Emergency Powers: [8] Practical & Ethical Questions: Vaccination as the primary, mandated treatment.
From my April 2022 paper COVID-19 Emergency Powers: The New Zealand State, Medical Capture & the Role of Strategic Ignorance
This is a long read, & the references are available on the original PDF at TalkingRisk.NZ.
BTW Please share this short 18 min Rumble summary
Chapter 8.
There were very early signals that the mRNA genetic vaccines were neither safe, nor effective. When did scientists start to signal that the mRNA vaccines were sufficiently risky that automatic global vaccination of not-at-risk individuals should cease?
Toxicologist Dr Janci Lindsay was one of the first to signal risk in an April 2021 presentation to the U.S. CDC. Lindsay drew attention to the potential for the spike protein to promote blood clot development. In May 2021, 50 doctors and scientists co-signed the Bruno paper urging mass vaccination to be paused. They expressed concern that there was evidence that the spike protein caused endothelial damage, and that there was potential for vaccination to drive autoimmunity and antibody dependent enhancement. They noted evidence that large numbers of adverse events were occurring. They questioned the basis of a
‘rationale for administering the vaccine to every individual when the risk of dying from COVID-19 is not equal across age groups and clinical conditions and when the phase 3 trials excluded the ly, children and frequent specific conditions?’
In June 2021 in the U.K., after the first 5 months of data were released following vaccination of nearly 39 million people, Dr Tess Lawrie drew attention to the signal coming from the U.K. Yellow Card system where 1,253 deaths and 888,196 ADRs (256,224 individual reports) were reported. At this early stage in the U.K. five broad, clinically relevant categories could be identified.
A. Bleeding, Clotting and Ischaemic ADRs
B. Immune System ADRs
C. ‘Pain’ ADRs
D. Neurological ADRs
E. ADRs involving loss of Sight, Hearing, Speech or Smell
F. Pregnancy ADRs
Yet Pfizer and the FDA were already aware of the substantial risk profile (far beyond risk for influenza vaccines) in April 2021.
An enormous range of adverse event data was held by the FDA at this stage, with adverse events including death, Bell’s palsy, Guillain-Barré syndrome, non-haemorrhagic and haemorrhagic stroke, acute myocardial infarction, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, anaphylaxis, myocarditis or pericarditis, narcolepsy, appendicitis, immune thrombocytopenia, disseminated intravascular coagulation, encephalomyelitis, and transverse myelitis.
A. PROVISIONAL APPROVAL – NO REQUIREMENT FOR YEARS OF SAFETY DATA
Problematically, (for a pandemic involving a coronavirus), the quick-throughput clinical trials enabled the drug to be approved as a medical treatment, after only two months of safety data. The Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) request (and here) was submitted to the FDA November 20, 2020. After a second dose was administered, participants were observed up to November 14, 2020 around 2 months after the second dose. The trials did not require the drug to prevent transmission of infection (an historic requirement of vaccines). Vaccines traditionally required 10-15 years of time-dependent testing protocols to ensure safety and efficacy and were withdrawn even when a relatively low death rate was signalled.
Yet Governments including the USA and in New Zealand have not withdrawn emergency use authorisation or provisional approval after significant rates of harm have been repeatedly declared. (here and here and here and here and here).
Other methods were put in place during the trials, which appeared to obfuscate knowledge. Data recording hospitalisation and death following vaccination frequently ignore the time period immediately after the vaccination, when hospitalisation or death might be temporally associated with the medical intervention. For example, patients who die within 2 weeks of vaccination are counted as unvaccinated, as they have yet to form antibodies, yet the 2-week window post vaccination was the most likely time when vaccine injury would occur.
Yet the mRNA genetic vaccines are vastly different from traditional live attenuated virus or inactivated vaccines. BNT162bt contained the genetic information which encoded for the production of the viral spike protein. Lipid nanoparticles, composed of four lipids ALC-0315 (aminolipid) and ALC-0159 (PEG-lipid), DSPC and cholesterol, cloak to the BNT162b2 acting as the delivery vehicle. The proprietary ALC-0315 and ALC-0159 lipids are referred to as novel ‘excipients’. The main declared ingredient, the variable ionizable lipid ALC-0315, binds to the mRNA molecule. The LNPs metabolise only slowly, and they are not readily eliminated in urine.
