Updated Report on NZTSOS Appeal
On a grey rainy April day, a year after Justice Cooke’s judgement of the initial NZTSOS and NZDSOS judicial review challenging vaccine mandates was released, people gathered from around New Zealand to bear silent witness to the tatters of our democracy in action. They came to observe a court case attempting to salvage one of our most fundamental rights – the Right to Decline Medical Treatment. The NZTSOS case was heard in the Court of Appeal in Wellington by 3 judges: David Goddard, David Collins and Murray Gilbert on Wednesday 19 April 2023.
Despite the weather, a collection of supporters were outside the Court of Appeal and a number of teachers and supporters observed the proceedings either from the courtroom or via livestream.
Matthew Hague from Frontline Law was the lawyer acting for NZTSOS and Daniel Jones represented the Crown.
Being an appeal of a judicial review, only matters of law were up for discussion. Even though much of the science had been disregarded or dismissed during the judicial review it was not possible to revisit this.
The four grounds of the NZTSOS appeal were:
- That the mandates were outside the law
- That the exemption criteria were not legal
- That the exemption criteria were too narrowly applied
- That the Crown had not provided sufficient evidence that the mandates were ‘a reasonable and demonstrably justified limitation’ on the right to decline medical treatment.
The main thrust of the argument lay in the 4th ground of appeal – had the Crown demonstrated, as required by the NZ Bill of Rights, that mandating a novel genetic treatment was necessary for the wellbeing of New Zealanders and that there was no other way to manage covid 19.
Obviously, the appellants, NZTSOS, did not think the Crown had justified the limitation to their rights. They were disturbed that Justice Cooke had been able effectively to ignore important scientific evidence provided by their expert witnesses by choosing to apply the ‘precautionary principle’ in favour of the Crown.
It seems to be a failing of our legal system that lawyers in general do not come from scientific backgrounds, do not have qualifications in these areas and do not appear to have the ability or desire to grapple with it.
These legal proceedings appear ponderous and pedantic to an outside observer, or someone not used to court operations.
We would like to share some random observations from a non-legal perspective:
1) The judges pressed Crown lawyer Daniel Jones about whether Justice Cooke had sufficiently considered evidence about more rights compliant ways of managing the pandemic. Justice Cooke had mentioned the importance of considering more rights compliant ways in paragraph 81 of his judgement.
“But there are also alternatives that are more rights compliant. For example a requirement for unvaccinated teachers to stay home if unwell, to have daily rapid antigen testing in the school, and to follow the other measures such as mask wearing and social distancing might be regarded as an alternative set of measures that provides adequate protection” and “if there are other more rights compliant ways of achieving the outcome, a measure may not be justified”.
However, he did not revisit this issue and convince himself, or the people of NZ, that these had been thoroughly assessed, nor did he document why they were deemed unsuitable.
If there were measures that could have been undertaken that would have achieved a similar outcome, and that did not carry the risk of death that the mandated medical procedure carried, they should surely have been assessed and employed if at all possible. The judges noted that a more rights compliant alternative did not need to provide the same level of protection but just needed to provide sufficient protection.
Daniel Jones repeatedly claimed that that the mandate was an addition to the full range of COVID measures that had already been implemented in schools. This was patently false. For example, at the time of the mandate there was no requirement for even social distancing to be practiced in schools. Rapid Antigen Testing had also been recommended to the Government but they had provided no specific details on why this had not been more thoroughly considered.
This lack of further examination of more rights compliant measures was surely a significant failing and it is encouraging that the judges were aware of this and queried the Crown on this matter with some rigor.
2) There were questions about whether there was deference to the Crown. Daniel Jones denied this, instead suggesting that Justice Cooke “preferred the evidence of the respondents’ [crown] witnesses”. This statement seems to sum up the assessment of the scientific evidence. Two sets of scientific evidence in parallel and an inability to determine the credibility of each so the judge was able to decide which to ‘prefer’. There were multiple statements in Respondents’ Synopsis of Argument (submitted by Daniel Jones Counsel for Respondents) that attest to this position.
1.4) Cooke J carefully considered the evidence on these issues and was entitled to prefer the evidence of the respondents.
14) …where he set out his reasons for preferring the evidence of the respondent’s expert witnesses on the question of whether the vaccine was safe.
49) The Court considered the effective (sic) of the vaccine in preventing transmission and preferred the evidence of the respondent’s witnesses. The Court considered the appellant’s evidence that the vaccine was not safe and again preferred the evidence of the respondent’s witnesses.
68) Cooke J was entitled to prefer the evidence of the respondent’s witnesses that the vaccine was effective in limiting transmission.
3) Daniel Jones was very dismissive of the appellant’s expert Dr Geoffrey Cramp, a well-qualified public health physician in Waikato. He described Dr Cramp as “not a credible witness” and this was not challenged by the judges.
