Dear Ministry of Health,

This request extends to all persons, boards, councils, committees, subcommittees, organisations, bodies, or individuals advising on such matters, or otherwise exerting influence in any capacity. If this request relates to information that you have reason to believe may be held by any other persons or bodies, I trust that you will forward this request to them and advise accordingly.

Does The Ministry of Health posses any long-term safety data for any COVID-19 inoculations?

Does The Ministry of Health posses any long-term efficacy data for any COVID-19 inoculations?

What claims or disclaimers have been made by manufacturers and/or their representatives of COVID-19 inoculations' efficacy in regards to prevention of infection, transmission, "long-COVID", or death?

What claims have been made by manufacturers and/or their representatives of COVID-19 inoculations in regards to quantifying any claimed forms of efficacy? How are such claims presented or interpreted in terms of "absolute risk reduction"? How are such claims presented or interpreted in terms of "number needed to vaccinate to prevent one infection"?

What claims or disclaimers have been made by manufacturers and/or their representatives regarding COVID-19 inoculations' unknown risks? What additional unknown risks have been identified by The Ministry of Health? ​How has The Ministry of Health assessed these unknown risks? How has The Ministry of Health's policies and positions accounted for, and hedged against, these unknown risks? Are such assessments, positions, and policies supported by evidence-based risk/benefit and cost/benefit analyses? Or, are such assessments, positions, and policies supported by something other than evidence-based risk/benefit and cost/benefit analyses?
​
What claims or disclaimers have been made by manufacturers and/or their representatives regarding COVID-19 inoculations' duration of efficacy?

What position does The Ministry of Health hold regarding research indicating that duration of efficacy of COVID-19 inoculations is on the scale of months? How has that position changed over time, and based on what information? What position does The Ministry of Health hold regarding research indicating that any efficacy of COVID-19 inoculations fades over the course of months, then becomes "negative efficacy", leaving people more vulnerable to poor outcomes, compared to never having been inoculated? If The Ministry of Health is not keeping abreast of such research, then whose role is it to ensure that New Zealand is using the best and most current data to make evidence-based decisions that best serve public health goals, as stated and generally understood?

What position does The Ministry of Health hold regarding research indicating that increased exposure to COVID-19 inoculations (eg via booster shots) may increase the incidence, rate of incidence, and/or severity of adverse reactions? If The Ministry of Health is not keeping abreast of such research, then whose role is it to ensure that New Zealand is using the best and most current data to make evidence-based decisions that best serve public health goals, as stated and generally understood?

What claims or disclaimers have been made by manufacturers and/or their representatives of COVID-19 inoculations in regards to such inoculations selecting for more vaccine-evasive and/or more pathogenic viral mutations?

What position does The Ministry of Health hold regarding non-sterilising/non-neutralising "leaky vaccines" (such as currently available COVID-19 inoculations) selecting for more vaccine-evasive and/or more pathogenic viral mutations? What balance of evidence, both for against such a position, has been reviewed by The Ministry of Health? If this issue has not been reviewed by The Ministry of Health, why not? If The Ministry of Health is not keeping abreast of such research, then whose role is it to ensure that New Zealand is using the best and most current data to make evidence-based decisions that best serve public health goals, as stated and generally understood?

What position does The Ministry of Health hold regarding innate immunity and naturally acquired immunity to COVID-19? What balance of evidence, both for and against, has formed such a position? If this issue has not been reviewed by The Ministry of Health, why not? If The Ministry of Health is not keeping abreast of such research, then whose role is it to ensure that New Zealand is using the best and most current data to make evidence-based decisions that best serve public health goals, as stated and generally understood?

What New Zealand data is The Ministry of Health monitoring, to ensure that COVID-19 inoculations are "safe and effective" in New Zealand, as claimed? eg, is The Ministry of Health monitoring data relating to age stratified all-cause mortality on the basis of inoculation status? Is The Ministry of Health monitoring data relating to age-stratified diagnoses and deaths relating to myocarditis, pericarditis, heart attacks, strokes, excess deaths, sudden deaths, thrombocytopenia, embolisms, thromboses, or other clotting disorders, pregnancies and miscarriages, and other adverse reactions of concern or known to be associated with COVID-19 inoculations, and correlating such data to inoculation status? If this type of data is being monitored, I would very much like to see it. If this type of data is not being monitored by The Ministry of Health, then why is this type of data is not being monitored? Whose role is it to monitor such data? How can The Ministry of Health confidently ensure the effectiveness of public health policies in New Zealand if The Ministry of Health is not continuously monitoring the most relevant and current data? If this type of data is not being monitored, what basis is there for asserting that COVID-19 inoculations are safe and effective in New Zealand?

What balance of evidence, both for and against, supports policies of classification, segregation, and discrimination of people on the basis of COVID-19 inoculations (eg a "Vaccine Pass")? What evidence-based risk/benefit and cost/benefit analyses support such polices? Are such policies supported by evidence-based risk/benefit and cost/benefit analyses? Or, are such policies supported by something other than evidence-based risk/benefit and cost/benefit analyses?

What balance of evidence, both for and against, supports the position that "When everyone is vaccinated, this helps to end the pandemic."? - https://covid19.govt.nz/covid-19-vaccine... - How does such evidence account for limited efficacy, limited duration of efficacy, absence of long-term safety and efficacy data, and unknown risks? How does such evidence account for countries which have experienced their worst outbreaks after record-breaking levels of inoculations? Are such positions supported by evidence-based risk/benefit and cost/benefit analyses? Or, are such positions supported by something other than evidence-based risk/benefit and cost/benefit analyses?

What balance of evidence, both for and against, supports policies of coercion and other undue pressures for people to have COVID-19 inoculations? What evidence-based risk/benefit and cost/benefit analyses support such polices? Are such policies supported by evidence-based risk/benefit and cost/benefit analyses? Or, are such policies supported by something other than evidence-based risk/benefit and cost/benefit analyses?

What balance of evidence, both for and against, supports a position that safety, efficacy, and necessity of COVID-19 inoculations preempt/preclude certain human rights, including rights to honest and fully informed consent to medical treatment, and human rights to refuse medical treatment with or without reason, including reasons of religious or ethical belief? Are such policies supported by evidence-based risk/benefit and cost/benefit analyses? Or, are such policies supported by something other than evidence-based risk/benefit and cost/benefit analyses?

What contingency plans have been considered, if COVID-19 inoculations may prove to be unsafe, ineffective, unnecessary, and/or otherwise harmful to public health? If such contingency plans have not been considered, why not?

Is The Ministry of Health aware of any COVID-19 treatment studies demonstrating that Ivermectin, as a primary treatment, is unsafe or ineffective, when used (1) in clinically relevant doses and (2) as an early treatment? If The Ministry of Health is not keeping abreast of such research, then whose role is it to ensure that New Zealand is using the best and most current data to make evidence-based decisions regarding safe, effective, readily available, and cost effective COVID-19 treatments that best serve public health goals, as stated and generally understood?

Thank you,
ASE 202111290