Risks Outweigh Benefits to Children

Chris McCashin made this Official Information request to Ministry of Health

Response to this request is long overdue. By law Ministry of Health should have responded by now (details and exceptions). You can complain to the Ombudsman.

From: Chris McCashin

Dear Ministry of Health, Ashley Bloomfield, Chris Hipkins, Jacinder Ardern,

There is now irrefutable evidence that the vaccine risks outweigh the benefits in young fit people especially children where there is a thousand-fold increase in adverse reactions to the injections in 2021 compared to the last decade from ALL other vaccinations.

Already in New Zealand there are over 1,500 adverse reactions some very serious and permanent in children when the risk to a healthy child who gets Covid-19 and has to go to hospital is 44 per 1,000,000 a % of 0.0044%. The following links provide testimony by experts to the Food and Drug Administration who overwhelmingly voted 16-2 against booster shot programmes with it even being discussed that the vaccines are killing more people than they are helping and also driving the Covid mutations such as Delta. The two links are to testimony in front of the FDA outlining the risks/issues. Please confirm why is this evidence being ignored by the Ministry of Health.
https://share.icloud.com/photos/0WH-F12h...

Can the Ministry of Health please provide the following urgently
All advice papers( including assessment of compliance with the NZ Bill of Rights Act) to the Minister on the Covid Public Health Response Vaccination Order ( this is still outstanding despite repeated requests) and the Cabinet advice and decision to approve the use of the Pfizervax for children 12 and older despite the insignificant risk of Covid for children and the many outstanding concerns about its short and long term safety, efficacy, integrity and effectiveness against the Delta and other strains

Provide all of the board/persons involved in who approved this vaccine for 12-15 year olds

Ashley Bloomfield has stated he requires a 90% vaccination rate. Given the number of adverse reactions to date across all age groups 45,331 I would estimate there will be 200,000 plus reactions and already 40 deaths in New Zealand. Can the Ministry of Health provide the Cost/Benefit analysis of this vaccine when virus deaths are so low in New Zealand.

Can you also provide the number of doctors that have been censured for highlighting these risks which can now not be ignored and provide formal apologies to these doctors

The following article also outlines that Covid-19 in India an area densely populated with 265,000,000 people is mostly free from Covid with the usage of Ivermectin. Can you provide the number of doctors who have attempted to sponsor Ivermectin products and if the Ministry of Health has dismissed these and for what reasons?

Please note the USA is also prescribing Ivermectin for Afghan refugees who arrive in the country. What justification does Ashley have for dismissing this product or not investigating when there is clear evidence it works.
https://www.theblaze.com/op-ed/horowitz-...

Can the Ministry of Health provide all links to discussions of therapeutics in any briefing meeting whether in a private or public setting and minutes associated. It appears therapeutics could end this pandemic in New Zealand yet everyone is complicit in destroying the physical and mental health of people with lockdowns and experimental drugs. Why is this being overlooked?

If therapeutics are not being mentioned has the government been bought off by Pfizer - can Ashley please answer that?

Regards,
Chris

Link to this

From: OIA Requests


Attachment image001.png
7K Download


Kia ora Chris,

 

Thank you for your request for official information received on 21
September 2021 for:

 

"There is now irrefutable evidence that the vaccine risks outweigh the
benefits in young fit people especially children where there is a
thousand-fold increase in adverse reactions to the injections in 2021
compared to the last decade from ALL other vaccinations.

 

Already in New Zealand there are over 1,500 adverse reactions some very
serious and permanent in children when the risk to a healthy child who
gets Covid-19 and has to go to hospital is 44 per 1,000,000 a % of
0.0044%.  The following links provide testimony by experts to the Food and
Drug Administration who overwhelmingly voted 16-2 against booster shot
programmes with it even being discussed that the vaccines are killing more
people than they are helping and also driving the Covid mutations such as
Delta.  The two links are to testimony in front of the FDA outlining the
risks/issues.  Please confirm why is this evidence being ignored by the
Ministry of Health.

[1]https://scanmail.trustwave.com/?c=15517&...

 

Can the Ministry of Health please provide the following urgently All
advice papers( including assessment of compliance with the NZ  Bill of
Rights Act) to the Minister on the Covid Public Health Response
Vaccination Order ( this is still outstanding despite repeated requests)
and the Cabinet advice and decision to approve the use of the Pfizervax
for children 12 and older despite the insignificant risk of Covid for
children and the many outstanding concerns about its short and long term
safety, efficacy, integrity and effectiveness against the Delta and other
strains

 

Provide all of the board/persons involved in who approved this vaccine for
12-15 year olds

 

Ashley Bloomfield has stated he requires a 90% vaccination rate.  Given
the number of adverse reactions to date across all age groups 45,331 I
would estimate there will be 200,000 plus reactions and already 40 deaths
in New Zealand.  Can the Ministry of Health provide the Cost/Benefit
analysis of this vaccine when virus deaths are so low in New Zealand.

 

Can you also provide the number of doctors that have been censured for
highlighting these risks which can now not be ignored and provide formal
apologies to these doctors

 

The following article also outlines that Covid-19 in India an area densely
populated with 265,000,000 people is mostly free from Covid with the usage
of Ivermectin.  Can you provide the number of doctors who have attempted
to sponsor Ivermectin products and if the Ministry of Health has dismissed
these and for what reasons?

 

Please note the USA is also prescribing Ivermectin for Afghan refugees who
arrive in the country.  What justification does Ashley have for dismissing
this product or not investigating when there is clear evidence it works.

[2]https://scanmail.trustwave.com/?c=15517&...

 

Can the Ministry of Health provide all links to discussions of
therapeutics in any briefing meeting whether in a private or public
setting and minutes associated.  It appears therapeutics could end this
pandemic in New Zealand yet everyone is complicit in destroying the
physical and mental health of people with lockdowns and experimental
drugs.  Why is this being overlooked?

 

If therapeutics are not being mentioned has the government been bought off
by Pfizer - can Ashley please answer that?”

 

The Ministry's reference number for your request is: H202112817.

 

As required under the Official Information Act 1982, the Ministry will
endeavour to respond to your request no later than 19 October 2021, being
20 working days after the day your request was received.

 

Due to the COVID-19 global pandemic response, the Ministry is experiencing
significantly higher volumes of queries and requests for information. If
we are unable to respond to your request within this time frame, we will
notify you of an extension of that time frame.

 

If you have any queries related to this request, please do not hesitate to
get in touch.

