top of page
  • Writer's pictureGary Moller

Aotearoa New Zealand needs a Centre for Disease Control (CDC) - Really?

Updated: Apr 6


This morning, I received a press release from the Public Health Communication Centre Aotearoa. My response follows the press release below:


Press Release

Aotearoa New Zealand needs a Centre for Disease Control (CDC) to prepare the country for future pandemics which have the potential to be far worse than Covid-19 according to global health and infectious disease experts.

shaking hands
Bring on the NZ CDC!

In the latest Briefing from the Public Health Communication Centre—Why we need an Aotearoa Centre for Disease Control—Professor Michael Baker, Professor John Crump, and co-authors look at the advantages of having a CDC to build the science capacity needed for responding to future pandemics and better managing existing infectious disease threats. New Zealand’s lack of a specialised national infectious disease centre makes us an outlier internationally according to Professor Baker.

“Many countries already have established CDC-type organisations that take responsibility for integrated surveillance, coordinated laboratory testing, outbreak response, workforce training, and strategic capacity building. Australia is in the process of establishing a federal CDC.”

“NZ is unusual in not having sustained institutional mechanisms for ensuring this essential infrastructure. For example, we are notably absent from the list of countries with field epidemiology training programmes. These programmes ensure a capable workforce of epidemiologists ready to spring into action to track and limit the spread of emerging infectious diseases.”

Professor Baker notes that New Zealand already has many of the resources it needs to form such a Centre, with an existing Crown Research Institute (ESR), and groups of expert infectious disease researchers and practitioners across the country.

“As we learnt during the pandemic, there is a critical need to coordinate and integrate multiple activities, including surveillance, testing, contact tracing, and expert analysis. These capabilities and the associated specialist workforce take years of concentrated effort to build. International experience shows that these activities need consistent, long-term capacity building and operation that is at least partially protected from Government sector reorganisation.

The authors note that NZ already has multiple initiatives that could support the model they are proposing. MBIE is leading Te Ara Paerangi – Future Pathways – which is a multi-year programme to build a future-focused research, science, and innovation system. And in the 2023 budget Government proposed establishing a Pandemic Response Centre (as part of the proposed Wellington Science City) to build better linkages between Crown Research Institutes and Universities

Professor Crump (who trained in New Zealand and at the US CDC and now works at the University of Otago and internationally) emphasised the critical need for New Zealand to have a regional and global public health perspective and active global health role.

“There are multiple reasons for New Zealand to take a global perspective when responding to current and emerging infectious disease threats. Pandemics by definition cross borders, so we need to combat them at a global level,” said Professor Crump.

“As a high-income country, New Zealand has obligations through, for example, official development assistance to collaborate to support capacity building in low- and middle-income countries. A national CDC would be an important way to contribute to effective global efforts. It could also be a key focal point for sharing expertise with corresponding organisations internationally.”

The Covid-19 pandemic showed NZ can deliver a highly effective response to a global health emergency, but it was far from perfect when compared to better prepared countries such as Taiwan. “Our delivery was more costly and disruptive than it needed to be and had expensive failures that more operational research might have helped to prevent. It also did not deliver equitable outcomes for Māori and Pacific Peoples,” says Professor Baker.

“We can do better with an Aotearoa CDC bringing our expertise together.”


My Response to this Press Release:

The proposal to establish an Aotearoa Centre for Disease Control (CDC) is a joke. It's a brilliantly entertaining idea, coming from ivory tower experts with such impeccable credibility – Individuals who've masterfully steered our country toward the financial abyss and actively contributed to the misfortunes of countless Kiwis, including death, disability and financial ruin, by doling out their delightful, yet fatally flawed advice.

Sure, they can self-congratulatoryly pat each other's backs and award themselves various gongs, but they're not getting any accolades from me!

As an aside, what's this with the rebranding of New Zealand as Aotearoa? How delightful. Did the masses have a chance to throw in their two cents on this grand name change of our country? It's a splendid demonstration of how our benevolent agenda-pushers manoeuvre themselves into positions of paramount power. Stealth, fear, and a touch of force—what a recipe for harmonious decision-making within this democracy! And naturally, they extend this gracious influence into the domain of public health as well. How utterly charming!

