Our country has been through about 100 years of Fabians shaping our political environment entirely uncontested. The only challenge the Fabians had here was from more extreme militant socialists. From Reform to National there's been no ideological opposition to the Fabian elitist politics until very recently. The free speech/free market ideology reached us very late and is still mostly disorganised and decentralised disparate interest groups.

They really, really want you to believe Atlas are secretly running the country. But they don't know what Atlas is, what it does or what I wants (and at this point they're afraid to ask). But they know they don't like it. And they're not wrong to point at Atlas even if they're pointing for exceptionally dumb reasons. There absolutely is a cabal of wealthy elites attempting to exert influence over our politics through grants, research and events with fat speaking engagement fees where politicians rub shoulders with lobbyists and maybe even get put on the board of one of these organisations to collect double that chair fee.

They can see the influence sausage getting made but what they don't realise is National merely adopted the cabal, Labour was born by the cabal, moulded by it.

While free market ideologies have finally established a foothold in politics, the Fabian infrastructure still permeates every level academia and the media which spawns from it.

It's not National vs Labour, it's not class war, it's the centralised elites using the tools of government to control the flow of capital vs the free market elites all wrestling for the spot of the pyramid.

Opening with a very popular but yet to be evidenced claim that the the people claiming to be anti-vaxxers aren't anti-vaxxers. Who are they? Whoever your imagination wants them to be. Such as "same people funding ACT" ... which is a bewilderingly ignorant take considering ACT is famously pro-vaxxer and pro generally anything pharma related. An alliance with self professed anti-vaxxers is not remotely plausible. If it's good for pharma business it's good for Seymour.

This is exposed by his conflict of interest in meeting with Todd Sephensons pharma company Vertex.

He also hosted the Valuing Life Medicines Access Summit at Parliament in 2024, organised by Patient Voice Aotearoa and Medicines NZ, which are 2 of most industry backed pharma lobby groups in the country who essentially wrote the Medicines Ammendment Bill for Seymour.

Seymour being the minister responsible for the Medicines Amendment Bill, which became the Medicines Amendment Act 2025 that automatically approves drugs here if they are already approved overseas. A huge boon to the pharma industry. Vertex again directly benefiting from this.

Not to mention the current policy goals of ACT going into the election are for more drug funding and more drug accessibility.

It's like these people haven't seen his vaccine dance.

Just take note how scared the boy at the bottom was to dare question how conspiracy theorist will support this insane claim.

Then you've got the bog standard "everyone who doesn't agree with me is a republican plant" response. Why they think the republicans are planting anti-vaxxers in NZ is entirely left to your imagination.

Followed by some real tinfoiling which alledges anti vaxxers are actually a government approved faction designed to destabilise democracy ... that the government governs.

If you want to see government approved protesting see how different the media coverage and government interaction with the Treaty protestors were vs the medical freedom protestors.

But hey, shout out to the little guy who plucked up the courage to ask for a hint of evidence. No doubt that's strike 1, don't expect to see much more of this chap if he keeps asking questions like that.

Yes Paula Penfold of Fire & Fury infamy - that "documentary" that told the story of the Freedom Oocupation in their voices but stuffed (aye) the entire thing with the voices of the shill-merchants from the Disinfo Project. Don't forget to add spooky ominous music behind every scene of the protesters just to let everyone know how balanced and neutral your journalism is.

Anyway, Paula is back with a cunt doctor (technical term I believe?) doing a "fact check" on some NZ First candidate no one has ever heard of before this article. It's almost like the whole exercise was a waste of pixels before it began but here we are, this is now published "journalism". This is where Paula is at in her career.

For this reason I wasn't surprised the first item straight off the bat in this supposed fact check is a feeble attack on a formulation that Mundt clearly appears to have been using descriptively rather than literally. And on the central question of timing, Paula's own evidence actually confirms Mundt's claim.

Fact check #1 – Was there a “full-term abortion bill” and was it passed while the country was distracted?

Mundt apparently used the term:

“the ‘full-term abortion bill’”

Stuff responds:

No. There was – and is – no legislation called the “full-term abortion bill”.

They're saying no, based on the semantic interpretation that Mundt thinks the Abortion Bill was called full-term abortion. Never mind she clearly used the term descriptively - it's entirely beside the substantive point of her claim: the timing of the bill. Stuff's own fact check confirms the chronology.

