Where Are the Conferences?

Why New Zealand Needs Open Scientific Debate About COVID-19, Excess Deaths, Vaccine Safety, and the Future of mRNA Technology

More than six years after the emergence of COVID-19, I find myself asking a simple but increasingly important question:

Where are the conferences?

Historically, when New Zealand faced a significant health, injury, or public policy challenge, experts from a wide range of disciplines would come together to examine the evidence, debate competing viewpoints, identify gaps in knowledge, and develop practical solutions.

Doctors, scientists, researchers, physiotherapists, surgeons, rehabilitation specialists, public health officials, politicians, and community representatives would gather to challenge assumptions and work toward a better understanding of the issues.

This was once considered normal.

Today, however, one of the most significant public health events in modern history appears to have largely escaped this process. Why?

The larger the public health intervention, the greater the obligation to investigate both its benefits and its harms.

A Different New Zealand

Part of my concern comes from personal experience. In the late 1970s, I served as an Executive Officer with the Accident Compensation Commission (ACC) during a period when New Zealand was actively developing national strategies for injury prevention and rehabilitation.

When ACC identified major concerns, whether they involved back injuries, workplace injuries, sporting injuries, occupational health, or rehabilitation outcomes, the response was not to discourage discussion. The response was to encourage it. In this, I was directly involved.

ACC would often sponsor or support conferences organised through professional organisations such as the New Zealand Medical Association, physiotherapy groups, orthopaedic societies, rehabilitation specialists, universities, employers, unions, and government agencies.

• Experts presented evidence.

• Researchers challenged assumptions.

• Practitioners reported what they were observing.

• Policy makers listened.

• Disagreements were not seen as a problem.

They were regarded as an essential part of finding better answers. Out of those conferences came research priorities, prevention strategies, policy reforms, rehabilitation programmes, and practical solutions. That was New Zealand at its best. Which is why I find the absence of a similar process following COVID-19 so extraordinary.

If COVID-19 was the defining public health event of our generation, where is the defining scientific debate?

The Largest Public Health Intervention in Modern History

The COVID-19 pandemic triggered unprecedented government intervention.

• Borders were closed.

• Businesses were shut down.

• Lockdowns were imposed.

• Billions of dollars were spent.

The overwhelming majority of New Zealanders received Pfizer mRNA vaccinations.

The social, economic, psychological, and medical consequences continue to unfold.

Yet where are the major national conferences examining what happened?

Where are the multidisciplinary forums where epidemiologists, statisticians, clinicians, cardiologists, neurologists, vaccinologists, rehabilitation specialists, public health officials, and independent researchers can openly debate the evidence? Where are the conferences examining:

• Excess mortality

• Vaccine safety monitoring

• Myocarditis and pericarditis

• Neurological complications

• Post-Covid illness

• Long-term health outcomes

• Lessons learned from lockdowns

• Informed consent

• Mandates

• The future of mRNA technology

If such forums have occurred, they have largely escaped public attention. If they have not occurred, that absence deserves explanation.

History's greatest mistakes were often made by people convinced they were doing the right thing.

New Zealand's Unique Position

New Zealand occupies a unique position internationally. Unlike many countries, New Zealand largely escaped widespread circulation of the original COVID-19 virus through strict border controls. Mass vaccination occurred before widespread community infection.

Large-scale infection arrived later, primarily through Omicron and related variants. This sequence of events creates an unusual opportunity to investigate important questions regarding the timing of vaccination, infection, illness, disability, and mortality. Rather than dismissing questions, we should be embracing them.

The Excess Mortality Question

Chart supplied by Barry Young

Recently I reviewed mortality analyses (chart above) suggesting that actual deaths in a large New Zealand cohort substantially exceeded expected deaths based on age-standardised mortality rates. The mathematics itself is straightforward.

Using age-specific mortality rates and person-years of observation, expected deaths were estimated at approximately 23,319.

Actual deaths were reported as 37,315.

This yields a Standardised Mortality Ratio (SMR) of approximately 1.6. Yikes!

In plain English, observed deaths were approximately 60 percent higher than expected.

The mathematics is not controversial. When we are considering such large numbers, mathematics is not what we should be debating. That standardised mortality ratio of approximately 1.6 is gobsmacking - alarming to put it mildly.

The important question is:

Why?

If these figures are correct, they demand an investigation. The explanation may involve several factors.

• It may involve infection.

• It may involve delayed healthcare.

