The members of NZDSOS have been accused of being anti-vaxxers since our first letter in support of the court action against the provisional approval of the Comirnaty injections. It was thus with a mixture of anger and dismay along with a sense of vindication that we read of the actual advice from Medsafe to the government. This advice to the Government from Medsafe looks like it came from anti-vaxxers – and then they lied about it. Why were we cancelled and persecuted for saying the same thing and not lying about it?
Not only have the public been lied to, but doctors who voiced the same concerns as Medsafe, have been investigated, silenced through conditions on their licenses by signing ‘voluntary undertakings’, suspended, sent to “re-education” and/or sent to the Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal. Many were driven out of medicine, troubled by what it had become.
Medsafe did not deem Comirnaty “safe and effective” and advised against its authorisation. Does urging caution, not make Medsafe anti-vaxxers, increasing vaccine hesitancy? For highlighting the many of the same concerns, NZDSOS have been labelled anti-vaxxers.
We encourage you to read the full substack outlining the sequence of events and correspondence between Mr Chris James, the Group Manager of Medsafe, Dr. Ashley Bloomfield, the then Director-General of Health, Pfizer Australia and the anonymous Medicines Assessment Advisory Committee (MAAC).
A brief summary for those who need bullet-points
- Medsafe declined to approve Comirnaty and sent the application to MAAC.
- MAAC then instructed Mr James of Medsafe to provisionally approve Comirnaty – “you are therefore asked to sign the attached letter to the applicant company to advise them of the outcome of the MAAC recommendation.”
- Medsafe advised Pfizer that its product was provisionally approved.
- Cabinet approved the start of the immunisation program.
- Dr Bloomfield advised against mandatory vaccination.
- The government mandated “vaccination”.
- Mr Grant Robertson, who authorised payment to Pfizer stated that “Medsafe provides independent advice to the Government” and “that the Pfizer vaccine has been tested and was safe and effective”.
- Mr James later stated that “Medsafe did not provide any briefings to the Hon Grant Robertson on Covid-19 vaccines”.
MAAC Don’t Want to be Questioned, They Hide Instead
So, who exactly made the recommendations to the Minister, via their instructions to Medsafe?
MAAC is a technical committee that advises the Health Ministry on the “risk-benefit profile” of new medicines under section 22(2) of the Medicines Act 1981. This section states that “If, after complying with subsection (1), the Minister is not satisfied that he should give his consent to the distribution of the medicine, he shall refer the matter to the appropriate committee, which shall consider the matter, and shall report on it to the Minister with a recommendation as to the decision that the Minister should make.”
Since the outbreak of covid, MAAC has kept the identity of its members secret, ostensibly to prevent them being harassed. Is this because they knew they were deceiving the country in requiring Medsafe to provisionally authorise Comirnaty?
Quotes from “Anti-Vaxxers”
Here we highlight comments by the “authorities” (dark red) as per Cranmer’s substack and compare them to comments we have made in our letters (teal). The similarities are easy to see while at the same time they expose the lies subsequently told by Mr James and Dr Bloomfield. Yet, NZDSOS were labelled anti-vaxxers and Medsafe were labelled as heroes.
On Safe and Effective
“The duration of the vaccine protection has not been established beyond two months.”
“At this stage, there is limited evidence of protection against severe disease.”
“Vaccine prevention of asymptomatic infection and disease transmission has not been established.”
The covid vaccinations do little to prevent covid in the individual, nothing to prevent the spread of SARS-CoV-2, may worsen the disease in those vaccinated, contribute to new variants, and are causing unprecedented harm to New Zealanders.Congratulations Hipkins – Now It’s Time to Restore and Regenerate our Country and Stop the Covid-19 Vaccines – 1 Feb 2023
It is clear that these injections do not limit the spread of Covid.Letter to Margie Apa, Ceo, Te Whatu Ora – 20 Oct 2022
Our assessment of emerging data from research, and evidence released by public health
authorities themselves, continues to undermine the ‘safe and effective’ narrative.