 

Ngâ mihi

 

OIA Services

Government Services

Office of the Director-General

Ministry of Health

E: [3][email address]

 

 

show quoted sections

References

Visible links
1. https://scanmail.trustwave.com/?c=15517&...
2. https://scanmail.trustwave.com/?c=15517&...
3. mailto:[email address]

Link to this

From: OIA Requests

Kia ora Chris

Thank you for your request for official information, received on 21
September 2021 requesting:  

 Can the Ministry of Health please provide the following urgently All
advice papers( including assessment of compliance with the NZ Bill of
Rights Act) to the Minister on the Covid Public Health Response
Vaccination Order ( this is still outstanding despite repeated requests)
and the Cabinet advice and decision to approve the use of the Pfizervax
for children 12 and older despite the insignificant risk of Covid for
children and the many outstanding concerns about its short and long term
safety, efficacy, integrity and effectiveness against the Delta and other
strains
Provide all of the board/persons involved in who approved this vaccine for
12-15 year olds
Ashley Bloomfield has stated he requires a 90% vaccination rate. Given the
number of adverse reactions to date across all age groups 45,331 I would
estimate there will be 200,000 plus reactions and already 40 deaths in New
Zealand. Can the Ministry of Health provide the Cost/Benefit analysis of
this vaccine when virus deaths are so low in New Zealand.
Can you also provide the number of doctors that have been censured for
highlighting these risks which can now not be ignored and provide formal
apologies to these doctors
The following article also outlines that Covid-19 in India an area densely
populated with 265,000,000 people is mostly free from Covid with the usage
of Ivermectin. Can you provide the number of doctors who have attempted to
sponsor Ivermectin products and if the Ministry of Health has dismissed
these and for what reasons?
Can the Ministry of Health provide all links to discussions of
therapeutics in any briefing meeting whether in a private or public
setting and minutes associated. It appears therapeutics could end this
pandemic in New Zealand yet everyone is complicit in destroying the
physical and mental health of people with lockdowns and experimental
drugs. Why is this being overlooked?
If therapeutics are not being mentioned has the government been bought off
by Pfizer - can Ashley please answer that?
The Ministry of Health has decided to extend the period of time available
to respond to your request under section 15A of the Official Information
Act 1982 (the Act) as further collation and consultation is required. 

You can now expect a response to your request on, or before, 9 November
2021.

You have the right, under section 28 of the Act, to ask the Ombudsman to
review my decision to extend the time available to respond to your
request.

Ngā mihi

OIA Services
Government Services
Office of the Director-General
Ministry of Health
E: [1][email address]

show quoted sections

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]

Link to this

N.R.B left an annotation ()

Do people know that the pfizer/biontech and comirnaty are actually two vaccines, apparently interchangeable. Read top three paragraphs of document https://www.fda.gov/media/144414/downloa...

Link to this

victor left an annotation ()

NZ Stats.
0 - 49years.
100% recovery rate.

0 - 9y
1.55% hospitalization rate
O% ICU rate
100% recovery rate
0.xx case rate

10 - 19y
1.24% hospitalization rate
O.15% ICU rate
100% recovery rate
0.xx case rate

20 - 29y
2.89% hospitalization rate
O.25% ICU rate
100% recovery rate
0.xx case rate

30 - 39y
2.68% hospitalization rate
O.65% ICU rate
100% recovery rate
0.xx case rate

40 - 49y
9.26% hospitalization rate
1.02% ICU rate
100% recovery rate
0.xx case rate

Risk benefit profile was hidden or not produced and certainly has not be puliciced

MOH medsafe know there is only risk profile and that benefits are fallacy.

So they hide.

Link to this

Mr Rodgers left an annotation ()

"Do people know that the pfizer/biontech and comirnaty are actually two vaccines"

Did you actually read the link you provided?
Quote: "COMIRNATY (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA) is an FDA-approved COVID-19 vaccine made by Pfizer for BioNTech."

Quote: "The licensed vaccine has the same formulation as the EUA-authorized vaccine and the products can be used interchangeably to provide the vaccination series without presenting any safety or effectiveness concerns. The products are legally distinct with certain differences that do not impact safety or effectiveness."

Same manufacturer, same ingredients, just different names for different markets.

Link to this

N.R.B left an annotation ()

Did you miss the last sentence? 'Certain differences' is legally distinctive. Also plural, how many and what differences?
Lets look at some words.

Certain - specific but not explicitly named or stated

Differences - a point or way in which people or things are dissimilar

Series - One after another. Sequentially. The experiments were done in series.

[1] The licensed vaccine has the same formulation as the EUA-authorized vaccine and the products can
be used interchangeably to provide the vaccination series without presenting any safety or effectiveness
concerns. The products are legally distinct with certain differences that do not impact safety or
effectiveness.

If a claim about safety and effectiveness is made then I must assume something was measured.

Link to this

Mr Rodgers left an annotation ()

Perhaps this might help:
https://www.nebraskamed.com/COVID/you-as...

"The confusion stems from this section of the FDA's Comirnaty Vaccine Information for Recipients and Caregivers sheet:

....

The FDA desires to have a single, combined Vaccine Information Sheet. A single sheet keeps things simple for the people administering and receiving the vaccines. Since the branded and unbranded vials of vaccines are chemically identical, despite being legally distinct, this information must be included."

Link to this

Chris McCashin left an annotation ()

There is one reason and one reason only as to why their are two vaccines. Cominarty is fully approved by the FDA - but BioNTech is not and will keep operating under the emergency use authorisation. Pfizer have not started manufacturing the Cominarty vaccine because there are thousands of BioNTech injections still available that have liability protection. They will keep administering BioNTech under the emergency use authorisation which shields them from liability.

Link to this

From: OIA Requests


Attachment H202112817 Response.pdf
300K Download View as HTML


Kia ora Chris

Please find attached a letter regarding your request for information.

Ngā mihi

OIA Services
Government Services
Office of the Director-General
Ministry of Health
E: [1][email address]

show quoted sections

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]

Link to this

ASE left an annotation ()

I'd appreciate if you follow up…

"Your request for a cost benefit analysis is refused under section 18(e) of the Act, as the information does not exist."

-- Why has such a cost benefit analysis not been done?

-- In the absence of a cost benefit analysis, on what balance of evidence has MOH considered evidence, both for and against, the expenses and disruptions that this plan entails?

"Vaccination is the most efficient way to end the pandemic. Getting vaccinated is the best way for New Zealanders to protect themselves, their whānau and communities from COVID-19. The vaccine helps prevent you from getting infected and having COVID-19 symptoms, or severe ilness."

