EVIL NEWS: NZ has enough PFIZER mRNA vaccine for every man, woman and child

 

NZ government decides on 

Pfizer, the most deadly mRNA 

vaccine, as its SOLE “vaccine”

Last night I was drifting off to sleep when my partner rushed into the room to tell me the news - that the Jacinda Adern government has 'secured' enough vaccine for every man, woman and child in the country.

Most importantly that the Pfizer is to be the sole "vaccine" to be used.

I woke up this morning and had to actually search for anything on this huge story that is going to affect, sooner-or- later, everyone in the country.

There were quite a few items from overseas reporting on this.  This item, from the Times of India, was one of only two items on You Tube.

 This headline from the Independent was the most honest.

New Zealand will use ONLY the Pfizer "vaccine", out of "fairness"  (sic).

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/jacinda-ardern-announces-new-zealand-will-only-use-pfizer-vaccine-for-e2-80-98fairness-e2-80-99/ar-BB1emNj7

The truth is that New Zealand has this supply of the most deadly vaccine on the market because India refused and now there is an excess supply.

From RT.

There have been approximately 1200 deaths from the vaccines since the roll-out in the United States.

Of these, Pfizer represents approximately 55% of deaths (Moderna, 45%)

This is the vaccine the NZ government has chosen as its SOLE vaccine.

The media spin in New Zealand is quite different.  It is a celebratory one - the government has purchased enough poison to go around for every New Zealander.

https://www.rt.com/news/517488-new-zealand-pfizer-vaccine-astrazeneca-concerns/

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and Covid-19 Response Minister Chris Hipkins made the announcement at a post-Cabinet briefing about 4pm.

Ardern said the decision to make Pfizer New Zealand's primary vaccine provider was based on it being shown to be about 95 percent effective at preventing symptomatic infection.

"Whilst the Pfizer vaccine does need to be kept at ultra-cold temperatures, this challenge is offset by only having to deal with one vaccine, rather than multiple vaccines with multiple protocols. It will simplify our vaccine roll out."

Ardern said the government had signed an advance purchase agreement for an additional 8.5 million doses on top of what it has already bought, bringing the total order to 10 million - enough for five million people to get the two shots needed to be fully vaccinated.

She said early evidence of the Pfizer vaccine's efficacy was 'extremely promising'.

"This purchase marks a significant milestone in New Zealand's fight against Covid-19. We can all take heart that we have now secured one of the strongest and more effective tools in the Covid-19 toolkit," Ardern said.

The additional vaccines are expected to arrive during the second half of the year.

Ardern said the purchase meant all New Zealanders would now have access to the same vaccine, which would simplify the vaccine rollout, so it would not slow the rollout of the vaccines at all.

How the Pfizer vaccine works. Photo: Source: Pfizer/BioNTech/BBC

Covid-19 Response Minister Chris Hipkins said the Ministry of Health was now working with Pfizer on the delivery schedule to ensure a "smooth rollout".

He said consideration was also being given to how best to use vaccine doses that would not end up being needed in New Zealand.

"We are working on options for donating surplus doses across our wider portfolio to the Pacific and developing countries worldwide.

"Options could include delaying delivery to New Zealand, in order to free up supply for other countries in the short-term, or donating spare vaccines to other countries", Hipkins said.

Hipkins said the Pfizer vaccine was the only one that had been approved by Medsafe and it was incredibly effective. He said having one vaccine to administer would make the process of getting people vaccinated more streamlined.

He said work was ongoing to ensure vaccinators had the right gear to administer Pfizer vaccine - syringes, freezers, etc. He said the government had enough for the first half of the campaign and was now in the market for the second half.

Using just one vaccine would simplify those equipment requirements, he said.

Covid-19 Response Minister Chris Hipkins Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone

Ardern said the government was making good progress with the vaccine rollout, with the vast majority of border staff and MIQ workers having received their first shots of vaccine.

