By Helen Petousis-Harris*
The recently released Royal Commission of Inquiry report about New Zealand’s COVID response highlights the harmful impact of misinformation and disinformation on public health.
While the report offers no solutions, it notes that disinformation campaigns fuelled division and loss of trust in government. It’s an age-old problem that has proved extremely difficult to counter.
Indeed, the practice of disinformation and propaganda has ancient roots, with some of the earliest recorded use of these techniques dating back to antiquity. The Greeks were among the first to study and formalise the art of rhetoric, a cornerstone of effective propaganda.
In 2010, colleagues and I published research that analysed vaccine narratives for the use of logical fallacies defined by Aristotle. We highlighted many common techniques of manipulation. It was a fun exercise in a more innocent time.
Understanding and analysing these manipulative tactics has evolved alongside their use in both political and military strategies. So have the tactics of mitigating the impact of such strategies.
Early approaches to counteract these effects typically involved promoting transparency, education and critical thinking. This still stands today, but the time for merely talking about the problem has passed.
What’s required now is decisive action and robust policy to address misinformation and disinformation as we navigate the ongoing impacts of the COVID pandemic.
How to recognise misinformation and disinformation
Misinformation refers to inaccurate information spread without harmful intent, often due to a misunderstanding or mistake. Disinformation, on the other hand, is deliberately deceptive and crafted to manipulate public sentiment or promote discord.
Research has meticulously mapped the contours of misinformation and disinformation surrounding vaccines. Experts highlighted that the conditions for the spread of misinformation were ripe before the pandemic.
Identifying misinformation and disinformation involves a critical evaluation of content and its source. A first question is the source credibility. Is the information from a recognised authority or reputable news source?
The next bit, logical consistency, is harder to detect. Does the information contain contradictions or logically impossible claims? Many false narratives are internally inconsistent or implausible.
Often there will also be at least some level of emotional manipulation. Disinformation frequently exploits emotions such as fear or anger to enhance engagement and sharing.
Identifying disinformation involves checking the credibility of the source, logically impossible claims and emotional manipulation. Getty Images
The subtle art of rhetoric
Logical fallacies are errors in reasoning that undermine the logic of an argument. For example, the ad hominem fallacy attacks the person making an argument rather than the argument itself. This is a common tactic to undermine credible sources.
Cherry picking is the practice of selecting data that support a particular argument while ignoring data that contradict it. This is harder to spot if you are unfamiliar with the topic.
Conspiracy theories are another major tool in the propaganda kit. During the pandemic, numerous conspiracy theories have misrepresented scientific evidence and the intentions of health authorities and experts. The claim of cover-ups is often the final go-to when there is no other convincing argument.
Studies have repeatedly shown how false claims spread across social media platforms and how this influences public perceptions and behaviours detrimental to health. From myths about vaccine ingredients causing harm to conspiracy theories about global surveillance, these untruths have a real impact.
Surveys have repeatedly highlighted a worrying trend: a segment of the public, including some health professionals, harbours scepticism about vaccines, fuelled by unmitigated misinformation.
How to counter disinformation
The consequences of disinformation campaigns are not abstract or random. It is crucial to recognise that such campaigns are meticulously designed and executed with specific goals in mind. One of the most insidious is the erosion of social cohesion.
This is achieved by injecting divisive and false narratives into public discourse. They exploit socio-political fissures, amplifying scepticism and opposition to public health measures such as vaccination.
These campaigns leverage sophisticated strategies and technologies to manipulate public perception. They exploit societal divisions and foster distrust in authoritative sources, particularly in science and medicine. Once consensus on basic facts is eroded, effective action becomes difficult.
Significant research efforts have aimed to understand how best to counter misinformation and sophisticated disinformation campaigns. These studies emphasise the importance of clear, consistent and credible communication from trusted sources.
Public health campaigns that engage directly with community leaders and employ tailored messaging have shown promise in increasing trust and positive health behaviours. “Pre-bunking”, which involves educating people on how to spot misinformation before they encounter it, is gaining traction.
Authorities and public health leaders must prioritise transparency to rebuild and maintain public trust. Being open about the uncertainties and evolving nature of science can help mitigate the impact of disinformation that exploits gaps in public knowledge.
Increasing media literacy is also important. By understanding the common tactics used in disinformation campaigns, people can become less susceptible to their influences.
