Dear Ministry of Health,

In response to your references H202116601 and H202116783,

I am consolidating the previous requests for information, submitted between 23 and 29 Nov 2021:
* COVID-19 inoculations, safety, efficacy, necessity
* MOH policy roles under COVID-19
* Vaccine Pass
* COVID-19 inoculations, long-term safety and efficacy
* All cause mortality, by age and inoculation status

I hope that the Ministry will understand that the volume of these requests are not meant to impose undue burden, but rather it reflects an urgency which has been created by legislative dictate which was rushed through under highly irregular circumstances, invoking critique from The Human Rights Commission and various NGOs, including Amnesty International, stating “We are deeply concerned to see limited scrutiny of yet another piece of legislation with significant human rights implications.” - https://www.amnesty.org.nz/amnesty-inter...

Further, it is my understanding that requests for information under The Official Information Act are inherently inclusive of "all persons, boards, councils, committees, subcommittees, organisations, bodies, or individuals advising on such matters, or otherwise exerting influence in any capacity", and there is an obligation to forward requests to any persons or bodies which you reasonably believe to hold relevant information, and advise accordingly. As such, this has been stated only to clarify, not to create any additional or undue burden.

In no particular order, the questions are being consolidated below:

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?

In the absence of long-term safety and efficacy data, on what basis can these products/treatments be claimed to be "safe" and "effective"? If such claims as "safe" and "effective" are implicitly inclusive of long-term safety and efficacy data, what long-term data substantiates such claims? If such claims as "safe" and "effective" exclude long-term claims of safety and efficacy, how is that exclusion effectively being communicated to policy-makers, media, healthcare providers, the general public, and other parties?

In the absence of long-term safety and efficacy data, is it reasonable or unreasonable to consider these products/treatments "experimental"? On what scientific and medical basis would such a definition be determined? If The Ministry of Health has not considered this, please explain why.

Regardless of terminology, how does such absence of long-term safety and efficacy data affect healthcare providers' legal and ethical obligations to facilitate informed consent? How does this affect healthcare providers' legal and ethical obligations to empower their patients to exercise their rights of informed consent? How does this affect patients' rights regarding informed consent? If The Ministry of Health has not considered this, please explain why.

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 information 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"? 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 information 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 information 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? 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 information does The Ministry of Health hold regarding innate immunity and naturally acquired immunity to COVID-19? 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, excess mortality, and suicides 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 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 evidence of 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 "booster shots"? 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 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, rights to informed refusal of 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?

As it relates to COVID-19, is The Ministry of Health tasked with providing evidence-based policy advice to the government, the media, and the public? How is The Ministry of Health empowered to defend an evidence-based position, and push back with an evidence-based position, under pressure from government public health policies which are not evidence-based?

As it relates to COVID-19, to what extent has the government abided by, or not abided by, evidence-based advice from The Ministry of Health?

As it relates to COVID-19, To what extent, and in what capacity, and by what means have public health dictates by government influenced The Ministry of Health in advising the media and the public, in ways that may be influenced more by ideology or dictate than by scientific and medical evidence? What government policy-based public health advice has The Ministry of Health provided to the media and the public, when such advice is not evidence-based? To what extent has The Ministry of Health abided by, or not abided by, such policy advice when it is not evidence-based?

How does The Ministry of Health manage conflicts between evidence-based policies and government imposed policies? What policies and practices are in place to manage conflicts between evidence-based policies and government imposed policies?

What safe-guards (policies, practices) are in place to prevent a feedback loop between The Ministry of Health and government developing a relationship that rewards, incentivizes, or otherwise reinforces government policy dictates at the expense of evidence-based policies? By what metrics are such safe-guards assessed? How is The Ministry of Health performing in this regard?

What safe-guards (policies, practices) are in place to protect The Ministry of Health from "regulatory capture" (eg via advisory committees, industries, private interests) from developing, promoting, or otherwise reinforcing policies that are not evidence-based? By what metrics are such safe-guards assessed? How is The Ministry of Health performing in this regard?

What is the purpose of a "Vaccine Pass" system? How is a "Vaccine Pass" system expected to benefit public health? How can a "Vaccine Pass" system benefit public health, by doing the exact opposite of the recent position paper's recommendations (Ministry of Health position statement on pre-consultation testing of unvaccinated individuals in healthcare settings, 19 Nov 2021), and doing it on a much larger scale?

What evidence-based cost/benefit analysis supports the use of a "Vaccine Pass" system for such claimed purposes? What evidence-based risk/benefit analysis supports the use of a "Vaccine Pass" system for such claimed purposes? If evidence-based cost/benefit analyses and evidence-based risk/benefit analyses do not support the implementation of this system for such claimed purposes, then why is this system being implemented?