• It may involve demographic changes.

• It may involve the effects of public health measures.

• It may involve vaccination.

• It may involve some combination of all of these.

The point is not to assume an answer. The point is to investigate honestly. Raw statistics of this magnitude should not be ignored. They should be thoroughly examined by statisticians, epidemiologists, demographers, clinicians, pathologists, cardiologists, neurologists, public health officials, and independent researchers. The larger the signal, the greater the responsibility to investigate it. This is a very large and concerning signal.

What Many Practitioners Observed

Throughout more than fifty years working in health, rehabilitation, sports medicine, and cardiovascular health, I very rarely encountered conditions such as myocarditis and pericarditis. Then, within a relatively short period following the rollout of mRNA vaccination, I began receiving multiple enquiries per week regarding these conditions. Many other practitioners reported similar observations.

Conditions frequently discussed included:

• Myocarditis

• Pericarditis

• Cardiac arrhythmias

• Unusual neurological symptoms

• Parkinsonian-type tremors

• Unexplained fatigue syndromes

• Strokes

• Sudden, unexpected deaths

• Extreme fatigue

These observations do not prove causation. Clinical observation is where investigation begins, not where it ends. However, when experienced practitioners independently report similar concerns, those concerns deserve examination rather than dismissal. Of particular interest is that many of these reports emerged before COVID-19 became widespread within New Zealand communities. Instead, health professionals who raised concerns, publicly and even privately, were punished, and this silencing continues to this day.

https://www.garymoller.com/blog/search/mafia

The timing alone of the beginning of these excess deaths warrants careful investigation.

New Zealand's Unique Natural Experiment

One reason New Zealand deserves far greater scientific attention is that our experience was unlike almost any other nation. Through strict border controls and lockdown measures, New Zealand largely succeeded in keeping the original and more lethal early waves of COVID-19 out of the country for an extended period.

At the same time, the Pfizer mRNA vaccination programme was rolled out rapidly and achieved one of the highest vaccination rates in the world, with the overwhelming majority of eligible New Zealanders receiving two doses before widespread community transmission occurred. By the time COVID-19 eventually gained widespread access to the general population, the dominant strains were Omicron and related variants, which were generally regarded as less severe than the original Wuhan lab strain and subsequent Alpha and Delta variants.

New Zealand may have conducted one of the world's largest public health experiments. Why are we not holding the conferences needed to examine the results?

This sequence of events may have created what amounts to a unique natural experiment.

Unlike many countries where infection and vaccination occurred simultaneously, New Zealand experienced mass vaccination first and widespread infection later. That distinction is important. It provides an opportunity to examine questions that may be more difficult to answer elsewhere.

Of particular interest is the observation that excess mortality appears to have begun increasing before widespread COVID-19 infection entered the general population.

Likewise, many practitioners reported seeing increased numbers of conditions such as myocarditis, pericarditis, cardiac rhythm disturbances, strokes, neurological symptoms, and other unusual presentations during the period following vaccine rollout. These observations do not establish causation. Temporal association is not the same as proof.

However, temporal associations are often where scientific investigation begins.

When unusual events occur in close proximity to a major public health intervention, it is entirely reasonable to ask whether a relationship exists and to investigate that possibility thoroughly.

It is also worth noting that concerns regarding blood clotting and cardiovascular events became sufficiently widespread that the Pfizer vaccine was sometimes referred to by critics as "the clot shot." Such terminology reflects the level of concern that existed among some members of the public and some health professionals, regardless of whether those concerns ultimately prove justified. The important point is not what conclusions we reach in advance. New Zealand's unique circumstances provide an opportunity to examine these questions openly, rigorously, and without prejudice.

If the associations are coincidental, robust scientific investigation should demonstrate that.

If they are not coincidental, then the public deserves to know that as well. Either way, the evidence should lead the discussion.

The Data Problem

One concern repeatedly raised by critics is the quality of adverse event monitoring systems.

All surveillance systems rely upon:

• Recognition

• Reporting

• Classification

• Investigation

• Transparent analysis

If reporting is incomplete, classification is flawed, or follow-up is inadequate, then confidence in the conclusions may be reduced.

The principle is simple:

Garbage in, garbage out.

This does not prove that vaccines caused widespread harm. Nor does it prove they did not.

It simply highlights the need for robust, transparent, and independent investigations.

If the evidence supports current policies, it should withstand scrutiny. If it does not, the public deserves to know.

