The decision not to share the Pfizer 1-29 Apr 2021 review of myocarditis and pericarditis
Erika Whittome made this Official Information request to Ministry of Health
Currently waiting for a response from Ministry of Health, they must respond promptly and normally no later than (details and exceptions).
From: Erika Whittome
Dear Ministry of Health,
I asked about the promulgation of the BioNTech-Pfizer Summary Monthly Safety Report (SMSR) 5, which contained a review of myocarditis and pericarditis 1-19 Apr 2021. The safety report in the US is discussed here: https://static.foxnews.com/foxnews.com/c...
I refer you to this information supplied already https://fyi.org.nz/request/31192-april-2... in which you say SMSR 5 was not promulgated or shared.
Would you please share the minutes of the meetings, memos, correspondence, briefing reports, aide memoirs etc
1.of the actual review of this report SMSR 5 by the MoH and its staff
2. the decision by the MoH and its staff not to promulgate the report, and
3. the decision not to issue a formal warning at this time in April, May and June 2021 up until 21 July 2021 when a CV-TAG memo went from Dr Ian Town to Mister Dr Bloomfield on 21 July 2021.
Yours faithfully,
Erika Whittome
From: OIA Requests
Kia ora Erika
Thank you for your request under the Official Information Act 1982 (the
Act), received by the Ministry of Health on 30 June 2025. You requested:
Would you please share the minutes of the meetings, memos, correspondence,
briefing reports, aide memoirs etc
1.of the actual review of this report SMSR 5 by the MoH and its staff
2. the decision by the MoH and its staff not to promulgate the report, and
3. the decision not to issue a formal warning at this time in April, May
and June 2021 up until 21 July 2021 when a CV-TAG memo went from Dr Ian
Town to Mister Dr Bloomfield on 21 July 2021.
The reference number for your request is H2025069254. As required under
the Act, the Ministry will endeavour to respond to your request no later
than 20 working days after the day your request was
received: [1]http://www.ombudsman.parliament.nz/
If you have any queries related to this request, please do not hesitate to
get in touch ([2][email address]).
Ngā mihi
OIA Services Team
[3]Ministry of Health information releases
****************************************************************************
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. http://www.ombudsman.parliament.nz/
2. mailto:[email address]
3. https://www.health.govt.nz/about-ministr...
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
Offensive? Unsuitable?
Requests for personal information and vexatious requests are not considered valid requests for Official Information (read more).
If you believe this request is not suitable, you can report it for attention by the site administrators
Report this request
SPENCER JONES left an annotation ()
Kia ora Erika,
Thank you for your persistence in seeking transparency on this critical matter. I fully support this OIA and have personally raised the issue with the COVID-19 After Action Review Commission, highlighting the Ministry of Health’s (MoH) apparent pattern of obfuscation across vaccine safety information requests — including this one.
⚖️ Ministry’s Response: A Pattern of Evasion?
The MoH’s refusal on 30 June 2025 (ref H2025067160), citing section 18(g)(i) of the Official Information Act (OIA), asserts that no document titled “Pfizer 1–29 April 2021 review of myocarditis and pericarditis” is held. However, this narrow, title-based interpretation sidesteps the clear intent of your request: to access **any data, analysis, or deliberation** by Pfizer or the MoH regarding early signals of myocarditis risk following vaccination.
This mirrors a broader trend in vaccine-related OIAs where:
Agencies focus on literal document titles to justify refusals (s18(e) or (g)),
* Fail to acknowledge **functionally equivalent reports** (e.g., Pfizer’s 5.3.6 cumulative analysis),
* And offer **no assistance** to help refine or redirect requests — a potential breach of **s13 of the OIA** (duty to assist).
Given that Medsafe publicly acknowledged myocarditis as a known side effect of Comirnaty by **July 2021**, it is implausible that no earlier review data or correspondence existed, either from Pfizer or within the Ministry. This raises serious questions about whether **related records** are being suppressed or reframed to avoid disclosure.
🧭 Suggested Next Steps
If you're considering follow-up action, I’d recommend:
1. **Submit a clarified OIA** requesting:
> “Any Pfizer post-marketing surveillance reports, internal Medsafe safety reviews, or email communications from March–July 2021 referencing myocarditis or pericarditis following the use of Comirnaty (Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine).”
You could also specify known reports (e.g., **Pfizer 5.3.6**, the **1.29 pharmacovigilance review**) and request any internal analysis or meeting minutes referencing them.
2. **Contact Health NZ (Te Whatu Ora)**
Since MoH referenced prior partial transfers, write to **[oia@hanz.health.nz](mailto:oia@hanz.health.nz)** and ask if they hold vaccine adverse event data or relevant documents on this matter.
3. **Escalate to the Ombudsman**
If you believe the response failed to address key parts of your request (e.g., points 2–4), lodge a complaint citing:
* The MoH’s narrow reading of your request,
* Their failure to assist under s13,
* The public interest in vaccine safety transparency — especially around myocarditis, for which over **400 adverse events** were recorded in NZ in 2021–2022 (ref: OIA #31200).
4. **Connect with Independent Analysts**
Groups such as **NZDSOS** or independent researchers tracking post-marketing surveillance may have further documentation or be able to support any formal review or legal escalation.
🧩 Wider Transparency Concerns
This case fits a **wider pattern of strategic non-disclosure** by public agencies on myocarditis risk, mirroring other vaccine safety OIAs such as [#31200](https://fyi.org.nz/request/31200). It also reflects a government tendency to compartmentalise or redirect responsibility to avoid scrutiny, rather than fulfilling their obligation to ensure informed consent through full and honest disclosure.
Your mahi is critical. I encourage others reading this to monitor, cross-link, and amplify these efforts to uphold the public’s right to official information — especially on decisions affecting national health policy.
Kind regards,
Spencer Jones
Link to this