of pounds of glyphosate were approved, defended, and sprayed worldwide on the basis of a paper we now know was fundamentally compromised and scientifically invalid.“
In a long-overdue move, Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology has formally retracted the landmark 2000 glyphosate “safety” review by Williams, Kroes, and Munro — a paper Monsanto and global regulators have relied on for decades to assert that Roundup poses no carcinogenic risk to humans.
Crucially, the Editor-in-Chief confirms that Monsanto employees likely secretly wrote substantial portions of the paper, despite never being listed as authors or acknowledged — a revelation uncovered through U.S. litigation.
The retraction states that the article’s integrity has collapsed entirely, citing undisclosed corporate authorship, omitted carcinogenicity data, financial conflicts of interest, and a complete failure by the surviving author to respond to the journal’s investigation.
THE RETRACTION
1. Based almost entirely on Monsanto’s unpublished studies The review’s “no cancer risk” conclusion relied solely on Monsanto-generated data. Even worse, the authors ignored multiple long-term mouse and rat carcinogenicity studies that already existed at the time — including multi-year toxicity studies showing tumor signals. None were incorporated.
2. Evidence of ghostwriting by Monsanto Litigation records revealed that Monsanto employees secretly co-wrote portions of the paper, despite never being listed as authors or acknowledged. This alone violates the most basic principles of scientific integrity.
3. Undisclosed financial ties The authors appear to have received direct compensation from Monsanto for producing the paper — again undisclosed, again violating journal standards.
4. Misrepresentation of authorship and contributions By hiding Monsanto’s role, the paper created the illusion of independent scientific evaluation — even as corporate employees shaped the conclusions.
5. Regulatory capture revealed This paper heavily influenced global risk assessments — including U.S. EPA, WHO/FAO, and Health Canada evaluations — setting the tone for “glyphosate is safe” messaging for more than two decades.
While I am strongly opposed to politically motivated retractions and scientific censorship, this retraction was unquestionably warranted. The integrity failures were not ideological — they were structural, factual, and undeniable.
And the independent evidence that has emerged since 2000 only underscores how dangerous that original “all clear” truly was.
A recent controlled animal study demonstrated that glyphosate and Roundup can induce rare, aggressive, and fatal cancers across multiple organs — even at doses considered “safe” by U.S. and EU regulatory thresholds. These findings directly contradict the original review’s core conclusions.
Zhang et al found a statistically significant association between glyphosate exposure and increased risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma in humans. Their 2019 meta-analysis pooled data from over 65,000 participants across six studies—including more than 7,000 NHL cases—and reported a 41% increased risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma among those with the highest glyphosate exposure:
In other words, independent science was pointing to serious cancer risks while Monsanto’s fraudulent ghostwritten review was actively minimizing them.
Millions of pounds of glyphosate were approved, defended, and sprayed across the world on the basis of a review that we now know was fundamentally compromised and scientifically invalid.
The collapse of this paper is not just a correction, it is an indictment of an entire regulatory era built on deception.
Barry Young (NZ vaccine data whistleblower) sits down with barrister Ken Nicolson, a calm, experienced lawyer who has quietly represented many vaccine-injured Kiwis.
With the crucial voir dire hearing set for 11 December in Wellington District Court (deciding if Barry qualifies for full whistleblower protection under the Protected Disclosures Act), they discuss: – Crown’s last-minute attempt to dump a revised “expert” report just 3 days before trial
Whether “reasonable grounds” means an ordinary worker’s honest belief or a PhD epidemiologist’s hindsight analysis
Good faith, retaliation, and why the Act should protect Barry, not criminalise him
The bigger stakes for free speech, democracy and public health in NZ and beyond
Ken confirms he’ll be in court on the 11th. Barry is still unrepresented and facing a 7-year charge.
Kiwis: come to Wellington District Court, 9 am, Thursday 11 December.
Bring cameras, fill the pavement, show the world NZ still has rule of law.
