Danny Kirwan, John McVie, Bob Welch, Mick Fleetwood and Christine McVie
The photo above is actually of Fleetwood Mac, but not as we know it, this was the 1972 line-up, in the Bare Trees era.
It was a great shock yesterday to wake up to the news of Christine McVie’s death. What a great writer, vocalist, keyboardist, and the ultimate team player. No doubt there are a thousand tribute posts on blogs out there. It just so happens that the 1972 line-up above is my favourite, unlike everybody else who associates Fleetwood Mac with Stevie Nicks and Lindsay Buckingham. Danny Kirwan, the last link to the Peter Green style of playing was on his way out, unable to handle being de facto group leader and main songwriter. But he was a great melodist, and when the American Bob Welch was asked to join the band, the results were excellent. Bob Welch came up with the title track for their first album together, with Christine a full time member, and she had two tracks on Future Games. ‘Morning Rain’ might not be her best, but the ballad at the end of the album, ‘Show Me A Smile’, is the first of her great songs in my view.
I particularly like the follow up, Bare Trees, for a personal reason. In 1989, as some of us finished university for the year, or for good, we had a bit of tour around the southern half of the North Island in New Zealand. My friend had a cassette of Bare Trees, and it provided the theme songs for the trip. It was the right time of year, late November, but in the southern hemisphere it is the start of summer, whereas the cover of the album has a very wintry set of bare trees in the fog. Danny Kirwan wrote most of the songs, and it’s quite guitar heavy; Bob Welch contributed ‘The Ghost’ and the more well known ‘Sentimental Lady’; and Christine McVie wrote ‘Homeward Bound’ and ‘Spare Me A Little Of Your Love’. This is the first Fleetwood Mac LP with three good songwriters on top form, and it flows well. But Kirwan then left, and Bob Welch took up the band leadership role, or so it seems, while Christine also contributed in her own style, and collaborated with Bob on his more challenging material for the Mystery to Me LP. As Welch left after the follow up in 1974, the rocky ride continued, but Christine had come into her own by then as the main songwriter. I don’t much like the L.A. soap opera period of Fleetwood Mac, but the formula of three songwriters obviously worked, and it seems that Christine was the glue in the band.
Below is a graphic published above an article on the censure of a nurse for spreading Covid misinformation. The article, on the Stuff website, referred to comments made by the nurse which it did not repeat because of the harm it apparently might cause. What followed was a completely one-sided, unbalanced article, summarising the case for the prosecution, when the defendant was not even at the Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal hearing on Monday 21 November. Or should I say Kangaroo Court. The caption on the graphic stated that she still had name suppression, but the article repeated her name a number of times, even though it had no by-line on it, which I claimed was an act of cowardice. Of course, the reason that the name suppression phrase was not changed isn’t because it was just a simple error, it also reflects the contempt with which the media treat any ‘anti-vaxxer’, especially a medical traitor.
I actually got a substantive reply from a manager at Stuff. Perhaps he thought I was making an official complaint, but there is no point in making complaints because the media in New Zealand aren’t required to show any kind of ‘balance’ any more, not where Covid vaccination is concerned, nor observe journalistic practice. Here is the first of the two relevant paragraphs in the manager’s response to me:
“Your assertion that Stuff’s decision not to repeat misinformation is a “joke”, is rejected. I’m comfortable with the editorial decision made on the grounds it represents responsible reporting, with clear public interest grounds. Your analogy of “even criminals who have been convicted get to have their defence reported” is flawed because criminals’ defences don’t stand to undermine a national health response and affect the wellbeing of the wider community, as repeating this sort of misinformation in this case could.”
My first point in response is: who says that the media have the ‘public interest’ in mind with regard to their reporting. If they believe that this nurse’s statement, made in June 2021, is so subversive that it has to be censored one can only call it a joke. More likely her concerns were vindicated, as it became clear by late 2021 that the Pfizer vaccine was causing serious heart disease. Stuff and other media confirmed as much when they reported the case of Rory Nairn, and the later coronial investigation into his death, which confirmed it was caused by myocarditis after his first injection with Comirnaty. It seemed to be in the public interest to report the Coroner’s interim finding, and suggest that warnings be made about the danger of the vaccination to all people. It was sheer hypocrisy of Stuff to publish it, but they did anyway because they knew other media would too. It is difficult to see how one nurse’s comments in 2021 could have done more damage, but she was obviously punished because of her influence in her community.
Here is the second paragraph,
“The other assertion you make in regard to there being no byline on the reporting is also rejected. For your background (and after two years), journalists continue to be subjected to unwarranted and completely unacceptable abuse, simply for covering Covid-19 in a factual and responsible manner. I’m committed to the safety and wellbeing of my colleagues and in some rare cases – where there is a strong likelihood a story could subject staff to further unacceptable abuse, simply for doing their job, a generic byline may be necessary. Again, I see this as responsible publishing, responsible management and I’m comfortable with it.”
What a shame that the media have been targeted, but he actually admitted in the first paragraph that his organisation puts their perception of support for the Covid vaccination before journalistic balance. So it is not factual reporting at all, and it is obviously biased. Most of the media are actually competing to be the biggest cheerleaders for vaccination, if not for Ardern as leader, and supported the most systematic discrimination and persecution of citizens we have ever seen. Having backed the Pfizer vaccination all the way, the media know to ignore inconvenient facts: such as the 177 cases referred by doctors where a death has been apparently caused by the Pfizer injection; and the death total climbing by over 2000 this year, with most of these victims being ‘fully vaccinated’ people who were boosted; and also despite the Ministry of Health changing the official criteria for a Covid death so as to reduce the overall total. The facts actually point to the total failure of the vaccine to provide immunity and prevent transmission.