Collaboration between governments, international organisations and tech companies is essential. These stakeholders must work together to detect and limit the spread of harmful content and promote accurate information appropriate to the audience (right message, right messenger, right platform).
Time to act
Despite these insights, a coordinated, large-scale and multi-pronged strategy to combat misinformation remains elusive. Governments and health organisations often react to misinformation rather than being proactive, or worse, leave a vacuum.
The challenge of misinformation is not insurmountable, but it requires more than ad-hoc responses. We need a strategic, well-resourced commitment from the highest levels of government and health leadership.
It takes courage and the ability to walk a tightrope between freedom of speech and protecting public health. Both are human rights.
As we continue to navigate the repercussions of the COVID pandemic, let us prioritise the integrity of our public health communications and bring all the facets we need to do this together. This includes media, tech companies, academics and community leaders.
Only through a united front can we hope to restore and maintain the public trust essential for overcoming this crisis and future public health challenges.
*Helen Petousis-Harris, Associate Professor in Vaccinology, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
57 Comments
"...freedom of speech and protecting public health. Both are human rights."
Of all the places to criticize this column i think this is best starting point. How is "protecting public health" a human right? (Access to health services might be a right but don't conflate this with what was written) My interpretation, in the context of the column, is of "protecting public health" is the authoritarian right of the government to medicate the population as it thinks is best.
The latest example of this system getting it wrong is the HRT thing. Should everyone have just shut up not questioned the medication?
It's not like they got it right with mass vaccination. Everyone still got the disease and healthy people who refused were just fine.
"the right to refuse medical treatment" is the human right here
Governments have a duty to protect the public health and to do so using sweeping authority when needed. In the case of war, the government is expected to make harsh decisions to protect the most citizens even at the cost of temporary restrictions on liberties.
A pandemic is just another way that many citizens can die needlessly. The threat to public health was not, and was never, about the risk of Covid killing a person who is sick with it. The threat is that suddenly far more people need to go to the hospital all at once. If we did not "flatten the curve," that is if we did not promote and push vaccination as a way to delay the demand placed on the public health system, then it would not matter what your life threatening situation was.
If there were no beds free in the ICU, if there were no ventilators available in the country, if the hallways of every hospital were overfill with patients in temporary beds, if the average doctor was run to the point of exhaustion that they started making mistakes; then it doesn't matter if you were in a car crash, got stabbed, or had a stroke -- in all instances you would have been far more likely to die than if the health system had not been broken with a sudden surge in demand.
In the first two years of the pandemic the "excess mortality rate" (that is, if you check all deaths in a country year over year you can fairly accurately predict the number of deaths expected in a 'normal' year) of the United States was more than TWICE the total number of Americans that died during the entirety of World War 2.
Yes, the government does have a duty to protect it's citizens from mass-scale needless deaths, and yes the pandemic was such a threat--not because of Covid, but because of the risk that it would overload the health system.
SKF
I agree with SKF, the NZ govt public health response (similar to other western countries) was always about protecting the public as a whole rather than the individual. The public couldn’t be protected if the hospitals were over-loaded so ‘vaccines’ were rushed and people ‘encouraged’ to take them to hopefully minimise the effect of the virus and to allow most infected people to remain at home.
There was very little advice about other measures people could take to protect themselves. The benefits of improving your immune system, reducing the viral load (when infected) and breathing exercises (if struggling with breathing) etc - well known options for helping with other colds and flu's - these were not discussed in the media or by MoH at all.
The public couldn’t be protected if the hospitals were over-loaded so ‘vaccines’ were rushed
There was absolutely no published clinical trial evidence that the jabs would do anything along the lines of preventing hospital overloading. Pfizer's preliminary trial data didn't even examine the issue of the jab preventing transmission, yet the media went along with the idea that it would. So pushing this PR line is a total non-starter.
to take them to hopefully minimise the effect of the virus
Hopefully??? What kind of basis is that for serious decision making? As I said, pushing this entire PR line is a non-starter.
The country barely had 13,000 beds in the healthcare system across the entire country before the pandemic. For Intensive Care Units we had 153 beds available.
With Covid-19's reproduction rate, it could have reached a peak of 10-20% of the country being infected with the disease on the same day. That would be roughly 500,000 to 1,000,000 people infected.
For the first variants of Covid-19 the hospitalisation rate was estimated to be between 10%-20%, for Delta it was 5%-10%.
