New Zealand has always fascinated me. But during the pandemic, it became something far more: a controlled case study, unlike any other in the world. Why? Because New Zealand successfully kept the virus out, mass vaccinated its population, and only opened its borders in January 2022. That timing makes it one of the few places where you can try to distinguish the impact of vaccines from natural infection, at least at first.
With over 90% of the population vaccinated, New Zealand represented the perfect test environment for a strategy that many believed would end the pandemic. But what if that strategy didn’t deliver the results it promised? And what if the data now being uncovered tells a different story, one of unintended consequences?
The Real Purpose Was Transmission Control - Even If They Deny It
Let’s be honest: no government would have rolled out such a comprehensive, aggressive vaccination campaign unless they believed it would stop transmission. The official line may now be “we never said it would,” but the actions speak louder. New Zealand bet everything on that assumption.
Unfortunately, from the beginning, those of us looking closely at the science knew that mRNA vaccines were never designed to stop transmission. At best, they were aimed at reducing severity. Any early data suggesting otherwise was short-lived, benefits faded within two months, especially against newer variants.
A Tidal Wave of Adverse Events?
What brought New Zealand back into my focus was a recent doctoral thesis analyzing adverse events following immunization—comparing seasonal flu vaccines with the Pfizer mRNA COVID vaccine.
And the findings were jaw-dropping:
