NZ Teachers' 'No Jab, No Job' Mandates Unlawful? NZ Government hid evidence of very low transmission in education

NZ Teachers await a decision from the Supreme Court on whether an Appeal will be accepted: here's damning evidence the Crown inexplicably kept from Court

**edited slightly for clarity 1 July 2024**

The New Zealand Government’s Ministry of Health ‘Science and Insights’ wrote a report (att’d PDF from an OIA, end of this post), analysing National Contact Tracing Solution (NCTS) data about risks of transmission of ‘covid’. This report is significant because it totally contradicted the purported need for the Education ‘Vaccine’ Mandate (and probably the Health Workers mandate, too), and yet the Crown kept this information from the High Court in the NZDSOS/NZTSOS High Court hearing in early 2022. WHY?

A recent Official Information Act (OIA) request response provided the Report in full. But the existence of this report only came to light because Dr Ian Town, Chief Science Advisor at the Ministry of Health, used it in the subsequent Orewa Community Church Court Case, to support his contention that ‘churches had a much greater risk of transmission than schools’.

This 10-page report was published by the Ministry of Health BEFORE the Oct 2021 ‘vaccine’ mandate ‘Order’ was signed by MP Chris Hipkins. (The data used was up to that date). The ‘expert witnesses’ in the original Court Case, including Dr Town and Dr Ashley Bloomfield, would have read this report - but for some reason, it was not disclosed in Court evidence? Now, we can perhaps guess why it was withheld - because it confirms an inconvenient truth: transmission rates were very low in young people in education, who already had negligible risk from covid infection anyway.

I’ll explain some of the context in a moment, for those who haven’t yet been following this Court Appeal. But first:

Why was the ‘vaccine’ mandate rolled out, regardless?

There are four key points we can take from this previously withheld ‘expert witness’ Court evidence report:

1. This was the ‘best’ and ‘most relevant’ data that the New Zealand Government had at that time (2021), concerning reported evidence of transmission of covid in schools. NB This is the Government’s own data, so should be viewed by the Crown as reliable. It is a large sample size (>11,000), based on the ‘delta variant’ and focuses specifically on data of transmission in NZ education sectors.

2. This data showed that education settings (and health) had incredibly low rates of transmission (only 1 in 1,000 contacts got ‘infected’), totally undermining the need for the ‘no jab, no job’ mandate.

3. The Crown’s expert witnesses deliberately kept this information from the Court.

4. By withholding this crucial information from the High Court, they contravened the High Court rules for expert witnesses (and their sworn statements that they would be impartial), resulting in a miscarriage of justice.

Photo by alam kusuma on Unsplash.

I’ve already written about the approx 8,000 (revised down from the original 11,000) individuals who were granted the rarer-than-hens-teeth exemptions from the workplace ‘vaccination’ mandate. These exemptions were almost ALL healthcare workers:

Some legal context

As NZ Doctors Speaking Out with Science (NZDSOS) described last year about this long-running Court case:

The main thrust of the NZTSOS argument lay in the 4^th ground of appeal – had the Crown demonstrated, as required by the NZ Bill of Rights, that mandating a novel genetic treatment was ‘a reasonable and demonstrably justified limitation’ on the right to decline medical treatment? Had the Crown demonstrated that a mandate was necessary for the wellbeing of New Zealanders and that there was no other way to manage Covid-19?

[points of note]:

1) The judges pressed Crown lawyer Daniel Jones about whether Justice Cooke had sufficiently considered evidence about more rights compliant ways of managing the pandemic.  Justice Cooke had mentioned the importance of considering more rights compliant ways in paragraph 81 of his judgement but did not appear to take this further.

2) There were questions about whether there was deference to the Crown.  Daniel Jones denied this, instead suggesting that Justice Cooke “preferred the evidence of the respondents’ [Crown] witnesses”. 

3) Daniel Jones was very dismissive of the appellant’s (NZTSOS) expert Dr Geoffrey Cramp who was more highly qualified and more in touch with real New Zealanders on the ground than Dr Ashley Bloomfield.  In addition to the same Public Health qualifications as Dr Bloomfield, Dr Cramp also had GP and Urgent Care training.  He was working in a public health role in regional New Zealand at the time of the mandates.

4) There was discussion about whether the additional benefits gained by mandating a vaccine had been adequately quantified and the very broad application of the mandate was noted.

5) There were brief questions about whether Justice Cooke had access to all the information especially re vaccine approval, vaccine safety and prevention of transmission. 

“This last point is particularly important with all the new information that has come to light via Official Information Act responses (OIAs) demonstrating who knew what and when” said the spokesperson. (my emphasis)

The comment about OIA’s relates to how Crown ‘expert witnesses’ in Court claimed their arguments relied upon evidence, but this evidence was not provided to NZTSOS.

There are many aspects to this ‘evidence’ which has led some to speculate that the Court was deliberately misled, as fully explained in this article.

Now after some careful analysis and OIAs, the expert witnesses claimed they had good evidence to support the ‘vaccine’ mandate - because of the high risks of transmission. In Court they used (flawed) evidence from NSW, but we now know they had this NZ report which concluded no such evidence existed.

As I explained above in the four key notes, transmission of ‘covid’ (whatever that was) was never significant within the education sector.

NZ Teachers’ experiences during ‘no job, no jab’

If you worked in the NZ Education system at this time - as a lecturer, teacher or in admin - it was impossible to obtain an exemption. The managers acted as gatekeepers, preventing access to any exemption-application process. Belittling and coercing staff, for many, there was simply no way of avoiding the injections. I wrote about this unethical policy here (link below), which included a video of a Zoom meeting where shockingly, even pregnant women staff were encouraged to get the jab by their managers:

Thousands (exact numbers are unknown) of Kiwi employees from all workplace sectors impacted by the mandates, were unable to obtain an exemption from the ‘vaccine’. Despite negotiating through all the nonsensical and circular bureaucratic processes that we now know behavioural scientists in ‘Nudge Unit’ consultancies deliberately designed to deter applicants. Unbelievably, some individuals who had taken the first dose and suffered a serious adverse event, were still not granted an exemption. Seemingly psychopathic GPs and senior managers generously offered the facility of an emergency ‘crash cart’ in pop-up jab centres, to staff at risk of another adverse event with their second (or third) mandated dose, ‘incase they needed CPR’. Yes, you may need to read that sentence again.

Remember: this was NEVER about public health.

Many people, understandably, gave up the fight, they complied. And many suffered the consequences of that gamble. Others bravely stood their ground: to #holdtheline Some retired, some retired early, some managed to change roles; others resigned. But many more were unceremoniously fired from their jobs, and/or their voluntary roles, their vocations. Jobs they had trained years to do, accumulated student debt over, jobs they loved and had years of experience in, jobs they worked hard at, were committed to, for the sake of their patients, students, prisoners, customers... These critical-thinkers lost their income, professional identity, were ignored, blacklisted, defamed and discriminated against unfairly. They lost friends, colleagues, suffered family breakups, were forced to sacrifice their cars, independence, homes, security and lifestyles.

And all the while, the nauseating, colourful propaganda with ‘burger and fries’ incentives kept running, and many people - even today - are totally unaware that anything at all went wrong.

Of those circa 8,000 staff who managed to obtain exemptions, I later discovered that a disproportionate amount (30%) of these were awarded to the private healthcare company NZ Health Group. And in the spirit of the revolving doors of power, appointed their shiny-new CEO soon after the covid fraud. Yup. None other than one of the senior ‘experts’ from within the NZ Government’s covid response, Jane Kelley, who probably even signed-off those exemptions herself.

Government’s Own Data

It’s worth pointing out that this NZ Government report is methodologically flawed. For instance, it includes only those who ‘signed-up’ for interventions. They may have visited their GP recently (maybe for a jab or a test), disclosed their mobile number on a visitors ‘signing-in’ contact sheet, and/or uploaded the NZ Contact Tracing App on their phone.

NB Because I’m not allowed to tell you about my personal experience of working for the NCTS, I’ve written a tongue-in-cheek fictionalised account of that nonsense here - to give you some insights.

But what this data means, is that those who (according to the report) refused to respond to the Contact Tracers’ calls/texts at that time, were excluded. Also excluded were the large cohort of the population who hadn’t downloaded the App, or complied with any of the monitoring, testing or surveillance measures at all, and who knows what they could tell us about infections?!

On top of that, there are of course inconsistencies in the ‘positive’ test results; eg these didn’t necessarily mean that individuals’ had symptoms, just a positive PCR test (which because of the financial incentives and fear-mongering encouraging people to stay away from work, may have been fabricated). And because at this time the numbers of ‘fully vaccinated’ were relatively low in NZ, and the complexities of everyone’s contacts (including their ‘vaccine’ status) unknown, the analysis of the risks of transmission were impossible to accurately predict. Oh, and of course no-one was ‘counted’ as being ‘fully vaccinated’ until 14 days after their second dose anyway. The authors of this report explicitly acknowledge all these significant weaknesses and lack of validity in their findings. At Table 2, they state:

“These data should be considered cautiously as over half of the categorisation of contacts into settings based on interview notes was done by Science and Intel and has not been internally quality controlled, or peer reviewed by NCTS experts.”

Yet, this was still the Government’s data, something they published and that forms part of the public record. f

Here are the ‘key points’ extracted from the Report:

To be clear, this is the extract of the report where the authors confirm that the vaccine effectiveness (ie transmission) is unknown and impossible to include:

In conclusion

Why did the NZ Government continue to force through the unethical ‘vaccine’ mandates for teachers, knowing that there was no evidence of high rates of transmission?

Why did ‘expert witnesses’ for the Crown hide this Report from the Court? (Hence preventing any discussion of its findings, relevance or validity)?

Nearly three years on - will there finally be justice for those Kiwis who were unfairly discriminated against and mandated out of their jobs?

Here’s the10-page PDF report, released under the Official Information Act:

Science And Insights 19 Oct 2021

12.9MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download