Steve Kirsch joins to discuss Barry Young’s crucial Voir Dire hearing which is taking place this Thursday 11 Dec 2025 in the Wellington District Court. Key points include:
Crown drops 19-page “expert” evidence amendment just 3 days before trial (image-only PDF, non-searchable)
Retired Prof Robert Scragg admits he never analysed the full 2.2 million-row dataset – he stopped at 1 million rows
Scragg claims “MedSafe stopped monitoring the jab outcomes and that that is “proof of safety”
Kirsch: Czech, NZ, Japan, Israel & US data all show the same mortality spikes, post-vaccination
If judge rules that only people with PhD’s or other equivalent level of academic training, qualify as ‘whistleblowers’, then NZ whistleblower protection will be dead
Crown has already signalled they will apply for an ‘instant appeal. if they lose this Voir Dire hearing on December 11.
Barry faces jail for releasing FULLY anonymised, pay-per-dose, data showing serious harm signals.
The Ministry of Health in New Zealand still refuses to release its OWN analysis after 735 days since Barry brought his sincere concerns to their attention.
Please come to Wellington if you can, to support Barry:
Thursday 11 December, 9 am, Wellington District Court.
Share widely – worldwide ‘eyes on this case’ matter enormously, in order for Barry Young to have any chance of getting any kind of fairness in this Voir Dire, and for him to be officially designated as the brave Whistleblower that he is.
Governments are moving quickly to roll out digital ID systems that tie together identity, payments, and access to everyday life. In the United Kingdom, we’re already seeing the push to make digital identification mandatory. Once money is fully digitized, every purchase can be tracked, limited, or even denied.
That’s not some far-off scenario. We all need to be acting now to push back against this agenda, which is why we’re excited to announce that the Solari 60-Day Cash Challenge officially starts this week.
Why a Cash Challenge?
Using cash is one of the simplest, most effective ways to push back against the march toward an all-digital financial system. Over the next 60 days, we invite you to make the deliberate choice to pay with cash as often as possible when buying groceries, coffee, gas, when eating out, or with purchases from any brick-and-mortar merchant.
Beyond using cash whenever possible, we also challenge you to consider taking some of the following actions in the next 60 days to raise awareness about using cash and why it’s important to do so.
More Ways to Take Action in the Next 60 Days
Spread the word: Send this article by Catherine, The Threat of Financial Transaction Control, to five friends and ask that they join you in the challenge to use cash whenever possible for the next 60 days. Even better would be to post the link and encouragement to use cash on one of your social media accounts to reach more people. Tag us when you do on X and Instagram.
Take a Deeper Dive: Watch Solari’s briefing on Keeping Cash in Circulation: A Key Tool Against the Digital Control Grid to deepen your understanding of the issues at hand. The briefing, held on June 12, 2025, focused on one of the most powerful strategies we have to push back against the emerging digital control grid: keeping cash in circulation. Financial planner Tim Caban opened the session by framing the critical importance of preserving cash as a cornerstone of financial freedom and privacy. Susan Luschas, Tobi Maier, and Elizabeth Murphy then discussed legislative actions taken in various states to protect and promote the use of cash, as well as strategies that have proven effective for building public and political support. They also provided details on model bills that can raise awareness and build momentum.
Celebrate Cash on Halloween: If you participate in Halloween, check out our “Cash is King” Halloween initiative. For the past two years, inspired by subscriber Susan Luschas’s example, we have promoted Susan’s idea of creating a “Cash Is King” Halloween. Instead of poisoning trick-or-treaters with candy, Susan hands out dollar bills, placing “Cash Is King: Why Pay with Cash?” stickers on each bill. This has made her house one of the neighborhood’s most popular Halloween destinations, prompting the eager trick-or-treaters to run home and tell their parents about the merits of paying with cash. Discover more about the initiative here.
Join the Movement
Join us! Take the pledge to use cash for the next 60 days. Share your stories, photos, and reasons for choosing cash. Encourage your friends and family to do the same. Together, we can show others how important it is to use and protect cash usage.
Cash is Freedom. Cashless is Control. Let’s keep freedom alive—one purchase at a time.
In a move that was long overdue, on November 7th President Trump ordered the Department of Justice to launch an antitrust investigation into what Sen. Mike Rounds (R-SD) called the “meatpacking oligopoly”.
Four giant multinational corporations have come to control the vast majority of beef processing in the US. They are Brazilian firm JBS, Cargill, Brazilian-owned National Beef and Tyson Foods.
