6/09/2021

Covid19 vaccine - Open letter to NZ PM Jacinda Ardern expressing concerns over Pfizer vaccine

PFIZER VACCINE, BREACHES OF MEDICINES ACT, MISLEADING AND DECEPTIVE CLAIMS

31 March 2021 URGENT- OPEN LETTER

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern
Ministers of COVID-19 cc Attorney-General David Parker
Director-General of Health Solicitor-General Una Jagose
Chris James – Group Manager Medsafe Health and Disability Commissioner
Dear Prime Minister, Attorney-General, Director-General of Health and Chris Hipkins


RE PFIZER VACCINE “COMIRNATY” RE BREACHES OF MEDICINES ACT, MISLEADING AND DECEPTIVE CLAIMS and OTHER MATTERS


I represent a large number of New Zealanders who are extremely concerned about apparent legal breaches and misleading and deceptive representations in the provisional approval, promotion, marketing and roll out of the novel Pfizer mRNA and nanogel vaccine known as “Comirnaty” (“the Pfizer injection”).


I write to formally put you on notice of some of the many apparent breaches of New Zealand law and of deficiencies and mis-representations which undermine fundamental rights of all New Zealanders to give fully informed consent to any medical procedure. The result is considerable risk
for the Crown, for the public representatives involved and accordingly for the public of New Zealand.

Details of the full letter can be viewed at  Sue Grey: Open Letter to Prime Minister | NZ Outdoors Party

 

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

EU, US to end trade tariffs, call for new study into Covid-19 origins
JUN 9, 2021 04:53 PM


[BRUSSELS] The leaders of the European Union (EU) and the United States are set to commit to lifting steel tariffs before Dec 1, 2021 and avoid any further transatlantic trade disputes, according to a draft statement prepared for a June 15 summit in Brussels.

The draft, seen by Reuters and which will be discussed by EU ambassadors on Wednesday, also commits to ending a long-running spat over subsidies to aircraft makers before July 11.

Both sides will agree to cooperate on facing China's economic, political and military rise policy and also call for a new study into the origins of the Covid-19 pandemic, first detected in China.

"We call for progress on a transparent, evidence-based ... study on the origins of Covid-19, that is free from interference," the draft said


https://www.businesstimes.com.sg/government-economy/eu-us-to-end-trade-tariffs-call-for-new-study-into-covid-19-origins

Queen of Hearts said...

China, from now on, must wake up once a for all to realise that the White Race of Europe, UK and USA, including their appendages of Australia, Canada and New Zealand, are China's enemies in the past, at present and into the future. Never make the same silly mistake, again and again of taking your enemies as your friends. These White Barbarians have never taken the Chinese as friends and never will.

Anonymous said...

In Singapore, an open letter by 12 doctors last month, later retracted by 11 of them, urged the Government to give children here the China-made vaccine, Sinovac, which uses the traditional "killed vaccine" technology, and not the new-technology mRNA vaccines from Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna deployed in the public vaccination programme. The letter claimed that it was not known what side-effects might surface in 10 to 20 years.

๐–๐ก๐จ ๐œ๐š๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ฌ ๐ญ๐ก๐ž ๐ฌ๐ก๐จ๐ญ๐ฌ ๐จ๐ง ๐ญ๐ก๐ž ๐ฌ๐ก๐จ๐ญ๐ฌ?

It takes a village to raise a child, and so it takes a competent agency to rigorously evaluate drug efficacy, safety and quality. The Singapore Health Sciences Authority is an agency of high international standing and reputation, staffed by hundreds who are steeped in their areas of speciality.

The review of a submission package is a sophisticated exercise, requiring expert input from clinicians, pharmacists, toxicologists, laboratory specialists, biologists, manufacturing quality inspectors, biostatisticians and more - all working collaboratively to piece together the massive puzzle that is a drug approval package.

Lone-wolf observers, no matter how erudite in gleaning information from the press, social media and partially reviewed journal articles, still do not have access to the breadth of information that agencies review, often confidentially, and are therefore ill-equipped to make an informed determination of whether a novel agent passes muster, let alone petition on behalf of the local population based on porous premises.

The types of deliberations on safety, efficacy and quality made by the agency cannot be reconstructed by untrained groups of individuals using open source data.

However, the public can be assured that there is a lot of rigour and science, and some measure of art, to building safe drugs, as well as studying and understanding the inevitable side-effects that follow.