-- On what balance of evidence, both for and against, has MOH considered alternative treatments (including vitamin D, zinc, ivermectin, and protocols such as those developed by FLCCC) concluded that "Vaccination is the most efficient way to end the pandemic", and "Getting vaccinated is the best way for New Zealanders to protect themselves, their whānau and communities from COVID-19"? Have any countries successfully used vaccines to end the COVID-19 pandemic within their borders? Are any countries making good progress, using vaccines to end the COVID-19 pandemic within their borders?

-- What long-term safety data supports the assertion that the vaccines are safe?

-- What evidence supports the assertion that "The vaccine helps prevent you from getting infected"? Does the manufacturer make any efficacy claims on the basis of reduced risk of infection or transmission of COVID-19?

Link to this

From: Chris McCashin

Dear OIA Requests,

Given this has not been done this raises serious questions - as a follow up please provide the following

Why has such a cost benefit analysis not been done?

-- In the absence of a cost benefit analysis, on what balance of evidence has MOH considered evidence, both for and against, the expenses and disruptions that this plan entails?

"Vaccination is the most efficient way to end the pandemic. Getting vaccinated is the best way for New Zealanders to protect themselves, their whānau and communities from COVID-19. The vaccine helps prevent you from getting infected and having COVID-19 symptoms, or severe ilness."

-- On what balance of evidence, both for and against, has MOH considered alternative treatments (including vitamin D, zinc, ivermectin, and protocols such as those developed by FLCCC) concluded that "Vaccination is the most efficient way to end the pandemic", and "Getting vaccinated is the best way for New Zealanders to protect themselves, their whānau and communities from COVID-19"? Have any countries successfully used vaccines to end the COVID-19 pandemic within their borders? Are any countries making good progress, using vaccines to end the COVID-19 pandemic within their borders?

-- What long-term safety data supports the assertion that the vaccines are safe?

-- What evidence supports the assertion that "The vaccine helps prevent you from getting infected"? Does the manufacturer make any efficacy claims on the basis of reduced risk of infection or transmission of COVID-19?

Yours sincerely,

Chris McCashin

Link to this

From: OIA Requests

Kia ora,

 

Thank you for your Official Information Act (the Act) request. This is
an automatic reply to let you know we received it.

 

Due to the COVID-19 global pandemic response, the Ministry is experiencing
significantly higher volumes of queries and requests for information. We
will endeavour to acknowledge your request as soon as possible. Further
information about COVID-19 can be found on our
website: [1]https://www.health.govt.nz/our-work/dise...

 

In accordance with the Act, we'll let you know our decision within no more
than 20 working days. If you'd like to calculate the timeframe, you can
use the Ombudsman's online calculator
here: [2]http://www.ombudsman.parliament.nz/

If you have any questions while we're processing your request, please let
us know via [3][email address]

 

Ngā mihi  

OIA Services Team  

   

[4]Ministry of Health information releases  

[5]Unite against COVID-19 

 

 

show quoted sections

References

Visible links
1. https://www.health.govt.nz/our-work/dise...
2. http://scanmail.trustwave.com/?c=15517&a...
3. mailto:[email address]
4. https://www.health.govt.nz/about-ministr...
5. https://covid19.govt.nz/

Link to this

victor left an annotation ()

H202102755

Request for risk benefit asseasment which medsafe claimed to be producing was withheld under commercial prejudice.

Link to this

From: OIA Requests


Attachment image001.png
7K Download


Kia ora Chris,

 

Thank you for your follow up request for official information. The
Ministry's reference number for your request is: H202116174.

 

As required under the Official Information Act 1982, the Ministry will
endeavour to respond to your request no later than 20 working days after
the day your request was received. If you'd like to calculate the
timeframe, you can use the Ombudsman's online calculator
here: [1]http://www.ombudsman.parliament.nz/

 

Due to the COVID-19 global pandemic response, the Ministry is experiencing
significantly higher volumes of queries and requests for information. If
we are unable to respond to your request within this time frame, we will
notify you of an extension of that time frame.

 

If you have any queries related to this request, please do not hesitate to
get in touch.

 

Ngā mihi

 

OIA Services

Government Services

Office of the Director-General

Ministry of Health

E: [2][email address]

 

 

show quoted sections

Link to this

From: OIA Requests


Attachment image001.jpg
2K Download


Kia ora Chris,

 

Thank you for your email of 13 November 2021, you requested the following,
I shall respond to each part of your request in turn:

 

-- Why has such a cost benefit analysis not been done?
-- In the absence of a cost benefit analysis, on what balance of evidence
has MOH considered evidence, both for and against, the expenses and
disruptions that this plan entails?

 

The Ministry has not conducted a cost benefit analysis, and therefore has
no information relating to your request. This part of your request is
refused in full under section 18(g)(i) of the Act, as the information
requested is not held by the Ministry and there are no grounds for
believing it is held by another agency subject to the Act.

 

The original benefit/risk assessment for the Comirnaty vaccine has been
released in a previous response and can be found
at: [1]https://www.health.govt.nz/system/files/...

Please refer to Document 10 on page 94. Some information has been withheld
from this document under the following sections of the Act: 

 

• section 9(2)(b)(ii) where its release would likely unreasonably
prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied the
information and

• section 9(2)(g)(ii) to maintain the effective conduct of public affairs
through the protection of such Ministers, members of organisations,
officers, and employees from improper pressure or harassment.

-- On what balance of evidence, both for and against, has MOH considered
alternative treatments (including vitamin D, zinc, ivermectin, and
protocols such as those developed by FLCCC) concluded that "Vaccination is
the most efficient way to end the pandemic", and "Getting vaccinated is
the best way for New Zealanders to protect themselves, their whânau and
communities from COVID-19"? Have any countries successfully used vaccines
to end the COVID-19 pandemic within their borders? Are any countries
making good progress, using vaccines to end the COVID-19 pandemic within
their borders?

 

Vitamin D may reduce the risk of acute respiratory infections such as
influenza, however, evidence is still very limited and there is
conflicting evidence for the benefit-risk calculation with regard to
COVID-19. The US National Institutes of Health states that there are
insufficient data to recommend for or against vitamin D treatment, while
the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence does not
recommend vitamin D as a single agent to prevent or treat COVID- 19. The
Australian National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce states it should
only be used in research settings. There are reasons to promote Vitamin D
for overall health, but not specifically for COVID-19 treatment at this
time.