She said household contacts of these workers had also been receiving the vaccine, roughly 50,000 people. She said the government expected to start the second tranche of vaccines - non-border frontline workers - later this month.

The Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine is more expensive than some of the other options.

"We've seen as a nation just how far we're willing to go to look after one another. And so I think it's fair to say no matter what vaccination you're talking about it all comes at a much lower price than the loss of life, or ... the ongoing hit that many businesses take if we have outbreaks.

"In our minds this is money very well spent, and spending it here on what is a highly effective vaccine where we won't have a situation of some New Zealanders getting one and some New Zealanders getting the other."

Ardern said the government was not putting all its eggs in one basket by securing 10m doses of the Pfizer vaccine, pointing to the other agreements it has with other vaccine manufacturers.

Hipkins says Medsafe had informed him the Janssen vaccine was farthest along in getting approved.

Ardern finished her speech on International Women's Day by acknowledging all the women who have played a part in the fight against Covid-19.

Vaccine priority for sportspeople?

Ardern said she had not had any direct conversations with New Zealand Cricket about players getting vaccines earlier than the general public.

New Zealand Cricket was reported as saying it was negotiating with the government to protect the Black Caps before they went overseas next month and attempt to become the inaugural world test champions.

Ardern said she was aware there was a range of people wanting to represent New Zealand on the world stage over the coming 12 months who would need to be vaccinated before entering countries overseas. She said Olympians were another group.

Global discussion on recovery

Ardern said that on Wednesday she would take part of a round table discussion hosted by the Prime Minister of Sweden and Spain and the UN Secretary General on how we can "build back better from Covid."

She said the agreement with Pfizer would also cover New Zealand's Pacific partners.

Climate change, human rights and global health would all be included in discussion, she said.

Ardern said she would still go on Mike Hosking's Newstalk ZB show when it was of national importance.

She said the decision to no longer appear weekly on the show was made about four weeks ago.

"No one can do everything," she said. "The reason it hasn't been noticed, perhaps, until now is I have appeared on two occassions since then and that's because we said 'look, when there are issues of national significance I will still be on Mike's show."

"No one can do every single slot that's available ... people get their news from multiple sources."

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and Covid-19 Response Minister Chris Hipkins. Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone

She said she was trying to expand into other platforms and radio stations to try to get the government's message across.

She thought she could do a better job in trying to reach people where they were, and that had factored into her decision, she said.

"I don't think anyone would argue that I'm not available, [that] I'm not able to be questioned on the issues of the day, but I do want to do a better job of reaching into some other corners where people might not get their information from ZB or the Herald."

That did not mean more time with Facebook Live, but rather she was trying to reach people through different media outlets and different forms of TV, radio and media than she had previously.

Five new cases in MIQ today

Earlier today the Ministry of Health revealed there were five new cases of Covid-19 in managed isolation facilities and no new community cases.

Yesterday the Ministry revealed a new case had been identified in an Air New Zealand crew member during routine surveillance testing.

The crew member went into quarantine, while their household contacts tested negative but remained in isolation at home as a precaution.

The ministry said the case remained symptom-free so public health staff were conservatively considering they may have been infectious since their last negative test on 28 February.

The Ministry said the risk to the public was considered low because the case had limited contact with people and locations as Auckland was in alert level 3 at the time.

The person was believed to have been infected overseas shortly before they received a dose of the vaccine. Vaccines require two doses and take weeks to provide maximum protection.

New Zealand's alert levels dropped at 6am on Sunday morning, with Auckland at alert level 2 and the rest of the country at alert level 1.

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/437907/covid-19-vaccine-government-has-purchased-enough-for-every-new-zealander

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/covid-19-coronavirus-prime-minister-jacinda-ardern-reveals-enough-pfizer-vaccines-for-every-new-zealander/BDEO4HPUGMPKKYO6A2FN4TIJHU/

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/300247794/pfizer-vaccine-confirmed-but-questions-around-rollout-remain?cid=app-iPad

I think it might be appropriate to repost this piece of satire from Australia:

Also, to remind you of what the enigmatic website, Deagel.com 's projection for populations in 2025 - for New Zealand a reduction of 3.3 million out of a population just short of 5 million.

It now makes sense:

https://deagel.com/forecast

If you get severe Covid vaccine side effects, there's likely no one to sue

We know all this but the most surprising thing about this article is that it was written at all.

 You can’t sue Pfizer or Moderna if you have severe Covid vaccine side effects. The government likely won’t compensate you for damages either

CBS,

20 December, 2021

Under the PREP Act, companies like Pfizer and Moderna have total immunity from liability if something unintentionally goes wrong with their vaccines.

• A little-known government program provides benefits to people who can prove they suffered serious injury from a vaccine.

• That program rarely pays, covering just 29 claims over the last decade.

If you experience severe side effects after getting a Covid vaccine, lawyers tell CNBC there is basically no one to blame in a U.S. court of law. 

The federal government has granted companies like Pfizer and Moderna immunity from liability if something unintentionally goes wrong with their vaccines.

“It is very rare for a blanket immunity law to be passed,” said Rogge Dunn, a Dallas labor and employment attorney. “Pharmaceutical companies typically aren’t offered much liability protection under the law.“

You also can’t sue the Food and Drug Administration for authorizing a vaccine for emergency use, nor can you hold your employer accountable if they mandate inoculation as a condition of employment.

Congress created a fund specifically to help cover lost wages and out-of-pocket medical expenses for people who have been irreparably harmed by a “covered countermeasure,” such as a vaccine. But it is difficult to use and rarely pays. Attorneys say it has compensated less than 6% of the claims filed in the last decade.

Immune to lawsuits

In February, Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar invoked the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act. The 2005 law empowers the HHS secretary to provide legal protection to companies making or distributing critical medical supplies, such as vaccines and treatments, unless there’s “willful misconduct” by the company. The protection lasts until 2024.

That means that for the next four years, these companies “cannot be sued for money damages in court” over injuries related to the administration or use of products to treat or protect against Covid. 

HHS declined CNBC’s request for an interview.

Dunn thinks a big reason for the unprecedented protection has to do with the expedited timeline. 

“When the government said, ‘We want you to develop this four or five times faster than you normally do,’ most likely the manufacturers said to the government, ‘We want you, the government, to protect us from multimillion-dollar lawsuits,’” said Dunn.

The quickest vaccine ever developed was for mumps. It took four years and was licensed in 1967. Pfizer’s Covid-19 vaccine was developed and cleared for emergency use in eight months — a fact that has fueled public mistrust of the coronavirus inoculation in the U.S.

Roughly 4 in 10 Americans say they would “definitely” or “probably” not get vaccinated, according to a recent survey by the Pew Research Center. While this is lower than it was two months ago, it still points to a huge trust gap.

But drugmakers like Pfizer continue to reassure the public no shortcuts were taken. “This is a vaccine that was developed without cutting corners,” CEO Dr. Albert Bourla said in an interview with CNBC’s “Squawk Box” on Monday. “This is a vaccine that is getting approved by all authorities in the world. That should say something.”

The legal immunity granted to pharmaceutical companies doesn’t just guard them against lawsuits. Dunn said it helps lower the cost of the immunizations.

“The government doesn’t want people suing the companies making the Covid vaccine. Because then, the manufacturers would probably charge the government a higher price per person per dose,” Dunn explained. 

Pfizer and Moderna did not return CNBC’s request for comment on their legal protections.

Is anyone liable?

Remember, vaccine manufacturers aren’t the ones approving their product for mass distribution. That is the job of the FDA.

Which begs the question, can you sue the U.S. government if you have an extraordinarily bad reaction to a vaccine?

Again, the answer is no. 

“You can’t sue the FDA for approving or disapproving a drug,” said Dorit Reiss, a professor at the University of California Hastings College of Law. “That’s part of its sovereign immunity.”

Sovereign immunity came from the king, explains Dunn, referring to British law before the American Revolution. “You couldn’t sue the king. So, America has sovereign immunity, and even each state has sovereign immunity.”

There are limited exceptions, but Dunn said he doesn’t think they provide a viable legal path to hold the federal government responsible for a Covid vaccine injury.

Bringing workers back to the office in a post-Covid world also carries with it a heightened fear of liability for employers. Lawyers across the country say their corporate clients are reaching out to them to ask whether they can require employees to get immunized.

Dunn’s clients who run businesses serving customers in person or on site are most interested in mandating a Covid vaccine for staff.

“They view it as a selling point,” Dunn said. “It’s particularly important for restaurants, bars, gyms and salons. My clients in that segment of the service industry are looking hard at making it mandatory, as a sales point to their customers.” 

While this is in part a public relations tactic, it is legally within an employer’s rights to impose such a requirement. 

“Requiring a vaccine is a health and safety work rule, and employers can do that,” said Reiss.

There are a few notable exceptions. If a work force is unionized, the collective bargaining agreement may require negotiating with the union before mandating a vaccine.

Anti-discrimination laws provide some protections as well. Under the Americans with Disabilities Act, workers who don’t want to be vaccinated for medical reasons are eligible to request an exemption. If taking the vaccine is a violation of a “sincerely held” religious belief, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would potentially provide a way to opt out.

Should none of these exemptions apply, employees may have some legal recourse if they suffer debilitating side effects following a work-mandated Covid inoculation.

Attorneys say claims would most likely be routed through worker’s compensation programs and treated as an on-the-job injury. 

“But there are significant limits or caps on the damages an employee can recover,” said Dunn. He added that it would likely be difficult to prove.

Mandatory vaccination protocols, however, may not happen until the FDA formally approves the vaccines and grants Pfizer and BioNTech or Moderna a license to sell them, which will take several more months of data to show their safety and effectiveness.

“An emergency use authorization is not a license,” said Reiss. “There’s a legal question as to whether you can mandate an emergency observation. The language in the act is somewhat unclear on that.”

$50,000 a year

The government has created a way for people to recover some damages should something go wrong following immunization.

In addition to the legal immunity, the PREP Act established the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP), which provides benefits to eligible individuals who suffer serious injury from one of the protected companies.

The little-known government program has been around for a decade, and it is managed by an agency under HHS. This fund typically only deals with vaccines you probably would never get, like the H1N1 and anthrax vaccines. 

If a case for compensation through the CICP is successful, the program provides up to $50,000 per year in unreimbursed lost wages and out-of-pocket medical expenses. It won’t cover legal fees or anything to compensate for pain and suffering. 

It is also capped at the death benefit of $370,376, which is the most a surviving family member receives in the event that a Covid vaccine proves to be fatal.

But experts specializing in vaccine law say it is difficult to navigate. “This government compensation program is very hard to use,” said Reiss. “The bar for compensation is very high.”

Also worrisome to some vaccine injury lawyers is the fact that the CICP has rejected a majority of the compensation requests made since the program began 10 years ago. Of the 499 claims filed, the CICP has compensated only 29 claims, totaling more than $6 million. 

David Carney, vice president of the Vaccine Bar Association, said the CICP might deny a claim for a variety of reasons. “One reason might be that the medical records don’t support a claim,” said Carney, who regularly deals with vaccine injury cases. “We have to litigate a lot of really complex issues ... and provide a medical basis for why the injury occurred.”

Proving an injury was a direct result of the Covid vaccine could be difficult, according to Carney. “It’s not as simple as saying. ‘Hey, I got a Covid treatment, and now I have an injury.’ There is a lot of burden of proof there.”

There is also a strict one-year statute, meaning that all claims have to be filed within 12 months of receiving the vaccine.

