I’m hesitant…here’s why

My country has just embarked on nationwide lockdown because of a single positive test for Covid-19. The single case rapidly became more – one of these a double vaccinated nurse.

I have no doubt the government will stick to their Zero-Covid strategy. But as reality inexorably starts to go off script again, I predict that this strategy will become an embarrassment. Already they need a name change to save face, and are now referring to “aggressive containment” – a spin which reminds me of the US Military during the Vietnam era (more on that later). I predict that all they will successfully contain are the voices of doctors and scientists critical of the Zero-Covid approach, like those of NZ Doctors SOS and the Covid Plan B group.

Two years ago I never thought I would be spending my cherished solitary hours envisaging scenarios where I am shamed and viewed as a conspiracy theorist simpleton simply for making my own health decisions. Now I frequently find myself in imaginary discussions with clients I am about to lose who simply cannot understand how someone with a PhD in Science and who partly works in data science can be so stupid (somewhat like this group of world class actuaries, lawyers and data analysists who also question the mainstream narrative on Covid-19).

At the moment, I am fending off “have you had the vaccine?” with “not yet”. But time is running out. I suspect that soon – despite valiant efforts by the compliant NZ public – one or more people will succumb with or from Covid-19. Then all hell will be unleashed on the un-vaccinated and I will be forced to make a choice which may crush me for the rest of my life, just like Cavafy’s poem describes.

So, this post is for myself and my twelve fourteen followers. It serves as a working draft for my response to the follow-up question “why not?” So here goes:

In a nutshell, I am trusting my instincts.

Not very scientific or rational, right? Let me explain: my instincts here are informed.

My instincts are informed by the history and track record of what I refer to as The Trifecta – that is, the threesome of Big Pharma, Big Tech and Big Government with its arms length entities such as the WHO, the CDC and, last but not least, media companies funded by Big Pharma and funded by government.

My instincts tell me that, when this Trifecta of Big Pharma, Big Tech and Big Government colludes at warp speed to pursue their independent but overlapping interests, then (a) my long term health interest is last on their priority list; and (b) the chances of something going horribly wrong are provably considerable.

I am not positing a grand theory of conspiracy. I am saying that the default position a rational, informed person should assume when faced with any form of coercion by this Trifecta – whether it is going to war or taking an experimental treatment – should be skepticism and caution.

If you have any doubt about my doubts, take a look at this 6 minute video to see a prime example of where my distrust for the Trifecta – and in particular the CDC – originates from. You can watch the full 60-minute show at this link.

Almost all of the Big Pharma companies are convicted felons, and if that is news to you, then please check this link. For a recent example on how three successive US governments wasted thousands of lives and trillions in taxpayer money, please check this.

And if you think that entities like the WHO, the CDC, Johns Hopkins Centre for Health Security or the Imperial College is filled to the brim with impartial geeky scientists of the highest moral calibre who hold themselves accountable for the recommendations they make to their masters, please check this link, and this link, and this link. I can go on and on. Anyone with a bit of history knowledge who knows how to use a search engine can fill several pages with links like these in one hour.

So given a default-hypothesis that says – do NOT trust – let us look at some (admittedly cherry-picked) evidence and see whether they support my default-hypothesis or the alternative, which cannot be put in any other way than: “just trust us THIS TIME”.

I list this evidence in the order in which it came to my attention:

1. Suppression of Alternative Treatments

The fact that within a single year, medicines such as Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine, both on the WHO Model List of Essential Medicines and has been in use for decades, suddenly became outlawed (and then stayed outlawed) was an immediate red flag to me. This medicine was regarded as safe for decades – why the sudden concern even when studies show that it is safe at high doses?

Even if these alternative treatments were completely useless, which has been proven NOT to be the case, why outlaw them? Does that not look like the type of thing the Trifecta would do to ensure that there was no alternative treatment available – a necessary condition for allowing emergency use of the mRNA Vaccines?

If we assume, under our default hypothesis, that the Trifecta was working towards a goal of electronic vaccine passports and control of movement and flow of money (all in the interest of government, Big Tech and central bank division) and a never ending cycle of vaccine booster shots (in the interest of the Big Pharma division) – then does this evidence act in support of the default hypothesis or against it?

This does not mean that the experimental mRNA treatment is not effective. But it does support my instinct to ask for more time to investigate further before I submit to the coercion.

