The New Zealand government has been accused of covering up data on the nation’s Covid “vaccine” deaths in order to support its own narrative that the mRNA injections are “safe and effective.”
The government’s Royal Commission has been tasked with investigating the nation’s COVID-19 response.
However, the body is facing intense criticism for ignoring key scientific data and creating a narrative that unquestioningly supports government policies and the “safety” of mRNA “vaccines.”
The inquiry, now in Phase Two, is focusing on the mass “vaccination” campaign.
However, the Commission is being accused of dismissing credible concerns and cherry-picking evidence to back its conclusions, sidelining any serious scrutiny of vaccine safety.
The Commission received extensive briefings from groups like Voices for Freedom and New Zealand Doctors Speaking Out on Science (NZDSOS).
The briefings included peer-reviewed studies and official data.
Yet, the Commission has been accused of selectively referencing discredited claims to further its agenda.
In addition, the Commission was found to have ignored studies and data that highlighted the dangers associated with the mRNA shots.
Rather than investigate the harms caused by the “vaccines,” the Commission has, instead, sought to cover up the information.
These actions have sparked outrage, especially given the volume of legitimate concerns and adverse effects reported by those on the front lines of healthcare and scientific inquiry.
One of the most alarming aspects of the Commission’s handling of evidence is its refusal to consider the significant findings of international studies.
Most notably, the panel ignored a bombshell Japanese analysis of 21 million health records.
This study showed a disturbing rise in unexpected all-cause deaths following Covid mRNA injections.
The data shows that deaths spiked significantly after mRNA “booster” doses, with many occurring 90 to 120 days post-vaccination.
This timeline directly challenges the Commission’s stance that deaths need to occur shortly after vaccination to be linked causally.
Yet, this critical data was brushed aside during public hearings, further fueling the perception that the Commission is more interested in defending the status quo than genuinely investigating public health concerns.
The Commission’s refusal to review the Japanese study is compounded by the New Zealand government’s suppression of vital health data and its hostile treatment of whistleblowers.
Not only has the government withheld crucial data from the public, but whistleblowers like Barry Young have been targeted, with legal consequences for attempting to expose critical information.
This lack of transparency and suppression of dissenting voices undermines the credibility of the Commission and raises serious questions about the true motivations behind the inquiry.
Another major point of contention lies in the Commission’s approach to mRNA “vaccines.”
It has controversially equated mRNA shots with traditional vaccines, ignoring the well-documented scientific consensus that mRNA technology fundamentally alters genetic functions in cells.
This process comes with significant risks, including immune suppression, cancer development, and neurological disorders.
Yet, these concerns were raised even before the pandemic.
Post-vaccine studies have continued to show the persistence of spike proteins and immune modulation long after the injection.
Nevertheless, the Commission’s narrative remains steadfast in claiming mRNA injections are just as safe as traditional vaccines, with no long-term risks.
Critics argue that the Commission’s refusal to engage with peer-reviewed research and its overreliance on potentially biased expert testimony is a deliberate effort to suppress scientific inquiry.
The Commission has justified its refusal to review published literature by citing limitations in funding and its remit.
However, this excuse rings hollow when the stakes are so high.
By ignoring independent research and excluding dissenting voices, the Commission has allowed myths to persist unchallenged, further distorting the truth about vaccine safety.
The Commission’s failure to address the unprecedented surge of unexplained excess mortality in New Zealand.
Skyrocketing excess deaths are one of the most pressing issues in the wake of the pandemic.
However, the lack of acknowledgement of the alarming death spike speaks volumes about its priorities.
Since 2020, New Zealand has experienced a devastating increase in mortality, with over 7,500 excess deaths recorded among the small population.
The Commission has not only failed to release the data necessary to investigate this rise but has also dismissed the idea that it could be linked to the government’s pandemic response or “vaccination” efforts.
Without engaging with global scientific research or releasing vital data, the Royal Commission risks becoming nothing more than a tool to legitimize past decisions rather than an institution focused on transparency and accountability.
For many New Zealanders, this represents a lost opportunity to investigate the government’s handling of the pandemic and to ensure that future policy decisions are based on truth, not political expediency.
In the end, the Royal Commission’s actions suggest a deeper issue at play: the prioritization of political agendas over public health and the suppression of inconvenient truths in favor of maintaining the narrative that mRNA “vaccines” are an unqualified success.
Until New Zealand’s government fully embraces transparency and engages with the full body of scientific evidence, questions about the safety of mRNA injections and the true cost of the COVID-19 response will remain unanswered.
READ MORE – Insurance Industry Data Exposes ‘5,000 Vaccine-Linked Deaths a WEEK’
Our comment section is restricted to members of the Slay News community only.
To join, create a free account HERE.
If you are already a member, log in HERE.