Un-redacted copies of the Pfizer and BioNTech Contracts for COVID-19 'vaccines'
Maurice McGrath made this Official Information request to Ministry of Health
This request has an unknown status. We're waiting for Maurice McGrath to read recent responses and update the status.
From: Maurice McGrath
Dear Ministry of Health,
Former Finance Minister Grant Robertson signed waivers of liability to Pfizer and BioNTech and specific associated persons in relation to the COVID-19 'vaccine', properly described as a 'synthetic gene, lipid nanoparticle injectable product' as follows:
"On 5 October 2020, I, Grant Robertson, Minister of Finance, on behalf of the Crown, gave an indemnity to Pfizer Inc and BioNTech and specific associated persons in relation to the supply of a COVID-19 vaccine. Dated at Thorndon this 22 day of November 2020.
AND
"On 22 December 2020 , I Grant Robertson, Minister of Finance, on behalf of the Crown, gave an indemnity to Pfizer New Zealand Limited, Pfizer Inc and BioNTech and specific associated persons in relation to the supply of a COVID-19 vaccine. Dated at Wellington this 11th day of February 2021. Hon Grant Robertson Minister of Finance"
You will be familiar with the explicit acknowledgement by Pfizer in their 'BNT162b2 5.3.6 Cumulative Analysis of Post-authorization Adverse Event Reports', 28 Feb 2021 released 30 Apr 2021, where you may have noted that the "vaccine" is referred to specifically as an "investigational" product, as written, "...investigational COVID-19 Vaccine (BNT162b2)" in the 'Pfizer/BioNTech’s proposal for the clinical and post-authorization safety data package for the Biologics License Application (BLA)'.
This above observation is extraordinary and appears of both public and legal concern as two separate liability waivers were extended to two separate commercial entities and their associated persons for an 'investigational' injectable product about which claims of 'safe and effective' could not be legitimately or scientifically asserted, let alone be allowed to extend to a notion of 'fully informed consent.
Furthermore, the 'investigational' product was to be used contrary to the Medicine Act of the day, which prohibited the use of an experimental measure as a wide scale public health intervention. Thus the Ministerial provision of liability waivers could be argued as an 'ultra vires' act by The Minister, further demonstrated by the ad hoc amendment later implemented of the Medicine Act in March 2021, by then Minister of Health, Trevor Little.
Please provide the un-redacted copies of the Pfizer and BioNTech Contracts for COVID-19 'vaccines' to which the liability waivers of October 2020 and December 2020 applied that were signed by Minister Grant Robertson. For the above stated reasons there is very significant public concern and concomitant legal interest.
Yours faithfully,
Dr Maurice McGrath PhD, MSc, DO(BCOM, Lon)
From: OIA Requests
Link: [1]File-List
Link: [2]Edit-Time-Data
Link: [3]themeData
Link: [4]colorSchemeMapping
Kia ora Maurice,
The information you have requested is withheld in full under the following
sections of the Act:
o Section 9(2)(b)(ii), where its release would likely unreasonably
prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied the
information;
o Section 9(2)(ba)(ii), to protect information that is subject to an
obligation of confidence and making it available would likely damage
the public interest; and
o Section 9(2)(c), to avoid prejudice to measures to protect the health
or safety of the public.
I have considered the countervailing public interest in release in making
this decision and consider that it does not outweigh the need to withhold
at this time.
You may be interested in a summary statement with information on the
COVID-19 vaccine procurement process and the nature of the commitments
made by the Government across all the contracts. The summary statement can
be found
here: [5]www.health.govt.nz/about-ministry/information-releases/general-information-releases/summary-statement-new-zealand-covid-19-vaccine-procurement-process-and-contracts-suppliers
If you wish to discuss any aspect of your request with us, including this
decision, please feel free to contact the OIA Services Team
on: [6][email address]
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: [7][email address] or by calling 0800
802 602.