To the extent that COVID-19 inoculations may be effective, then what public health benefit can be served by a "Vaccine Pass" system?

To the extent that COVID-19 inoculations may not be effective, then what public health benefit can be served by a "Vaccine Pass" system?

What balance of evidence, both for and against, supports any classification and/or segregation of any kind between inoculated and uninoculated persons?

Does The Ministry of Health hold any information indicating that the current COVID-19 inoculations are "neutralising vaccines" or "sterilising vaccines", in the sense that they effectively prevent infection and transmission of SARS-Cov-2/COVID-19? nb, this is not to be confused with inoculations stimulating the production of "neutralising antibodies".

What information does The Ministry of Health hold regarding the nature of "leaky vaccines" to allow infection, allow transmission, facilitate asymptomatic disease transmission, and select for both more vaccine-evasive viral mutations and more pathogenic viral mutations? 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 balance of evidence, both for and against, does The Ministry of Health rely on to primarily/exclusively favour "leaky vaccines", rather than evidence-based prevention and early treatment protocols, such as those published by FLCCC - https://covid19criticalcare.com/covid-19... ​- which appear to be both safer and more effective than any COVID-19 inoculations. If it is not the role of The Ministry of Health to research and advocate for the safest and most effective prevention and treatment protocols, in the midst of a pandemic, whose job is it?

Is The Ministry of Health opposed to treatment protocols such as those published by FLCCC? Is The Ministry of Health aware of such treatments being discouraged in any way?

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?

What information does The Ministry of Health posses in relation to the use of zinc sulfate and/or inhalation chambers, used in New Zealand during the 1918 Influenza Pandemic?

What lessons has The Ministry of Health learned, subsequent to that use of zinc sulfate and inhalation chambers, and their mandated uses during the 1918 Influenza Pandemic? How can the public be assured that gross errors of public health policy, public health mandates, pandemic response, and rushed treatments are not being repeated? If The Ministry of Health has not considered this, please explain why.

Thank you,
ASE

Attn Ministry of Health,

The response that I received from Ministry of Health, dated 17 December 2021, and prior correspondence in these matters is entirely dishonest.

The I was asked to consolidate several different requests (submitted between 23 and 29 Nov 2021), which I did. The consolidated request contains approximately 30 substantive questions, many of which are broken into parts, totalling almost 100 "question marks". This is not "an estimated 100 questions", as claimed by Ministry of Health, and never would have been close to that, had the different requests not been consolidated, at your request.

Ministry of Health makes the baseless accusation: 〃For example, the repeated references to “COVID-19 inoculations” are an attempt to imply that approved mRNA COVID-19 vaccines contain the corona virus and therefore cause disease.〃

Such accusations are baseless, and absolutely false projections of my motives. In fact, this terminology reflects both established legal and established medical definitions of the word "vaccine" (and derivatives) which necessitate, among other qualities, long-lasting protection against infection; these are two qualities that current COVID-19 "vaccines" objectively do not possess. Even using the Ministry of Health's own definitions of "vaccines", (experimental) mRNA and adenovirus vector vaccines do not meet the compositional or functional definitions of vaccines.

Similar dishonesty is used to dismiss a question that used the word "pregnancies". The question raised is not answered by the links provided, but rather asks: 〃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, excess mortality, and suicides 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 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?〃

Again, the Ministry of Health relies on dishonest subterfuge by responding: 〃Asking the Ministry to comment on or itemise the information about the use of zinc sulphate or inhalation chambers in the 1918 influenza pandemic is not a request for official information.〃

The actual question(s) asked is nothing but a request for information: 〃What information does The ​Ministry of Health posses in relation to the use of zinc sulfate and/or inhalation chambers, used in New Zealand during the 1918 Influenza Pandemic? What lessons has The Ministry of Health learned, subsequent to that use of zinc sulfate and inhalation chambers, and their mandated uses during the 1918 Influenza Pandemic? How can the public be assured that gross errors of public health policy, public health mandates, pandemic response, and rushed treatments are not being repeated? If The Ministry of Health has not considered this, please explain why.〃

At this time, I am submitting a formal complaint to the Office of the Ombudsman. This is absolutely unacceptable subterfuge and dishonesty from Ministry of Health, during a time when answers to these questions are of such importance.

In the interests of public health, human rights, New Zealand's democratic processes, regulatory capture, government capture, and a list of other issues of critical importance, I hope that Ministry of Health will start honestly answering the questions raised in this request while that complaint is pending.

Thank you,
ASE