“People who are harmed by a Covid vaccine deserve to be compensated fast and generously,” said Reiss. “The PREP Act doesn’t do that.”

Lawyers tell CNBC that it would make more sense for Covid vaccine injuries to instead be routed through another program under the HHS called the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, which handles claims for 16 routine vaccines. Known colloquially as “vaccine court,” the program paid on about 70% of petitions adjudicated by the court from 2006 to 2018.

And since it began considering claims in 1988, the VICP has paid approximately $4.4 billion in total compensation. That dwarfs the CICP’s roughly $6 million in paid benefits over the life of the program.

The VICP also gives you more time to file your claim. You have three years from the date of the first symptom to file for compensation.

“The VICP allows for recovery of pain and suffering, attorney’s fees, along with medical expenses and lost wages, if any,” said Michael Maxwell, a lawyer who practices in the areas of business litigation and personal injury. “Under the CICP, it’s only lost wages and out-of-pocket medical expenses. That’s it, unless there’s a death.”

The Covid-19 vaccines, however, aren’t on the list of eligible vaccines.

Reiss said the best fix would be to change VICP’s rulebook to add Covid vaccines to its list of covered inoculations. “That will require legislative change. I hope that legislative change happens.”

Pfizer wants military bases in developing countries as “guarantee” for vaccines

This excellent bit of journalism from Indian television lays bare the sort of pressure countries are being put under the accept the mRNA Pfizer vaccine.

See below for an article that has been published in mostly countries from the global south.

WHEN CORPORATIONS RULE THE WORLD

Gravitas: Pfizer's abusive vaccine deals

Pfizer wants military bases as “guarantee” for vaccines

Pfizer has become a terror. The US pharma company is reportedly asking for military bases and sovereign assets as guarantee for vaccines. WION's Palki 

Sharma has the details.

This article has appeared in several outlets, but not in mainstream news sources.

A medical worker fills a syringe with a dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, Tokyo Medical Centre, February 17, 2021. Photo: Behrouz Mehri/Pool via Reuters/File Photo.

the Wire Science,

24 February, 2021

However, the government officials from Argentina and the unnamed country who spoke to the Bureau felt Pfizer’s demands went beyond those of other vaccine companies, and beyond those of Covax, an organisation created to ensure low-income countries can access vaccines, which is also requiring its members to indemnify manufacturers. This presents an additional burden for some countries because it means having to hire specialist lawyers and sometimes pass complex new legislation, so manufacturers’ liabilities can be waived – Write Madlen Davies, Rosa Furneaux, Iván Ruiz, and Jill Langlois

Pfizer has been accused of “bullying” Latin American governments in COVID-19 vaccine negotiations and has asked some countries to put up sovereign assets, such as embassy buildings and military bases, as a guarantee against the cost of any future legal cases, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism can reveal.

In the case of one country, demands made by the pharmaceutical giant led to a three-month delay in a vaccine deal being agreed. For Argentina and Brazil, no national deals were agreed at all. Any hold-up in countries receiving vaccines means more people contracting COVID-19 and potentially dying.

Officials from Argentina and the other Latin American country, which cannot be named as it has signed a confidentiality agreement with Pfizer, said the company’s negotiators demanded additional indemnity against any civil claims citizens might file if they experienced adverse effects after being inoculated. In Argentina and Brazil, Pfizer asked for sovereign assets to be put up as collateral for any future legal costs.

One official who was present in the unnamed country’s negotiations described Pfizer’s demands as “high-level bullying” and said the government felt like it was being “held to ransom” in order to access life-saving vaccines.

Campaigners are already warning of a “vaccine apartheid” in which rich Western countries may be inoculated years before poorer regions. Now, legal experts have raised concerns that Pfizer’s demands amount to an abuse of power.

“Pharmaceutical companies shouldn’t be using their power to limit life-saving vaccines in low- and middle-income countries,” said Professor Lawrence Gostin, director of the World Health Organisation’s Collaborating Centre on National and Global Health Law. “[This] seems to be exactly what they’re doing.”

