Weekly SOS: US FDA Admits Vaccine Deaths In Children. What About New Zealand?
Sign up for our Weekly SOS Newsletter to stay up to date on the latest developments and join a growing community advocating for truth and accountability in medicine.
Finally, some truth from the US FDA.
It lied (or at least kept quiet) and children died. They have admitted 10 dead children to start with, from the ‘team’ of 350 million. Meanwhile, NZ’s ‘team of 5 million’ has lost more than that number of under 25s (though they have not been officially acknowledged apart from one 13 yr old boy).
Sudden deaths in previously well young people in NZ include:
Aramea, Isabella, Felix, Liam, Louis and many more.
Most are uninvestigated, or in an endless queue for an inquest where the reason for death no longer has to be found. Why has NZ media long ignored evidence that the injections could be lethal in some cases?
Their names deserve to be remembered.
In his letter, Dr Prasad of the FDA notes: “I then asked OBPV (Office of Biostatistics and Pharmacovigilance) to perform a detailed analysis of deaths voluntarily reported to the VAERS system – in full interest of balance. Causality is easy to assess in a randomized trial, but with case reports, causality is typically assessed on a subjective scale. In this scale ranging from certain to unlikely – certain, possible/likely, and probable are broadly considered as related to the product.”
But this IS the role of pharmacovigilance experts – to do a thorough causality assessment!
They should not need to be asked to do this, years after the fact. However, in our experience in NZ such causality assessments have not been done and the Ombudsman has advised an individual we are in contact with that: “… as advised previously to you by Dr Michael Tatley [NZ’s pharmacovigilance expert, now retired], the Centre for Adverse Reactions Monitoring (CARM) has neither the responsibility nor the resources to investigate such links.”
What happens to all the reports that go to CARM then? They seem to end up in a black hole with officials hoping they will just disappear and be forgotten.
What if this was your child?
Medsafe approved Pfizer’s Comirnaty covid vaccine in February 2021. The risk-benefit assessment was not clear. Chris James was unable to grant provisional approval without first referring it to the Medicines Assessment Advisory Committee (MAAC).
The provisional consent for Comirnaty was renewed via gazette notice published on 28 October 2021, effective from 3 November 2021. In relation to this, on 29 October 2021, the Immunisation Advisory Centre (IMAC) noted on its website that in renewing the provisional consent, “Medsafe confirms that the benefits of the Pfizer covid-19 vaccine outweigh the risks.”
On 3 July 2023, the covid-19 Vaccine Independent Safety Monitoring Board (CV-ISMB) wrote its final report noting throughout 2021 and 2022 that the benefits of vaccination greatly outweighed the risks.”
In March 2025, when asked under the Official Information Act for updated risk-benefit assessments done since February 2021, Medsafe replied: “Medsafe conducts full risk-benefit analyses when new safety data indicates that a significant change has occurred to warrant it.”
Medsafe pointed to the Independent Safety Monitoring Board (ISMB) confirming that myocarditis did not affect the risk-benefit profile. Therefore, no further updated risk benefit assessments have been done.
If there was never any updated analysis following the first assessment in February 2021 when it was not clear, how could various organisations say the benefits greatly outweigh the risks?
Since when was it the responsibility of the ISMB, with its limited resources and opportunities to meet, to have the last word on attributing causation?
What about MAAC?
What about the Medicines Adverse Reactions Committee (MARC)?
What about Medsafe’s own assessment of safety data it was still receiving under the terms of the provisional consent?
This is circular reasoning at its worst. Each organisation claims another did the assessment when, in reality, none of them did a proper evaluation because it was ‘an emergency’.
We’ve been supplying evidence from the beginning that completely undermines even the myocarditis claim alone. Yet there are many other adverse events shown to be major safety signals with very elevated proportionate reporting ratios, yet authorities ignored them.
The Substantial Minority Inquiry
Out of the RCI Phase 1 came acknowledgement of harm to a “substantial minority” of New Zealanders.
Our current Royal Commission promises New Zealand a thorough examination of the government’s pandemic response. But decision-makers refused to face public questioning, thus the Commission cancelled an entire week of hearings.
However, many independent researchers, doctors and whistleblowers who lodged formal submissions asked to present in person but most were ignored or declined. We think the Commission should have filled the void, left by refusnik politicians, with those who have powerful evidence to present.
Throughout December, NZDSOS is publishing a series of concise, evidence-based video presentations with New Zealand knowledge experts for the public to view. This has already been placed firmly in the lap of the Commissioners in written form.
Our presentations address critical questions the Commission should be asking:
- Why were whistleblowers who risked everything never called to speak in person?
- Where are the periodic safety reports required under provisional consent?
- Why was the adverse event reporting system decommissioned mid-rollout, despite escalating evidence of harm?
- Why did government agencies use behavioural psychology techniques on the public?
All our evidence demands examination and adds to the proof that officials knew but carried on anyway.
The FDA begins to do the right thing, will New Zealand follow?
Though the FDA’s acknowledgement is limited to a handful of deaths, it represents something new. Any government agency admitting problems with vaccination at all is seismic.
The new public health administration in the United States is demanding long-term safety testing, placebo-controlled trials, and scrutiny of multiple vaccinations given simultaneously. Officials are requiring vaccine makers to demonstrate their products actually reduce disease, not just generate antibodies.
New Zealand could be a part of this conversation, yet instead, our authorities remain silent while young lives are lost and families are left without answers.
What You Can Do Right Now
- Share the evidence widely. Visit our evolving Substantial Minority Inquiry page on the NZDSOS website. Watch the presentations and share them with your networks and your local MP, we need to make this impossible to ignore.
- Support independent health advocacy. NZDSOS operates on donations from supporters like you. Every contribution allows us to continue this essential work. Visit nzdsos.com/donate set up a monthly donation or make a one-time contribution.
The principle of “first, do no harm” isn’t negotiable and neither is informed consent. Both were violated on a mass scale and demand restoration. You, as our supporters, make this work possible. Your sterling commitment to health freedom and medical ethics gives us strength to continue.
Together, we’re building the public record officials hope will disappear.
