So the Prime Minister and her hapless Minister for Covid 19, Dr Verrall, have now allowed a Royal Commission of Inquiry into Covid policy responses, to begin next year. This was after Ardern stated that there was nothing to be gained by having a formal commission of inquiry. Now she has responded to the critics, but tried to circumscribe the terms of reference, and avoid examination of individual failings. This was also after legislation was passed last week in Parliament, while sitting under urgency, where Verrall was responsible for the repeal of all the specific Covid measures that were still available to use, including all mandates. This meant that there is no Covid response policy left, at all, as cases rise again.

Dr Verrall was invited onto a public radio programme, which purports to discuss current affairs, and she was asked why a Commission of Inquiry was even needed. All of the so-called news media follow the party line in New Zealand, and either still maintain the fiction that the vaccine provides immunity, or choose not to report the rising death toll. When it came to rating her policy performance Verrall stated it was an A+, at least 9 out of 10, and far better than any other country had done, at least in the first two years. This would seem like total arrogance if it were not for the fact that Verrall, with her shaky voice, is not even capable of stringing a couple of sentences together. When she introduced her legislation, two years after she was elected, she still could not speak coherently even when reading a prepared script. It was lucky that all stages of the bill were passed so quickly, and she only had to answer a few questions from non-entities in Parliament, with the Opposition agreeing that no more policy response was needed.

Now to the proposed Royal Commission of Inquiry into Covid policy, and the make up of the inquiry team, which will be chaired by an epidemiologist from Australia. Ardern has stated that this is the highest from of commission of inquiry possible, seemingly without realising that this means it has the equivalent legal status. In other words, a Royal Commission is meant to be chaired by a High Court Judge, or a Kings Counsel, because it is a court of law. Only someone as completely beholden to the ideology of the epidemiologist, and so dismissive of basic civil and legal rights, would think it possible for a Royal Commission to be chaired by an academic. This obviously means that there will be no real scrutiny of the policy advice from the academic epidemiologists: this would include their penchant for persecuting those not willing to take experimental drugs; and their general obsession with controlling who can and can’t use public space, with the systematic removal of civil rights defining the lockdowns.

Indeed, it is what is specifically left out of the terms of reference that indicate the use of a long commission of inquiry to obfuscate, if not cover up, policy failings. Firstly, it is not allowed to look at ‘vaccine efficacy’, presumably because it might be controversial, and attract the deplorable ‘anti-vaxxer’ mob. One still wonders the point of having a public health expert as the chair if the vaccine itself is completely out of bounds. Of course, it would not matter if the local experts accepted what those in Britain have, that vaccines can’t prevent ‘mild disease’, i.e. provide immunity. The official line here is that the Pfizer drug does provide immunity – it’s just that it doesn’t last very long, and has to be repeatedly ‘boosted’. Dr Verrall claimed during the debate on her bill that there was enough immunity in the community, which was partly provided by the vaccine, and also exposure to the virus. Presumably this meant that the people who caught it, and recovered thanks to the vaccine, have immunity. Alas, statistics released yesterday stated that over 9000 cases in the last week were of people who were re-infected.

One of the other no-go areas for the commission of inquiry is that nobody is allowed to refer to individual decisions by clinicians. But since the decisions by practising clinicians are private anyway, I think we can interpret this to really be about decisions made by bureaucrats, whether that be about those involved in cases of border control, or the special circumstances for citizens seeking exemptions from mandated vaccination. I also think that this applies to the specific cases of vaccine safety. After all, one had to be a brave GP or medical officer to inform Medsafe of a death caused by the vaccine. It was not just that the Ministry of Health had a pre-determined agenda whereby the Pfizer drug had to be seen as safe, and almost all referrals of death then fudged or denied. But the whole medical profession had to understand that if they did not accept this verdict, and went public over a suspected death caused by the injection, then they would be forced out of the profession. This process is still playing out, even though those guilty of anti-vaccine sentiments are long gone anyway, that particular conflict is not over.

Then we are left with the Orwellian rhetorical structure created by the so-called experts, and articulated by the media-savvy politicians like Ardern. A world where a perpetual state of fear is constructed, and a sense of crisis is manipulated, when basic civil rights can be entirely swept away overnight. Where one person has the power, or lack of constitutional constraint, to decide that one kind of person is a threat to the majority, and must be systematically punished, whether that be through losing their job or not being allowed to have a haircut. Where the threat of the hospital system being overrun with Covid patients justifies the most draconian policies ever seen in peacetime. But also someone with the power, when the hospitals have become overrun, to rely on the news media not to report the rationing of health care, and the exponential rise in the death toll. It was to be Dr Verrall who would claim in Parliament that New Zealand still had a low death toll, in comparison to other countries; and without ever mentioning this exponential rise in the death toll, the deceased people who were told the vaccine would be the best possible protection. Don’t expect this Royal Commission of Inquiry to establish exactly how many vaccinated people have died in 2022.

What we actually need is an inquiry into the Ministry of Health and its manipulation of the statistics, both of the deaths of those contracting the virus, and from the heart diseases caused by the vaccine.