This page shows email correspondence between Professor Rod Jackson - an academic and advisor to the NZ government - and Professor David Seedhouse - a long-standing supporter of civil liberties, personal autonomy and a critic of governments' Covid restrictions. Jackson repeatedly refused to debate with Seedhouse, apparently on the single ground that Seedhouse is not an epidemiologist.

The materials are posted here as a matter of public interest and to allow any interested parties to reach their own judgements. Comments are welcome using the tools on this site.

THE CORRESPONDENCE

1) Seedhouse approached Jackson on 16^th February:

“Hello Rod, 

I'm presently unable to enter NZ, despite our Bill of Rights, but I will get back eventually since government policy is unsustainable and more and more countries are acting in proportion to actual risk. When I do arrive would you be prepared to debate the policies in public with me and others?

Best wishes,

David”

2) Jackson replied the following day:

"Kia ora David. Sorry to hear you are unable to travel to NZ. I have largely supported the government policies to minimise the impact of covid-19 on our population, including limiting entry to the country. The policies, like covid, are moving targets and different countries are at different stages of the pandemic. Of course most of the current covid related policies are unsustainable but they have largely served NZ well to date.

I’m not the right person to be debating the rights and wrongs of the policies from an ethical perspective. My main interest during the pandemic has been getting people vaccinated because it is the most effective and sustainable way to protect a population against an infectious disease like covid. As such, I’m a big supporter of short term vaccine mandates.

So far we seem to have done better than any other comparable country. Let’s hope we continue to do so.

Ngā mihi

Rod”

3) Seedhouse replied in turn, with an attachment:

"Hello Rod,

Thank you for your reply. I have written a lengthy letter to you, attached. It is mostly not directly about ethics, but the evidence. Please read it and get back to me. I believe that at the start of this episode government reaction was understandable, as I say in the letter. But now the evidence is very different. It is increasingly clear that the 'vaccines' are barely effective and very possibly more dangerous than not having them, since there is more infection and transmission in the vaccinated rather than the unvaccinated. The facts and figures are in the attached letter.

I know you are keen on evidence-based medicine so please take a close look, and contradict me where you can. I also know that you are passionate about public health and want to do the right thing for fellow New Zealanders, which is why I ask you to think again about policy in the light of the information I am sending.

At the very least there is room for debate about the evidence and the priorities now.

I look forward to discussing with you.

Best wishes,

David"

SEEDHOUSE'S INITIAL ATTACHMENT: "The debate I am suggesting would primarily focus on evidence-based decision-making"

4) “Dear Rod

Thank you for getting back to me.

I’d like to start by saying that although I am critical of the New Zealand government’s Covid policies, I have tried to understand them from the decision-makers’ perspective.

At the start of the global crisis the government quickly chose to ‘go hard’ in an attempt to eliminate the virus from the country. Among other strategies this meant a lockdown and a strict border closure. Given the uncertainty about virulence at the time, when most other governments were enacting similar measures, when there was a degree of hysteria in the international news media, and when opinion polls around the world were reporting extreme fear in most of the population, to have acted in any other way would have taken a brave and far-sighted government.

Having worked in various public health environments I also appreciate how an intense focus on medical priorities was at first inevitable. You were called on by both government and newsmedia as scientific experts and potential saviours of many thousands of people. Naturally you wanted and needed to get the response right. Had you chosen less stringent measures there was a very real risk that you would have been publicly pilloried and may even have lost your careers. It was a volatile situation in which people’s perceptions of risk were dramatically heightened, and the stakes were high.

However, slowly other voices began to question the ‘stamp it out approach’. And now, almost two years down the track, circumstances are very different.

You have known me as a colleague since the early nineties, and I think would expect me to take a questioning approach, such is my nature. Indeed I wrote an investigative book in 2020, The Case for Democracy in the Covid 19 pandemic. It covers many still relevant issues including:

‘…the psychological biases; distorted risk perceptions; frenetic journalism; the disputed science; the narrow focus of 'experts'; value judgements dressed up as truths; propaganda; the invisibility of ethics; and the alarming irrelevance of inclusive democracy that have been features of governmental responses to the covid-19 pandemic.’ https://uk.sagepub.com/en-gb/eur/the-case-for-democracy-in-the-covid-19-pandemic/book275656

However, the debate I am suggesting would primarily focus on evidence-based decision-making, the government’s failure to assess the evidence objectively, and its psychological blindness to alternative strategies.

Note also that I refer to the ‘pandemic’ in quotes since it can be called a pandemic only because the World Health Organisation changed its definition in 2009:

“Since 2003, the top of the WHO Pandemic Preparedness homepage has contained the following statement: “An influenza pandemic occurs when a new influenza virus appears against which the human population has no immunity, resulting in several simultaneous epidemics worldwide with enormous numbers of deaths and illness.” However, on 4 May 2009, scarcely one month before the H1N1 pandemic was declared, the web page was altered in response to a query from a CNN reporter. The phrase “enormous numbers of deaths and illness” had been removed and the revised web page simply read as follows: “An influenza pandemic may occur when a new influenza virus appears against which the human population has no immunity.” https://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/89/7/11-086173.pdf

On the 2009 definition there is no pandemic. Ignoring the interpretation of ‘enormous’ which will always be controversial, it is just not true that there is no natural immunity to SARS-CoV-2. This article lists thirty scientific studies which show this beyond any doubt: https://brownstone.org/articles/natural-immunity-and-covid-19-twenty-nine-scientific-studies-to-share-with-employers-health-officials-and-politicians/amp/

“These studies demonstrate what was and is already known: natural immunity for a SARS-type virus is robust, long-lasting, and broadly effective even in the case of mutations, generally more so than vaccines. In fact, a major contribution of 20th-century science has been to expand upon and further elucidate this principle that has been known since the ancient world.”

These scientific papers and other articles refute your belief that “getting people vaccinated … is the most effective and sustainable way to protect a population against an infectious disease like covid”. The evidence is that your belief is just not true.

The Brownstone document has recently been further updated. It offers a comprehensive library list of 150 of the highest-quality, complete, most robust scientific studies and evidence reports/position statements on natural immunity: https://brownstone.org/articles/79-research-studies-affirm-naturally-acquired-immunity-to-covid-19-documented-linked-and-quoted/

Here is just one example: “Exposure to common cold coronaviruses can teach the immune system to recognize SARS-CoV-2” – because of T-cell memory: https://www.lji.org/news-events/news/post/exposure-to-common-cold-coronaviruses-can-teach-the-immune-system-to-recognize-sars-cov-2/. T-cell memory is a virology fundamental: https://teachmephysiology.com/immune-system/adaptive-immune-system/t-cell-memory/

If you and your colleagues are unaware of this meta-analysis I recommend you give it urgent attention. It says in sum:

“… existing immunity should be assessed before any vaccination, via an accurate, dependable, and reliable antibody test (or T cell immunity test) or be based on documentation of prior infection (a previous positive PCR or antigen test). Such would be evidence of immunity that is equal to that of vaccination and the immunity should be provided the same societal status as any vaccine-induced immunity. This will function to mitigate the societal anxiety with these forced vaccine mandates and societal upheaval due to job loss, denial of societal privileges etc. Tearing apart the vaccinated and the unvaccinated in a society, separating them, is not medically or scientifically supportable.”

I would add ‘not ethically supportable’ to this statement.

WHY VACCINATE?

Given this scientific knowledge, the practical value of continuing a ‘vaccination’ programme is highly questionable. Traditional vaccines consist of entire pathogens that have been killed or weakened so that they cannot cause disease whereas ‘Covid ‘vaccines’ manipulate the genes of the recipients and do not produce a full immune response.

The latest science tells us that the Covid ‘vaccines’ do little or nothing to prevent infection or transmission (and so cannot prevent or stop outbreaks) but they do reduce severe disease and death in the vaccinated, albeit not by as much as was originally claimed: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/investigation-of-novel-sars-cov-2-variant-variant-of-concern-20201201

However even this protection wanes quickly:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-’vaccine’-weekly-surveillance-reports 

https://publichealthscotland.scot/media/11089/22-01-12-covid19-winter_publication_report.pdf

Please take a close look at these data from a respected public health source. They show that those who are vaccinated are up to 2 and a half times more likely to be infected than those who are not. For example: Age Standardised Case rate per 100,000 is 1,092 for the unvaccinated and 2,499 for the vaccinated.