In January 2021 an Australian Government report demonstrated that the liquid nanoparticles following a single dose became widely distributed into organs, and at highest levels in lungs, ovaries and spleen.
Scientists have suggested that the lipid nanoparticle could play a part in the pathogenesis (development) of damage, either harming cells or producing an immune reaction. The spike protein in the Sars-Cov-2 natural infection lacks the LNP-assisted capability to enter human tissue on the same scale as the formulated technology. (Ed. from the New Zealand Immunisation Handbook p.160: The mRNA is temporarily protected from degradation by the lipid nanoparticle that also facilitates fusion with the recipient’s cell wall.)
These nanoparticles appear to facilitate entry of the mRNA into organs including the heart and may facilitate entry to the cell nucleus. Rather than ‘being’ natural mRNA, the mRNA was modified with N1-methyl-pseudouridine. There is potential that the persistence of mRNA at least 60 days after injection (Ed. see also lymph node response on page 28 here) may be connected to the activity of the pseudouridine which acts to promote stability, or persistence of the mRNA in the body.
The Pfizer Safety Data Sheet (SDS) for BNT162b2 demonstrates the absence of safety data for the individual ingredients, including the lipid nanoparticles. The ingredients have not been tested against European regulations (often the most stringent). The SDS advises that contact hazards for the lipid nanoparticle are unknown, and that the percentage composition of the ingredients are withheld as a trade secret. The product has not been assessed for endocrine disrupting properties.
While much of the processes of authorisation remain unclear, Pfizer approached the New Zealand Environmental Protection Authority (NZEPA) on the 29th of January 2021 (APP204176) seeking confirmation (a Section 26 Determination) that Comirnaty COVID-19 Vaccine (BNT162b2 [mRNA]) did
‘not meet the definition of an organism (nor of a genetically modified organism) and therefore cannot be considered a new organism under section 26 of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (HSNO) Act 1996.’
Three days later a staff assessment report was produced by the NZEPA recommending that BNT162b2 does not meet the definition of an organism in the Act, and therefore it cannot be a new organism for the purpose of the Act.
On February 11 the NZEPA decision-making committee, Kerry Laing and Julie Everett-Hincks, determined that BNT162b2 was not a new organism.
One of the most controversial claims concern a potential inclusion of graphene hydr/oxide as nanoparticles (perhaps an adjuvant). Speculation potentially rests on the capacity for graphene to act as a nano-scale superconductor (here and here and here).
In April 2022 these vaccines continue to have provisional approval to November 3, 2023 using Section 23 of the Medicines Act.
The Ministry of Health has claimed an urgent clinical need which infers there is no substitute treatment. Provisional consent is similar to emergency approval when a medical intervention has not completed all trials. Ministry of Health have stated
‘COVID-19 vaccines have been given provisional approval in New Zealand because data to support the longer-term safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines is not yet available.’
However, the Medicines Act, Section 23(1) notes that provisional consent would be granted when the Minister was
‘of the opinion that it is desirable that the medicine be sold, supplied, or used on a restricted basis for the treatment of a limited number of patients.’
Broadscale vaccination of over 90% of the population is more than a limited number of patients, and it is unclear whether this inconsistency has been resolved through administrative processes.
B. ETHICAL AND RISK-BASED IMPLICATIONS OF A GENETIC VACCINE
Regulators conventionally require that medical drugs undergo standard trials to evaluate whether a drug has genotoxic or carcinogenic causing potential. Conventional vaccines require two years of safety data.
It would have been difficult to secure a market approval for novel mRNA gene transfer technologies, or genetic vaccines in the past.
Genetic vaccines conventionally require five years of safety studies, and the potential for the treatment to be mutagenic, carcinogenic and teratogenic are required. This has not been done for the mRNA genetic vaccines which present unique risks.
The mRNA genetic vaccine fundamentally differed from legacy vaccines. Pfizer used the claim that the mRNA technology was a vaccine to evade testing (Ed. as per WHO protocols) to identify if the technology contained cancer causing potential. Genotoxicity studies were claimed to be not required because the
‘the components of the vaccine construct are lipids and RNA and are not expected to have genotoxic potential’.