Speaking of misinformation and hate speech directed at minorities, we also hear today that our old friend Michael Baker is to receive yet another award for saving so many lives during the ‘elimination strategy’ stage of the Covid pandemic. The New Zealand Herald report that Baker is tonight receiving the Royal Society Callaghan Medal for science communication. Described as a pandemic “evidence-broker”, lets actually look at some of Baker’s greatest hits when advocating for the Pfizer vaccine:
He joined in the call for “No jab, no job”. Admittedly this was mainly attributable to Rod Jackson of Auckland University, who had the T-shirt to match, but Baker was an enthusiastic supporter.
He stated on Newshub Nation that all employers should ensure that the unvaccinated be removed from their premises. This was shot on what looked like a cold morning in Brooklyn, a very chilling effect.
Moving on to an afternoon stroll in Lyall Bay, Baker told Newshub News that all the unvaccinated should no longer be able to “participate in society”, and presumably lose their citizenship completely.
Then on RNZ’s Midday Report he stated that “it’s now recognised that the unvaccinated should be removed from interior space.” Recognised by whom, and what exactly is ‘interior space’? The presenter, who is the fiancée of a Labour cabinet minister, did not seek clarity but obviously it would require force.
Then Baker capped off 2021 by stating that the unvaccinated should be prevented from going to any Christmas parties, including with their own extended families. Strangely, he has not repeated this advice, according to the Herald article, and now just suggests getting tested beforehand, and having the new anti-viral tablets ready for after the parties. Oh and having yet another Comirnaty injection, as one of these times you could just get immunity, you never know if the fifth one just might do the trick.
The really interesting part of the article on Baker, however, was that he stated that he has actually given 5000 interviews on Covid 19, and published 40 articles. What a busy boy he’s been, he makes other academics look lazy, but then, they probably have to teach something to students. Baker obviously has a 7-day a week media outfit running from his home, though he doesn’t appear much in the international media anymore. Also interesting that the article also appears on the RNZ website, the public broadcaster which is not subject to the Official Information Act, or the Archives Act. Indeed, when I made an O.I.A. request, to see if they knew how often Baker had appeared on their programmes, they eventually claimed that they had no records of him ever appearing. When the Office of the Ombudmen became involved, upon my request as a citizen, they had to claim that they didn’t keep any records of who appears on their programmes. Just as well all that advocacy for persecuting the unvaccinated has been erased. We wouldn’t want anyone in the future to think that it might be hate speech or misinformation.
OK, so there is not a lot to celebrate in New Zealand politics anymore, as the Covid pandemic remains, the hospitals and schools are in chaos, and the Ardern ministry can’t even help poor people who are about to lose their teeth. There is, however, always a photo opportunity for Ardern to show off her beaming smiles, or goofy grins, and display her perfect teeth. In the photo above, Ardern is joined by all the women in the current parliament, from all parties, who are now in the majority. Nirvana has arrived.
And of course, I’m a white bloke, over 50, and automatically sexist. Indeed, I borrowed the photo from a blog called Against the Current, and a post called ‘Trickle down Feminism’. The point being that just having more female parliamentarians does not necessarily improve decision-making in general, nor the plight of particularly poor women. The point of that blog was that the poverty still remains because the overall agenda hasn’t changed. Indeed, since Jacinda Ardern got a majority for her party in 2020, and had an opportunity to change things, she has chosen not to. She made a big deal of becoming the Minister for Child Poverty Reduction, but, as another blogger has discovered, she has spent all of 14 hours on that portfolio. Others criticise her views on free speech, I have focused on her flawed personal judgment, and the fact that she is not left wing in any sense, while becoming an international celebrity.
So very briefly, how did we get here. Ardern is a protégé of Helen Clark, the previous female Labour Party leader. Clark also came from the prosperous Waikato region, and was the daughter of farmers, who were actually members of the conservative National Party. Then she left the Waikato to attend the University of Auckland, where she studied Politics and History, and became a lecturer in the former subject while trying to complete a PhD. She did not complete the PhD, but became active in Labour Party politics, in what was known as the Princes Street branch. Guided by activist academics, she was able to pursue a career in Parliament, when elected in 1981, initially as an ally of the Labour Party president Jim Anderton (who became an MP in 1984). Auckland MPs came to dominate the Labour Party in the 1980s: most embraced what is now called ‘Neoliberalism’; Anderton formed a breakaway party, with left wing fringe dwellers, in 1989.
So Helen Clark managed to maintain a path through the toxic masculine, right wing politics of the 1980s, while the apparent ideological extremes of the time took flight, either setting up a purist right wing party, or following Anderton’s crusade to save the social democratic base of Labourism as it was understood in New Zealand. Of course, enormous amounts have been written about it, without offering any great insight into who set the agenda. It is often assumed that Clark was still in the latter tradition, but had just fallen out with Anderton over the strategy to combat the right wing takeover of the Labour Party. Indeed, when they had formed a rapprochement, once Clark became Prime Minister in 1999, and Anderton was her deputy, there did not seem to be a need for an alternative left wing party anymore.
More could be written on that, the effect of the Anderton/Clark split, and later alliance, which then resulted in a rather timid, though stable, government for nine years. Clark may be a competent person, with good political judgment, but she is not a left winger. When asked in an interview why she had not restored the swingeing welfare benefit cuts from the early 1990s, she replied that there was not enough money to do it; the truth was that there massive fiscal surpluses in the 2000s decade. For the sake of this piece it is far more important to state that Clark remained a feminist, first and foremost, and the goal of her faction was to put as many women into power as possible. Clark herself went on to a major role in the United Nations’ organisation, but missed out on the top job, which went to another European man.
