top of page
  • Writer's pictureGary Moller

Royal Commission of Inquiry: Only two days left to have your say!

Updated: 6 days ago

You only have two days left to send in your submission to the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the COVID Response. If you haven't done it yet, please get it done!

In case you're pressed for time, or suffering "writer's block", I'm sharing mine with you. You're welcome to do a cut-and-paste, then edit it however you feel is necessary to best reflect your experience and what you want from this inquiry.

Just one thing: Let's present the Inquiry with a reasonably consistent set of demands and questions: It's a numbers game as much as asking the right questions. Please urge your wider family and friends to get their own submissions in before Sunday evening.

Here's the link for having your say:

Sites to help you to compose your submission with ease:

And here are some of the numerous articles I've written about COVID:

However, read these later. Don't get distracted: get your submission done - now!


The following is the body of my own submission:

We run a small rehabilitation clinic, and I've been in the health business for longer than 50 years. In the last four years, we've had an unprecedented and extremely alarming increase in unusual heart, neurologic, and immune-related conditions, including cancer.

We have no doubt at all that the majority of these conditions are due to the Pfizer Experimental Vaccine, because the first surge that consisted of heart ailments and stroke began shortly after the vaccine's roll-out and before the disease was widespread within the domestic population.

We've been extremely disturbed that health professionals who questioned the mandates, and the science being used to promote them and other measures, weren't only silenced, but, for many, their careers ruined.


So, without going into more detail and more issues, here are my recommendations for the widening of the Inquiry and for making sure it isn't a whitewash of a joke:

  1. The current remaining two commissioners must be replaced. There's little public confidence in two men appointed by Jacinda Ardern's government. As reflected in the New Zealand First coalition agreement, there must be at least one international expert.

  2. The commission's support staff needs to be replaced, or at the very least, the lead staff members must be replaced, with a guarantee that they'll remain impartial. We suggest a mix of competent lawyers, litigators, researchers who are familiar with the issues that must be inquired into, such as use of lockdowns, border response, vaccine procurement, and efficacy (and safety), social and economic impacts, etc.

  3. The current Royal Commission must also be changed from a “story telling exercise” to an adversarial inquiry to question those who made the decisions and the basis for making them.

  4. The expanded Royal Commission needs to have the power to compel witnesses to give testimony, issue warrants of arrest for failure to appear, issue contempt for non-disclosure, and make recommendations.

  5. To guarantee full public accountability, hearings should be live-streamed on the internet and a public television channel created for live viewing.

  6. For the Terms of Reference, the term “Vaccine procurement and efficacy” needs to be amended to “Vaccine procurement, efficacy and safety.”

  7. Finally, to elaborate on one of the above points, the Royal Commission needs to have the power to compel witnesses to give testimony, issue warrants of arrest for failure to appear, issue contempt for non-disclosure, as well as make its recommendations based on its findings. The inquiry needs to be adversarial so that politicians, health officials, and public servants can be questioned thoroughly on their statements and testimony.

We have many questions that we feel the Inquiry must answer:

  1. To what extent did COVID-19 mandates constitute medical coercion, and how did this relate to individual autonomy in healthcare decisions?

  2. Was the information communicated to patients before the injecting of an experimental drug, truthful, and in a way that makes up "Informed Consent"?

  3. In what ways did COVID-19 mandates raise concerns regarding potential discrimination and the infringement of fundamental human rights?

  4. Did the public discourse surrounding COVID-19 mandates involve the utilisation of tactics such as bullying and shaming to influence individual choices?

  5. Have documented instances of job terminations occurred solely due to an individual's refusal to comply with COVID-19 vaccine mandates, constituting unlawful employment practises?

  6. How did potential biases within the medical field and the selective presentation of scientific information influence the public debate surrounding COVID-19 vaccine mandates?

  7. Why were no public health measures taken or advised from a dietary perspective, such as the roles of nutrients: Critical factors to increase population and individual immunity.  

  8. Were there instances where medical professionals advocating against mandatory vaccination subjected to public disparagement without prior examination of their evidence-based arguments?

  9. What were the specific concerns regarding the contractual agreements with Pfizer, the potential for information censorship, and the redaction of details about the underlying gene-based technology employed in the vaccine?