In the best case scenario for Delta that would be 5% of 500,000 people needing to go to the hospital. Or about 25,000 people. Twice the total number of beds that we had in the entire country. The health system would not have had enough buffer to account for even 1/10th of that.
Of those 25,000, how many do you think would have needed admission to ICU? 1%? That's 250 people.
This means that everyone going to the hospital for any reason would be far more likely to die unless we could build and staff and fit-out 2 more hospitals for every hospital that exists in the country.
This is the guidance that the government were receiving during the pandemic, and this version would not have been the worst case modelling for an uncontained pandemic, as they did not have clear information on the reproduction rate, hospitalisation rate, or vaccine timeline (let alone efficacy).
They kept trying to tell us all that it was about "flattening the curve," you just didn't listen.
SKF
"Could have, would have" - BS modelling led everyone to freak out. We were told that 80,000 people "could" die if we didn't lock down the entire population, remember that? This was patently absurd, given that the virus had an extremely low IFR for most people under 70:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9613797/
In the real world, hospitals sat nearly empty during the pandemic - not just in NZ, but in other countries where "cases" were very high like the UK and US. In the UK in 2020 the doctors and nurses were passing their time by making up dance routines and posting them on YouTube.
Hospitals have only been overwhelmed since the vaccines were rolled out (I'm sure this is just a coincidence). After 2021, excess deaths trended up massively all over the western world. They still remain high, even though covid infections are insignificant:
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/excess-mortality-p-scores-average-ba…
Strangely enough, even though the media breathlessly reported every single "covid death", they remain completely silent on the tens of millions of excess deaths currently occurring globally.
And we may never know if excess deaths were a result of the virus, the vaccine, or reduced access to necessary medical services.
https://bmjpublichealth.bmj.com/content/2/1/e000282
"A study assessing excess mortality in the USA observed a substantial increase in excess mortality attributed to non-COVID causes during the first 2 years of the pandemic. The highest number of excess deaths was caused by heart disease, 6% above baseline during both years. Diabetes mortality was 17% over baseline during the first year and 13% above it during the second year. Alzheimer’s disease mortality was 19% higher in year 1 and 15% higher in year 2. In terms of percentage, large increases were recorded for alcohol-related fatalities (28% over baseline during the first year and 33% during the second year) and drug-related fatalities (33% above baseline in year 1 and 54% in year 2)"
In New Zealand our excess mortality went negative (or about flat when accounting for reduced migration). We actually locked down, closed borders, and pushed vaccines harder. Our leaders were clear that we needed to "flatten the curve."
It's about as knowable as it ever could be for such a multi-factorial problem.
SKF
"Governments have a duty to protect the public health and to do so using sweeping authority when needed."
They had zero constitutional or legal responsibility to enact the pandemic measures, in question, that they did. That was their choice. This "duty" is mealy political opinion.
The rest of what you wrote is a bit wall of text that struggles with being coherent.
The public health system (in the broader sense) is absolutely responsible for it's choices and could have taken a different path. (This is the core issues of the column they want to avoid responsibility and criticism for their decisions and do it all over again next time) The system is also is very fallible and needs the population to be able to correct it or resist it.
The rest of what you wrote is a bit wall of text that struggles with being coherent.
I can explain it to you, but I cannot understand it for you. Cute way to ignore every argument that you can't answer though.
You strike me as one of the people during the London bombings in WW2 who refused to turn their lights off at night.
SKF
In the first two years of the pandemic the "excess mortality rate" (that is, if you check all deaths in a country year over year you can fairly accurately predict the number of deaths expected in a 'normal' year) of the United States was more than TWICE the total number of Americans that died during the entirety of World War 2.
Pointless comment because:
Population of USA
1945: ~140Million
2020: ~329.5Million
This effectively dilutes the significancy of the 'excess' mortality by a factor of ~60%
If the government cared about public health, they'd regulate the Market, teach the children better, invest in the health system and preventative holistic health. They'd reform the economic model to better support families and individuals to have their core necessities met. They'd have to jump outside the box of economic growth and capitalism, ideological thinking of rule and authority, as we all would.
But we know government are representative of the people. Or are the people nicely indoctrinated and programmed?
Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. Quality of living over quantity.
I'd like to hear her comment on why they changed the definition of vaccine so this could be introduced as an untested Gene therapy.
Why no other treatments were considered. Hint- so they could have emergency use authorisation.