2. Misinformation about Vaccine Effectiveness

As documented by Prof Ronald Brown in this peer reviewed paper, there has been bias in reporting of the effectiveness of the experimental mRNA treatments. That was another red flag for me and is solid evidence in favour of my default-hypothesis.

As noted by Prof Brown, the FDA guidelines for communicating evidence based risks and benefits to the public includes the recommendation to:

Provide absolute risks, not just relative risks. Patients are unduly influenced when risk information is presented using a relative risk approach; this can result in suboptimal decisions. Thus, an absolute risk format should be used.

If this is an FDA recommendation, why then would the government and media not inform the public that the absolute risk reduction of the Pfizer mRNA Vaccine (I use the term loosely), is only 0.7%? Really – explain that to me and I will look at taking your vaccine.

If you do not know the difference between absolute and relative risk – you should! Here is a 3-minute read explaining it clearly. Then, once you have read that, reflect on the fact that the Pfizer Vaccine (I use the term loosely) has an absolute risk reduction of only 0.7%.

Now do what the FDA recommends and use that fact, together with the complete lack of knowledge about potential long term side effects of the experimental treatment, to make your decision. That is what I did. And that is why I am waiting for more information before I commit to taking the experimental treatment.

3. Ignoring Inconvenient Truths

The foundation for the Covid-19 crisis is this:

Old people, and people who have serious underlying health conditions, and those who are morbidly obese are prone to die when a new respiratory virus emerges.

And THIS is the problem that the Trifecta wants to “solve” at warp speed. The single country in which cooler Nordic minds prevailed, is an elephant in the corner. Even Reuters, an agency firmly under the wing of the Trifecta, grudgingly admits that Sweden had a smaller overall mortality than most European countries.

But you have to actually read that article to see how reluctant the mainstream view is to consider this considerable counter-factual to the narrative that countries should stay locked down until everyone is vaccinated.

Take note that by now 50% of Sweden’s population are vaccinated. However, there is no doubt in my mind that this is not the primary reason for Sweden’s success in coping with the problem stated above. Compare for example, excess mortality in Sweden and the UK:

I have chosen excess mortality because it is the one parameter of Covid-19 impact which is almost impossible to manipulate – unlike other figures that have without a doubt been manipulated by the Trifecta – (another piece of evidence in favour of my default hypothesis).

In view of the extreme social cost of lockdowns and risks associated with an unprecedented global rollout of a fast-tracked experimental treatment – the continued downplaying if not ignoring of the provably superior solution that Sweden offers is, for me, another piece of clear evidence in support of my default hypothesis.

4. Under-reporting & misappropriating the Direction of Evidence

When the Covid-19 vaccines (I use the term loosely) first started to roll out at the end of 2020, the relative effectiveness of 95% was widely touted. Countries like the UK, Australia and New Zealand more or less adopted a strategy of lockdown while waiting for the vaccine. The vaccine would be 95% effective, would prevent transmission, hospitalization and death.

Not surprisingly, reality drifted off-script again. We now know, without any doubt, from highly vaccinated countries like Israel, the UK and Iceland that the vaccine is less than 40% effective in protecting people against Covid-19.

Consider the number of active cases in Israel, where approximately 62% of the population has been double vaccinated:

source: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/israel/

So we know, in addition to evidence from the USA, the vaccine does not prevent transmission of the virus.

Then consider the number of daily deaths in Israel that shows a 7-day average number of deaths in the last week (week of 22 August) of 21, compared to exactly the same number (21) a year ago before vaccinations started. And if I made this comparison a few days before today, the 2021 7-day average would have been higher than that in the same period in 2020.

source: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/israel/

Now compare this with Sweden which also has a high vaccination rate, but lower than that of Israel (roughly 50% double vaccinated compared to Israel’s 62%):

source: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/sweden/

We also know that the deaths in Israel are not only, or even principally, from un-vaccinated people. Israel’s director of Public Health admitted that many of the people in hospital are fully vaccinated. And Dr Kobi Haviv, director of the Herzog Hospital in Jerusalem, recently stated that 85% to 95% of people in hospital are fully vaccinated. You can find a full report on these facts here.

I am NOT saying that this proves that the vaccines are dangerous or useless. But clearly, the case for mandating vaccines is becoming weaker by the week. Considering the direction in which this evidence has moved from December 2020 to August 2021, why is there no reporting of this in the media in the context of mandatory vaccinations? As the above linked Spectator article put it:

However, in light of the above, why are our politicians and health officials insisting on this rhetoric, and that vaccinations are the way out of these ‘Delta’ induced lockdowns, when evidence is mounting to the contrary?

Australian Spectator

The evangelical call to vaccinate the entire world, including pregnant woman and babies, continues unabatedly. Why is that? Staunch Trifecta mouthpieces like the Guardian are only doing damage control on this evidence instead of showing at least some understanding of why some people, like me, are not irrational when they adopt a “wait and see” attitude.

President Biden, and the Israel government, are already moving the world down a future of never ending booster shots. And there is literally no mainstream media questioning of this, except if you count the Australian Spectator as mainstream media.

So for me, the fact that the Trifecta is continuing to focus unrelentingly on the experimental mRNA treatments as the one and only solution – even when new evidence such as the above data shows emerges – is yet another red flag and more evidence in favour of my default hypothesis.

5. Lies and Misinformation

Documenting the lies and misinformation that the Trifecta has spread since March 2020 will occupy historians for decades, just as it happened after the Vietnam war, the Iraq War, the Global Financial Crisis and as it is now starting to happen after the Afghanistan War. So I will not attempt any systematic documentation of the contents of that future book-topic treasure chest here.

All I will say is this – when the government, and this includes all political leaders, both those in government and those of the opposition – continue to state that the Covid-19 vaccines are “safe and effective” – they are lying. How can they possibly know that after nine months? How can they possibly know?

My guard may go down just a little the first time I hear a government official, on television news, say something honest about what is known about the long term safety of the vaccines. Perhaps something like: “over the nine months that the vaccines have been in use, they appeared to be quite safe. They do have a higher rate of adverse effects and deaths than most real vaccines over all of history, but so far, they appear to be quite safe”. Just say it!

For example, try to say something honest like the Scientific American magazine (a well respected magazine to which Albert Einstein has contributed):

Aside from questions of safety that attend any vaccine, there are good reasons to be especially cautious for COVID-19. Some vaccines worsen the consequences of infection rather than protect, a phenomenon called antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE). ADE has been observed in previous attempts to develop coronavirus vaccines. To add to the concern, antibodies typical of ADE are present in the blood of some COVID-19 patients. Such concerns are real. As recently as 2016, Dengavxia, intended to protect children from the dengue virus, increased hospitalizations for children who received the vaccine.

Scientific American: The Risks of Rushing a Covid-19 Vaccine


I will probably refine this draft over time as more facts emerge. Who knows what will turn the tide?

I believe it was the historian Max Hastings who wrote that it is not accurate to call the generation that fought and lived through World War II “the greatest generation”. He (or someone else) wrote that it is more accurate to say “they were the generation to whom the greatest thing happened”.

Well, I believe the entire world is now living through a crises which may just compare to World War II in terms of lives destroyed over several generations, and in the spectre – seen daily now in Australia – of a totalitarian grip of censorship and sheer madness in the leadership crawling into and making nest in public consciousness.


If you are feeling bewildered by the way rational thinking and true evidence based governance has been turned on its head since March 2020, you will find support and encouragement at these organizations:

Voices for Freedom (an organization that is well-organized, informed and doing grass-roots work)

NZ Doctors SOS (a group of brave doctors questioning Vaccine safety and the lack of informed consent)

Covid Plan B (a group of academics providing a rational alternative to the Zero-Covid fantasy)

All of these organizations are run by volunteers. Please consider donating!

You can also found real news and information at UKColumn News Site – see especially the Doctors for Covid Ethics Symposium hosted on UK Column. It was Session 2 of this Symposium that made me realise we are perhaps now in a battle for the essence of what is means to be a free human.


As a final parting shot – for about two weeks now I have tracked the number of signatories on the NZ Doctors SOS site every day. My data to date is shown below. Try to guess when the latest lockdown happened! There may be hope!

Subscribe to my blog to receive email notifications whenever I post something new. At the moment I post something between one and three times per week.

Thanks for visiting!

3 thoughts on “I’m hesitant…here’s why

Comments are closed.