So here we are in the year 2022, and the majority of journalists in the parliamentary press gallery are women, and they also have a slim majority in the House. Most of the journalists are openly cheerleaders for Ardern, and some obviously believe that it is her destiny to follow Clark’s path, but go one better and become U.N Secretary-General. One former political ‘editor’, named Tova O’Brien, based an entire interview with Ardern on this premise, and Ardern put on her beaming smile throughout. All was on track then. But now it has become clear that Ardern does not believe in free speech, thinks nothing of removing basic civil rights from women as punishment for not taking vaccinations, and has allowed poverty and homelessness to stay entrenched. The only mystery is why her mentor, Helen Clark, has not intervened, and suggest she spend less time on photo opportunities and more on poverty reduction. Maybe she already has, and was perhaps ignored, possibly because Ardern is already the bigger celebrity and doesn’t really need her party faction’s help anymore.
Taking a break from the Covid catastrophe in New Zealand, I have been catching up with British politics, and the major parties conferences. The Conservative Party is having a train wreck as I write, whereas the Labour Party had a good showcase, with no obvious dissension in the ranks. Polling puts Labour miles ahead, enough to create a landslide win like no other under the First Past the Post electoral system. Paradoxically perhaps, Labour Party members seem to want to change the electoral system. New Zealand of course changed its FPTP system to proportional representation the the mid 1990s.
But before writing on the downside of that, I have to comment on the revelations about the British Labour Party during the Corbyn era, as seen in the Al Jazeera documentaries. The programme, called the ‘Labour Files’, is based on a large leak of internal party documents which showed how the Labour Party head office staff white-anted Jeremy Corbyn as a leader, and used accusations of anti-Semitism to remove branch level office holders who supported Corbyn. Some of this was already well known, and was seen as part of factional warfare. But the Labour Files also shows the reaction of former members when shown documents they were unaware of. This indicates both the kind of denunciations made by other party members, and who was supporting this in the Labour hierarchy.
Obviously there is an agenda behind the Al Jazeera reporting, but it is not simply anti-Israeli sentiment and bias. A lot of the journalists working for the Qatar-based network are of European origin, and a significant number are New Zealanders, in fact almost the cream of the crop have gone there in recent times (previously they would have worked for the BBC). Also relevant is an earlier documentary from Al Jazeera, which showed how an operative from the Israeli embassy in London liaised with various players in the Labour Party, including MPs and party members. I recall seeing how a then London-based MP, Joan Ryan, would engage other members in heated debates at a conference, and then accuse them of using ‘anti-Semitic tropes’. Ryan may have gone but similar tactics remain in the factional playbook.
Part 1 of the Labour Files highlights what happened to pro-Corbyn members in Labour strongholds in Merseyside and Brighton (and Hove). In the Wallasey electorate, local members were accused of abuse against the sitting MP, Angela Eagle, based on sexual orientation. Eagle was trying to challenge Corbyn, and the right wing press seized on this example to attack Corbyn with. All the local members appearing on the programme denied it had happened, and claimed that Eagle hadn’t even been at the meeting in question. In Liverpool, Anna Rothery was on the shortlist as a mayoral candidate, at least she thought she was. The Labour head office called off the selection meeting, and wanted an entirely new list for the position, without Rothery on it. During the making of the documentary Rothery is shown a letter from a Labour councillor which is a lengthy denunciation and character assassination, which formed part of the action to halt her selection. Except, when she took the Labour Party to court they did not disclose it to her, and she lost case and had to pay them significant costs.
Even more blatant smears and denunciations occurred after a left wing slate ran in a Brighton area annual general meeting, and in which office holders would all be Corbyn supporters. The files show that Labour Party officials immediately moved to overturn the AGM result, firstly through making false accusations, and then finding legal justifications for it after the fact; and then followed the personal denigration of individuals. A lot of this denigration was through social media, especially Twitter, and included the accusation of anti-Semitism. One particular young Labour activist from London took this to extremes, and created dossiers of abuse and bile on specific targets. One left member in Brighton, a young lawyer, had a dossier accusing him of anti-Semitism sent to his employer, and to his parents. On camera he claims that the dossier had a terrible impact on them, and his step-father died soon after.
Now we could name the aggressive young activist here, but the point of the documentary was to show who was behind him. Obviously when left leaning members complained to the Party about the abuse the abuser was suspended, and an investigation took place. The Labour Files shows that sitting MPs provided character references for him, although it only named the Harrow West MP, Gareth Thomas. But the programme also had a document which indicated that a member of the Labour party’s administrative body (the National Executive Committee), Luke Akehurst, had also helped the young activist with his own case for avoiding expulsion. It also showed a photo of Akehurst with his protege. Akehurst is the main player in the anti-Corbyn faction, and openly states that purging the left of the party is essential to making Labour ‘electable’ again. Anyway, it seems Akehurst could not save his personal factional warrior from a formal expulsion, but that ruling was never actually executed.
Now, after the screening of the Labour files some of the left wing Corbynistas were due to appear on a little talk show, which is posted on YouTube, called Not the Andrew Marr Show. This is hosted by someone called Crispin Flintoff, who appears in an amusing hat and bright suit jacket – in other words it has a satirical edge. But when introducing the show on the Al Jazeera documentary, Crispin first had to mention that he already had received a pre-emptive ‘cease and desist’ letter, warning against defaming the Akehurst protege, sent by a big London law firm called Mishcon de Reya (MDR). Indeed, MDR is an international law firm, with an office in Singapore, and a 24-hour help desk. Why would a leading city law firm like MDR want to represent a bully boy activist from London without a job? Indeed, how would a yobbo like him afford to instruct a Kings Counsel to act on his behalf in a political matter.