There is a similar pattern here:

https://publichealthscotland.scot/media/11763/22-02-16-coid19-winter_publication_report.pdf 

Even with three doses you are more likely to be infected than if you remain unvaccinated:

You may find the above chart surprising given your enthusiasm for vaccination, but the figures are official. It shows a population split of 24:76 unvaccinated/vaccinated and corpses split 12.1/87.9. Thus, unmodified people are under represented among the fatalities, but only by about 56%, or, in other words, the genetically modified seem to be dying at about 2.3 times the rate of the unmodified:

These are not data that should be shrugged off: https://dailysceptic.org/2022/02/19/vaccine-effectiveness-continues-to-fall-vaccinated-now-up-to-three-times-more-likely-to-be-infected-ukhsa-data-show/

Of course these figures are open to interpretation, but it is quite clear that:

“As Sunetra Gupta, Professor of Theoretical Epidemiology at Oxford University, notes, ‘vaccines are best understood as part of focused protection, providing some additional protection against serious disease and death for those at high risk. They should not be used for something they are evidently unsuited for: the effort to reduce infections to permanently low levels via a vaccine-induced herd immunity. She writes:

Vaccines typically do not outperform natural immunity, so it should come as no surprise that Covid vaccines do not offer long-term protection against infection. At the same time, we can be confident that they will continue to work well to prevent severe clinical outcomes. The role of these vaccines is to offer protection to the clinically vulnerable; to foist them upon those who are at negligible risk in the hope of augmenting herd immunity is illogical…

For there to be the collective benefit of herd immunity, the booster would have to provide life-long protection against infection – unless we are willing to accept repeated mass vaccination into the foreseeable future. Aside from being a colossal diversion of limited resources, that would open the door to a permanent state of lockdown as we lurch from one booster campaign to the next.

Instead, we should acknowledge that “the vaccines have already brought focused protection to those who needed it in the U.K. and that now the best course of action is to rely on natural immunity to maintain and consolidate a normal state of living with this virus”.” https://dailysceptic.org/2021/09/03/the-push-for-’vaccination’-of-children-and-’vaccine’-boosters-despite-the-lack-of-evidence-they-prevent-infection-or-transmission-is-approaching-a-religious-mania/

If you need any further evidence that ‘vaccines’ just don’t work take a look at this link:

https://dailysceptic.org/2022/02/18/australia-another-country-where-covid-infections-and-deaths-have-been-far-higher-since-the-vaccine-rollout/

WHY MANDATE AN INTERVENTION THAT DOESN’T WORK?

You say that you are ‘a big supporter of short-term vaccine mandates.’ But why? I can only conclude that you must have robust data about vaccine efficacy on which to base your support. If so, perhaps you could share this and we could have a professional conversation?

In the absence of this I cannot see how mandating universal vaccination can possibly be justified on these data? Hard data clearly show there is no discernible difference in transmissibility between vaccinated and unvaccinated of any significance to base policy on.

To repeat: these so-called vaccines prevent neither transmission nor infection, so what is the point?

I’m also unclear what ‘short-term vaccine mandates’ mean. Are you saying that after say 6 months mandates can be rescinded? If so, why?

PSYCHOLOGICAL FIXATIONS

At the start of the ‘pandemic’ it briefly made sense to close the international borders in case the illness was worse than expected, but this has made less and less sense as time has passed, evidence has accumulated, and more treatments are available for people who need them (though for the vast majority infection is mild or not even noticeable).

But the government – or rather its small team of advisers, of which you are one – has fallen prey to an array of psychological biases, for example, confirmation bias, attentional bias, illusion of control bias, groupthink and the amplification of risk out of any reasonable proportion. This has caused a blindness to anything other than the official ‘hard-line’, and a stubborn inability to carry out a proper cost-benefit analysis incorporating factors other than disease. Under this powerful influence it seems that the only thing that matters is controlling the virus:

“The country's surging Covid cases are the priority for the Government - not the illegal actions of protesters at Parliament, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern told reporters in Rotorua earlier today.

The focus needed to be on the "growing pandemic and keeping people safe," Ardern said.

"What is happening there is illegal," she said of the protesters.

"I don't expect it to change quickly, we're all prepared for it to take some time but despite that, it will not change our force.

"We have a duty to all New Zealanders to focus on the pandemic."

In the same article:

“Sixty-three people are in hospital with Covid-19 - none in intensive care.”  https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/covid-19-omicron-outbreak-record-1573-new-cases-jacinda-ardern-says-infections-her-concern-not-illegal-protest/T5CEVXKLRSD5HKPRQW3OFMR32M/ 

The Prime Minister’s position just doesn’t make sense on any level.

ETHICS

You say that you are not the right person to be ‘debating the rights and wrongs of the policies from an ethical perspective’, but this is part of the problem. Public health interventions are not automatically ethical, in fact what has happened in NZ has been extraordinarily unethical on any conventional understanding of ethics. The fact that this is not obvious demonstrates the extent the psychological distortions key decision-makers are under.

These are matters that should be open to uncensored public debate, which is one reason I want to set this up with you and others.

If you don't feel able to debate the ethical rights and wrongs of population-wide policies then, respectfully, you really shouldn't be making these policies.

Very briefly:

• New Zealand citizens have been prevented from coming home, despite our Bill of Rights which is supposed to protect our fundamental freedoms.
• The scientific evidence that ‘vaccines’ don’t prevent infection or transmission has been ignored
• The scientific evidence that masks don’t prevent transmission has been ignored
• The scientific evidence that lockdowns are ineffective has been ignored
• A massive propaganda campaign has been undertaken to persuade as many people as possible to be vaccinated, despite the growing evidence the ‘vaccines’ are ineffective at protecting others, and carry significant risks of adverse events to the individual: https://dailysceptic.org/2022/01/18/’vaccine’-safety-update-23/
• Vaccine passports and mandates have been introduced effectively rendering NZ a two-tier society, impeding normal daily activities for all New Zealanders who do not wish to receive experimental injections: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1EhH3qggKFY68Y4MsWGkUIRHbbcNxX31-/view. Even if the ‘vaccines’ were effective in stopping transmission it is fundamentally wrong to force people to accept them. In the Western world until now, the principles of informed consent and bodily autonomy were sacrosanct. There is no practical or moral reason why this should not remain the case.
• Children who are at virtually no risk from SARS-CoV-2 have been coerced into accepting ‘vaccines’ that not only can do them no good but may cause harm (we just don’t know for sure). There is no ethical or practical reason to ‘vaccinate’ children against Covid 19.
• Children who are at virtually no risk from SARS-CoV-2 have been coerced into accepting ‘vaccines’ on the false premise that by doing so they will protect others, but this is not and never has been the point of vaccines. Vaccines are designed to protect the individual, not society. And we now know from the science that vaccinating children protects no-one.

THE LIMITS OF PUBLIC HEALTH

It is easily demonstrated that public health is not an imperative. You might say, ‘yes but the vaccines do seem to reduce illness and death’ which is true, but in this case it is absolutely a matter of individual choice. If it is acceptable to coerce people into accepting vaccines in the interest of protecting others – which is the only conceivable reason to do so – then it must also be acceptable to coerce people to diet, to exercise, to stop smoking, to cycle rather than drive, not to have sex with strangers and so on. But it isn’t acceptable because we respect people’s rights to make their own choices in a free and liberal society, unless their choices will directly harm other individuals.

WHAT SHOULD BE DONE

• New Zealand decision-makers remain so obsessed with the virus that all other considerations pale into insignificance. This unhealthy phenomenon could be swiftly addressed by inviting experts from various disciplines to meet virtually in a summit conference to advise New Zealand on how best to create a balanced approach that allows the normal functioning of society while protecting vulnerable people.
• From now on public health decisions should be made by experts from a range of disciplines including law, economics, psychology and ethics, not just public health and related disciplines. Members of the public must also be involved and must have meaningful input.
• New Zealand citizens must be allowed to enter and leave the country freely.
• The Bill of Rights must be respected and given proper legal force.
• Vaccine mandates and passports must be immediately rescinded.
• Since SARS-CoV-2 seems to be progressively weakening – the omicron variant is milder than the delta variant – New Zealanders should be allowed to live entirely normally, which would have the added benefit of promoting natural immunity.
• The government should no longer cite New Zealand as an example of success ‘against Covid’. Rather it should admit that mistakes were made, in good faith, and that policy will change in line with the evidence with immediate effect.

I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

Best wishes,

David”

JACKSON’S RESPONSE TO THE ATTACHMENT: "You obviously look at epidemiological evidence from a parallel universe"

5) “Hi David. Just wanted to acknowledge your email. You obviously look at epidemiological evidence from a parallel universe to mine and the community of expert epidemiologists. Much of what you say about pandemics and vaccines is just nonsense. With all due respect, I think you should stick to ethics.

Ngā mihi

Rod”

SEEDHOUSE’S SECOND RESPONSE: "The ’public interest’ is not an objective concept"

24th February

6) “Dear Rod,

Thank you for your acknowledgement.

It is unfortunate that you chose to be rude. It does you no credit. I will not reply in kind since it is vital that the NZ response to Covid 19 becomes proportionate as soon as possible, to prevent further avoidable damage to our fellow citizens.

I wrote an extensive, evidence-based letter to you, pointing out some fundamental misunderstandings which have influenced the policies you advocate. I did this because once you appreciate the errors you must also appreciate the need to rethink strategy.

