An open letter to Jacinda Adern re: COVID-19

This excellent article was contributed by New Zealand journalist Peter Drew who is clearly concerned & wants the word out. Please do share it far & wide. EWR

NOTE: the article has had over 52K views (47K of those by Kiwis) since posting … & 12K FB shares. It’s pleasing to see so many Kiwis are awake to what is going down.

By Peter Drew

Jacinda Adern

Prime Minister – New Zealand

Dear Jacinda,

I write this letter as a patriotic Kiwi with best intentions for my country and for the future health and welfare of my fellow Kiwis. You have a very difficult job at this moment in time. There can be no doubt about that.

There is a famous saying. “The first casualty of war is the truth”. Well, from what we are seeing around the world, the first casualty of a pandemic is not only the truth, but also rational thinking. That comment is directed at the COVID-19 situation in general rather than at you. In times of crisis, or potential crisis, emotion can be the enemy of truth and rational thinking. Especially fear. There has been a huge amount of emotion and fear flowing across New Zealand and the entire world the last few weeks. This letter attempts to momentarily push the emotion to one side and focus on rational thinking linked to facts and evidence.

Our country as we know it has been ripped apart in the blink of an eye, perhaps never to fully return. The economy and businesses decimated for the foreseeable future. Mental health problems and social problems set to explode with devastating consequences. The damage done is catastrophic. To inflict that onto the nation, there needs to be one heck of a good reason, and one heck of a strong case to do that. There needs to be an extreme level of critical danger in order to inflict this level of damage to try to safeguard the nation. Alongside that, we absolutely must balance that with an understanding that hindsight is always 20-20.

So, the question we need to approach with rational thinking, evidence, and facts is this. Was there/is there a sufficiently extreme level of critical danger facing New Zealand that warrants such damaging measures being taken? Is there a global pandemic of such unprecedented veracity and lethality sweeping across the world that it demands this extreme action for the good of the nation?

When initially informing the nation of the need for a full Level 4 lockdown, the rationale you put forward to the nation was, based on information from the global experts, that if these unprecedented extreme measures were not implemented, then upwards of 80,000 lives would potentially be lost. A terrible number indeed and worthy of the strongest level of consideration.

But let’s now have a look at what are some extremely disturbing pieces of information and perspectives that are emerging around this global catastrophe relating to what those global experts were, and are, saying. The evidence is now very clear from the top down, from our ‘global experts’, that the severity of the COVID-19 virus has been blown out of proportion by an enormous margin (despite what most of the media keeps hammering into us), both in terms of the initial projected mortality rates globally, and in terms of the actual reported numbers of deaths in each country. Alongside that, we have our global media that have whipped up a level of hysteria and fear that has been pumped through our entire DNA on a daily basis 24/7 to the point where COVID-19 has been perceived by the global public as nothing short of a doomsday plague.

The evidence now clearly shows a level of global miscalculation and deception/manipulation of rates of death from COVID-19 that can only be described as medical and political fraud.

COVID-19 began in Wuhan, China, under uncertain circumstances that are still being investigated. As COVID-19 began to spread to other countries, the Imperial College in London produced a piece of work where they used their computer modelling systems to produce some projections for what the global death rates were likely to be from COVID-19. The numbers were alarming to say the least, and the World Health Organisation (WHO) then began informing the world of the situation.

Now a few weeks further on, with the benefit of some hindsight, it is worth looking back at some of those projected numbers that were used to justify an unprecedented global lockdown. US projected deaths 2.2 million (updated projection 50,000 to 60,000), UK projected deaths 500,000 (updated projection 25,000 to 30,000), and New Zealand projected deaths 80,000 (updated projection – perhaps as low as 20).

If Imperial College had provided projections that were even somewhat within the vague ballpark of what we are now seeing, it is fair to say that implementing a catastrophic global lockdown would never have even been considered or accepted. For purposes of comparison, annual death rates from normal flu are 40,000 to 80,000 in the US, 20,000 in the UK, and around 800 in New Zealand.

Were the projections of the Imperial College consistent with what other similar medical science institutes and other scientists were saying? Absolutely not. Did the WHO consider what other institutes and other scientists were saying? It would seem not. Immediately upon the release of the Imperial College projections, Oxford University came back strongly saying that the Imperial College modelling was flawed (their reasoning outlined) and that as such their projected rates of death were significantly over-estimated, by a very large margin. This position of Oxford University was backed up by numerous other high level medical experts around the world at the time. Here is a link to a highly informative interview with Dr Shiva, the inventor of e-mail at age 14, a world leader in Bio-Engineering, and now running for US Senate.

Why did the WHO not take any of these other sources of information into account and instead just went with the doomsday projections of Imperial College with no questions asked? A point to note here. Bill Gates is the second largest funder of the WHO (behind only the United States), and also funds Imperial College.

The counter argument to this of course is that the reason the updated projections of deaths are so much lower now (by orders of magnitude of 20-40 times) is because of the extreme lockdown measures taken. Intuitively, this just doesn’t ring true to anything like that magnitude. Would New Zealand really have had 80,000 deaths if we hadn’t locked down? We also have numerous examples around the world where a lockdown wasn’t implemented, and rates of death were not noticeably higher. Sweden has not locked down at all, and have numbers of death relatively similar to lockdown countries. Nine states in the US did not lock down and their death rates are very small relatively. Australia did not go to Level 4 lock down and has a death rate virtually identical to New Zealand per capita.

The other factor that helped to instil huge hysteria and fear, and to justify a global lock down, was the death rate percentage that the WHO was initially telling the world. The WHO quoted a death rate of 3.4% for those infected with COVID-19. That is a catastrophic death rate (normal flu is 0.1%) and this helped create the doomsday death calculations around the world. It caused hysteria around the world, which was then magnified enormously by a rabid media.

The problem is that this death rate from the WHO was nothing short of fraudulent. It went completely against the standard methodology for calculating the mortality rate of a flu virus whereby you take the number of confirmed deaths and divide that by the estimated number of people who have been infected. Very simple. But that is not at all what the WHO did with COVID-19. They took the number of deaths and divided it only by the number of people who had been tested positive (a very small number). We know that the number of people being tested is only a tiny fraction of those who have actually been infected, by orders of magnitude of probably at least 10. Most likely much higher. As per the Oxford University analysis, they had estimated that probably half of the UK had already been infected earlier this year. This would have changed the COVID-19 mortality rate from the WHO’s doomsday level of 3.4% to something similar to a normal flu at 0.1%. Precisely what we are now seeing around the world, especially in New Zealand.

Perhaps the United States have some valid reasoning in the decision they have just taken to withdraw their annual $450 million funding for the WHO, pending a full investigation.

But if this information is not damning enough, it actually gets considerably worse. We have now seen that the reported number of deaths is hugely less than original projections of Imperial College, and most countries will likely end up with a number of deaths that is similar to normal flu. However, even these relatively moderate levels of reported deaths are seemingly being vastly overstated.

Hospitals around the world have a standard process for how deaths are categorised on their paperwork. To be listed as the flu being the cause of death it must be clear that flu was the primary cause of the person’s death. That is normal hospital process. However, for whatever reason, hospitals around the world have been instructed to deviate from that process with regards COVID-19. Anyone dying from any kind of respiratory issue or any kind of flu like symptoms are required to be categorised as dying from COVID-19, even if they have not even been tested for COVID-19. So, if you had a pre-existing respiratory issue and then died of normal complications of this, you are listed as having died of COVID-19 even if you haven’t even been tested for COVID-19. Here we have the Sir Patrick Vallance, UK Chief Scientific Adviser confirming this fact, as did Dr Deborah Birx who is leading on COVID-19 medical advice for the United States. This is medical fraud. It is as simple as that.

As well as this, if a person has at some point tested positive for COVID-19 and then subsequently dies of whatever cause, the hospitals are required to list the official cause of death as COVID-19 no matter what the actual cause of death might have been. For example, if someone was in the final stages of terminal cancer, or had had a massive stroke, but had previously tested positive for COVID-19, then the cause of death must be recorded as COVID-19. Just to make the point here with a crazy example, you could have some one tested positive for COVID-19 with zero symptoms and feeling absolutely fine, who is then run over by a bus. That person has to be listed as dying of COVID-19. We have to ask the very serious question of why this is being done like this? This has caused an enormous skewing of numbers on the rate of deaths from COVID-19. Listen here to the testimony of a Respiratory Therapist whistle blower in the United States as he describes this situation that seems to be consistent in hospitals across the world.

