To Chris Hipkins,

To the extent that it is practicable, 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.

Is Chris Hipkins aware of any long-term safety data for any COVID-19 inoculations? If so, what is that data?

Is Chris Hipkins aware of any long-term efficacy data for any COVID-19 inoculations? If so, what is that data?

Considering what is and what is not known of long-term safety and efficacy of COVID-19 inoculations, what consideration has Chris Hipkins given to the status of COVID-19 inoculations as “experimental” medical treatments? What scientific and medical basis does Chris Hipkins have for asserting that COVID-19 inoculations are not “experimental” medical treatments? If this has not been considered by Chris Hipkins, then why has this not been considered?

What contingency plans have been considered by Chris Hipkins, if COVID-19 inoculations may prove to be unsafe, ineffective, unnecessary, and/or otherwise harmful to personal health and/or public health (as “public health” is generally understood)? If this has not been considered by Chris Hipkins, then why has this not been considered?

In consideration of positions, polices, and/or legislation (including, but not limited to messaging and medical advice, collective punishments, and segregation) which may appear as intent to use force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior forms of constraint or coercion to encourage, incentivize, or otherwise promote COVID-19 inoculations, what consideration has Chris Hipkins given to the effects of such positions, polices, and/or legislation respecting healthcare providers' legal and ethical obligations to empower their patients to exercise their rights of informed consent (including rights of informed refusal)? How do such positions, polices, and/or legislation respect patients' rights regarding informed consent (including rights of informed refusal)? If this has not been considered by Chris Hipkins, then why has this not been considered?

In consideration of positions, polices, and/or legislation (including, but not limited to messaging and medical advice, collective punishments, and segregation) which may appear as intent to use force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior forms of constraint or coercion to encourage, incentivize, or otherwise promote COVID-19 inoculations, what consideration has Chris Hipkins given to the effects of such positions, polices, and/or legislation respecting individual human rights (including human rights as recognised under national and international frameworks), such as individual human rights to privacy and confidentiality of medical information; and individual human rights to refuse medical treatment, with or without reason? If this has not been considered by Chris Hipkins, then why has this not been considered?

In consideration of the questions raised above, and related matters, what consideration has Chris Hipkins given to the possibility that positions, polices, and/or legislation (including, but not limited to messaging and medical advice, collective punishments, and segregation) which may appear as intent to use force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior forms of constraint or coercion to encourage, incentivize, or otherwise promote COVID-19 inoculations, may expose proponents, advocates, and/or actors on behalf of such positions, polices, and/or legislation to culpability for human rights violations, crimes against humanity, and/or war crimes? If this has not been considered by Chris Hipkins, then why has this not been considered?

Thank you,
ASE 2021120302

Attn Lydia Verschaffelt & Chris Hipkins

I appreciate your response, and invitation to deal with this request as a "correspondence", rather than an Official Information Act Request, which would leave Chris Hipkins with no legal obligation to provide accurate information.

I would expect that the information being requested has been very seriously considered formally (eg in writing) by Chris Hipkins, and that such information is held by your office; lack of serious and formal consideration of these topics would seem to be a gross dereliction of duty, or worse. As such, I expect that the information requested under The Official Information Act will be provided in accordance with the requirements of The Official Information Act.

In addition to the requested information being provided in accordance with the requirements of The Official Information Act, I would be happy for you to provide any additional information in the form of "correspondence". Please make it clear which parts of your response are "correspondence" that supplement your obligations under The Official Information Act.

Thank you,
ASE

Attn Chris Hipkins,

Please be advised that a substantive response to this official request for information is now past due.

A complaint has been filed with the Office of The Ombudsman.

I hope that you can provide a substantive response to this official request for information before the Ombudsman has a chance to look into this.

Thank you,
ASE

Attn Chris Hipkins,

I am still awaiting substantive responses to the questions I have asked, and the information I have requested, on 3 Dec 2021.

