Two articles, one from Guy Hatchard, the other from NZDSOS.
The Royal Commission Report is a Scientific and Ethical Failure.
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. For a complex problem the assignment of mathematical values to components and relationships is required for a solution. Without the numeric evidence, the Commission’s Report in tone and substance appears merely ideological and political. Some key evidence of harm is acknowledged but brushed over, failing to make any impact on the final recommendations. This is because little or no effort was made to numerically assess the weight and hence relevance of evidence. Thus the conclusions and recommendations of the Commission lack scientific validity. Yet the Commission is suggesting that its report should guide the implementation of new legislation which will set in concrete many of the biggest mistakes of the Covid era including the power to enforce vaccine mandates. Here are some headline omissions which stand out on first reading, (extracts from the report in bold italics):
“All medicines have side effects” This may be a true statement, but without any attempt to quantify the scale and rate of Covid mRNA vaccine adverse effects this becomes a meaningless dismissive platitude. Covid vaccines created a rate of adverse effects that dwarfed all previous vaccines in NZ combined. Moreover the adverse effects that people experienced proximate to Covid vaccination were often serious and covered a very broad range of conditions including death. The Commission heard from a wide range of individuals who suffered adverse effects but failed to assess these testimonies in a scientific manner. Without a comparison of the short and long term health outcomes of the vaccinated with the unvaccinated any suggestion of safety is meaningless. The Commission failed to ask Health NZ to undertake such scientific assessments.
“Together, Medsafe and the Ministry of Health sought and followed extensive advice from medical and scientific experts, who closely monitored evolving international experiences of developing, approving and using COVID-19 vaccines.” It is hard to escape the conclusion that the government was taking decisions within an echo chamber of other governments who were similarly uninformed and confused as to the possible outcomes of infections, containment strategies and vaccine safety. Moreover these in turn were blindly following the advice of international pharmaceutical mega corporations whose interests clearly did not coincide with those of NZ. Our government readily accepted and passed on to the public misleading figures of 99% efficacy for mRNA Covid vaccines without realising they were making a simple mathematical error, confusing absolute and relative confidence measures. Thus NZ fell easy victim to what amounted to an intentional confidence trick on the part of those companies seeking to sell novel vaccines. Moreover even when their error became apparent and they knew that the vaccines did not stop transmission, they still enforced vaccine mandates.
Due to our geographic isolation, we had an opportunity in NZ to delay decisions about vaccine mandates until independent scientific publishing in other countries had yielded information about the true safety and efficacy of mRNA vaccines which were entirely novel in their design and action. We missed that opportunity. The Report refers to the government procurement of the Covid mRNA vaccine as a sensible decision in its search for a ‘safe and effective’ vaccine. As subsequent research and personal experience has shown, it proved neither safe nor effective. The Report reaches an alarming conclusion that NZ would have been better off if more people had been vaccinated more quickly, thus endorsing the concept of coercive health mandates. The Commission highlighted the need to respect the Bill of Rights but in the same breath suggested that legislation should now be passed to effectively automatically bypass its health protections. A sort of double speak worthy of Brave New World.
“The lack of monitoring has made it difficult to assess the extent to which the impacts of vaccination requirements were ‘unforeseen’” Wasn’t it the job of the Commission to insist that such important data was researched and compiled? This statement highlights the complete lack of depth in their approach, their satisfaction with generalities rather than requiring detailed and reliable evidence. Their failure to use their powers to request information and action.
“Vaccination requirements are a valid intervention that should be kept in the toolbox for future pandemic responses….Before the next pandemic, primary legislation should be in place that sets out the most significant legal powers government can use in a pandemic response…[including] vaccine requirements” These sentences say it all. The lengthy qualifications that follow them are window dressing, they do nothing to mitigate the blunt reality. The Report is calling for legislation allowing for the imposition of future vaccine mandates and medical interventions at the discretion of the government. The use of the term ‘requirements’ is a euphemism for ‘mandates’. Moreover the Report is also calling for a more or less automatic trigger function to set mandates in motion in the event of a pandemic. A frightening prospect.
“On the whole, decisions made during the pandemic response were balanced and reasonable.” In other words no one is going to be held accountable for mistakes. Nor are provisions for compensation recommended for anyone whose health was affected. This is a complete slap in the face for all those who painfully recounted details of their vaccine injuries to the Commission. Many of these adverse effects have been dismissed by the health system and ACC as unrelated, despite published accumulating scientific evidence that is linking neurological, cardiac and cancer events with Covid vaccination status. Research prior to the pandemic recognised that interventions altering genetic structures and expression can result in such wide ranging effects. Denying the possibility of a connection amounts to medical gaslighting and malpractice.
“Misinformation and disinformation affected several areas of the response, particularly the vaccination campaign and lockdown.” The Report confirmed the primacy of government control over health decisions even in cases of ‘contested information’. It failed to acknowledge the legitimacy of much early criticism and the emergence of subsequent scientific evidence in support, much of which was submitted to the Commission. It failed to specifically criticise the “one podium of truth”pronouncements of the Prime Minister, instead satisfying itself with the vague suggestion that: “Future governments need to ensure good transparency and communication around decisions and the science and other evidence used.” In fact the PM’s office set up and funded the disinformation project which rapidly designated concepts including natural immunity, the lab origin of covid and vaccine injury as conspiracy theories. None of this kind of manipulation of truth by the government is tackled in the Report. The fact that mandates were routinely enforced even for people who had reasonable grounds in their medical history to fear adverse reactions is a stain on our record of medical ethics. It resulted in personal tragedies.
“The permanent strategic function at the centre of government should work with relevant agencies to ensure the capacity to stand up epidemiological modelling quickly in an emerging future pandemic” The Report failed to identify the very high inaccuracy of the mathematical modelling that informed government policy. Even a cursory glance at the advice given to government and media by modellers reveals faulty methodology and conclusions. There was a lack of awareness of the findings of scientific publishing. For example early on it became apparent that highly vaccinated countries did not have lower mortality. In fact the reverse was the case.
“Governments facing a pandemic should:
° be open and clear about the science and evidence they are using
(including its limitations), and that knowledge may change and
develop over time
° be open and clear about where they are obtaining their information
from, and how they have reached decisions, so others can review
that material and the conclusions the government is drawing from it.”
These calls for future transparency and associated calls for regular policy reviews in the light of outcomes are one of the few positives in the Report, but they don’t go anywhere near far enough because they ignore the impact of the scientific mistakes that were made during the pandemic and they ignore the impact of introducing novel genetic technology. It was well established in the scientific literature published before the pandemic that procedures which edited genes and gene expression mechanisms introduced new serious classes of risk including deaths which had often in the past necessitated withdrawal of gene therapies. The Report does not call for any retrospective examination in the light of subsequent publishing, of the validity of the so-called scientific advice the government received early on. The biggest medical mistakes in history have resulted from the rapid introduction of new medicines such as thalidomide without adequate testing and assessment of long term effects. Recent cancer data we have reported indicates there are long term effects of mRNA vaccination which the Report ignores completely.
The Report records “there was advice from the Covid-19 Vaccine Technical Advisory Group that suggested there was an increased risk of myocarditis in 12-17-year-olds after two doses of the Pfizer vaccine.” But fails to sufficiently examine the enormity of this failure of the government to publicly discuss the need to balance risk against efficacy or need. In other words teenagers were in some cases effectively mandated to take on serious risks to long term heart health when they were at very little or almost no risk of harm from Covid-19 infection. Unvaccinated school kids were pressured to vaccinate when they were excluded from normal activities like sport events and many others. In mid 2021 the risk of myocarditis was known to scientific publishing. Health NZ waited till December to inform DHBs of this risk. The public were kept in the dark as advertising featuring young people continued to use the words ‘safe and effective’. To add salt to the wound, Covid vaccination is still recommended by Health NZ.
The report is a scientific failure and its recommendation to enshrine vaccine mandates in law should be vigorously opposed. Any such provision would nullify the protections of the NZ Bill of Rights which is supposed to ensure a right to refuse medical interventions. The report is a green light for those who wish to promote deregulation of biotechnology experimentation on the public at large.
Royal Commission Covid Lessons Learned Phase 2 Report Released
AUCKLAND, 10 MARCH 2026 – The Royal Commission of Inquiry into Covid-19 Lessons Learned has released its Phase 2 report.
Royal-Commission-Covid-19-Lessons-Learned-Ph2-Main-ReportDownload
To the thousands of New Zealanders who gave their testimony to this inquiry, who shared their stories of loss, injury, and hardship at real personal cost, we want to acknowledge you first. Whatever this report says, your evidence is real, your experiences are real, and they are not going away.
The report runs to over 700 pages. We will review it carefully and share detailed analysis in the coming days and weeks. We are relieved it is out of the way.
Those who expected little from this process were not wrong to do so. And yet, on first reading, at least the Commission has acknowledged several things New Zealanders and NZDSOS have been raising for years: that restrictions continued longer than public health advice recommended, that Auckland’s lockdown extended beyond what officials advised was necessary, and that the Government’s own expert advisors concluded the two-dose vaccine mandate for 12 to 17 year olds was not justified due to myocarditis risks – yet that advice was never passed to the Ministers responsible, and the mandate remained in place. That last finding warrants careful scrutiny, and we will have more to say about it once we have worked through the full report.
What the report does not provide is accountability. It documents failures without naming those responsible and recommends improvements without proposing consequences for past decisions. The tens of thousands of New Zealanders who gave their testimony to this inquiry, who trusted that their stories would be taken seriously, deserved more than this.
The report takes swipes at the likes of us too, claiming it is disinformation that damages community cohesion. But we rather thought that dying needlessly was pretty disruptive too.
In many respects, this report is largely irrelevant to what we know needs to happen next. The evidence still exists, someone is still responsible for the deaths and injuries that occurred, and the next theatre, the general election, is eight months away. We will continue to pursue every possible avenue to truth and accountability.
Read our evidence and more: nzdsos.com/covid-inquiry-evidence-hub
EWNZ COMMENT: Of course it was a whitewash. A big nothing burger. A pretension of concern to pacify the masses injured and deceased. Of which there are many. They’re still recommending the jab in spite of all the evidence of harm, even from the vaccine manufacturers’ own documentation. Hear ex Pfizer VP Dr Mike Yeadon on that.