Consequently, in many countries we have seen the weekly death rates from pneumonia and other respiratory illnesses plummet relative to previous years because these types of deaths are now being categorised as COVID-19 deaths instead.

Italy is the country that was held up to the rest of the world as the case for justifying a full lock down. “We have to lock down otherwise we could be the next Italy”. However, it has since been acknowledged that, due to the reasons just outlined above, 99% of people who were reported to have died of COVID-19 in Italy had some other kind of serious illness, and that if standard recording processes had been implemented, the number of COVID-19 deaths in Italy would be approximately 12% of what has officially been reported to the rest of the terrified world.

But even despite what seems to be a serious cooking of the books, the total rates of death in Italy during this COVID-19 period are not particularly unusual. Not something that has been well articulated by the media to try to dial down the level of fear and hysteria!

Now turning to New Zealand. We currently have 14 deaths (mostly very elderly people with serious health issues) and we have fluccuated between 10 to 20 people in hospital at any one time. This is after hospitals across the country moved heaven and earth to shift existing patients out and cancel thousands of upcoming appointments to prepare for the coming COVID-19 tsunami. A tsunami which never arrived. Barely even a gentle ripple in fact. This is not to say COVID-19 is not to be taken very seriously in New Zealand. It absolutely must. But the responses need to be proportional, and they need to be based on information that is as trustworthy and factual as possible in terms of severity and where/who is at the greatest risk. Protect and support those most at risk.

At the time of writing, we have approximately 1,500 positive tests for COVID-19 in New Zealand. Let’s take a fairly conservative estimate that 1 in 10 people who have been infected are being tested, bearing in mind that a large number of people who get infected are either asymptomatic (no symptoms) or very mild symptoms (Oxford University estimated half of the UK has been infected earlier this year). The conservative ratio of 1 in 10 would make the mortality rate in New Zealand 0.09% against a normal flu mortality rate of 0.1%. That is a conservative estimate. It is quite likely considerably lower than that.

Here is a twitter link to a Fox News journalist in the US being overheard on open microphone just prior to a press conference with President Trump, admitting that even in the much harder hit United States, studies on COVID-19 are showing mortality rates of 0.1%, the same as normal flu.

So, we now know from the information and data in front of us, in our own country, what the severity level of COVID-19 is in New Zealand. This is real information that we have right now. Not the fraudulent death rates given to us by the WHO. There certainly is nothing even approaching an extreme level of critical danger that I mentioned at the beginning of this letter in order to justify a devastating lockdown. Mortality rates of a normal flu, at the very worst, but important to protect and support the elderly and the health vulnerable who are most at risk.

So if we now know this, why is New Zealand not fully open and operational right now? Every single day that New Zealand is in full or partial lockdown is utterly devastating for our country. We initially were put into this lockdown position through a quite mind-blowing level of negligence, fraud, deceit, or whatever you want to call it, from the global ‘experts’, for whatever reasons. That situation requires the highest level of investigation, as the United States have already indicated. Right now, all we can do in New Zealand is to take the information we now have, use some calm and rational thinking, and do what needs to be done.

We need to get the country back to work in trying to rebuild and reclaim our nation from the devastation that has sadly been caused. We also need to be very aware of the circumstances that led to this catastrophic situation so that lessons can be learned to prevent similar situations in the future. We need to get New Zealand going again, right now!

To finish with, I will switch back from rational thinking to emotion. Emotion does have a very necessary role with this situation. You, the NZ government, the medical establishment, and the entire country should be extremely angry about what has happened to our country. It has been utterly devastated, seemingly for no justifiable reason other than a fraudulent level of misinformation, deceit, exaggeration, and hysteria from our so called global experts.

Extremely serious questions need to be asked, investigations launched, and people and organisations held to account.

Yours sincerely,

Kiwi Patriot

91 thoughts on “An open letter to Jacinda Adern re: COVID-19”

  1. Good to see a mainstream media outlet now putting forward this same kind of information in the article below.

    Hopefully it helps to shape the appropriate policies moving forward. But it also helps highlight the need for serious investigations into how this situation has gotten to where it is. Why so much misinformation, deception, and hysteria that has caused so much fear, and resulted in such a catastrophic lockdown.

    We can’t just walk away from this thing with a shrug of the shoulders and say ‘oh well’.