  10. Is there documented evidence of scientific data concerning the efficacy of mask-wearing being redacted or suppressed, and if so, what potential consequences did this have on public health strategies?

  11. To what extent did the implementation of COVID-19 lockdowns negatively impact the operation and potential closure of businesses?

  12. Was there a quantifiable increase in suicide rates during the COVID-19 pandemic, and if so, what are the potential contributing factors that may have influenced this rise?

  13. Have official reports documented a rise in overall mortality rates that can be directly attributed to the COVID-19 pandemic and the corresponding public health mandates?

  14. Were there documented increases in adverse reactions associated with COVID-19 vaccines, and if so, what was the nature and extent of these reported cases?

  15. Have official health agencies documented a rise in specific comorbidities, such as myocarditis, pericarditis, and blood clots, following COVID-19 vaccination?

  16. Is there evidence suggesting an increase in overall physical and mental health disabilities following the COVID-19 pandemic, and if so, what potential factors may have contributed to this rise?

  17. What scientific basis exists to address concerns regarding the potential for intergenerational harm arising from the administration of synthetic mRNA vaccines?

  18. Did the widespread vaccination campaign during the pandemic contribute to the emergence of viral mutations and compromise vaccine effectiveness? If so, what are the long-term implications of this phenomenon?

  19. Has there been a systematic disregard or downplaying of potential harm associated with the mRNA-generated spike protein produced by COVID-19 vaccines?

  20. What creates a statistically significant safety signal that should warrant the immediate suspension and investigation of a particular medical intervention?

  21. Why were multiple instances of potential safety concerns disregarded during the COVID-pandemic, and do these practises continue to be observed?

  22. What factors contributed to the inadequate monitoring of safety signals throughout the pandemic, including the potential overlooking of international medical evidence suggesting widespread adverse effects?

  23. Have there been documented instances of unusual clusters of fatalities occurring at specific vaccination sites?

  24. In what way have the implemented pandemic response measures impacted the mental health and well-being of New Zealand's citizens, particularly the youth population?

  25. What are the potential short-term and long-term consequences of the pandemic response on the overall educational standards within New Zealand?

  26. Were there amendments made to the New Zealand Bill of Rights that infringed upon individual liberties in the context of enforcing the COVID-19 mandates? If so, were these modifications implemented lawfully?

  27. How were emergency response bills authorised and amended in a manner that contravened established legal procedures during the pandemic?

  28. What reasoning justifies the exemption of over 11,000 government employees and contractors from following the COVID-19 vaccine mandates?

  29. To what extent did COVID-19 mandates conflict with the principles enshrined within the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?

  30. Considering both the individual and societal costs, what is the comprehensive evaluation of the government's response to the COVID-19 pandemic in terms of public health outcomes, social order, and cohesion, economic well-being, environmental impact, and potential long-term consequences?

Thank you for accepting and considering my submission.

203 views2 comments

Recent Posts

See All


Ernest Gibbs
Mar 25

Hi Gary, thanks for all your work and tireless commitment in keeping this important issue of life & liberty - if indeed we want to hold onto it - before us and in mind.. Not to mention your lucid, thoughtful & articulate presentation of it, in all its urgent tones.

March has been consumed with my own business, but your newsletter was a constant prod through the month that I mustn't fail to stand up and be counted as a freedom freedom fighter and add to the debate. It's good to talk and good to raise the consciousness of our society to the issues, but we need action too,. Unfortunately I think there can be too much talk in these…


Gary Moller
Gary Moller
Mar 22

Submission by NZ Outdoors and Freedom Party- a registered political party.

The Covid response was cruel and inhumane, hugely disproportionate to the risks of Covid and created intergenerational harm. 

It undermined the rule of law and trust and confidence in government and the checks and balances on abuse of power.

The censorship, propaganda, discrimination, bullying were shocking and an unjustified abuse of power that caused serious harm to our culture and people.

The heavy reliance by the government on an experimental medical treatment without informed consent and with coercion, was a breach of medical ethics including "Do No Harm", the Health and Disabilities Code of Patient Care, fiduciary duties, informed consent, the NZ  Bill of Rights, the International Covenant on…

bottom of page