I received another reminder from my Government to book my Pfizer mRNA shot1: Protect yourself and your Whanau and your community” and “Everyone in Aotearoa New Zealand aged 12 years and over can book their free COVID-19 vaccination now”. To be clear, this is encouraging children as young as 12 to take part in a phase 3 trial of a relatively poorly understood mRNA technology for a disease that does not affect them significantly and which may harm or cause premature death.2345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
The reported banning of these treatments by the UK and several European countries for 15-year olds and younger is at the very least worthy of serious debate in New Zealand. Similarly, why is there no clear explanation from the British and European authorities as to why it is purported to be safe for 16-year-old children but is unsuitable for 15-year-old children? It was my understanding that full informed consent2930313233 must be borne of a clear explanation of any risks over and above the risks posed by previous vaccines,34 and I could not find any such information in the Ministry of Health’s (MOH) “care” package about the Pfizer shot. Why?
Under the Ministry of Health’s Pfizer information package header “how do we know it’s safe?” we find the response “there have been no shortcuts taken in its approval”. Prior vaccine safety standards were in large part borne of a development time of 7-15 years, the timeframe in part depending on the degree of innovation (newness) of the treatment technology. The Pfizer experimental shots are fundamentally different to prior conventional vaccines, being a relatively new gene-based technology. To be clear, there is no substitute for time during safety testing that takes time35. Pfizer’s mRNA shot was reported to have entered human clinical trials within 3-6 months having skipped the normal requirements for many years of animal testing. Mass roll out then took place after less than a year during an ongoing phase 3 trial36. How is this not a short cut and how would it not reduce safety and how is this not relevant to informed consent and why is not worthy of major debate and why are those trying to debate it ignored or censored or abused?
Why is it necessary for the MOH to refer to safety (which should be a given) in such lavish terms, again and again: “the Pfizer vaccine has been thoroughly assessed for safety by our Medsafe experts” and “Medsafe only grants consent for a vaccine in Aotearoa New Zealand once they’re satisfied it has met strict standards for safety, efficacy and quality”? I don’t ever recall any other medicine recommended to me needing such a lavish justification for me to take it: I seem to recall a good deal more science-based fact borne of proven long-term testing and I also recall that it used to be the job of a family doctor to offer such advice, someone bound by the Hippocratic oath. Some countries offered carrot inducements of free food, days off work, free FA cup tickets, etc., followed by stick threats of no vaccine equals no travel, no job, no normal life, etc., should we fail to take the shot. One is reminded of Shakespeare’s Hamlet “The lady doth protest too much, methinks” and “there is something rotten in Denmark”. I would be the first to line up for a life-saving vaccine and have taken dozens of other vaccines so why am I hanging back, way, way back?37
The MOH refers to “things to consider before getting your vaccine” but then fails to cover obvious recommendations such as: “talk to your doctor before taking the Pfizer shot”. Why risk missing important individual safety issues through bypassing the Hippocratic oath? The implication that one size fits all (currently everyone 12 years and older but almost certainly to include younger children very soon as is occurring overseas) when we know that children do not have a significant risk from Covid19,3839 and when we know that healthy and vital under 70-year olds typically have a lower risk from Covid19 than from many other more “pedestrian” diseases, is worthy of far more debate.40
The MOH’s statement “if you have had a severe or immediate allergic reaction to any vaccine or injection in the past, please discuss this with your vaccinator”, is potentially dangerous for several reasons. Firstly, a fully informed doctor in possession of your medical history, not a “vaccinator” is the appropriate person to deal with such a complication. Secondly, it could be taken to mean that unless you are within an unusual and/or rare group you can assume that the Pfizer shot poses no undue risk over and above the norm. Given that the Pfizer shot is very different in several important regards to all previously widely used “vaccines” this poses unnecessary adverse reaction dangers for at least some people, possibly the majority, e.g., children and all healthy adults who already have natural immunity41 (natural immunity can and should be tested for, e.g., the US military and other organisations can gain exemptions from treatments if they have immunity4243444546)
The MOH says “the vaccine has been used successfully by millions worldwide” but fails to give any terms of reference that would make this statement anything other than misleading and potentially dangerous given known previous medical mistakes. The same could have been said of the disastrous drug thalidomide. Thalidomide’s use in 46 countries47 by women who were pregnant or who subsequently became pregnant, resulted in more than 10,000 children born with a range of severe deformities, such as phocomelia, as well as thousands of miscarriages.4849 Misuse of the Swine flu vaccine in 1976 was linked to approximately 50 premature deaths and over 4000 court claims for severe neurological damage.50
There are other examples of missed problems the scale of which was largely determined by the number of people who took part in the medical intervention that later caused harm. We already have serious warning signs that the Pfizer shot is not safe for at least some people (VAERS) and therefore unlike thalidomide we do in fact already have warnings of the possibility of escalating adverse reactions. In the case of the Covid-19 shots the plan is to inject 7.8 billion people with a relatively poorly understood drug that has a fundamentally different mode of action to all previously widely used vaccines where it could be argued cogently that most of the people taking it don’t in fact need it, e.g., because of their health status, age and natural immunity, etc. This is particularly chilling given that safety tests of the Pfizer shot on pregnant women5152, on fertility, etc., do not appear to have been carried out because of the very short lead time to mass roll out. Why are we injecting children who don’t need it and those healthy adults with natural immunity who don’t need it instead of discussing these vital issues?
