Pfizer’s covid jab could kill you, but New Zealand government wants you to not worry and get injected anyway
Excess deaths continue to soar in New Zealand, where Medsafe, the nation’s official drug safety authority, now admits that covid “vaccines” are more than likely to blame. Still, the agency says, New Zealanders should continue to get jabbed and not worry about such risks – just because.
All-cause deaths in New Zealand are currently 15 percent higher than what is normally the case for the country. Evidence continues to mount showing that mRNA (messenger RNA) shots are the most likely culprit, and yet nothing is being done to protect people.
“By chance, some people will experience new illnesses or die from a pre-existing condition shortly after vaccination, especially if they are elderly,” reveals the 46th report from Medsafe on covid vaccine safety, entitled “Adverse events following immunisation with COVID-19 vaccines.”
“Therefore, part of our review process includes comparing natural death rates to observed death rates following vaccination, to determine if there are any specific trends or patterns that might indicate a vaccine safety concern.”
(Related: Remember in the summer of 2020 when Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern called for all New Zealanders who tested positive for covid to be thrown into quarantine camps?)
New Zealand barely even tracks adverse events following vaccination, so how can the government make these bogus claims?
Medsafe followed up its report with a disclaimer basically suggesting that the shots are not all that dangerous, even though they clearly are. The group cited comparative data between what is reported to CARM (Centre for Adverse Reactions Monitoring), which is New Zealand’s version of VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System), within 21 days following vaccination and the background rate of deaths from natural causes as “evidence” that the shots are still safe enough to trust.
The problem with CARM, just like the problem with VAERS, is that reporting is voluntary, which means it is massively underreported. Even worse than VAERS, CARM is said to be underreported by an estimated factor of 20 times.
“As a result, there is nothing at all reassuring about this safety report,” says The Exposé about its findings.
Another problem with New Zealand’s government reporting is that autopsies are not routinely performed on deaths that occur in close proximity to covid vaccination, which begs the question: why?
“The Ministry of Health has consistently refused / omitted to record vaccine status on death certificates or make CARM reporting mandatory,” further adds The Exposé. “This makes it very difficult to scientifically and reliably investigate any causal relationship between mRNA vaccination and death or serious illness.”
It would appear as though almost no efforts are being made in New Zealand to track much of anything concerning the shots and potentially associated injuries and deaths. How, then, can Medsafe make the claim that there is nothing to worry about in association with getting vaccinated?
“Despite having multiple sources of data and methods of analysis available to it, Medsafe has relied for two years on a single obviously flawed method of comparing CARM data to background rates, despite admitting CARM data is underreported,” The Exposé says. “How strange is that? This deficiency is fatal to Medsafe’s claims of safety.”
“It is scientifically unjustifiable and it wouldn’t meet publication criteria. There is no possible justification for omitting to use more reliable forms of causal investigation. Medsafe has avoided public accountability by refusing to debate the issues publicly, omitting publication of key health data, massaging published data, and unforgivably accusing critics of spreading disinformation. These approaches are worthy of a dictatorship but not a modern democracy.”
by Ethan Huff
Join: 👉 https://t.me/acnewspatriots
The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of AC.NEWS
Disclaimer: This article may contain statements that reflect the opinion of the author. The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). AC.News will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article www.ac.news websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner. Reprinting this article: Non-commercial use OK. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
Discussion about this post