Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Brendan McNeill's avatar

Thank you for exposing the hesitation by Medsafe to endorse the Pfizer product as being ‘safe and effective’ for use in protection against infection and transmission of the virus. It is disturbing to note they abrogated their responsibility to the New Zealand public by deferring to the anonymous MAAC, in granting provisional approval.

Two months ‘protection’ fell well short of the minimum of six months protection required to qualify for the description as a vaccine. As we know the WHO subsequently changed the definition of vaccine to be a therapeutic rather than a protection against infection. However, this didn’t stop our Prime Minister or the MOH referring to the Pfizer product as a vaccine at the time. This lie was a deliberate abuse of trust the public and GP’s had towards the safety and efficacy of vaccines for no other reason than to facilitate uptake.

Any sentient human being alive in 2021 ought to have known there was no long term data on the safety or effectiveness of the Pfizer product, a gene therapy developed at ‘warp speed’. That to participate in the roll out was to participate in a medical experiment. That there was already alarming safety signals in the VARS database which ought to have been followed up and investigated.

Hence the need for military grade propaganda in all forms of media.

How helpful to see that Bloomfield believed that mandating the Pfizer product would likely be an abrogation of our rights under the Bill of Rights act particularly given there was no evidence that vaccination reduced transmission of the virus. It’s more than a great pity that neither he nor the CEO of Medsafe had sufficient courage to go public with their concerns.

The mandates divided the country, and severely marginalised hundreds of thousands of employees whose families were dependent upon their employment. They were wicked and cruel and as events have proven, entirely unnecessary as the vaccinated caught the virus and passed it on to others.

All this to ‘protect’ us against a virus that had a 99.x survival rate. Whose impact on public health was not significantly worse than our annual flu virus. Where the average age of death from the virus was actually higher than our average age of death.

Is it too much to hope for accountability?

Expand full comment
Florence's avatar

Thankyou; it would interesting to understand whether Medsafe has undertaken further benefit / risk analysis since the original, and whether their advice changed. I always felt it was more a political issue than a public health issue. My confidence has been completely undermined in the government’s transparency around the acceptable narrative throughout this ordeal.

Expand full comment
20 more comments...

No posts