I will, as briefly as possible, summarise these misunderstandings. Please do not dismiss them. They are well referenced and from many highly qualified and experienced scientists. You may not agree, and you may have more convincing counter-evidence, but if so it is a requirement of good science that you explain and provide this evidence. To say that I, and by implication the thousands of academics who share my views, inhabit a ‘parallel universe’ helps no-one.

You also dismiss ‘much of what I say about pandemics and vaccines’ as ‘nonsense’. Please tell me which parts of what I say are ‘nonsense’, and we can compare with your own claims made in the public domain.

YOU MISUNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PANDEMIC AND ENDEMIC

You seem to think there is no difference between these terms. You are on record as saying:

If COVID-19 becomes endemic, the burden on our healthcare system will be immense. It will not involve a predictable, modest increase in hospital admissions. Waves and clusters will characterise endemic COVID-19 in the same way they have characterised pandemic COVID-19, overwhelming local healthcare without warning: https://theconversation.com/why-we-must-not-allow-covid-to-become-endemic-in-new-zealand-169608

Firstly, as previously explained, there is no pandemic on either WHO definition since both require a new virus and no immunity: https://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/89/7/11-086173.pdf

Secondly, ‘endemic’ is quite different from temporarily uncontrolled outbreaks of infection on a global scale, which is what is required for a pandemic.

YOU MISUNDERSTAND NATURAL IMMUNITY

In fact SARS-CoV-2 is one of several coronaviruses in circulation and approximately 75% of people already have natural immunity, as referenced by the 150 papers and articles I referred you to: https://brownstone.org/articles/79-research-studies-affirm-naturally-acquired-immunity-to-covid-19-documented-linked-and-quoted/

Surely you do not believe that all these are nonsense. Which of them are and why?

This talk by an Oxford University epidemiologist explains ‘endemic equilibrium’, which is exactly the opposite of what you falsely believe. When a virus is endemic it will not, by definition, ‘overwhelm local healthcare without warning’, rather it will be at a stable level, fluctuating predictably, as is the case with other coronaviruses: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8r3PRtKITQ

YOU MISUNDERSTAND THE EFFECTIVENESS OF ‘VACCINES’

You have said:

"Until there are high levels of immunity, any relaxation of restrictions within Aotearoa when Delta is in the community will dramatically increase the speed at which the virus spreads through the population. The time has come for a concerted vaccination drive, mandatory vaccination for more workers, and a clear signal that eligible but unvaccinated people will face restricted access to travel and other activities. With Delta, there is no “herd immunity” — almost everyone who has not been vaccinated will eventually (and sooner rather than later) get infected. Vaccinated people are about 75% less likely than unvaccinated people to develop a COVID infection if exposed, and over 90% less likely to develop severe disease."
https://theconversation.com/nz-needs-a-more-urgent-vaccination-plan-with-nearly-80-now-single-dosed-the-majority-will-support-it-168926

Your claim is that the VACCINATED ARE 75% LESS LIKELY TO BE INFECTED, but this really is nonsense as extensive evidence is showing beyond doubt. I already referenced a chart above from the UK Health Security Agency.

I mentioned that I had heard that there are more unvaccinated hospital patients than vaccinated in New Zealand and asked you to confirm this with evidence so we might work out why there is such a disparity. You are not willing to do this, so I checked for myself, on the Ministry website, and discovered this:

“HOSPITALISATIONS:

• Cases in hospital: total number 143: North Shore: 27; Middlemore: 51; Auckland: 50; Tauranga: 5; Lakes: 1; Waikato: 7; Tairawhiti: 1; Canterbury: 1
• Average age of current hospitalisations: 56
• Cases in ICU or HDU: 1
• Vaccination status of current hospitalisations (Northern Region only, excluding Emergency Departments): Unvaccinated or not eligible (19 cases / 18%); partially immunised <7 days from second dose or have only received one dose (4 cases / 4%); fully vaccinated at least 7 days before being reported as a case (80 cases / 75%); unknown (4 cases / 4%).”
https://www.health.govt.nz/news-media/news-items/more-27000-boosters-administered-2846-community-cases-covid-19-143-hospital (my italics)

From the NZ Ministry of Health, Feb 22nd, 2020 the evidence is that 75% OF HOSPITALISATIONS ARE FULLY VACCINATED. Which is correct? Your belief or the Ministry?

As a scientist it is your responsibility to draw unbiased conclusions from the evidence. As a matter of fact the ‘vaccines’ do not do what you think they do. The growing scientific evidence base (extensively referenced in my previous communication) tells us that Covid ‘vaccines’ do little or nothing to prevent infection or transmission (and so cannot prevent or stop outbreaks) though it seems they can reduce severe disease and death in the vaccinated, albeit not by as much as was originally claimed by vaccine manufacturers and governments: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/investigation-of-novel-sars-cov-2-variant-variant-of-concern-20201201

This is also evidenced by the above Ministry data.

You also say:

“"You know most people are getting maximum protection from vaccination boosters and [rates] are going up really fast which is fantastic," Prof Jackson said.

But he had a strong message for the unvaccinated.

"The commentaries out there are that Omicron is significantly less severe than Delta - not true for the unvaccinated; in fact, it's worse for the unvaccinated, and the reason is because it's going to come really rapidly," he explains.

Prof Jackson said it's almost as severe for the unvaccinated in terms of mortality and hospitalisations.

"It's just ridiculous that you won't go and protect yourself from a disease that's killed 15 million people worldwide," he said.  "It's killing almost a 100 people every day in Australia."

There have been more than five million recorded deaths but global excess deaths are estimated at double or even quadruple that figure.”

https://web.archive.org/web/20220207034624/https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2022/02/covid-19-epidemiologist-rod-jackson-says-new-zealand-s-omicron-response-set-to-be-better-than-anybody-else.html

Where is your evidence that Omicron ‘is almost as severe (as Delta) for the unvaccinated in terms of mortality and hospitalisations’? My evidence is that you are completely wrong about this.

YOU MISUNDERSTAND THE SEVERITY OF THE ILLNESS

Your estimates are as worthless as the many speculative epidemiological models produced by similar minded colleagues, which have repeatedly been shown to be wrong – often wildly wrong – by real word data. In fact WHO reports less than 6 million deaths worldwide (not 15 million), and you must subtract from this figure the normally expected deaths to achieve a more accurate mortality rate of about 0.02% - bearing in mind that the vast majority of the people who die have co-morbidities and/or life curtailing disorders, dying ‘with’ not ‘from’ this coronavirus.

For the vast majority this illness is mild at worst.

YOU MISUNDERSTAND THE NATURE OF ETHICS

In some ways this is your most egregious misunderstanding. You wrote to me that I should ‘stick to ethics’, as if I am qualified only to comment on my discipline, and as if there is no relationship between public health and ethics. Unfortunately however, you have failed, your entire career, to grasp the inadequacy of your naïve view.

I once gave a lecture in the then Cole Lecture Theatre at Auckland University which you attended. I think the topic was ‘the nature of health’. At question time you said you didn’t see why the meaning of health matters since it is obvious. You said something like: ‘Our job in public health is to act in the best interests of the public, simple.’ I said: ‘Who are you to think you can define the public interest?’ I can still remember the look on your face. It conveyed absolute incomprehension. And you still don’t get it.

The ’public interest’ is not an objective concept. It is open to a wide range of definitions. For example, you think the public interest is to be as free as possible from contagious diseases. An alternative view is that the public interest is for citizens to be as free as possible to make our own judgements about how best to live. There is no scientific means to establish which is correct, or even best. Rather it is a matter of careful, rich deliberation.

I emphasise ‘rich’ since ethical deliberation is not separate from other considerations, rather it must include a wide range of practical, social and ethical concepts. ‘Sticking to ethics’ does not mean thinking in a vacuum, it means thinking expansively and considering every relevant aspect, including evidence and science, which is what I do and which informs my communications to you.

This approach is encapsulated in the Ethical Grid, a decision support device I invented decades ago and which is still widely in use, though unfortunately not in cabinet or in public health policy-making:

To make an ethically sound decision all these aspects must be included and adequately defined in the decision-making process. I would therefore respectfully recommend that you too ‘stick to ethics’.

In case you are interested, this is a good, simple account of the Grid offered by a young medical student: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343452941_An_application_of_the_Seedhouse_grid_in_an_anonymised_clinical_case_to_feed_or_not_to_feed

YOU MISUNDERSTAND THE EXTENT TO WHICH YOU ARE SUBJECT TO GROUPTHINK

Even though your replies have been brief they show that your critical faculties have been affected by groupthink. This is not an insult, but an observation based in psychological science.

Irving Janis coined the term in the early 1970s. Groupthink refers to the ways groups of people can reach a consensus through conformity, without thoroughly analysing the ideas or concepts: https://www.goodtherapy.org/famous-psychologists/irving-janis.html

Janis described three rules of groupthink:

Rule One

Rule One is that a group of people come to share a common view or belief that in some way is not based on reality. They may believe they have all manner of confirmatory evidence but no test that confirms that their view is anything more than a shared belief.