Ngā mihi
OIA Services Team
Manatū Hauora | Ministry of Health
[8]Ministry of Health information releases
------------------- Original Message -------------------
From: Maurice McGrath <[FOI #27801 email]>;
Received: Wed Jul 24 2024 12:53:09 GMT+1200 (New Zealand Standard Time)
To: OIA Requests <[email address]>; OIA <[email address]>;
Subject: Official Information request - Un-redacted copies of the Pfizer
and BioNTech Contracts for COVID-19 'vaccines'
Dear Ministry of Health,
Former Finance Minister Grant Robertson signed waivers of liability to
Pfizer and BioNTech and specific associated persons in relation to the
COVID-19 'vaccine', properly described as a 'synthetic gene, lipid
nanoparticle injectable product' as follows:
"On 5 October 2020, I, Grant Robertson, Minister of Finance, on behalf of
the Crown, gave an indemnity to Pfizer Inc and BioNTech and specific
associated persons in relation to the supply of a COVID-19 vaccine. Dated
at Thorndon this 22 day of November 2020.
AND
"On 22 December 2020 , I Grant Robertson, Minister of Finance, on behalf
of the Crown, gave an indemnity to Pfizer New Zealand Limited, Pfizer Inc
and BioNTech and specific associated persons in relation to the supply of
a COVID-19 vaccine. Dated at Wellington this 11th day of February 2021.
Hon Grant Robertson Minister of Finance"
You will be familiar with the explicit acknowledgement by Pfizer in their
'BNT162b2 5.3.6 Cumulative Analysis of Post-authorization Adverse Event
Reports', 28 Feb 2021 released 30 Apr 2021, where you may have noted that
the "vaccine" is referred to specifically as an "investigational" product,
as written, "...investigational COVID-19 Vaccine (BNT162b2)" in the
'Pfizer/BioNTech’s proposal for the clinical and post-authorization safety
data package for the Biologics License Application (BLA)'.
This above observation is extraordinary and appears of both public and
legal concern as two separate liability waivers were extended to two
separate commercial entities and their associated persons for an
'investigational' injectable product about which claims of 'safe and
effective' could not be legitimately or scientifically asserted, let alone
be allowed to extend to a notion of 'fully informed consent.
Furthermore, the 'investigational' product was to be used contrary to the
Medicine Act of the day, which prohibited the use of an experimental
measure as a wide scale public health intervention. Thus the Ministerial
provision of liability waivers could be argued as an 'ultra vires' act by
The Minister, further demonstrated by the ad hoc amendment later
implemented of the Medicine Act in March 2021, by then Minister of Health,
Trevor Little.
Please provide the un-redacted copies of the Pfizer and BioNTech Contracts
for COVID-19 'vaccines' to which the liability waivers of October 2020 and
December 2020 applied that were signed by Minister Grant Robertson. For
the above stated reasons there is very significant public concern and
concomitant legal interest.
Yours faithfully,
Dr Maurice McGrath PhD, MSc, DO(BCOM, Lon)
****************************************************************************
Statement of confidentiality: This e-mail message and any accompanying
attachments may contain information that is IN-CONFIDENCE and subject to
legal privilege.
If you are not the intended recipient, do not read, use, disseminate,
distribute or copy this message or attachments.
If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender
immediately and delete this message.
****************************************************************************
References
Visible links
1. file:///C:/Users/kvirmani/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_filelist.xml
2. file:///C:/Users/kvirmani/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_editdata.mso
3. file:///C:/Users/kvirmani/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_themedata.thmx
4. file:///C:/Users/kvirmani/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_colorschememapping.xml
5. https://www.health.govt.nz/about-ministr...
https://www.health.govt.nz/about-ministr...
6. mailto:[email address]
mailto:[email address]
7. mailto:[email address]
mailto:[email address]
8. https://www.health.govt.nz/about-ministr...
hide quoted sections
From: Maurice McGrath
Dear OIA Requests,
Re: The information you have requested is withheld in full under the following
sections of the Act:
o Section 9(2)(b)(ii), where its release would likely unreasonably
prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied the
information;
o Section 9(2)(ba)(ii), to protect information that is subject to an
obligation of confidence and making it available would likely damage
the public interest; and
o Section 9(2)(c), to avoid prejudice to measures to protect the health
or safety of the public.