Protection against liability shouldn’t be used as “the sword of Damocles hanging over the heads of desperate countries with a desperate population,” he added.

Pfizer has been in talks with more than 100 countries and supranational organisations, and has supply agreements with nine countries in Latin America and the Caribbean: Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Mexico, Panama, Peru, and Uruguay. The terms of those deals are unknown.

Pfizer told the Bureau: “Globally, we have also allocated doses to low- and lower-middle-income countries at a not-for-profit price, including an advance purchase agreement with Covax to provide up to 40 million doses in 2021. We are committed to supporting efforts aimed at providing developing countries with the same access to vaccines as the rest of the world.” It declined to comment on ongoing private negotiations.

Most governments are offering indemnity – exemption from legal liability – to the vaccine manufacturers they are buying from. This means that a citizen who suffers an adverse effect after being vaccinated can file a claim against the manufacturer and, if successful, the government would pay the compensation. In some countries people can also apply for compensation through specific structures without going to court.

This is fairly typical for vaccines administered in a pandemic. In many cases adverse effects are so rare that they do not show up in clinical trials and only become apparent once hundreds of thousands of people have received the vaccine (a 2009 H1N1 flu vaccine, for example, was eventually linked to narcolepsy). Because manufacturers have developed vaccines quickly and because they protect everyone in society, governments often agree to cover the cost of compensation.

However, the government officials from Argentina and the unnamed country who spoke to the Bureau felt Pfizer’s demands went beyond those of other vaccine companies, and beyond those of Covax, an organisation created to ensure low-income countries can access vaccines, which is also requiring its members to indemnify manufacturers. This presents an additional burden for some countries because it means having to hire specialist lawyers and sometimes pass complex new legislation, so manufacturers’ liabilities can be waived.

https://science.thewire.in/health/pfizer-demands-governments-gamble-with-state-assets-to-secure-vaccine-deal/

India is large enough to resist entities like Pfizer that they have had difficulties with in the past

Pfizer Inc has withdrawn an application for emergency-use authorisation of its COVID-19 vaccine in India that it has developed with Germany’s BioNTech, the company told the Reuters news agency on Friday.

The United States company, which was the first drugmaker to apply for emergency use authorisation of its COVID-19 vaccine in India, had a meeting with the country’s drugs regulator on Wednesday and the decision was made after that, the company said.

“Based on the deliberations at the meeting and our understanding of additional information that the regulator may need, the company has decided to withdraw its application at this time,” it said in a statement to Reuters.

“Pfizer will continue to engage with the authority and re-submit its approval request with additional information as it becomes available in the near future.”

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/2/5/pfizer-withdraws-emergency-use-bid-of-its-covid-vaccine-in-india

Meanwhile, at almost exactly the same time New Zealand announced that they had accepted the vaccine and were putting the release on fast track.

I suspect New Zealand's method of negotiation is to agree to any and every suggestion that is put to them by corporations that are bigger than them.

I remember Noam Chomsky talking about the neoliberal reforms in New Zealand: the only difference with the rest of the world was that it did it VOLUNTARILY, and ahead of most of the rest of the world.  Chile was the first.

New Zealand has given the green light to its first Covid-19 vaccine, with Medsafe announcing provisional approving for a jab from Pfizer and BioNTech that has become a cornerstone of the global immunisation effort.

The first shipments of the vaccine, which will now face no legal hurdles at the border, are expected in the country before the end of March. New Zealand has 1.5 million doses on order for the jab, which has shown 95% effectiveness in trials.

First in line for vaccination will be border workers, a group which includes all the staff in managed isolation facilities, their families, as well as airline staff. This relatively small group is expected to be fully vaccinated within two to three weeks.

https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/03-02-2021/new-zealand-approves-pfizer-covid-19-vaccine-first-jabs-expected-next-month/