We don't know whether the most recent response to this request contains information or not – if you are Chris McCashin please sign in and let everyone know.

Recent Comments

Chris McCashin made this Official Information request to Ayesha Verrall

This request has an unknown status. We're waiting for Chris McCashin to read recent responses and update the status.

From: Chris McCashin

Dear Ayesha Verrall,

Recently you were at a Covid-19 press conference and stated the following

"It is really important to be aware that there are rare side effects that become more frequent at the younger age group and that's why we have a lower age limit at the moment and we continue to track whether or not it's safe to widen access there"

I am just trying to understand this statement and what you mean by this - please confirm if I have interpreted what you said correctly.

- Rare side effects of the vaccine are more frequent in younger age brackets - I am assuming this is yes based on the above statement?
- We continue to track whether or not it's safe to widen access there - I am assuming you mean that you are looking to jab even younger children? Yes or No - this is despite you saying just before that the side effects are more frequent in our younger generation

If you can answer the above questions and please provide the following information

- Please provide all reports, analysis, email correspondence, memos formal and informal, data, warnings that show side effects are more frequent in younger age brackets as your statement clearly states this.
- I note the Medsafe Reports per table 11 state AEFI's in children - continue to monitor. Please provide the process documents, reports completed specifically associated with this category. Ultimately I want to know all of the work, reports completed by the authorities that show the process completed by Medsafe whereby they continue to monitor AEFI's in children, the memos associated, the reports provided to minister, how warnings are notified to minister, risk benefit analysis, do they monitor monthly, weekly, fortnightly, minutes associated with monitoring meetings.

As an example, I have taken some of these "Rare" side effects per Medsafe reports which are in the thousands, but here are some Bell's Palsy, Guillain-Barre syndrome, Cerebral Haemorrhage, Multi-system inflammatory syndrome, Cardiac arrest, stroke, suicide, autoimmune issues. More than enough data is available that shows Covid impacted the elderly (until mass vaccination and changing death counts) - how is Cardiac arrest, stroke, GBS a better outcome than a child suffering a mild flu? There lives are now ruined when they could have walked it off.

Please provide a risk / benefit analysis for under 20 age group using the available Medsafe data
If one has not been completed then why not?

Please note the date of this request, as it sounds like you are aiming to jab even younger children - please provide a risk / benefit analysis and also note are you really wanting to be responsible for inflicting our most vulnerable to any of the above?

Yours faithfully,
Chris

Link to this

From: A Verrall (MIN)
Ayesha Verrall

Kia ora

 

Thank you for taking the time to write to Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall, Minister
for COVID – 19 Response, Minister for Research, Science and Innovation,
Minister for Seniors, and Associate Minister of Health. Your email will be
carefully considered and noted and should a response be required it will
be sent in due course.

 

Ngâ  Mihi 

 

Office of Hon Dr Ayesha
Verrall

Minister for COVID-19
Response

Minister of Research,
Science and Innovation
Minister for Seniors

Associate Minister of
Health

 

Email:
[email address]

Private Bag 18041,
Parliament Buildings,
Wellington 6160, New
Zealand

 

 

[1]https://covid19.govt.nz/assets/resources...

[2]www.covid19.govt.nz

[3]www.mbie.govt.nz

[4]https://officeforseniors.govt.nz

[5]www.health.govt.nz

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

References

Visible links
2. http://www.covid19.govt.nz/
3. http://www.mbie.govt.nz/
4. https://officeforseniors.govt.nz/
5. https://www.health.govt.nz/

Link to this

From: A Verrall (MIN)
Ayesha Verrall

Kia ora Chris,

Thank you for your email of 19 July in which you submitted an Official Information Act request as follows

"It is really important to be aware that there are rare side effects that become more frequent at the younger age group and that's why we have a lower age limit at the moment and we continue to track whether or not it's safe to widen access there"

I am just trying to understand this statement and what you mean by this - please confirm if I have interpreted what you said correctly.

- Rare side effects of the vaccine are more frequent in younger age brackets - I am assuming this is yes based on the above statement?
- We continue to track whether or not it's safe to widen access there - I am assuming you mean that you are looking to jab even younger children? Yes or No - this is despite you saying just before that the side effects are more frequent in our younger generation

If you can answer the above questions and please provide the following information

- Please provide all reports, analysis, email correspondence, memos formal and informal, data, warnings that show side effects are more frequent in younger age brackets as your statement clearly states this.
- I note the Medsafe Reports per table 11 state AEFI's in children - continue to monitor. Please provide the process documents, reports completed specifically associated with this category. Ultimately I want to know all of the work, reports completed by the authorities that show the process completed by Medsafe whereby they continue to monitor AEFI's in children, the memos associated, the reports provided to minister, how warnings are notified to minister, risk benefit analysis, do they monitor monthly, weekly, fortnightly, minutes associated with monitoring meetings.