According to Farm Action, ranchers have gone from earning 70 cents of every beef dollar in 1970 to earning only 37 cents today. Meanwhile the Big Four packers have gone from controlling 36% of the market in 1980 to processing 85% of all cattle today.
A statement issued from the White House read,
“For too long, a handful of giant meat packers have squeezed America’s cattle producers, shrunk herds, and jacked up prices at the grocery store.By examining whether these companies have violated antitrust laws through coordinated pricing or capacity restrictions, this investigation will root out any illegal collusion, restore fair competition, and protect our food security…Two of these companies, including the largest meat packer in the world, are either foreign-owned or have significant foreign ownership and control.”
Things are not much better for swine and poultry producers. Four corporations (JBS, Tyson, Hormel and WH Group) control 70% of US hog processing, while four (Tyson, JBS, Wayne Sanderson and Perdue Farms) also control 60% of poultry processing.
The Brazilian JBS is owned by the Batista brothers. Earlier this year they donated a record $5 million to Trump’s inaugural committee while doubling their PAC spending. This year also saw JBS listed on the New York Stock Exchange, which will only increase their access to capital and further consolidate their growing market share.
Cargill is a private corporation owned by the Minneapolis-based Cargill and MacMillan families. They control 50% of the global grain trade and own more Mississippi River ports and cargo ships than any other corporation. They also monopolize the trade in Brazilian orange juice, Moroccan sulphur, Filipino rice and the global egg and fertilizer industries just to name a few.
Tyson Foods is an Arkansas company which purchased Iowa Beef Packers in 2001 to become one of the Big Four beef processors. Their control over pork and poultry processing increased under AR Gov. and US President Bill Clinton, whose political career was heavily funded by Don Tyson and Winthrop Rockefeller’s International Paper. Their brands include Hillshire Farms, Ballpark, Sara Lee and Bryan.
Kansas City-based National Beef is owned by another Brazilian multinational called Marfrig. They bought Farmland Industries in 1992 and are run by the powerful dos Santos family. They worked closely with Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) to create PlantPlus foods. ADM is in turn tied to the Brazilian/Swiss Bunge and Born families. Bunge is one of the top four grain traders in the world.
WH Group is based in Hong Kong and is the largest pork producer and processor in the world. They own Smithfield Foods in the US and were a pioneer in funding inhumane hog confinement systems that now dot the US landscape. Despite myths that Smithfield is “Chinese-owned”, it was Goldman Sachs that funded is meteoric rise. As of 2013 Goldman Sachs still held a controlling 5.2% share.
Much of the inflation in the US economy can be attributed to concentration of power within nearly every industry. The era of deregulation ushered in by President Ronald Reagan must be reversed. Cartels must be broken up using antitrust laws. And there is no better place to start than the food processing industry.
EWNZ comment: I recall a friend’s hubby having a heart attack back in the late 80s, at 43. It was noticeably rare & met with great shock and unbelief at the time. Look around now however and you will hear and read of many very young folk having heart attacks. Especially since around 2020. I wonder why that was? If you sub to Prof Mark Crispin Miller at Substack you will scroll page upon page of heart attacks in the very young. This info below is IMO important for the heart compromised in terms of surviving. I too would have thought they would have greater resilience but it appears that that is not necessarily so ….
When a 45-year-old survives a heart attack, doctors and family members typically assume recovery will be swift. Youth equals resilience, right? A new study published in the European Heart Journal has shattered that dangerous assumption, revealing that nearly 1 in 10 heart attack patients under 55 are severely frail, and their mortality risk is dramatically higher than anyone expected.
What makes this discovery particularly alarming is that these young patients face a nearly fourfold higher risk of premature death compared to older heart attack survivors with the same frailty level. Yet conventional cardiology continues screening older patients while younger ones slip through the cracks, unidentified, untreated, and dying an average of six years earlier than expected.
Massive study exposes hidden vulnerability in young heart attack survivors
Researchers analyzed 931,133 heart attack cases across England and Wales, dividing patients into three age groups: under 55, ages 55-74, and 75 and older. Among patients under 55, researchers classified 3,710 – roughly 2.4% – as severely frail.
