From Liz Gunn
In this short clip, we hear of the devastating death of a young Kiwi man, whose life ended suddenly – just five days after his jab in October 2021 – alone, in his car, after going for a run.
Continue reading 25-Year-Old New Zealand Male – VAERS Sudden Death – NO AutopsyTwo articles, one from Guy Hatchard, the other from NZDSOS.
By Guy Hatchard
Six years on from the pandemic the questions that remain unanswered can only be answered from a rigorous scientific perspective. It is remarkable that the Commission failed to engage with the volume of scientific publishing that was submitted to them. Our modern civilization and its technology is built on the foundation of evidence which is assessed using quantities and mathematical analysis.
Continue reading NZ’s Royal Commission Report into the Covid Response is a ‘Scientific and Ethical Failure’Source: Nicolas Hulscher, MPH
via Exposing the Darkness @ substack
In animal models, they destroy >60% of women’s finite egg supply. In human data (n=1.3M), vaccinated women have 33% fewer successful pregnancies than unvaccinated.
Continue reading HORRIFYING: ‘We Now Have Clear Evidence That the Covid-19 mRNA Shots Have Crippled the REPRODUCTIVE CAPACITY OF HUMANITY’Article from epidemiologist, Nicolas Hulscher, MPH
NOTE: NZ ‘Health’ is currently warning of a 9th wave of covid and recommending this shot that clearly has many well documented health risks. Just short of their inquiry whitewash, due out next week, they continue to IGNORE the deaths and the damaged and incapacited thousands world wide, many of whom are told it is all in their heads. Hear this UK doctor describe the health effects he has witnessed in his own practice. (See shorter clip here). He is now struck off for failing to follow the official narrative of ‘nothing to see here’. EWNZ
From nzdsos.com
We have read the recent media coverage and coroner’s report for Connor Garden-Bachop, a 25 yr old man who died suddenly in his sleep, in the prime of his life in June 2024, despite being a very fit and healthy rugby star.
Those of you following the various Covid Inquiries around the world, will know that they have all inevitably taken a similar approach. The governments have framed the ‘inquiries’ with taglines like ‘Lessons Learned’, spinning the rhetorical question of ‘what can we do better NEXT TIME?’ Over the years, Bill Gates sinisterly chuckles about that question more than once on camera:
Continue reading Update: NZ Royal Commission Covid InquiryA post from truthwatchnz.is 2024
From NE-NAKEDEMPEROR.SUBSTACK.COM
Last month, New Zealand’s Ministry of Health published an interim update to its Pandemic Plan. The Pandemic Plan they used during the Covid pandemic was published in 2017, so if you thought things were draconian last time, just you wait until the next one.
Continue reading New Zealand’s Pandemic Plan to Legalise Vaccination by ForceTWNZ Comment – Dr Cartland reveals horrific injuries and deaths right after the jab. He discloses information you will never read in mainstream media. This man needs support from you the public, and particularly from other Medical Professionals who know, and even seek Dr Cartland’s advice about treating the jab injured, but yet continue to remain silent. This man took his oath ‘do no harm’ seriously. He has written books about this. See info below.
Continue reading Struck Off & Still Fighting – A UK Doctor’s Story of Truth & Persecution (NZ MUST SEE interview with Liz Gunn)Note: if you are as yet unfamiliar with the journey of Barry Young, the NZ Data Analyst who alerted Govt to his alarming findings in the data, read here. EWNZ
From FreeNZ @ substack
Barry will receive the Judge’s verdict “on the papers” only.
Barry Young & Steve Kirsch provide this post-Voir Dire update after the secretive Wellington District Court hearing where the public was barred, and the window in the door covered over.
Continue reading Secret Wellington Hearing: NZ Govt Admits Ignoring Vaccine Harm Data – Whistleblower Barry Young & Steve Kirsch UpdateFrom nzdsos.com
As a group of medical doctors and scientists who have dared to defend the health of New Zealanders against the inordinate profit and power being executed by our government’s public-private partnerships, New Zealand Doctors Speaking out With Science (NZDSOS) is intimately aware of the lawfare being waged against health care professionals. It is important to note that similar lawfare is occurring in lockstep across the globe.
Continue reading Dire consequences for Health & other Professionals world-wide who dare to question the official narrativeFrom Dr David Cartland: Breaking the silence. @ Youtube
via Seemorerocks @ substack
For the latest episode of Breaking the silence I was extremely delighted to have a conversation with Barry Young who is an Ex-Pat living in New Zealand and worked as a data analyst.
Continue reading Interview with NZ Whistleblower Barry Young by Dr. David CartlandFrom Global GeoPolitics @ substack
Bill Gates stated his desire to reduce the population by 10–15% using vaccines in a 2010 TED Talk.
Those plans were initiated in 2021 and have been underway ever since.
Now he speaks with certainty about future global crises while funding bird flu gain-of-function research.
Bill Gates: “There will be another pandemic.”
“And although some of the lessons from this pandemic have been learned, way less than I would expect.”
“Sadly, the division on: Did we do too much? Did we do too little? Are vaccines good?”
“The country that the world expected to lead, and be the model, fell short of those expectations.”
Popular Information is powered by readers who believe that truth still matters. When just a few more people step up to support this work
RELATED
Dr. Rima Laibow: The “Neo-Feudalist” Owners of This World Want to Cull 90% of the Human Population.
From nzdsos.com
Guy Hatchard speaks about the covid experimental injection harms that those who folk thought would protect them continue to ignore…
A New Zealand-based PhD qualified researcher and author, an international advocate for food safety and natural medicine, formerly a senior manager at Genetic ID, a global food safety testing laboratory, and the author of Your DNA Diet, widely known for his analysis of the covid injections and public health policy.
From nzdsos.com
As the authorities can likely tell you, members of New Zealand Doctors Speaking Out With Science (NZDSOS), along with other freedom banner groups and involved citizens, were at the District Court in Wellington on the 11th and 12th of December 2025 to witness conscientious database analyst Barry Young’s application to have charges against him dropped as he claims whistleblower status. Using what little we know of what went on – the Judge suppressed public access and all the evidence presented – we have tried (and mostly succeeded) to be sober and reflective as we consider one aspect of our rapidly deteriorating country which is floundering on the reef. But, against a backdrop of suddenly dead young and old, and a very obvious surge in cancer and immune system failure, staying pleasant is very, very hard.
In June 2024, the United States Supreme Court overturned the Chevron deference — a doctrine that long told courts to defer to government agencies’ interpretations of ambiguous law. This striking-down reaffirmed a core democratic idea: courts are the ultimate interpreters of law, not mere rubber-stamps of executive authority. In NZ the situation is somewhat opposite – parliament has supreme authority and it is not the courts’ job to invalidate legislation.
But there is another kind of deference that has shaped public-health governance during the COVID-19 era — one not rooted in thoughtful statute but in the imperative to mass-vaccinate come Hell or high water, ploughing on even after clear evidence of harm appeared. The ‘successful’ rollout required a pervasive strategy to treat corporate evidence and political directives as the default, unchallengeable bedrock of covid policy and judicial reasoning. NZDSOS calls this pattern the Pfizer deference, where its anointed procurement contract rules every roost of relevance in New Zealand, but especially the Crown, the judiciary and regulatory bodies.
This is not a formal legal doctrine like Chevron, but in practice it has had similar consequences: it elevates certain sources of evidence so completely that alternative expert views, even when detailed and sworn as evidence on pain of perjury, are routinely sidelined. This dynamic has been visible not just in policy but in multiple New Zealand court challenges to injection mandates, where appellants — doctors, teachers, Defence Force personnel, police, midwives, port and border workers, flight crew, parents — presented extensive expert affidavits disputing aspects of the science, data integrity and safety profiles.
A notable island of sanity – and we say confirmation of the above – has been the employment courts, where it is company bosses, being found to have behaved badly in breaching their workers’ rights, who judges are only to pleased to find against. Here, they can avoid “safe and effective” like the plague, and leave the Pfizer deference glaring from the wings, but still larger than life.
In most of the civil court cases however, the Crown itself faced challenge and its response was simply official policy assertions, rather than robust counter-evidence. The result was not scientific discovery for interested judges, but one-eyed judicial gymnastics to bolster an official narrative that treated Pfizer-aligned evidence as the uncontested baseline.
That default fails to capture anywhere near the full extent of the serious reports of serious injury and death following vaccination — not merely slam-dunk-for-causation anecdotal accounts, but many entries in safety reporting systems. New Zealand’s regulator Medsafe periodically published data on adverse events following the jabs but ceased suddenly in December 2022, we presume since the reporting got simply too heavy. Tens of thousands of serious adverse reaction reports were logged to CARM, the national pharmacovigilance assessor, and for many people — particularly scientists and doctors who have scrutinised this data, and helped victims and grieving families— the absence of transparent engagement by authorities looks like engineered indifference, and smells way worse.
These are not fringe concerns; they are recorded data points, representing real human beings – we say in obscene, astonishing numbers – whose momento morte records deserve rigorous scrutiny and open inquiry.
Into this environment enters Barry Young, with perhaps the most significant legal contestation of whistleblower protections and institutional deference in New Zealand history.
Barry, a former Health NZ employee, is up for accessing and disseminating internal COVID-19 vaccine rollout data. He has pleaded not guilty in the Wellington District Court, as his motives were rooted in concerns about deaths, especially obvious to him as clusters, following modified RNA injections. His public disclosure saw almost immediate violent police response, impossibly quick for them to have done the required examination of any mitigation and his possible defences (as required by the Crimes Act to prevent vexatious prosecution); a basic human rights analysis; nor assessment of his whistleblower protections. It is claimed, too, that no-one in officialdom has examined his data, but why would they if they are to have a go at Barry Young? This is laughably unlikely anyway. Given all the data points we know they have seen, but ignored to the subsequent death and injury of more people, it is a long stretch that a few buttons haven’t been pressed inside Health NZ, if only out of curiosity.
The Protected Disclosures (Protection of Whistleblowers) Act 2022 (PDA) is legislation intended to shield public-sector workers who disclose serious wrongdoing in the public interest. Represented by lawyer Sue Grey, Barry’s hearing – originally scheduled for a single day in the week just gone – was extended into a second day, and is now carried over into 2026, reflecting apparent complexity and the clear significance to the judge of the issues at stake. And let’s be honest here, many countries (and global bodies) similarly persecuting their own dissenting voices will be intensely interested to avoid the precedent that our law should allow for. In the view of many, the PDA should have seen Barry Young discharged last Thursday to walk off to a hard-earned summer reprieve. But as many of us, similarly burdened by our consciences, have found: the process is the punishment, as well as a stick shaken at any others feeling wobbly.
At its heart, this case asks: When internal voices see danger which contradicts official narratives, are they whistleblowers deserving of protection, or offenders to be prosecuted? The answer, whilst obvious to many on the side of truth and accountability, will define concretely how New Zealand reconciles its supposed commitment to transparency and human rights with the reality of institutional fear of the evidence – whether merely inconvenient or starkly prosecutable.
Pretending, if we may, that courts and legislature are somehow separate and still directed to defending the public, we ask: Who gets to define what counts as authoritative interpretation? In the U.S., Chevron directed that courts should defer to agencies; in New Zealand, Pfizer deference requires that courts and public institutions default to official dogma and ignore credible alternative analyses or safety signals. Where does this leave Barry Young? And how has this worked out for the bereaved and disabled? Curiously, official agencies are ignoring them, or trying to, but many dedicated groups and individuals – Barry and NZDSOS members amongst them – have ensured those responsible never can say they didn’t know, when the time comes.