 

The World Health Organization recommends not to use ivermectin to treat
patients with COVID-19 outside of clinical
trials [2]https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/...
and that the Ministry has no plans to promote its use for treatment of
COVID-19. Ivermectin is not approved for use in New Zealand to treat
COVID-19. There is no clear evidence that it is effective to treat or
prevent COVID-19, and it may cause serious harm in some people. For
humans, Ivermectin is approved in very specific doses to treat a limited
number of conditions. When ingested in high doses, ivermectin can have
serious effects on humans including low blood pressure, worsening asthma,
seizures and liver damage The Ministry of Health strongly recommends the
public do not buy and attempt to treat themselves with ivermectin for
COVID-19.

 

Please refer to the Ministry of Health’s Science News page for further
information:
[3]https://www.health.govt.nz/our-work/dise....

-- What long-term safety data supports the assertion that the vaccines are
safe?

 

Six months is generally considered sufficient follow up time for approval
of a vaccine. The pivotal clinical trial for Comirnaty has reported 6
month safety and efficacy data and this is in the data sheet published on
the Medsafe website here:
[4]https://www.medsafe.govt.nz/profs/Datash....

 

It is important to note that the vaccine has been shown to be 95%
effective against symptomatic COVID-19, seven days after receiving two
doses. The risk of getting infected is reduced and, if you do get
COVID-19, it means you could have no symptoms or may have fewer, milder
symptoms and may recover faster. More information on how the Pfizer
vaccine protects you can be found
here: [5]www.health.govt.nz/our-work/diseases-and-conditions/covid-19-novel-coronavirus/covid-19-vaccines/covid-19-vaccine-effectiveness-and-protection

Initial trials of the Pfizer vaccine did not measure efficacy against
transmission. Subsequent studies carried out by other researchers (that
is, independent from Pfizer) have since evaluated the effect of
vaccination on transmission of the virus. Preliminary results from these
studies have shown that two doses of the Pfizer vaccine can substantially
reduce transmission of the virus.

Further information, with links to the relevant studies, can be found on
the Ministry’s website:
[6]https://www.health.govt.nz/system/files/...

More data are required to understand the extent of the effect that
vaccination has on transmission of the Delta variant. A summary of
currently available data can be found on the US CDC science brief page:

[7]https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-nco...

-- What evidence supports the assertion that "The vaccine helps prevent
you from getting infected"? Does the manufacturer make any efficacy claims
on the basis of reduced risk of infection or transmission of COVID-19?

As no vaccine is 100% effective against preventing infection, some people
who are vaccinated will still get infected and can pass on the virus to
others. This is why measures such as masking, using basic hygiene (e.g.
hand-washing), and practising physical distancing are still recommended
for vaccinated individuals. Earlier studies carried out by researchers
showed that two doses of the Pfizer vaccine
substantially [8]reduced transmission of the virus. Emerging data on the
Delta variant suggest that the Pfizer vaccine reduces onwards transmission
by around 50-63% ([9]here and [10]here), depending on vaccination status
of the contact, although this effect might decrease with time after the
last dose of vaccine. While peak viral loads have been [11]found to be
similar in vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals with a high prevalence
of the SARS-CoV-2 delta variant, this is based on qPCR data taken at one
point in time and does not reflect that fully vaccinated individuals have
a [12]faster rate of viral load decline, meaning that they are considered
infectious and able to transmit the virus for a shorter period of time
than unvaccinated individuals.

In the New Zealand setting, a [13]recent paper has shown that most new
infections are caused by unvaccinated individuals, and a vaccinated
traveller infected with COVID-19 is nine times less likely to seed an
outbreak than an unvaccinated traveller infected with COVID-19. It is on
this basis that we’ve been able to reduce our length of stay in managed
isolation facilities for fully vaccinated returnees from overseas. It is
important to note that the reduction in transmission by the COVID-19
vaccine is in addition to individual protection against infection. This
means that vaccination significantly reduces the chance of becoming
infected and substantially decreases the likelihood of transmitting the
virus if a vaccinated person becomes infected.

Under section 28(3) of the Act you have the right to ask the Ombudsman to
review any decisions made under this request. The Ombudsman may be
contacted by email at: [14][email address] or by calling 0800
802 602.

 

Ngā mihi 

 

OIA Services

Government Services

Office of the Director-General

Ministry of Health

E: [15][email address]

 

 

 

 

show quoted sections

References

Visible links
1. https://www.health.govt.nz/system/files/...
2. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/...
3. https://www.health.govt.nz/our-work/dise...
4. https://www.medsafe.govt.nz/profs/Datash...
5. https://www.health.govt.nz/our-work/dise...
6. https://www.health.govt.nz/system/files/...
https://www.health.govt.nz/system/files/...
7. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-nco...
8. https://www.health.govt.nz/system/files/...
9. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/...
10. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/...
11. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/...
12. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanin...
13. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/...
14. mailto:[email address]
15. mailto:[email address]

Link to this

From: OIA Requests


Attachment image001.jpg
2K Download


Kia ora Chris,

 

Thank you for your email of 13 November 2021, you requested the following,
I shall respond to each part of your request in turn:

 

-- Why has such a cost benefit analysis not been done?
-- In the absence of a cost benefit analysis, on what balance of evidence
has MOH considered evidence, both for and against, the expenses and
disruptions that this plan entails?

 

The Ministry has not conducted a cost benefit analysis, and therefore has
no information relating to your request. This part of your request is
refused in full under section 18(g)(i) of the Act, as the information
requested is not held by the Ministry and there are no grounds for
believing it is held by another agency subject to the Act.

 

The original benefit/risk assessment for the Comirnaty vaccine has been
released in a previous response and can be found
at: [1]https://www.health.govt.nz/system/files/...

Please refer to Document 10 on page 94. Some information has been withheld
from this document under the following sections of the Act: 

 

• section 9(2)(b)(ii) where its release would likely unreasonably
prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied the
information and

• section 9(2)(g)(ii) to maintain the effective conduct of public affairs
through the protection of such Ministers, members of organisations,
officers, and employees from improper pressure or harassment.

-- On what balance of evidence, both for and against, has MOH considered
alternative treatments (including vitamin D, zinc, ivermectin, and
protocols such as those developed by FLCCC) concluded that "Vaccination is
the most efficient way to end the pandemic", and "Getting vaccinated is
the best way for New Zealanders to protect themselves, their whânau and
communities from COVID-19"? Have any countries successfully used vaccines
to end the COVID-19 pandemic within their borders? Are any countries
making good progress, using vaccines to end the COVID-19 pandemic within
their borders?

