During COVID-19 I was researching and writing my master’s thesis while also working pro bono for PSGR. My thesis concerned the problem of scientists in New Zealand and Australia being unable to access public research funding for public good scientific research. The specific research area was health conditions that were impacted by endocrine/hormone disrupting substances. Of course, the endocrine system is integral to human functioning, spanning physical and mental health, from diabetes, to cancer, Parkinsons, to neurological syndromes including Alzheimer’s and autism.
I was interviewing scientists to understand if they could access research funding to understand the drivers of these diseases, which often involved hormonal pathways. My research established that scientists could only secure funding if they identified an innovation pathway – i.e. a potential route to commercialisation, medical therapies. If there was no route for a medical intervention the funding proposal would be pushed down the ladder. Many of these scientists themselves had sat on funding committees and understood clearly what was expected of funding committees. They had to adhere to MBIE’s science policy.
Courtesy of Auckland University I had access behind journal paywalls, and courtesy of PSGR I had access to doctors, many of whom spent their lives serving the most marginalised communities, the communities with the exact risk profile for COVID-19 – profound multimorbidities and low vitamin D the key risk factors for hospitalisation and death. They understood that obesity and Type 2 diabetes was a key risk factor and they recognised the role of high carbohydrate and ultraprocessed food diet in exacerbating their patients risks. These doctors entered 2020 determined to keep their patients out of hospital. They understood the role of vitamin C, vitamin D, and they understood through years of practice – that preventing viral replication was key, preventing lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI) was key.
Therefore nutrients, antivirals, and if patients developed severe coronavirus, severe influenza or a severe cold – antibiotics to prevent bacterial pneumonia was key.
We all watched as the Ministry of Health failed to address these key risk factors, and indeed, suppressed and discounted them. I watched the policy language closely.
- Throughout 2020 all policy documents consistently deflected to the ‘safe and effective vaccine’ that would likely be released, creating a natural bureaucratic belief in this outcome.
- I understood from my master’s research that there was no scientific freedom to critique Ministry of Health claims.
- Ministry of Health expert advisory groups were not required to systematically survey the scientific literature.
- Doctors were not invited to critique, nor able to critique because the entire language was structured around a novel coronavirus that was meant to be unlike any other coronavirus in the history of the world. Therefore doctors experience of treating viral syndromes was entirely negated.
In 2022 I drafted 3 discussion papers to help shed light on how government officials failed to follow good process, and on the way, rode roughshod over democratic principles and human rights:
- April 5, 2022. COVID-19 Emergency Powers: The New Zealand State, Medical Capture & the Role of Strategic Ignorance (2019-2022).
- August 5, 2022. COVID-19 Emergency Powers: Some Notes on the Process of the Passing of Laws in the time of COVID-19 (2019-2022).
- COVID-19 in New Zealand: Ethics & the Setting Aside of Normative Principles.
These 3 PDFs are embedded below and can be downloaded.
On my Substack I documented in detail policy processes that revealed how little respect officials had for accountability and transparency, and how doggedly determined officials were to follow the central narrative of injections, lockdowns, masking and distancing. Major articles:
Director Samantha Blanchard invited me to participate in the New Zealand documentary Silenced. I was invited to present at the NZDSOS conferences in 2022 and 2023.
I was invited to discuss my work on RCR. I was not contacted my legacy media, but had had years of attempting to broaden discussion on the risks of glyphosate, and by then, clearly understood that legacy media would not publish content that contradicted government policy.
What did Ministry of Health officials, or funded scientific communities not do? Review the scientific literature using methods-based scientific processes in an impartial manner. Consider risk by age and stage. Consider the long-term impact, whether by developmental stage, or the trauma of not saying goodbye at the end of life. Admit the hypocrisy of a mandate for a gene therapy that was never a vaccine (only labelled as one) that failed to prevent transmission. Acknowledge the terrible wrong of a biological drug that was designed to enter cells and instruct the body to produce unknown quantities of a known harmful protein for an unknown period of time, and that that biological drug had never undergone testing for mutagenicity and carcinogenicity even though the biologic would change cell function.