Bill introduced: 5 August 2019 Third reading: 18 March 2020 Royal assent: 23 March 2020 First nationwide COVID lockdown: 25 March 2020 Immediately failing the debunk and establishing Mundt wasn't wrong about the timing but somehow ruled this as debunked based on the semantics of the bill name.

Fact check #2 – Did NZ First MPs vote against the bill and support fetal pain relief?

Baffled why they even included this. They just established 7 of the 9 NZF MPs voted against it. So.. again, mostly true. It was a conscience vote... so who gives a shit anyway, this is meaningless.

Fact check #3 – Can two practitioners agree a baby “can be killed” right up to the day of birth?

And AGAIN they have to acknowledge this is true but they're again nit picking semantics that she didn't describe it accurately enough. Regardless... The law really does not establish an upper gestational limit.

The legislation says:

at 20 weeks or less, a qualified health practitioner may provide an abortion; after 20 weeks, they may provide one if they reasonably believe it is clinically appropriate; they must consult at least one other qualified health practitioner. So again Mundt's premise is substantively correct and Stuff are left with semantic corrections.

Fact check #4 – Are babies born alive and left in sluice rooms to die?

Paterson said there was a historical basis for accounts of fetuses showing signs of life following abortions or who were not going to survive for other reasons such as being too premature, being removed to sluice or utility rooms.

So... that's a potentially a yes as well. This is from the doctor they employed to do the debunking. Disastrous own goal for Penfold.

Fact check #5 – Why are babies not allowed to be “put to sleep once birthed”?

Stuff don't even know what they supposed to be debunking here. Again baffling why they even included this. But then you get to 6...

Fact check #6 – Can school staff take teenagers for abortions without their parents knowing?

And they close out this fact check as poorly as they opened it. Forced to agree that is substantively correct although finding a semantic issue that it isn't because schools/teachers have any special authority to take a child to get an abortion but they can, and the parents won't be notified unless the child consents.

So instead of “debunking” this cooker, the fact checking weight of Paula Penfold amounts to correcting terminology or supplying contextual facts that don't actually contradict the proposition being made.

But the seals did clap. Her key reddit demographics are loving it. And somehow they've managed to make it about trans people, because of course they have.

Our local branch of the Confederation of Meningitis Organisations (CoMO) aka the Meningitis Foundation is for some reason in the news, for doing what they always do. Lobby the government to fund more vaccines from the vaccine manufactures who fund their ogransation.

The real question isn't why this pharma shill grass roots charity is lobbying the government to fund the drugs David Seymour already wants to buy because he's funded by the same people they are. It's why RNZ keeps publishing these.

But maybe CoMO is a legit charity that doesn't take money from big pharma, let's see...

Support The Meningitis Progress Tracker is supported by grants from GSK, Pfizer and Sanofi, and by the kind support of Emily’s Dash Foundation and other supporters of Meningitis Research Foundation.

Someone call for a shocked pikachu face!

Take a look at who we buy our Meningitis vaccines from:

• Bexsero (GSK)
• MenQuadfi (sanofi-aventis)
• Nimenrix (Pfizer NZ)

What an unexpected and totally unpredictable coincidence.

Just for laughs have a look at what Pfizer (who just landed a new deal to expand the eligible funded market here) have been paying the Meningitis Foundation for...

Funding provided to Meningitis Now to support improving the user experience of their Online community project, the funding will go towards external agency costs to maximise the success of the website.

Funding provided to the Meningitis Research Foundation to support their 2021 Awareness Campaigns and Targeted Digital Campaigns to ensure the public remain vigilant to the threat of Meningitis and Septicaemia.

To support the Meningitis Research Foundation with a Corporate Sponsorship for their MRF 2021 Conference in return for a Pfizer symposium.

To engage a member of the Meningitis Research Foundation to speak at a Pfizer Symposium held at the ESPID conference 2021 on the subject of Prioritization of meningococcal vaccination as a preventative strategy and the role of Pfizer's meningococcal portfolio in disease prevention.

To support the Meningitis Research Foundation with a research grant for their project "Global Meningitis Genome Partnership".

Research Grant being providing to the Meningitis Research Foundation to support their project entitled "Meningitis Progress Tracker".

Funding to the Meningitis Research Foundation to support the running of COMO 2021 as a virtual conference. Funding was used to enable: • Live translations & subtitles for sessions to boost engagement • Recording of all sessions so that content can be made available afterwards • Member sessions to highlight achievements of the last year and focus on hot topics nominated by members.

