- Pervasive rumblings of adverse effects and excess deaths raise suspicions COVID vaccines are to blame.
- Meanwhile, the Royal Commission of Inquiry, set up by Labour, seems designed to be self congratulatory.
- ACT and NZ First have both pledged to expand the Inquiry’s scope.
- Ultimately, don’t we want to know whether the COVID vaccines were actually “safe and effective” and what the Government did to determine this?
A need for answers
Possible links between COVID vaccines, increasing excess deaths, and adverse effects makes the scope of NZ’s Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Government’s COVID response seem too narrow.
Rising suspicions triggered by rising death rates
In the UK, MP Andrew Bridgen just delivered a landmark speech to Parliament calling for a comprehensive debate into that country’s rising number of excess deaths. He cites dodgy official dealings and a myriad of worldwide data, including from New Zealand, showing a “stepwise” increase in the number of excess deaths—especially amongst younger people—since the COVID vaccination rollout.
“We need to ask what people are dying of since 2022?” asks Bridgen.
New Zealand Doctors Speaking Out with Science (NZDSOS) have also been ringing the alarm. In an open letter to health officials, they address many of the same issues Bridgen does. Besides excess deaths, they include concerns about possible genetic contamination in the vaccines, heart damage, and rising death rates in heavily vaccinated countries, amongst many, many others. NZDSOS are calling for an immediate end to the use of COVID vaccines.
And like Bridgen’s speech, NZDSOS has received virtually no attention from the mainstream media.
These are but a few examples of increasing numbers of people worldwide with questions regarding the oft repeated “safe and effective” narrative around COVID vaccinations.
NZ Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Government’s COVID response not fit for purpose
The safety and efficacy of COVID vaccines is not being examined.
Neither is what the Government did to determine the efficacy, at the time it was touting it. Nor is it proposed to examine the Government’s actions in controlling any contrary voices. Also, what did the Government tell the other political parties compared to what they knew?
Considering rising excess deaths, reports of adverse effects and questionable decisions by officials, the Inquiry’s limited scope does not appear fit for purpose.
“Forward looking approach”
According to the Commission:
“Rather than looking to find fault or assign blame, we are focused on capturing the lessons learned from the pandemic so Aotearoa New Zealand is prepared for the future.
This means there won’t be any public hearings before Commissioners, for example. Instead, we’ll be holding a wide range of meetings and interviews with individuals, organisations and communities of interest, in order to gather the information and evidence to help inform our deliberations.”
Significant portions of the Commission’s findings will be kept “private and confidential”.
As we reported in May 2023, the Inquiry “seems designed to applaud the measures used”. And, as we also predicted in January 2023, the Inquiry has galvanised voters behind parties prepared to expand the Inquiry’s scope.
NZ First and ACT
NZ First has “soared above the 5% threshold [of votes needed to enter Parliament], at least partly thanks to soaking up the support of people left angry and disaffected by the COVID response”, according to journalist Thomas Coughlan. They’re reportedly looking for a second and more comprehensive COVID Inquiry in possible coalition arrangement talks with National. Previously, on the campaign trail, Peters has said compensation should be paid to those proven injured by COVID vaccinations.
ACT has pledged to “kick off a full investigation into Labour’s response in its first 100 days”.
“Under Labour, the only illumination we get comes from gaslighting,” said ACT leader David Seymour in addressing Labour’s approach to the Inquiry.