Dr Petousis-Harris Weighs in On a Legal Ruling
Following the decision by Justice Cooke to overturn the vaccination mandates for Police and Defence Force, Stuff sought an expert opinion from Associate Professor Petousis-Harris.
Without commenting on a vaccinologist’s opinion and pronouncements regarding a legal matter, can we rely on Dr Petousis-Harris for an unbiased opinion?
Draw your own conclusions by reading the Allegations of Scientific Misconduct and Malfeasance, in which she and others were named some years ago, related to the fast-tracked vaccine Gardasil. During the Japanese Symposium, serious concerns were being discussed relating to the HPV Gardasil vaccine and adverse reactions in young Japanese girls. The open letter of Allegations, along with numerous emails, are in the public domain after being released under a NZ FOIA.
The open letter of allegations was made by eminent pathologist Dr Sin Hang Lee and was addressed to the then WHO Director, Dr Margaret Chan. This occurred during the ‘Zika’ debacle. Not good timing. The Minister of Health at that time was Dr Jonathan Coleman who had no interest in the allegations. He went so far as to suggest to a member of the public that they contact Dr Petousis Harris and ask her about this? Can you believe that?
We do not know if this expert Dr Petousis Harris, a non medically trained person, offered a rebuttal to the WHO. It would not be unreasonable to expect one. We would think the expert would want to offer a rebuttal, right?
Regarding her assertions involving the Catholic Church and the Pope, she is cherry picking what was stated and we note that Stuff failed to link to the Papal Document. The Papal stance clearly requests that scientific bodies find an alternative to the use of foetal cells lines in vaccine production and research, whilst expressing an acceptance of what is currently on offer. Again, the document is in the public domain. She ought not to make such sweeping statements, or speak for people of all religions and denominations. She ought to appreciate that individuals who hold religious beliefs may vary in terms of those beliefs and the tenets of those faiths or beliefs. This is what makes us individuals after all and offers the possibility of individual thought and action, without falling prey to ‘group think.’
Walvax-2 is an example of cell-lines used. This is utilised in China, using the ‘water bag’ extraction method, where foetuses are sometimes extracted live, or suffer during the protracted process which this method uses.
Section 4 from the papal document states:
4. In fact, the licit use of such vaccines does not and should not in any way imply that there is a moral endorsement of the use of cell lines proceeding from aborted fetuses. Both pharmaceutical companies and governmental health agencies are therefore encouraged to produce, approve, distribute and offer ethically acceptable vaccines that do not create problems of conscience for either health care providers or the people to be vaccinated.’
Dr Petousis-Harris may not appreciate or fully understand the codes of conduct that health professionals are required to adhere to, which encompass respecting an individuals’ religious beliefs, the NZ Bill of Rights, and other legislation, such as the NZ Health and Disability Codes. (Right1. 3) Every consumer has the right to be provided with services that take into account the needs, values, and beliefs of cultural, religious, social, and ethnic groups, including those of Maori.
In addition to philosophical or religious objections, scientists and experts in this area of foetal cell use question the safety of human foetal cells in vaccine manufacturing processes, where foetal cells are present in some vaccines and are listed in the ingredients under a variety of names. These risks of concern are in respect to autoimmunity and carcinogenicity and insertional mutagenesis.
Dr Petousis-Harris goes on to say that “people are losing sight of the fact that you might not have such a big impact on transmission [but] you are going to have an impact on the burden on the rest of society that an unvaccinated person is more likely to place and that is that we are crushing our hospitals and those people who are having to front line it… and that’s incredibly selfish.”
Again, no evidence is provided of the unvaccinated being of greater burden to society than the vaccinated. She then has the gall to call the unvaccinated “incredibly selfish”. Not only is it becoming increasingly clear that the vaccinated and unvaccinated are contracting Omicron at similar rates, but it is the vaccinated filling up the hospitals, neither have we heard any official call smokers, over-eaters and the slothful “incredibly selfish” for burdening New Zealand society. The Covid-19 vaccination is not effective for individuals or for society and may cause harm. No evidence to the contrary was provided.
Where Is Dr Petousis-Harris Getting Her Evidence?
Stuff perhaps ought to ask their expert to disclose her conflicts of interest. She was dropped from the role as Chair of the WHO’s Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety (GACVS), not so long ago, for a conflict of interest. Apparently, Dr Petousis-Harris failed to disclose this conflict of interest, although we have no proof of whether she volunteered this later or was caught out.
Given that she was not allowed to continue as Chair of a prestigious vaccine safety committee in the USA, which presumably deals with vaccine manufacturers including Pfizer, is it acceptable that she is asked for her opinions by the Government or Medsafe when it ‘needs to be helped?’
What evidence and assumptions does Dr Petousis-Harris rely on that the jab is fit for purpose, prevents infection or transmission, or significantly reduces hospitalisation for omicron?
As a “serious” news site we would expect Stuff to consider the above questions and to explore the opinions of other experts. Is it not time for all sides to sit at a round table and have a discussion?