A group of healthcare providers based in New Zealand called Support New Zealand Doctors Speaking out with Science (NZDSOS) formed around what the group describes as an open letter to their national government expressing their concern about the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine. Also, any open criticism about the vaccine program would subject licensed physicians and other healthcare professionals such as nurses, pharmacists, or dentists at risk of losing licenses for speaking out and providing “informed consent about this procedure” to their patients. A substantial group out of a developed nation, they have formed alliances such as with the World Council for Health, the group that was formed by Tess Lawrie and others, with the frustration associated with what was perceived as a suppression campaign by the World Health Organization, regulators, and industry against low-cost repurposed drugs such as ivermectin. This latter group recently held the “Better Way Conference,” bringing together various scientists, physicians, other professionals, and activists outraged with how governments responded to the COVID-19 pandemic crisis. While mass media positions groups such as these as merely “Anti-Vax” groups, and undoubtedly there are individuals or groups that participate in these groups that are critical of the COVID-19 vaccine and possibly others, most of the observed participants based on TrialSite’s ongoing monitoring appear to be concerned or outraged individuals and groups seeking alternative healthcare pathways to what is becoming an increasingly top-down, centralized, and even global order. That sentiment is captured in a recent open letter by NZDOS.
The NZDOS open letter offers a shocking point of view of the current mass vaccination programs executed over the last fifteen months. Among the shocking allegations of NZDOS is that health authorities have “disabled” formal safety surveillance systems to intentionally cover up the extent of injury and death associated with the programs. An example would be in the United States, where 584 million doses of the vaccines have been administered, and 14,778 deaths have been recorded in the Vaccine Adverse Event Reports System (VAERS) maintained by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). On the one hand, the reported death to total dosage administered is rare at .0025%. Yet critics argue that with any other vaccine if even 100 persons died there any programs would be halted to assess the risks associated with the novel vaccine. But the CDC points out that these are self-reported events (e.g., from healthcare providers or even others in families), and the claim that all these deaths are causally connected to the vaccine cannot be established. The CDC states, “Reports of adverse events to VAERS following vaccination, including deaths, do not necessarily mean that a vaccine caused a health problem.” Another U.S.-based system is the Vaccine Safety Datalink.
The United Kingdom’s “Yellow Card” reporting system also reveals what would be considered historically high post vaccine mortality numbers. In that system, the UK government declares on May 26th, 2022, “At the time of this report, over 177,966 people across the UK have died within 28 days of positive test for Coronavirus. Vaccination is the single most effective way to reduce deaths and severe illness from COVID-19.”
Nearly 50 million people have received at least two doses of the COVID-19 vaccine in the UK and another nearly 40 million have received the booster dose. The Yellow Card system identifies 2,148 deaths directly after vaccine related adverse events. Critics are quick to point out that events in VAERS or the Yellow Card system significantly undercount actual real-world events. So, for example, some COVID-19 vaccine critics such as Steve Kirsch openly declare based on models that they believe the actual death count associated with the vaccines is multiple times higher.
Regarding New Zealand, the NZDSO writes that the very fact that “adverse event reporting is not compulsory” raises problems of accountability and oversight for consumer/patient safety suggesting this “undermines any attempt to portray the injections as safe.” So, a grass roots adverse event reporting system sprung up in New Zealand called Health Forum NZ, a database that has counted nearly 500 deaths in connection with the COVID-19 vaccine. By February 2022, this group’s Facebook page had 55,000 members signed up. Declaring that “children and young people are dying and suffering” with various adverse side effects, the group in their letter appealed to authorities, including the police for action.
Among points raised and allegations, NZDSO shares that the New Zealand government actions were challenged in that nation’s High Court Watch: NZ's 1st C-19 Vaccine Challenge Trial | NZ Doctors Speaking Out With Science (nzdsos.com) and actually “found in breach of its own laws.” However, the activist group declared the government “promptly changed the law by removing the qualification on the use of provisionally consented medication.” A provisional medication no longer needs to be used on a “restricted basis” or “for a limited number of patients.” Anyone and everyone can have it. What could possibly go wrong?
Another Point of View
An unprecedented pandemic swept the globe starting in early 2020, although there are some snippets of evidence that it could have emerged months earlier in China. Health authorities around the world anticipated the worst-case scenario and incentivized pharmaceutical producers to innovate, unleashing what in some quadrants was unprecedented vaccine development initiatives.
TrialSite observed three seemingly competitive blocks emerge including what we called 1) the West, 2) Russia, and 3) China. Almost from the start of the pandemic, TrialSite reported on jingoistic tones emanating out of China’s press which was striking given the situation. Is a global pandemic a time for all nations to come together and support scientific collaboration to overtake the disease?
A sort of “vaccine diplomacy'' emerged with China and Russia vying against the West for vaccine deals while the WHO played a sort of quasi referee and power broker. What unfolded over the past couple years has been striking in that there have been amazing collaborative endeavors among some nations or groups. Looking from another lens, the pandemic’s response almost seemed like a new Cold War-like response, less the social cohesion in individual geopolitical power blocks.
With such a response comes a top-down, emergency powers ethos leading to mandates and intense social pressure to induce vaccination as it’s seen as the way forward. While economics in the West could undoubtedly raise suspicions about motivations, in China, the government’s intense urges to keep the pathogen out of the country led to an unprecedented public health dictatorial reality in the form of “Zero-Tolerance COVID-19” policy. Yet this still didn’t keep the most recently highly infectious Omicron out of the country, so even after unprecedented vaccination drives in China, Shanghai was still locked down for several weeks.
Governments, based on inputs from a majority of experts from regulators and apex research institutes to academic and industry decided a mass vaccination program to overcome and hopefully eradicate the pathogen was the pass forward. There was a 100% consensus among those three power blocks mentioned. That decision may be correct or incorrect, that’s up to individuals to make up their minds based on their own research and reading of the various data. The vaccines have definitely reduced the probability that any individual will get severely ill or die from COVID-19, but the immune-compromised and elderly face higher risks. Even when fully vaccinated, the death tolls have climbed in places like Australia, New Zealand, and South Korea in the new year. A more contagious mutating variant combined with waning immunity (remember the first batch of vaccines were developed against the so-called wildtype Wuhan strain of SARS-CoV-2) leads to vulnerable populations even if fully vaccinated. Enter booster dose 3 and then 4.
Yet what about the side effects? Could it be that in the collective fervor to execute on a nationally or regionally agreed upon imperative that there are innocent casualties of the war on COVID-19? That assuming the death rates are higher than normal (and this is likely) is an acceptable situation? Should the families of those who have died from vaccines be better compensated? Should people who suffer severe side effects be embraced and care for instead of ostracized or made to feel like they should keep quiet on the topic? Should any investigations be lodged into questionable data from pivotal clinical trials? Whistleblowers have come forward regarding highly questionable activity during the Pfizer trials in America, for example. Even the British Medical Journal (The BMJ) reported on this and were censored by Facebook—their top editors had to write an opinion piece calling for Mark Zuckerberg to stop censoring medical scholars. What about the Trusted News Initiative?
Unprecedented censorship has occurred across social and mainstream media. TrialSite can attest to this: while this media platform is completely independent and not subject to censorship, perfectly legitimate content published on the TrialSite YouTube page has been repeatedly censored. TrialSite recently agreed to join a planned lawsuit against the Trusted News Initiative. Why is there an information war to scrub the internet not just of blatant misinformation but also of facts--of the truth? Vexing questions, this media will continue to provide objective, and as unbiased as possible, reporting as well as ongoing website features to support horizontal knowledge sharing—a democratization of medical research information. Independent of corporate sponsors or online peer-pressure to line up and espouse a scripted narrative, TrialSite values the importance of medical research far too much—whether from the patient and advocate point of view to healthcare provider to government or regulator to industry and investor points of view—the democratization of medical research information access is too important of a project.
References
https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/new-zealand-healthcare-group-critical-of-covid-19-inoculation-program-speaks-out-9acfe42f