Young severely frail patients showed an adjusted hazard ratio of 6.69 for all-cause mortality within one year. Compare that to 4.33 for middle-aged patients and just 2.31 for older patients. Young frail patients faced 3.51 times higher mortality risk than older frail patients, a complete reversal of what doctors expect based on age alone.
Years of life lost painted an even grimmer picture. Young severely frail heart attack patients died an average of 6.1 years earlier than expected.
Young frailty looks nothing like what doctors learned in medical school
Western medicine defines frailty through geriatric symptoms: slow walking speed, weakness, falls, and cognitive decline. This outdated framework blinds doctors to what’s actually happening in younger populations – rapid accumulation of cardiovascular and metabolic diseases, not physical deterioration.
Young, frail heart attack patients showed dramatically higher rates of diabetes, hypertension, peripheral vascular disease, and early-onset heart failure. They had higher body mass index, were more likely to smoke, and had a family history of coronary artery disease.
The study also exposed troubling care disparities. Severely frail patients across all age groups demonstrated lower adherence to quality care standards: delayed procedures, fewer cardiology admissions, lower medication prescription rates, and minimal cardiac rehabilitation referrals.
Natural solutions address the root causes of premature cardiovascular aging
Pharmaceutical cardiology treats symptoms while ignoring the metabolic dysfunction, chronic inflammation, and mitochondrial damage, creating premature frailty in young bodies.
Focus on metabolic optimization: Make wild-caught fatty fish a regular part of your diet for anti-inflammatory omega-3s that reduce cardiovascular inflammation. Incorporate organic pasture-raised eggs to provide choline for methylation pathways crucial to homocysteine metabolism. Include 100% grass-fed beef and lamb to supply L-carnitine and CoQ10 for mitochondrial energy production in stressed heart muscle. Eliminate processed seed oils, refined carbohydrates, and sugar that drive insulin resistance, the metabolic foundation of premature cardiovascular aging.
Consider strategic supplementation: Ensure adequate magnesium glycinate to support over 300 enzymatic reactions essential to cardiovascular function. Make CoQ10 a priority if you have heart disease or take statins, which deplete this vital nutrient. Add taurine to support electrical stability in the heart muscle and protect against oxidative stress. Include vitamin K2 (MK-7) to direct calcium away from arteries and into bones where it belongs.
Address lifestyle fundamentals: Recognize that chronic stress elevates cortisol and inflammatory markers, accelerating biological aging. Make restorative sleep a non-negotiable priority – poor sleep quality independently doubles the risk of a heart attack. Work with a qualified holistic practitioner to address hidden infections and gut dysbiosis driving systemic inflammation throughout your body.
Discover comprehensive natural strategies for cardiovascular resilience
Jonathan Landsman’s Cardiovascular Docu-Class brings together 22 leading cardiologists, researchers, and nutritional experts, revealing evidence-based approaches that address the mechanisms driving heart disease and premature aging. Discover functional lab tests detecting cardiovascular vulnerability years before heart attacks occur, natural protocols for reversing arterial damage and metabolic dysfunction, hidden infections and toxins accelerating biological aging, and drug-induced nutritional deficiencies worsening heart failure.
Bottom line: Young heart attack survivors face a hidden frailty crisis that Western medicine fails to recognize. Nearly 1 in 10 patients under 55 show severe vulnerability, and their mortality risk vastly exceeds older patients with identical frailty levels. Optimal cardiovascular health requires addressing root causes – metabolic dysfunction, mitochondrial damage, chronic inflammation, and nutrient deficiencies – through targeted nutrition, strategic supplementation, and lifestyle interventions, rather than age-based assumptions and pharmaceutical protocols that ignore biological reality.
Now that Randy Andy has been exposed as an Epstein-associated degenerate, even the most dyed-in-the-wool defenders of the British royal family are starting to question their fealty to the House of Windsor. But do you know just how many pedophiles have personally mentored and advised King Charles himself? Strap in, because you’re about to learn just how deep the royal rabbit hole really goes.