It seems inappropriate for the PM of a liberal democracy to say things like “we will continue to be your one source of truth”53 and “we submit these people to a full two weeks of sustained propaganda”. Are we critically thinking adults living in a liberal democracy or not? The PM was also reported to have said, “Even with the full understanding of human fallibility, it is not appropriate, and it is not okay for members of a team of five million to let the rest of us down,”. She was referring to people who failed to comply with orders based on a false premise created by misuse of the PCR test. What about the world team of 7.8 billion bound by ethics borne of inviolate codes of conduct spelt out in the Nuremburg code, a code designed to help stop abuses of power? Isn’t the PM accountable to these codes of conduct and don’t they trump her orders that can be shown to be based, in large part on a false premise created by misuse of the PCR test?
The recent surge in Covid19 “vaccine” uptake is likely to have been at least in part a fear-based response created by positive PCR test results being reported as cases of delta variant Covid19 which is at best misinformation most of the time.5455565758596061626364656667 It is not a response to Covid19 risks per se. but is a response to Government intervention based on a false premise. Having pioneered Government funded research into the suitability of PCR for detecting microorganisms in buildings and having asked the highest levels of Government for a science-based explanation for its gross exaggeration of the Covid19 risk through inappropriate use of the PCR test, to which I got no valid response, I have been forced to reach the conclusion that the accountability one expects of a democratically elected Government does not apply to what is likely to prove to be the most infamous abuse of an otherwise brilliant test in human history.68
In countries like Israel that have the highest “vaccination” rates the majority of hospital admissions due to Covid19 like symptoms have been reported to be amongst fully “vaccinated people”.697071727374 Some of these people may be in hospital due to adverse vaccine reactions caused by spike protein pathology, rather than the implausible and unproven conjecture that this is due to the delta variant which appears to have followed a classical viral evolution pattern of greater transmissibility but lower pathogenicity.757677 In theory it should come as no great surprise that spike proteins attached to SARS cov-2 would share at least some of the same pathology as non-attached spike proteins produced by Pfizer’s mRNA shot which are now known not to be localised at the injection site78 and which have been reported to concentrate at ACE2 receptor sites, e.g., within ovaries and other essential organs.79 A recommendation for a third booster injection without having ruled out any negative impacts of spike proteins produced by the first two shots or any other negative effects of the “vaccines” seems risky at best.80
The peer reviewed scientific literature shows that vaccines developed for SARS cov-1 caused delayed antibody dependant enhancement ADE (pathogen priming) a serious condition known to damage major organs sometimes leading to death in experimental animals.81828384 For this reason, the FDA stopped this vaccine from being widely used in humans but only because of several years of animal testing, testing skipped by Pfizer’s SARS cov-2 “vaccine” (SARS cov-1 and SARS cov-2 (including delta) have close to an 80% match which is probably why most people were untroubled by Covid19).8586 Why are we not joining the dots and debating the significance of such important issues ahead of injecting children and giving booster shots?
Throughout the Covid19 debacle there have been major inconsistencies8788 between what we would expect to see happen around us with a naturally occurring Pandemic (e.g., deaths on nearly every street and within nearly every extended family, as occurred for Spanish flu/pneumonia) and the man-made reality created by fear news (i.e., what is allegedly happening elsewhere, not here).89 Unfortunately, many people appear too invested in the fear news narrative to see any other reality, much less question its scientific validity. 24/7 media fear stories and uncorrected statements like “the worst Pandemic in 100 years” coupled with the arrival of soothing but misleading statements like vaccines are “safe and effective” seem to have made us numb to what is really going on. This is an extremely dangerous situation that risks our freedoms and our health. History teaches us that Governments do not give back freedoms that were hard won by its people without the people playing a major part in getting it back and it is usually a very messy and uncomfortable process brought to bear by a relatively small minority. My history teacher’s favourite quote was “those who fail to remember history are destined to relive it” and I now realise why.
An OIA request has revealed that Medsafe failed to carry out independent tests to check that the information provided by Pfizer was correct. For example, Medsafe did not check that the contents of the vaccine match the label or are consistent with the purity requirements of any international standard using independent testing services affiliated solely to the interests of New Zealanders. Medsafe has a duty of care to the well-being of New Zealanders not the priorities of a major corporation. This is especially important given the drastic reduction in lead time to mass roll out of a relatively poorly understood gene-based mRNA “vaccine” that has no proven safety record and which also contains 2 excipients that are part of the lipid nano-micelle delivery system that also have no proven track record of safety, one of which the WHO has specifically stated needs investigating90 with respect to the potential for anaphylactic shock (a serious condition that can kill): (poly ethylene glycol (PEG) – not named on the Medsafe website). We are in effect the guinea pigs in an ongoing phase 3 trial using ingredients with an unproven track record of safety which makes independent verification of what we are agreeing to take part in that much more important. Given the huge sums of tax-payers money being paid to Pfizer, the cost of independent testing would be tiny in comparison so why wasn’t it done?
Even without the indemnity given to Pfizer by our Government, Pfizer and all other vaccine producers already enjoyed a huge amount of protection against any legal liability in the US and European countries, a protection that stems mainly from four privileges drug manufacturers enjoy: law against injuries, the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, a 2013 US Top Court Ruling and liability limitation pertaining to class actions.91 There is a major cost associated with ensuring the safety of medicines, longer term safety testing in particular, the testing omitted by Pfizer in this instance. It would therefore be incredibly naïve of Medsafe to think that the legal advantages afforded to drug manufacturers, the producers of vaccines in particular, and specifically Pfizer’s indemnity arrangement with the New Zealand Government does not have the potential to compromise safety in any way, on the contrary. Under such circumstances truly independent New Zealand based testing to check all aspects of the Pfizer injection is a minimum requirement for the safety of New Zealanders. This applies most to children, the most vulnerable, most trusting and with the most to lose should things go wrong as many independent experts have indicated is likely.
It has been suggested that it is a long reach to call Pfizer’s mRNA gene-based therapy a vaccine given that it is fundamentally different from traditional vaccines in several important regards.92 It has been further suggested that a key incentive for calling it a vaccine was because this has led to indemnification which could prevent New Zealanders from seeking compensation from harm caused. Under such circumstances it is even more important to ensure independent testing oversight for the Pfizer technology. Why would we risk our children’s future, the future of New Zealand through their participation in a phase 3 trial of a gene-based therapy that has zero benefit for children but may cause them major harm, even death.
Having failed to carry out independent tests run by truly independent New Zealanders on behalf of New Zealanders it could be cogently argued that Medsafe has done little more than rubber stamp a joint New Zealand Government-Pfizer experiment carried out on a largely unwitting and misinformed New Zealand population. This appears to be a breach of important parts of the Nuremburg Code and its related human rights charters.93 These are inviolate protections that were put in place for the benefit of all freedom loving people, but it is incumbent upon the people to apply them. If a crime has been committed and justice prevails Pfizer’s indemnity becomes a moot point and the consequences for those who were knowingly complicit would be dire.
Dr Robin Wakeling is a microbiologist and biodeterioration expert. Holding a PhD in fungal ecology from the University of Waikato, he was a research scientist at New Zealand Forest Research Institute for 25 years. Since 2005, he has operated a private consultancy with his wife, specialising in microbial building forensics.