Carcinogenicity studies were not conducted as:
‘the components of the vaccine construct are lipids and RNA and are not expected to have carcinogenic or tumorigenic potential. Carcinogenicity testing is generally not considered necessary to support the development and licensure of vaccine products for infectious diseases.’
In addition, there were no standalone trials to observe whether the technology contained immunotoxic potential. However, potential mechanisms that might promote cancer include the potential for the technology to inhibit double-stranded DNA repair and promote reverse transcription into the human genome (here and here and here and here).
Recently a study revealed that the germinal centres in lymph nodes continue to express the spike protein until at least 2 months after injection, when the research period ended. As Robert Malone suggests
‘Protein expression is not being turned off, because the immune response against the mRNA/pseudoridine complex is either not happening or is ineffective… In either case, this is regulatory nightmare.’
C. MANDATES FOR A MEDICAL INTERVENTION BASED ON A 2-YEAR-OLD VIRUS
All currently, provisionally-approved vaccines are based on the original wildtype virus, rather than designed to promote a protective immune response to the newer variants. If they are based on the original wild-type 2020 virus, they are akin to using a 2-year-old influenza vaccine during flu season.
D. MANDATES WHILE OTHER EARLY TREATMENTS ARE DENIED
This mainstream assumption that novel vaccines are the only medical treatment, has been incorrect since early on in the pandemic. There is increasing evidence that hospitalisation and death occurs in vaccinated populations, and that there are early treatments that firstly, prevent viral replication in the first stage of infection, and that secondly, reduce risk of hospitalisation and death by preventing and lessening cascading health loss that can present after the first few days.
The public are largely ignorant of these treatments, which can be taken at home in the early stages of infection and prevent hospitalisation and death (see here and here and here and here).
It is medically and ethically questionable that governments did meaningfully assess the potential for early treatments to prevent hospitalisation and death with the arrival of Omicron. When Omicron was detected it was evident that the heavy mutation on the spike protein on the Omicron variant produced increased infectivity and antibody invasion.
Internationally, early treatments have assisted health practitioners to navigate around the issues of vaccine waning, and failure as novel variants evade the vaccine and to lower the risks of hospitalisation and death in vulnerable communities.
Early treatments can act as a safe substitute for individuals at elevated risk of vaccine-harm, or at high risk of hospitalisation and death because of age and health status. Early treatment can assist those at risk of vaccine failure, such as immunocompromised/immunosuppressed individuals and people with the overlapping diseases of obesity and diabetes from hospitalisation and death.
Repurposed drugs with a long history of safe use have been integrated into the early treatment framework, and much like protocols for other illnesses, such as HIV/AIDs, these treatments exert a combinatory effect.
Government agencies have stated randomised control trials were necessary to prove safety and efficacy of alternative treatments, but RCTs have limited applicability, particularly when multitarget treatments are deployed to deal with multiple complex pathologies and have likely synergistic effects, and the drugs have a long history of safe use.
Preventative treatments can be deployed as emergency medicine for conventionally not at-risk from COVID-19, including healthy people under 65, pregnant mothers, children and young people, enabling families to avoid the risks of the genetic vaccines, and particularly avoid ongoing booster regimes of unproven benefit.
Most pregnant women who have been hospitalised have been obese and from lower income groups, which might have drawn attention to the social determinants and drivers of risk in infectious disease pandemics.
COVID-19 early and hospital-based treatments have been heavily restricted. Early treatments were identified in 2020 as an important modality for the treatment of Covid-19 and the prevention of hospitalisation and death (eg. here and here). In September 2021, the only approved treatment for COVID-19 was dexamethasone.
Ivermectin is an exceptionally safe and cheap antiviral drug that has been used off-label for decades, including for various infectious diseases. Ivermectin’s inventor won a Nobel prize. In New Zealand there has been no balanced discussion of the antiviral medication, particularly to acknowledge its safety record, which contributed to the inventor of the drug being awarded a Nobel prize. There have been no New Zealand-based meta-analyses conducted of the peer reviewed literature. Instead, from April 2020, the Ministry of Health specifically warned against ivermectin, inferring the drug was risky by stating
‘When ingested in high doses, Ivermectin can have a serious effect on humans, with symptoms including low blood pressure, worsening asthma, severe autoimmune disorders, seizures and liver damage.’
