Dr Maurice McGrath, PhD discusses the evidence for another Cartwright inquiry.
The Pfizer Trial
The very short initial clinical trial conducted by Pfizer of two 30-μg doses of BNT162b2, a novel, synthetic mRNA fragment wrapped in a novel lipid nanoparticle envelope administered intramuscularly 21 days apart as most now know, the trial had an unprecedented data cut-off of 2 months. The formal experiment was quickly abandoned as placebo controls were dissolved when emergency use authorisation for an unapproved product was given by the US FDA in December 2020. Reportedly, those running the study decided regrettably that while science suffered, it was the ‘right thing to do’. From the get-go then, follow the science had a hollow ring to it.
A threshold of scientific rigour was tacitly lost as industrial scale commercialisation suddenly became the bedrock of recommended clinical practice. Simultaneously, the dismissal of historically forged-by-horror principles of medical ethics and scientific practice embodied in the Nuremberg Code (1949), Helsinki Accords (World Medical Association and others 2009), and the Human Rights Declaration on Bioethics occurred. The Medicine Act, in the words of the New Zealand Minister of Health, Andrew Little, required “technical amendment to modernise the law” in order to enable New Zealanders to have, “early access to medicines when needed.” In hindsight, it seems equally plausible to interpret what Little really meant was that the New Zealand Government would acquire an ability to both possess “early access” to an untried public health measure and embark down the slippery unethical road leading to the implementation of Pfizer injection mandates. To date a little more than 3.9 million New Zealanders have received a second Pfizer shot and a pointless and divisive no-jab-no-job
policy has been implemented.
By these measures then, in which the novel has become the routine, the scientific method discarded and ethics deserted, there can be no moral or scientific legitimacy to a perverse imposition of a ruthless threshold of scientific rigour with respect to the incidence of Pfizer injection-associated adverse events, developing sickness or death. It is rank inhumanity to ruthlessly separate a clinically reasonable causal attribution from all possibility of chance, bias and confounding. Discarding severely injured cases or deaths upon the slightest excuse furnished by the merest whiff of any of these is not the reasonable or reasoned manner in which clinical practice is usually or ethically conducted. For in the clinical arena, the balance of evidence moves to a legal balance, the needle swinging either side of a carefully weighed midline.
The Cartwright Inquiry
So while the New Zealand authoritarians impose an unethical clinical practice they demand that the unpredictable consequences be treated as a rigid ongoing scientific experiment. There is a certain historical resonance here to the experiment outlined in the Cartwright Report entitled, ‘The ‘1984 McIndoe’ Paper’, oddly ‘not found’ on the Cartwright Inquiry website but available here through the internet archive wayback machine.
The current policy driven double standard may be argued to constitute an asymmetric inhumane clinical malpractice, and it appears to be leading to a failure to identify any emergent safety signals, at least theoretically recommended by the Safety Platform for Emergency Vaccines (SPEAC). After all, that a majority of injected Kiwis are also unaware of their ability to complete a CARM report and perhaps more alarmingly, are not advised of the facility or its importance when providing their clearly uninformed consent to the experimental synthetic gene-therapy, appears as profoundly concerning as it is disempowering of choice. Choice has all but been eliminated; coercion is fashionable these days.
The Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare study funded by the US CDC between 2006 and 2009 identified that fewer than 1% vaccine adverse events were voluntarily reported. US FDA Emergency Use authorisation mandates the reporting of serious adverse events and death regardless of whether the adverse event is considered attributable to the ‘vaccine’. Regrettably, it is considered that this mechanism is not working as designed. In a written report to the FDA Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) on September 17, 2021 the US numbers of deaths recorded on the VAERs system tentatively associated with the Pfizer vaccine were estimated to be 4.9-15 times higher (totaling 45,000-147,000 deaths) than reported, and associated with detected, strong age-dependent signals for deaths, serious events, coagulopathy and myocardial infarction. The initial Pfizer NEJM efficacy study identified a 0.6% rate for ‘any serious adverse event’ (Table S3, Supplementary Appendix) at the 2 month mark; and the same time point, 2 deaths occurred in the intervention arm. The study authors stated, “No deaths were considered by the investigators to be related to the vaccine or placebo. No Covid-19–associated deaths were observed.” Be that as it may.
At the current numbers injected in New Zealand, we should (based on the initial Pfizer data) be seeing 24,000 people thus affected. Two deaths, or 0.00925% of the study intervention group (21,621) equates to a possible 361 New Zealanders killed by Pfizer injection. Subsequent to the initial Pfizer data, at 6 months follow-up the data showed that the total number of deaths in the Pfizer intervention group exceeded the number of deaths in the control group both before and after unblinding with a total number of deaths of 20 (a stunning 0.0925%) people in the participant group, compared with 14 people in the control group. (Canadian COVID Care Alliance, More Harm Than Good, Increased risk of death.pdf, see, pp12). Meanwhile, in New Zealand to the end of January 2022 there have been only 52 unspecified COVID (with/of) deaths. So where are all the New Zealanders who have been afflicted by the Pfizer injections? Certainly not visible in the New Zealand official ‘data’.
New Zealanders are mostly unaware that the vaccine safety platform (SPEAC) is funded by the ‘vaccine’ developer, the Coalition of Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) who on its website list New Zealand as one of its partners and investors. In an OIA question about this to the New Zealand Ministry of Health, the ministry responded, “The Ministry of Health does not have a relationship with the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovation….the information requested is not held by the Ministry and there are no grounds for believing it is held by another agency subject to the Act.”
Trial Participants (still) Need Protection
Nonetheless, the question remains, whether the New Zealand political and medical authorities over-seeing and encouraging the coerced Pfizer injection measures are even slightly interested in the emerging asymmetric consequences of their haste riven actions? Is it now a New Zealand truism, one that the Cartwright Inquiry web site appeared to recognise all those years ago, namely, Research Participants [in New Zealand] Need Protection, in this case from the wantonly unrestrained: a fear mongering State media, uninformed co-opted businesses, silent doctors, compliant institutions, and coercive, deflecting Government?