The vaccine is neither preventing transmission or infection, nor some seriousUrgent Letter With Update on the Covid-19 Vaccine Deaths – 15 Dec 2021
Do you understand that Pfizer’s trial (the one with no children, pregnant women, old or infirm patients etc) actually showed an absolute risk reduction of less than 1%, by simple maths, and that the number of deaths in each group was NOT statistically different?NZDSOS Replies to Medsafe’s Dismissal – Our 5th Letter – 6 July 2021
Is the Council aware that these vaccines are still being tested in clinical trials that are not scheduled to be completed until mid 2023, and that data was provided for only 2 months’ follow up of human trials?Letter to Medical Council – 23 May 2021
The signatories note that even the promoters of the vaccine do not claim that it
prevents transmission and that public representations that the vaccine is effective for
this purpose are misleading.
Nobody currently knows how safe or effective this novel mRNA technology is in the1st open letter – 14 April 2021
medium to long term, but highly credible medical experts around the world, and even
some vaccine developers themselves, are predicting problems and raising urgent redflag
As far as I understand, the original efficacy rate of 95% that we are being advised about has been determined by the status of 170 trial participants out of 44,000. That doesn’t seem like a whole lot of data to be making such sweeping recommendations on.
There may be some short-term safety data but NO-ONE knows what the long-term safety data will show (e.g. autoimmune conditions, antibody dependent enhancement etc.). To be reassuring New Zealanders that it is safe seems premature to me.
The vaccine has not been shown to prevent transmission of the virus. However, I think that is what New Zealanders are expecting the vaccine to do.Letter to Dr Murton, President of RNZCGP – 4 March 2021
“There is no long term safety follow-up information.”
“The data on long terminal half-life of the lipid nanoparticles was considered unusual but unlikely to be a safety concern, as only two doses are intended to be administered.”
The authors lack of concern in these warning signals reflects what we believe is an overwhelming belief on behalf of the government and aligned academics in the safety of the vaccine despite data indicating otherwise.
The authors assert that there is ‘no evidence of adverse effects’ from the vaccine. This position is not consistent with even the trial evidence which highlighted several severe adverse events in the experimental group.NZDSOS Rebuttal – Our 4th Letter to Medsafe – 20 June 2021
That USA(VAERS) and European (EudraVigilance) databases on adverse vaccine reactions are showing markedly higher injury and death rates, compared to the familiar seasonal flu vaccine.
The manufacturer’s own animal study shows that the LNP do not remain at the injection site and are found in various organs of test animals…Other than the site of administration, it was highest in the liver, followed by the spleen, adrenal glands and ovaries.Open Letter on Informed Consent for C-19 Injections -14 June 2021
Pfizer’s Comirnaty Covid-19 vaccine lacks currently any long-term safety data, including those for children.Open Letter on Vaccinating Children – 8 June 2021
“Covid-19 vaccines can be expected not to provide long term protection – the need for booster doses can be expected.”
That the Pfizer Comirnaty only provides incomplete and temporary protection so that vaccinees will need booster shots within a year afterward, and then annual vaccinations, to maintain protection against the virus as it evolves. Vaccinated individuals may still become infected and transmit the virus via the upper respiratory airway.Open Letter on Informed Consent for C-19 Injections – 8 June 2021
On Risks & Benefits
“The Committee had questions regarding finished product testing, risk of transport to New Zealand, in use data in specific populations, use in severe COVID-19, the emergence of new variants, unforeseen safety signals after the doses given to-date, update on duration of protection and the new 6 dose proposal.”
“Given the rapid development of this medicine and the urgent clinical need that exists in New Zealand, there are several aspects of data to support quality, safety and efficacy that are not available at the time of completion of the evaluation.”
“The benefit risk balance of Comirnaty (COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine) for active immunisation to prevent coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by SARS-CoV-2 in individuals 16 years of age and older, is not clear. At this stage, there is evidence only for short-term protection, and longer-term safety data are lacking.”
“Context is relevant here, as ever. The risk assessment of contracting the virus and therefore risk of onward transmission is highly relevant. For example, the risk profile will be different in respect of the person who meets incoming travelers off international flights versus the person who answers the phones for Inland Revenue.”