 

Vitamin D may reduce the risk of acute respiratory infections such as
influenza, however, evidence is still very limited and there is
conflicting evidence for the benefit-risk calculation with regard to
COVID-19. The US National Institutes of Health states that there are
insufficient data to recommend for or against vitamin D treatment, while
the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence does not
recommend vitamin D as a single agent to prevent or treat COVID- 19. The
Australian National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce states it should
only be used in research settings. There are reasons to promote Vitamin D
for overall health, but not specifically for COVID-19 treatment at this
time.

 

The World Health Organization recommends not to use ivermectin to treat
patients with COVID-19 outside of clinical
trials [2]https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/...
and that the Ministry has no plans to promote its use for treatment of
COVID-19. Ivermectin is not approved for use in New Zealand to treat
COVID-19. There is no clear evidence that it is effective to treat or
prevent COVID-19, and it may cause serious harm in some people. For
humans, Ivermectin is approved in very specific doses to treat a limited
number of conditions. When ingested in high doses, ivermectin can have
serious effects on humans including low blood pressure, worsening asthma,
seizures and liver damage The Ministry of Health strongly recommends the
public do not buy and attempt to treat themselves with ivermectin for
COVID-19.

 

Please refer to the Ministry of Health’s Science News page for further
information:
[3]https://www.health.govt.nz/our-work/dise....

-- What long-term safety data supports the assertion that the vaccines are
safe?

 

Six months is generally considered sufficient follow up time for approval
of a vaccine. The pivotal clinical trial for Comirnaty has reported 6
month safety and efficacy data and this is in the data sheet published on
the Medsafe website here:
[4]https://www.medsafe.govt.nz/profs/Datash....

 

It is important to note that the vaccine has been shown to be 95%
effective against symptomatic COVID-19, seven days after receiving two
doses. The risk of getting infected is reduced and, if you do get
COVID-19, it means you could have no symptoms or may have fewer, milder
symptoms and may recover faster. More information on how the Pfizer
vaccine protects you can be found
here: [5]www.health.govt.nz/our-work/diseases-and-conditions/covid-19-novel-coronavirus/covid-19-vaccines/covid-19-vaccine-effectiveness-and-protection

Initial trials of the Pfizer vaccine did not measure efficacy against
transmission. Subsequent studies carried out by other researchers (that
is, independent from Pfizer) have since evaluated the effect of
vaccination on transmission of the virus. Preliminary results from these
studies have shown that two doses of the Pfizer vaccine can substantially
reduce transmission of the virus. 

Further information, with links to the relevant studies, can be found on
the Ministry’s website:
[6]https://www.health.govt.nz/system/files/...

More data are required to understand the extent of the effect that
vaccination has on transmission of the Delta variant. A summary of
currently available data can be found on the US CDC science brief page:

[7]https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-nco...

-- What evidence supports the assertion that "The vaccine helps prevent
you from getting infected"? Does the manufacturer make any efficacy claims
on the basis of reduced risk of infection or transmission of COVID-19?

As no vaccine is 100% effective against preventing infection, some people
who are vaccinated will still get infected and can pass on the virus to
others. This is why measures such as masking, using basic hygiene (e.g.
hand-washing), and practising physical distancing are still recommended
for vaccinated individuals. Earlier studies carried out by researchers
showed that two doses of the Pfizer vaccine
substantially [8]reduced transmission of the virus. Emerging data on the
Delta variant suggest that the Pfizer vaccine reduces onwards transmission
by around 50-63% ([9]here and [10]here), depending on vaccination status
of the contact, although this effect might decrease with time after the
last dose of vaccine. While peak viral loads have been [11]found to be
similar in vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals with a high prevalence
of the SARS-CoV-2 delta variant, this is based on qPCR data taken at one
point in time and does not reflect that fully vaccinated individuals have
a [12]faster rate of viral load decline, meaning that they are considered
infectious and able to transmit the virus for a shorter period of time
than unvaccinated individuals.

In the New Zealand setting, a [13]recent paper has shown that most new
infections are caused by unvaccinated individuals, and a vaccinated
traveller infected with COVID-19 is nine times less likely to seed an
outbreak than an unvaccinated traveller infected with COVID-19. It is on
this basis that we’ve been able to reduce our length of stay in managed
isolation facilities for fully vaccinated returnees from overseas. It is
important to note that the reduction in transmission by the COVID-19
vaccine is in addition to individual protection against infection. This
means that vaccination significantly reduces the chance of becoming
infected and substantially decreases the likelihood of transmitting the
virus if a vaccinated person becomes infected.

Under section 28(3) of the Act you have the right to ask the Ombudsman to
review any decisions made under this request. The Ombudsman may be
contacted by email at: [14][email address] or by calling 0800
802 602.

 

Ngā mihi 

 

OIA Services

Government Services

Office of the Director-General

Ministry of Health

E: [15][email address]

 

 

 

 

show quoted sections

References

Visible links
1. https://www.health.govt.nz/system/files/...
2. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/...
3. https://www.health.govt.nz/our-work/dise...
4. https://www.medsafe.govt.nz/profs/Datash...
5. https://www.health.govt.nz/our-work/dise...
6. https://www.health.govt.nz/system/files/...
https://www.health.govt.nz/system/files/...
7. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-nco...
8. https://www.health.govt.nz/system/files/...
9. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/...
10. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/...
11. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/...
12. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanin...
13. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/...
14. mailto:[email address]
15. mailto:[email address]

Link to this

From: OIA Requests

Kia ora Chris, 

  

Thank you for your email of 13 November 2021, you requested the following,
I shall respond to each part of your request in turn: 

  

-- Why has such a cost benefit analysis not been done?
-- In the absence of a cost benefit analysis, on what balance of evidence
has MOH considered evidence, both for and against, the expenses and
disruptions that this plan entails? 

  

The Ministry has not conducted a cost benefit analysis, and therefore has
no information relating to your request. This part of your request is
refused in full under section 18(g)(i) of the Act, as the information
requested is not held by the Ministry and there are no grounds for
believing it is held by another agency subject to the Act. 

  

The original benefit/risk assessment for the Comirnaty vaccine has been
released in a previous response and can be found
at: [1]https://www.health.govt.nz/system/files/...