I note that many of the claims made in your recent response (1 Feb 2022) are misleading, the opposite of the best available data, the opposite of scientific consensus, and the opposite of evidence-based public health policies; it seems that you are using your official position to spread dangerous misinformation. More to the point, those claims do not address the questions I have asked, nor do they provide the information that I have requested.

As I advised on 22 Jan, a substantive response to this official request for information is past due, and a complaint has been filed with the Office of The Ombudsman; I hope that you can provide a substantive response to this official request for information before the Ombudsman has a chance to look into this.

Thank you,
ASE

Attn Chris Hipkins,

Regarding your response (to assess it charitably) dated 31 Jan 2022, to my request for information dated 3 Dec 2021, several of your claims raise additional questions and additional requests for information.

You repeat official talking points about safety and efficacy, including the drivel about "The vaccines have been developed very quickly but without shortcuts in the necessary processes or compromising safety." This ignores the fact that NZ granted a liability waiver to Pfizer, *because* shortcuts were taken and safety has not been properly assessed. According to Pfizer's submissions to Medsafe, long-term safety data is unknown. According to a liability waiver with Pfizer (released under MOH reference H2021111261), "they are developing [these inoculations] in accelerated clinical trials that are less likely than non-accelerated trials to detect uncommon adverse effects or possible contraindications", and "trials will be shorter in length and study fewer people than what is typical. The impact is a reduction in the known safety profile of the vaccine", and "Due to the relative newness of this platform, and truncated clinical trials (which means a reduced ability to identify rare or long-term side effects)".

Please provide information which reconciles your statements which assure safety, and assure that no shortcuts were taken to assess safety, with Pfizer's submissions to Medsafe, and the liability waiver, which point out that shortcuts were taken and the safety of these treatments is unknown.

Please also refer to the information that was requested on 3 Dec 2021, which you have not addressed:

* Is Chris Hipkins aware of any long-term safety data for any COVID-19 inoculations? If so, what is that data?

You claim, "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. You are also less likely to transmit the virus to others."

Please provide information (excluding hypothetical modelling data) clarifying the efficacy of these treatments (both "relative risk reduction" and "absolute risk reduction") between the first dose and two weeks after the second dose, as measured against currently circulating variants.

Please provide information (excluding hypothetical modelling data) clarifying the efficacy of these treatments (both "relative risk reduction" and "absolute risk reduction") over the course of a year, as measured against currently circulating variants.

Please provide information (excluding hypothetical modelling data) clarifying how these treatments reduce the risk of being infected with the Omicon variant of SARS-CoV2. Please provide information (excluding hypothetical modelling data) clarifying how these treatments reduce the the severity of symptoms and facilitate faster recovery from infections with the Omicon variant of SARS-CoV2.

Please provide information (excluding hypothetical modelling data) clarifying how these treatments prevent transmission of currently circulating variants.

Please also refer to the information that was requested on 3 Dec 2021, which you have not addressed:

* Is Chris Hipkins aware of any long-term efficacy data for any COVID-19 inoculations? If so, what is that data?

You state, "that Medsafe continues to monitor the use of the Pfizer vaccine in New Zealand, including analysing reports of potential side effects."

Please provide information clarifying whether this monitoring is active or passive, ie whether Medsafe actively data-mines medical incidents and correlates them with exposure to this treatment, or if Medsafe relies on voluntary reporting of adverse events. How are these reports assessed to be causally associated with these treatments? If Medsafe relies on voluntary reporting, how can those reports be honestly compared to normal rates of such medical incidents?

You state, "Based on the public health advice provided, the Government's view is that the measures taken, including vaccine mandates, are proportionate, reasonable, and justified, given the risk to the country."

Please provide information explaining why the New Zealand Influenza Pandemic Plan of 2017 was not sufficient to manage this pandemic. While you continue to ignore an Official Information Act Request from 29 Oct 2021 (Pandemic planning and COVID-19 response), that plan made no mention of lock-downs, mask mandates, vaccine mandates, vaccine passports, traffic lights, or other COVID response measures which were either implemented ad lib or as part of some real-life conspiracy theory. This begs the question: Were these COVID response measures implemented ad lib, indicating gross incompetence, or where these COVID response measures implemented according to some "secret" plan (obviously not the publicly available Influenza Pandemic Plan of 2017), indicating corruption and/or conspiracy?