Medsafe’s regular safety reports categorised adverse events and outlined reported deaths following vaccination, with cautious language emphasising that such reports do not necessarily establish causation. This is consistent with international regulatory practice: reporting systems are curated carefully to flag possible signals, not to determine causality in isolation. But in virtually every case we have examined, the criteria for causation are satisfied. And the sheer volume of reported events — including serious conditions and deaths — and the derelictions in follow-up or transparent explanation leave many people righteously angry.
Worse still, suspiciously provocative phrases were used in lockstep around the world, such as “We’re not seeing anything we didn’t expect to see” and “We are continuing to monitor closely” even as charts leapt off the scale. The ubiquity of this plausible deniability is both undeniable and implausible as a certain shelter from future prosecution.
For those of us who know our first principles and have engaged with safety data at a detailed level, the absence of thorough, publicly accessible explanation and dialogue has cemented our distrust – and disgust – and shown danger signs are being swept under the rug of bureaucratic deference. Further though, it has encouraged us to dig more deeply into the highly precise words and phrases which were used by some officials, and disturbing but unsurprising clues to ‘deception by legalese’ may be starting to emerge.
The Barry Young case also highlights another critical dimension: how courts respond to evidence when institutional narratives are widely accepted by default. In many vaccine mandate challenges, appellants brought expert affidavits supporting detailed critiques of risk, safety or methodological assumptions. Yet in many cases, the Crown’s case consisted of policy assertions grounded in official position papers and regulatory statements rather than substantive scientific rebuttals using evidence of its own.
In some instances — such as the High Court’s decision quashing unlawful vaccine mandates for police and Defence Force personnel — judges did engage with the material and concluded that the Crown had failed to demonstrate that mandates were necessary or proportionate. But these decisions were exceptions rather than the rule. In other judicial reviews, the Crown’s position rooted in policy and default official interpretation went largely unexamined in court, not because alternative evidence was frivolous, but because judicial review is not structured to substitute courts’ judgment for that of regulators in technical scientific matters. The effect, however, can be similar to Chevron deference — not in law, but in practice: courts often uphold official evidence frameworks because there is no rival evidentiary structure presented by the Crown to counter the official narrative. In truth, this is generally disallowed anyway, as judicial review proceedings rarely permit cross-examination.
This dynamic reveals a kind of evidentiary asymmetry in litigation: appellants can marshal extensive expert analysis but still find courts defaulting to the official narrative because the state commands institutional acceptance rather than protecting the search for the truth.
If courts are not tasked with second-guessing scientific expertise, which generally they dislike, there must be other safeguards for transparency and accountability — especially when institutional narratives are challenged by those inside the system seeing harm. That is where whistleblower protections are supposed to come into play.
The Protected Disclosures Act 2022 was amended to protect better those who disclose serious wrongdoing or risk to public interest. It received wide cross-party support and institutional accolades. Yet, in practice, the first major test of that statute involves a man facing criminal charges for actions he believes were in the public interest. NZDSOS members can appreciate his situation. Some within our ranks know all too well the chill of criminal conviction for acting in the public interest.
That mismatch — between what the law promises and how it is operated — strikes at the heart of many things, not least democratic accountability. It sends a chilling and intended message: raising concerns can lead to prosecution rather than protection.
This is not purely hypothetical. In Barry Young’s case, the question is not only whether he committed an offence, but whether the law designed to protect individuals raising concerns means anything. If individuals who shout “Fire in the health response!” find themselves on the wrong side of criminal charges, it confirms that institutional deference trumps statutory protections for dissent.
The overturning of Chevron deference in the United States should remind us of a broader principle: no authority — whether legal, bureaucratic, or corporate — should go unexamined. Nearly six years into covid and it is beyond clear that driving a position simply because it is official or corporate-aligned closed off vital avenues of inquiry and marginalised legitimate scientific debate. Data is denied; people died – and will continue to do so.
This is not only a legal concern but a democratic one. Public trust in health policy used to depend not on uncritical acceptance, but on transparent evaluation of evidence, open engagement with dissenting expert views, and robust mechanisms for accountability. But our take on the torrent of anti-human legislation and the propagation of delusional ideas on gender, race and climate et cetera tells us that democracy and public trust are far in the rear-view mirror for some of our politicians and chief executives.
The treatment of Barry Young is the most vivid example of how this pattern plays out. A person who moved to save lives now finds himself defending against criminal charges, rather than being protected under the whistleblower statute that was supposed to shield exactly this kind of disclosure. If the Crown imagines it can keep the implications of Barry’s insights suppressed, that ship has sailed. Various much larger data sets show conclusively (and without refutation) that the covid jab, encompassing a whole-of-government enablement, is the most dangerous medical product ever.
To this extent, all of the foregoing discussion is couched far more politely than this emergent War on the World requires. Whilst some still resist that modern New Zealand has been invaded, this is extremely clear to more and more people, many of whom have contributed evidence showing profound wrong-doing to the Royal Commissioners. This very hot potato is now in their court – getting in a mixed metaphor before someone bans them for changing the weather – and, whilst it is addictive to worry how their report will land in February, we must all get on board the patriot train now and resist the over-reach like our lives depend on it.
To ensure that, this time, never again, we have much difficult and likely dangerous work to prioritise, but at some point succeeding will mean that courts can scrutinise evidence frameworks rather than defer to them, strengthen whistleblower protections in practice as well as law, and foster a culture in the heart of our public life in which evidence is interrogated openly rather than sanctioned.
The Pfizer deference tells us the how; to uncover the why and the who is the life path of many people of integrity. Men and women like Barry Young and Sue Grey give heart that the off-course supertanker that is New Zealand can be righted with enough sustained pressure in the critical places.
