New Conservative NZ
The Covid-19 Vaccine Rollout: Rushing Through Legislative Amendments for Political Expedience
--------------------------------------------------
Relevant Legislation and Issues:
- COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020.
- Medicines Act 1981.
- Rushed amendments to both of the above Acts in April and May 2021 without due process.
--------------------------------------------------
Nelson Lawyer Sue Grey and Nga Kaitiaki Tuku Ihu Medical Action Society Incorporated have recently brought a case against the Labour government's Minister of Health (Andrew Little) over the government's approval of a Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine rollout for the entire adult population of New Zealand.
The plaintiff argued that the vaccine should only have had provisional approval under Section 23 of the Medicines Act 1981. Therefore, the vaccine should have only been intended for a limited number of patients at the very most. Not all New Zealanders who are over the age of 16.
On this basis, High Court Justice Rebecca Ellis agreed that the plaintiff had correctly identified an issue of legality with the rollout, and that it was "reasonably arguable" that the approval of the Pfizer vaccine went beyond what the Medicines Act 1981 allowed.
But Justice Ellis was not willing to prevent the rollout because of potential "political repercussions" (including, she argued, the undermining of public confidence and the wastage of vaccine stock already in New Zealand). However, Justice Ellis added that the crown should consider the issue identified by the plaintiff carefully.
But in a radio interview with Peter Williams on the 19th of May 2021, Sue Grey argued that of the rollout, "People are too trusting in this experimental mRNA vaccine", and this is due to the lopsided and selective ways government and media have covered the subject. She then explained that the government had assured the public that the vaccine had been approved by Medsafe, when in fact, it had only been provisionally approved, and not with the intent that it would be made available to the entire adult population of New Zealand.
So in essence, the government could not in honesty say that the vaccine is safe and effective, yet have done exactly that.
Sue then said to Peter that under Section 22, 2 of the Medicines Act 1981:
"Medsafe must look at all of the evidence and decide whether the benefits outweigh the risks. So when they first looked at it, and they looked at it for all of New Zealand, they decided that there wasn't enough evidence of safety to be satisfied that the benefits outweighed the risks."
"There was not enough evidence of safety, there was not enough evidence of efficacy, i.e. that the vaccine prevents infection or transmission, and there was not enough evidence that the processing when they scaled up from making it in a laboratory to making it in a commercial factory, that that could ensure a pure enough product. So the Medsafe experts themselves decided that that didn't meet that 'benefits-exceed-risks' test. So that's when they tried to slip it in through the back door."
"But it's actually still the same test, they still have to be satisfied that the benefits outweigh the risks, however, in addition, there's a restriction [that] it can only be for a limited number of people. So the argument I've had all along is that the benefits might outweigh the risks for a limited number of people who are dying, or very ill and they urgently need a medicine, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the benefits exceed the risks for everybody. And this is a classic case. We've got healthy people, we've got [virtually] no Covid in New Zealand, we're stopping it effectively at the borders. The risk from Covid is currently very low when you look at [what] experts such as Dr. Simon Thornley, and experts such as Dr. Alison Goodwin (who gave evidence for us) [are saying]."
"However, the risks from the vaccine, which is an experimental vaccine, [and which] they themselves admit that it hasn't been tested for pregnant women, it hasn't been tested for breastfeeding, it hasn't been tested for anybody on any medication, it hasn't been tested for anybody who has had another vaccine (which might have affected their immune system), not tested and not safe for anybody who has got allergies or autoimmune conditions...you know half the population it's not safe for."
So, in response to Sue Grey's legal challenge, and in response to Justice Ellis's recommendations the Labour government have rashly rushed through the updating of Section 23 of the Medicines Act 1981, without consultation — to try to legitimise their decision.
This has been done without regard for public safety. Without regard for public input. Without any thought as to why Labour were found to have broken the law in the first place. And without any care for the implications of the court's decision.
So, it seems that when the Labour government are found to have broken a law, their response might just be to rush through a new one!
https://www.facebook.com/NewConservativeNZ/