Posting this here today so you can access the doco ‘Just Look Up’, featured by Jonathan Otto. It is only available for a couple of days. Particularly for those who still think it’s conspiracy. EWNZ
From Jonathan’s newsletter (includes recommendations for detoxing):
Here’s a moment from the Just Look Up film that stopped me cold:
Weather modification isn’t a future theory at all.
It’s not some sci-fi concept that just “showed up” in recent years…
According to public records, the U.S. has been actively modifying weather since the 1940s…
And by the 1960s, almost every state had an ongoing program.
Planes releasing specific materials into cloud systems…
Programs designed to increase rainfall in dry regions…
Projects aimed at shaping storms over targeted areas.
And it wasn’t limited to America.
The World Meteorological Organization has documented that dozens of countries have weather modification programs running today…
After more than seven decades of worldwide use.
So if you’ve ever looked up and felt like something about the sky has changed…
You’re NOT imagining things.
You’re noticing a real, documented human footprint in the atmosphere…
One that rarely gets discussed in the mainstream story of climate and health.
Because once you accept that humans have been altering clouds for generations…
You can’t help but ask the next question:
What has that been doing to our weather over time… to our ecosystems… and to us?
That’s exactly why I personally Executive Produced Just Look Up, directed by my good friend Ariana Victor.
The world premiere is happening right now, at no cost, for only a few days.
I joined my dear friend and colleague Dr Eric Berg to discuss censorship, the “Dirty Dozen”, and how Big Tech’s crackdown ignited a global movement for bodily sovereignty.
In this powerful conversation, Dr Eric Berg interviews me about my twenty year journey in my role as founder of GreenMedInfo, long-time natural health advocate, and one of the infamous “Disinformation Dozen” – to unpack how I was suddenly recast as a “domestic extremist” and even a “terrorist” simply for championing natural health and medical freedom.
In this video I explain how:
In 2019, Google quietly carried out what he calls a “digital book burning”, wiping out around 99% of natural health search results overnight.
A tiny UK outfit, the CCDH (Centre for Countering Digital Hate), helped script a playbook that turned natural health advocates into convenient villains – laundering censorship through NGOs that platforms and governments could hide behind.
How my website, business and YouTube presence were targeted, with cancer, vitamin D, immunity and COVID-related content stripped away under the banner of “misinformation” for daring to disagree with “consensus”.
But this isn’t just a horror story – it has a genuinely surprising ending.
I share how, after years of deplatforming, demonetisation and defamation, the tides are turning, with three of my accounts were recently reinstated. The platforms admitted they should never have been removed under their own community standards – right as Sayer is pursuing a federal civil rights lawsuit. At the same time, public trust in Big Pharma is collapsing, RFK Jr has moved into a position of real influence over health policy, and millions more people are suddenly awake to the importance of bodily sovereignty.
Together, Dr Berg and Sayer explore:
How “scientism” and “medical monotheism” replaced genuine evidence-based medicine with pronouncements from on high.
The way words like drug, disease and misinformation have been strategically redefined to sideline food-as-medicine and traditional remedies.
The new era of paid influencers quietly pushing pharmaceutical talking points while attacking natural health – often without disclosure.
Why attempts to smear, censor and exile natural health voices have actually accelerated a grassroots movement towards lifestyle-based, regenerative approaches to health.
If you care about the freedom to choose sunlight, turmeric, cherries or broccoli over a lifetime of polypharmacy – and about your right to decide what goes into your body – this interview will both validate your concerns and leave you hopeful.
🎥 Watch the full conversation above, then let me know in the comments below.
Joining the growing movement to take back control of one’s health destiny and secure health freedom for generations to come. Learn how you can empower yourself by joining Stand For Health Freedom and the Global Wellness Forum.
Back in 1994 Dr Meriel Watts wrote in her book The Poisoning of New Zealand*, of constant phone calls to the Soil & Health Assn by folk asking … “Is 1080 safe & do I have to let them drop it on my property?” The Association’s view at the time she said was ‘no’ and ‘no’. Soil & Health’s submission to the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment’s Possum Management review stated that “the current practice of distributing by air large amounts of 1080-laced carrot and pollard baits over large areas has lead to unacceptable risks to the environment, human health, dogs, farm stock, birds and other members of the ecosystem.” (p 186, 187).
That submission cited various incidents experienced by farmers.