Rule Two

Rule Two is that because they cannot prove their view with external proof, they claim there is a consensus among all right-thinking people. This seems self-evident to the people in the group, and if anyone dares to challenge it the belief system must be defended at all costs.

Rule Three

Rule Three is that since the consensus must be right there is no point in discussing it. Not only this but if anyone has the impertinence to question the consensus, they must either be ignored or discredited.

A key feature of groupthink is that the groupthink process is invisible to the group’s members.

I do not say this to offend you but to try to enlighten you. We can all be subject to groupthink, but it is not a productive place to be. It reduces the available phenomena to study, it stymies curiosity, and it is anathema to scientific inquiry. Unfortunately you seem to be subject to it to a high degree – you faithfully believe things that are demonstrably false, you point to confirmatory evidence while ignoring falsifying evidence, and you justify your position not in open debate but by claiming consensus – as far as you are concerned ‘the science is settled’.

This belief is constantly reinforced by ‘the community of expert epidemiologists’ to which you refer. You are as a group comfortable with your certainties, and see no reason to challenge these with science or evidence. And if someone like me suggests that you should examine them you proclaim these convictions more loudly than ever.

Ultimately, if someone is impertinent enough to question you, given rules one and two, all you can do is discredit them, often with insults, or ignore them disdainfully (‘you are in a parallel universe David’).

Moreover, as a matter of fact, beyond your groupthink there is no consensus. I recommend this book by an eminent fellow epidemiologist, who strongly disagrees with your circle of ‘expert epidemiologists’: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Year-World-Went-Mad-Scientific/dp/1913207951?asin=1913207951&revisionId=&format=4&depth=1

Professor Woolhouse’s view is that there were and are better, science based strategies that should have been used to tackle Covid. He points in particular to one of your false beliefs, namely that everyone is equally vulnerable, which has led to an irrational climate of fear: in fact most people never were vulnerable and natural immunity is the best defence.

THERE IS ONLY ONE UNIVERSE

In other words, I do not inhabit some less real environment in which, subject to some delusion, I do not think straight or think like you. I inhabit the same world as you. The difference is that I have an open mind and am prepared to learn and debate.

I accept that I may be mistaken in some or more respects, and I am prepared – keen even – to listen to you and your colleagues if they can correct me, and I would like to review all and any evidence you can provide to me.

Once this has been achieved, I continue to believe that there should be an open public debate about the science and the ethics of the NZ response to Covid, and open deliberation involving experts from a range of disciplines, and members of the public, to arrive at a sustainable response, and also to prepare for any future crises in a balanced manner.

David”

FURTHER COMMUNICATION FROM SEEDHOUSE ON THE SAME DAY: "The whole vaccination drive needs to be properly assessed"

24th February

7) “Rod,

I'm not making this up. The whole vaccination drive needs to be properly assessed:

https://twitter.com/i/status/1495777669090324484

Thank you.”

LINK:

“Study just out of Israel. “The vaccinated group are 27 times higher risk of developing symptoms & 8 times higher risk of hospitalisation.””

JACKSON’S REPLY: "It is a rather arrogant ... to believe your interpretation of the epidemiological data trumps the interpretation of almost every one of the world’s leading epidemiologists."

8) “David. I am not suggesting you are making it up. Rather I am suggesting you have misinterpreted the data or not examined the valid data. It is a rather arrogant, don't you think, to believe your interpretation of the epidemiological data trumps the interpretation of almost every one of the world’s leading epidemiologists.

Ngā mihi

Rod”

SEEDHOUSE’S REPLY: "Data refute your supposed consensus"

25th February

9) “Dear Rod,

It is encouraging that you are prepared to engage in discussion, albeit only in brief at this stage.

I hope we can continue to discuss these matters constructively, as fellow scholars.

I will respond as succinctly as I can, under headings.

THERE IS LESS CONSENSUS THAN IT MAY SEEM

You say:

‘It is a rather arrogant, don't you think, to believe your interpretation of the epidemiological data trumps the interpretation of almost every one of the world’s leading epidemiologists.’

I hope you will resist any further ad hominem remarks and concentrate on the data and its implications.

You seem to think my research and opinions are highly idiosyncratic, but there are many academics, from many disciplines, around the world who have arrived at similar conclusions. Some of these are leading epidemiologists, as you must surely know, including eminent Harvard and Oxford Professors: https://www.aier.org/article/reaching-immunity-a-private-summit-of-epidemiologists-against-lockdowns-video/; https://www.spiked-online.com/2021/06/04/why-i-spoke-out-against-lockdowns/

I am a member of a large group of academics and practitioners who have applied our expertise for the last 18 months or so to analyse, understand and respond practically to the crisis: https://www.hartgroup.org/bios/ 

You should also be aware that Sweden’s non-lockdown Covid policy has been directed by their Senior Epidemiologist, Anders Tengell: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01098-x; https://www.technocracy.news/swedens-senior-epidemiologist-wearing-face-masks-is-very-dangerous/

It is true, I assume, that we are currently in a minority, but that does not make us wrong or unscientific. I recommend Christopher Booker’s excellent book on Groupthink to you: https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2018/02/Groupthink.pdf

The foreword by Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT (Massachusetts not Manukau) sets out the problem:

“Booker’s relatively brief monograph asks a rather different but profoundly important question. Namely, how do otherwise intelligent people come to believe such arrant nonsense despite its implausibility, internal contradictions, contradictory data, evident corruption and ludicrous policy implications. Booker convincingly shows the power of ‘groupthink’ to overpower the rational faculties that we would hope could play some role.”

In other words, while you and your colleagues may be correct there is a real possibility that you are unable to think beyond the consensus, and the consensus may be wrong. Truth in science is not established by majority agreement, it is established by the scientific method, which is to develop testable hypotheses, test these empirically, and then create further hypotheses based on the results. You may find Sir Karl Popper’s Unended Quest instructive in this regard.

HISTORY AND PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE

The phenomenon of apparently true beliefs, held by almost everyone, yet nevertheless being overturned by scientists prepared to be led by data rather than politics, characterises scientific progress, as explained by the work of Thomas Kuhn, for example.

Kuhn popularised the concept of ‘paradigms’ and ‘paradigm shifts’. He identified periods of almost universal consensus which were eventually ended by contradictory data, despite resistance from the consensus. Examples include germ theory, evolution, the heliocentric universe, quantum mechanics and relativity. There are more examples here: https://simplicable.com/en/paradigm-shift

Given this history, if you are in a majority this is not a reason for contentment. Rather it should prompt further questioning and investigation. The best scientists continually ask: what if we are mistaken?

WHAT IF THE CONSENSUS IS MISTAKEN?

You accuse me of ‘misinterpreting or not examining valid data’.

Firstly this is a bit rich since I have supplied a raft of evidence and reasoning and you have been unable or unwilling to challenge any of it. Secondly, you unwittingly show how embedded you are in the ‘we must stop Covid at all costs’ paradigm. You refer to ‘valid data’ but all that means is ‘data I and my colleagues agree with’. Data are not valid per se – good science uncovers data and then investigates the data to work out what they mean.

THE DATA FALSIFY THE CONSENSUS VIEW

Forgive me if I am wrong, but you and your colleagues believe:

1. Everyone is at serious risk from SARS-CoV-2
2. Unless more action is taken there will be a catastrophe
3. The only way to prevent this is to vaccinate as many people as possible, and if they won’t agree to coerce them.

But you cannot plausibly maintain this position any longer since the data contradict it. There are several unknowns that need to be better understood, but the idea that vaccination is clearly the solution no longer has credibility.

ROUTINE DATA COLLECTED BY THE NEW ZEALAND MINISTRY OF HEALTH REFUTE YOUR SUPPOSED CONSENSUS

According to official data published by New Zealand’s Ministry of Health, a total of 955 people have been admitted to hospital with Covid-19 between 16th Aug 21 and 22nd Feb 22. Simple maths from the available data show that 306 of those hospitalisations have occurred since the 11th Feb 22. During this period the fully vaccinated account for 82% of these hospitalisations.

A look at the data for the longer period of August 16 – Feb 22^nd makes it seem that the unvaccinated are driving the present spike.

The following table is taken from the ‘Covid-19: Case Demographics‘ report published by the New Zealand Ministry of Health on the 12th February 2022, and it shows the vaccination status of all people infected and hospitalised with Covid-19 between 16th Aug 21 and 11th Feb 22:

But if we look at the period when the recent spike began we see a different picture:

Here we see that 33% of New Zealand’s Covid-19 Hospitalisations in the last 6 months have occurred in the past 12 days and the fully vaccinated account for 4 in every 5 of them:

A total of 19,412 cases were confirmed in New Zealand over these 12 days. The fully vaccinated population accounted for 11,751 of them, followed by the boosted population who accounted for 3,870 of them.

The following chart shows the percentage of Covid-19 cases by vaccination status in New Zealand between 11th Feb and 22nd Feb 22:

In all, the fully vaccinated population accounted for 61% of all Covid-19 cases over these 12 days, and the boosted population accounted for 20% of all cases.

The following chart shows the percentage of Covid-19 hospitalisations by vaccination status in New Zealand between 11th Feb and 22nd Feb 22:

The not-vaccinated population (including under 12s) accounted for 18% of all Covid-19 hospitalisations between 11th Feb and 22nd Feb 22, whilst the vaccinated population accounted for 82%: https://dailyexpose.uk/2022/02/24/new-zealand-4-in-5-covid-cases-hospitalisations-fully-vaccinated/

WHAT IS GOING ON?

If I have these data right – and it may be that I have not - then we are witnessing a major outbreak of infection and hospitalisation in the vaccinated.

We need to find out why this is happening. There may be many reasons – and there are more people vaccinated than not – but this is surely something that requires urgent multidisciplinary investigation.

Could it even be that being fully vaccinated makes people more vulnerable than the non-vaccinated?

ARE YOU PREPARED TO WORK WITH ME AND COLLEAGUES FROM OTHER DISCIPLINES TO INVESTIGATE THIS?

We are witnessing an unprecedented outbreak in New Zealand. The evidence I have already supplied to you shows this is no cause for alarm and may even be seen as a good thing since it will in time create natural immunity – which has previously and arguably unwisely – be impeded by suppression policies: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/covid-19-omicron-outbreak-6137-covid-cases-and-one-death-today-omicron-phase-3-response-from-midnight/ZNICOD2BFJ2MSFMUY76X3E5VXA/

However it seems possible that this outbreak could have a more serious impact on the vaccinated. We need to understand if this is true, as a national priority.

VACCINE MANDATES AND LEGAL ACTION

The data – and the potential greater risk to the vaccinated population – indicate that vaccine mandates should be suspended immediately.

You may remember that I was appointed Senior Lecturer in Medical Ethics at the University of Auckland as a direct response to the Cartwright Inquiry, which in 1988 was a major scandal.

I hope I am wrong, and that the authorities will reflect carefully on the emerging data and act accordingly, but there is just a chance that coercing people to take ‘vaccines’ that possibly make them more likely to be hospitalised than if they had not been ‘vaccinated’ could make Cartwright pale into insignificance.

There is also a possibility that experts, like yourself and like-minded colleagues, could ultimately be held to account legally. While the tort of negligence for personal injury cannot apply due to ACC legislation, there could be class actions and applications for major punitive and/or exemplary damages, and there could also be formal Public Inquiries.

As in Cartwright, where Herbert Green was found to have failed to act upon knowledge of carcinoma in situ in a cohort of patients he was studying without their knowledge or consent, it is possible that those of you who are aware, or have been made aware, of the troubling data, and have not acted accordingly, could be held responsible.

Please consider working with me and colleagues to establish what is really going on and avoid a range of negative consequences to all citizens, potentially including those in your consensus group.

JACKSON’S FURTHER REPLY: "Case data are next to meaningless during the omicron outbreak"

26th February

10) “Hi David. I am not sure what you think you have achieved with your simple analyses, but just a couple of pointers:

1. Case data are next to meaningless during the omicron outbreak as because many people don’t come forward for testing and those that do will not be representative of vaccinated/unvaccinated status
2. Hospitalisation data is next to meaningless unless it is adjusted for age in quite fine categories.
3. Until we get decent numbers of hospitalisations and deaths, trying to make sense of the NZ data using simple statistics is meaningless because with such small numbers, there are many idiosyncratic / random factors that could determine who got infected.

I suggest you leave making sense of the epidemiology to those who understand it.

Ngā mihi

Rod”

SEEDHOUSE'S REPLY: "If data are meaningless, how are you ever going to analyse them?"

March 1st

11) Rod, 

It is a great pity that you are not willing to debate these matters with me. I can conclude only that you feel threatened in some way, as evidenced by your repeated appeals to 'consensus' and a 'community of experts' rather than the data. 

You say that my analysis is simple. I'm not sure why that is a bad thing. If you mean 'simplistic' then please explain why. 

I am astonished to read that you think case, hospitalisation and death data are 'meaningless'. If that is so, why did you write: 

“In the current Auckland outbreak, only 3% of the more than 1,000 cases were fully vaccinated. There has been only one fully vaccinated patient among the more than 100 hospitalised cases.”  

Isn’t that meaningless on your own admission? 

And why do we need: 

“… a concerted vaccination drive, mandatory vaccination for more workers, and a clear signal that eligible but unvaccinated people will face restricted access to travel and other activities… ” https://theconversation.com/nz-needs-a-more-urgent-vaccination-plan-with-nearly-80-now-single-dosed-the-majority-will-support-it-168926 

when real world data refute your claim that ‘vaccinations’ stop infection and transmission?

If data are meaningless, how are you ever going to analyse them? How are you going to test your predictions? Or are you saying that this doesn’t matter since epidemiological modelling is somehow all we need?

I have sent this – from the Scottish Public Health Authority - previously:

https://publichealthscotland.scot/media/11089/22-01-12-covid19-winter_publication_report.pdf 

How is this meaningless? If these data are meaningless then why do public health authorities collect them?

These are from the UKHSA:

These show more cases and deaths in the vaccinated. Of course there are more vaccinated than not in the UK, but even so there is obvious cause for concern about the efficacy of vaccines: https://clarion.causeaction.com/2022/02/24/vaccinated-people-more-likely-to-contract-covid-19-go-to-hospital-in-recent-weeks-cdc-data/

It goes without saying there may be many possible reasons why the ‘vaccinated’ seem more or equally prone to infection and hospitalisation than the non-vaccinated, but we cannot be sure unless we investigate the phenomena in the real world. Even the most sophisticated models will not tell us the reasons since the real world is simply too complex for models to cope with. 

You say: 

“Left to its own devices, Delta spreads like wildfire – from 1 person to 6, to 36, to 216, to 1296 and so on – at high speed until there is a high enough vaccination level. This rapid exponential spread is the main threat to health and other essential services.” (my italics) 

“Without a high vaccination level, increasing hospital capacity or investing in new drugs would be the equivalent of rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.” https://theconversation.com/nz-needs-a-more-urgent-vaccination-plan-with-nearly-80-now-single-dosed-the-majority-will-support-it-168926 

Putting your speculation about ‘vaccination’ levels to one side for a second, nowhere in the world throughout this ‘pandemic’ has an exponential increase in ‘cases’ been witnessed in a sustained way. Nowhere.  

One would expect exponential growth in the first few days of an outbreak – and we have seen this – but this always slows, almost certainly because of pre-existing or quickly occurring natural immunity (I have sent you much evidence about this already). It must be natural immunity because these patterns were seen time and time again before there were any vaccines. If the outbreaks are not limited naturally, which they must have been when there were no vaccines, what else could have caused this? 

EMPTY MODELLING 

I repeat, if data are meaningless, how are you ever going to analyse them? How are you going to test your predictions? Or are you saying that this doesn’t matter since epidemiological modelling is somehow all we need? 

I had an horrific thought over the weekend. Has all the hysteria in New Zealand been based on the modelling by you and your ‘community of experts’? Have I been prevented from entering my homeland, and from seeing my Kiwi daughters, as a direct result of your naïve modelling? Have many thousands of our fellow citizens had their health and livelihoods pointlessly damaged because you think, quite falsely, that:

1) Vaccines are almost 100% effective

2) Vaccines are the only way to achieve population immunity?

Your first assertion above is simply incorrect. These data below for example, indicate the need for objective studies, not modelling: 

All the actual evidence about Omicron is that everywhere it has appeared there is an exponential rise in infections for a day or two, then a peak, and then a rapid fall. You can see this is the UK data and now in the NZ data. https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/new-zealand/, and in data from around the world.

You don’t need modelling, you need to look at what has been and is happening. This is how good modelling is:

“Aotearoa’s most respected COVID-19 modellers, from Te Pūnaha Matatini, have provided robust scenarios of the likely impacts of a one-year outbreak at different vaccination levels.”

Robust scenarios? I say this really is meaningless fiction:

You think:

“If we don’t eliminate, we must still aim to contain, mop up, reduce close to zero and thwart this pandemic. 

Because we certainly cannot live with endemic SARS-CoV-2.”

https://theconversation.com/why-we-must-not-allow-covid-to-become-endemic-in-new-zealand-169608

This assumption rests upon an elementary error that everyone in the population is susceptible to SARS-CoV-2. This may work in a model but it is not in fact true: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8899053/DR-MIKE-YEADON-Three-facts-No-10s-experts-got-wrong.html

On the one hand there is the evidence: the virus is now endemic in the UK, Denmark, Iceland, Norway and a steadily growing number of other countries – we are living with it. On the other there are the disastrously failed epidemiological models which pay little or no attention to reality.