It is our opinion that the harm caused by vaccination outweighs the benefits for working age New Zealanders.Letter to Margie Apa, CEO Te Whatu Ora – 20 Oct 2022
The risk-benefit of the vaccine for children is utterly skewed toward risk, by orders of magnitude.6th Letter to Chris James About the Dire and Conclusive Evidence Being Ignored – 29 June 2022
With the mounting evidence regarding the limited effectiveness of the COVID-19 injections and clear associated risks, we at NZDSOS believe that it is time to reassess your strategy.Alert to Experts – 26 June 2021
To repeat, do you understand that Pfizer’s trial (the one with no children, pregnant women,Urgent Letter of Complaint to Ashley Bloomfield, Director General of Health – 6 Aug 2021
old or infirm patients etc) actually showed an absolute risk reduction of less than 1%, by
simple maths, and that the number of deaths in each group was NOT statistically different?
That a mass vaccination of the population, especially with an experimental agent, is not supported by a risk/benefit analysis since the risk of Covid-19 varies significantly by age group.
That there is a major difference between relative risk and absolute risk figures. When informing a member of the public of the risks and benefits of Covid-19 vaccination, it is critical that the use of relative risk figures needs to be accompanied with the context of absolute risk figures as without this the public are given a very misleading impression of the facts. Members of the public need to be informed in such a manner that they can understand whether a Covid-19 vaccination provides a net meaningful risk reduction or not, after balancing all risks and benefits.Open Letter on Informed Consent for C-19 Injections – 14 June 2021
With vaccines, just like with any treatment, one must weigh the possible benefits against the potential risks. As established, there is virtually no risk of death or significant morbidity associated with Covid-19 infection in children. This means that there is little possible benefit to the individual child.Open Letter on Vaccinating Children – 8 June 2021
We do not accept that lay vaccinators are qualified or competent to partake in the1st open letter– 14 June 2021
process of informed consent to patients re this vaccine, especially as they have no
medical expertise and no prior knowledge of the individual circumstances of the
patient or their health issues. Any risk benefit assessment and consideration of
alternatives is complex
Since when should a medication, destined for the WHOLE population, be created under ‘warp speed’? We should surely be extra cautious and certain of its safety if it is going to be given to healthy people on a mass scale. First Do No Harm.Letter to Dr Murton, President of RNZCGP – 4 March 2021
“Due to the unresolved concerns and additional quality, safety and efficacy data to be provided at the time of completion of the evaluation, Medsafe is unable to recommend that this product be granted consent.”
Dr Nikki Turner failed to provide an adequate description of the vaccine’s composition and mechanism of action describing the vaccine as being composed of ‘ little pieces of genetic material’ and ‘little fatty bubbles’.Compliant to the Broadcasting Standards Authority – 26 April 2022
Mr James, as you continue to ignore evidence of contamination without investigating yourself, are you really going to approve this shot for the smallest and most vulnerable to lifetime-health-effects?6th Letter to Chris James About the Dire and Conclusive Evidence Being Ignored – 29 June 2021
“Having reviewed the information supplied in your initial application and in your further responses, I am not satisfied that I should give my consent to the distribution of the product.”
“Medsafe is unable to recommend that the Minister’s delegate grant consent to the distribution of the product.”
Therefore, we request:
That the provisional consent of Pfizer Comirnaty be rescinded until such time as the information related to the unprecedented level of adverse events related to its use is properly investigated.NZDSOS Replies to Medsafe’s Dismissal – Our 5th Letter – 26 July 2021
NZDSOS is extremely concerned about this proposed Covid-19 ‘vaccine’ rollout toOpen Letter to Teachers – 23 July 2021
NZDSOS is a group of doctors, dentists and scientists who are concerned about the safety of the roll-out of the Pfizer vaccine in New Zealand and the lack of balance in the information being presentedEmail to MPs: Call to Action – 28 June 2021
Our view is the current vaccine roll-out is unjustified and should be stopped immediately pending much more research and safety data, and any move to extend the experimental treatment to children is gross breach of the social contract between society, doctors and politicians, and the pharmaceutical industry.Open Letter on Vaccinating Children – 8 June 2021
The day after Medsafe, at the bidding of the secretive MAAC, provisionally approved Comirnaty, Mr James along with Dr Bloomfield appeared in this Ministry of Health promotional video, saying the exact opposite to his correspondence above. Did anything change in two days? Does Mr James look comfortable when he knows what he is saying does not align with what he has just written? Were they afraid of being called anti-vaxxers?
“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…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.”
“A key difference is that vaccination, unlike testing, is a medical treatment, which everyone has a general right to refuse under Section 11 of the Bill of Rights Act 1990.”
“Although vaccination has a beneficial effect on personal health, that does not provide a public health justification for infringing on a right to refuse medical treatment. It is the existence of a threat to wider public health, and a measure that will enhance or preserve it, that is the essential component to justify limiting the right to refuse medical treatments under the Bill of Rights Act.”
The vaccine mandates have greatly reduced the rights of New Zealanders to their independent bodily autonomy. This inalienable right is part of the basis of not only democracy but to human cooperation and needs to be protected as such.Taxpayers’ Union “Brief the PM’ Initiative – 17 Feb 2023
The vaccines may reduce individual disease severity. They can thus be regarded as pre-ventative treatment rather than vaccines, using the traditional definition of this term. As there is no external impact on the community, people should have the right to choose freely whether to accept this treatment or not based on their personal weighing up of the health benefits and risks.Letter to Margie Apa, CEO, Te Whatu Ora – 20 Aug 2022
NZDSOS, a group of physicians, dentists and medical scientists, fully support freedom of choice, full informed consent and all universally recognized human rights as per the Nuremberg protocol as well as the NZ Human Rights Act.Email to Auditor General, John Ryan – 15 Oct 2021
We agree that the measures taken by the current Government are unprecedented and a breach of human rights on many levels either directly or by implication.Reply to the Human Rights Commission -24 Aug 2021
Our right to choose or decline any treatment, and protection from coercion into any treatment have been firmly embedded in multiple declarations, including Nuremberg code 1947, (20) Helsinki Declaration 1952 (21) and NZ Bill of Rights 1990.Open Letter on Vaccinating Children – 8 June 2021
Compelling patients or workers to receive drug, medicine or vaccine which is still1st open letter – 14 April 2021
investigational would set a significant medical precedent, which would run counter to
all international codes of medical ethics since the Nuremberg Code of 1947 and
Declaration of Helsinki in 1952.
On Being Anti-Vaxxers
We list questions to the Medical Council of New Zealand on what constitutes anti-vaxxers.
Specifically, we seek clarification of what you consider “anti vaccination”. Clearly, an
evaluation of both risks and benefits are part of the doctor patient discussion.
Is it “anti vaccination” to advise patients that Pfizer does not claim their injection prevents
either infection or spread of SARS Cov 2, and that further, they are advising that booster
shots may be required indefinitely, and soon available, for the new viral variants that are
already showing vaccine escape?
We believe it is overly simplistic and trite for our concerns around the Pfizer covid 19Letter to Medical Council – 23 May 2021
vaccine to be labelled as “anti vax” by some in government and the media. The signatories
alone have many hundreds of years of collective medical experience, and there are many
other doctors who share our concerns
Can Dr Bloomfield and Mr James be described as anti-vaxxers? Had their correspondence been made public at the time, it would surely have been seen as promoting vaccine hesitancy. Are they being investigated by the Medical and Pharmaceutical Councils as anti-vaxxers?
We May All Be Anti-Vaxxers but We Are Not All Liars
According to the Mirriam-Webster dictionary, the term anti-vaxxer can refer to: “people who are not against the use of vaccines but who do oppose policies, laws, etc. that require vaccination” or to “a person who is specifically against COVID-19 vaccines”.
It is clear that both Dr Bloomfield and Mr James can be described as anti-vaxxers. But they are also liars, as are the then Prime Minister and Mr Hipkins, the then Minister for Covid-19 Response if they saw the Medsafe report. If Ardern and Hipkins did not see the report, rather than being liars, they are grossly incompetent.
As a reminder of what they said, see this video.
We contend that while we may be anti-vaxxers we are not liars. Indeed we seek the truth. Instead of “anti-vaxxers” which has become a derogatory censorship label, we would label ourselves as Pro-Freedom of choice, Pro-Hippocratic Oath, Pro-Informed consent and Pro-Sovereignty.