“In one case a South Island farm lost 570 ewes when 1080 was dropped in his pastures as a result of the helicopter swinging too wide when dropping over bush patches. His sheep were still dying up to six months later; there were also a large number of abortions.” (Dr M Watts, p 187)
“In another case … a central North Island farmer came home to find 1080 spread all over her farm and around her house. There was a nice sign stating this fact, but no prior notification and no prior permission given. Fortunately her dogs were locked up.” (Dr M Watts, p 187)
We seldom of course hear of these incidents as they are not normally featured by mainstream media. It has been highlighted via the GrafBoys’ information that these stats are actually hidden in the paper work.
Farmers, when claiming compensation, are required to list that compensation as for purposes other than poisoned stock losses.
Please read the comments at this link (previous post) where a farmer shares about the loss of his dogs to likely 1080 poisoning. “MAF and DOC hushed it up pretty quick” he said.
See tv-wild.co.nz also for further info from the GrafBoys. Watch the video on topic at their Youtube channel here.
*The Poisoning of New Zealand by Dr Meriel Watts, Ak Institute of Technology Press, 1994
Image by Roman Solar from Pixabay (note, not the actual farm or farmer in the article).
“Smartphone ownership at age 12 is associated with higher depression risk, increased obesity risk, and a greater likelihood of insufficient sleep. The younger people acquire smartphones, the worse their health outcomes become, a pattern that continues affecting health throughout the lifespan.“
(NaturalHealth365) Walk through any public space and the scene repeats everywhere: babies in strollers staring at glowing screens, teenagers unable to look up from their devices, and adults compulsively checking phones every few minutes. What began as a convenient communication tool has become a constant companion that most people interact with for well over 4 hours daily, rarely questioning what this exposure is doing to bodies and brains at every age.
A major study published in Pediatrics, analyzing over 10,000 adolescents, has delivered results that extend far beyond childhood concerns. Smartphone ownership at age 12 is associated with higher depression risk, increased obesity risk, and a greater likelihood of insufficient sleep. The younger people acquire smartphones, the worse their health outcomes become, a pattern that continues affecting health throughout the lifespan.
Hidden health crisis emerging at every age, study data confirms
Researchers from the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development Study followed 10,588 participants, comparing health outcomes between 12-year-olds who owned smartphones (6,739 children) and those who didn’t (3,849 children). Depression risk increased by 31%, obesity risk jumped 40%, and insufficient sleep risk climbed 62% compared to children without smartphones.
The age at which someone gets their first smartphone shows a troubling trend: for every year earlier a child receives one, their risk of obesity increases by 9% and their risk of inadequate sleep rises by 8%. Early smartphone exposure appears to set long-lasting patterns that continue into adulthood.
Among youth who didn’t own smartphones at age 12, those who acquired devices during the following year had 57% higher odds of clinical-level psychopathology and a 50% higher likelihood of insufficient sleep, even after controlling for baseline mental health and sleep patterns.
But children aren’t the only ones affected. Adults spending excessive time on smartphones show similar health deterioration: disrupted sleep architecture, increased anxiety and depression, sedentary behavior contributing to metabolic dysfunction, and postural problems causing chronic pain.
Alarming cancer connection scientists can no longer ignore
Smartphones emit radiofrequency electromagnetic fields, raising serious questions about cancer risk across the lifespan. The International Agency for Research on Cancer classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as “possibly carcinogenic to humans” based on increased glioma risk associated with wireless phone use.
Children’s developing brains absorb more radiation than adult brains. Research published in Environmental Research found that children’s brains absorb 2-3 times more radiation than adults’, and the young, thin skull’s bone marrow absorbs roughly 10 times higher local doses. But adults face cumulative exposure risks. Someone who started using cell phones at age 15 and continues through age 65 accumulates 50 years of daily radiation exposure.
France has banned Wi-Fi in nursery schools and limited it in elementary schools, and Belgium has outlawed marketing phones to children under age 7. Yet despite these precautions, smartphone use continues to rise across all age groups, with very little discussion of the potential long-term health effects.
Simple strategies to protect yourself from device-related damage
Protecting yourself and your family from the health impacts of heavy smartphone use takes some intentional habits, but small shifts make a big difference.