At the end of the day was there a risk that this medical treatment could cause you harm?
If you did take up there offer and you got hurt or injured would you be compensated?
If it could even remotely cause injury how could it be mandated or forced through loss of work or civil liberties?
The only disinformation came from the govt and health dept.
It's not good when the govt releases comments like the following:
"People who are vaccinated will still get Covid-19; it just means that they won't get sick and they won't die" (Jacinda Ardern)
It is poor, misleading communications as it can be interpreted as follows:
- Vaccines will prevent you from dying if you get Covid
- People who don't receive vaccines will get sick and die
Neither interpretations are correct. Despite this, a reasonable assumption is that if you trust the above public statement, you should get vaccinated against Covid. However, with the benefit of hindsight, you could argue that the probability of positive impacts from being vaccinated cannot really be determined.
At the end of the day I ignored everything and made up my own mind not to take it. Do I have a problem with what happened ? Not really as it was ultimately your decision on whether to take it or not. I probably had more of an issue about being treated like a Leper and by others that because they had taken "One for the Team" that somehow I should be guilt tripped into it.
A friend of mine was dating someone in their 40's who was relatively high up in the PR campaign. They informed him that the money that went into the advertising was eyewatering and they not once had any pushback about anything they asked for financially as long as it had some relation to the campaign.
Germany and Japan are two countries where there has long been public skepticism about vaccines. A significant factor contributing to vaccine skepticism in both these countries is a lack of trust in governmental institutions and pharmaceutical companies. It is historical in nature and also related to wartime atrocities. Both countries are advanced in medical and pharma research.
In the case of Japan, in the early 1990s, reports of aseptic meningitis cases linked to the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine fueled skepticism. The government responded by withdrawing the MMR vaccine from circulation in 1993 after only four years of use. A court ruling held the government liable for adverse reactions to vaccines, even without scientific evidence linking the vaccines to those reactions. This ruling significantly impacted public perception, leading to a cautious approach towards vaccination policies.
I've often wondered about the MMR vaccine and it's use here.
Prior to this we had a separate vaccine for each of these. I had all the vaccines as a child and still contracted measles and mumps. There's no way of knowing if the vaccine was any use or not. I think many also had measles parties to get natural immunity.
It's my understanding that no new trials or data was provided for MMR and the medical approval relied on the old data. Providing indemnity to the pharmaceutical companies does not encourage better quality control or accountability.
It's possible we're taking the pharmaceutical path too far. We're forgetting the natural immunity and antibodies that are passed through a mother's breastmilk. We're not enabling a perfectly designed human structure to operate as it's supposed to.
I recently skimmed through a book: The Plant Protocol. Written by a doctor with a more holistic view. An interesting read regarding gluten, antibiotics, gut health and treating various illnesses such as asthma and Crohn's, and all related to the foods we eat and the effect on our immune system.
...disinformation campaigns fuelled division...
Side effects which started within 12 hours (and a Dr giving me a strange 'thats wierd' response as if they had a gun to their head) of a 'vaccination' fuelled my division with the narrative.
Surveys have repeatedly highlighted a worrying trend: a segment of the public, including some health professionals, harbours scepticism about vaccines, fuelled by unmitigated misinformation.
Very wierd! It couldnt be observing their fellow medical professionals with their medical licenses on the line seeing the ineffectiveness and sickness caused by them? I think these health professionals need a healthy nudge towards the truth, you could call it a work camp.
Only through a united front can we hope to restore and maintain the public trust essential for overcoming this crisis and future public health challenges.
This is a horrible misunderstanding. Precisely the problem is when the public perceive a 'united front'; it implies that authorities have collectively decided what the truth will be, and will resist any developments that will change that line even if reality demands it. We saw a bit of that during Covid, and it was profoundly damaging to public trust. (An example I'd give: stopping travel from the epicentre of the epidemic was racist and unscientific according to authorities, and a few weeks later stopping all travel anywhere was absolutely necessary according to the very same authorities.) The problem is that even if you're right 90% of the time, when you double down on your errors and insist on defaming those who point them out, you lose the trust of the public. Think of someone you know; someone you like and trust; how will you feel about them if they lie to your face and then insult you for questioning them? Even if they have been reliably right for years, you'll stop listening to them and turn to other sources.