Of course we can live with endemic SARS-CoV-2 (that’s what endemic means) and several other coronaviruses at the same time. What we don’t need to live with are endless fabulations from irresponsible public heath experts who cannot see beyond ungrounded calculations. 

David"

JACKSON’S REPLY: "The overwhelming majority of epidemiologists worldwide support my views on covid and vaccination"

February 28th

12) “Hi David. The only reason why I don’t want to debate the epidemiological evidence with with you is because based on your emails, you don’t understand it. Its like you debating which stent and technique to use to unblock a coronary artery after a heart attack, with an experienced heart surgeon who has been doing these operations for 40 years. I’m not threatened, its just a waste of my time. I am not trying to challenge your intellectual capacity, but simply your incredible arrogance to think that you can understand and debate the complexities of covid epidemiology with me. David, you are an academic with decades of experience and skills in your field. I wouldn’t presume that I could have a meaningful debate with you in your field of expertise. You should do this with someone who has equivalent expertise.

The overwhelming majority of epidemiologists worldwide support my views on covid and vaccination. In fact I don’t know any experienced and well regarded epidemiologists who don’t.

Ngā mihi

Rod”

SEEDHOUSE'S FURTHER RESPONSE TO JACKSON’S APPEAL TO AUTHORITY: "I repeat my offer to an open debate with you"

4th March

13) “Dear Rod,

I am rather at a loss to know what to say to you.

It seems that from tomorrow I am allowed to come home, as was my fundamental right until a few people in government decided it wasn’t. Given that I am free to enter New Zealand and no longer an untrustworthy biohazard, I repeat my offer to an open debate with you, and others, about what a small number of ‘experts’ have decided for everyone else, without consultation. Since the ‘overwhelming majority of epidemiologists worldwide support (your) views on covid and vaccination’ I should be on a hiding to nothing, shouldn’t I?

YOUR ASSUMPTIONS

I assume you still won’t accept this invitation, because I am not an epidemiologist and you are not an ethicist. But I will have one more try to get you past your assumptions, which seem to be:

1) Only epidemiologists can discuss epidemiology and only ethicists can discuss ethics.

This is quite obviously a false assumption. In your own crude way you are already discussing ethics when you say on your T-shirt, “Don’t be a dick get the prick”. This is an ethical assertion. You are saying that being ‘vaccinated’ is a) a personal responsibility, perhaps even an ethical duty and b) that individuals should do this in the public interest and c) that not to do so is to be selfish. This is you asserting an ethical position, which in fact you have asserted widely.

Equally I am able to discuss matters of public health and epidemiology using and interpreting data. I have sent many references to real world evidence that should be included in any epidemiological analysis. These include data that show that the ‘vaccinations’ are ineffective against both transmission and infection.

As an epidemiologist you essentially have two choices. You can model possible outcomes based on limited data, as you and your colleagues have done, or you can analyse the actual data to see if it will help better understand what is actually going on (or both of course). In both instances the results will be tentative and require continual revision, and any recommendations made from these data must also be tentative. But in your case – and you are not alone in this – you have assumed that the data you have access to are all there is and that your conclusions are true. By strongly advocating for 95% ‘vaccination’ levels, mandatory ‘vaccination’ and ‘vaccine passports’ it is you not I that have overstepped the mark. I have been assessing as much available data as I can while you have been making sweeping social judgements based on false empirical assumptions.

These are the latest Australian figures for example:

“Official data published by the Government in Australia confirms this record breaking wave has been anything but a pandemic of the unvaccinated, and instead shows the fully vaccinated population accounted for 4 in every 5 Covid-19 cases, 9 in every 10 hospitalisations, 9 in every 10 ICU admissions, and 4 in every 5 Covid-19 deaths.”

You have dismissed similar data as ‘meaningless’. Why?

https://dailyexpose.uk/2022/03/03/australia-9-in-10-icu-covid-deaths-fully-vaccinated/ 

2) I am an ethicist.

This is false too.

I did once have a post as senior lecturer in medical ethics at the University of Auckland but I am not a qualified ‘ethicist’. I have a BA in Philosophy and a PhD in Rationality. The latter involved both philosophical and economic theory and qualitative and quantitative data. In fact the final chapter covered Artificial Intelligence.

My work has mostly been in decision-making, some of it involving branching processes, and all of it requiring work in several multi-disciplinary areas. Above all I am interested in personal judgement in health care, rather than technical ethics: https://uk.sagepub.com/en-gb/eur/using-personal-judgement-in-nursing-and-healthcare/book260636

3) I am arrogant to think I could debate the complexities of covid epidemiology

I would like to think this false too. I am prepared to listen and learn. I have been wrong about most things many times.

In any case I was not offering to debate complex epidemiology, but the use of epidemiology to make fallible predictions assumed to be facts on which to base policy. I assume that I do not need to be an expert in Bayes' theorem to debate the limitations of basing population level predictions on less than perfect data.

4) There is no point in talking to me because I’m not a public health professional

This is partly true. I do not have a formal qualification in public health. However, I was a lecturer and researcher in health promotion for three years at Liverpool University where I was a member of the Department of Public Health (then called ‘Community Health’) working with Professor Peter Pharoah and Professor John Ashton. I assume you know both though Peter sadly passed away last year.

I am well aware of many methods and issues in public health.

Overall I do not think your reason for refusing to debate holds up. Academic fields do not exist or practise in isolation, and most professionals have expertise in more than one, and in any case should be equipped by many years of university education to be able to process information in multiple ways.”

JACKSON’S REITERATION THAT HIS 'EXPERT COMMUNITY' KNOW BEST: "Hope you are triple vaxed"

13) “Kia ora David. It seem you accept that the overwhelming majority of epidemiologists worldwide share my views. In your words, I do believe you are on a hiding to nothing. I simply don’t believe you are qualified to argue the epidemiology of Covid. 

Ngā mihi

Rod

Hope you are triple vaxed.”

14) “Hi again David. What’s your take on the attached study?

15) “And read this, just published today

Ngā mihi

Rod”

The studies Jackson sent are here: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35249272/; https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35144968/ 

SEEDHOUSE'S ‘TAKE’ ON THE PAPERS JACKSON SENT: "The recommendations you and your colleagues make are not evidence-based and breach normally accepted ethical standards"

16) “Hello Rod,

I have looked at the two papers you asked me for ‘my take’ on. Both papers seem well researched and reach similar conclusions; namely that the mRNA vaccines initially offer some protection against severe illness and death, but this rapidly wanes. A booster can restore some protection but that also wanes quickly.

I have no problem or quarrel with either of these papers, both of which offer useful evidence, though of course further research is always needed, especially into the length of time the booster will remain effective.

I’m not sure why you sent these to me since I am in favour of evidence-based health care. My problem is that the recommendations you and your colleagues make are not evidence-based and breach both normally accepted ethical standards and the normal conventions of public health.

Ethics requires informed consent, no coercion and unbiased information, not vaccine mandates and passports, even if the ‘vaccinations’ worked. Public health requires protection for the vulnerable and isolation if necessary of those who are ill. It does not require lockdowns, endless testing of healthy people or relentless propaganda, of which this article in the Herald over the weekend is a further disturbing example: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/boosted-vs-unvaxxed-how-does-omicron-infection-risk-compare/BIONGUBVW7HNHA74VBLGQOMWNM/ This modelling by Leighton Watson, a geophysicist not an epidemiologist by the way, is worthless speculation. However this does not prevent the Herald leading the article like this:

“A researcher's modelling exercise has underscored a glaring gap in Omicron infection risk between the boosted and unvaccinated – something now also being illustrated by hospital cases.”

Rather than provide soundbites for the news media surely your job as a conscientious researcher is to explain to Herald readers, with robust data, that this is just not true.

I’m guessing from your sending the two papers to me that you have not read much of what I sent to you. If you had then you would have been aware that I am in favour of offering ‘vaccines’ to vulnerable groups given clear disclosure of relative risks.

‘Rather, what I am asking is: How can it possibly be justified to mandate universal vaccination on this data? This is simply not defensible on medical and ethical grounds. Globally and in Australia, hard data clearly show there is no discernible difference in transmissibility between vaccinated and unvaccinated of any significance to base policy on.’

https://dailysceptic.org/2022/02/18/australia-another-country-where-covid-infections-and-deaths-have-been-far-higher-since-the-vaccine-rollout/” “.

But you continue to make irrational claims.

This is why I want to organise a public debate as soon as possible with you and others so that future policy can be based on what we know rather than what we think we know, and so that we can openly discuss the value of maintaining as much normal life as possible if there is a pandemic in the future. This debate would include a range of expertise and opinions and be chaired by a skilled neutral. It would be televised and the results distilled into a publicly available document.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Best wishes,

David”

JACKSON’S REPLY 8^TH MARCH: "You are not capable of debating epidemiological evidence"

17) “Hi David. You initiated this correspondence by sending me extensive, albeit simplistic and naive epidemiological analyses which you believed demonstrated that the Covid vaccines don’t work. You invited me to debate this with you.  I replied that your flawed analyses demonstrated that you were not capable of debating epidemiological evidence and that epidemiologists overwhelmingly believe vaccines are highly effective. You disagreed. I then sent you some large-scale robust epidemiological data demonstrating that vaccinated is highly effective at preventing severe disease and death. Only its effectiveness in preventing infection wanes significantly.