Thanks to Tim Shey for this link.
Blistering truths from Paul Weston exposing the monetary rewards (aka blood money) that kept the ‘treatment’ going … and still is going …
Paul Weston is a British political commentator, concentrating on the various factors involved in the relentless war against Western civilisation.
He has written a book titled: Covid-19: All Lies. All Crime which can be found here.
A beginner’s guide to Covid, Part 13: Does the vaccine work?
Paul Weston: Why don’t politicians do something about the corruption in UK’s medical industry?
I do know of one NZ primary school being visited earlier this year by a ‘Health’ team administering the ‘treatment’. And of parents who had not consented being visited at home asking why. How many other schools are still being visited and coerced? We would be keen to know.
Whistleblower Barry Young when he first disclosed the deaths he was seeing post treatment, displayed charts with child deaths on them. Likewise, the NZDSOS doctors published a long list of deaths reported post treatment, that also included children.
From FreeNZ @ Rumble
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!
Bravo to supporter Sasha White for putting together this great edit: https://www.facebook.com/reel/1967816537114793
RELATED (includes timeline of events):
Photo Credit: video screenshot Sasha White
Robin Westenra has provided a brief update here, basically this will continue unsurprisingly, into 2026.
READ/LISTEN at the link
From Robin Westenra @ Seemorerocks, Substack
Quote from Barry: We’re witnessing ‘the destruction of an Act of Parliament in real time’
Sue Gray could not give anything away
RCR Radio –
This morning, whistleblower Barry Young shared a few words outside court. Here’s what he had to say…
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
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.
What you’ll find:
→ 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.
Erica Whittome: Hidden Safety Reports and Blocked Information
Erica Whittome investigates withheld safety reports, blocked informed consent information, and hidden procurement processes through Official Information Act requests.
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.
Dr Alison Goodwin: The Shortcomings of New Zealand’s Pharmacovigilance
Dr Alison Goodwin examines the Post Vaccine Symptom Check surveys, revealing what questions were asked, what was reported, and what was hidden.
We’re sending formal notification to the Commissioners. They’ll have access to everything.
Want them to see it? Email them directly: InquiryintoCOVID-19lessons@dia.govt.nz
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.
More soon,
— The NZDSOS TeamNew Zealand Doctors Speaking Out With Science (NZDSOS)
P.S. This is what your support makes possible – grassroots funding, no government grants, no dodgy corporate motives. Become a monthly donor →
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.
Do you not find this seriously disturbing?
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.
From Steve Kirsch
Here you go: an admission by Health New Zealand that they don’t analyze the COVID vaccine data for safety signals.
“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.
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.
Excerpts:
So there you go. 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.
No epidemiologist or doctor will dare to publicly challenge Health New Zealand for fear of retaliation. Not a single one.
Important info Kiwis, if you can be at Court in Wellington please do go.
From FreeNZ
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
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.
READ MORE AND LISTEN AT THE LINK
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:
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.
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.
Photo Credit: pixabay.com
From FreeNZ with Liz Gunn
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…
RELATED
Barry Young Whistleblower Update: Excess Death Data Cover-Up – Court Hearing 11 Dec 2025
Photo Credit: Zee Media @ Rumble
The silencing of those who don’t comply with the official (lying) narrative! EWNZ …
From Dr Guy Hatchard
via expose-news.com
“…any existence of a relationship between Covid vaccination and all-cause mortality in the absence of Covid infection should have been a red flag…”
expose-news comment:
Due to his expertise, Dr. Guy Hatchard was invited to correspond with senior government advisors before the Covid vaccine rollout in New Zealand. By the end of October 2021, he was excluded entirely from email interaction with government advisors. “My input was cancelled,” he said.
Dr. Hatchard requested a meeting with the Royal Commissioners of New Zealand’s covid inquiry, “I was in a unique position to offer invaluable information to the Commission.” His request was denied.
The Commissioners are now preparing their report. To set the record straight and make a “sincere attempt to serve the needs of justice,” Dr. Hatchard has written an open letter to the Commissioners.
The following is an open letter written by Dr. Hatchard to the Royal Commissioners on Covid-19 Lessons Learned, Phase 2.
Dear Grant Illingworth KC and fellow Commissioners
I understand from your latest panui that you are currently assessing the evidence you have gathered in order to prepare your final report. Although the Hatchard Report submitted evidence to the Commission, our request for a meeting with yourselves was not granted. As I was in a unique position to offer invaluable information to the Commission, I believe an opportunity was missed. I would like to set the record straight in a last-minute, sincere attempt to serve the needs of justice.
In March 2021, immediately prior to the Covid vaccine rollout, I was personally invited to correspond with senior individuals who had been appointed to advise the government. These included a leading epidemiologist, a well-known business leader and a member of the Skegg Committee. My academic background includes the use of sophisticated time series analysis to test for causal factors in social and economic data. My early input was well received. For example, Professor Michael Baker replied to one of my comments:
“Thank you for that very lucid description of our current state of knowledge around Covid-19 and the uncertainties – which are large. I agree about the importance of trying to keep an open, evidence-informed debate about future options.”
I was well aware that mRNA vaccine technology was both novel and already well recognised in the scientific literature to involve unique risks. Early on, I took advantage of my contacts in the global biotechnology research sector to gather advice about these risks and to find out more about Covid origins.
There was a consensus among my contacts, who were actively doing research on genetic medicine, that Covid originated in a laboratory, but there was a reluctance to go public with this information for fear of losing their position. It was also apparent that, despite the known risks of mRNA vaccination technology, there was a reluctance to dismiss its use, rather my contacts believed the severity of the early variants circulating overseas dictated that Covid vaccination should be a matter of informed personal choice.
