Tag Archives: open letter

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

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


From Dr Guy Hatchard
via expose-news.com

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


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

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

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



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

Dear Grant Illingworth KC and fellow Commissioners

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yours sincerely
Guy Hatchard PhD, 1 December 2025

Guy Hatchard, PhD, Biography

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

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

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

Another open letter to NZ Govt from Lawyer Sue Grey: URGENT REQUEST FOLLOWING RESEARCH SHOWING THE “S PROTEIN” IN THE PFIZER JAB IS A TOXIN

EWR Comment: note the research & video are included in the links. Must watch/read.

From: Sue Grey suegreylawyer@gmail.com
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2021, 23:33
Subject: OPEN LETTER No 2- An URGENT REQUEST FOLLOWING RESEARCH SHOWING THE “S PROTEIN” IN THE PFIZER JAB IS A TOXIN
To: Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern jacinda.ardern@parliament.govt.nz, Hon David Parker david.parker@parliament.govt.nz, Hon Andrew Little andrew.little@parliament.govt.nz, Hon Chris Hipkins chris.hipkins@parliament.govt.nz, ashley_bloomfield@moh.govt.nz, Chris James Chris.James@health.govt.nz, ayesha.verrall@parliament.govt.nz

Dear Prime Minister, Attorney-General, Minister of Health, Minister of Covid, Minister or Seniors, Director General of Health and Chris Hipkins.
I attach below some new and very important research which I must assume your advisors have not yet provided to you, or the experimental Pfizer injection rollout would surely already have been suspended.
It is now clearly established that the SProtein is a toxin that causes the harmful symptoms known as “Covid”.


I surely don’t need to explain the legal, ethical and human rights consequences of a government knowingly promoting a program which intentionally injects a life threatening toxin into healthy people.
I also attach a report indicating that injected nanoparticles (and the SProtein) do not remain in the arm muscle but instead circulate throughout the whole body.
The combined effect is that the Pfizer jab injects mRNA to take over cells to manufacture the deadly SProtein toxin and this spread throughout much of the body, manufacturing the SProtein toxin for days and in some cases many weeks.
This explains why even the limited available research from the two months of study as summarised in the Comirnaty Data Sheet identifies possible harm to many different parts of the body including the heart, blood, brain, musculoskeletal system, nervous system, fainting and dizziness etc.
This is no longer just a shocking experiment. Everyone involved is now on notice of this “injection roulette” which may result in death or serious injury to previously healthy people. The health and safety implications for employers and those who push this jab, are significant.
No post injection death can legitimately be ruled out as being caused or contributed by the injection, at least not without a full coroner’s report. Certainly any post vax stroke, heart attack, other blood disorder, nervous system disorder or even suicide or car accident (known overseas as “vaccidents”) must prima facie be assumed to be caused or contributed to by the jab, at least until a full coroners report is undertaken.
Similarly it is not good enough to claim that our seniors who die post jab were frail and likely to die. Surely if they were that frail they should have been spared from the jab. Anyway, surely “deaths post Jab” should be treated consistently with “deaths post Covid”.
Despite the secretive, flawed and very passive official post jab injury reporting process ( CARM), and as a result of the more active community led follow up, you are already on notice of a number of deaths and life threatening and life changing harm from this injection. The deaths and harm will inevitably continue if there are any further injections. Perhaps initially you had an excuse that you thought the SProtein was “safe”. However now you are on notice that it is not “safe” by any definition.
Further, although you in privileged position are on notice, many members of the public who you were elected to represent remain deceived by misleading claims in crown propaganda that the jab is “safe and effective”. In these circumstances there can be no “Informed consent”., Each jab without Informed consent is in breach of the Health and Disability Code and is an assault.
In these circumstances, the ongoing program is surely criminal, and indeed may result in Homicide as defined by the Crimes Act:
158Homicide defined
Homicide is the killing of a human being by another, directly or indirectly, by any means whatsoever.
Compare: 1908 No 32 s 173
Anyone who aids, abets or otherwise incites homicide is a party to that homicide.
I note that the Director-General of Health has shared his view in sworn evidence that Covid is the most serious health issue for New Zealand in 100 years.
I invite you all to consider that claim very carefully and critically. Please put Covid in perspective against the many other challenges which we face, including for example heart attacks, strokes, cancer, suicide accidents and diabetes and the nitrate and other contamination of much of our water.
Surely you must agree that the harm is not from “Covid” but from the “Response to Covid”.
The best expert evidence is that the risk from Covid is similar to the risk from influenza. Many experts are now saying that Covid is simply a rebranding of influenza and colds, supported by PCR testing that was never intended as a diagnostic tool. The WHO says that PCR testing should not be used beyond 20-25 cycles. OIA responses indicate that in NZ PCR tests use up to 45 cycles, which simply multiplies any contamination.
Our government is about to enter dangerous new phase if it proceeds to inject more healthy New Zealanders with an injection that experts have established is toxic.
Apart from the direct harm to those who choose, or are bullied to accept this injection, there is considerable peripheral harm. This includes the contamination of our Blood Bank with SProtein. We can only speculate on the risks for vulnerable people who receive blood contaminated with this toxin.
Please stop and reflect. Please listen to international experts who are independent from Big Pharma and who are not invested in the Covid paradigm.
Please listen to the New Zealand scientific and medical experts who have put their careers and reputations on the line out of extreme concern.
Please correct the misinformation that this injection is “safe and effective” and “approved by Medsafe” when in fact it did not meet the statutory criteria that “benefit exceeds risk”.
There is no imminent health risk from suspending the program. Dr Bloomfield’s sworn evidence was that the risks were mainly financial and reputational.
Please find the courage to challenge whoever is driving this, and any who act on dogma rather than evidence, reason or ethics.
The future of New Zealand depends on your courage to step up and make this critical call for our people.
I urge you to listen, engage and act in the public interest.
Please put aside your pride and the dogma, and suspend this program.
I am happy to assist however I can.

Sue Grey LLB (Hons), BSc (Biochemistry and Microbiology), RSHDipPHI
Co-leader NZ Outdoors Party suegreylawyer@gmail.com
sue.grey@outdoorsparty.co.nz

http://suegrey.co.nz/?fbclid=IwAR3z3FDZN6wY1vUwzwctL7nNFCUtivUtTgILKDExaP8-KmKXa7KZFl2QqWA

https://omny.fm/shows/on-point-with-alex-pierson/new-peer-reviewed-study-on-covid-19-vaccines-sugge?fbclid=IwAR1Afx5B-UIluGhMUHDTrUBgXU83kZSondMDjW-mOr59r03XZkiifpcGHs8

RELATED: New findings on the spike protein, Dr Tom Cowan

Photo Credit: Screenshot

Pike families have been given control of mine road

Pike families take control of mine road

A flame burns from the end of a ventilation shaft of the Pike River coal mine near Greymouth on November 30, 2010.© REUTERS/The Press/Iain McGregor/Pool A flame burns from the end of a ventilation shaft of the Pike River coal mine near Greymouth on November 30, 2010. The families of the men who died in the Pike River coal mine say the owner of the road accessing the mine has given control of it to them.

The families of the 29 men who died in the mine in November 2010 have been fighting the sealing of the mine, saying the drift, a tunnel leading to the mine proper, is safe to enter.

The mine was privately owned at the time of the explosions but is now owned by state-owner coal miner Solid Energy, which says the mine is not safe to enter.

The families have been protesting on the road to the mine, and on Sunday posted on social media “there’s been a wee development”.

“Turns out, Solid Energy don’t own a big slice of the road to the Pike River access road, and don’t have any legal right to access it.”

It’s the only way to get to the mine in the West Coast region of New Zealand’s South Island.

“Oh, and the lovely local farmer who does own it, being a top bloke and loyal Coaster, has given control to us.

“So, you know, we’ll try hard to be reasonable landlords. We’ll allow access for genuine emergencies, if they ask nicely. But, well, that’ll be it for now.

“The town bully just went down.”

The Pike River families plan to go to parliament in Wellington on Tuesday to present the new prime minister with a new legal and technical plan to allow for re-entry of the drift “to retrieve evidence of what happened to our boys, and any remains which may lie there”.

Last week, Solid Energy published an open letter in newspapers explaining its position.

It rejected claims a “quick” inspection of the 2.3km drift, or entry shaft, is safe, that it is not listening to families’ experts, talking to the families and acting with indecent haste.

It also labelled the idea the mine was being sealed because it had something to hide or was colluding with the government in a cover-up plot as “incorrect and farcical”.

SOURCE  thecontrail.com

This is excellent news! Share this info & go to our Pike River page also. Share using the buttons at bottom of pages. Support the families at Pike River to get justice done for their loved ones!

EnvirowatchRangitikei