    Liked by 3 people

  2. Thank you, thank you, on behalf of at least 50% of New Zealanders. I know hundreds of friends and colleagues in absolute fear of this deceit.
    I heard secondhand from a friend who was speaking to a Pastor that had just returned home from the USA, that part of the consensus over there is that several world leaders, probably including our PM have conspired to unseat President Trump at the American GE.


  3. This article points to the stage 4 lock down as an over reaction, my thinking is that its like evacuating ahead of an oncoming hurricane and it subsequently not hitting (or hitting as hard as forecast). Was it right to evacuate and close down the place on the off chance that it would hit? At the time of making this decision there seemed to be two choices. To embrace CV and carry on with life/save the economy (debatable given that Sweden for example, has suffered an economical downturn inline with most other countries) or lock down and reduce its impact in terms of potential deaths and disruption to essential services as was being seen in Spain and Italy at that time. I don’t see a middle ground and maybe this is the thrust of the article? As was the case with other contagions, you can stop the spread via isolation and gain control/confidence to go forward with, NZ had a great chance to do this and doing quite OK. The fact the exponential growth in cases dropped right off and the impact was reduced down to a trickle should be seen as great news and “thank god the hurricane missed us”. Other countries that were late to the party or did ineffectual locks downs (the middle ground) seem to be paying the price (Sweden included). But in terms of “that” decision, to lock down (at that time) it was the right call IMO. Time will tell.

    Liked by 2 people

  4. Very well put. And acknowledges hindsight is 20/20.
    Yet, moving beyond the single-thread of the damage to the economy and whether lockdown was needed, I feel that’s not what it’s about in the bigger picture.
    A global retreat to consider our lives, a fundamental shakeup, confrontation with our fears and the question ‘do we really want to just rebuild the way things were?’ That is where the real benefit will eventually come from.
    We either now go into blame mode or we think beyond the square and use it as an opportunity to build many things differently.

    I have seen lockdown bring about a huge amount of good-will, caring, and appreciation for the good things.
    I feel that Covid is merely a tool in a much bigger picture.

    Most importantly: many small businesses face closure and many people now rely on food parcels. But if the businesses we run, and the society we have developed has such shallow roots, has so little resilience, that it can’t take a break for a month, that indicates a far deeper problem.
    This society and this economy is fragile, unsustainable and destructive. That is the real lesson to be learned in hindsight.
    That is what we need to do something about.


    1. Yes, great visionary thoughts there, however given what we have in terms of governance NOW, I’m not holding my breath on those aspirations being carried out,. What we’ll actually hear more of graham I’d guarantee you is your sentiments couched in the term as already touted since the lockdowns by none other than Mr Kissinger ‘we need a global government’ what he hasn’t added though is who will be in charge of it. Sorry if I dampen your enthusiasm. Remember Rogernomics graham? It’s still operative. And Douglas is still alive & well with his knighthood. NZ however continues to slide down the gurgler. So the society ‘we’ (I prefer to use ‘they) have developed has shallow roots… that came about since Rogernomics unfortunately. We originally had a society that had deeper roots ie did care, had full employment & housing for everybody. We need to be rid of the parasites at the helm before anything like what you suggest can be built. Oh, and will we ever hear about the social costs to those at the bottom? Did you hear about the little 7 year old who has tried twice to take his life? I would really like to know all of those stats. Suicide, depression, domestic violence, child abuse etc. Those were bad anyway before all of this. The ones that Roger Douglas’ ilk think should be pulling themselves up by their own bootstraps.

      Liked by 2 people

  5. We are between 14 to 21 days from Tuesday, April 28, to see if you are correct. Absolutely agree on media’s handling of situation, especially the new Woman’s Weekly – the God awful TVOne.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Sorry but in a way you are arguing that no one ever died of A.I.D.s bear with me. If you have A.I.D.s and die from pneumonia it is still an A.I.D.s death. Preexisting conditions in these cases are conditions where the patient was alive before Covid came along. Covid was the tipping point. This is a sound logical model your doctor has been using to treat you and your ancestors with since the stone age of medicine. There are lots of other flaws but take that as a starting point.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. If it’s such a normal state of affairs Tai Coromandel to do as you describe when filling out a death certificate I wonder why the said Doctors had to be instructed to cite covid as the cause? And why many doctors are balking at the instruction & refusing to comply? It reeks of inflating numbers doesn’t it? Whatever way you slice & dice it.

      Liked by 2 people

Comments are closed.