It presents a challenge to us all. Institutions and experts have to learn to address the public with appropriate transparency and willingness to acknowledge uncertainty, and not insult or dismiss their doubters. We, the public, have to keep our cool and not throw the baby out with the bathwater; experts usually do know more than Youtube randoms. I do worry that 'misinformation' initiatives risk making both problems worse.
While the report offers no solutions, it notes that disinformation campaigns fuelled division and loss of trust in government.
It was disinformation which fuelled division and loss of trust in government?
...really??
I don't have a particularly fond view of Donald Trump, but I guess one of the few good things about his administration is that the lid is about to be blown off a lot of this Covid stuff. This will be difficult for a lot of people to stomach, since it will challenge many of the assumptions which they have built their world view upon. But the truth will become known nonetheless.
Future generations are going to look back on this and wonder how we allowed it to happen.
The lid has already been blown off in a recently released Congress Sub committee report, prior to Trump's involvement.
No MSM are reporting it here, and it still reeks of deflection, misinformation, scapegoating, a political agenda and a coverup.
As for this article suggesting checking the source of information. Who's the source of the article and their vested interest?
A lot of projection from Helen Petousis-Harris. Government disinformation over experimental gene therapy has set back vaccine uptake for decades.
Dr Ashley Bloomfield explains. "They're not very effective, after all the virus can also infect you via your eyes - it basically likes to land on mucus membranes - from your eyes it likes to go down your nose anyway - so I think people should not bother with facemasks," he says.
https://www.1news.co.nz/2020/02/29/face-masks-fly-off-shelves-as-worrie…
"On 21 July 2021 CV TAG issued a formal recommendation that the interval between the first and second dose of the vaccine be extended to at least 8 weeks for people under 30 due to the risk of myocarditis. Why was this recommendation not implemented?
...Why do the minutes from CV TAG’s 17 August 2021 meeting record that it was requested that references to increasing dosing intervals potentially providing some protection against myocarditis be removed from public communications? Who made the request and for what purpose?"
...Medsafe’s technical benefit-risk assessment of the Pfizer vaccine was that it was “not clear”. Medsafe wrote to Pfizer and advised it that it was unable to recommend approval of the vaccine. MAAC instructed Medsafe to grant provisional approval. Why did the government not disclose Medsafe’s benefit-risk assessment to the public?
@CranmerWrites - MOH documents linked.
We had another young athlete suffer a "medical event" recently, in heavyweght boxer Richard Tutaki:
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/kiwi-heavyweight-boxer-richard-tutaki-the…
This follows Willie Leota, Connor Garden-Bachop, and Shayne Phillpot. And that's just this year.
Does that mean the vaccine caused these deaths? No, but it might have done. We know what the potential side effects are. We're just not allowed to discuss them.
Pfizer Vaccine Approval in NZ Under Scrutiny: A Retrospective Analysis
...However, in reality, the government’s representation of Medsafe's assessment was overstated. Specifically, Medsafe’s clinical assessment found:
- “The duration of the vaccine protection has not been established beyond two months.”
- “At this stage, there is limited evidence of protection against severe disease.”
- “There is no long term safety follow-up information.”
- “Vaccine prevention of asymptomatic infection and disease transmission has not been established.”
https://www.bassettbrashandhide.com/post/thomas-cranmer-pfizer-vaccine-…
The following link has United Nations’ global communications representative Melissa Fleming, who spoke on a World Economic Forum disinformation panel on Sept 28, 2022.
https://www.malone.news/p/we-own-the-science-and-the-world?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
The full video linked below is worth listening to, but it is almost an hour long.
The United Nations claims that they ‘own the science.’ For this reason, they have partnered with the big tech platforms to manipulate search results, and they are pouring vast quantities of money into globalist media outlets to ensure their version of “the science” is the one that we get to read.
The thing is - when you listen to the full panel discussion linked above, the UN speaker -Ms. Fleming is not just saying that the UN is censoring speech on climate change. She also suggests that the UN with the WEF is censoring many scientific discussions, such as the topic of COVID-19, and the UN is in the process of setting up the tools to censor ALL misinformation that the UN deems unhelpful for a “stable, peaceful, harmonious and UNITED world".
Economics and finance is misinformation?
It's not intentional, but it is cherry picked data and you need to check the source, their vested interest and biases.
What's the truth behind this debacle? Why does a company owned by the largest asset manager need access to credit facilities totalling $365M?
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/solarzero-fallout-cecilia-tarrant-s…
If the market and banks are so concerned about climate change what need for the NZGIF?