Cut back on daily exposure: Instead of being “always on,” choose specific times to check your phone. Use built-in screen-time tools to set limits and create phone-free zones, like during meals, before bed, or when you’re spending time with others.
Lower radiation exposure: Use a speakerphone or a wired headset rather than holding the phone against your head. Turn off Wi-Fi and cellular data when you don’t need them, and avoid sleeping with your phone next to you. When you can, switch your device to airplane mode.
Reduce physical strain: Give your body breaks. Step away from screens regularly to undo the stress on your posture they cause. Simple stretches can help reverse “tech neck” and tight shoulders. If you’re sitting for long periods, stand and move at least every 30 minutes.
Protect your sleep: Keep screens out of the bedroom. Try to stop scrolling at least two hours before bed, so your body can naturally produce melatonin. If nighttime screen use is unavoidable, blue-light-blocking glasses can help.
Support detox pathways: Lower your overall toxic load by eating clean, staying hydrated, and moving your body daily. You can also support liver function and cellular repair with targeted supplements if needed.
Understand the cancer prevention connection
Chronic inflammation, disrupted circadian rhythms, electromagnetic field exposure, and sedentary behavior all contribute to disease processes, including cancer. These risk factors accumulate over decades of smartphone use.
Jonathan Landsman’s Stop Cancer Docu-Class brings together 22 holistic experts, researchers, doctors, and nutritionists, revealing evidence-based approaches to cancer prevention. Learn how environmental toxins and electromagnetic field exposure affect cancer risk, which lab tests detect early cancer markers years before conventional diagnosis, natural protocols for strengthening immune surveillance against abnormal cell growth, and how reducing toxic burden and supporting detoxification pathways lowers cancer risk.
Bottom line: Smartphone use harms health at every age, damaging mental health, disrupting metabolism and sleep, and exposing users to radiation that accumulates over time. Getting smartphones younger makes everything worse, but adults who’ve used phones for decades face their own serious risks. Protect your long-term health by cutting back on usage, keeping phones away from your body, and supporting your body’s ability to detoxify and repair cellular damage.
For months, many Floridians believed the state had finally put an end to suspicious aerial spraying after political statements suggested Florida was “banning chemtrails.” Governor Ron DeSantis and Senator Ileana Garcia spoke publicly about stopping geoengineering, giving the impression that skies would soon clear.
However, the recently enacted Senate Bill 56 (SB 56), which officially took effect July 1, 2025, tells a different story. While the law strengthens regulations on geoengineering and weather modification, it does not address all the aerial activity residents report seeing daily. In other words, the “ban” on chemtrails is far from what many expected.
What SB 56 actually covers
SB 56 prohibits any person or corporation from injecting, releasing, or dispersing chemicals, compounds, or other substances into the atmosphere in Florida with the explicit purpose of affecting temperature, weather, climate, or sunlight intensity. Violations carry steep penalties:
Individuals or corporations: fines up to $100,000
Aircraft operators: fines up to $5,000 and up to 5 years in prison
Funds collected from penalties are directed to the Air Pollution Control Trust Fund, used solely for environmental control purposes.
The law also allows residents to report observed violations, and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) must:
Accept reports online, by phone, mail, or email
Investigate reports requiring review
Refer potential violations to the Department of Health or Division of Emergency Management if appropriate
Adopt rules necessary to implement these procedures
Airports must report monthly to the Florida Department of Transportation any aircraft equipped for weather-modifying purposes. These reports are then submitted to DEP and law enforcement for enforcement support.
SB 56 also repeals outdated weather modification licensing laws from the 1950s, which previously allowed certain operations under strict permits. The law now prohibits these activities outright rather than regulating them through licensing.
Why Floridians are concerned
Despite the new law, residents across the state report seeing persistent aerial spraying patterns, grids, and unusual streaks in the sky. Many feel misled after believing the “ban” would prevent this activity.
Clearly, political statements can create the illusion of action, even when the law does not directly address all concerns.
Public figures are speaking out
Even celebrities have weighed in. World-famous comedian Jim Breuer, a Florida resident and former Saturday Night Live cast member, recently spoke about these aerial phenomena in a viral video. Millions of viewers relate to what he describes and are asking for accountability.