In other words, the risks should be a matter of public knowledge and discussion, and the effects of vaccination should be deeply researched and assessed. This was the extent of my understanding as my correspondence with government advisors commenced – I believed we should err on the side of caution. Government policy was keeping Covid out of the country, which could have bought us time to assess the safety of the vaccine as it was used overseas before we rolled it out here in NZ. In the pressured atmosphere of the early pandemic, this opportunity was missed.
It immediately became apparent to me that because NZ was almost completely free of Covid infection, due primarily to border controls, contact tracing and social isolation measures, we were in a unique position to assess any effects of the novel mRNA vaccine in the absence of confounding factors related to Covid infection. No other country in the world had this opportunity to the degree NZ enjoyed. Therefore, I took the responsibility of my contact with senior government advisors very seriously indeed. As the vaccine rollout began, I monitored published scientific papers on Covid and used my data skills to assess any vaccine effects.
Early on, I pointed out that lifestyle factors including diet and exercise, and alternative medical strategies to combat comorbidities could critically affect Covid outcomes and should be a factor in government policy to ensure a satisfactory long-term public health outcome.
But over the second quarter of 2021, as the vaccine rollout gathered pace, my correspondence with government advisors revealed that there was an overwhelming consensus that vaccination would contain Covid, despite the fact that overseas Covid data was not supporting this contention. By July a number of studies and assessments in the USA and Israel (with 59% of the population vaccinated at the time) revealed that Covid vaccination did not stop transmission and that any effectiveness at preventing hospitalisation fell dramatically within 10 weeks of vaccination and disappeared entirely within 180 days.
The reaction of the government team was instructive. A member of the Skegg Committee wrote to me suggesting that Covid was being spread in the general population by children who, at that stage, were not yet vaccinated. This suggestion did not have any supporting data; it merely reflected a predetermined policy to get everyone vaccinated as soon as possible. I wrote back, warning about the dangers of an overconfidence in Covid vaccination that did not fit the actual data.
In August, a preprint paper reported that the natural immunity acquired through Covid infection was 13 times more effective at preventing reinfection than Covid vaccination in the absence of prior infection. I circulated this among government advisors. The Skegg Committee member wrote back:
“A protective immune signature is often elusive and vaccines are actually quite primitive in design, and often don’t need to be anything other than that. For covid vaccination, we are actually still in the first generation and there will be lots of improvements – to dosing, dose interval, boosting and adjusting for variants. The fact that one has to give them to everyone to protect the few from falling victim (death) is unlikely to ever change I wouldn’t have thought. And the chances of other ‘interventions’ having anything like their protective effect is remote in my view.”
In other words, even though data was showing that mRNA Covid shots were not proving effective, there was such a deep-seated faith in the principle of vaccination that the actual data and the novel nature of mRNA vaccines was being ignored in the expectation that vaccine developers would get it right in the end. But by September, it became clear that the data showed Covid vaccination was not preventing deaths. I emailed the government team:
“I ran a linear regression for 190 countries between percentage of the population vaccinated and deaths per million during the last seven days. There is no significant correlation (+0.034) … I believe this points to a general principle that: it is factors and policies other than vaccination which primarily affect outcomes in a nation. Determining those factors is critical in understanding the pandemic and its possible solutions. From this point of view I am increasingly of the opinion that the current government messaging is becoming misleading. The majority emphasis on vaccination targets is giving the impression that a high level of vaccination alone will guarantee freedom from Covid.”
My early correlation finding was subsequently supported by a published study. The Skegg Committee member wrote back to me:
“I think you are right that studies have also shown that high vaccine coverage will not alone contain outbreaks. And that, given our still low 2-dose vaccine coverage, we are presently in a very risky situation.”
In other words, in his opinion, the solution to the lack of Covid vaccine effectiveness was more frequent mRNA vaccination. This did not appear to make sense, especially as reports of high rates of vaccine adverse effects were multiplying. Studies were beginning to be published showing that the risk of Covid infection for younger age groups was very low but the risk of adverse effects of Covid vaccination might be higher. These were red flags which were being ignored here in New Zealand.
In October, I received a reply from the Skegg committee member to my concerns about a teenage girl who had died suddenly following Covid vaccination. He dismissed this as a likely adverse effect of the oral contraceptive, not a possible effect of Covid vaccination. I raised other similar cases of sudden death following Covid vaccination but by the end of October, I was excluded entirely from email interaction with government advisors. My input was cancelled. By this time, the government was set on a policy of vaccine mandates, despite the growing evidence of harm. Universal Covid vaccine mandates for some professions and movement restrictions on the unvaccinated were extended during November. At this point, I believed there was an overwhelming public interest to raise my voice, to go public with my concerns and put analysis of NZ Covid data on a scientific footing.
Data for weekly all-cause deaths by age was available. Weekly Covid vaccine totals by age were being announced. It was therefore possible to undertake a time series analysis to determine whether increases in vaccine rates were followed by increases in deaths. I undertook this analysis for the 60+ age cohort. I compared weekly vaccination numbers in New Zealand with weekly deaths (all causes) for the 60+ age group between 7 March 2021 and 31 October 2021. This period corresponded to the exclusive rollout of the Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine. There were very few cases of Covid-19 active in the community during this period and therefore the effect of the Pfizer Covid vaccination could be studied largely free of the confounding factors of Covid deaths. My time series analysis found a positive effect of vaccination on deaths (all causes) at a lag of one week (t(33) = 1.74, p = 0.045 one-tailed). Tests showed the results cannot be plausibly attributed to spurious regression due to nonstationarity. The analysis found that vaccination was associated with 434 additional all-cause deaths during the week following vaccination among individuals aged 60+. This age cohort received a total of 2.8 million vaccine doses during the experimental period. The finding of additional deaths is roughly consistent with available reports of all cause deaths proximate to vaccination that were reported. The full text of the analysis is available at Research Gate.