Please provide information explaining why the evidence-based standing pandemic plan based on a "standard planning model [which] assumes a total case fatality rate of 2 percent" was not adequate to manage a pandemic with a case fatality rate of 0.4% (using a methodology that counts people who died "with" COVID, resulting in an inflated case fatality rate; the best available data indicates that Omicron has a case fatality rate of approximately 0.03% among uninoculated people, and possibly higher among inoculated people, likely using similar methodologies which over-count COVID deaths; this puts Omicron on par with a moderate or bad cold).

You state, "Please be assured that these measures have not been introduced to curtail New Zealander's freedoms or rights but rather to protect vulnerable people from being exposed to COVID-19 and potentially losing their lives."

Please provide information explaining who is "vulnerable", and what policies have been considered to protect them without disrupting the lives, livelihoods, and freedoms of the other ≈99% of people. Please also provide information explaining how disrupting the lives, livelihoods, and freedoms of ≈99% of young and healthy people to protect the health and safety of ≈1% of older and sicker people is "proportionate, reasonable, and justified".

You state, "all individuals have the right to remain unvaccinated for whatever reasons they choose." It seems that you're using the word "right" differently than it is generally understood.

Please provide information clarifying your use of the word "right" in that statement. As it is generally understood, a "right" (eg a right to practice any religion, or abstain from practising any religion) is something that can be exercised without being subject to government sanctioned hardships, restrictions, and discrimination, based solely on exercising that right. eg a "right" can freely be exercised without affecting ones employment, freedom of association, recreation, worship, shopping, dining, entertainment, travel, or even visiting public libraries.

You state, "vaccination remains our strongest and most effective tool to protect New Zealanders against infection and disease."

Please provide information (excluding hypothetical modelling data) clarifying how these inoculations protect against infection and disease progression better (ie safer and more effectively) than preventive treatment and early treatment protocols such as those published by FLCCC and Dr. Peter McCullough; and how these inoculations protect against infection and disease progression from the Omicron variant of SARS-CoV2; and how these inoculations protect younger and healthier people, who are not at any significant risks from any variants of SARS-CoV2.

Notwithstanding the requests for information raised above, I am still awaiting a substantive response to my 3 Dec 2021 request for information (COVID-19 inoculations and culpability for human rights violations, crimes against humanity, and/or war crimes) and my 29 Oct 2021 request for information (Pandemic planning and COVID-19 response).

I patiently await your responses to the requests for information, which are overdue, in violation of the Official Information Act.

Thank you,
ASE

Attn Chris Hipkins

Again, I remind you that the information requested on 3 Dec 2021 has not been provided in accordance with the Official Information Act, and you are now in violation of that act. A formal complaint has been made to the office of the Ombudsman, and I do hope that you can provide the requested information before the matter is resolved by the Ombudsman.

In addition to the information requested earlier today, (including clarification of the claim that "all individuals have the right to remain unvaccinated for whatever reasons they choose"), I will repeat what I stated on 8 Jan 2022:

I appreciate your response, and invitation to deal with this request as a "correspondence", rather than an Official Information Act Request, which would leave Chris Hipkins with no legal obligation to provide accurate information.

I would expect that the information being requested has been very seriously considered formally (eg in writing) by Chris Hipkins, and that such information is held by your office; lack of serious and formal consideration of these topics would seem to be a gross dereliction of duty, or worse. As such, I expect that the information requested under The Official Information Act will be provided in accordance with the requirements of The Official Information Act.

In addition to the requested information being provided in accordance with the requirements of The Official Information Act, I would be happy for you to provide any additional information in the form of "correspondence". Please make it clear which parts of your response are "correspondence" that supplement your obligations under The Official Information Act.

Thank you,
ASE