This is ensconced in both the medicines development and regulatory processes that are meant to protect the public good, in Singapore and the world over.

๐ƒ๐ซ ๐ƒ๐š๐ง๐ง๐ฒ ๐’๐จ๐จ๐ง ๐ข๐ฌ ๐œ๐ก๐ข๐ž๐Ÿ ๐ž๐ฑ๐ž๐œ๐ฎ๐ญ๐ข๐ฏ๐ž ๐จ๐Ÿ ๐ญ๐ก๐ž ๐‚๐จ๐ง๐ฌ๐จ๐ซ๐ญ๐ข๐ฎ๐ฆ ๐Ÿ๐จ๐ซ ๐‚๐ฅ๐ข๐ง๐ข๐œ๐š๐ฅ ๐‘๐ž๐ฌ๐ž๐š๐ซ๐œ๐ก ๐š๐ง๐ ๐ˆ๐ง๐ง๐จ๐ฏ๐š๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐’๐ข๐ง๐ ๐š๐ฉ๐จ๐ซ๐ž. ๐‡๐ž ๐ข๐ฌ ๐š๐ฅ๐ฌ๐จ ๐ž๐ฑ๐ž๐œ๐ฎ๐ญ๐ข๐ฏ๐ž ๐๐ข๐ซ๐ž๐œ๐ญ๐จ๐ซ ๐จ๐Ÿ ๐ญ๐ก๐ž ๐’๐ข๐ง๐ ๐š๐ฉ๐จ๐ซ๐ž ๐‚๐ฅ๐ข๐ง๐ข๐œ๐š๐ฅ ๐‘๐ž๐ฌ๐ž๐š๐ซ๐œ๐ก ๐ˆ๐ง๐ฌ๐ญ๐ข๐ญ๐ฎ๐ญ๐ž.

Anonymous said...

Old is not always gold, and other drug safety myths
Danny Soon For The Straits Times

Second, it should be noted that just because a drug has been in common usage for longer, it does not mean it is safer.

Some first-generation oral diabetes drugs caused higher incidences of hypoglycaemia and have been superseded by second-generation drugs. Paracetamol is an old and familiar painkiller, but to this day is causing poisonings and liver failure.

In fact, a large part of drug development is the imperative to make new and safer versions of medicines already on the market.

Last, providing early access of therapeutics to underserved populations, such as the elderly and the young, is a key principle of drug development.

It is far too easy to just perform the clinical trials in young, healthy adults and leave a drug's usage restricted to that group. This has long left children in dire situations where a physician may be forced to use a drug off-label to treat an ill child.

The FDA, in fact, mandates and incentivises companies to conduct studies in paediatric populations through several pieces of legislation. Several life-saving medications, like insulin for diabetes, first studied in man almost exactly 100 years ago, and genetically modified cell therapies such as Kymriah for fatal blood cancers, just launched in the last few years, were tested primarily in children and adolescents first.

To suggest that one needs 10 to 20 years of safety data before introducing a new therapy to children is plainly ludicrous, irresponsible, and is a gross misunderstanding of what safety in drug development is.

https://www.straitstimes.com/opinion/old-is-not-always-gold-and-other-drug-safety-myths

Anonymous said...

For fucks sake, stop using the word "expert". You don't feel ashame? I feel ashamed for you.

In reality, those thick-skin arrogant conceited fellows are merely specialists, not experts.

To be an expert in any field, one needs lots and lots of experiments, trials and tribulations, personal experiences, skills in many areas, and most importantly, wisdom. And you have to have a record of hitting it right at least 90% of the time. But before you are there, you have to fail again and again, many times, until you reach perfection. That is what an expert looks like.

Just by getting a Phd, a Doctorate or a Master Degree, and doing some research in a university and given a professor title, make you an expert? So easy? My foot!




Anonymous said...

A real expert does not call himself an expert.

Anonymous said...

"To suggest that one needs 10 to 20 years of safety data before introducing a new therapy to children is plainly ludicrous, irresponsible, and is a gross misunderstanding of what safety in drug development is."

To say such a statement is itself plainly stupid, ludicrous, irresponsible, and is a gross misunderstanding of what safety to human health is all about.

Anonymous said...

The unacceptable part of all is that a medical decision is decided by political consideration. Anyone making such a decision that affects the lives of millions of people because of politics, political interference and pressure, is committing a crime against humanity.