The decision to not permit Ivermectin appears based on a two external reviews and the findings of US and European regulators. In 2020 Radio New Zealand discredited the antiviral by referring to it as a head lice treatment, with warnings against ivermectin continuing through 2021.
In New Zealand, Medsafe and other institutions suppressed access to repurposed drugs with a long history of safe use and governments are requiring much more rigorous safety data for older drugs with a long history of safe use. The antiviral ivermectin has been confiscated at the New Zealand border and is now held by Medsafe.
As they are predominantly off-patent, they impose marginal cost on the tax-payer from the genetic vaccines or newer, more expensive drugs such as Molnuprivar or Remdesivir.
E. SIGNALS DISMISSED AND DOWNPLAYED: ACCUMULATING VACCINE RISK PROFILE
‘More than 1000 peer- reviewed studies evidence a multitude of adverse events in COVID- 19 vaccine recipients. Such studies report severe adverse reactions following vaccination, including thrombosis, thrombocytopenia, myocarditis, pericarditis, cardiac arrhythmias, nervous system disorders and other alterations.’
The Pfizer BNT162b2 genetic vaccine appears to be neither safe nor effective.
From an early stage the BNT162B2 product resulted in a high death and adverse risk rate that would normally prevent a product from being released on to the global market. The public were not aware that the endpoints for ‘efficacy’ did not include prevention of hospitalisation and death. The supplemental data revealed that it was apparent that at the 6-month stage Pfizer’s trials did not reduce overall death.
By the 30 th of April 2021 the US Federal Drug Administration and Pfizer was aware that instead, high death, and high adverse incident rates were associated with the BNT162B2. In the Cumulative Analysis of Post- Authorization Adverse Event Reports to February 28, 2021, 3% of the 42,000 adverse events reported were a fatal event. The total number of injections that resulted in the 42k of events remain redacted.
In the 6 months following the first dose of the Pfizer BNT162b2 genetic vaccine, during the blinded, controlled period, 15 BNT162b2 and 14 placebo recipients died. The Supplementary Appendix of the Thomas paper at 6 months is also quite clear – in the placebo group, one person had a cardiac arrest, while in the BNT162b2 four participants died from cardiac arrest.
Another study looking at the Moderna mRNA-1273 showed that not only was the death rate higher from the drug (which was theoretically meant to prevent death in a pandemic); the adverse incidents and the severity of these incidences were 3 times more common and twice as severe in those that received the injection.
There is a likelihood that vaccination increased risk for non-communicable and communicable disease in not at risk of Sars-Cov-2 populations. The briefing documents to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) demonstrated that both the FDA and Pfizer/ BioNTech were aware of the potential for myocarditis and vaccine-associated enhanced disease (VAED). The clinical trials did not demonstrate a protective effect for people with compromised immune systems. The document noted (p.46) that for immunocompromised groups, there was not a sufficient patient cohort to identify efficacy outcomes.
The FDA and Pfizer/ BioNTech were aware of the potential for vaccine-associated enhanced respiratory disease (VAERD) and decreased effectiveness as immunity waned over time. VAERD is an important potential risk (p.44).
January 28th, 2022, New Zealand’s risk management plan for all of the provisionally approved genetic vaccines, Comirnaty (BNT162b2); AstraZeneca; and Janssen were updated. The documents demonstrate that physicians are aware of harms include anaphylaxis, myocarditis, pericarditis, thrombosis and thrombocytopenia and Guillain-Barré syndrome. On the following day the Unite Against Covid-19 website was updated to include these harms. It is unclear whether these harms were published on the Medsafe site before the January 2022 update.
However, at least until February 17, risks relating to the booster remained significantly downplayed in the public-facing Ministry of Health COVID-19 branded documents. (Ed. Chapter 7 provides examples of promotional literature which appears to ignore or downplay these issues).
The updating of risk management plans and the MoH website information demonstrates that information concerning these harms have been accessible to doctors and the public since late January 2022. There did not appear to be a media release to advise the public of the revised recognition of the risk profile of the vaccines.
However, it can be assumed New Zealand authorities were always aware of these risks, perhaps they were always detailed in New Zealand risk management plans, just never broadly communicated to the public.