Well the answer is obvious if you put Mishcon de Reya into Google, and then add the name Keir Starmer. Many legal publication in 2014 ran articles on how the brilliant former Director of Public Prosecutions, Sir Keir Starmer, had joined MDR, to consult in its business crime unit. He had in fact followed his former understudy at DPP, Andrea Levitt KC, who had become a partner at MDR (and still is). Interestingly, MDR received a large six figure fine for not complying with anti-money laundering regulations in 2017, but that was after Sir Keir had left the firm to stand for the Labour Party in the Holborn & St Pancras electorate. But he was still linked with MDR after his election in 2015, and earned a pretty penny as a consultant for Levitt through until 2016, according to an article in The Guardian, when questions were asked about his moonlighting. Starmer appears to have severed the link to MDR when he was put on Labour’s front bench in 2016 (obviously this was a mistake by Corbyn).
Anyway, the point of this careful reconstruction of the issues is firstly, to avoid legal action by MDR, and secondly to suggest that Sir Keir Starmer cannot disassociate himself from the tactics of his right wing faction. He must know how Akehurst and friends operate, with the smears, denunciations by fellow party members, and their fabrication of evidence. There is still a question over how the legal defence of the right faction is funded: one would assume that Al Jazeera believe that the Israelis are involved; but Starmer must know, given his close links with the law firm MDR. And, as the journalist Peter Oborne states in the Labour Files programme, the legal issues that emerge from the documents call into question Starmer’s judgment and how he would operate as a Prime Minister (which he is set to become at the next election).
Now back to proportional representation and the New Zealand experience. In New Zealand we still have electorate seats, but about half the MPs are selected by a nation-wide party vote. This requires that political parties select a nation-wide party list; although in other proportional representation systems there can be regional party lists. Anyway, to cut a long story short, if there is already friction in a party over candidate selection for individual constituencies, then the conflict would really break out in a contest for winnable places on a party list. And controlling the party list gives enormous power to the party leadership and its administrators. Indeed, party list candidates are mostly just lobby fodder: if they don’t tow the line, and vote on party lines, they tend to be forced out, and the next person on the list just takes their place. Even if rogue MPs try to stay on in Parliament, they know they won’t get re-elected.
So we then find that proportional representation would create its own additional problems for the British Labour Party. As things stand, Starmer’s faction would no doubt get most, if not all, of the plum party list places. If he did this he would effectively push the left faction out completely, and they would have to compete as a separate party, meaning that Labour would not get the majority government it so desperately wants. But Starmer’s faction has already pushed the Corbyn faction so far that, if Corbyn himself is not allowed to stand at the next election, a split could cost them yet another electoral loss. The contents of the Labour Files are so disgraceful one would have to say they don’t deserve to win anyway.
As of Tuesday last week New Zealand was given the ‘all clear’. Covid is apparently over; or, at least, the official response to it is. Dr Aysha Verrall stated that the mask mandate was gone totally, except in health care settings, and the vaccine mandates were about to go too. Even though the recalcitrant unvaccinated public servants would not be getting their jobs back, despite staff shortages everywhere.
Meantime, the Coroner has released her interim findings in the case of Rory Nairn, the young man from Dunedi who died in the weeks following his injection with Pfizer’s Comirnaty drug. So the Coroner has confirmed the findings of the specialist, who, after many tests, stated that Comirnaty had caused Myocarditis in Mr Nairn, and this had eventually killed him. These are interim findings, and the investigation into the safety warnings, or lack of them, are still to come. Even though the official policy framework for Covid managemnet has gone, the State is still pushing vaccination (without warnings).
And the news media felt obliged to report the Coroner’s findings, despite contradicting every other report on vaccination which reinforced the experts view, that it is completely safe and totally effective. Contradictions and oxymorons abound here, but most of the academic experts never comment on safety. Except for Professor Graham le Gros, who runs his own institute, and was approached for comment by public radio. Yet again he wanted to stress that the Pfizer drug was completely safe, except for when it wasn’t in an otherwise healthy person, Mr Nairn. Any normal person would surely have some doubts about safety when someone dies like this, but le Gros thinks there should be be a warning nonetheless.
This is despite all the experts, and the politicians, stating that there have been no safety issues at all. And anyone questioning the safety of a vaccine has been labelled an ‘anti-vaxxer or a conspiracy theorist by the media. Nor have the intrepid journalists bothered to investigate the 175 other deaths that have been reported to the Medsafe Committee, presumably by registered doctors. In the most recent report, which comes 2 months after 11 new deaths were referred to, there are another 6 as of the 31 August. Now the media always try to mitigate the impact of the death of Mr Nairn with statistics fed to them by officials. They say that the out of 100 000 vaccine doses, only 3 will result in myocarditis; and they say that there are only about 95 cases of myocarditis each year, and most are mild and treatable, apparently. But the most recent report states that there have been 944 cases of pericarditis/myocarditis; as well as 99 heart attacks apparently caused by Comirnaty. How many more deaths will there be by the end of the year?