The Royal Commission Is Not Enough

Some readers will point to the Royal Commission of Inquiry into New Zealand's COVID-19 response and suggest that the questions have already been examined. They have not. Furthermore, many health professionals and members of the public who remain sceptical about aspects of the COVID response share similar concerns. I want to be absolutely clear. This is my opinion.

A Royal Commission may close a report. It does not close the scientific debate.

However, it is an opinion I have heard expressed repeatedly by practitioners, researchers, and ordinary New Zealanders who believe important questions remain unanswered. The Royal Commission may well have served a useful purpose. However, it is not the same thing as open scientific inquiry. Nor is it a substitute for robust academic debate. Nor is it a substitute for independent scientific conferences where competing viewpoints can be respectfully challenged and tested against evidence.

To me, and to many others, the Royal Commission appears more focused on reviewing decisions and identifying lessons learned than on rigorously examining every scientific question that continues to emerge. Some sceptics go further and regard such inquiries as exercises in minimising institutional liability and managing public confidence rather than revealing every uncomfortable truth. Whether that perception is justified or not is itself worthy of discussion.

• Trust is not restored by dismissing concerns.

• Trust is restored through transparency and open examination of evidence.

New Zealand has seen similar debates following previous major inquiries.

• The Erebus disaster remains controversial decades later.

• The Pike River tragedy continues to generate discussion about accountability and unanswered questions.

• The Lake Alice investigations likewise left many people feeling that justice and transparency took far too long to emerge.

The common thread is not whether official inquiries have occurred. The common thread was whether the public felt that all relevant questions were fully explored. That same concern exists today. Most importantly, even if one believes the Royal Commission did an excellent job, that still does not remove the need for ongoing scientific debate.

• Science does not stop because a commission reports.

• Science is a continuous process.

• New evidence emerges.

• New analyses are undertaken.

• New questions arise.

• New hypotheses are tested.

The publication of a report is not the end of scientific inquiry. It is often only the beginning.

The greatest danger to science is not disagreement. The greatest danger is when disagreement becomes unwelcome.

Lest We Forget

One lesson history repeatedly teaches is that fear and uncertainty can narrow public discussion. Good intentions alone do not protect societies from making mistakes. Some of history's greatest mistakes were made by people convinced they were doing the right thing. That is why scientific challenge is not a threat. It is a safeguard. Disagreement is not the enemy of science. It is one of its essential tools.

During my years with the ACC, disagreement among experts was often where progress began. Today, however, many practitioners who questioned aspects of the COVID response report feeling marginalised, dismissed, censored, or professionally threatened. Whether those concerns are justified or not, such perceptions undermine trust. Public confidence grows when questions are welcomed. It declines when questions appear unwelcome.

Science Requires Debate

Science advances through:

• Questioning

• Testing

• Criticism

• Replication

• Transparency

The larger the issue, the more important these principles become. The COVID pandemic and the global vaccination programme may prove to be among the most consequential public health events of our lifetime. Future generations will judge us not only by the decisions we made but by our willingness to honestly examine those decisions afterwards.

That examination cannot occur behind closed doors.

• It cannot occur through carefully managed media releases.

• It cannot occur solely through government reports.

• It requires the vigorous exchange of ideas between people who agree and people who disagree.

That is how science has always advanced.

My Challenge

My challenge is directed at government agencies, universities, professional colleges, public health authorities, researchers, politicians, journalists, and concerned citizens.

• Let us convene the conferences.

• Let us examine the mortality data.

• Let us examine the safety surveillance systems.

• Let us examine the clinical observations.

• Let us examine the benefits.

• Let us examine the harms.

• Let us examine the lessons learned.

• Let us do so openly, respectfully, and without fear.

If the evidence supports current policies, that should become clear. If the evidence identifies serious concerns, that should become clear too. Science should never fear investigation.

• The public deserves transparency.

• New Zealand deserves transparency.

• And future generations deserve transparency.

The question remains:

Where are the conferences?

---

Medical Disclaimer

The views expressed in this article are those of Gary Moller and are intended to encourage discussion, inquiry, and scientific investigation. This article does not provide medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment recommendations. Readers should seek advice from their medical practitioner or qualified healthcare professional regarding any health concerns or treatment decisions.

Observations, opinions, and hypotheses discussed in this article should not be interpreted as proof of causation and require ongoing scientific evaluation through rigorous research, transparent analysis, independent investigation, and respectful scientific debate.