Pfizer had submitted a Risk Management Plan to the European Medicines Agency in 2020, that included the content detailed in the Medsafe January 2022 documents. It can be assumed that New Zealand authorities also had access to this data.
The risk management plan for Comirnaty expressed concern that injection from the medical intervention produced an important potential risk for Vaccine-associated enhanced disease (VAED) including vaccine-associated enhanced respiratory disease (VAERD). It stated that there was evidence of risk:
VAED is considered a potential risk because it has not been seen in human studies with this or other COVID-19 vaccines being studied. It has not been seen in vaccine studies in animal models of the SARS-CoV-2 virus either. However, in selected vaccine studies in animal models as well as in some laboratory studies in animal cells infected with 2 other related coronaviruses (SARS-CoV-1 and MERSCoV), abnormalities in immune responses or cellular responses indicative of VAED were observed. Because of this, VAED is considered a potential risk. In the past there have been other examples of particularly respiratory viruses where VAED has been observed. For example, some children who received an inactivated respiratory syncytial virus vaccine (a different type of virus), had worse signs of disease when they were subsequently infected with respiratory syncytial virus.
VAED is thought to occur by several mechanisms where the immune response is not fully protective and actually either causes the body to have an inflammatory reaction due to the type of immune response with specific types of T-cells, or the body does not produce enough strong antibodies to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection of cells or produces weak antibodies that actually bind to the virus and help it to enter cells more easily, leading to worse signs of disease.
The risk of vaccine failure or waning in immunocompromised and immunosuppressed groups had been raised with Members of Parliament (and here) on the Health Committee in October 2021, and the important protective benefits of offering broader multitarget, or early treatments was emphasised.
The problem of VAED adds to the potential risk faced by these groups, in accepting repeat injections from the genetic vaccine. This is stated by Medsafe:
It is thought that the potential risk of VAED may be increased in individuals producing a weak antibody response or in individuals with decreasing immunity over time.
The early Pfizer applications included risk for VAED. The potential for VAED to be a risk was noted in a January 2020 meeting but had been dismissed in New Zealand as the
‘low prevalence of COVID-19 infection in New Zealand means that vaccine-associated enhanced disease (VAED) may be less of a risk compared with other countries.’
Outside of New Zealand, VAED has been a recognised risk for some time. In an April 2021 document the U.S. Food and Drug Administration conclusion of important potential risks (p.11) of the BNT162b2 Pfizer genetic vaccine that:
VAED may present as severe or unusual clinical manifestations of COVID-19. Overall, there were 37 subjects with suspected COVID-19 and 101 subjects with confirmed COVID-19 following one or both doses of the vaccine; 75 of the 101 cases were severe, resulting in hospitalisation, disability, life-threatening consequences or death.
Persistent uncertainties concerning the health effect of the genetic vaccine, brings to mind Donald Rumsfeld’s February 2002 quote, on the uncertainties concerning weapons of mass destruction. Rumsfield stated:
‘we also know there are known unknowns — that is to say, we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns, the ones we don’t know we don’t know.’
Papers continue to be published that draw attention to both long- and short-term risk arising following exposure to the vaccine technologies. For example, the genetic vaccines may potentially induce an autoimmune response (and here). Global vaccination may create the perfect environment for vaccine driven virulence evolution (e.g. here) - antigenic escape where
‘variants of target antigens evolve because they enable pathogens that are otherwise less fit to evade vaccine-induced immunity. The evolution of escape variants has been frequently observed.’
Immune function may be altered. An increasing body of literature outlines that spike protein may play a primary role in post vaccination events (and here and here and here). A study recently revealed that following vaccination, the spike protein persists in the lymph nodes for 8 weeks. The spike protein can persist for 9 months following infection, but how the spike protein persists in the body following repeat injections, in an uncontrolled environment remains unclear.
It is no secret that passive reporting systems are more likely to under-report risk (and here). Public data continues to suggest that the mRNA genetic vaccines present more risk than government agencies depict (here and here and here and here and here).
Incidents of vaccine harm have been under-represented in New Zealand.
There are alarming signals in New Zealand that the Unite Against COVID-19 strategy of global vaccination has produced unjustified health harms.