There are limitations to this analysis. There is no doubt that the collection of vaccination totals by week would have been to an unknown extent subject to haphazard data collection and recording due to the rush involved, but any existence of a relationship between Covid vaccination and all-cause mortality in the absence of Covid infection should have been a red flag. Moreover, the possible association should have been obvious even to a casual observer of the above graph which was widely publicised at the time and fully available to those in government and the medical establishment who should have been assessing the possible effects of the Covid vaccine rollout.
As many others will have pointed out to you, the government became tardy in publicly acknowledging the risks of Covid vaccination. For example, it was not until fully six months after the risk of myocarditis and pericarditis was well known in scientific literature that Dr. Ashley Bloomfield wrote to DHBs to warn them. The failure to alert the public to proven risks had dire consequences. In 2022, a prospective study in Thailand found 30% of teenagers suffered adverse cardiac symptoms following mRNA vaccination. In April 2023, we reported data from the Wellington region showing an 83% increase in hospitalisation for heart attacks. In 2024, we reported a staggering increase in ED visits for chest pain among people under 40 and a 188% rise in mortality risk among NZ teens following Covid-19 vaccination. More recently, high-quality large population studies have found relatively higher cancer rates among the Covid vaccinated compared to the unvaccinated. In 2025, our St John ambulance emergency calls remain at record highs, 60% above pre-pandemic levels. Health insurance premiums have doubled over the same time frame. Our health system is overwhelmed.
These alarming health statistics result from some key mistakes that were made in the early years of the pandemic that could have been avoided, which I summarise as follows:
A. There was a failure to take account of the known character and depth of the serious risks posed by novel genetic interventions as used by the Covid vaccines. The adverse outcomes of past gene therapy trials and the results of prior animal studies were ignored. Warnings of some internationally prominent microbiologists were wrongly dismissed as conspiracy theories.
B. Instead, authorities followed a policy which naively and wrongly assumed the risks and possible adverse effects of mRNA vaccines were similar to prior traditional vaccines. In this way, they limited the number and type of conditions which might conceivably be related to Covid vaccination. They dismissed as unrelated, high rates of red flag adverse vaccine reactions including neurological effects, kidney damage, immune deficiency, psychological effects, cardiac issues and sudden deaths which were occurring at unprecedented high frequencies.
C. The absence of any studies of the longer-term effects of Covid vaccines should have led to rigorous pharmacovigilance monitoring. Instead authorities assumed that any adverse effects would only surface during the first 21-30 days following vaccination, thus crippling their potential to assess and understand potential Covid vaccine outcomes, including cancers. Border controls and contact tracing largely excluded Covid infection in NZ during 2021, giving NZ a unique opportunity to assess the effects of Covid vaccination in isolation from Covid infection. This opportunity was lost.
D. Authorities actively sought to suppress and discredit those asking questions and raising concerns on both local and international platforms, including valid scientific results and discussions. They made repeated public assurances of safety and efficacy in the face of contrary evidence and sought to control media and social media content and discussions, apparently in order to suppress Covid vaccine hesitancy. They severely disciplined doctors offering informed consent.
E. The government sought scientific advice mostly from committed vaccine advocates who had a very limited understanding of gene technology. They too readily accepted the clearly biased communications from Pfizer advising safety and positive trial outcomes. Crucially, ignoring the alarming details of wide-scale high-frequency adverse events contained in the document ‘5.3.6 Cumulative analysis of post-authorization adverse event reports of Pfizer bnt162b2 received through 28-feb-2021’, a version of which our government received in 2021 and whose implications have been thoroughly analysed in the published scientific literature.
F. In assessing the massive volume of scientific publishing on Covid-19 which runs to many more than 100,000 papers, there was a failure to take account of the known hierarchy of evidence. The results of prospective studies, time series analysis, studies of large populations, studies comparing outcomes of vaccinated and unvaccinated populations and studies examining longer-term outcomes should have taken precedence. If this had been followed, dangers would have been apparent and problems averted.
G. As time went by and evidence of harm in the population both here and overseas began to accumulate, authorities attempted to limit access to key NZ source data, especially concerning specific parameters such as vaccine status, cardiac disease, cancer, excess mortality, etc. Those figures that remained accessible or were leaked painted a very grim picture of accelerating ill health since 2020, which continues to be ignored by Health NZ or erroneously blamed on factors that have remained largely unchanged since 2020. Yet it has become ever clearer that the rate of Covid vaccine injuries reported to CARM is only the very tip of the iceberg. A Covid death whistle-blower Barry Young is still facing prosecution. Doctors raising questions about Covid vaccines are still being censored.
It is apparent that long-term public health outcomes have been harmed by the combination of Covid infection and vaccination. Both of these almost certainly resulted from biotechnology experimentation. The failure of the government and Health NZ to come to grips with the implications of the health data needs to be exposed and discussed publicly. Your role as Commissioners requires a full examination of the scientific data that has been so far ignored here in NZ. I remain available to discuss these issues, they are within the Commission’s terms of reference. They should not be omitted from your final report. This is a matter directly affecting public health and longevity.
Yours sincerely
Guy Hatchard PhD, 1 December 2025
Guy Hatchard is the creator and principal contributor to the Hatchard Report. He has been a life-long advocate of food safety. He was formerly Director of Natural Products at Genetic ID, a global food safety testing and certification company now known as FoodChain ID. Genetic ID developed techniques to test for the presence of genetically modified organisms in food and provided services to bulk food trading companies like ADM, Cargill, and many others in order to facilitate access to export markets and increase consumer trust. He has presented his findings to governments and industry leaders around the world. He appeared before the NZ Royal Commission on Genetic Modification and has been a key figure in discussions since 2017 which eventually led to the repeal of the Natural Products Bill. He has written a book Your DNA Diet which is available from Amazon.
He received his BSc Hons. from the University of Sussex, UK, in Logic and Theoretical Physics with a special focus on the scientific method. He qualified with a Certificate in Teaching from Canterbury Teachers College, Christchurch. His MA thesis at Maharishi International University (MIU), Iowa, analysed outcomes of mastery learning in Mathematics. His PhD thesis in Psychology at MIU investigated the impact of human factors on national competitive advantage using time series analysis. Maharishi International University (MIU) is fully accredited by the Higher Learning Commission (HLC) which is recognised by the US Department of Education and the Council on Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA). It incorporates principles of consciousness-based education (CBE). CBE includes traditional subjects while also cultivating the student’s potential from within. He has published papers in peer reviewed journals and was the keynote speaker at the 1996 annual conference of the British Psychological Society on Crime.
Featured image taken from NZ Royal Commission Covid-19 Lessons Learned
Extreme Agendas of Biotechnology Are Being Put on the Table
Weaponizing Immigration, Deportation, and Mass Migration (Austin Fitts & Yon)
How The Magic Works (Max Igan)
Dr. Ursula Edgington: Unpacking the globalist agenda in New Zealand
A Warning For European Citizens (THIS IS BAD!)
How Much More Proof do You Need ? (on the arm dart fallout)
8 WAYS to PROTECT YOUR FARM from the GOVERNMENT!
AI will soon be seen as the evil “artificial ignorance” that it actually is
Part 18 from The Fall of the Cabal series. A must watch IMO. Especially if you’re still unconvinced of the real narrative. This particular episode unpacks the arm dart era.
RELATED: Are you ready for a new pandemic drama?
Once you uncover one lie, the remaining info from that source becomes suspect. From my own research I see the lies are endless. I highly recommend you watch the whole series.
The Greatest Lie is found here.
Links to the whole series :
The Sequel to the Fall of the Cabal
The Conclusion to the Fall of the Cabal
The Fall of the Cabal for Youth
Sub to The Fall of the Cabal HERE
(There is a choice of free or paid, the videos are free to watch).
Photo Credit: pixabay.com
From Dr Vernon Coleman
via expose-news.com
Note: the FDA’s list of symptoms and possible side effects were drastically different to our own (NZ’s) list… however to share these on social media at the beginning of the plandemic was ‘not allowed’! Informed consent? EWNZ
Dr. Vernon Coleman provides a concise list of the 10 symptoms associated with covid and the covid injections. The list of symptoms are not the same.
The British Government has kindly just issued a list of the symptoms associated with covid-19 (the rebranded flu). Here is the list:
And now here is the list of 10 symptoms associated with the covid-19 jab:
Readers may like to compare the two lists. To help your government spread the truth, please share these lists.
Vernon Coleman’s book Anyone who tells you vaccines are safe and effective is lying: here’s the proof is available via the bookshop on this website.
You can also find a full list of Dr Coleman’s books here
He is understandably heavily censored so the links to his site sometimes do not work. Keep looking! EWNZ
BREAKING: Gavin de Becker Connects Kissinger, WHO, Gates & Fertility Decline — in FIVE minutes
Did A Pandemic Really Occur in 2020? What Do the Official Statistics Say?
How Did Eugenics Become Legal in America (Part 1)?
James Corbett’s take on the Epstein cesspit
Gene-Editing Human Embryos: A Doomed Technological Catastrophe
If There Was Ever A Hill To Die On This Is It
Food is Your Best Medicine (1966)
SHOCK POLL: Rasmussen Finds Millions Reporting COVID-19 Vaccine Side Effects
NZ: Another doctor harrassed by the Medical Council (forwarding from NZDSOS)
Photo Credit: pixabay.com
From The WinePress
“COVID-19 was the test of social responsibility – A huge number of unimaginable restrictions for public health were adopted by billions of citizens across the world.”
The following report was first published on October 1st, 2022, on winepressnews.com.
Due to the fact that billions of people worldwide all voluntarily submitted themselves to hefty Covid-19-related restrictions, practices (masking, social distancing, death of the handshake, Zoom calls), job closures, payment forbearance, curfews, lockdowns, isolations, quarantines and more; the World Economic Forum (WEF) is now stating that this pandemonium was just a “test of social responsibility,” and that these same people will accept a social credit score system.
Published on September 14th, the WEF published an article titled “‘My Carbon’: An approach for inclusive and sustainable cities,” written by Kunal Kumar, Mission Director for Smart Cities Mission and Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs of India, and Mridul Kaushik, who worked as an analyst for Cisco for several years.
The two authors lay out the steps towards the world’s populous accepting a social credit score system that is carbon-based. This is what China currently uses, which applies a retroactive score to individuals based on what they say and do, which therefore determines what they can and cannot do in society.Subscribe
The authors begin their article by asserting that nearly three-quarters of the world’s cities account for the total carbon emissions, and with 40% of that number coming from individuals and their actions. And even though many communities have tried to implement sustainability goals, they say they have had “limited success” because of political and social discourse, ignorance on the issues, and the inability to monitor “My Carbon” emissions.
“My Carbon,” as the WEF calls it, is the pseudonym for this social credit-carbon calculator they wish to come to pass.
The authors layout three key “significant developments” within the last decade that could help in “shaping the future towards smart and sustainable cities.”
The author’s first tenet is the subservience of the masses during the Covid-related restrictions and lockdowns. They wrote:
“COVID-19 was the test of social responsibility – A huge number of unimaginable restrictions for public health were adopted by billions of citizens across the world. There were numerous examples globally of maintaining social distancing, wearing masks, mass vaccinations and acceptance of contact-tracing applications for public health, which demonstrated the core of individual social responsibility.”
In other words, if the masses willingly submitted themselves to the “new normal,” why would they not conform to these new proposals to perfectly surveil everyone’s life?