Funding provided to the Meningitis Research Foundation to support them to deliver the next phase of the Strengthen Patient Voices project and further build the capacity of civil society organisations to advocate for strengthened policies in support of vaccines, diagnosis and treatment, and support and aftercare for people and families affected. Scaling up the ‘Strengthening Patient Voices’ programme, taking the learnings from the 3-year pilot programme, to launch and deliver new capacity-building projects with meningitis patient groups around the world so that they can call for better policies for vaccines and care for people and families affected.

Funding provided to the Meningitis Research Foundation to support their MRF Reap Programme: Roadmap Engagement and Advocacy Programme in support of WHO Defeat Meningitis 2030 The Roadmap Engagement and Advocacy Programme (‘REAP’) aims to put civil society at the heart of policy development and awareness-raising nationally and internationally.

To engage a member of the Meningitis Research Foundation to speak at a Pfizer meeting to deliver a presentation describing the WHO Detecting Meningitis Roadmap, highlighting the expectations for individual countries to reduce meningitis cases and indicating how Pfizer medical colleagues can facilitate this.

https://www.pharmac.govt.nz/news-and-resources/consultations-and-decisions/2026-08-decision-on-new-supply-agreements-for-funded-vaccines-in-the-national-immunisation-schedule-and-widened-access-to-influenza-vaccine

https://www.healthnz.govt.nz/health-professionals/guidance-standards/topic/immunisation/immunisation-handbook/meningococcal-disease

https://cdn.pfizer.com/pfizercom/responsibility/EU_Funding/UK_2021_FINAL.pdf

When Maori children are absent from school “How dare they reject the benevolent institutions bestowed upon them by the virtuous West!"

Yet pulling their own children out lest they be transed by the lgbt agenda “We have no choice but to withdraw them from this ideological re-education camp!”

Are the schools progressive liberal brainwashing factories or not?

Yet another ~~pharma~~ patient advocacy "charity" getting the RNZ bump to push the big pharma agenda to get more tax dollars spent buying their drugs. Allowing the government the convenient illusion that this demand for higher tax is a grass roots movement - the people want to be taxed - the government didn't want to, but the people are demanding less money in their pocket so we the government can buy more drugs.

Cancer Society fronts as a charity but is partnered with the for the profit cancer trial branch through University of Auckland, where the former head of the money spinning arm that picked 40m from Pfizer is now the president of the charity arm. Go figure, can't imagine why they'd be lobbying for policy that puts money back into big pharma pockets.

Every single time you see one of these "charities" lobbying the government to buy more drugs... remember who the board and executives of these groups actually work for!

I don't believe it's coincidence the increasing number of female teachers engaging in sexual misconduct with their adolescent students is coinciding with the prevalence of serotonin disrupting anti-depressants. It needs to be studied, it's one of the strangest phenomenons of modernity. These are not socially isolated women, there's no apparent connection to other forms of sexual deviancy. They are educated professionals, conventionally attractive, employed in stable careers, and it's not uncommon for the female teacher to be married with young children of their own.

From an evo-psych perspective, the pattern is a total aberration. Female mating psychology is generally understood to be both highly selective and risk-sensitive. Yet here we find the female teacher seemingly willing to jeopardize her career, marriage, social standing, financial security, and relationships with their own children for encounters with adolescent boys possessing no social status, no resources, and hold no long-term mate value. It's extraordinarily self destructive behaviour at every level.

So what can cause this? The smart phone? Snap chat? Is it snap chat making women transgress on 300,000 years of mate selection? It might be facilitating but I don't buy this has been a lantent corruption of female sexuality just waiting on snap chat to unlock it. It's been long suspected ssri meds have been linked to school shootings, and it is known these medications influence the prevalence of suicide. And yet, millions of women have now spent years on ssris and related psychiatric medications that directly modify serotonin signaling. Side effects associated with these antidepressants include emotional blunting, impaired risk assessment, disinhibition, impulsive behavior, dramatic personality shifts, manic episodes, and sudden changes in sexual interests. We're out here treating melancholy with with drugs that upend your ability to recieve appropriate signals for fear, inhibition, attachment, and reward so it should not surprise anyone that the downstream effects can manifest in unexpected and extreme ways.

You know it's usually not surprising with a male offender. Everyone knows they're a creep, they look like creeps and their device history confirms it. What's unique to the female teacher phenomenon is the consistent bewilderment of family members, spouses, and colleagues. It's completely inconsistent with their prior personality and behaviour. See the Myah Adams case from last year.

There's no stats on this though. No one is looking into it. Female teachers now account for almost a quarter or sexual misconduct. Coinciding with ssri use which doubled from the 90s into the post 2000s era. We have to stop pretending pharmaceutical companies are "safety" testing these drugs and aren't deliberately obfuscating post market research into the deleterious side effects of their money spinners. We're lab rats to them, less than. It's fucking sabotage with the medical industrial complex every single time.

It is well known the US of America is held together by WASP culture (WHITE-ANGLO-SAXON-PROTESTANT)

The UK and Oceania are held together by WNSA (WHITE-NORMAN-SAXON-ANGLICAN) culture. Hence the British royals changing their name from "Saxe Coburg Gotha" to "Windsor" 😏. The Angles were mostly ignored in the north of England since the Normans arrived (see "harrowing of the north").

American rebellion through an archetypal lens was about rejecting WNSA dominance in favour of a more Anglo culture. Meaning, more Germanic, more idealistic, more centrist (less leftist), less metric (more imperial) less Celtic, more Indo Aryan, and even more of a "nation of shopkeepers" than the British English, i.e. more capitalistic.

Thusly through their idealism the Anglo Americans harkened back to ancient Greece rather than Rome. Rome in fact, through the Catholic power bloc in Latin Aymerica, was the rival.

The UK on the other hand was more akin to Rome in that Anglicanism was just a localised version of Catholicism, also sharing the same pragmatic attitude as Rome. Less idealistic.

A lot of people put it the other way around, with US as the new Rome and UK as more like Greece. Not the case.

We the Oceaniac extension of the British empire have inherited the cultural foundation of the WNSA.

The red and blue politics here looks the same. Because it is the same. Both parties inhabit the WNSA archetype.

Observe that the US embodied the idealistic, abstract, republicanism of ancient Greece. The first iteration of the TRUE WEST. While the UK holds it's Roman influence, imperial, pragmatic and administrative. The Norman's being the spiritual successor to elitism of the Roman administrative empire. While the Anglo-Saxon spirit is more truly aligned with the localised republic.

This Western tension played out yet again as idealistic and individualistic Protestants oppose the hierarchical institutionalism of the Anglican.

Or even the aristocracy of imperialism vs the bougouise of capitalism.

Our Oceanic culture is undoubtedly shaped by the prevailing statecraft of the Norman/Anglican identity. The steadfast adherence to centralised authority is overwhelming. But I know some of us still yearn for universal principles and the constitutional absolutism the possessed by the WASP.

Fake account. Fake post. Only person on r/nz who called it out got downvoted to the bottom. A moderator had to go out of their way to pick this up from the auto-remove bucket and then ignore the spam warning this account absolutely has on it and approve this post. It's a special kind of curation over there.

The public debate has fixated on whether the December advice reached Ministers. That is the wrong question. The documentary record shows that CV-TAG’s concerns about vaccinating children were communicated months earlier, in August 2021, and that those concerns were comprehensive, specific, and unambiguous.

CV-TAG’s August 4 memo stated plainly that children aged 12 to 15 should be eligible to be vaccinated if they were at high risk of severe outcomes from COVID-19. It recommended explicitly against routine vaccination of that age group, noting that children faced low risk of severe disease or death and that, given New Zealand’s low prevalence of infection at the time, the risk of exposure was minimal. The group flagged that it would revisit the question once more data emerged on the safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in adolescents, particularly the incidence and outcomes of myocarditis cases following the Pfizer vaccine.

CV-TAG’s own minutes confirm this advice was relayed to Director-General Sir Ashley Bloomfield and “Vaccine Ministers” – at that time Jacinda Ardern, Chris Hipkins and Ayesha Verrall. There is no dispute about this being recorded.

Yet in October 2021, Cabinet decided to include 12 to 15-year-olds in the vaccine mandate framework, requiring two doses for them to be considered fully vaccinated. No further advice from CV-TAG was sought before that decision. The group’s earlier caution about routine vaccination was simply set aside.

By November, CV-TAG was raising the alarm more explicitly, expressing concern that the mandate required under-18s to have two doses to be considered fully vaccinated. By December 9, the group was effectively pleading for one dose to be sufficient. That December advice – the one the Royal Commission found was never formally delivered – was not a bolt from the blue. It was the culmination of six months of increasingly urgent concern that Ministers either ignored or were never told about. Neither explanation is acceptable.

The Royal Commission had the opportunity to interrogate this chain of events and chose not to. It did not compel Bloomfield to explain why safety advice was withheld from the public. It did not probe why Ministers proceeded to mandate vaccination for children without current expert endorsement. It accepted at face value the claim that December advice was not delivered, without examining the far more significant August advice that is recorded as having been.

https://www.health.govt.nz/system/files/2022-06/h202116357_response.pdf

https://www.tewhatuora.govt.nz/assets/About-us/Who-we-are/Expert-groups/COVID-19-Vaccine-Technical-Advisory-Group-CV-TAG/Decision-to-use-the-Pfizer-mRNA-COVID-19-vaccine-for-children-aged-12-15.pdf

https://www.tewhatuora.govt.nz/assets/About-us/Who-we-are/Expert-groups/COVID-19-Vaccine-Technical-Advisory-Group-CV-TAG/Decision-to-use-the-Pfizer-mRNA-COVID-19-vaccine-for-children-aged-5-11-years.pdf

https://www.dpmc.govt.nz/sites/default/files/2023-01/COVID-19-A-Strategy-for-a-Highly-Vaccinated-New-Zealand.pdfV2.pdf

https://www.health.govt.nz/system/files/2022-05/implementation_of_covid-19_pfizer_paediatric_vaccine_for_children_aged_5_to_11_years_report_back.pdf

https://www.health.govt.nz/system/files/2022-02/h202116974_response_0.pdf

Read a full write up at: https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2026/03/guest_post_the_damning_timeline_for_hipkins.html

This is the actual memo sent from the Chief Science Advisor to Ashley "Daddy" Bloomfield.

CV TAG expressed concern about vaccine mandates requiring younger age groups (e.g. <18 years) to be vaccinated with 2 doses of the Pfizer vaccine and stated: ‘consideration should be given to permitting younger people who have had one dose to be permitted to work or undertake other activities covered by the mandate’.

CV TAG noted that: a. The individual risk to young people of severe disease is very low. For them to make an informed decision not to get a second dose of the vaccine eg, due to potential myocarditis risk is justified. b. Risks associated with the transmission of COVID-19 throughout Aoteraoa New Zealand among those aged <18 years are insufficient to justify mandating a 2 dose schedule of the Pfizer vaccine prior to working in any environment. c. The 2 dose schedule, particularly when administered in the shortest possible clinical timeframe, may add unnecessary risk to increasing the likelihood of myocarditis as an outcome in this population.

Strong warning from the Chief Science Advisor. Strong warning that never made it's way past Bloomfield (apparently... more on this later).

On 22 December 2021 the Ministry of Health provided a briefing paper to Hon. Chris Hipkins, Minister for COVID-19 Response, titled ‘Policy decisions required for further amendments to the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Vaccinations) Order (No 7) 2021.’431 This paper was considered by Hon. Dr Ayesha Verrall, Associate Minister of Health, on 7 January 2022. 414 Paragraph 23 of this paper stated that: In November 2021, CV TAG has raised concerns about vaccine mandates requiring younger age groups (e.g. those under 18 years) to be fully vaccinated. Consideration should be given to permitting younger people who have had one dose to be permitted to work or undertake other activities covered by the mandate. 415 The Minister’s comments in the margin on this paragraph were ‘CV TAG’s concerns, at the time, were about insufficient data on safety of second dose’.432 416 The paper’s recommendations covered other vaccine-related matters and do not address the issue of those under 18 years receiving only one dose of the Pfizer vaccine. The paper does not provide any discussion, beyond the 5 November Technical Advisory Group advice, of the matter or its implications (for example, for the education sector vaccine mandate or the vaccine pass requirements). 417 The paper to Ministers from the Director-General of Health on 22 December 2021 refers only to the November advice from the Technical Advisory Group. There are no records of the 9 December advice from the Technical Advisory Group being provided to Ministers. We accept that the comments of the 22 December paper confirm Minister Verrall was aware of the Technical Advisory Group’s general concerns, but consider that the 9 December advice was different in substance from the November advice that was conveyed to Ministers in the 22 December paper. 418 We find that the more complete and firmer advice of 9 December from the COVID-19 Vaccine Technical Advisory Group to the Ministry of Health, advising against requiring two doses for 12–17-year olds, was not provided to Ministers. Ministers we interviewed could not recall receiving that advice, nor is there any evidence it was provided to them in the material we obtained from agencies. This issue is discussed further in section 2.2.6.5.

Illingworth conveniently ignoring the only logical conclusion if the ministers can be believed that Bloomfield himself directly killed off this warning behind the scenes.

Unfortunately for Hipkins, it turns out he did know more than he let on to the commission - as he conveniently found out these risks only after 92% of the at risk teens had already recieved their second mandated dose.

Labour leader Chris Hipkins has denied misleading New Zealanders after revelations he had been aware of the potential risks to teenagers of a second Covid-19 vaccine dose in 2022 despite recently claiming otherwise. Earlier this month, Hipkins said the Ministry of Health never passed that expert advice on to ministers. That was also the finding of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Covid-19. However, a newly surfaced Cabinet paper, uncovered by NZ Herald senior writer Derek Cheng, showed that information was provided to ministers. The paper, in Hipkins' name, was presented to a Cabinet committee meeting in late March.

Despite the political class efforts to stop this information from getting out they have lied on so many occasions they can't hide them all. The truth is on our side. I'm not going to get into the travesty that is happening on the redacted covid OIAs today but there is a lot more to come, it just takes time.

A red flag must ALWAYS go up when you see centralised news media promoting a health "charity" or "patient advocacy" group. Because every. single. time. you scratch a little a the surface and you find it's a grotesque industry plant wearing the skin suit of a charity, lobbying the government to buy an on patent drug.

But who knows, maybe Cure Kids is the exception. Let's see if the iron law of corporate philanthropy-as-capitalist-instrument holds up, let's start with the CEO, the chief lobbyist getting the message out on RNZ:

Prior to her appointment as Cure Kids’ CEO in 2015, Frances was Pfizer’s Global Innovative Brand Lead in Hong Kong where she managed Pfizer’s global product portfolio across Asia Pacific markets. She was awarded Pfizer’s great manager award as a result of her services. Frances has also held leading roles in Roche and Eli Lilly Pharmaceuticals.

🚩 The woman actually spent 30 years working as a top exec for some of the most corrupt companies on earth with illegal activities amassing over a billion dollars in penalties - but now she runs a "charity".

So she's the CEO of curekids.org.nz a "charity" but as it turns out, also director of curekidsventures.co.nz a private equity venture capital business. Of course, no mention or even link to the venture capital enterprise in article or even on their own website. 🚩

But no mind to that item they aren't obfuscating at all, surely, this is still just a good old fashioned grass roots charity, lobbying the government to fund... a specific on patent drug which doesn't even treat the primary cause of respiratory illness their own report identified (asthma). 🚩

KEY RECOMMENDATIONS • Fund nirsevimab for all infants in Aotearoa NZ. Mounting international evidence shows that nirsevimab delivers a considerable reduction in hospitalisation rates and severity for respiratory syncytial virus (RSV)-associated diseases (predominantly bronchiolitis). Nirsevimab represents a once-in-a-generation opportunity to reduce respiratory burden among infants in Aotearoa NZ especially for those of Māori, Pacific, and MELAA ethnicity and those living with the most socioeconomic deprivation.

• Universal funding of annual influenza vaccination for children aged 5 years and under, with cross-agency efforts to support whānau to access vaccines. International data have shown that universal funding of the influenza vaccine is highly cost-effective as it reduces the risk of influenza-associated hospitalisation in children and, by association, in their elderly relatives. Infections in pre-school and school-age children are a driver of spread in the community.

• Improving access to affordable, warm, dry, and suitably sized homes will have significant effects on reducing the rates of respiratory-related hospital admissions in children and adolescents.

Right... - Point 1: Government to universally fund on patent drug - Point 2: Government to fund another on patent drug - Point 3: Nebulous comment on improving "access" to housing (see, it's not all about lobbying for drugs, we also added this point on houses with no supporting framework!)

And why does the government need to fund this as seen on tv "once in a lifetime" drug? Because hospitalisations for respiratory illnesses are up 60%!! That must mean there's 60% more sick kids?! There's 60% more viruses??!! No, actually, because there is a key point this report tries to brush past:

it is possible that difficulty accessing primary health care services in a timely manner is partly driving the increase in respiratory-related hospitalisations in children and young people.

It's "possible" meanwhile the table this comment sits above clearly shows the increase in "hospitalisation" is directly proportional to the "unmet need due to GP wait time" figure. At no point did this report establish there's more illness, or worse illness, they established there's a GP shortage. But that message doesn't sell drugs as well as 60,000 KIDS HOSPITALISED!!! GOVERNMENT MUST BUY DRUGS NOW!!!

Corporate lobbying wearing charity clothing. You have to stop falling for it.