July 2021: Lynda Wharton of the Health Forum, interviewed by Voices for Freedom
January 2022: Lynda Wharton of the Health Forum, interviewed by FreeNZ
Ongoing: Medsafe. COVID-19 Overview of Vaccine Reports
It is widely recognised that barriers to reporting exist and that
‘passive or spontaneous report systems suffer from serious under-estimation of adverse reactions.’
A recent release of government data in the UK prompted an open letter to the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI), requesting that vaccines pause for children due to the increase in all-cause mortality for males aged 15-19.
With global governments reluctant to respond to the warning signals noted by their own agencies, and with evidence that agencies are under-reporting harm, insurance companies’ underwriters do have such leverage.
They will only cover calculable risk that represents a viable business model. Recently, German insurance agency BKK ProVita wrote to the Paul Ehrlich Institute, an agency of the German Federal Ministry of Health to raise attention to their inhouse data which suggested that there had been an under-reporting of vaccine side- effects by public agencies. BKK ProVita regarded this
‘als ehrebliches alarmsignal an’ - as a serious alarm signal.
In a presentation to the Indiana Chamber of Commerce, the chief executive officer of OneAmerica Life Insurance, Scott Davison, reported on excess death rates that the U.S. insurance industry were observing.
New Zealand cases have relied on evidence supplied by the Crown that insist the genetic vaccine is safe and effective. It remains unclear what data has been supplied by the Crown in judicial review to justify claims that deaths were reduced in November 2021. Indeed, the advice to Cabinet in October 2020, contained no data on infection fatality rate. 339
There are many different adverse events that have been reported following vaccination (eg. here and here and here). Harms such as allergic reaction and anaphylaxis; nerve damage (such as Guillain-Barré syndrome and Bell’s Palsy); and blood clotting and pericarditis/myocarditis may not only be difficult to directly associated with a treatment, as the biological action that caused the harm may be unknown. Similar, adverse events may occur separately, or may co-occur.
IS THE CARDIOVASCULAR/CIRCULATORY SYSTEM AT GREATEST RISK?
Our cardiovascular system may be particularly vulnerable. Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the biggest driver of death from non-communicable disease in the world. 343 CVD is a leading cause of mortality in New Zealand and is ‘almost always’ a consequence of atherosclerosis.
Cardiac arrest occurs when the heart stops pumping. Factors which can contribute to cardiac arrest include cardiovascular disease which can be associated with clotting, cardiac arrhythmias, myocarditis and pericarditis (here and here) as well as artherosclerosis.
A search for BNT162b2 and thrombotic thrombocytopenia and/or cerebral venous sinus thrombosis reveals an increasing body of literature, temporally linking these events to receipt of a dose of the mRNA genetic vaccine (here and here and here).
Blood clotting/coagulation can be driven by external factors such as infection or medical treatment. Clotting is associated with vaccination and funeral embalmers report extensive and novel clots in deceased clients. Historically, cardiac arrest and myocardial infarction are the most common cause of death in people with thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (TTP).
It's evident that injection with the genetic vaccine is associated with a risk for pericarditis/myocarditis, and that this is greater than the background rate observed prior to the rollout of the genetic vaccines. There are more cases occurring from the BNT162b2 than from the Moderna genetic vaccine and myocarditis risk increases with the second dose.
Historically, heart problems in children and young people (CYP) are uncommon but are substantially more at risk of myocarditis after submitting to the mRNA gene therapy. Hospitalisation following vaccine-initiated myocarditis or pericarditis is common, and the rate of hospitalisation has been estimated at 87%.
Risk also differs by gender. For example, males are more at risk from myocarditis, whilst females are more at risk from cerebral venous sinus thrombosis. Symptoms and markers of mRNA vaccine-derived myocarditis can persist for months afterwards.
Risk of myocarditis from Sars-Cov-2 infection is vastly different. Older people are proportionately more at risk from myocarditis if they experience COVID-19 than CYP who are not at risk of myocarditis if they experience COVID-19.
Is the average citizen, the average elected member, aware of these relevant issues? The above issues raise worrying questions about democracy, freedom and the right to a choice over whether or not to accept a medical intervention, particularly from a novel technology where the data to support the longer-term safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines are not yet available.
Continue Reading: [9] Emergency Powers: The Social Construction of Knowledge & Ignorance here.
References are available on the original PDF at TalkingRisk.NZ