What if there was a public debate based on Covid science publishing?

This is to introduce my writing to a growing number of people seeking up-to-date information about Covid-19 and mRNA vaccination.

I carefully reference my work at the HatchardReport.com to published scientific journal papers. This article is intended to provide an overview of recent concerning developments which have received little mainstream media coverage here in New Zealand and in many other countries.

You are certainly aware that Omicron is still circulating and causing a great many infections, a number of hospitalisations, and some deaths. Governments, educational institutions, and many businesses continue to urge us all to receive Covid booster vaccinations. 

Evolutionary explosion of Omicron variants

The New York Times is a respected broadsheet newspaper. It maintains a staunchly pro-vaccine stance. On Nov 26 2022 it published a catch-up article ‘Happy Birthday, Omicron’ (since the variant is now one year old). The article is written by their well-known science correspondent Carl Zimmer, author of 14 books.

Zimmer interviews numerous researchers working in the field who point out that there has been an evolutionary explosion of Omicron variants. Hundreds are now circulating which according to virologist Dr. Jesse Bloom “is making it more challenging for scientists to plan new vaccines and treatments.”

This was not unexpected. Even before the pandemic it was well known that vaccines which fail to prevent transmission drive variant mutation towards the development of strains resistant to vaccines. See this 2015 paper in Plos Biology for example: “Imperfect Vaccination Can Enhance the Transmission of Highly Virulent Pathogens”

The NYT article reports “In February, Theodora Hatziioannou, a virologist at Rockefeller University in New York, and her colleagues ran an experiment that suggested Omicron was primed for an evolutionary explosion. Dr. Hatziioannou’s team tested Omicron against 40 different antibodies that could still block the variant. They discovered that it was remarkably easy for a few extra mutations to make it resistant to almost all of those antibodies.”

The net result is that even the latest versions of Covid vaccines and treatments are easily evaded by a growing number of variants: “The new mutations are building up quickly, most likely because they are providing the viruses with a big evolutionary edge” the NYT article reported. “The [viral] evolution that’s happening is the fastest rate it has been up to this point,” Sergei Pond, a virologist at Temple University in Philadelphia, said.

The outcome is something you are probably already aware of through personal experience or through that of your friends. Covid vaccines are not working. Researchers are trying to develop new approaches, but I think you can see that the rate of mutation and adaptation of the Covid-19 virus is likely to outstrip these efforts, as is the case for example with other coronaviruses such as the common cold and the flu. Fortunately, Omicron variants are at this stage still relatively mild, but their future trajectory remains uncertain which is concerning.

Some Covid response policies are complicating outcomes

You may not be so aware that in addition to waning in effectiveness, mRNA vaccines can also compromise our immune response. In other words, within a few months they may leave you more vulnerable to Covid infection—termed negative efficacy. Here is a well referenced article discussing this phenomenon: ‘Negative Efficacy’ Should Have Stopped COVID Vaccine Recommendations in Their Tracks.

Some of you may be thinking that we should be reinstituting a raft of lockdown options, isolation policies, testing, masking rules, and vaccination mandates. Just remember that China has enforced these for the last three years—strict border controls, mandatory vaccination for everyone, stay at home lockdowns policed by troops, masking—zero tolerance. It hasn’t worked. The crushing social effects of lockdowns and the vaccine-escape evolution of the virus have had a combined effect. You must have read in the latest news bulletins that China is relaxing some of its policies in the face of widespread social unrest and increasing viral transmission.

Others have suggested that the unvaccinated are disproportionately using up our health service resources and facilitating viral transmission. This isn’t the case. Hospital admissions for Covid are increasingly dominated by vaccinated individuals. There is a similar trend all over the world in highly vaccinated countries. This is also caused by viral variation in response to high vaccination rates. 

In contrast, large studies show that once an unvaccinated person has recovered from an initial Covid infection, they are 97.3% protected from a wide range of variants due to natural immunity—considerably higher even than the combined effect of mRNA vaccination and prior infection. Read this referenced article for a summary.

Accumulating data on Covid vaccine adverse events is concerning

You might have heard through media reports and government messaging that mRNA vaccination is safe and that any adverse effects are mild and short lived. Here is a summary of adverse effects that have been reported in the USA to VAERS, their official post-vaccination adverse event reporting system. It is a long and concerning list, but are these conditions really connected to vaccination? Are the record rates of excess mortality in highly vaccinated countries around the world simply connected to Covid infection, but not to vaccination, as for example Epidemiologist Michael Baker is suggesting in media interviews? His assertion is in fact unverified for a simple reason. Currently vaccination status is not being recorded on death certificates, without this information fully reliable conclusions cannot be reached.

I want you to be aware that an answer to this causal question can only be determined by careful investigation using appropriate scientific methods and reliable data sources. Recently I wrote to Ministers and MPs from all parties on this subject and also to the Chief Coroner and Chief Commissioner of Police. The letters posed valid scientific questions and questions about government policy which remain unanswered.

Is it even necessary to take a polarised position on the debate?

Good question. Recent published research findings have found that it is highly likely that Covid-19 originated as a result of a lab leak. Read here for the details. As a result, it is clear that the adverse outcomes of both Covid infection and mRNA vaccination are caused by biotechnology experimentation. So both sides of the Covid/mRNA vaccination debate should take a measure of common cause. The pandemic would never have happened without risky biotech experiments creating new viruses. 

Gene editing is known to induce unexpected and unwanted alterations in physiological biomolecular processes. Genetic edits can have permanent negative impacts incapable of being recalled. Risky gain of function experiments to create novel viral strains are still being carried out around the world in unsafe laboratory conditions. They need to be stopped. I discuss the implications at my website GLOBE.GLOBAL.

Shouldn’t we trust our government and their highly qualified advisors? 

There are over half a million scientific papers published on Covid-19. I can tell you from personal experience that keeping up with these is a full-time job which also requires a competent team. Without constant vigilance, it is easy to fall behind. I think you will agree that the findings reported in the New York Times article on Omicron should be informing government policy and modifying expectations. They are not.

Even in scientific circles, there is resistance to change despite new evidence coming to light. It is an unfortunate psychological characteristic that some people will go to great lengths to avoid acknowledging mistakes or misjudgements. In his famous and influential book “Structure of Scientific Revolutions” Thomas Kuhn discusses this at length. 

It is clear that certain overseas pharmaceutical companies have profited greatly from the pandemic. Huge profits may be a corrupting factor, but surely here in New Zealand we are relatively free of such motivations?

We have to face the sad fact that people’s motivations are not always what they seem. There is a documentary currently on Netflix “the Texas Killing Fields”. I don’t recommend it, it is not for the faint hearted. There were, over a period of decades, three serial killers independently at work in a small area of Texas. For years the police fobbed off distraught parents with suggestions that these were just cases of runaways. 30 bodies of girls and women have since been found and more are still missing. 

Even when bodies were first found, the police were reluctant to accept that these were the result of murders. The cause of death of one woman whose body was found hidden under a couch at the side of the road was recorded as undetermined. Much later the body was exhumed and a forensic anthropologist found conclusive evidence of blunt force trauma, but the original medical examiner destroyed early damning photographic evidence of homicide to protect his medical reputation. I am writing this to explain that some people will go to great lengths to protect their professional reputations even if it means justice is not served or others are harmed.

Evidence of harm from Covid-19 vaccination is accumulating, as is evidence that mRNA vaccines don’t prevent Covid infection and do actually increase vulnerability to Covid over the longer term. But this is having little impact on government policy. There are a lot of reputations at stake, both political and professional. This is quite a significant factor to consider. 

The government has consistently encouraged people not to do their own research or question government policy—terming themselves ‘one source of truth’. At this stage in the rapidly changing Covid science publishing landscape, this is counter productive, as the NYT article amply illustrates. I hope you will agree that the ‘one source of truth’ doctrine is inherently suspect and easily subject to abuse.

However I agree there is much offered via the internet and social media that is unreliable and often designed to subtly (or not so subtly) influence our opinions, but this is not a reason for severely limiting available information to government sources. A policy that is characteristic of repressive regimes. Instead it should be a reminder to be cautious and discriminating. 

Adding the term “scholarly articles” to any Google or Duckduckgo searches certainly filters out a great deal of unreliable content. However given the volume of information involved, selective bias can creep in. Therefore moderated public debates, where experts and policy can be challenged, are essential to move our understanding forward safely. I find the lack of public debate in mainstream media very concerning, it is anti science and verging on criminal negligence. Currently we are being left with a very one-sided picture which in many respects is out of date and out of step with the trend of current Covid science journal publishing and case data. The uncertain trajectory of Covid means that changes have to be made to enable the necessary investigation and discussion to take place more openly.

I hope that those reading this article find it a useful contribution that could broaden everyone’s view. I encourage you to forward it widely to your friends and colleagues. Debate and referenced material can only help us to arrive at reliable conclusions.

Guy Hatchard PhD was formerly a senior manager at Genetic ID a global food testing and safety company (now known as FoodChain ID). You can subscribe to his websites HatchardReport.com and GLOBE.GLOBAL for regular updates by email.

Guy is the author of ‘Your DNA Diet: Leveraging the Power of Consciousness To Heal Ourselves and Our World. An Ayurvedic Blueprint For Health and Wellness’.