And still the misinformation goes on and the contradictions remain. Dr Verrall says that we don’t need restrictions anymore because immunity is so high due to vaccination. If immunity is so high, why have half the population, or more, contracted the virus in the past 6 months? Oh, but we have re-defined what immunity means: so, sometimes it means immunity is created by the vaccine, but wanes quite quickly; and other times we meant that, while it does provide some immunity, it’s only enough to prevent serious disease happening. But why would it need less immunity to prevent serious disease, than to actually prevent contracting it in the first place. And why do we also need anti-virals to prevent serious disease?
And why did we have to pass legislation to ensure that people had to get a second ‘booster’ shot, without Pfizer having to provide evidence of its efficacy, let alone safety? At least they have made big profits so far, and they can now release a vaccine that is actually effective against Omicron. Maybe it provides the extra immunity that was lacking in the first 4 doses. At least Pfizer have been making a killing all along.
Since deciding not to renew the blog again I found that the domain name, which WordPress have a separate bill for, has auto-renewed. So I have had to give it another year, and the early posts are still being read so maybe it is still useful. I’d like not to have to write about Covid, but since governments and the news media are mostly not bothered about it anymore someone has to continue to focus on the official misinformation.
There was some progress on this front in New Zealand recently. But before that I have to comment on Celine Gounder, and the international media. Dr Gounder is one of the so-called experts in America who is a vaccine evangelist, and appears on CNN. Sometimes I think that CNN America forgets that it has a larger international audience who aren’t as gullible as Americans. Gounder was asked about the new generation of the Covid ‘vaccine’, which is specifically designed to combat the Omicron variant. Unusually she was asked by the CNN ‘anchor’ about its safety, since Pfizer and Moderna don’t seem to have to do any extra testing to get official approval. Gounder said it was “very safe”, without any evidence, as well as stating that the new vaccine is basically the same as the other mRNA types, just with a new ‘spike’.
I don’t follow much of the American news coverage, given that experts like Gounder and Dr Gupta spin statistics to try and make the old vaccines seem to be effective against Omicron, when they are obviously outdated, and don’t provide immunity. Even if the new vaccine was more effective against Omicron this doesn’t change the safety issue. Since the Pfizer drug is being used in New Zealand, and we know that it has caused serious diseases like Myocarditis, we have to presume that this has also happened in the USA. Maybe they do not record this evidence, or try to fudge it like New Zealand officials do, at least until Fox News decided to question Dr Fauci & co. But the vaccine is not “very safe” when even a few people have died after the first injection, and some after subsequent doses.
Now, the overseas experts seem to agree on the mantra, that the Covid vaccines do not prevent ‘mild’ disease, but are more effective in preventing ‘severe’ disease and death. Statistics from New Zealand show that many older people who have been ‘boosted’ have still got severe disease and died. But the use of the euphemism about mild disease is some kind of admission that the vaccines do not provide immunity – and on that basis should not have been called vaccines in the first place. However, in New Zealand officials and academic experts never admit that the vaccines don’t provide immunity, they use a euphemism ‘best protection’ to describe how they think the vaccine works. As I said, many older New Zealanders thought they had the ‘best protection’ available, and are now in their graves. Yet most of the media in New Zealand, especially the State-owned entities, never report Covid statistics and deaths now.
However, the media still run the official advertisements promoting the vaccines as the best protection for the individual, and their relatives, and have suggested that this involves immunity. I have previously referred to the print media advertisements, where parents are extolled to get their infant children ‘immunised’ with the Pfizer drug, and suggest that they will get lifelong immunity; whereas adults have to get injected 4 times a year to maintain their apparent immunity. It seems that some other people have found the claim of lifelong immunity for children to be false, and have complained to something called the Advertising Standard Authority. These complaints have been upheld, which is unusual, because up till now all complaints to official bodies have been stonewalled, out of deference to experts. So it is a small win against the misinformation put out by official advertisements. But there is still the larger question: if the vaccines are not recognised as providing immunity, why are they called vaccines.
The other official intervention has come from the Coroner investigating the death of Rory Nairn, a young man from Dunedin who was about to get married last year. As stated previously, he died from Myocarditis after being injected the first time with the Pfizer drug Comirnaty. The officials committee on vaccine safety stated that the death was ‘likely’ caused by the vaccine, and this was fudged by then then director-general of health. But the Coroner has accepted that the Pfizer drug was the cause, and has been holding a hearing with witnesses giving evidence, which the supplicants in the national media have decided to cover. Of course their reports are heavily qualified by statements that Myocarditis is still extremely rare, most victims recover, and there have only been 3 deaths from it in New Zealand.
In fact, the health department officials have never said there have been 3 deaths, because they don’t do causation, and spend their time on reported deaths which could have had another cause. Rory Nairn is the only person who has ever been identified as a victim, and which the media have covered. The narrow issue that emerged from this was about whether a warning should be given specifically about Myocarditis. The unfortunate pharmacy assistant who administered the injection, and their employer, were put on the spot in the witness stand. This individualised a problem without the policy context: no one being injected with the Pfizer drug was told about the risk of Myocarditis because every expert, politician, and GP, was saying it was safe. To provide a warning to everyone would mean there is a systematic safety issue. Of course there is a serious issue, the experts and officials know that the Pfizer drug causes Myocarditis, and other potentially fatal conditions, but they all say that it is safe when it isn’t.
It was announced this week that Ministry of Health was going to officially change the definition of Covid death statistics. The international standard is for anyone dying with Covid 19 within the previous 28 days to be added to the total. New Zealand started the year with a total death rate of less than 60, under the standard definition, and it is now getting close to 2000. The health bureaucrats make regular revisions, usually to add more on, but now want to change the definition to reduce the numbers overall based on people dying from Covid, rather than with it. The daily death toll was over 30 twice this week.
The main news about the health ministry has been all about Ashley Bloomfield, the outgoing Director-General, who has become a media celebrity due to Covid. The so-called news stories have been about him having to restrict his leaving party attendance and activities, as the Omicron outbreak worsens again. Even a serious news outlet like The Guardian ran the trivial story about Bloomfield’s party, although they do like puff pieces about Ardern and her hapless ministries. No one seems to have asked Bloomfield, a Pfizer vaccine evangelist, why the Covid death toll is so high. He has pushed the Pfizer drug continuously, including third and fourth doses, despite overwhelming evidence of its complete and utter failure to provide immunity. His shape-shifting academic friends and epidemiologists have another narrative, that the vaccines may not provide immunity but do prevent serious disease. Bloomfield has claimed that the Pfizer drug provides ‘protection’ for adults, and children get lifelong immunity from it.
Now that he is leaving he is trying to defend his drug advocacy in the media, despite the fact that ‘fully vaccinated’ people in their thousands contract the virus every day, and over a hundred die every week in New Zealand. Bloomfield is the master of selective information releases – and omissions – that suit his pro vaccination narrative. When unvaccinated people were the problem their deaths were always publicised on an individual basis; now that many vaccinated people are dying, their cases numbers are never released, even though it is obvious that the vaccine did not ‘protect’ them however many times they got injected. Bloomfield now states that there are no ‘excess deaths’ at the moment, though there may have been some in March. This is a cynical way of saying that the death toll is not statistically significant, i.e. the same number would have died anyway during the winter, whether it was from Covid or the flu. He even seems to suggest that the lockdowns and border control extended the lives of some people. As I said last time, this is just another way of saying that older people dying is not newsworthy.
A similar approach has applied to vaccine safety, as I have highlighted previously, the health ministry accepts reports of deaths linked to the Pfizer vaccine, but does not accept causation. Since most of the deaths seem to be among older New Zealanders it is deemed ‘unlikely’ to be caused by the vaccine, or is just a coincidence, because older people always have other medical conditions. The Medsafe committee have a pre-determined outcome because for them vaccines always have to be seen as safe and effective, even when there is evidence that they’re not. So, despite the fact that Medsafe accept reports of death and serious medical conditions caused by the Pfizer vaccine, their investigations always seem to result in an ‘unlikely’ verdict. However, they also use the excuse that the deaths and serious conditions are not in excess. As stated previously, the Medsafe committee did not provide a report last month, for the period to the end of May; perhaps they had too many staff isolating with Covid, or they just wanted to catch up a bit.
Anyway, they published a report in mid July which stated that there had been 11 more reported deaths from the vaccine, and that the new total was 176. This seems to have been revised down to 171, as they had added an extra five, but since they are not excess or actually caused by Comirnaty who cares. Nine out of the 11 new deaths are in those aged over 60. I was expecting the total reported serious conditions to go up again, including the numbers for myocarditis and pericarditis to get over 931, but as it turned out this hasn’t quite happened. The significance of the 931 figure is that this is what they claim is the background rate of hospitalisations, so anything over that would be an ‘excessive’ number. However, in the previous safety report (#43), Medsafe did an analysis of myo/pericarditis cases, based on a sample of only 443, which they claim are the ‘serious’ ones. This simply showed that most of the myocarditis cases were in younger people, aged less than 40, and most were also male. Their other table indicated that most serious myocarditis cases occurred in the first few days after the injection, despite some indications from the known cases that they were not picked up immediately. The point is that only myo/pericarditis seems to be accepted as a death caused by the vaccine, and only in a young person.
The health bureaucrats may be able to fudge the statistics, and deny that anyone significant dies from taking the vaccine, but they can’t claim that it is effective any more. There have been over a million cases of Covid this year, and their policy of testing has collapsed, so the exact number is not even estimated. The death toll has risen exponentially, and the very people who were told that a third dose would be the best protection against Omicron are the main category who are dying: senior citizens. In the new statistical sleight of hand, the bureaucrats can fudge causation just like they do for vaccine safety. Nevertheless, most of the media no longer report the Covid toll on a daily basis or question the lack of hospital care: either for serious Covid cases, or the patients who are having medical procedures postponed, or the people not being seen at all. This health disaster is Bloomfield’s legacy, along with his obsession with a vaccine programme that has totally failed. Of course, he was never big enough to admit it failed. Presumably he’s moving into lobbying work for big Pharma companies, and so continue to push vaccines that don’t provide any immunity, or ‘protect’ the most vulnerable from ‘serious’ illness.
The New Zealand health system is in crisis, hospitals are full and winter has only just begun. As it happens New Zealand’s schools are half empty, as Covid infections take out teachers and pupils, and special measures are to be put in place to reduce truancy. Overall, the hapless Ardern ministry stumbles on while the leader, having just returned to duty after contracting Covid, goes from photo opportunities on the world stage to opening ski fields. For the most part the ‘news’ media simply follows suit, having accepted the role of cheerleaders for the Pfizer vaccine programme. The biggest broadcaster, the State-owned TVNZ, no longer reports the Covid figures even though the deaths are usually in double figures every day. The reported deaths seem to be higher than the numbers admitted to intensive care units.
Before looking at the Covid figures and the spin put on them, I want to report on some experience with visiting the Wellington emergency department. My elderly mother lives in a retirement village, and recently had a fall, so the village’s nurse called for an ambulance. What then followed was hours of negotiations with the ambulance service to actually get some paramedics to assess her injuries. It took over six hours for them to send a crew, and she was eventually taken to Wellington hospital, which is over 50 kilometres away. My mother was kept in the ED overnight, and I finally managed to find her in the morning in a reasonably comfortable situation. So the only reason why she was still in ED was because of a lack of beds on the wards. After some emergency dental work she spent one more night on the ward, as the staff wanted to move her on and avoid the risk of contracting Covid while there.