The above response appears an attempt at deflecting the reasonable discovery of information vital to public interest. An important need arises here for bureaucratic and governmental transparency.
The reasons laid out in the OIA were clear and reside firmly in the domain of public interest, health, well being and the maintenance of public confidence. On the other hand the response that alleges to 'prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied the information', to 'protect information that is subject to an obligation of confidence', and to 'avoid prejudice to measures to protect the health or safety of the public', collectively appear as obfuscatory and inconsistent with transparency.
In personally signing waivers of liability to Pfizer and BioNTech and their associates in October and December 2020, Minister Robertson assumed personal liability for his actions. Given the then allegedly unknown but now numerous and well established deleterious consequences (adverse events of special interest AESIs) causally associated with the use of the 'investigational' product, the a priori personal signature of Minister Roberston requires public scrutiny with regard to its foundational basis. Either he knew the consequential AESIs and accepted known predetermined outcomes, or he did not. Which is it to be? Either way, there appears a sound case here of public interest and the maintenance of public confidence.
Furthermore, the signing of waivers of liability in October and December 2020 appeared ultra vires. Minister Little overturned the established law of the Medicines Act (1981) in March 2021, AFTER Minister Robertson applied his personal signature to the waivers of liability. His personal signature on the waivers had the direct effect of instigated the implementation of an experimental public health measure not permitted by the former version of the Medicines Act 1981, which was post hoc amended in March 2021 to legalise the Governmental use of an 'investigational' product as a public health policy of mass measure.
Both Ministers' Robertson and Little would have known that fully informed consent by recipients of an investigational series of injections was as self-evidently impossible as was the uniformed participation by any recipient in an unconsented 'investigational' product used as a mass injection intervention in public health. Minister Little's support of this legislative action potentially considered ultra vires appears of considerable public interest regarding its legislative, scientific and medical basis.
The health and safety of the public appear to have been potentially undermined by Ministerial and public health actions predicated upon a series of Ministerial liability waivers and the ultra vires action of a pre-approved public health measure (de novo Pfizer/BioNTech injections) that neither appear to stand a post hoc scrutiny by science, logic, and legality, nor that of established ethics.
It thus becomes very difficult to understand how the public health intervention of 2021 could have been construed as a sound platform upon which a government narrative of 'safe and effective' was constructed and why since, the amendment of the Medicines Act 1981 has not been reversed? The public interest and confidence would be well served by the release of the information requested.
Yours faithfully
Maurice McGrath
From: OIA Requests
Kia ora Maurice
Thank you for your email. The Ministry has nothing further to add.
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: [1][email address] or by calling 0800
802 602.
Ngā mihi
OIA Services Team
Manatū Hauora | Ministry of Health
M[2]inistry of Health information releases
U[3]nite against COVID-19
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Maurice McGrath <[FOI #27801 email]>
Sent: Monday, 29 July 2024 13:59
To: OIA Requests <[email address]>
Subject: Re: Response to your information request H2024047258 CRM:0114548
Dear OIA Requests,
Re: The information you have requested is withheld in full under the
following
sections of the Act:
o Section 9(2)(b)(ii), where its release would likely unreasonably
prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied the
information;
o Section 9(2)(ba)(ii), to protect information that is subject to an
obligation of confidence and making it available would likely damage
the public interest; and
o Section 9(2)(c), to avoid prejudice to measures to protect the health
or safety of the public.
The above response appears an attempt at deflecting the reasonable
discovery of information vital to public interest. An important need
arises here for bureaucratic and governmental transparency.
The reasons laid out in the OIA were clear and reside firmly in the domain
of public interest, health, well being and the maintenance of public
confidence. On the other hand the response that alleges to 'prejudice the
commercial position of the person who supplied the information', to
'protect information that is subject to an obligation of confidence', and
to 'avoid prejudice to measures to protect the health or safety of the
public', collectively appear as obfuscatory and inconsistent with
transparency.
In personally signing waivers of liability to Pfizer and BioNTech and
their associates in October and December 2020, Minister Robertson assumed
personal liability for his actions. Given the then allegedly unknown but
now numerous and well established deleterious consequences (adverse events
of special interest AESIs) causally associated with the use of the
'investigational' product, the a priori personal signature of Minister
Roberston requires public scrutiny with regard to its foundational basis.
Either he knew the consequential AESIs and accepted known predetermined
outcomes, or he did not. Which is it to be? Either way, there appears a
sound case here of public interest and the maintenance of public
confidence.
Furthermore, the signing of waivers of liability in October and December
2020 appeared ultra vires. Minister Little overturned the established law
of the Medicines Act (1981) in March 2021, AFTER Minister Robertson
applied his personal signature to the waivers of liability. His personal
signature on the waivers had the direct effect of instigated the
implementation of an experimental public health measure not permitted by
the former version of the Medicines Act 1981, which was post hoc amended
in March 2021 to legalise the Governmental use of an 'investigational'
product as a public health policy of mass measure.
Both Ministers' Robertson and Little would have known that fully informed
consent by recipients of an investigational series of injections was as
self-evidently impossible as was the uniformed participation by any
recipient in an unconsented 'investigational' product used as a mass
injection intervention in public health. Minister Little's support of this
legislative action potentially considered ultra vires appears of
considerable public interest regarding its legislative, scientific and
medical basis.
The health and safety of the public appear to have been potentially
undermined by Ministerial and public health actions predicated upon a
series of Ministerial liability waivers and the ultra vires action of a
pre-approved public health measure (de novo Pfizer/BioNTech injections)
that neither appear to stand a post hoc scrutiny by science, logic, and
legality, nor that of established ethics.
It thus becomes very difficult to understand how the public health
intervention of 2021 could have been construed as a sound platform upon
which a government narrative of 'safe and effective' was constructed and
why since, the amendment of the Medicines Act 1981 has not been reversed?
The public interest and confidence would be well served by the release of
the information requested.
Yours faithfully
Maurice McGrath
-----Original Message-----
Link: [1]File-List
Link: [2]Edit-Time-Data
Link: [3]themeData
Link: [4]colorSchemeMapping
Kia ora Maurice,
The information you have requested is withheld in full under the
following
sections of the Act:
o Section 9(2)(b)(ii), where its release would likely unreasonably
prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied the
information;
o Section 9(2)(ba)(ii), to protect information that is subject to an
obligation of confidence and making it available would likely damage
the public interest; and
o Section 9(2)(c), to avoid prejudice to measures to protect the health
or safety of the public.
I have considered the countervailing public interest in release in making
this decision and consider that it does not outweigh the need to withhold
at this time.
You may be interested in a summary statement with information on the
COVID-19 vaccine procurement process and the nature of the commitments
made by the Government across all the contracts. The summary statement
can
be found
here: [5]www.health.govt.nz/about-ministry/information-releases/general-information-releases/summary-statement-new-zealand-covid-19-vaccine-procurement-process-and-contracts-suppliers
If you wish to discuss any aspect of your request with us, including this
decision, please feel free to contact the OIA Services Team
on: [6][email address]
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: [7][email address] or by calling 0800
802 602.
Ngā mihi
OIA Services Team
Manatū Hauora | Ministry of Health
[8]Ministry of Health information releases
------------------- Original Message
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[FOI #27801 email]
Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on
the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
[4]https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
If you find this service useful as an Official Information officer, please
ask your web manager to link to us from your organisation's OIA or LGOIMA
page.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
****************************************************************************
Statement of confidentiality: This e-mail message and any accompanying
attachments may contain information that is IN-CONFIDENCE and subject to
legal privilege.
If you are not the intended recipient, do not read, use, disseminate,
distribute or copy this message or attachments.
If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender
immediately and delete this message.
****************************************************************************
References
Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
2. https://www.health.govt.nz/about-ministr...
3. https://covid19.govt.nz/
4. https://fyi.org.nz/help/officers
hide quoted sections
Things to do with this request
- Add an annotation (to help the requester or others)
- Download a zip file of all correspondence