It's essential to question the credibility and competence of the experts advocating for this CDC-style agency. While their proposal may seem enticing, we must acknowledge that these same individuals failed to provide effective guidance during the COVID-19 pandemic, by imposing a raft of unsafe and ineffective health measures upon us, and in so doing, bringing this country to its knees. So, why should their recommendations be heeded, let alone grant them additional authority and influence over us? If we want to improve the health and fortunes of this country, the first measure I'll recommend is to get rid of these self-proclaimed experts.

I'm curious: A staggering 11,000 officials granted themselves COVID-19 mRNA vaccine exemptions while blanket denying the applications of the Little People. I wonder if any of these wise experts had exemptions? You know, the ones who imposed lockdowns and prevented farewells to loved ones, as they lay dying. They also "encouraged" us to inject poison into our veins as the price of granting us the illusions of freedom. Did they turn a blind eye to granting themselves and their pals exemptions? Maybe, instead, they opted for the secret saline version.

The assumed cost-effectiveness and health improvements attributed to the CDC model merit scrutiny. Rather than enhancing population health, the CDC prioritises the interests of Big Pharma, compromising public health in favour of corporate gains. The USA, despite its massive spending on health, is the least healthy First World country. We'd have to be crazy to adopt their approach to health (unfortunately, we have!).

Additionally, in the midst of New Zealand's valiant efforts to cling to its First World status, it's utterly crucial to ponder upon the dire need for erecting yet another cost-plus bureaucracy. What's more thrilling than a group of deluded experts and policy analysts congregating under one roof, contributing absolutely nothing to the nation's productivity while suckling on taxpayer-funded teats? Oh, the sheer excitement!

Rather than indulging in the creation of another administrative spectacle, why not redirect our precious resources towards fortifying primary healthcare across the population? Let's indulge in some practicality here! Strengthening the populace's resilience to infections by beefing up our primary health strategies seems like a far more sensible approach. After all, a robust defence system is far more effective than scrambling to clean up the mess when the microbes, be they natural or lab-made, decide to throw a party.

Let's not overlook the origins of COVID-19 as a lab-crafted bioweapon - A fact that these experts continue to deny, despite the overwhelming evidence. It's high time New Zealand stepped up and took the lead in advocating for enforcement of the global ban on bioweapons research. Preventing similar crises necessitates concerted international efforts to enforce strict bans on this utterly dangerous research.

So, before venturing into establishing a costly, unsafe and ineffective CDC-style agency, it is imperative to address the failings of these experts, critically assess the potential drawbacks of such an institution, and consider alternative strategies that prioritise enhancing primary healthcare and advocating for global health security.

While it is due for an update, Please read about my Escape Plan here because the ideas still apply, and possibly more than ever:

I wish you and your family excellent health and abundant prosperity.



I received the following email from a friend who has many years in the health industry. Rather than rewrite my "diplomatic" effort above, here is what he wrote and you can judge for yourself if I've been being too nice to these people:

"Good Afternoon, Gary

A great article. What a Joke, doesn’t really fit.

I believe you should be more hard-hitting on the American CDC. The CDC along with the FDA have been totally compromised by the pharmaceutical industry.

Quote: “All these agencies are captured. The pharmaceutical industry owns the NIH (National Institutes of Health)…….CDC, FDA. The coal and oil industry and the pesticide industry own the EPA.”RFK Jr.

A BMJ investigation finds vaccine injury system riddled with flaws. It fails to investigate signals of harm, including deaths in children. People don’t trust the Federal public “health” agencies for good reason. These organisations need to be held accountable for their misinformation and misdeeds.

The CDC is a purveyor of misinformation which has caused a serious decline in the public’s trust in this government agency.

This statement is ironic coming from Baker since he was a purveyor of misinformation during the plandemic. People don’t trust the MoH, Medsafe, or Baker, or Sioux (or whatever her handle is) for good reason. The MoH and Bloomfield allowed Baker to continue with his messaging that the vaccines “were safe and effective” and “reduced the risk of COVID 19… 90 percent or more" through 2021. And let’s not forget all those who were mandated out of work etc..

Should we trust the "one podium of truth” or ” trust and follow the science”” or laugh at Mr Baker's humour. The whole article from Baker is absolute absurdity and of poor taste.

There's an old saying ”You can’t fix stupid."

134 views0 comments


bottom of page