So I had visited twice with a mask, and the following day felt a bit unwell, so assumed that I had Covid. As it happens I didn’t, but at the time my sister-in-law did, which meant my brother couldn’t visit. It seems like every workplace has to deal with constant absences from staff contracting Covid, either at work or from their school age children. Anyway, the following two weeks has seen me deal with a plethora of medical professionals who deal with elderly care in the community. This has been somewhat repetitive, but does indicate how many former nurses operate outside the hospital system, and at least that has a preventative effect: as long as the Covid is kept out of care homes the death toll should be low.
Now, when the media do report the death toll from Covid, the only statistic that is added is the age profile. In other words, it is assumed that the deaths are of older citizens, and the only interesting thing to report is if someone in their fifties or younger dies. Of course, last year there were a lot more statistics provided for the tiny number of Covid cases, mainly to highlight the idea that the problem was entirely about the bad people who were unvaccinated. The Ministry of Health never report vaccination status anymore, but, given that elderly people can be assumed to be ‘fully vaccinated’ there should be a question asked of health bureaucrats: why are older New Zealanders expendable? And why were they told that they were going to be ‘protected’ by having a booster; come to that, why was everyone told that Omicron was not going to be as deadly as the earlier strains, when it appears to have been much worse. And why do the number of deaths in hospital care appear to be a catastrophic failure, which was not highlighted until other patients with life threatening conditions have left EDs before getting treatment.
If anyone has read my previous posts they will see that the Ardern government took a gamble with Omicron: the officials told them that this variant would be more contagious, but less deadly, with the vaccinated being protected. Ardern decided to have a permissive framework, with no lockdowns, but a system of discrimination against the unvaccinated enforced by other citizens. This gamble has failed. It has become obvious that Omicron is very contagious, especially when Ardern decided to remove border restrictions when Covid cases were increasing. We then have a deadly paradox: she preferred draconian measures when there were very few Covid cases; then she decided to let it run rampant over summer and autumn, because the vaccination rate was high. The blind faith in the Pfizer vaccine was utterly misplaced, and, besides the fact that it causes serious disease, it has failed to provide immunity which would prevent severe disease. It is only a form of ageism that has prevented societal disruption.
When will the public health officials admit that the vaccination programme has completely failed? The current incumbents won’t have to, because they have already resigned. The Director-General of Health, Ashley Bloomfield, is about to leave his post (as is his 2IC), but is apparently credited with saving hundreds of lives rather than glossing over hundreds of deaths this year. It is not only the selective release of Covid statistics, and the omissions, such as the fact that ‘fully vaccinated’ people are dying. No, the concern should be the narrative that Bloomfield has constructed over time, and its dogmatic basis which is resistant to the obvious evidence of vaccine failure. When his ministry knew that the total death toll was going to clock over 1000 (most of which have come in the last three months), they decided to do a revision of the statistics based on causation. So after adopting the practice of adding anyone to the death toll who died with a Covid infection, though not necessarily from the infection, the numbers would appear to be reduced. Likewise, last week Bloomfield had to announce the results of a report which made clear that his officials had exaggerated the testing capacity for Covid, something the lab technicians were making clear at the time was inaccurate. The ‘test and trace’ system collapsed anyway, despite Ardern and her ministers claiming it could keep up with the more contagious Omicron variant.
Bloomfield was once a cult figure due to his press conferences in the early days of the pandemic, presenting a more mature face to that of the grinning narcissist next to him. But his apparently open approach to information release was eventually replaced by the selective use of statistics to support a dogmatic narrative, one that had an anti-democratic basis. For instance, earlier in the year he tried to announce that there was another case of myocarditis that had resulted in a death of a teenager, who had just been injected with the Comirnaty drug. But he still would not accept causation in a vaccine-induced death, he claimed once again that ‘we’ would never know the true cause of death. So one wonders why he chose to report it all, given his over-riding concern being with the vaccine sceptics using this new information. While on the subject of vaccine safety, it appears that the Medsafe committee has decided not to issue a vaccine ‘safety report’ this month. Perhaps it might be because the uptake of vaccinations has dropped off, and with it the reports of serious side effects. Nonetheless, I notice that the health ministry is advertising in local newspapers for more immunisation amongst schoolchildren. The adverts claim that the vaccination provides lifelong immunity from Covid, despite the fact that 3 injections has provided no such immunity for adults.
Finally, there is the American playbook that Dr Bloomfield has seemed to be beholden to. As a small hint of this, he recently stated that 3 injections of the Pfizer drug should now be seen as the new definition of being ‘fully vaccinated, period’. The term ‘period’ is American English, and in New Zealand the correct term is ‘fullstop’, at least it was in the era when Bloomfield was at primary school. This may seem a trivial point, but you have to wonder who Bloomfield thinks his audience is, or who he is trying to please. He obviously doesn’t watch Fox News though, which is the only network that openly questions the efficacy of Covid vaccines and the role of the bureaucrats pushing them, like Dr Fauci. They have reported that Fauci has actually contracted Covid, as has Bloomfield recently, though presumably these public health experts will never admit that multiple injections with the vaccines did not provide them with any immunity.
The international media seem to like New Zealand’s pandemic story, at least, they do in Britain, whether that be the BBC or the Guardian. It’s just a shame that they have to ask Michael Baker about it, an academic who spends most of his time talking to gullible journalists. The hypocrisy of the man is staggering, but the media is too lazy to care, since he is always available for a soundbite. He is nothing if not inconsistent: even if he always sounds moderate he has always advocated the most authoritarian policies.