Watch Jim Breuer’s video here:
The law does not stop what residents are seeing
SB 56 focuses on formal geoengineering or weather modification operations. It does not cover all aerial activity residents report, and enforcement relies on DEP investigations based on submitted reports.
In short, residents remain in the dark about what is occurring above their communities.
Natural solutions to protect your body
While the cause of Florida’s hazy skies remains debated, one thing is sure: your body’s detox pathways are constantly working to process whatever you breathe, eat, and absorb. Strengthening those pathways with simple, natural practices can reduce your overall toxic burden and support long-term wellness.
Start with the basics: prioritize clean indoor air by using HEPA filtration, opening windows when outdoor air quality is good, and adding air-purifying plants like spider plants or peace lilies.
Hydration is essential for your liver and lymphatic system, so aim for filtered water throughout the day.
Organic nutrient-rich foods, especially cruciferous vegetables, herbs like parsley and cilantro, and fiber from fruits and vegetables, help your body process and eliminate environmental pollutants more efficiently.
Supporting your liver is one of the most effective steps you can take. Gentle practices like castor oil packs, dry brushing, regular movement, sauna use (far infrared or conventional), and adequate sleep all help your detox organs function optimally. Even small daily habits can make a meaningful difference when done consistently.
Take action: Make your voice heard
If you live in Florida, you have the right to demand clarity, transparency, and accountability. The correct office to contact is: Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) – Public Information Office: 850-245-2118
Ask them:
What is happening in our skies?
Are any weather modification or geoengineering activities currently occurring?
How is SB 56 being enforced?
When will Floridians see the skies clear?
The more residents who call, the more pressure officials feel to respond publicly and transparently. Your voice can drive change, ensure oversight, and demand accountability for activities in Florida’s atmosphere.
Your body is taking the hit – Here’s how to fight back
If you’ve been wondering how to protect your body from the daily onslaught of environmental toxins and support your natural detox pathways, there’s a simple, proven solution.
Get access to Jonathan Landsman’s Whole Body Detox Summit, featuring the latest strategies from 27 holistic experts, researchers, and nutritionists, all at your fingertips. With complete access to all episodes, bonus content, and easy-to-use transcripts and audio files, you can start reducing your toxic burden today and take control of your health like never before.
“Investigative reporter Asra Nomani revealed a sprawling global network pushing governments toward permissive, industrial-scale euthanasia.
Her findings are alarming:15,000 Canadians died via assisted suicide in 2023, now the 5th leading cause of death in the country.The Netherlands and Belgium routinely approve euthanasia for mental illness, minor children, and even newborn infants deemed to have “unbearable suffering.”Dutch law already allows doctors to kill children as young as one year old, with activists pushing to lower the age even further.The Dutch model has become the globalists’ blueprint, and now they’re racing to dismantle the final legal barriers. America is not far behind.”
Whistleblower Barry Young & Liz Gunn Speak To Maria Zeee
New Zealand whistleblower Barry Young returns to court on December 11, and the outcome could determine whether anyone in the Commonwealth is allowed to expose government wrongdoing.
His case has become a global test of transparency, accountability, and the public’s right to the truth.
Young was the sole administrator of New Zealand’s pay-per-dose vaccination database. When he saw a sharp rise in deaths following COVID vaccination, he released anonymized data with zero personal identifiers because the public deserved answers.
Analysts like Steve Kirsch said the data showed one death per 1,000 doses, while others warned the real toll may be far higher. For doing this, Young was raided, arrested, and dragged through nearly two years of legal warfare.
Now prosecutors want to deny him whistleblower status by saying he lacked “expert credentials,” even though their own expert never examined the full dataset. If they win, it becomes a model for silencing whistleblowers worldwide.
Watch the full report to see why December 11 could change everything.
The Vigilant Fox
EXPOSED: Leaked FDA Memo Confirms the Unthinkable | Daily Pulse
STORY #1 – A leaked FDA memo has confirmed what officials spent years denying, and the implications are chilling. For the first time, senior regulators admit COVID-19 vaccines have killed American children…
“…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.
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.
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.
The Vigilant Fox
You must be logged in to post a comment.