The writer is in New Zealand
NEW Zealand is ‘losing the arms race’ with the Covid virus, one of its leading epidemiologists has warned.
Professor Michael Baker revealed that in a recent period cases had increased by 50 per cent within nine days. In an interview with the NZ Herald, he said: ‘It’s a dynamic, a battle between us and the virus and there are factors mainly favouring the virus.’ The article reported that hospitals were overwhelmed. NZ data shows that Covid cases and hospitalisations are decreasing among the unvaccinated, but increasing among the vaccinated. Incredibly, though, Baker called for new mRNA vaccines to be rolled out urgently.
By contrast, Professor John Gibson, an economist at Waikato University, has published a paper showing that not only are boosters ineffective, but the excess mortality in New Zealand points to a serious health deficit among the vaccinated. Similar rises have been measured around the world, often affecting the young and those of working age. So why is this kind of analysis not turning heads?
New Zealand is among the most highly-vaccinated nations. As the published scientific data and analysis seems to be offering some very clear negative health conclusions about mRNA jabs, why are we still lacking a rational resolution, and simply calling for more vaccination? It is a very personal concern for all of us to puzzle out how this came about.
Whatever forces are at work driving current events, there is a history of mistakes and trends that needs to be considered.
The biotechnology era began with the discovery of DNA in the early 1950s. The huge risks of genetic editing should have been apparent from the start, but the promise of a new kind of super-medicine gradually overhauled caution and has now overwhelmed it.
Is this sufficient to explain what is going on today? No. The predominant irrationality of our current situation cannot be solely explained by belief or investment in biotechnology. The current crisis involves many players with different motivations and understandings. But what binds them into the cohesive structure of pandemic policy and compulsory global medical uniformity? Why is this occurring in the face of the obvious ineffectiveness and irreversible dangers of the new biotech medicine?
The answer may lie with history. When global warfare breaks out, nations take sides and in many ways begin to leave common sense behind. They form allegiances that ignore traditional boundaries. The predominant aim is global dominion. Thus Japan was not Hitler’s natural ally during the Second World War, but the politics of war dictated a marriage of convenience in the search for an expanded territory of influence.
Prior to the pandemic, for many years pressure had been building to adopt biotechnology, first in agriculture and food, and then in medicine, and certainly in weaponry. For the wannabe winners, the potential profits appeared huge. Food, medicine and conflict are the global markets which flourish come rain or shine. The financial pressure was building up behind the biotechnology dam.
The release in 2019 of a novel biotech pathogen, whether accidentally or not, was the first salvo in a new type of global warfare. As in all mega-conflicts, the whole world began to take sides. The process of polarisation, so typical of conflict, began to dominate affairs in every country. The dogs of war were let loose.
Biotech vaccines were the supposed defensive weapons and the whole economic process was turned over to vaccine production and promotion. No expense was to be spared. In some countries, as in New Zealand, political parties closed ranks behind the war effort. Advertisements proclaimed your patriotic duty to get behind vaccination, and still do. Everyone was called up for duty. If you were a conscientious objector, you were shunned. Human rights were suspended.
War has its own forms of rational justification, but its effects are always horrific. Young men and women are sacrificed to conflict without qualm. This was to be equally true of biotech warfare. But there are no noble causes involved. We are being sacrificed for the sake of vested interests in university laboratories and pharmaceutical research divisions seeking to launch themselves into the stratosphere of global power.
As in Hitler’s Reich, science has become subservient to the state. Dissenting scientific voices urging caution are punished. Rather than pausing for reflection, biotech research efforts have concentrated on the development of even more risky weaponry, both vaccines and diseases. Politicians are vying with one another to appear the most committed and the most generous with funding.
This is not a conventional war: it is a disaster encompassing all in fear and ill-health. The global pandemic response has been entirely mistaken. Wars often end with hollow victories over the enemy, surrender, truce, or exhaustion. Biotech war has no traditional enemy nation to be defeated. The enemy is a new form of man-made life – non-human, unnatural, toxic, but quite capable of surviving and even multiplying.
This war has started, but have we already scuttled our flagship? The conflict between human immunity and pathogens is an age-old conflict which humans have always won. But now in our folly, we have hobbled our flexible immune system through a prescriptive mRNA vaccine designed in a lab, never sufficiently tested, and forced on everyone through coercion and the removal of our rights to education and work. The final outcome is unknown, but already – as the latest NZ data indicates – immune deficiency looms.
Nature is the ultimate resource of stability. The great resource of health is to be found in the unvaccinated, whose immune system is still functioning with its amazing innate intelligence, learning how to defeat an unseen viral enemy.
The peace treaties of the first pandemic war will have to involve cessation of biotech conflict and experimentation. They will have to involve a re-examination of the whole concept of health.
They will have to involve a re-evaluation of scientific norms and medical ethics. They will have to recognise that our education system forgot to remember the lessons of history and the sanctity of life.
They will have to expose the dangers of artificially-produced food, and expand our concept of nutrition to include the symbiotic evolutionary relationship between natural foods and human health.
We need to understand and recognise that the collective psychology or consciousness of war is damaging. There are many sources of understanding and research in this field.
We certainly need to redesign our political models and constitutions to prevent the headlong rush into war. We need a Bill of Rights that prevents political parties, rogue scientists, and commercial interests from using us as cannon fodder as they test out their risky experimental ideas.
Safeguards are just as important with biotechnology as they were following the discovery of atomic energy, possibly more so. Once released, biotechnology weapons cannot be recalled. They spread away from their site or origin around the world under their own steam.
Safeguards need to be promoted without reference to fiercely-held political opinion and political divides. Yes, the first pandemic war is fuelled by political, financial, and authoritarian ambitions, but it will come to an end only when responsible people from all sides make common cause with common sense. Call for a pause in biotechnology experimentation. Without this, there will be no peace and no safety.
This article was jointly authored with my daughter Narayani Hatchard, whose perceptive insights and editorial contribution have helped to shape the Hatchard Report throughout the preceding year.