Guest Post: The big lie
A guest post by Gary Lindsay:
On Monday 10 October Janine Small, the Pfizer President of International Developed Markets, told the EU Parliament that they had not tested whether their Covid vaccine prevented the spread of Covid 19 at the time of its release. It was in response to a question from Dutch MEP Rob Roos. This was reported first in alternate media, and has been quietly picked up by a few mainstream media outlets such as <a href=”https://www.news.com.au/technology/science/human-body/pfizer-did-not-know-whether-covid-vaccine-stopped-transmission-before-rollout-executive-admits/news-story/f307f28f794e173ac017a62784fec414”> Newscorp</a>. Follow the link to see the video of what happened in the EU Parliamentary committee.
The revelation itself is not all that damning – this was known at the time (in early 2021), but barely publicised in the mainstream media. Anyone who did their own research already knew. What IS damning is the message from politicians and bureaucrats all around the world, i.e. that the public needed to take the vaccine to stop the spread of Covid and to stop risking the health of others, was a lie. That it was a lie is now on the parliamentary record in the EU. It is also worthy to note that the <a href=”https://www.eppo.europa.eu/en/news/ongoing-eppo-investigation-acquisition-covid-19-vaccines-eu”>European Public Prosecutors Office is investigating the procurement of Pfizer by the EU government</a>.
The lie was used as justification first to guilt trip the population into taking the vaccine, for the good of the vulnerable in our society. It was meant to stop the spread of Corona, so the public was told that not taking it was selfish, and nobody wants to be the person who killed their mum because they were selfish. When that had done its dash the lie was used again as the sole justification for coercing the population into taking the vaccine, by first removing the right of certain people to earn a living, then the right to go about normal daily activities such as buying coffee, going to the pub, getting a haircut, entering the country, and in other places crossing state borders, etc. The human rights abuses perpetuated on the basis of this lie were supported by both sides of politics until it was politically inconvenient, during the Auckland lockdown. It went on for months, and as we know it culminated in the protest at Parliament, the farcical reaction by the Speaker, and the atrocious police brutality on 2 March – the police brutality being justified by the same lie, of course. The extreme restrictions were even tested in court against the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, and found to be “demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society” under section 5 of that act. Whether or not you agree with the initial ruling, it seems highly doubtful that this judgement would stand if the transcript from the EU Parliament was able to be admitted as evidence.
But who started the lie, and who perpetuated it willingly? There is no doubt that Pfizer knew, and there is no record of them having made a direct public statement otherwise (although they have made big public hints that their product might slow the spread). As convenient as it would be, this cannot be pinned on Pfizer. Any government agency charged with approving this new medicine should have known too – they either asked for all the data from Pfizer, in which case they knew and approved it anyway, or they didn’t ask and are guilty of incompetence. Same goes for the Chief Health Officers and Ministers who approved it for emergency use, and almost certainly the Prime Ministers/Premiers, etc., because the emergency approval was a political decision in most countries. I concede it is possible that the politicians were unaware and were relying on official advice, but I find it unrealistic – it is much more plausible that this decision came from the top.
This all raises some serious questions. First, who decided to lie? It is not just a New Zealand phenomenon; politicians in Britain and all Australian and Canadian states told it too. How did they manage to get so many politicians to lie in step? What other issues are they lying about? What is their end goal? Should we ever trust our government again? I think the answer for any rational person should be NO. How do we stop this happening again?
I’ll finish with a comment about the United States. Their government’s reaction to Covid was nowhere near as extreme as those of New Zealand’s, Australia’s, Britain’s and Canada’s. I propose that the major reason is their constitutional bill of rights – they know they cannot do those things to the population because a judge will find it unconstitutional. There is no such protection here. Furthermore, the existence of the Second Amendment makes it significantly more difficult for a government to commit human rights abuses than it is in the other English-speaking countries – they know they will have a fight on their hands if they tried, so they don’t try. This is by design. The other countries all have gun control, and the countries with the worst human rights abuses during Covid (Australia and Britain) also having the strictest gun control. I think New Zealand should consider repealing section 5 of the NZBORA (the rights would become absolute), add a Second Amendment equivalent, and entrenching it to make it impossible to change without a supermajority and a referendum. I believe entrenching human rights and in particular the right to bear arms would prevent this from ever happening again.