Open Letter to Prime Minister Christopher Luxon Challenges Evidence Behind Pfizer Vaccine Safety in New Zealand
Justice Watch New Zealand has issued an open letter to Prime Minister Luxon asking what evidence supports the Royal Commission’s conclusion that the Pfizer Comirnaty COVID-19 vaccine is safe in New Zealand.
As the initial hubbub starts to settle, the Royal Commission on Covid-19: Lessons Learned report is throwing up plenty – as are we, on all the white paint – to get our rabid teeth into.
We have a large rotten meal to digest but several things have got our initial attention though, and one is captured well in this letter from our friends at Justice Watch NZ, a legal advocacy and investigation group – who’s website is currently out of commission. Frustrating, as there are some important things to hear coming up from them so watch that space.
Like the rest of government, the Commissioners seem captured by the notion that all anyone would ever need to know about the jab’s adverse effects was predetermined accurately by Pfizer, the “sponsor”. Since the report concludes that vaccine mandate legislation should be even more rigorously enforced next time, the sponsor’s influence woven through the Commission’s frankly anti-science report confirms everything we have been saying about the corporate capture of our institutions – and therefore, by extension, all of our lives.
Please read this measured letter but consider the consequences if its reasonable questions stay unanswered, or get whitewashed.
PUBLIC OPEN LETTER
Justice Watch New Zealand Inc.
Public Interest Correspondence
Email: justicewatchnz@protonmail.com
Date: 11 March 2026
Subject: Evidential Foundation for the Conclusion that Comirnaty (BNT162b2) Is Considered Safe for Use in New Zealand
Rt Hon Christopher Luxon
Prime Minister of New Zealand
And to:
All Honourable Ministers of the Crown
Dear Prime Minister and Honourable Ministers,
I write on behalf of Justice Watch New Zealand Inc. concerning matters of public accountability arising from the findings of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into COVID-19 Lessons Learned – Phase Two Report.
This open letter is published in the interests of transparency and public accountability.
This correspondence raises concerns regarding the evidential basis relied upon by the Commissioners in forming conclusions about the safety of the COVID-19 vaccine Comirnaty (BNT162b2).
The report appears to accept the vaccine as safe largely on the basis that the sponsor — as the manufacturer of the product — represents it to be so. The systems relied upon by the Commissioners to support this conclusion also appear to derive substantially from information supplied by the sponsor itself. In effect, the foundation upon which the safety conclusion rests appears to originate with the manufacturer whose product is under evaluation.
In addressing safety concerns, the report acknowledges that myocarditis can occur following vaccination. However, it does not explain the biological mechanism by which this condition may arise. Independent medical science, separate from the sponsor, has now advanced considerably in understanding these mechanisms. This body of scientific work does not appear to have been meaningfully reflected in the Commissioners’ analysis.
A related concern arises from the structure of adverse-event reporting itself. At the outset, the sponsor establishes the reporting parameters that define how adverse reactions associated with its product are identified and recorded. Regulatory authorities then operate within those parameters when analysing reports of serious adverse reactions. As a consequence, the framework through which adverse events are recognised and interpreted originates with the sponsor itself.
This arrangement creates an inherent risk that the reporting and interpretation of adverse events is influenced by the sponsor’s initial definitions and classifications of harm. Independent medical science operating outside the sponsor–regulator reporting framework approaches the issue differently, examining adverse reactions through clinical observation, mechanistic research, and epidemiological analysis. In a number of instances this independent work has produced findings that differ materially from the sponsor-derived conclusion that the product is considered safe for use in New Zealand.
It is therefore necessary to address the issue directly at its point of origin. The safety conclusion presented by the Commissioners appears ultimately to rest upon what the sponsor says about its own product. From that starting point, the analytical systems repeatedly cited in support of safety are themselves informed by the same sponsor-defined framework. Where the premise of safety originates with the sponsor, and the systems used to evaluate safety are constructed upon that premise, the resulting analysis risks becoming circular.