He submitted that Dr Cramp’s evidence should be “accorded little weight”. However, Justice Cooke had said in his judgement, “There was some criticism in the Crown’s submissions of Dr Cramp’s objectivity, but I do not accept it.”
At the same time, Daniel Jones referred to Doctors Town and Bloomfield as “experts”. At one point he said something to the effect that “Their (Bloomfield and Town’s) evidence must outweigh Dr Cramp’s opinion”.
When looking at the MCNZ Register of doctors to assess qualifications it seems Dr Cramp is more highly qualified than Dr Bloomfield and in addition he was working in an on-the-ground public health role and able to assess matters from a clinical public health point of view while Dr Bloomfield was mired in bureaucracy. Both doctors got their basic medical degrees in 1991, both became Fellows of the NZ College of Public Health in 2008 and both are Fellows or Members of an overseas Public Health Faculty.
However, Dr Cramp is also a trained GP and Urgent Care doctor so has clinical experience related to individual patient care. Due to his GP and Urgent Care qualifications and experience Dr Cramp would have been more aware of the need for Informed Consent and the ethical principle of First Do No Harm, as well as aware of the impact mandates were having on individuals. Dr Bloomfield on the other hand had not seen or treated real human patients for many years and was detached from individual patient care.
4) The judges laboured the point as to whether the Crown/Justice Cooke had made any effort to quantify the additional benefits gained by mandating a vaccine that had already been taken up by the majority of the teaching profession. Had Justice Cooke determined the additional practical effect of a mandate when a high proportion of teachers were already vaccinated?
The judges also noted the very broad application of the mandate, which prevented all workers – even those with little likelihood of student contact – from being present on school sites during school hours. They queried the Crown on the rationale for this.
5) There were brief questions about whether Justice Cooke had access to all the information that the Crown was aware of when making decisions about the justification of a mandated medical procedure. This is a very interesting point in light of the revelations that have occurred with the release of documents under the Official Information Act (OIA), particularly in regard to approval of the vaccine, safety of the vaccine, and effect of the vaccine on preventing transmission.
Approval
In this substack article, it was revealed that Chris James of Medsafe did NOT approve the Pfizer vaccine due to limitations in data about safety and efficacy. He referred it for ‘provisional consent’ – which does not require demonstration of safety and efficacy – to the Medicines Assessment Advisory Committee (MAAC).
Safety
The government knew very early on that the vaccine was not ‘safe’ and would have a significant adverse effect burden. In Feb 2021 there was advice to government that about 1.1% of vaccinees would develop serious or severe adverse events necessitating time off work. Was Justice Cooke comfortable that a mandated medical procedure with a 1.1% rate of significant adverse events was reasonable and demonstrably justified?
Daniel Jones, in his written submission, also maintained that “The Pfizer vaccine is safe, except for a small number of people who are entitled to a medical exemption.” This totally misrepresented the truth concerning exemptions and the dangers of adverse events such as myocarditis. Most of those who have suffered myocarditis as a result of the vaccine were fit young males, who certainly would not have qualified for an exemption under the Government’s very narrow exemption criteria and Dr Bloomfield’s interpretation of these.
Transmission
A more recent OIA response documents that even the Ministry of Justice was advising that much more sound evidence (rather than just Dr Bloomfield’s ‘hope’ or ‘assumptions’) was needed if the fundamental rights of NZ citizens were going to be eliminated.
An email from Rebekka Rogers, Policy Advisor for the ‘Harm Reduction and Public Safety’ Unit on 29 October 2021 (shortly prior to the mandates for healthcare and education) to Mike Gill (Private Secretary to the Minister of Justice) discussing mandating a medical procedure states:
“The human rights section refers to an ‘assumption’ about public health advice regarding vaccination reducing transmission. As this relates to the justification for the new mandatory vaccination requirement and limitation on the right to refuse medical treatment (s11), we consider that Cabinet’s decision should be based on current public health advice, not on assumptions about that advice.”
In addition, further evidence that the government was well aware that the vaccine did not prevent transmission could be seen at a Q and A page on the Medsafe website.
“Does the vaccine prevent or reduce transmission of COVID-19?
At this stage, we do not know if vaccination prevents or reduces transmission of COVID-19.”
This Q and A remained on the Medsafe website until 30 Sept 2021 when it was removed – less than two weeks before the mandate was approved by Cabinet.
So it appears Justice Cooke may not have had all the information and may have been misled about the state of knowledge and advice when he made his determination in Apr 2022.
6) Cross examination
There was brief mention of the lack of ability of the appellants to cross examine the Crown’s experts in the original judicial review.
“The appellant’s application was refused on the grounds it did not meet the standards required for judicial review because it did not focus on the disputed questions.”
It remains murky as to why cross examination was not allowed. There are many New Zealanders who would like to ask questions of the officials and ‘experts’ who imposed mandates that have harmed.
It is also bizarre that the Court could accept the Crown’s expert witnesses (Drs Bloomfield and Town) as being ‘impartial’ (which is their sworn duty under the High Court Rules) when they have been the very people who were instrumental in both recommending and implementing the very mandate policy under review. All the more so, when they were both employed by the Crown, and both clearly state in their affidavits that they have relied upon officials within the Ministry of Health to assist them in preparing their evidence. It would be difficult to find anyone on the planet with more conflicts than these two ‘expert witnesses’!
Conclusion
It is now over 7 weeks since the hearing and we await the outcome of this appeal. This case is of fundamental importance to all New Zealanders. If the Right to Decline Medical Treatment can be so easily overridden without a thorough examination of the science, against the advice of government advisors and with evidence of both significant harm and lack of effectiveness, then we are all essentially farm animals waiting for our next forced medical procedure.
The global picture that frames the teachers’ gentle challenge is one of mass die-offs in all heavily vaccinated countries and of the vaccinated. This is inarguable, and few in authority, elected or not, seem to care. An increasingly distressed Dr John Campbell continues to bear witness here.
We continue to hope the judges have the best interests of New Zealanders at heart.
I believe that under the Neuremberg agreement the government and all associated are guilty of forcing an unproven experimental vaccine without clear and precise informed safety
They are in breach of that agreement, and should be held to account.
Because the vaccine has never been proven to be safe nor effective and is still experimental
Doesn’t say much for the democracy of our justice system or the people operating it. Quite disgusting actually. Not much hope when your justice system is as corrupt as ours appears to be.
Thank you for all the work you do..
Nobody was Told They Were Injected with Electromagnetic Devices
Pfizer’s mRNA nanoparticles are electromagnetic devices per their DoD contract and the FDA. No one agreed to be injected with devices that would kill surrounding cells and tissue when activated by EMF
World Premiere – Karen Kingston
https://rumble.com/v2r004k-final-days-worldwide-premiere.html
Updated June 14, 2023: The film Final Days gives a behind-the-scenes look at world governments’ and private sector initiatives to merge biology with technology. The multi-trillion dollar industry dedicated to merging biology with technology is called synthetic biology. In the film Final Days, I walk the viewers through the Pfizer/US military contracts that clearly describe electromagnetic nanoparticles as part of the COVID-19 injections.
Although Pfizer entered into a contract with the US military to produce ‘a safe mRNA vaccine that was effective in protecting against SARS-CoV-2 infection and its related variants per the safety and efficacy laws of an FDA-approved product’ (as cited in the DoD contract), as you read through Pfizer’s contract with the US Military, you’ll find that the injections are not vaccines at all, but contain engineered nanoparticles that are categorized as Class II electromagnetic devices by the FDA and US Department of Defense (DoD). …
© 2023 Karen Kingston
Karen Kingston, miFight Inc, 960 Postal Way, #307
Vista, CA 92085
The $3 Trillion SubStack on How to Destroy Pfizer in Court
Many of the points Barnes highlights in his InfoWars interview regarding Pfizer’s violation of their Operation Warp Speed contract can be found in my January 13, 2023 SubStack. JUN 6
June 5, 2023: I’ve made this SubStack FREE as it is in high-demand for those trying to understand whether or not Pfizer has liability from civil or criminal charges.
The answer is that Pfizer has NO immunity (as Robert Barnes brilliantly argued in the Brook Jackson whistleblower case. While the judge in Brook Jackson’s case dismissed the case with prejudice, it was not based on ‘imaginary immunity’ for Pfizer. The judge’s decision was based on precedent whistleblower cases.
Thank you for reading The Kingston Report.
March 3, 2023: Brook Jackson’s attorney, Robert Barnes, had a strong day in court last week with the $3 trillion false claims lawsuit against Pfizer, by driving home that Pfizer was contracted to deliver a safe and effective vaccine to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection. He pointed out to the judge that the contract promises the delivery of a safe and effective vaccine under FDA laws more than a half-dozen times.
I spoke to Brook’s attorney Warner Mendenhall in July of 2022 who asked my opinion on Pfizer’s motion to dismiss. I stated that you can’t contract to commit a crime. Pfizer was contracted to deliver a safe and effective vaccine.
Since the summer of last year, I’ve stated that under the Operation Warp Speed (OWS) contract, the US military contracted with Pfizer to “deliver a safe and effective vaccine capable of providing protection against SARS-CoV-2 and related coronaviruses (variants) subject to FDA technical, clinical and regulatory success (laws and guidance)” AND in compliance with Good Manufacturing Practices. Pfizer forfeited their EUA immunity rights under their contract with the DoD under the Trump administration.
The Kingston Report is reader-supported.
Pfizer collaborated with the FDA to lie to the US military, the American people, and President Trump that their mRNA nanoparticle technologies were safe and effective vaccines. In fact, Pfizer knew their mRNA technology would only cause disease, disabilities and death and offer no immunity to the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Per the contract, Pfizer was also in charge of the data of submitted to the DoD, which they clearly falsified per Brook Jackson’s testimony.
Many of the points Barnes highlights in his InfoWars interview regarding Pfizer’s violation of their Operation Warp Speed contract can be found in the below January 13, 2023 SubStack where I annotate specific pages, paragraphs and phrases from the contract.
10 Reasons to Criminally Charge Pfizer in Court.
Originally Posted on January 13, 2023: You can NOT contract to commit a crime, any crime. Just to be clear, Pfizer can NOT go through the entire Initial New Drug (IND) application process, Phase 1/2/3, Biological License Application (BLA), pay the $3 million dollar Pharmaceutical Drug User Fee (PDUFA), FDA-approval, post-marketing clinical requirements, and manufacture and market FDA-approved product and then claim that under their contract with the DoD they were instructed to perform the clinical trials and receive FDA-approval as a part of a psyop. This is the most ridiculous story I have heard so far in an attempt to defend Pfizer’s EUA vaccine immunity shield which is completely shattered.
The only reason why Pfizer is getting away with murder is because Pfizer is influencing the narrative that we are listening to from trusted leaders and media platforms on both sides of the COVID-19 isle to convince the entire population of the United States that their injectable COVID-19 mRNA lipid nanoparticle bioweapons are;
safe and effective vaccines,
vaccines gone wrong, or
bioweapons, but Pfizer is following orders from the US military under a military contract and under EUA law Pfizer has legal immunity, so there is nothing we can do about it.
These are all false statements.
“Pfizer’s Operation Warp Speed (OWS) contract with the DoD was to develop a vaccine that effectively prevented SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19 disease) and that met the safety and efficacy regulatory standards of an FDA-EUA authorized or FDA-approved vaccine.” — Karen Kingston, January 13, 2023
As we read through the DoD contract, it’s clear that Pfizer is in charge of communications with the FDA. Per the FDA documents, Pfizer exerted extreme influence over the FDA forcing the FDA to ignore safety flags during the clinical trials, thereby strong-arming the FDA to fraudulently authorize and then fraudulently approve a bioweapon as a safe and effective vaccine.
Pfizer is obviously the criminal in this case and can be criminally charged now.
If I was an advisor in a criminal case, here’s a few examples on how I would eviscerate many of the fraudulent claims (extrinsic fraud) currently being made. Extrinsic fraud is when an attorney or expert witness misrepresents material facts or law so that victims are unable to take effective civil or criminal action.
Fraudulent Claims Made by Attorneys and Experts
1. Pfizer’s DoD Contract was for a Prototype, NOT a Vaccine. FALSE.
FALSE. Per the contract, the vaccine prototypes were part of a manufacturing demonstration, however the ‘vaccine prototypes’ would be categorized as emergency use authorized (EUA) or FDA-approved vaccines after receiving FDA authorization or FDA approval. If vaccine prototypes never received FDA authorization or approval, then they would have remained manufacturing prototypes and never distributed as vaccines to the US civilian population.
Pfizer’s Operation Warp Speed contract with the DoD was to produce 100 million doses of a vaccine (vaccine prototype) capable of providing protection against SARS-CoV-2 and related coronaviruses (variants) subject to FDA technical, clinical and regulatory success (laws and guidance).
Pfizer’s mRNA vaccines COULD NOT have been made available to the American public until after FDA regulatory approval per Sec 564 of the FD&C Act for an EUA authorized product or Sect 351 of PHS Act for a FDA-approval of a biological product based on successful clinical trial data.
If the FDA failed to provide authorization or approval, then Pfizer’s manufactured vaccine doses would not be made available to the US or global market.
This means that the ‘vaccine prototypes’ would be categorized as emergency use authorized (EUA) vaccines after receiving FDA authorization and then FDA-approved vaccines after receiving FDA-approval. The term prototype is a legal term confirming the reduction in process clause in the contract, confirming Pfizer as the original inventor of the vaccine technology whether it be FDA-approved or FDA-authorized.
2. BioNTech is the Clinical Trial Sponsor and EUA/BLA Holder, NOT Pfizer. FALSE.
FALSE. The contract states that Pfizer and BioNTech will work jointly together on the clinical trials and the commercialization for the vaccine upon regulatory approval (EUA authorization or FDA approval/BLA approval).
Although part of the contract states that BioNTech is the regulatory sponsor and the EUA/BLA holder, per the contract Pfizer was instructed to act as the clinical trial sponsor and EUA/BLA holder, and in fact, has acted in those roles.
Any attorney or contract expert worth their weight in salt would point out that Section B. Clinical and Regulatory is nullified by Section A. Regulatory Planning which designates;
Pfizer as the regulatory sponsor when the contract states, “Pfizer will meet the necessary FDA requirements for conducting ongoing and planned clinical trials…” and
Pfizer and BioNTech as the EUA/BLA holder when the contract states, “Pfizer will meet the necessary FDA requirements for conducting ongoing and planned clinical trials, and with its collaboration partner, BioNTech will seek FDA approval or authorization for the vaccine.”
An example on how Pfizer acted as the sponsor is when Pfizer paid the approximate $3 million Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA Fee) in May of 2021 when submitting for FDA approval.
It’s important to note that all FDA letters regarding approval or authorization of the Pfizer vaccine refer to the vaccine as the “Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine” and are addressed directly to Pfizer.
3. BioNTech is the Marketer for COMIRNATY, NOT Pfizer. FALSE.
FALSE. Per the COMIRNATY website, Pfizer and BioNTech are currently marketing and distributing FDA-approved COMIRNATY in the United States for adults and children 12-years of age and older.
4. There is NO FDA-approved COMIRNATY Available in the United States. FALSE.
FALSE. Per the National Drug Code (NDC) database, FDA-approved and COMIRNATY-labeled product was available in the United States on December 22, 2021.
The above image is from a video of a soldier in possession of the FDA-approved COMIRNATY and reading the NDC code that was issued for FDA-approved product available in the United States beginning on December 22, 2021 from the COMIRNATY vial.
5. The Military Controlled the FDA Clinical Trials, So Pfizer is Not Liable. FALSE.
FALSE. Per the DoD contract, Pfizer and BioNTech initiated the Phase 1/2 trials independent of any contract or work done with the US military.
The contract clearly states that clinical trials are regulated by HHS and the FDA and that the US military is not involved.
The contract clearly states that Pfizer is in charge of all communications with the FDA.
6. The US Military Controls the FDA Data of US Citizens Injected with mRNA Vaccines, So Pfizer is Not Liable. FALSE.
FALSE. Per the contract, all of the data related to Pfizer’s COVID-19 mRNA vaccines was and will continue to be generated by Pfizer (and BioNTech) without government funding, and Pfizer owns all of the data.
Per the contract, Pfizer controls the format of the data and is under no obligation to provide custom reports to the US military.
7. Pfizer’s COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines were Manufactured by the Military and Outside of the United States. FALSE.
FALSE. Per the contract, Pfizer is in charge of CMC (chemistry, manufacturing and controls) manufacturing for their COVID-19 mRNA vaccines. Pfizer established US manufacturing facilities for manufacturing mRNA vaccines in the United States.
Per the FDA approval letter, FDA-approved COVID-19 mRNA vaccines were approved to be manufactured at Pfizer’s facility in Kalamazoo, MI.
8. Pfizer is Not Liable if Vaccines Contain Toxic Substances Because the mRNA Vaccines Are Not Subject to Good Manufacturing Practice Laws. FALSE.
FALSE. While EUA laws waive GMP (good manufacturing practices), the military contract clearly contracts that Pfizer will ensure conformity with GMP per the Food & Drug Consumer Protection Act, 21 USC 351a2B. This is important because Pfizer can not claim they didn’t know what was in the vials due to a lack of GMP requirements as they were contracted to adhere to GMP.
9. Pfizer is NOT Liable because the Vaccine Technology Manufactured under the Military Contract is owned by the US Government and NOT Pfizer. FALSE.
FALSE. Per the contract, all inventions conceived in performance of the contract are owned by Pfizer; “As between Pfizer and the Government, all inventions conceived or first actually reduced to practice in the performance of this Statement of Work (“Subject Inventions”) shall be owned by Pfizer.” If the military did develop the nanotechnology, the military transferred the US intellectual property over to Pfizer’s ownership.
Furthermore, Pfizer may withhold trade secrets from the government; “If invented solely by Pfizer, Pfizer will be able to elect, in its discretion, whether to hold Subject Inventions as trade secrets, and holding a Subject Invention as a trade secret will not forfeit title to the Government.”
10. Pfizer Can NOT Be Charged Criminally Because They Have Immunity as a Covered Person per the PREP Act and Contract. FALSE.
FALSE. This brings me back to my first point, you can not contract to commit a crime. While Pfizer is designated as a Covered Person in the contract, the contract and the immunity it grants are predicated on developing a medical countermeasure that is a safe and effective vaccine to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection, not a bioweapon.
Pfizer is NOT a Covered Person. Per the manufacturing responsibilities designated to them in the contract, Pfizer is the manufacturer and sponsor, just like Moderna and J&J are manufacturers in their contracts, because that is reality. In reality, Pfizer can no more claim immunity as a ‘covered person’ just because the DoD randomly claimed as such at the end of the contract, than they can identify as a ‘fairy princess with US government immunity to unleash a bioweapon on the US civilian population and call it fairy dust.’
Now back to reality, the countermeasure Pfizer was contracted to manufacture is a vaccine capable of providing protection against SARS-CoV-2 and related coronaviruses (variants) subject to FDA technical, clinical and regulatory success (laws, regulatory guidance and bona fide research).
However, Pfizer did not develop an effective vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 and its variants. Furthermore, Pfizer instructed the FDA to disregard safety signals to stop the clinical trials thereby engaging in fraudulent and criminal trials that are not bona fide research.
Per Pfizer’s November 2020 submission, Pfizer instructed the FDA to disregard unfavorable reactogenicity data from 100 children ages 12 through 15 years of age.
Reactogenicity events in these children may have been and likely included; myocarditis, multi-system inflammatory system, heart attacks (sudden death), stroke, convulsions, and death.
Pfizer informed the FDA that 409 patients came down with COVID-19 or reactogenicity symptoms (see above list that includes death) within 7 days of their first or second injection. Pfizer informed the FDA that they did not include these cases as adverse events or as COVID-19 because they may have been severe reactions to the injections and the subjects did not have a positive PCR test, so Pfizer simply did not count them, in caae they were unconfirmed COVID-19 cases. Pfizer told the FDA their shots were causing disease, disabilities and death, but to simply disregard unfavorable evidence that the shots are bioweapons.
In the November 2020 FDA submission, Pfizer states that they do not know how their mRNA vaccine protects against SARS-CoV-2.
In the August 23, 2021, FDA approval of Pfizer’s biological license application (BLA), the FDA states that Pfizer had NOT provided any DATA to demonstrate that the vaccine was effective; Missing Information = Vaccine Effectiveness.
Per important identified risks and important potential risks, the FDA confirmed that the data Pfizer did provide confirms that the mRNA injections cause severe diseases such as myocarditis, pericarditis, and likely causes vaccine-associated enhanced disease and vaccine-associated enhanced respiratory disease.
In a post-hoc analysis, Pfizer confirmed with the FDA that the risk of COVID-19 increases over time in study participants after they received a second dose of the COVID-19 mRNA injections.
Biological agents that do not prevent infection or disease, are not done under bona fide research, and in fact cause infection, disease, and death are not a vaccines….they are bioweapons.
Pfizer was contracted by the US military to manufacture a safe and effective vaccine against SARS-CoV-2. Pfizer somehow strong-armed the FDA into ignoring all safety signals in order to enable Pfizer to knowingly and intentionally manufacture, distribute and promote bioweapons, specifically lipid nanoparticle technologies encoded to produce the Wuhan-Hu-1 SARS-CoV-2 S-2P spike protein, as a safe and effective vaccines.
Pfizer’s contract with the US military and any immunity it provided is unlawful, illegal and criminal, as Pfizer knowingly and willingly developed and released a bioweapon on the US civilian population. Pfizer’s actions are in violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Geneva Convention.
Pfizer is also in violation of all International Human Rights Laws, including; the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Nuremberg Code, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Every state in the United States of America has specific criminal charges that can be brought against the regulatory team members at Pfizer for developing, distributing, marketing and making readily available a bioweapon (or weapon of mass destruction) to the American people under the guise of a safe and effective vaccine.
If you know of victims who have been harmed by Pfizer vaccines, you can utilize the evidence I provide and your state laws to file criminal charges against Pfizer’s mRNA vaccine regulatory and marketing team members and have arrest warrants issued.
Push back on trusted experts refusing to call the injections bioweapons or who are spinning the laws, evidence, government contracts and documents, and Pfizer’s own documents to try and convince us that there is ‘nothing we can do’ to hold Pfizer accountable for developing and unleashing a bioweapon on civilian American adults and children.
Nothing about what Pfizer has done is legal or protected under any US laws and is in violation of the 9th and 14th Amendments. You can not legally unleash a bioweapon on a civilian population.
The only reason why Pfizer is getting away with murder is because they have influenced the narrative on both sides of the COVID-19 story to convince the entire population of the United States that the bioweapons are;
safe and effective vaccines,
vaccines gone wrong, or
bioweapons, but Pfizer is following orders from the US military under a military contract and EUA law, so there is nothing we can do about it.
These are all lies.
The US military contracts and FDA documents indicate that Pfizer was calling all the shots on the bioweapons (no pun intended). It is my understanding that Pfizer’s contracts with other non-US countries also indicate that Pfizer usurped power from government agencies and the military.
If we the people wake up and understand that we unalienable God-given rights and the authority to believe our own eyes, ears and experiences, call the vaccines what they are – bioweapons, and pursue criminal charges against Pfizer, we the people will take our country back.
The Kingston Report. TRUTH WINS.
Colossians 2: 1-4
For I want you to know how great a struggle I have for you…and for all who have not seen me face to face, that their hearts may be encouraged, being knit together in love, to reach all the riches of full assurance of understanding and the knowledge of God’s mystery, which is Christ, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.
I say this in order that no one may delude you with plausible arguments.
The Goodness Inside
People often ask me for advice on supplements and medical treatments. I can’t make medical recommendations for you, but for me, I know that reducing the level of acid in your body and taking a supplement that contains zeolite can help remove toxic metals from your body. I personally use these products to detox (Pure Body Extract (Zeolite), Super Green Juice, Organic Super Fiber, Organic Super Protein) which you can order here.
© 2023 Karen Kingston
Karen Kingston, miFight Inc, 960 Postal Way, #307
Vista, CA 92085
Now it is more than obvious that human rights and democracy are cancelled from now on. It set up an example of how to do things when next “pandemic” arrives, they will implement the same process as it worked last time.
We are about to see if NZ has a credible trustworthy legal system or if it too has been tainted by power and money.
I worked in the legal profession as a practitioner for 30 years. I have science education to tertiary level. I never had a legal colleague with any scientific knowledge of note. Lawyers and judges are fundamentally stupid where science is concerned. Therefore they cannot understand proper scientific evidence. Not a good place to start.
an excellent observation. I too worked in Legal profession for12+ years, and have just completed papers for a further Tertiary Qual-basic physiology, science and ethics, and its very clear to me , that many do not have the “enquiring mind” needed to look beyond the obvious and promoted views. Judges greatly pontificate and speak in abstract form, often so far removed from the reality of how these situations ..play out in real world ways…
Thank you for continuing to represent the New Zealand public. Greatly appreciated. please keep it up.
Thank you for all your hard work!
I think there are many interesting questions here. Do the courts understand the realities outside of their cosy chambers? How much political leverage/ control do the courts bow down to ? What private conversations occur between court/judges and parliament staff when court is Arderned and verdicts are formulated
What do you expect from a bunch of elected criminals — all 60 of them plus the remaining 60 who are on the party list.
Also the various government agencies putting out misinformation re the MRNA vaccine including the so called main stream media. They are all guilty of crimes against humanity.
Time for those above to all be put on trial for their crimes. I recommend that all those people who have been harmed to get together from all sections of our nation to set up an independent court outside of the official justice system to try these criminals. No sense carrying on trying to get justice from our corrupt
government justice system. Time to set up a New Zealand “Truth and Reconciliation Court” to once and for all find out what motivated these officials to act in the way they did.
The Communist Labour for Nothing party government will have instructed the court to delay a finding as long as possible while it works to implement the W.H. ‘Vaccine Passport’ and bring in a universal digital I.D. https://id2020.org/
This website spells out exactly what the New Zealand government IS going to sign up to :
https://wehurtothers.com/home/
Unfortunately the National Marxist Party and make David Seymour and Co. a rich Act Party are also global communists . Nothing needs to be said about the racist anti-White muudy ‘s or the greenie eco-terrorist trash.
Pleease never stop your amazing work ..it is much appreciated
First, I want to state how much I value and appreciate the courage of the NZ Doctors Speaking Out with Science to stand up against the attempted Totalitarian Takeover of Covid-1984.
While I appreciate you attempting to hold the NZ Government accountable for its Covid-1984 crimes, I do not think your legal approach will do this.
Unfortunately, in every Western nation where the “Rule of Law” appears to reign, throughout history it is evident that Law does not equal Morality. On the contrary, Law as you describe in this article and as evidenced in all nations, almost always rules in favor of the iron rule of oligarchy. The judges do what they are told or indoctrinated to do willingly. Government Law is equivalent to primitive rituals and serves the same non-rational function, to manage the anxiety and keep the rulers ruling. So to expect anything different I believe is a vain hope.
As a Voluntaryist, I recommend you read fellow Voluntaryist scholar, Robert Higgs, and understand the nature of the “Participatory Fascism” you are embedded within and trying, vainly I believe, to fight (CAPS are my emphasis) in this legal manner:
“Almost every nation in the world has adopted a system of participatory fascism, whereby nominally representative governments can abridge and restrict someone’s nominally recognized private-property rights. Participatory fascism may enjoy the appearance of popular legitimacy, but its formal procedures for relief from government abuses are too slow, cumbersome, costly, and ineffective to do anything reliably except to give those who lack much political clout the short end of the stick
Private markets operate, but only within the extensive constraints imposed by the government. Many producers—now often referred to as “cronies”—enjoy special privileges or protections created by government restraints and penalties imposed on competing producers. Such pervasive government interference also exists in markets for labor, natural resources, intellectual capital, and other inputs in the productive process.
Such pervasive interference creates both winners and losers, and if the losers are aware of how the government’s actions are bringing about their losses, they are unhappy about the situation. They resist in all sorts of ways, from simply not complying to lobbying for changes in the laws and regulations to appealing for relief or compensation in review boards and the courts. Of course, much of the action in the electoral system pertains to candidates’ promises to change laws and regulations so that losers can reduce their losses or currently excluded parties can become privileged beneficiaries of the system.
One of the chief reasons why almost every regime in the world has converged to a system of participatory fascism is that THIS SYSTEM CREATES OR RETAINS A GREAT VARIETY OF INSTITUTIONALIZED OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE STATE’S VICTIMS—WHO COMPOSE THE GREAT MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE—TO CHALLENGE THE STATE’S EXACTIONS AND TO “MAKE THEIR VOICES HEARD,” THEREBY GAINING THE IMPRESSION THAT THE RULERS ARE NOT SIMPLY OPPRESSING AND EXPLOITING THEM UNILATERALLY BUT INVOLVING THEM IN A MEANINGFUL WAY IN THE MAKING AND ENFORCEMENT OF RULES IMPOSED ON EVERYONE.
THESE OPPORTUNITIES HELP TO ALLAY PUBLIC RESENTMENT AND ANGER, ASSURING PEOPLE THAT THEY HAVE HAD “THEIR DAY IN COURT,” AND THEY THEREBY SERVE TO PROP UP THE REGIME AND ITS ONGOING EXPLOITATION. These official avenues of protest and resistance are, however, rarely of much real avail and in most cases do nothing whatsoever to relieve the victims’ plight. The oppressed citizens and other residents are protesting the actions of legislatures, government executives, bureaucracies, and courts before administrative bodies established by the very officials who are engaged in the oppression and plunder.
The opportunities for voicing feedback are, in effect, ways in which people are allowed to request formally that the slave master stop beating them or reduce the severity of the beating. Yet entrenched cronies are well placed to defend their privileges and to fend off their victims’ attempts to eliminate or constrict the government’s actions that have caused their victimization. Rarely do the petitioners win, and even when they do, the costs of making their appeals, especially through the legal system, guarantee that they will be impoverished in the process. The old adage tells us that “you can’t fight city hall,” which is a way of saying that trying to get rid of the costs, burdens, and inconveniences imposed on people by the government is usually an exercise in futility. The saying is valid for the most part. NEVERTHELESS, THE AVAILABILITY OF INSTITUTIONALIZED AVENUES OF PROTEST AND APPEAL HELPS SIGNIFICANTLY TO DIMINISH THE PRESSURE THAT MIGHT OTHERWISE BUILD UP TO RESIST OR OVERTHROW THE GOVERNMENT.
For the general public, it’s heads you lose, tails you lose. Such is my conclusion after more than fifty years of studying participatory fascism.” Robert Higgs
Stay free, then stay safe.
WHEN JUDISIARY BECOMES SO CORRUPT IT IS DIFFICULT TO FIND HONESTY AND INTEGRITY.
THE CROWN SPECIALISTS CALLING THEM SELVES EXPERTS IS ALSO CONTRADICTORY BUT THE JUDGES TEND TO SIDE WITH THEIR LIES.
KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK NZDSOS THE TRUTH WILL EVENTUALLY PREVAIL.
The only way to get a fair hearing is to have a Judge that is either neutral or in favour of those who know these illegal laws (mandates) are just that.
Government has bought off all those who are ‘for’ these anti democratic newly instigated ‘laws/mandates’ so it will be an uphill battle but one that must be fought we must never give in to tyranny.
Good luck to all concerned in trying to bring this about for the benefit of humanity and democracy.
God Bless
Nan
Dear Friends,
Thank you so much for all you do.
Have you got the numbers of how many died or have side effect through covit jabs?
Would you be able to list illnesses which statistically stand out reg covid ?
Are vaccinated people referred to having Crohns disease to keep the record strait ?
Please also address the nonsense of legalese GM/GE in NZ.
This will be the final nail in the coffin of NZ.
God bless
Albert Bucher
Development Engineer Mech.
The question which cannot be posed is the extent to which the judiciary has deferred to pressure from government. This reluctance is itself in part consequential to a cultural conditioning, by which judicial integrity is deemed beyond the pale of polite discussion. However, circumstances alter cases, and that conditioning has itself been rudely and correctly challenged in respect of many other institutions. It is not unreasonable to raise the question in these circumstances. Without public confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary, there can be no confidence in the delivery of justice, or in any government which perverts its course. Preference given to evidence presented by the Crown simply because it is the Crown which presents it is wrong. NZSOS is correct in that poor judgement in this instance will carry with it great and damaging consequences.
I have observed, since 1991, that both Family Court and High Court Judges, including Masters, are subject to bias.
There appears a tendency among Judges to favour plaintiffs or defendants with more money: or being represented by certain lawyers – especially women lawyers.
I also believe that, where Government is either the Plaintiff or Defendant, Justices find – usually “on the balance of probability” or similar legal phrasing – in favour of the Government.
I do not suggest that all Justices, of every Court, are crooked: but from the few cases in which I have been personally involved (High Court 1991 to 1994) I have learned to mistrust both Judges and some Barristers.