Most health care professionals have never studied or conducted contact tracing and many hold unrealistic ideas about the practice. Those who have practiced contact tracing as a professional activity (combining intensive academic training with extensive practical experience) know that it is only effective in very specific circumstances. Even then, screening household contacts for chronic infections, eg pulmonary tuberculosis (whereby exposure takes place repeatedly over a prolonged period of months or even years, in a closed environment), delivers varied and often unpredictable results.
Contact tracing for acute infections, even when there is a common source such as infected food or a shared household, is almost always futile. In the case of an acute airborne infection, contact tracing is guaranteed to fail because the virus floats on air currents, meaning it travels distances, for hours to days. Combined with the fact that we have complicated immune systems which are affected by multiple factors, from dose of exposure to individual micronutrient levels and varied external environmental factors meant that anyone claiming they could connect every “case” (positive test rather than illness) of “covid” to a contact, either had inadequate training and experience, or was complying with lies. The most laughable claim in my memory was that contact tracers had connected two “cases” who had nothing to do with each other, to having both touched the same button on a lift.
When you try to contact trace for airborne viruses, you only ever find random and often-unconnected cases of illness. Contact tracing for covid (and the same goes for bird flu, now being sold as the reason to kill millions of healthy chickens and to test and isolate millions of healthy cows) has always been futile. The interventions used in covid and now bird flu were never about health, but rather about a business model of profit and power based on faulty use of a non-diagnostic test.
That is why these two pieces of related news come as no surprise whatsoever.
First, recently published research by academics at Stanford and Harvard medical schools concluded:
“In summary, we find no patterns in the overall set of models that suggests a clear relationship between COVID-19 government responses and outcomes. Strong claims about government responses’ impacts on COVID-19 may lack empirical support.“
The exact same “lockdown” responses between governments across the globe had wildly different outcomes. Not because their citizens were more or less obedient, as the media persistently implied, but because viruses act very differently amongst different populations and environments, combined with different testing regimes used to declare “cases”. Our governments desperately needed their citizens to believe that they could control transmission of a virus that floats on air currents if only everyone obeyed newfound and highly restrictive rules. They never had that power, as nations as far-flung as Sweden and Cambodia showed. It was a dystopian claim suggesting nefarious intent which awakened many millions of people to the fact that something is not right amongst once-trusted western political establishments.
The second piece of news comes out of New Zealand where a group called New Zealand Teachers Speaking Out With Science (NZTSOS), have revealed a report published by the Ministry of Health (MoH) in October 2021, released via an Official Information Act request, which totally demolishes the government narrative around the ‘grave risk’ that existed in schools and healthcare settings at the time. These claims were used to justify vaccine mandates upon the education and health workforce.
Before the Health and Education mandate order was signed, it is now known that the government possessed high-quality evidence that the risk of transmission in schools and healthcare settings was insignificant, rendering the vaccination mandate totally unnecessary.
The information comes from the MoH’s own contact-tracing data. It has a very large sample size making it highly reliable (over 11,000 education contacts were analysed), and it’s the most relevant piece of information that they would have had in their possession in relation to the vaccine mandate.
It told the government that in Healthcare settings only one in 500 contacts became infected, while in Educational settings, just one in 1,000 contacts became infected. Yet, knowing all this, Christopher Hipkins signed the mandate order, resulting in unnecessary pain and suffering upon thousands.
Health and Education workers went to the High Court in March 2022 to have the vaccination mandate order declared unlawful. The Crown produced sworn affidavits from four witnesses (Mr Hipkins, Ms Mackay, Dr Town and Dr Bloomfield), with Drs Town and Bloomfield being accepted by the court as ‘expert witnesses’.
There are very strict rules that control the evidence of an ‘expert witness’. They must swear to assist the court ‘impartially’, and also that they will tell the court if any part of their evidence is ‘incomplete or inaccurate without some qualification’. Drs Town and Bloomfield both would have known about this highly relevant MoH analysis, but they did not reveal this to the court.
NZTSOS believe that by keeping this from the High Court, Drs Town and Bloomfield clearly contravened the rules for expert witnesses, and potentially open themselves to a charge of perjury.
Another Crown witness, Ms Mackay, also kept highly relevant information from the court. She correctly told the court that only eleven ‘applications’ for ‘Serious Service Disruption’ (SSD) exemptions had been granted, but failed to tell the court that one application alone was for 971 workers, and that by the date of her affidavit these 11 ‘applications’ covered a total of 2,833 workers. All at the same time as hundreds of other workers were being terminated because of what the court approvingly termed the government’s ‘zero-tolerance’ approach.
NZTSOS is now seeking leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, and one of their claims is that these serious omissions in the evidence presented by the Crown’s witnesses has led to a ‘miscarriage of justice’.
If the NZTSOS appeal is accepted, they will need financial help. But for the moment, they need everyone affected by the mandate to help share this bombshell revelation. We need to make it difficult for the Supreme Court to quietly decline their application in the hope that it will just go away.
So, can you write to your MP? Can you share this information with others? If we all do our bit to publicise this bombshell, we may yet succeed in holding to account those who have perpetrated this grave injustice.
alicespringstomind 