As an example, I have taken some of these "Rare" side effects per Medsafe reports which are in the thousands, but here are some Bell's Palsy, Guillain-Barre syndrome, Cerebral Haemorrhage, Multi-system inflammatory syndrome, Cardiac arrest, stroke, suicide, autoimmune issues. More than enough data is available that shows Covid impacted the elderly (until mass vaccination and changing death counts) - how is Cardiac arrest, stroke, GBS a better outcome than a child suffering a mild flu? There lives are now ruined when they could have walked it off.

Please provide a risk / benefit analysis for under 20 age group using the available Medsafe data If one has not been completed then why not?

Please note the date of this request, as it sounds like you are aiming to jab even younger children - please provide a risk / benefit analysis and also note are you really wanting to be responsible for inflicting our most vulnerable to any of the above?

Minister Verrall is considering your request in accordance with the Act, and you can expect a response by 16 August

Ngā mihi

Office of Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall
Minister for COVID-19 Response
Minister of Research, Science and Innovation

Minister for Seniors
Associate Minister of Health

Email: [email address]
Private Bag 18041, Parliament Buildings, Wellington 6160, New Zealand

show quoted sections

Link to this

From: Daniel Martin


Attachment AVOIA68.pdf
205K Download View as HTML


Kia ora Chris,

Please find attached the Ministers response to your request for official information.

Ngā mihi,

Daniel Martin
Health Private Secretary | Office of Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall
Minister for COVID-19 Response
Minister of Research, Science and Innovation
Minister for Seniors
Associate Minister of Health
Private Bag 18041, Parliament Buildings, Wellington 6160, New Zealand

show quoted sections

Link to this

From: Chris McCashin

Dear Daniel Martin,

Just a follow up on this

Can you please provide the hyperlinks in the letter in a response to this follow up

Also just confirming - this letter quotes the "Original benefit / risk assessment for the Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine in a previous response under the Act"

I refer you to that document and quote directly from the "Benefit Risk Assessment"

Summary - The benefit risk balance of Comirnaty (COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine) for active immunisation to
prevent coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by SARS-CoV-2, in individuals 16 years
of age and older, is not clear. At this stage, there is evidence only for short-term protection, and
longer-term safety data are lacking. However, experience with the vaccine is accumulating
rapidly.

So based on the above can the Minister confirm - is the only Benefit Risk assessment that has been relied on from day 1 concluded that the benefit risk ratio "is not clear".

Despite thousands of injuries, confirmed deaths, suspect deaths there has only been one benefit / risk assessment completed that had the conclusion "is not clear".

I refer you to numerous CV-ISMB Memos notably

17 September 2021 - "benefits outweigh risks" - so can I conclude when the CV-ISMB mentioned this in their memo

1. They are using this original benefit / risk assessment - Yes or No
2. Have not completed a new benefit / risk assessment - Yes or No
3. Have stated the benefits outweigh risks yet don't have any supporting documentation - Yes or No

Memos in September, October, December and more all quote despite suspicious deaths that benefits outweigh the risks.

So based on the above can I confirm that despite the CV-ISMB regularly stating the above they don't have one benefit / risk assessment as supporting evidence?

Yours sincerely,

Chris McCashin

Link to this

From: Joanne Francey


Attachment image001.png
47K Download

Attachment image002.jpg
9K Download


Kia ora Chris,

Thank you for your follow up email. You requested:

Can you please provide the hyperlinks in the letter in a response to this
follow up
Also just confirming - this letter quotes the "Original benefit / risk
assessment for the Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine in a previous response under
the Act"
I refer you to that document and quote directly from the "Benefit Risk
Assessment"
Summary - The benefit risk balance of Comirnaty (COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine)
for active immunisation to prevent coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)
caused by SARS-CoV-2, in individuals 16 years of age and older, is not
clear. At this stage, there is evidence only for short-term protection,
and longer-term safety data are lacking. However, experience with the
vaccine is accumulating rapidly.
So based on the above can the Minister confirm - is the only Benefit Risk
assessment that has been relied on from day 1 concluded  that the benefit
risk ratio "is not clear".
Despite thousands of injuries, confirmed deaths, suspect deaths there has
only been one benefit / risk assessment completed that had the conclusion
"is not clear".
I refer you to numerous CV-ISMB Memos notably
17 September 2021 - "benefits outweigh risks" - so can I conclude when the
CV-ISMB mentioned this in their memo
1. They are using this original benefit / risk assessment - Yes or No 2. 
Have not completed a new benefit / risk assessment - Yes or No 3.  Have
stated the benefits outweigh risks yet don't have any supporting
documentation - Yes or No
Memos in September, October, December and more all quote despite
suspicious deaths that benefits outweigh the risks.
So based on the above can I confirm that despite the CV-ISMB regularly
stating the above they don't have one benefit / risk assessment as
supporting evidence?