In the case of Comirnaty, the sponsor is Pfizer — a corporation that has previously been reported to have been subject to billions of dollars in penalty fines imposed through the independent United States court system for matters involving false representations. In that context, it is a matter of profound concern that the Commissioners appear unable to confront the central equation that arises in this case.
The position presented effectively reduces to the following sequence: the use of Comirnaty; the subsequent reporting of serious harm numbering in the tens of thousands; the reliance upon a system of evaluation whose parameters originate with the sponsor itself; the absence of meaningful engagement with independent medical science operating outside that sponsor-derived framework; and yet the ultimate conclusion that the product is considered safe for use in New Zealand.
When these elements are considered together, the reasoning becomes difficult to reconcile. A system that begins with sponsor-defined parameters, evaluates outcomes through sponsor-influenced reporting structures, and does not adequately incorporate independent scientific investigation cannot easily sustain a definitive conclusion of safety without addressing these underlying tensions directly.
Given the importance of these issues to public confidence in both science and government decision-making, I respectfully ask that the Government clarify the following matters:
- Whether independent scientific evidence outside the sponsor–regulator reporting framework was considered by the Commissioners when forming conclusions regarding vaccine safety.
- If such evidence was not considered, whether the Government accepts that the evidential foundation of the safety conclusion rests primarily on sponsor-derived information.
- Whether the Government considers it appropriate that a safety conclusion of national importance should rely predominantly upon systems and reporting parameters established by the product’s manufacturer.
- Whether the Government will consider commissioning an independent scientific review of the evidence relating to vaccine safety that is not derived from sponsor-defined frameworks.
A clear response to these questions would assist in clarifying the evidential basis upon which the safety conclusion rests and would contribute significantly to restoring public confidence in the integrity of the decision-making process.
Yours sincerely,
Andrew Major
Chairman & Lead Investigator
Justice Watch New Zealand Inc.
(Incorporated Society)
Email: justicewatchnz@protonmail.com
Distribution:
Prime Minister and all Ministers of the Crown
RE. Open Letter to Prime Minister Christopher Luxon Challenges Evidence Behind Pfizer Vaccine Safety in New Zealand
As was already reported in the literature and appears persistently overlooked (Olliaro P, Torreele E, Vaillant M, http://www.thelancet.com/microbe, Vol 2 July 2021), the real life statistical utility of this unpredictable product with its 1200 AESIs (BNT162b2 5.3.6 Cumulative Analysis of Post-authorization Adverse Event Reports; Appendix) was literally appalling, while clinical efficacy was patently absent. Alleged ‘effectiveness’ relied on a narrative dependent upon unverifiable black box invalid modelling and the circular nonsense of a fraudulent RAT or PCR test that was demonstrably falsifiable and intellectually risible.
“The only reported indication of vaccine effectiveness is the Israeli mass vaccination campaign using the Pfizer–BioNTech product. Although the design and methodology are radically different from the randomised trial,[2] Dagan and colleagues [11] report an RRRof 94%, which is essentially the same as the RRR of the phase 3 trial (95%) but with an ARR of 0·46%, which translates into an NNV of 217 (when the ARR was 0·84% and the NNV was 119 in the phase 3 trial).”
The inescapable conclusion remains, that there was no contagious, replication competent, obligate intracellular parasite, while the implementation of a ‘case-based’ “pandemic,” was a pantomime of political theatre and institutionalised drama that served as a platform for the habituation of the populace to political and (anti)social thuggery, while driving an intentional, unpredictable murderously authentic intervention that richly rewarded the perpetrating and instigating puppets.
It is manifestly clear that the NZ Ministry of “Health” (MOH) with its agency at the NZ Medical Council, continues with its 2020 agenda, poised to double down upon unethical and unscientific policies, in concordance with the direction of its political, commercial and globalist masters, which include the FSMB (Federation of State Medical Boards) and IAMRA (International Association of Medical Regulatory Authorities).
However, as the New Zealand National Ethics Advisory Committee has advised the MOH, with respect to its future “pandemic” intentions in New Zealand, their theatre of ruthless subjugation will result in a widespread withdrawal of social license and submission to government.
At that moment then, New Zealand may have finally acquired maturity as a nation.