So today New Zealand finally opened up the country to foreign travellers, as long as they had taken the vaccines that people like Baker have been pushing. With Omicron already rampant, the authorities have decided to let everybody in again. But hold on, the pandemic is the worst it has ever been here, out of control, they have no idea how many Covid cases there are because the policy framework collapsed in early March. Yes, New Zealand held Covid off for nearly two years: in February there had only been just over 15 000 cases, and only about 60 people had died. Yet, in just two months the death toll is now over 700, more than a ten fold increase; and there are thousands of new cases every day. The media tell us the pandemic is over, and they don’t need to report the casualties, but it has only just begun actually.
Now it was Baker that was one of the architects of the ‘elimination’ strategy, to achieve zero Covid and hold the ground. This required complete border closure and total lockdowns to maintain elimination. It also resulted in authoritarian policies, and the complete removal of civil liberties, but these hardships applied to the whole population. Then the new Covid variants emerged, including the dreaded Delta strain. Academics like Baker stated that there had to be a total lockdown at the first sign of it escaping border control. So the dear leader, Jacinda Ardern, did what the experts told her, and imposed a nation-wide lockdown in August 2021, even though the Delta cases remained in the Auckland area. In those days anything over 100 new Delta cases was considered intolerable, and so, while the complete lockdown was lifted outside Auckland, it had to remain in place until Covid cases were stamped out.
Then the new vaccine became available, Comirnaty, made by the Pfizer corporation. Ardern decided that there did not have to be any more lockdowns if most of the adult population was vaccinated twice. The experts told her that any future outbreak would be confined to the unvaccinated, who would clog up the health system, and possibly infect some of the good people who did what they were told. So she devised a system of punishments for the people who refused to be vaccinated with the Pfizer drug, or were waiting for an alternative. Professor Baker and his friends then took to the airwaves stating that the unvaccinated were bad people who should be shut out of society and forcibly removed from public space, and anywhere that their presence made the good people feel unsafe. So a surveillance system had to be introduced so every shop, public library and church could check in the good people and keep the bad ones out. One day in February all the bad people decided to congregate together in the most public place in the country, which was the Parliament, where the elected representatives hid from their sight.
In the meantime it emerged that the Pfizer drug, Comirnaty, actually caused serious health disease, and this led to people dying after being injected. There were a number of such serious diseases, but it was a heart condition, Myocarditis, that caused fatalities. The health department officials were asked to investigate, and could find no causation in most cases, unless it happened to a young person. And the experts like Professor Baker told the media that people were more likely to get Myocarditis from contracting Covid, despite not offering any real evidence. Unfortunately for Baker and friends, along came another Covid variant, Omicron, which was apparently more contagious, but less life threatening. So it now seemed that all people who had the Pfizer injection, and thought they had immunity from Covid, did not have immunity at all. Thousands of people around the world would get Omicron, but they would not die, only the unvaccinated people would perish. The experts told the media that, while the vaccines could not prevent contraction of the virus, it would magically kick into gear to prevent the vaccinated dying.
Unfortunately, here we are in New Zealand with thousands and thousands of people catching Omicron, hundreds of them having to be admitted to hospital, and a daily death toll in double figures. And the Ministry of Health revise up the death toll figures every week to include all the people who died that were discovered to have contracted Covid, even if it was not the cause of death. Although the media do not investigate this practice, it does seem as if almost every patient who is admitted to intensive care never comes out alive. Certainly vaccinated people are dying, despite being double vaccinated and ‘boosted’, and after the experts assured them they were ‘protected’. Professor Baker can spin the statistics however much he likes, and fool the gullible media supplicants that hang on his every word. But his policies have been a catastrophic failure, and the Pfizer vaccine isn’t actually safe as well as being totally ineffective now.
Sad to hear of the passing of the great actor Peter Bowles. Of course he was most well known for his work on British television, especially when playing opposite Penelope Keith, in To the Manor Born in the late 1970s. From a quick look at the obituaries, and related comments, few people seem to recall that he was in the first episode of Survivors, even if it was something of a cameo, as an immaculately dressed financier based in London, but living in a country house. Bowles played the husband of the lead character Abby Grant, and only appears in a few scenes, including as a corpse lying on the couch in their lounge room. Abby has just recovered from the plague, and is wandering around the house looking rather bewildered. The scene is set up very effectively, as the viewer can see that David Grant is dead, while Abby is trying to pour herself a drink, before looking up into mirror and seeing his body.
The scene for which the photograph was taken is a very long one, as the couple have finally made it home after David’s escape from London. Having made the drinks, David is trying to find a news programme on the radio, with no luck (and no sign of a TV set in their house). Abby has had to make a quick supper for David because her housekeeper has fled back to London. Carolyn Seymour is actually frying the bacon and eggs on the set, which highlights how leisurely the scene is, an insight into their conventional marriage. David reassures his wife that they can see out the impending crisis in the country with all their supplies, just before the power goes off. While Abby has been trying to get the local GP to come around with a flu vaccine, because it would be better than nothing, David is unconvinced that it is a flu epidemic, or that the vaccine will do any good. It appears that Abby is likely to die, as David’s final scene is when he drives off in his Jensen Interceptor car to find the doctor, who goes on to predict that millions could die from the unknown virus. But Abby survives and makes a funeral pyre out of their home, after she finds David has died. Then she heads off in a Volvo stationwagon to find their son.