Please refer to Document 10 on page 94. Some information has been withheld
from this document under the following sections of the Act:  

  

• section 9(2)(b)(ii) where its release would likely unreasonably
prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied the
information and 

• section 9(2)(g)(ii) to maintain the effective conduct of public affairs
through the protection of such Ministers, members of organisations,
officers, and employees from improper pressure or harassment. 

-- On what balance of evidence, both for and against, has MOH considered
alternative treatments (including vitamin D, zinc, ivermectin, and
protocols such as those developed by FLCCC) concluded that "Vaccination is
the most efficient way to end the pandemic", and "Getting vaccinated is
the best way for New Zealanders to protect themselves, their whânau and
communities from COVID-19"? Have any countries successfully used vaccines
to end the COVID-19 pandemic within their borders? Are any countries
making good progress, using vaccines to end the COVID-19 pandemic within
their borders? 

  

Vitamin D may reduce the risk of acute respiratory infections such as
influenza, however, evidence is still very limited and there is
conflicting evidence for the benefit-risk calculation with regard to
COVID-19. The US National Institutes of Health states that there are
insufficient data to recommend for or against vitamin D treatment, while
the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence does not
recommend vitamin D as a single agent to prevent or treat COVID- 19. The
Australian National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce states it should
only be used in research settings. There are reasons to promote Vitamin D
for overall health, but not specifically for COVID-19 treatment at this
time. 

  

The World Health Organization recommends not to use ivermectin to treat
patients with COVID-19 outside of clinical
trials [2]https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/...
and that the Ministry has no plans to promote its use for treatment of
COVID-19. Ivermectin is not approved for use in New Zealand to treat
COVID-19. There is no clear evidence that it is effective to treat or
prevent COVID-19, and it may cause serious harm in some people. For
humans, Ivermectin is approved in very specific doses to treat a limited
number of conditions. When ingested in high doses, ivermectin can have
serious effects on humans including low blood pressure, worsening asthma,
seizures and liver damage The Ministry of Health strongly recommends the
public do not buy and attempt to treat themselves with ivermectin for
COVID-19. 

  

Please refer to the Ministry of Health’s Science News page for further
information:
[3]https://www.health.govt.nz/our-work/dise....

-- What long-term safety data supports the assertion that the vaccines are
safe? 

  

Six months is generally considered sufficient follow up time for approval
of a vaccine. The pivotal clinical trial for Comirnaty has reported 6
month safety and efficacy data and this is in the data sheet published on
the Medsafe website here:
[4]https://www.medsafe.govt.nz/profs/Datash....  

  

It is important to note that the vaccine has been shown to be 95%
effective against symptomatic COVID-19, seven days after receiving two
doses. The risk of getting infected is reduced and, if you do get
COVID-19, it means you could have no symptoms or may have fewer, milder
symptoms and may recover faster. More information on how the Pfizer
vaccine protects you can be found
here: [5]www.health.govt.nz/our-work/diseases-and-conditions/covid-19-novel-coronavirus/covid-19-vaccines/covid-19-vaccine-effectiveness-and-protection 

  

Initial trials of the Pfizer vaccine did not measure efficacy against
transmission. Subsequent studies carried out by other researchers (that
is, independent from Pfizer) have since evaluated the effect of
vaccination on transmission of the virus. Preliminary results from these
studies have shown that two doses of the Pfizer vaccine can substantially
reduce transmission of the virus. 

  

Further information, with links to the relevant studies, can be found on
the Ministry’s website:
[6]https://www.health.govt.nz/system/files/...

  

More data are required to understand the extent of the effect that
vaccination has on transmission of the Delta variant. A summary of
currently available data can be found on the US CDC science brief page: 

[7]https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-nco...

-- What evidence supports the assertion that "The vaccine helps prevent
you from getting infected"? Does the manufacturer make any efficacy claims
on the basis of reduced risk of infection or transmission of COVID-19? 

  

As no vaccine is 100% effective against preventing infection, some people
who are vaccinated will still get infected and can pass on the virus to
others. This is why measures such as masking, using basic hygiene (e.g.
hand-washing), and practising physical distancing are still recommended
for vaccinated individuals. Earlier studies carried out by researchers
showed that two doses of the Pfizer vaccine
substantially [8]reduced transmission of the virus. Emerging data on the
Delta variant suggest that the Pfizer vaccine reduces onwards transmission
by around 50-63% ([9]here and [10]here), depending on vaccination status
of the contact, although this effect might decrease with time after the
last dose of vaccine. While peak viral loads have been [11]found to be
similar in vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals with a high prevalence
of the SARS-CoV-2 delta variant, this is based on qPCR data taken at one
point in time and does not reflect that fully vaccinated individuals have
a [12]faster rate of viral load decline, meaning that they are considered
infectious and able to transmit the virus for a shorter period of time
than unvaccinated individuals. 

In the New Zealand setting, a [13]recent paper has shown that most new
infections are caused by unvaccinated individuals, and a vaccinated
traveller infected with COVID-19 is nine times less likely to seed an
outbreak than an unvaccinated traveller infected with COVID-19. It is on
this basis that we’ve been able to reduce our length of stay in managed
isolation facilities for fully vaccinated returnees from overseas. It is
important to note that the reduction in transmission by the COVID-19
vaccine is in addition to individual protection against infection. This
means that vaccination significantly reduces the chance of becoming
infected and substantially decreases the likelihood of transmitting the
virus if a vaccinated person becomes infected. 

Under section 28(3) of the Act you have the right to ask the Ombudsman to
review any decisions made under this request. The Ombudsman may be
contacted by email at: [14][email address] or by calling 0800
802 602. 

  

Ngā mihi  

  

OIA Services 

Government Services 

Office of the Director-General 

Ministry of Health 

E: [15][email address

  

 

show quoted sections

References

Visible links
1. https://www.health.govt.nz/system/files/...
2. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/...
3. https://www.health.govt.nz/our-work/dise...
4. https://www.medsafe.govt.nz/profs/Datash...
5. https://www.health.govt.nz/our-work/dise...
6. https://www.health.govt.nz/system/files/...
https://www.health.govt.nz/system/files/...
7. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-nco...
8. https://www.health.govt.nz/system/files/...
9. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/...
10. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/...
11. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/...
12. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanin...
13. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/...
14. mailto:[email address]
15. mailto:[email address]

Link to this

ASE left an annotation ()

How do they come up with this??? I just gave it a quick once-over… Hopefully this may be helpful in following up.

* The original benefit/risk assessment for the Comirnaty vaccine has been released in a previous response and can be found at: [1]https://www.health.govt.nz/system/files/...

