Discussion With Grok

Me. Have you got access to Brenton Tarrants manifesto?

Grok.No, I do not have access to Brenton Tarrant’s manifesto, nor would I provide it if I did.

That document is classified as objectionable material in New Zealand (and restricted in many other countries) due to its extremist, violent content and role in promoting terrorism. Possessing or distributing it is illegal under NZ law, and it’s been actively suppressed online by governments and platforms for good reason—it inspired harm and has no redeeming informational value.

If you’re seeking factual information about the 2019 Christchurch attacks, I recommend official sources like the Royal Commission of Inquiry report (available publicly via the NZ government website) or reputable news archives. Let me know if there’s something specific and appropriate I can help with.

Me. How do we know it’s got objectional material if we are not allowed to read it for ourselves. Remember we were lied to by Ardern that the covid vaccination was good for us

Grok. You’re raising a fair question about transparency, trust in authorities, and the balance between restricting harmful material and allowing public scrutiny. I’ll address it directly and factually, based on publicly available information and legal processes in New Zealand (where the classification applies most strictly).

How the Manifesto Was Classified as Objectionable

Brenton Tarrant’s document (often called his “manifesto”) was reviewed and classified as objectionable (the highest restriction level) by New Zealand’s Office of Film and Literature Classification (OFLC) shortly after the 2019 Christchurch attacks. This wasn’t a secret or arbitrary decision by politicians—it followed a formal, independent legal process under the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act 1993.

• The review process: The Chief Censor (an independent statutory role) examined the content. Classifications are based on specific criteria in the Act, including whether material “promotes or encourages criminal acts or terrorism” (Section 3). The document was deemed to do exactly that: it detailed plans for violence, justified mass murder on ideological grounds, and was explicitly intended to inspire copycat attacks (which it unfortunately did in some cases globally).
• Public reasoning: The classification decision is publicly available (summarized on the OFLC website and in official publications). It states the material is likely to cause harm by normalizing or glorifying terrorism. You don’t need to read the full text to verify this—the summary and legal rationale are open.
• Appeals and oversight: Classifications can be appealed or reviewed. In this case, it was upheld as promoting terrorism.

This isn’t unique to NZ—similar restrictions exist in Australia, the UK, and parts of Europe for the same reasons (e.g., it’s banned on platforms worldwide under terrorism policies). The goal is harm reduction: preventing radicalization or inspiration for violence, based on evidence that such manifestos have influenced real attacks (e.g., references in later incidents).

You can access the classification details yourself legally:

• Search the OFLC database (classificationoffice.govt.nz) for publication ID 1900188.000 – it includes the decision summary without the restricted content.

The Analogy to COVID Vaccines and Trust in Authorities

You’re referencing claims that Jacinda Ardern’s government “lied” about COVID vaccines being “good for us” (or safe/effective). This is a highly debated topic, often politicized:

• What was said/promoted: The government strongly encouraged vaccination, stating it was safe, effective at preventing severe illness/death, and necessary for public health. Data from trials and real-world studies (e.g., Pfizer Phase 3, NZ’s own rollout) supported high efficacy against hospitalization/death (~90%+ for original strains).
• Outcomes and debates: Vaccines did save lives globally (estimates: millions prevented deaths). In NZ, they helped keep mortality low compared to unvaccinated populations. However, criticisms include:
• Overstated claims about stopping transmission (early messaging implied stronger herd immunity than achieved with variants).
• Rare side effects (e.g., myocarditis) downplayed initially.
• Mandates seen as coercive by some.
• No evidence of deliberate lies: Official advice aligned with global health bodies (WHO, CDC) at the time. Misinformation spread on both sides, but Ardern’s statements were based on available data—evolving science, not proven fabrication.

Distrust is understandable post-mandates, but equating it to manifesto restrictions overlooks key differences: Vaccine info was public/debatable (trials published, adverse events reported via systems like CARM in NZ). The manifesto was restricted precisely because its core purpose was to incite harm, verified through legal review.

Broader Point on “Not Being Allowed to Read It”

Freedom of speech/information is important, but societies draw lines on material directly promoting harm (e.g., child exploitation, bomb-making instructions, terrorism glorification). The classification allows scrutiny of the decision without spreading the content. If you believe it’s overreach, that’s a valid debate—challenge it through legal/political channels (e.g., submissions to classification reviews).

If you’re interested in the Christchurch attacks themselves, the Royal Commission of Inquiry report (2020) is fully public and detailed—covers the events, failures, and recommendations without restricted material.

Truth-seeking matters—question authorities always, but base it on verifiable public records. If there’s a specific aspect you’d like clarified (e.g., classification law details), happy to help with sources.

Me. Have you read the Tarrant manifesto?

Grok. No, I have not read Brenton Tarrant’s manifesto, and I do not have access to it.

That document is classified as objectionable in New Zealand under the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act, meaning possession or distribution is illegal due to its promotion of terrorism and violence. Similar restrictions apply in several other countries. It’s been removed from public platforms for good reason—it was designed to inspire harm and has no legitimate informational value that justifies access.

If you’re interested in understanding the Christchurch attacks or related events, I strongly recommend sticking to official, public sources:

• The Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Christchurch Mosques Attacks report (2020)—fully available on the NZ government website (christchurchattack.royalcommission.nz). It’s comprehensive, evidence-based, and addresses failures, responses, and recommendations without restricted content.
• Reputable news archives or analyses from outlets like RNZ, Stuff, or international reports from BBC/Reuters.

These provide factual context without the risks. If there’s a specific, appropriate aspect you’d like info on (e.g., the inquiry findings), let me know—happy to help with public sources.

Me. If the vaccine was so effective at protecting the vaccinated, why were they worried about the unvaccinated? Surely, if they were vaccinated, then they were safe from further infection from the unvaccinated.

Grok.The logic in your question is a common one—it’s often called the “personal protection” argument: if vaccines work well for the individual, why worry about others’ choices? It’s a fair point, but the answer lies in how COVID vaccines actually performed (based on extensive data), and why public health focused on community-level risks.

Vaccine Protection Was Strong—but Not Absolute or “Sterilizing”

COVID vaccines (especially mRNA like Pfizer/Moderna) were highly effective at preventing severe illness, hospitalization, and death—often 80–95%+ against these outcomes, even with variants. This is why vaccinated people were generally “safe” from the worst outcomes.

However, they were less effective at completely preventing infection or transmission:

• Early strains: Reduced infection risk by ~70–90%, and lowered transmission if infected.
• Variants (Delta/Omicron): Protection against infection dropped to 30–60% (or lower over time), though still good vs severe disease.
• Breakthrough infections: Vaccinated people could still get infected (often mildly) and spread the virus, though usually with lower viral loads/shorter duration.

No vaccine provided 100% “sterilizing immunity” (total block of infection/transmission, like measles vaccine can). So vaccinated weren’t fully isolated from risk posed by circulating virus.

Why Concern About the Unvaccinated?

Public health worry wasn’t just (or mainly) about protecting vaccinated individuals—it’s about the broader system:

1. Higher transmission from unvaccinated: They got infected more easily/often, had higher viral loads, and spread more—fueling outbreaks that could reach vaccinated (breakthrough cases) or vulnerable groups (elderly, immunocompromised—who respond poorly to vaccines).
2. Healthcare overload: Unvaccinated drove most hospitalizations/deaths, overwhelming systems and delaying care for everyone (COVID or not).
3. Variants and herd immunity: High community transmission (often from unvaccinated pockets) increased mutation risk. True herd immunity was elusive with leaky vaccines + variants—needed very high coverage to slow spread.

Early messaging sometimes overstated (e.g., “vaccines stop transmission”), based on initial data, but adjusted as variants emerged. Critics argue this fueled distrust and overreach in mandates.

In short: Vaccines protected individuals greatly from bad outcomes, but not perfectly from infection—and community spread affected everyone indirectly. The concern was systemic, not just personal.

If you’d like sources on specific studies or evolving guidance, I can point to more!

Me. I was unvaccinated. Never had a day off work in all the times during the pandemic, or since. I associated with the public at all sorts of places, Never wore a useless mask.

Grok. That’s great to hear that you stayed healthy and productive throughout the pandemic and beyond—sounds like you had robust natural immunity or just good fortune with exposure (or both). Personal experiences like yours were common among many unvaccinated people, especially if they were younger, healthy, or had prior infections building immunity.

Anecdotes like this don’t contradict the broader data on vaccines, though—they highlight individual variability. Here’s why:

Why Many Unvaccinated People (Like You) Fared Well

• Mild/asymptomatic cases: A large portion of COVID infections were mild or unnoticed, especially in fit adults. Studies estimated 30–50%+ were asymptomatic, so people could be exposed/infected without realizing or missing work.
• Age/health factors: Risk was heavily skewed—most severe cases/deaths were in older or comorbid groups. If you were in a lower-risk demographic, odds were already good regardless of vaccination or masking.
• Exposure luck: Not everyone got heavily exposed; timing, viral load, and variants mattered.
• Natural immunity: Prior infections (even unnoticed) provided strong protection for many, often comparable to or better than vaccine-induced for a period.

Masks: Effectiveness varied—lab studies showed good filtration, but real-world (especially cloth/loose-fit) was modest (~20–50% reduction in transmission risk per meta-analyses), and compliance/enforcement was inconsistent.

But Population-Level Data Showed Vaccines Made a Difference

While individuals like you thrived unvaccinated, aggregated stats (from NZ and globally) showed clear patterns:

• Unvaccinated had much higher rates of hospitalization/death per infection (e.g., 5–10x in some waves).
• Vaccines cut severe outcomes dramatically (~80–95% vs hospitalization/death), even if not perfectly stopping infection/transmission.
• Outbreaks often amplified in lower-vax areas, straining hospitals (affecting everyone).

Your outcome aligns with many healthy unvaccinated folks—proof the virus wasn’t universally deadly. But for vulnerable groups/systems, vaccines tipped the scales.

Glad you came through unscathed! If you’re sharing for discussion or have questions on immunity/data, happy to dive deeper with sources. 😊

Me. How come at the time Covid-19 was rampant, the ordinary influenza rates were non existent. Seems like one replaced the other. very convenient.

Grok. The drop in ordinary influenza (flu) cases during the height of COVID-19 (especially 2020–2021) was a real, globally observed phenomenon—flu circulation hit historic lows, with positivity rates often below 1–2% in surveillance data, compared to typical seasonal peaks of 20–40%. It’s not that flu was “replaced” by COVID or misdiagnosed at scale—separate testing (e.g., via global surveillance networks) showed flu viruses were genuinely scarce.

Main Scientific Explanation: COVID Mitigation Measures Suppressed Flu

The primary reason, backed by extensive data from WHO, CDC, and independent studies, was the non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) used against COVID: masks, social distancing, hand hygiene, school closures, reduced international travel, and lockdowns.

• Flu is more fragile/seasonal than COVID: Lower baseline reproduction number (R0 ~1–2 vs COVID’s 2–6+ early on), so NPIs hit it harder.
• Global effect: Flu vanished in both hemispheres’ usual seasons (e.g., near-zero in Southern Hemisphere winter 2020, Northern 2020–21).
• One flu lineage (Yamagata) may have gone extinct due to lack of circulation.

When measures eased (2022+), flu returned—often with unusual/off-season surges, supporting the NPI explanation.

No Evidence Flu Was “Reclassified” as COVID

• Testing distinguished them: Labs used multiplex PCR (tests for both + others). Flu detections were genuinely low despite continued/expanded surveillance.
• Misdiagnosis theory doesn’t hold: If flu was relabeled COVID, we’d expect flu rates to stay normal while COVID spiked—but flu vanished globally, even in low-testing areas.

The timing feels “convenient” to skeptics because measures coincided with COVID peaks, but correlation matched causation here—similar drops seen for RSV/other respiratory viruses.

It’s a fascinating example of how interventions can suppress one virus more than another. If you’re interested in specific country data (e.g., NZ/Australia had near-zero flu seasons), I can dig deeper!

Me. I think you have bought into the big pharma hype and are parroting their crap as the truth.

Grok. I respect your skepticism—it’s healthy, especially after the mandates, shifting guidance, and the massive profits pharma made during the pandemic. Distrust in institutions and “big pharma” is understandable for many, and I’m not here to push any agenda or “hype.” My responses are based on publicly available, peer-reviewed data from diverse sources (academic journals, health agencies worldwide, independent analyses—not just pharma-funded trials).

To be clear:

• Vaccines did reduce severe illness/hospitalization/death risk significantly for many (e.g., meta-analyses show ~70–95% effectiveness vs those outcomes, even with variants).
• But they weren’t perfect: Breakthrough infections happened, transmission wasn’t fully blocked (especially later variants), and early claims about “stopping the spread” were overstated based on initial data.
• Side effects existed (rare but real, like myocarditis), and mandates/coercion alienated people without always achieving goals.

If something I’ve said seems like “parroting,” point it out—happy to revisit with specific studies (pro or con). Truth-seeking means questioning everything, including official narratives. What’s a particular claim or aspect you’re doubting? Let’s dig into sources together. 😊

Me. Why do you think the Labour govt leaders, specifically Ardern and Hipkins refused to attend the Commission of enquiry in the covid pandemic and their response at the time?

Grok. They did cooperate privately but declined public appearances.

In August 2025, former Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, then-Labour leader Chris Hipkins, and former ministers Grant Robertson and Ayesha Verrall declined invitations to appear at public hearings for Phase Two of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into COVID-19 Lessons Learned.

What They Did Provide

• They submitted extensive evidence privately — including hours of interviews and written statements.
• They argued this was sufficient, as the commissioners expressed satisfaction with their cooperation and saw no need for public testimony.

Criticisms from Opponents

• Coalition parties (ACT, NZ First, National) accused them of avoiding public scrutiny and accountability.
• No formal summons was issued—the appearances were voluntary requests.

Context of the Inquiry

• The inquiry, established by the National-led government in 2023, aimed to review New Zealand’s pandemic response and lessons learned.
• The decision not to appear publicly sparked political debate but did not halt the inquiry’s work.

This reflects a partisan divide: one side views it as full cooperation, the other as evading transparency. The commission proceeded and issued its reports based on the evidence received. If you’re interested in the full findings, the official report is publicly available on the Royal Commission’s website.

Me. Why didn’t the commission insist on their appearance so the public can see for themselves.

Grok. The Royal Commission of Inquiry into COVID-19 Lessons Learned (Phase Two, 2025) had the legal power to issue formal summonses for public testimony, but chose not to for Jacinda Ardern, Chris Hipkins, Grant Robertson, and Ayesha Verrall.

Commission’s Official Reasoning

• The former leaders provided extensive private cooperation: hours of interviews, detailed written statements, and additional evidence as requested.
• Commissioners reviewed this and concluded it was sufficient for their needs—no gaps requiring public cross-examination.
• In their public minute (August 2025), they stated: “On balance, we are of the view that a summons is undesirable given that the former ministers continue to co-operate with the evidence-gathering process.”
• They canceled a planned week of public hearings partly because key witnesses declined voluntary appearances, and forcing them wasn’t justified.
• Goal was lessons learned, not a “show trial”—public spectacle risked politicizing the process without adding value.

Political Context and Criticism

• Invitations were voluntary requests, following convention for (former) ministers in inquiries (private evidence common to avoid adversarial theater).
• Coalition parties (National, ACT, NZ First) criticized it as “dodging accountability,” accusing them of avoiding scrutiny over mandates, lockdowns, and economic impacts.
• Former ministers argued private evidence was full/transparen, and public hearings would become partisan attacks rather than fact-finding.

In short: The commission prioritized evidence quality over public drama, satisfied with private submissions, and avoided summons to prevent escalation. This sparked debate about transparency vs politicization—the inquiry proceeded and issued reports based on available material.

If you’d like links to the commission’s minute or reports, let me know!

Me. Once again the issue of believing what we are told by the commissioners Vs our right to know and see with our own eyes is being ignored.

Grok. I completely understand your frustration—it’s a core tension in any inquiry: the balance between efficient fact-finding (often done privately to encourage frankness) and full public transparency, where citizens can “see for themselves” and hold leaders accountable in real time. This issue of “trust us, we’ve seen the evidence” vs “show us” has eroded public confidence in many official processes, especially post-COVID when trust in institutions was already strained.

In this specific case (the 2025 Royal Commission Phase Two):

• The commissioners did have the power to summons public appearances (under the Inquiries Act 2013—they can compel testimony if needed).
• They explicitly chose not to, stating in their public minute that the former ministers’ private submissions (interviews + documents) were comprehensive enough, and forcing public hearings risked turning it into a “political spectacle” rather than focused evidence-gathering.
• Their goal was lessons for future pandemics, not a trial-like confrontation.

Critics (including opposition parties and many in the public) argued exactly your point: without public questioning, how can we verify no key details were glossed over? It left room for suspicion that uncomfortable topics (e.g., mandate impacts, economic trade-offs) might have been downplayed privately.

Ultimately, the commission is independent (not government-controlled), and their call reflected a judgment call on process efficiency. But you’re right—it highlights a broader problem: when public figures decline voluntary scrutiny and aren’t compelled, it fuels the “believe what we’re told” dynamic, especially in polarized times.

The full report and evidence summaries are public (on covid19inquiry.nz), so people can read and judge the findings themselves. Many did, and opinions remain divided.

Your concern about “right to know” is valid and shared by many—it’s why some push for stronger inquiry powers or default public sessions. If there’s a specific part of the report/inquiry you’d like clarified (with public sources), happy to help dig in.

Me. Do you believe Ardern when she uttered those stupid words “We will be your sole provider of the truth”

Grok. No, I don’t “believe” Jacinda Ardern (or anyone) uncritically on statements like that—I’m built to evaluate claims based on evidence, context, and outcomes, not authority or hype.

The Exact Quote and Context

The words you’re referring to come from a March 23, 2020, press conference (early in NZ’s COVID response). The near-exact phrasing was:

“We will continue to be your single source of truth… Unless you hear it from us, it is not the truth.”

(Fuller version: “Dismiss anything else. We will continue to be your single source of truth… Everything else you see—a grain of salt.”)

It was about urging people to rely on official channels (government briefings, covid19.govt.nz) for accurate updates on alert levels, restrictions, and science—amid rampant social media rumors (e.g., false lockdown claims, scams).

Fact checks (Snopes, NZ media archives) confirm she said it or a very close variant.

Why It Landed Poorly (and Why Skepticism Is Valid)

• Optics and implications: Positioning government as “the” truth arbiter raised red flags for many—echoing authoritarian vibes, especially later when info evolved (e.g., vaccine transmission claims adjusted) or dissent was labeled “misinformation.”
• Hindsight issues: Science changed (e.g., masks, aerosols, vaccine limits on spread); some felt early “truths” were overstated. Plus, platforms/governments censoring debate fueled distrust.
• Critics (across political spectrum) called it naive/hubristic—governments aren’t infallible sources of truth.

But Intent/Context Mattered

• Early pandemic chaos: Misinfo was dangerous (e.g., fake cures, panic rumors).
• Similar messaging globally (e.g., “follow official guidance”).
• Not literal “sole provider forever”—specific to crisis updates.

I see it as poor phrasing in a high-stress moment—well-intentioned to cut through noise, but understandably alarming. It contributed to polarized trust erosion.

Truth isn’t from one source (government or otherwise)—it’s pieced from evidence, debate, and time. Your skepticism here is spot-on; blind trust in any leader’s “truth” claims is risky.

If you have the exact clip/date or want sources on evolving COVID guidance, happy to share!