Just to clarify things in view of this RNZ article on 21 March 2023, NZTSOS will be in the Court of Appeal in Wellington on 19 April 2023 (i.e. ‘later this year’). Their appeal will challenge the outcome of the Judicial Review on the legality of the vaccine mandate for health and education workers that was heard in March 2022 in conjunction with NZDSOS.
The bottom line is, that for the mandate to be justified or make any sense, the vaccine needed to stop transmission of the virus. If it didn’t stop transmission, the mandate was pointless.
This is significant in light of the just-published substack article by Thomas Cranmer. This has revealing information about the provisional approval process that Medsafe applied to Comirnaty (the Pfizer vaccine) and is well worth reading to understand the deception/manoeuvreing that went on behind the scenes.
It appears that the Director-General of Health (Bloomfield) and Minister for Covid Response (Hipkins) were well aware in early February 2021, that there was inconclusive evidence of Comirnaty’s effectiveness at reducing or preventing transmission. Minster Hipkins was specifically advised:
“We do not yet have conclusive evidence on the effectiveness of the Pfizer vaccine at preventing or reducing transmission to be confident of the public health value of this vaccination, beyond the individual level. So, unlike testing, which had a clear public health benefit, vaccination at this point in time is expected to reduce risk through a reduction in the likelihood of severity of disease and onward transmission. This may change as more evidence becomes available. However, at this time, mandatory vaccination is unlikely to be a justified limitation of the right to refuse medical treatment under Section 11 of the Bill of Rights Act.”
So, right from the outset of the vaccination program the officials knew there was insufficient evidence to mandate a medical procedure. As time passed and new variants emerged, it should have become even more obvious that the vaccine was not capable of preventing transmission.
In his judgement of the NZTSOS case, Justice Cooke rightly stated that the Crown had a ‘very significant evidential burden’ to prove the mandates were a reasonable and demonstrably justified limitation on the right to decline medical treatment. Yet amazingly, he also found that this ‘burden of proof’ had been met, and the mandate was justified! How was that possible? What was the evidence presented by the Crown ‘experts’ (Bloomfield and Town) and were they telling the whole truth?
NZTSOS Representing All New Zealanders
NZTSOS is challenging Justice Cooke’s assessment on behalf of all New Zealanders to ensure that your ‘Right to Decline Medical Treatment’ remains a fundamental right that cannot be limited on a whim or non-existent/dubious evidence.
The RNZ article stated: “The court also noted the vaccine mandates were no longer in place.” This is simply not true. Health New Zealand (Te Whatu Ora) has vaccine mandates in place for anyone working in the public health system so there are still doctors, nurses, midwives, ambulance officers etc. who are unable to work. The government seems to think that as Te Whatu Ora is an “independent” organisation, that it is able to decide on its own mandates. However, of course Te Whatu Ora is if not in name, then in effect part of the government.
The RNZ article also asserted that: “things have moved on”. Sadly, those who have lost their jobs and had their careers destroyed after years of training have not ‘moved on’. Neither have those whose health has been irreversibly impaired without acknowledgement or assistance. And those who understand what is at stake and who appreciate the looming threat of more mandated medical procedures have not ‘moved on’ and are very interested in the outcome of this appeal. If a possible crime or unlawful act has been committed in the past, are we all just to “move on”?
New Zealanders deserve to know if the NZ BORA and the HDC Code of Rights are still functional.