** The correct link seems to be - https://www.health.govt.nz/system/files/...

That documents states: "Children under the age of 16: Safety and efficacy have not been established in children under 16 years of age."

---

* Vitamin D may reduce the risk of acute respiratory infections such as influenza, however, evidence is still very limited and there is conflicting evidence for the benefit-risk calculation with regard to COVID-19.

** What "conflicting evidence" does MOH hold about this? ie, what evidence is there that serum vitamin D levels between 75-100 nmol/L may cause harm in any way? What evidence is there that serum vitamin D levels between 75-100 nmol/L may increase risks of COVID-19 infection or disease?

---

* The US National Institutes of Health states that there are insufficient data to recommend for or against vitamin D treatment, while the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence does not recommend vitamin D as a single agent to prevent or treat COVID- 19. The Australian National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce states it should only be used in research settings. There are reasons to promote Vitamin D for overall health, but not specifically for COVID-19 treatment at this time.

** What reasons are there to not recommend maintaining a serum vitamin D level between 75-100 nmol/L?

---

* Ivermectin is not approved for use in New Zealand to treat COVID-19. There is no clear evidence that it is effective to treat or prevent COVID-19, and it may cause serious harm in some people.

** What evidence of "serious harm" in this regard does MOH posses? Is MOH aware of any studies in which Ivermectin was not demonstrated to be a safe and effective COVID-19 treatment when used (1) at clinically relevant doses and (2) as an early treatment?

---

* Six months is generally considered sufficient follow up time for approval of a vaccine.

** Considered sufficient by whom? What previous vaccines have gone from development to "approval" in six months? When do the clinical trials for these inoculations end? The question was about LONG-TERM safety and efficacy. This question was not answered.

---

* It is important to note that the vaccine has been shown to be 95% effective against symptomatic COVID-19, seven days after receiving two doses.

** Is that "95%" relative risk reduction or absolute risk reduction? How long does that risk reduction last? After time, does that risk reduction drop to zero, or does it become "negative efficacy"?

---

* The risk of getting infected is reduced and, if you do get COVID-19, it means you could have no symptoms or may have fewer, milder symptoms and may recover faster.

** Does the manufacturer make any claims about reduced risk of infection, or only reduced severity of infection? Did the manufacturer's trial monitor asymptomatic infections? If so, what did that data show?

---

* Initial trials of the Pfizer vaccine did not measure efficacy against transmission. Subsequent studies carried out by other researchers (that is, independent from Pfizer) have since evaluated the effect of vaccination on transmission of the virus. Preliminary results from these studies have shown that two doses of the Pfizer vaccine can substantially reduce transmission of the virus.

** Reference is cited, last updated 7 May 2021. Since then, better quality evidence shows that protection against transmission has been very thoroughly debunked. Is MOH relying on outdated data to make these decisions? If MOH is not keeping abreast of the best available evidence, who is? If MOH is not providing evidence-based advice to form evidence-based policy, who is?

---

* While peak viral loads have been [11]found to be similar in vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals with a high prevalence of the SARS-CoV-2 delta variant, this is based on qPCR data taken at one point in time and does not reflect that fully vaccinated individuals have a [12]faster rate of viral load decline, meaning that they are considered infectious and able to transmit the virus for a shorter period of time than unvaccinated individuals.

** The study cited states: "SAR among household contacts exposed to fully vaccinated index cases was similar to household contacts exposed to unvaccinated index cases (25% [95% CI 15–35] for vaccinated vs 23% [15–31] for unvaccinated)."

This study was cited in a 19 Nov 2021 paper, published in The Lancet, which comes to the opposite conclusion from that of MOH - https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanep...(21)00258-1/fulltext

How does MOH claim that this means inoculation reduces transmission by any significance? How does that study assess reduced viral transmission among children?

---

* In the New Zealand setting, a [13]recent paper has shown that most new infections are caused by unvaccinated individuals, and a vaccinated traveller infected with COVID-19 is nine times less likely to seed an outbreak than an unvaccinated traveller infected with COVID-19.

** That "paper" is neither peer-reviewed not published. It's a "model" based on several baseless assumptions (including the author's own non-peer-reviewed model itself) and includes a blog-post as a reference (that blog-post is updated daily, and the data cited in the paper can not be verified). Does MOH consider this to be "science" in any meaningful way? About a week and a half earlier, The Lancet published a paper that comes to the opposite conclusion - https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanep...(21)00258-1/fulltext - Why is MOH cherry-picking laughably poor quality "models" to support its position, while ignoring better quality real-world evidence that challenges its position?

---

* It is important to note that the reduction in transmission by the COVID-19 vaccine is in addition to individual protection against infection.

** Again, is MOH conflating "infection" with "symptomatic infection"?

---

* This means that vaccination significantly reduces the chance of becoming infected and substantially decreases the likelihood of transmitting the virus if a vaccinated person becomes infected.

** It seems that statements like this are not based on the best available evidence, as noted above.

---

Based on the above points, and the answers from MOH, it seems that there is neither a cost/benefit analysis nor a risk/benefit analysis that supports the use of COVID-19 inoculations in New Zealand for anyone younger than 16. Is that correct?

Further, it seems that MOH is cherry-picking and/or grossly misrepresenting the evidence to support efficacy claims of COVID-19 inoculations for people in all age groups.

In the absence of a cost/benefit analysis and a risk/benefit analysis, on what basis can MOH claim any evidence-based justification for recommending, or even considering, COVID-19 inoculations for children younger than 16? Is there a reason for this which is based on something other than scientific/medical evidence?

Although it's not yet peer reviewed, a recent paper based on German data, which noted "The lowest risk was observed in children aged 5-11 without comorbidities. In this group, the ICU admission rate was 0.2 per 10,000 and case fatality could not be calculated, due to an absence of cases." - https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/...

Does MOH have better quality data challenging the assertion that healthy children have essentially no risk from COVID-19? Does MOH have data indicating that the benefits of COVID-19 inoculations outweigh the risks, among children?

Link to this

ASE left an annotation ()

More links to data that the baseline (uninoculated) risk to/from children is essentially zero - https://brownstone.org/articles/sweden-a...

From that as a starting point, there can be no benefit to inoculations; only known and unknown risks.

Link to this

victor left an annotation ()

New Zealand Case Fatality Rates ( CFR)
0 - 9 years: 0.00%
10 - 19 years 0.00%
20 - 29 years 0.00%
30 - 39 years 0.00%

Setting aside the higher age bracket gun shot deaths and other 'inclusive' classifications there is 0.00% death rate in NZ ages 0 - 40 something.

Hospitalisation rates are admitted by Bloomfield as being falsified using inflationary tactics using injured and sick children already hospitalised as statistics for the younger age groups for the narrative.

This single admission should have immediately led to his sacking.

But it has not.

There is no risk benefit analyis published by MOH as stated in multiple OIA responses when requesting the data.

Link to this

victor left an annotation ()

ASE the breakdown is excellent and highlights the deceptions and inconsistencies being promoted.

If you review the documents released such as you have done there is no benefit analyis completed and the risks are classified as 'uncertain'. A few pages later in the same document the risk benefit is referred to as 'positive'. This is essentially fraudulent and unevidenced risks being pushed onto an unsuspecting public.

----------

"In the New Zealand setting, a [13]recent paper has shown that most new infections are caused by unvaccinated individuals, and a vaccinated traveller infected with COVID-19 is nine times less likely to seed an outbreak than an unvaccinated traveller infected with COVID-19.

** That "paper" is neither peer-reviewed not published. It's a "model" based on several baseless assumptions (including the author's own non-peer-reviewed model itself)"

The paper is a hypothetical model authored by another non expert with direct links to Te Punaha Mataini and the unpublished unreviewed clearing house for fraudulent and unscientific supported computer simulations out of Auckland University Shaun Hendy , Nicholas Steyn etc and Canterbury University Micheal Plank and Alex James

Leighton Watson is the name on the 100% fabricated production which referenced 6 TPM outputs which are unpublished and unreviewed which is the standard in NZ.
References also include press releases and a data set out of California.

In essence the paper of a computer simulated fallacy which appears to have been used as a prop in a media campaign.

MOH CMO Andrew Connolly had this to say.

Ministry of Health chief medical officer Andrew Connolly said as our vaccination numbers increase we could expect to see far fewer people who were so unwell they would need hospital care.

"A very recent study shows when a [completely made up hypothetical simulation] vaccinated person was infected they're nearly two out of three times less likely to infect unvaccinated households," he said.

"A vaccinated person who catches Covid has got around a 63% less likely chance of transmitting to household.

"If you add in the fact that most vaccinated people don't get the disease, the modelling suggests a more than 80% reduction in household transmission."

MOH CMO Andrew Connolly peddling pseudoscience junk as if it is relevant and meaningful in a way designed to deceive the public and provide a falsified endorsement to the injection strategy.

Watson said the research ultimately illustrated the risk faced by under-vaccinated communities around New Zealand, at a time restrictions in Auckland were poised to ease.

"All over the world, we are seeing that Covid-19 is becoming a pandemic of the unvaccinated," he said.

"The Covid-19 vaccines are safe, effective and are our best chance of minimising infections and hospitalisations without resorting to large scale population level controls."

Leighton Watson quotes are directly derived from programme policy.

Leighton Watsons paper appears to have been commissioned with the intent to deceive, which is what TPM modeling group have been doing since April 2020

Link to this

ASE left an annotation ()

The only real questions at this point:

* Lacking (as MOH clearly lacks) any evidence-based scientific, medical, or public health risk/benefit or cost/benefit assessment that supports administration of COVID-19 inoculations (for which no long-term safety or efficacy data exists) to children under any circumstances, what is the reason for considering such actions: Is it political ideology? Regulatory capture? Incompetence? Corruption? Conspiracy? Mass psychosis?

MOH is asleep at the wheel. They're supposed to be using evidence-based scientific, medical, and public health risk/benefit and cost/benefit assessment to improve public health (eg, help, offer, provide {not force, not coerce, not threaten} people) to achieve lower morbidity and lower mortality. What they're doing here is proving to be the opposite of what they're supposed to be doing.

IIUC, MOH is supposed to be providing evidence-based public health advice to the government. It seems that MOH is being used by the government to disseminate public health ideology that is the opposite of evidence-based.

Where to, from here?

Link to this

ASE left an annotation ()

"Decision to use Pfizer for 12 to 15-year olds: The policy team sought advice from CVTAG regarding the decision to use the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine for 12 to 15-year-olds. CVTAG discussed the results from the Phase 3 trials in children aged 12 to 15 years for the Pfizer vaccine. CVTAG will provide recommendations to inform the decision to use the Pfizer vaccine for 12 to 15-year-olds, including an evaluation of the risks and the benefits. CVTAG noted that it would like to review any conditions recommended by Medsafe, prior to finalising its recommendations."
- COVID-19 Response Weekly Report, 3 June 2021
https://fyi.org.nz/request/15473-documen...

Where is that evaluation of risks and benefits?

Link to this

ASE left an annotation ()

Seems like MOH had a contractual obligation to do a cost/benefit analysis - https://fyi.org.nz/request/18165-ministr...

Maybe the costs outweighed the benefits, and they hid the analysis? As usual, the whole circus is the opposite of public health.

Link to this

victor left an annotation ()

MOH claim the analysis was performed in documents released in OIA
H202111774

When assessing the documents there is nothing resembling risk benefit in the release and in the words of the released documents.

'Risk benefit is not clear'.

MOH Medsafe documents provide no benefit profile evidence in any age or specific group.

Either the analysis has been produced and reminds hidden or the analysis has not be completed.

Link to this

Chris McCashin left an annotation ()

Proper risk benefit analysis was completed by experts in the states and I quote it failed any reasonable risk benefit calculus. Prior to mass vaccination 44 in a million children were hospitalised with Covid. Expect there to now be loads of cases. The NSW Chief Health officer tweeted there were three deaths in 377,000 on a day jabbing kids. Are we living in clown world?!

Link to this

victor left an annotation ()

Risk benefit analysis has been completed in many nations by world leading specialists and experts in their respective fields.

MOH and medsafe are undeniably aware of the analysis.

The point is that MOH Medsafe MBIE and others have through whichever leverage made statements which are false and incorrect as well as un referenced and without statistical evidence base.

If there are RB analysis which agencies to hold but are refusing to release that would be unsurprising.

Use of the known to be falsified data generated by the pivotal trial for BNT162b2 was locked into probably with contract clauses preventing any change of direction without punitive penalties applied.

MBIE MOH Medsafe have no pathway to change onto be it something internally wanted or not.

Which is why those operating inside the agencies will at some stage face accountability for the harms caused by their actions.

Link to this

Things to do with this request

Anyone:
Ministry of Health only: