HOW & WHY A PEACEFUL PROTEST ENDED IN TEARS & FIRE;

Writer – Sarah Beesley

It didn’t have to be like this. It started with a worldwide threat to health. In the initial stages, we as kiwis were so grateful to have what appeared to be strong, decisive leadership and we all made sacrifices to protect “the team of 5million”. We thought the first lockdown would “flatten the curve” and we were given to understand that this was short term pain for long term gain. The public was sold horrific figures of the likely deaths, based on what was later shown to be flawed modelling. Later, it became apparent that this was not going to be the last lockdown. Businesses started to go to the wall. Overseas, noises started to be made about the hunt for a vaccine. Worldwide, people were told that this could be developed in record time using a new technology.

The fact that this technology had never been used extensively in human populations before, was no cause for alarm.

We were all told to “trust the science” and trust the manufacturers trials. We were told that things “would not return to normal until the entire world was vaccinated”. NZ was 6 months behind the rest of the world. Thinking Kiwis were watching the unfolding of events in countries using the new vaccines like Israel, the UK and the USA. They were also watching the outcomes in countries that could not afford the new wonder-drugs and were having to find alternative ways of addressing Covid for their populations. Countries like lndia and Africa. These countries were offering their citizens Ive r me tin and hyd Roxy Chlo roquin, steroids and antihistamines, and they were getting excellent results. By contrast, the medical reporting systems in the UK, the USA, and lsreal were starting to raise red flags as vacxine adverse reactions started to climb.

This should have been investigated. It wasn’t. In fact, doctors who started to raise alarm bells were quickly shut down and their credibility torn to shreds in the media. These were respected medical professionals – some with prior history in vacxine development, surgeons and GPs – who were questioning what they were seeing in their own patient communities. The insidious creep of censorship had started. Anyone who questioned the drive for vacxination and why inexpensive, effective and very safe alternatives were being removed from public access, was labelled an “anti-vaxxer”. Facebook pages were shut down, Twitter accounts deleted. In The Health Forum NZ, Lynda was posting information on the data and science from overseas, drawing attention to the anomilies and unknowns. As time went on, she had to become increasingly careful as to how she presented the information. Facebook and its partners took on the job of removing “misinformation” which might affect people’s unquestioning faith in the vaccine. Our own Government told us they were to be our “sole source of truth”. The vacxines arrived in NZ. Those watching the unfolding of the events overseas and the level of vax injury that was occurring, knew enough to question the “safe and effective” branding that was being aggressively promoted in the public domain. They went looking for the Medsafe documentation and were shocked at Medsafe’s concerns and the list of unknowns regarding the vacxine on Medsafe’s website. None of this was included in what the public was being told.

They also discovered concerning information in Pfizer’s own documentation. It became very clear that the public was not being fully informed about the risks and that the product was in fact, still in its trial phases with long term side effects unknown. The response to anyone questioning the “safe and effective” narrative, was to label them as ignorant and spreaders of misinformation. The term “anti-vaxxer” was promoted through our media and was reiterated by our politicians. In amongst all this, the definition of herd immunity was altered in the WHO guidelines. It was no longer achieved by gaining natural immunity and was only achieved through vacxination. This concerning change slipped through, unnoticed by many people. The vacxine rollouts started. There was a call by a small number of informed people for the risks to be pointed out as part of the informed consent process. It became apparent very quickly that true informed consent was not a priority for the administrators of the rollout.

Pamphlet drops and sign pop-ups started as caring citizens tried to fill the gap in the informed consent process.The unthinking, self-righteous parts of NZ jumped on the “anti-vax” narrative. It was easier to label someone as “anti-vax” than to face the possibility that the Government might have got some of this wrong. At the Health Forum NZ, we braced ourselves for a repeat of what we’d seen overseas – people being injured by the vacxine. On our sign-up, we had a question asking whether the signee or an immediate family member had had an adverse reaction to the vacxine. At first, it started as a trickle. As the rollout continued, it grew to a flood of “yes’s”. Noticeable was the surge for about 2-3 weeks from the Super Saturday event. Every one of these was contacted and documented by Lynda’s team. We went though a period where, out of 700 sign-ups per day, we were getting 60 to 70 recording vacxine injuries. We now have thousands on the database. The reporting of injuries should have been mandatory. Instead, it was left as voluntary. In spite of this, the number of injuries reported on CARM has far exceeded any previous vax stats.

This fact was ignored by our decision-makers. The NZ Govt continued to push the “safe and effective” narrative and ramped up the vilification of anyone who dared question it. Their primary tool was the media and a small number of handpicked “experts”. If any of these experts questioned the science, they were removed from the team. This happened to Guy Hatchard, who continues to speak out. Previously lauded scientists such as Dr. Simon Thornley and GPs such as Dr. Matt Shelton lost their careers because they dared to question the Govt narrative. l think most of us would agree, the turning point for NZ was the mandates. Our Govt decided to remove any true choice to refuse the vacxine from a huge number of NZers – our border workers, stevedores, airline staff, medical professionals, teachers and health professionals. On top of this, the Govt supported businesses in mandating their staff outside of these areas. My own local MP Kieran McAnulty, when questioned about the coercion, said “you do have a choice. Get the jab or go on the dole”. There was no interest people’s reasons for not wanting THIS vacxine. And no recognition of the resulting loss of jobs, homes or marriages, or the resulting emotional trauma. They were dismissed as being a “fringe” minority, and therefore not worthy of engagement.

Any thinking person would question how coercion can possibly be a true choice. Jacinda’s team then made it almost impossible for the vax injured to get an exemption from future doses. There was active denial that their injuries were a result of their jabs. The vax injured were labelled as “anti-vax” if they didn’t get the next dose even though they had been injured by “doing the right thing”. Many were met by a wall of silence by their medical professionals, or told that their issues were “coincidental”. Their stories were removed from social media, ACC failed to support most of them and even their own families were divided about the truth of what they were seeing. The vax injured and those affected by the mandates were swept to one side as acceptable collateral damage for the Greater Good.Everything they did – writing to MPs, signing petitions, protesting in marches, trying legal channels – was ignored, or failed. With the vacxine passes, NZ entered into Medical Apartheid. More peoples’ lives were disrupted. It was acknowledged by our officials that the vax passes were being used as a mechanism to drive up vacxination rates. When asked whether she was creating a two-tier society through her policies, our Priminister said ” Yes, that’s exactly what it is”. How could this ever be acceptable on the grounds of human rights? And yet, no one called her to account, other than those she was not prepared to listen to.

The protest in Wellington was the natural outcome of all of the above. It was the result of a growing number of hurting Kiwis being ignored, discriminated against and the failure of our Public Servants to engage. They continued to display a lack of compassion by refusing to meet with and listen to the people who’d become so desperate, that camping on Parliament grounds became an option. As the protest unfolded, it revealed the level of media bias. There was huge disparity between the actual events on the grounds and how the media were presenting the protest. A “river of filth” was actually clean and tidy grounds. The conditions that were described as harmful for children included art, games, a school, basketball, skate boarding, candy floss and face painting. There were active tactics used – the setting off of the lawn sprinklers, the bombardment of Govt vaxcine advertisements and repetative music, the flood lights left on all night, dawn raids by the police, the obstruction of cleaning the porta-loos and access of the food trucks – to force the protestors away. All that was needed was respectful engagement and a removal of the mandates. Ironically, part way through, the mandates were ruled as illegal for police and defence force due to breaches of human rights.

It shows how myopic our legal and political systems are, in that this was not immediately applied to all people. Still the politicians refused to stop the mandates for the rest of NZ. They forgot that many of the people protesting had lost everything or knew people who had. In the Health Forum tent, we had story boards of some of the vaxcine injured lining the walls. We had many people come into that tent who had no idea that these people existed. Their mouths would drop open or tears would flow when they realised what they were seeing. I had a GP who came in and quietly told me he was seeing the same things in his patients. “l am gagged”, he said. The number of crosses on display representing those who had died “unexpectedly” after the jab grew each day, as people added their loved ones to the tent. The Human Rights Commission was engaged in the last week of the protest. Lynda and a number of others were asked to provide evidence of what the mandates were doing to people. She sent out a request for people to email their mandate stories and in the space of 48 hours, she had over 2000 emails. She took 30 of those that reflected the most common concerns. This meeting felt like a turning point. Then on March 2nd, 2022, the peaceful protest was forced from Parliament grounds.

It is known that other groups came in such as (alleged editor note) Antifa, with their own agendas. These people have since posted on their pages and websites, bragging about their violent actions. Numerous examples of police brutality have surfaced in citizen video footage. Again, the sound bites presented by the media create a very biased view of what happened. Yes, there was unacceptable behaviour in a heated situation, but it was not representative of the protest as a whole and it was not created by everyone present on that day.

And the key point is that all of this could have been avoided. People could have been allowed to make the right choice for themselves without Govt overreach. Other treatments could have been made available for a fraction of the cost of the vaccine rollout. Those who wanted the vaxcine should have been able to get it, but no one should have been forced into it. Full disclosure of the nature of the vaxcine should have been provided to every potential recipient. And our medical profession should never have been gagged. Those who got injured with this new, experimental treatment, should have been cared for. It should have been mandatory to record any such events to ensure that patterns of concern were picked up early. And not least of all, people needed to be heard.