Your reply is very strange. First you misinterpret the findings. Then say it’s useful evidence but that further research is needed and in effect ignore the evidence by stating that our recommendations are not evidence based. 

I presented you with robust unbiased evidence in contrast to your simplistic flawed analyses. The evidence I presented is also highly consistent with the RCT and other robust evidence. This extensive evidence provides the relevant evidence base for recommending interventions aimed at getting very high vaccination rates like mandates and passports. 

So you are incorrect when you state that our recommendations are not evidence based. 

The ethics of mandates and passports are a different matter. 

I have just stated that you don’t understand the epidemiology and every additional communication from you just confirms this. 

If you want to argue the ethics, then debate with ethicists. However you have clearly demonstrated that you don’t have the expertise to debate the epidemiology.  

Ngā mihi Rod “

SEEDHOUSE'S REPLY 11^TH MARCH: "It is a simple fact that if you include false assumptions in epidemiological models then the results will also be false."

18) Rod,

The evidence is consistent: the so-called vaccines do not prevent infection or transmission. We agree on this.

We also agree that they offer some protection for some weeks against severe illness and death.

We do not agree that natural immunity is better than ‘vaccine’ induced immunity. I submit that your confidence in the superiority of the ‘vaccines’ is misplaced. The evidence increasingly support natural immunity and, as Professor Gupta explains, the public health convention is to favour natural immunity:

“Vaccines typically do not outperform natural immunity, so it should come as no surprise that Covid vaccines do not offer long-term protection against infection. At the same time, we can be confident that they will continue to work well to prevent severe clinical outcomes. The role of these vaccines is to offer protection to the clinically vulnerable; to foist them upon those who are at negligible risk in the hope of augmenting herd immunity is illogical…”

Contrary to what you say there are growing numbers of highly qualified scientists who call your epidemiology into question, so I do not need to rely on my admittedly amateur understanding of your discipline. Look at this from 42 minutes for example: ‘models need to be appraised against reality’ – these are eminent scientists and there are many more like them. Are you sure you are right and they are wrong????  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0u8jWMluSk&t=2593s

It is a simple fact that if you include false assumptions in epidemiological models then the results will also be false.

You have repeatedly refused to debate these matters with me on the single ground that I am not an epidemiologist and therefore don’t know what I’m talking about. Your analogy is that I could not debate with a heart surgeon about which stent to use to unblock an artery.

Of course in a complex society there are specialities with esoteric knowledge, but this does not mean that the experts should not debate these matters with non-experts (in fact they have an ethical responsibility to do so), nor does it mean that well educated non-experts cannot possibly understand the work of the experts. My qualifications are in philosophy, yet I have developed reasonably sophisticated software, written extensively on psychology, and been employed as a teacher and researcher in health promotion within two public health departments in universities.

In any case I am not suggesting a debate about epidemiology, as I wrote to you in previous correspondence:

“… the debate I am suggesting would primarily focus on evidence-based decision-making, the government’s failure to assess the evidence objectively, and its psychological blindness to alternative strategies.”

You are hiding behind your claim to authority based on special expertise when your recommendations about mandates, passports, border closures and all the rest of it go well beyond epidemiological analysis. You call me arrogant when I ask for open discussion, yet your refusal to assess and be critical of your own certainties is conceited and condescending.

I would argue further that your constant public assertions about vaccine mandates, passports and the efficacy of the ‘vaccines’ are reckless, irresponsible and unscientific. I understand how hard it is to admit mistakes but given the growing evidence that you are mistaken, and the terrifying data on adverse events published even by the pharmaceutical companies – see this Pfizer document for example: https://phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/5.3.6-postmarketing-experience.pdf - then you should at least publicly declare some doubt in the light of growing evidence. That would be the courageous course of action, and I think you know it.

“Nothing would be more fatal than for the Government of States to get into the hands of experts. Expert knowledge is limited knowledge and the unlimited ignorance of the plain man, who knows where it hurts, is a safer guide than any rigorous direction of a specialist.”

Sir Winston Churchill

JACKSON'S FURTHER RESPONSE: "Gupta was never heard of before the pandemic"

12th March

“David. Name ‘the growing numbers of highly qualified scientists who call your epidemiology into question.’ Gupta was never heard of before the pandemic and has never been taken seriously. How many are experienced well known public health epidemiologists? Did you name Ioannidis in one of your emails? Not taken seriously. He wrote one extremely highly quoted paper in his career more than a decade ago. Who else????

Ngā mihi Rod”

SEEDHOUSE REPLY: "Are all these people arrogant too?"

29th Mach

"Dear Rod,

You seem not to have read my correspondence to you. Perhaps this is why you don’t wish to debate with me?

Had you read it you would understand:

1) A REQUEST TO DEBATE POLICY NOT EPIDEMIOLOGY

I have never suggested debating technical epidemiology with you, though I would happily do so were you prepared to. In fact I suggested this:

“...government policy is unsustainable and more and more countries are acting in proportion to actual risk… would you be prepared to debate the policies in public with me and others?”

You repeatedly and publicly state falsehoods and you must expect to be held to account for these. For example you have recently been quoted as saying:

“… the unvaccinated are twice as likely to catch Covid-19, three times as likely to transmit it as fully boosted people and five times more likely to be in hospital.” https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/463715/omicron-peak-not-right-time-to-relax-public-health-measures-rod-jackson

This is in stark contrast to the UK Health Security Agency data which show that the vaccines simply do not prevent infection: https://dailysceptic.org/2022/03/20/vaccine-effectiveness-hits-as-low-as-minus-300-as-ukhsa-announces-it-will-no-longer-publish-the-data/

Where do you get your data? Show me and we can discuss.

2) THE PROBLEM WITH CONSENSUS

I have previously explained that science does not progress via consensus:

‘….while you and your colleagues may be correct there is a real possibility that you are unable to think beyond the consensus, and the consensus may be wrong. Truth in science is not established by majority agreement, it is established by the scientific method, which is to develop testable hypotheses, test these empirically, and then create further hypotheses based on the results. You may find Sir Karl Popper’s Unended Quest instructive in this regard.

HISTORY AND PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE

The phenomenon of apparently true beliefs, held by almost everyone, yet nevertheless being overturned by scientists prepared to be led by data rather than politics, characterises scientific progress, as explained by the work of Thomas Kuhn, for example.

Kuhn popularised the concept of ‘paradigms’ and ‘paradigm shifts’. He identified periods of almost universal consensus which were eventually ended by contradictory data, despite resistance from the consensus. Examples include germ theory, evolution, the heliocentric universe, quantum mechanics and relativity. There are more examples here: https://simplicable.com/en/paradigm-shift

Given this history, if you are in a majority this is not a reason for contentment. Rather it should prompt further questioning and investigation. The best scientists continually ask: “what if we are mistaken?”’

Further, I am assuming that the government’s recent U-turn on entry controls, vaccine passports and other disproportionate measures has been taken in part on advice from epidemiologists. If I am correct, then what has happened to your expert epidemiological expert solidarity?

Not that is relevant since no matter how many epidemiologists agree with your opinions it has no bearing on their truth. You think it does but that is the result of a common psychological error: https://www.learning-mind.com/false-consensus-effect-bias/

3) NAMES

You asked me to ‘name ‘the growing numbers of highly qualified scientists who call your epidemiology into question.’’

