New Zealand’s Royal Commission into the COVID-19 response is under fire for allegedly ignoring critical scientific data and presenting a biased narrative on vaccine safety. Phase Two of the inquiry, which focuses on vaccination, is accused of sidelining credible concerns in favor of reaffirming government policies and promoting the contested claim that mRNA vaccines are unquestionably safe and effective.
- Cherry-picked narrative and disregard for evidence: Despite receiving extensive briefings and scientific submissions from groups like Voices for Freedom and NZDSOS, the Royal Commission on COVID-19 in New Zealand has been accused of selectively citing discredited claims to support a pre-determined narrative about vaccine safety, dismissing documented adverse effects and relevant data.
- Suppression of scientific scrutiny and whistleblower retaliation: The Commission has allegedly refused to examine robust international data sets (such as Japan’s analysis of 21 million records showing increased post-vaccine deaths), while the New Zealand government has withheld local health data and targeted whistleblowers like Barry Young, undermining transparency and scientific accountability.
- Flawed assumptions about mRNA vaccine safety: The Commission reportedly embraced myths that mRNA vaccines are no different from traditional vaccines and pose no long-term risks, ignoring published research on gene therapy’s mutagenic risks and persistent spike protein production, which suggest potential for long-term immune and systemic health issues.
- Failure to evaluate published research undermines scientific integrity: The Commission’s stated unwillingness to review scientific literature and overreliance on potentially conflicted “expert” testimony is being called anti-science, leaving serious concerns about credibility, transparency, and the likelihood of preventing future public health failures unaddressed.
New Zealand's Covid inquiry cherry-picks evidence to suit a pre-determined outcome
During the week of July 7–11, the Commission heard testimony from a range of organizations and individuals. Despite having previously received detailed briefings from Voices for Freedom (VFF), the New Zealand Health Forum, and New Zealand Doctors Speaking Out on Science (NZDSOS)—including submissions backed by peer-reviewed studies and official data—the Commission reportedly dismissed these inputs during public hearings, instead leaning on discredited ideas and outdated assumptions.
One particularly alarming piece of evidence cited by critics is a large-scale Japanese study analyzing over 21 million health records. This research suggests that up to 610,000 people—approximately 0.5% of Japan’s population—died unexpectedly following COVID-19 vaccination, with the risk intensifying with booster doses. These deaths occurred predominantly 90–120 days post-vaccination, a timeline previously dismissed as too distant to be linked to the vaccine. The findings directly challenge the dominant assumption that vaccine-related deaths must occur shortly after injection to be considered causal.
Yet during public hearings, the Commission reportedly disregarded such data, instead presenting several controversial claims, including that government officials cannot be held accountable if acting on expert advice, and that vaccine causality for adverse events remains unproven. Critics counter that statistical methods like time series analysis can clearly link vaccination to spikes in serious health conditions, a link made even more evident by transparent health data from countries like Japan and South Korea. In contrast, New Zealand’s government has withheld comparable datasets and even prosecuted whistleblowers who attempted to disclose them.
Another point of contention is the Commission’s assertion that mRNA vaccines are comparable to traditional vaccines. Scientists opposing this view argue that mRNA technology fundamentally alters cellular genetic functions, a process with well-documented risks including immune suppression, cancer development, and neurological disorders. These risks have been noted in scientific literature even before COVID-19, and post-vaccine studies have identified spike proteins and immune modulation months after injection.
Moreover, the Commission’s refusal to assess peer-reviewed research due to funding and remit limitations has sparked concern. Critics argue this anti-scientific stance allows conflicted experts to provide unchallenged testimony, perpetuating myths and preventing meaningful scrutiny of government decisions made during the pandemic.
Ultimately, the hearings failed to address the core concern: the unexplained rise in excess mortality in New Zealand—7,500 deaths since 2020. Without public release of health data and serious engagement with global scientific research, the Commission risks merely legitimizing past policies instead of investigating them. For many, this signals a lost opportunity to achieve transparency, accountability, and protection from future policy failures.
Bookmark Vaccines.news to your favorite independent websites for updates on experimental gene therapy injections that lead to early death, infertility, turbo cancer and Long-Vax-Syndrome.
Sources for this article include:
Please contact us for more information.