From there, the authors introduce point number two, “Fourth Industrial Revolution technology breakthroughs.” In short, because of all the artificial intelligence and smartphone addictions, the authors, without saying the words, necessitate the need for a carbon-based social credit score:
“Advances in emerging technologies like AI, blockchain and digitization can enable tracking personal carbon emissions, raise awareness and also provide individual advisories on lower carbon and ethical choices for consumption of product and services. The World Economic Forum’s Scale 360 initiative demonstrates the use of fourth industrial revolution technologies across the whole life cycle of products and services.
“There have been major advances in smart home technologies, transport choices with carbon implications, the roll-out of smart meters in providing individual choices to reduce their energy-related emissions, the development of new personalized apps to account for personal emissions, and better personal choices for food and consumption-related emissions. AI can also help strengthen circular economy business models like product as a service models, demand predictions, and smart asset management by combining real time and historical data from products and users.
“There is a significant number of programs and applications enabling citizens to contribute towards carbon emissions by providing them in-depth awareness on the choices of personal carbon for food, transport, home energy and lifestyle choices.
“These energy efficiency apps give suggestions and statistics regarding greenhouse emissions and offer ways to reduce your personal footprint. Keeping track of energy consumption in the home and motivating people to make lifestyle changes and to contribute your share towards the betterment of the environment.”
The third point the author’s present is even more ‘education’ and “raised awareness” on the issue of climate change, building-off on the increasing number of people (namely the younger generations) who are actively calling for mitigation in their own lives to stop climate change. Citing a detailed poll via the Pew Research Center, “80% of citizens say they are willing to change how they live and work to combat the effects of climate change.” The sample size, however, was less than 20,000 people interviewed internationally.
Notwithstanding, people like Bill Gates have said that the collective masses will simply not conform to these climate-related initiatives, though subtly implying the methodology as to how it will be implemented: “Bill Gates Says You’ll Never Solve Climate Change By Making People Consume Less, Subtly Implying Depopulation Instead.”
Nevertheless, bearing all three points in mind, the authors conclude this:
“The three trends provide strong evidence towards enabling a social movement for “My Carbon” initiatives by enabling public-private partnerships to help curate this program. It is suggested to drive a three-way approach to shape this movement.
“Such economic action will need policy enablement from city leadership through extensive discussion between stakeholders to arrive at a fair and inclusive approach.
“The levers of Cognitive Enablement and Social Norms will be much more impactful through citizen engagement programs and learnings from the above-mentioned trends need to be captured to design these programs. Innovative AI and machine-learning capabilities would help capture embedded emissions in goods and services, and could help in providing individuals with tailored and timely advice on how to reduce their lifestyle emissions.
“Finally, it is significant that all stakeholders across the value chain come together and contribute towards achieving a net-zero future by leaving no one behind.”
Furthermore, as a sidenote, the WEF additionally notes some of the other underlying initiatives attributable to them to bring these social credit scores to pass, to usher in this new system per smart city life by 2030.
“In a major step, nine cities and more than 70 organizations in 10 different sectors have come together to build further momentum for a new multi-year initiative: Net Zero Carbon Cities.
“Together with the Forum, they have created a vision for the future and launched a new framework to help cities rethink urban ecosystems, ensuring that they are greener, efficient, resilient, circular and more equitable.
“From policy-makers to businesses, city administrators, civil society and the financial sector, the World Economic Forum is convening a range of stakeholders with a role to play if global cities have a chance of reaching the net-zero carbon goal by 2030.”
The WinePress News is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.Subscribe
As sad as this is, the WEF is telling the truth and are 100% correct: the willfully ignorant sheeple will absolutely fall in lockstep with these initiatives. And as the WEF has just admitted, the propaganda is only going to increase. But by the same token, I believe mass trigger events must be created in order for the sheeple to be coerced into doing so. Economic collapse, famine, disease, cyberattacks, death, and war will surely do the trick, as the people will be groveling for the government to save them.
The video has since been deleted because of YouTube’s absurd termination of my channel, but, prior to a single lockdown in the states, on March 14th, 2020, I bashed the Covid rhetoric and exposed the wonderful and marvelous actions of the people. The masses were petrified and stocking up on toilet paper over a made-up “everything virus” that supposedly claimed only several thousand lives worldwide, out of a population of roughly 7.8 billion! I am not trying to whet my own whistle here, but I have the actual right to bash this stuff, unlike all the shills that found it was popular and trendy to make fun of Covid by the summertime.
All of this could have been averted if people stood-up and resisted this nonsense:
Proverbs 12:24 The hand of the diligent shall bear rule: but the slothful shall be under tribute.
Proverbs 28:1 The wicked flee when no man pursueth: but the righteous are bold as a lion.
But, I have a saying: “liars love being lied to.”
Proverbs 17:4 A wicked doer giveth heed to false lips; and a liar giveth ear to a naughty tongue.
It was and is hilariously obvious fake all this garbage was and still is, and yet the people ate it up like candy on Halloween. And after all of this, do you realize the sheer amount of people that still believe this “virus” is real?! But I digress.
But this is one of the very reasons why I wrote “Are You Awake? Are You Ready For What’s Coming? Do You Loathe The Honeycomb??” – in an attempt to try and make sure people are awake to what is happening and what will happen, and how to be on the right side of things. I encourage you to read it again if need be.
The point is, what the WEF is saying is a very sad and pathetic truth: the masses will absolutely conform to this with no resistance. And if there is some similitude of backlash, it will be because the controlled-opposition liars in the media will “hack” people’s brains to complain; for the masses have no brains: the media is their mind.
Beit so, it should be noted that this massive deception, just like the Covid War (where hardly anyone stood up and resisted this malarky), is because THE LORD is purposefully deceiving the people, leading them to their own destruction, for their wickedness and hatred of his word.
Isaiah 5:7 […] and he looked for judgment, but behold oppression; for righteousness, but behold a cry.
RELATED
You must be logged in to post a comment.