I have already written to you about an important group of multi-disciplinary scholars who share my views: https://www.hartgroup.org/bios/ and referenced a full book by an eminent fellow epidemiologist, who strongly disagrees with your circle of ‘expert epidemiologists’: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Year-World-Went-Mad-Scientific/dp/1913207951?asin=1913207951&revisionId=&format=4&depth=1

As I say it really isn’t the point but just FYI here are some more respected academics and practitioners who do not agree with you, on both empirical and ethical grounds. They all members of Children’s Covid Vaccine Advisory Council: https://childrensunion.org/ccvac-members/ They each regard your advice to vaccinate children almost always at no risk from Covid as non-evidence based and irresponsible:

• Dr Rosamond Jones, MBBS, MD, FRCPCH, retired consultant paediatrician, convener CCAG (Children’s Covid Advisory Council)
• Professor Keith Willison, PhD, Professor of Chemical Biology, Imperial, London
• Professor David Livermore, BSc, PhD, Professor of Medical Microbiology, University of East Anglia
• Professor Anthony J Brookes, Professor of Genomics and Health Data Science, University of Leicester
• Professor Richard Ennos, MA, PhD. Honorary Professorial Fellow, University of Edinburgh
• Professor Angus Dalgleish, MD, FRCP, FRACP, FRCPath, FMed Sci, Professor of Oncology, St Georges Hospital, London
• Professor John Fairclough FRCS FFSEM retired Honorary Consultant Surgeon 
• Professor Norman Fenton, CEng, CMath, PhD, FBCS, MIET, Professor of Risk Information Management, Queen Mary University of London
• Lord Moonie, MBChB, MRCPsych, MFCM, MSc, House of Lords, former parliamentary under-secretary of state 2001-2003, former consultant in Public Health Medicine
• Dr Theresa Lawrie, MBBCh, PhD, Director, Evidence-Based Medicine Consultancy Ltd, Bath
• Dr John Flack, BPharm, PhD. Retired Director of Safety Evaluation, Beecham Pharmaceuticals 1980-1989 and Senior Vice-president for Drug Discovery 1990-92 SmithKline Beecham 
• Dr Roland Salmon, MB BS, MRCGP, FFPH, Former Director, Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre Wales
• Dr Alan Mordue, MBChB, FFPH. Retired Consultant in Public Health Medicine & Epidemiology
• Dr Gerry Quinn, PhD. Postdoctoral researcher in microbiology and immunology
• Katherine MacGilchrist, BSc (Hons), MSc, CEO/Systematic Review Director, Epidemica Ltd.
• Mr James Royle, MBChB, FRCS, MMedEd, Colorectal surgeon 
• Dr Livia Tossici-Bolt, PhD, Clinical Scientist
• Dr Elizabeth Evans MA(Cantab), MBBS, DRCOG, Retired Doctor
• Dr Rohaan Seth, Bsc (hons), MBChB (hons), MRCGP, Retired General Practitioner
• Dr Emma Brierly, MRCGP, General Practitioner
• Dr Geoffrey Maidment, MD, FRCP, retired consultant physician
• Mr Malcolm Loudon, MBChB, MD, FRCSEd, FRCS(Gen Surg), MIHM,VR, Consultant Surgeon
• Dr Alan Black, MBBS, MSc, DipPharmMed, retired pharmaceutical physician
• Dr David Cartland, MBChB, BMedSci, General practitioner
• Dr Peter Chan, BM, MRCS, MRCGP, NLP, General Practitioner, Functional medicine practitioner 
• Dr Greta Mushet, MBChB, MRCPsych, retired Consultant Psychiatrist in Psychotherapy
• Dr Samuel McBride, MBBCh, BAO, BSc, MSc, MRCP (UK) FRCEM, FRCP (Edinburgh), NHS Emergency Medicine & geriatrics
• Mr Ian F Comaish, MA, BM BCh, FRCOphth, FRANZCO, Consultant ophthalmologist
• Dr Branko Latinkic, BSc, PhD, Reader in Biosciences
• Dr Helen Westwood MBChB MRCGP DCH DRCOG, General Practitioner
• Michael Cockayne, MSc, PGDip, SCPHNOH, BA, RN, Occupational Health Practitioner
• Mr Anthony Hinton, MBChB, FRCS, Consultant ENT surgeon, London
• Dr Tanya Klymenko, PhD, FHEA, FIBMS, Senior lecturer in Biomedical Sciences
• Michael Cockayne, MSc, PGDip, SCPHNOH, BA, RN, Occupational Health Practitioner
• Dr Carmen Wheatley, DPhil, Orthomolecular Oncology
• Dr Charles Lane OBE, Molecular Biologist
• Mr Angus Robertson BSc (Med. Sci.) MB ChB FRCS(Ed) FFSEM(UK) Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon
• Dr Michael D Bell, MBChB MRCGP Retired General Practitioner
• Dr Jayne LM Donegan, MBBS, DRCOG, DCH, DFFP, MRCGP, General Practitioner
• Dr David Critchley, BSc, PhD in Pharmacology, 32 years’ experience in Pharmaceutical R&D
• Dr Keith Johnson, BA, D.Phil (Oxon), IP Consultant for Diagnostic Testing
• Julie Annakin, RN, Immunisation Specialist Nurse
• Rev Dr William J U Philip MB ChB, MRCP, BD, Senior Minister The Tron Church, Glasgow, formerly physician specialising in cardiology
• Dr Jonathan Rogers MBChB (Bristol) MRCGP DRCOG Retired NHS General Practitioner
• Dr Pauline Jones, MB BS, Retired General Practitioner
• Dr Emma Brierly, MBBS, MRCGP, General Practitioner
• Dr Elizabeth Burton, MB ChB, Retired General Practitioner
• Dr Franziska Meuschel, MD, ND, PhD, LFHom, BSEM, Nutritional, Environmental and Integrated Medicine
• Dr Michael Bazlinton, MBCHB MRCGP DCH
• Dr Holly Young, BSc, MBChB, MRCP, Consultant Palliative Care Medicine
• Dr Julian Tomkinson, MBChB, MRCGP, General Practitioner, GP Trainer, PCME
• Dr David Bramble, MBChB, MRCPsych, MD, Consultant Psychiatrist
• Dr Christina Peers, MBBS, DRCOG, DFSRH, FFSRH, Menopause Specialist
• Dr Chris Newton, PhD, Biochemist working in immuno-metabolism
• Dr Christopher Exley, PhD, FRSB, Bioinoganic Chemist
• Dr Sarah Myhill, MBBS, Retired General Practitioner
• Jessica Righart, Senior Critical Care Scientist
• Dr Michael D Bell, MBChB, MRCGP, retired General Practitioner
• Dr Angharad Powell, MBChB, General Practitioner
• Dr Stephen Ting, MB CHB, MRCP, PhD, Consultant Physician
• Mr Ahmad K Malik, FRCS (Tr & Orth), Dip Med Sport, Consultant Trauma & Orthopaedic Surgeon
• Dr Catherine Hatton, MBChB, General Practitioner
• Dr Kulvinder S. Manik MBChB, MRCGP, MA(Cantab), LLM, Gray’s Inn
• Dr Stefanie Williams, MD, Dermatologist
• Kim Bull, Foundation Degree in Paramedic Science, Paramedic
• Margaret Moss, MA (Cantab), CBiol, MRSB, Director, The Nutrition and Allergy Clinic, Cheshire
• Dr Haleema Sheikh, MRCGP, General Practitioner
• James Cook, NHS Registered Nurse, Bachelor of Nursing (Hons), Master of Public Health (MPH)
• Dr Jonathan Engler, MBChB, LlB (Hons), DipPharmMed
• Dr Clare Craig, BMBCh, FRCPath, Pathologist
• Dr David Bell, MBBS, PhD, FRCP(UK), Public Health Physician
• Dr Ruth Wilde, MB BCh, MRCEM, AFMCP, Integrative & Functional Medicine Doctor
• John Collis, RN, Specialist Nurse Practitioner
• Dr Damien Downing, MBBS, MRSB, private physician
• Mr Lasantha Wijesinghe, FRCS, Consultant Vascular Surgeon
• Dr Claire Mottram, BSc Hons, MBChB, Doctor in General Practice
• Dr Ali Haggett, Mental health community work, 3rd sector, former lecturer in the history of medicine
• Dr Jenny Goodman, MA, MBChB, Ecological Medicine
• Suzanne Tomkinson BSc MSc CSci FIBMS Senior Biomedical Scientist (Clinical Biochemistry)
• Dr Felicity Lillingstone, IMD DHS PhD ANP, Doctor, Urgent Care, Research Fellow 
• Dr Marco Chiesa, MD, FRCPsych, Consultant Psychiatrist & Visiting Professor, UCL
• Anna Phillips, RSCN, BSc Hons, Clinical Lead Trainer Clinical Systems (Paediatric Intensive Care)
• Dr Jason Lester, MRCP, FRCR, Consultant Clinical Oncologist
• Dr Sue de Lacy MBBS MRCGP AFMCP UK Integrative Medicine Doctor
• Dr David Morris, MBChB, MRCP (UK), General Practitioner
• Dr Andrew Isaac, MB BCh, Physician, retired
• Dr Renee Hoenderkamp, General Practitioner
• Dr Noel Thomas, MA, MBChB, DObsRCOG, DTM&H, MFHom, Retired Doctor
• Dr Zac Cox, BDS, LCPH, Dental Practitioner
• Mr Colin Natali, BSc(hons) MBBS, FRCS (Orth), Consultant Spinal Surgeon

Are these people all arrogant and unable to debate the epidemiology with you too?

Ngā mihi David"

Jackson again: "It's pointless debating with you because you refuse to accept what the experts say"

30th March

"Hi David. The bulk of your previous correspondence has been about the epidemiology, which you clearly don’t understand. Now you are changing tack.

Seedhouse further response: "This link refutes your idea of consensus among epidemiologists"

Jackson again: "The Barrington Group is a joke"

31st March

"Never heard of Woolhouse and I see he is trained as a zoologist, not an epidemiologist. You are going to have to try harder. And the Barrington group is a joke.

Seedhouse request for clarification: "Why is the Barrington Group 'a joke'?"

"Rod,