Please find the hyperlinks from your previous response (AVOIA68 refers)
here:

[1]www.health.govt.nz/covid-19-novel-coronavirus/covid-19-vaccines/covid-19-vaccine-boosters#additiona
[2]www.health.govt.nz/system/files/documents/pages/cv_tag_boosters_after_myocarditis_and_pericarditis.pdf
[3]www.health.govt.nz/about-ministry/leadership-ministry/expert-groups/covid-19-vaccine-technical-advisory-group-cv-tag
The Coronavirus Immunisation handbook:
[4]www.health.govt.nz/our-work/immunisation-handbook-2020/5-coronavirus-disease-covid-19.
The vaccine datasheet:
[5]www.medsafe.govt.nz/profs/Datasheet/c/comirnatyinj.pdf
[6]www.health.govt.nz/covid-19-novel-coronavirus/covid-19-vaccines/covid-19-vaccine-information-health-professionals/covid-19-vaccine-strategy-planning-insights/covid-19-who-were-working#ismb
The COVID-19 vaccine safety monitoring process is described on the Medsafe
website at: [7]www.medsafe.govt.nz/COVID-19/monitoring-process.asp
Manatū Hauora has released the original benefit/risk assessment for the
Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine in a previous response under the Act, this is
available at:
[8]www.health.govt.nz/system/files/documents/information-release/h202106950_response.pdf

The COVID-19 Vaccine Independent Safety Monitoring Board (CV-ISMB)
provides expert advice to the Director-General of Health (now the National
Director of the National Public Health Service) about the COVID-19
vaccine.
 
The CV-ISMB continues to review the available safety information on
Comirnaty, and they have continued to advise that the benefits of
vaccination outweigh the risk of side effects. Please refer to the CV-ISMB
media releases and interim report, which are available
at: [9]www.health.govt.nz/covid-19-novel-coronavirus/covid-19-vaccines/covid-19-vaccine-information-health-professionals/covid-19-vaccine-strategy-planning-insights/covid-19-who-were-working#ismb.

Furthermore, the text referred to in your request can be found on page 96
of the release. The initial summary is in the same section and notes that
a provisional approval may be appropriate. The document was worded this
way to allow the application to be referred to the Medicines Assessment
Advisory Committee (MAAC) as Medsafe must follow the process in the
legislation. This in turn led to the decision memo (document 15) where
approval was recommended. This this would only occur if benefit risk was
favourable.

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: [10][email address] or by calling 0800
802 602.   

 

Nāku noa, nā

 

Joanne Francey

Health Private Secretary | Office of Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall

Minister for COVID-19 Response

Minister of Research, Science and Innovation
Minister for Seniors

Associate Minister of Health

Private Bag 18041, Parliament Buildings, Wellington 6160, New Zealand

 

 

show quoted sections

Link to this

From: Chris McCashin

Dear Joanne Francey,

I am really struggling with the responses. The one and only benefit / risk assessment says that the “benefit / risk” is not clear. You then go on to say that provisional approval would not be granted unless the benefits outweigh the risks.

I will make it easy

“Please provide the benefit / risk assessment(s) that were relied on by MACC / Medsafe to grant provisional approval”.

Despite you and all organizations saying benefits outweigh the risks there hasn’t been one comprehensive report showing this to be the case.

So if this documentation is unable to be provided I am assuming it isn’t available which raises some serious questions on if this should have been approved at all?

MOH & Medsafe regularly use the statement “benefits outweigh the risks” as justification for this poison to still be in use. Please provide the information that supports this statement.

Or confirm no such information exists and that New Zealanders have a continue to be lied too.

Yours sincerely,

Chris McCashin

Link to this

We don't know whether the most recent response to this request contains information or not – if you are Chris McCashin please sign in and let everyone know.

Things to do with this request

Anyone:
Ayesha Verrall only: