Prime MInister Jacinda Ardern has called for a Royal Commission of Inquiry into the government’s COVID response.
The Commission is to begin its work on 1 February 2023, and will conclude in mid-2024. The exercise is expected to cost taxpayers $15 million.
The move appears laudable on the face of it. There needs to be a day of reckoning, and ‘Royal Commission of Inquiry’ sounds like a modern-day Spanish Inquisition.
But delve into the detail a little (only a little), and, as is often the case with this government, appearances, words, and stated intentions are deceiving.
The Commission’s brief is solely to recommend measures and strategies that will assist New Zealand’s preparedness for future pandemics. If you thought it would make someone accountable for the social, economic and political trainwreck our country became during COVID (and which continues to this day), you are sadly mistaken.
While the announcement of a Commission aroused a giddy excitement in Michael Baker, for a large section of New Zealand’s population, especially those harmed by the mRNA vaccine and jab mandates, the big questions will remain unanswered.
Many of these questions were highlighted by ACT party leader David Seymour when he advocated for a Royal Commission back in September to include the following terms of reference (among others):
- The effects of the Government’s response on mental health, children’s learning, and crime
- The effects of the Government’s response on social cohesion and trust in institutions
- The fiscal and economic costs of the Government’s response, including the use of unconventional monetary policy
- Relationships with private sector partners including technology suppliers, GPs, and community vaccination centres
- The quality of advice and the Government’s attention to advice from a range of departments other than Health, such as the Ministry of Education and Treasury
- The timing of vaccine ordering and distribution
To these I would add:
- An examination of the Pfizer contract, it’s text and pre-contract negotiations fully disclosed to the public, and whether it provided value for money
- An examination of the Pfizer mRNA jab’s safety and efficacy relative to ‘traditional vaccines’
- An investigation into why the reporting of adverse events was not mandatory
- An investigation into whether there were any conflicts of interest arising from the ownership structures of New Zealand legacy mainstream media and Pfizer
- An investigation into the efficacy of available patented and off-patent early treatments and why distribution of those shown to be effective and safe was prohibited
- The quality of advice and the Government’s attention to advice from the Director-General of Health and Ministry of Health
There is also an urgent need for a broader review of the Health industry, to investigate connections between Pharmaceutical companies, the World Health Organisation, other global institutions, and the New Zealand Medical Council, to see whether the relationships in place between these entities serve the interests of New Zealanders, are free from conflicts of interests, and promote our national sovereignty and independence.
Three additional aspects of the Commission’s nature and scope reinforce the view harms suffered by New Zealanders will simply be swept under the carpet.
‘Settings’, ‘What was known at the time’, and ‘Comparable jurisdictions’
The first paragraph of the ‘Scope of Inquiry’ says:
‘The scope of the inquiry is the lessons learned from New Zealand’s response to COVID-19 that should be applied in preparation for any future pandemic in the following areas: the legislative, regulatory, and operational settings required to support New Zealand’s public health response to a pandemic.’
The use of the word ‘settings’ is an immediate red flag. Policies themselves aren’t going to be scrutinised, only their ‘settings’ within the narrow context of preparing for a future pandemic.
Take the example of lockdowns. Lockdowns had an enormous effect on families, individuals, businesses and the economy. There is a school of thought they caused more harm than good. But the Commission will only look at their ‘settings’ ie, their length, timing, classification (traffic lights system), enforcement and relaxation, rather than determine whether the practice of lockdowns was inherently wrong.
Another example is that of the mandates. We won’t learn if the Commission believes mandates were inherently justified – only whether there are ‘lessons to be learned from their ‘settings’ ie. their timing, extent, industry coverage and such matters.
Inclusion of the word ‘settings’ in the context of future preparedness is a deliberate ploy to ensure no government policy is scrutinised for its inherent justification. It also means no one is going to be held accountable for the immeasureable damage already done.
The word is also used in points 3 and 4 of the Commission’s scope, which relate to the supply of goods and services and economic response respectively.
The focus of the Commission is determine whether these government measures were ‘effective in limiting the spread of the infection and in limiting the impact of the virus on vulnerable groups and the health system.’ This is to be considered in the context of ‘what was known at the time, and the strategies adopted by comparable jurisdictions.’
There is to be no consideration of the effect on mental health and no consideration of the physical harm, including death, caused by the mRNA jab.
Does the phrase ‘what was known at the time’ include the writings and opinions of Luc Montagnier (Nobel Prize), Karry Mullis (Nobel Prize), Robert Malone, Peter McCullough and thousands of other eminent scientists who criticised the mass mRNA vaccination relentlessly pursued by our government? Will ‘what was known at the time’ include the knowledge and advice of the nearly 1 million doctors and scientists around the world who signed the Great Barrington Declaration against indiscriminate, untargeted mass mRNA vaccination? Health professionals, experts, professors, doctors and nurses from all corners of the globe were saying the jabs were ineffective and dangerous from the beginning – will this substantial body of scientific evidence and opinion be considered and included in ‘what was known at the time’?
Will ‘comparable jurisdictions’ include an examination of equatorial Africa and other poor countries across the Middle East and Asia whose remarkably low COVID infection and mortality rates happened to coincide with low vaccination rates and the free availability of off-patent treatments? What is it that we can learn from them, I wonder? Or, does ‘comparable jurisdictions’ just mean countries like Canada, Australia, Europe and the UK, whose populations were also duped by the medical/scientific establishment, Pfizer and a corrupt mainstream media?
Appointment of Tony Blakely
Blakely is an authority in his field, but with all due respect, he is not the right person for this job.
This Commission should be chaired by a retired judge, one who has no connections to the Labour party, and preferrably one from overseas – either from Australia, Canada or the UK.
Further, the potential judicial candidate should be one who is renowned for his or her integrity and absolute committment to the highest ethical standards. He or she should be supported by two additional overseas experts, and another two from New Zealand, making a total of five.
This option is similar to that also proposed by David Seymour.
Seymour receives a lot of criticism from various corners of the Freedom Movement for failing to stand up for individual medical rights during the pandemic – an unforgiveable crime for a party who sells itself on the primacy of individual rights and freedoms. However, his reasoning for overseas experts was bang on the money:
‘New Zealand is too small for an objective investigation. ACT’s investigation would lean on experts from a range of countries that did things well, and not so well, to give an honest review. We would ask Taiwanese, Swedish, and Australian experts, for example, to be part of the investigation. This will inform a publicly available pandemic plan.’
Blakely is a career epidemiologist, described by Australian journalist Avi Yemini as as one of ‘Australia’s most prominent COVID alarmists‘. Throughout the pandemic he was a staunch proponent of the jabs and face masks. He is the Australian-based version of Michael Baker. His approach, published and broadcasted in Australian media numerous times was virtually identical to that of New Zealand’s – lockdown the country, get your jab and boosters, and wear your face mask. How can he be impartial, or critical of substantive matters like lockdowns, masks, jabs and boosters without denouncing his own pandemic ‘expert’ advice?
The fact ‘vaccine efficacy’ has been left out is an inexcusable failure. The government’s entire response was predicated on the availability and emergency roll-out of the mRNA jab. Hundreds of millions of dollars of our money was spent on their procurement, advertising and administration.
There is, under the terms of this Commission, no accountability for the purchase of this product. There is no accountability for mandates, vax passports and lockdowns – just the feeble examination of their ‘settings’ described above.
Every single person I know who has been jabbed and/or boosted still got COVID – most of them twice – many of them were off work for a week or more. Even today, triple and quadruple boosted staff at a business I have connections with are off work with COVID. Two weeks ago I rang another local business to make an appointment only to be told their quadruple boosted, mask-and glove-wearing staff were all off work with COVID, and that I was to check back three weeks later.
As for the jab’s safety, I personally know three people, all healthy males who ended up needing medical intervention or hospitalisation from extreme adverse reactions – two (members of the same family) were incapacitated for a week, and the other for three days. How do I know this? Because they told me! All were mandated, and suffer ongoing health problems which has affected their ability to work, and neither the government nor Pfizer have paid any compensation for this damage. I know of one healthy male, aged 40, who dropped dead from sudden cardiac arrest two days after his first booster. How do I know this? His best friend from childhood, a successful businessman, told my father – is he lying or constructing a conspiracy? Hardly – but the COVID zealots would have you believe these facts we see with our own eyes are figments of the imagination.
There are thousands of other New Zealanders with similar stories of COVID vaccine harm and ineffectiveness. They did what the government told them and have paid a price they were never warned about. Each one of them deserves to know why the government used their money to purchase this comparatively dangerous product with no long-term safety data, and why they were encouraged, coerced and mandated to take it, especially when it became clear the virus posed no real danger to the vast majoriy of Kiwis. This surely has to be the greatest crime ever inflicted by a New Zealand government on its people in modern times.
There will be a true reckoning one day, and the government’s attempt to look accountable through this fake Commission will not prevent, or divert attention away, from that pursuit of justice.