A week ago the NZ Herald reported on the adverse events New Zealanders had from the Pfizer vaccine, using medsafe data .
Regarding the data, the Herald quoted vaccinologist Helen Petousis-Harris: “people shouldn’t read anything into them as they are just numbers with no context.”
One can look back to the beginning of the vaccine rollout, and see the media has kept these people and results as just numbers, by not having a single interview with a person who claims to have experienced a serious side effect.
There are now just over eleven hundred serious events according to medsafe, from over six million doses given, approximately one in every six thousand injections.
It appears that the media don’t want to cast even the smallest shadow of doubt on the vaccine rollout – interviewing people with adverse events would only cause others to question the official narrative.
Interviews put faces to numbers. We might recognise the adverse event victim as an old friend, a colleague, maybe even family.
Did they lose their job, were they unable to work for a while, have they filed a claim with ACC? How long after injection did their problem appear? How did their doctor react? Have they been diagnosed? Has their reaction to injection cost them an ability, a hobby, a lover?
The history of vaccination is not as glorious as the business of medicine would have us believe. In 2002, the USA’s Institute of Medicine (IOM) wrote in a document titled Immunization Safety Review – Multiple Immunizations and Immune Dysfunction:
“The committee concludes that the epidemiological and clinical evidence is inadequate to accept or reject a causal relationship between multiple immunizations and an increased risk of allergic disease, particularly asthma.” 
Did the NZ media ever report that?
“The committee was unable to address the concern of some that repeated exposure of a susceptible or fragile child to multiple vaccines over the developmental period may also produce atypical or nonspecific immune or nervous system injury that could lead to severe disability or death.” 
This paragraph concludes:
“Thus the committee recognizes with some discomfort that this report addresses only part of the overall set of concerns of some who are most wary about the safety of childhood vaccines.”
This is what an expert panel can say when the IOM, “… prevented participation by anyone with financial ties to vaccine manufacturers or their parent companies…” 
How many adverse events are missed because time passes between receiving a vaccine and the event, and neither recipient nor their doctor consider the possibility it may be less safe than advertised?
How many adverse events are ignored or not reported simply because somebody’s doctor refuses to accept that a vaccine can do something harmful?
Distortion of language can be seen. To media and experts, lack of knowledge regarding long-term effects is equal to safety. The Otago Daily Times ran an article called “Safety, worth stressed” in which (specialist in public health medicine ) from Otago University, Professor Peter Crampton, claimed that, “Because the vaccine has been used for only a relatively short period of time, it is not possible to determine with 100% certainty if there are any long-term effects.” 
On the 26th of September this year, the Prime Minister posted on her Facebook page: “let’s talk about side effects” with a small preamble. There are now thirty-five thousand comments.
How many are accurate, who knows?
I have seen no pressure from the media on the Prime Minister to acknowledge these people publicly, and to my knowledge there have been no public interviews with these people.
It is obvious that interviewing any of the serious adverse event victims from medsafe would have disrupted or slowed the vaccination rollout and caused perhaps more hesitancy about vaccination mandates and passports.
Yet are we not a team of five million, guided by kindness?
Or are we only a team until someone has a different research document, experience, or point of view?
If we scratch a little deeper, we can see that not interviewing adverse event victims is part of a belief system that insulates and defends not only the current government but much of medicine and business. If serious adverse event victims are interviewed on the mainstream news, their stories told, their whanau heard, they stop being “rare” or “very rare” statistical insignificances and become human again… and the protesters around the world have some legitimacy; Voices For Freedom and New Zealand Doctors Speaking Out with Science have some legitimacy. Those groups and people lose their stigma of being a “something-ist” whether it’s conspiracy theorist or extremist or whatever other dehumanizing thing the label has as its purpose. Another thing happens too: people like Andrew Wakefield gain some legitimacy, Dr. Sherri Tenpenny, Dr. Suzanne Humphries and Dr. Archie Kalekorinos and many who’ve opposed compulsory vaccination all around the world, gain some legitimacy and perhaps even respect from curious people on the fence of the issue, instead of scorn and vitriol and instant dismissal from mainstream discussion. By interviewing even one person detrimentally affected by the vaccine, the NZ media risk a storm of hatred from around the world by giving legitimacy to people many scientists and journalists would rather be kept unnoticed.
In Ontario, Canada, adverse events from Covid-19 vaccines (Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna) led to the hospitalization of 277 people, with 5 in ICU . Sure it’s out of millions of doses, but it seems a little counter-productive, and I never saw it part of the one-way discussion here.
Woe to the journalist or editor that steps up to express even small scepticism. No doubt the cliches will fly: “Oh, you’re an anti-vaxxer, want us back in the dark ages?” “Oh you love Trump and Tamaki?” “You hate all of modern medicine, you’re anti-science!”
The way in which this vaccine has been promoted in Aotearoa is reminiscent of McCarthyism. Anyone who doesn’t want to go along with it is vilified or considered an extremist, or insane. The NZ media have not even attempted to foster a debate between the advocates of the government’s pandemic response and their medical professional critics. In a supposedly secular nation that cares about evidence-based medicine, this is a ridiculous joke.
It’s amazing to see the NZ media attempt to associate any criticism of the Ardern government with the right wing. In the August/September 2017 issue of the journal of the International Socialist Organization, a criticism of the Labour party was made – that they’re simply “managing the capitalist system in the interests of capitalism” and were not socialists at all .
Many nurses in NZ have shown their willingness to lose their job over this vaccine in particular. Have nurses seen adverse events from the use of vaccines before? Has the NZ media ever interviewed them, or reported on that sort of thing?
Or are the belief systems too entrenched, despite the pharmaceutical industry being one of the least trusted industries? 
The Australian Government has a scheme set up to pay people out, in case of “very rare” injury .
Sometimes advocates of the vaccine sneer at VAERS, the United States’ Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System, claiming that people use it dishonestly to inflate events. Yet Vaccine-injured professional mountain biker Kyle Warner, claimed in an interview with vaccine advocate Dr. John Campbell:
“In the US we have the VAERS reporting system, and it’s really interesting because people are discrediting that and saying that the numbers are highly inflated… I had to fill in my own report because no doctor would do it for me. And it took me forty-five minutes and it’s actually a really difficult process to do correctly, so I think it’s interesting that a lot of people are having this narrative that ‘oh, you can’t trust the VAERS numbers, because it’s so easy, people are just making this stuff up’ – no, you have to fill out: what was your batch number of your vaccine? Where did you get it? What was the date? Who administered it? … it’s a much more thorough program than people realise.” 
Even prior to Covid-19’s existence, American children receive a large amount of vaccines, getting injected perhaps 50 to 70 times by age eighteen .
Diseases may have been eradicated, but has the health of these children increased? The journal Health Affairs reported in 2014:
“In 1960, 1.8 percent of children were reported to have a health condition severe enough to interfere with usual daily activities. In 2010, more than 8 percent of children had a health condition that interfered with daily activities—an increase of more than 400 percent in fifty years.” 
Personally, my own feelings are best echoed by a sentiment from Kyle Warner:
“Where there’s risk, there needs to be choice.” 
 Elizabeth Binning, Covid 19 Delta outbreak: Latest report of adverse reactions to Covid jab released, New Zealand Herald, 10 November, 2021.
 Institute of Medicine, Immunization Safety Review: Multiple Immunizations and Immune Dysfunction (2002), page 18.
 Ibid., page 36.
 Ibid., page x.
 ODT, 15 October, 2021.
 Public Health Ontario, Myocarditis and Pericarditis Following Vaccination with COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines in Ontario: December 13, 2020 to September 4, 2021.
 Labour: Understanding Reformism, by Dougal Mcneill, 2017.
 The People vs Big Pharma: tackling the industry’s trust issues, Chris Lo, Pharmaceutical-technology.com, 20 Aug 2018 (Last Updated January 27th, 2020).
 Kyle’s vaccine complication, 22nd October, 2021 (36 minutes into interview).
 James M. Perrin, L. Elizabeth Anderson, and Jeanne Van Cleave, The Rise In Chronic Conditions Among Infants, Children, And Youth Can Be Met With Continued Health System Innovations, Health Affairs Vol. 33, No. 12: Children’s Health, 2014.
 Kyle’s vaccine complication, 22nd October, 2021 (36 minutes into interview).
You can purchase a copy of Guy’s book ‘How Essential is Flouride?: What do the Experts Say?’ at Amazon.com.