Just read the book Propaganda, the history behind it and since, and how it's been used. It's the playbook of marketing, advertising and public relations.
Your only means of reading through misinformation and disinformation is to develop your discernment and intuition (they're not logical or emotional skills) and be strong in your personal boundaries.
The article covers the need some very intelligent things -
- Transparency in government.
- Teaching people to be rationally sceptical and disinterested parties to debates.
- Getting the population to the point they are scientifically literate enough to know when their sources are being economical with the truth.
- Protections for free speech and public health.
- The implication that the idea of a knowable and objective reality needs to be promoted.
Unfortunately we are poor, as a nation, at doing many of these things: lots of what to do, but very little on how.
Getting the population to the point they are scientifically literate enough to know when their sources are being economical with the truth
This is the core issue. The elite wish to keep everyone uneducated and following the system as it benefits them. If everyone valued education and the level of education increased across the board for the next decade or two then we would have a much different view on many core aspects of society and greater engagement with politics, both local and central, and a better representation of the direction the public wishes NZ to go.
If people were in doubt about how wide spread the disinformation was these comments provide clear evidence, unless there are an inordinate amount of public health scholars here?
Or did you guys do your own research, and if so which journal is it published in because I'd love to read it?
Well my info (above) came from Melissa Fleming (United Nations’ global communications representative) - hopefully that gives it some substance.
However I don't think people producing disinformation for the 'establishment' are going to document it in a journal, lol.
There is plenty of published research, Cranmer analysis links all the MOH documents for you to peruse. Diamond Princess analysis for starters or the BMJ. The absolute risk reduction for the mandatory experimental gene therapy was pitiful.
"...the absolute risk reduction (ARR), which is the difference between attack rates with and without a vaccine, considers the whole population. ARRs tend to be ignored because they give a much less impressive effect size than RRRs: 1·3% for the AstraZeneca–Oxford, 1·2% for the Moderna–NIH, 1·2% for the J&J, 0·93% for the Gamaleya, and 0·84% for the Pfizer–BioNTech vaccines."
COVID-19 vaccine efficacy and effectiveness—the elephant (not) in the room
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanmic/article/PIIS2666-5247(21)0006…
There is a problem with the terms misinformation and disinformation. As if it's possible to easily figure out what is true and what is not - especially with a new virus, new poorly-tested vaccine technology, new untested NPIs such as population-wide lockdowns & mandates. So we saw the government, advised by a handful of experts (many with vested interests), pretending they had all the answers and that everything else was "disinformation". They claimed to be the "sole source of truth". Frightening language.
Turns out much of what the authorities told us was misinformation...for example, at first they told us surgical face masks were useless against a virus. Then they suddenly told us they were essential (and that even cloth masks and bandanas would do the trick). By definition, one of these statements was wrong. Was this misinformation or disinformation from our health chiefs?
Or that the vaccine will stop you catching covid, stop you getting sick, and stop you dying (Jacinda - though she later admitted you could still catch covid after being vaccinated). All the unvaccinated are supposedly dead by now.
Or that it was absolutely "safe and effective" - actually they misleadingly told us the relative effectiveness rather than the absolute effectiveness (less than 1%). Anecdotally it's obvious to everyone how ineffective it was, as pretty much everyone got covid, and are still getting it despite being vaccinated multiple times. And there was no way they could honestly claim it was safe, given it had a mere 3 months of human trials (most vaccines undergo at least 5 years of testing and monitoring). Even the vaccine manufacturers themselves didn't claim it was safe in the long term, and for this reason they wouldn't sell it to governments unless they were given legal immunity from prosecution for side effects.
And how can we trust a PM who at first tells us there will never be vaccine mandates, then a few months later implements harsh mandates?
I very much look forward to the results of "Phase 2" of the covid inquiry.
What do you do when when the deliberate disinformation campaigns are coming from the government or their proxies?
What happen to the guy who leaked the worrying figures about excess deaths in NZ? Where is the transparent investigation of these figures.
I have seen some class actions are starting in the US.
Honestly, please listen/watch the joe rogan podcast with Mike Benz #2237 it will blow your mind -
https://open.spotify.com/episode/7uBY7Ti0g2nNroNJOS7zo9
Mike Benz runs this website https://foundationforfreedomonline.com/about/ he used to work for the state department so has some first hand knowledge.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.