Kia ora Dennis,

 

 

Thank you for your email.  Weekly reports summarising the number and type
of adverse events following immunisation (AEFI) reported with COVID-19
vaccines can be found on Medsafe’s website:
[1]https://www.medsafe.govt.nz/COVID-19/vac...

 

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

 

Ngâ mihi

 

OIA Services

Government Services

Office of the Director-General

Ministry of Health

E: [email address]

 

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

From: D J Blair <[FOI #16590 email]>
Sent: Tuesday, 31 August 2021 21:40
To: OIA Requests <[email address]>
Subject: Official Information request - Request for contractual agreements

 

Dear Ministry of Health,

Transparency is the principle of allowing those affected by administrative
decisions to know about results and about the process that led to
decisions. ... Transparent governance means that government officials act
openly, with citizens' knowledge of the decisions the officials are
making.
There seems to have been many irregular decisions made regarding the
Pfizer vaccination, namely the total disregard for off license,
inexpensive treatments like ivermectin that has been used safely for 40
years, recent studies show it has 85% efficacy, it is both a prophylactic
and a therapeutic, to cite the precautionary principle as a reason to
reject this medicine will force the risk ratio comparison with the pfizer
vaccine. I have viewed the adverse events data on both, and I'm sure the
ministry is aware of them.
That brings me to my second point, why these vaccine injuries are not
being presented to the public? The report on one news this week about the
1st covid vaccine related death is what has prompted this request.
I don't believe it's unatural for one to wonder if there are contractual
obligations with pfizer at the core of these anomalies.
My request is that any/all contracts between Her Majesty the Queen in
Right of New Zealand (NZ Government) and Pfizer Biontech,from Jan 2019 to
the present, be made available to the public so any possible corporate
interference in our nations public health can be ruled out.
This is a matter of great importance to the people of New Zealand, every
one of us has been disadvantaged by the events of the last 19 months, and
the State has a duty to keep the affected population informed of the exact
substantive,and temporal scope of the pandemic and all its related
measures.
I appreciate you taking the time to process my request.

Yours faithfully,

Dennis Blair

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

This is an Official Information request made via the FYI website.

Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[FOI #16590 email]

Is [Ministry of Health request email] the wrong address for Official Information requests
to Ministry of Health? If so, please contact us using this form:
[2]https://scanmail.trustwave.com/?c=15517&...

Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on
the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
[3]https://scanmail.trustwave.com/?c=15517&...

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.

show quoted sections

This e-mail message has been scanned for Viruses and Content and cleared
by the Ministry of Health's Content and Virus Filtering Gateway

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

References

Visible links
1. https://www.medsafe.govt.nz/COVID-19/vac...
2. https://scanmail.trustwave.com/?c=15517&...
3. https://scanmail.trustwave.com/?c=15517&...

Kia ora,

 

Thank you for your email.  

 

Information in response to your request for “Any/all contracts between Her
Majesty the Queen in Right of New Zealand (NZ Government) and Pfizer
Biontech, from Jan 2019 to the present” has been withheld in full under
section 9(2)(b)(ii) of the Official Information Act (the Act) where its
release would likely unreasonably prejudice the commercial position of the
person who supplied the information. 

 

Please refer to the attached response for further information.  

 

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 

 

Ngā mihi

 

Nick Allan, Manager

OIA Services Team

 

[2]Ministry of Health information releases

[3]Unite against COVID-19

 

 

 

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

From: D J Blair <[FOI #16590 email]>
Sent: Tuesday, 7 September 2021 19:04
To: OIA Requests <[email address]>
Subject: Re: Response to your correspondence of 31 August 2021

 

Dear OIA Requests,

Thank you for responding so promptly, however I don't think you read the
question.
You have taken my preamble and backstory and construed it into a request,
I apologise for not being as direct as I should, I just wanted to give
context to why this request is important. I am aware of the adverse event
database and that is why I was surprised to hear the newshub announcement
regarding NZ's first vaccine related death, when I had visited the
database the previous week and there were already 22 registered deaths. I
was bringing attention to inconsistancies, to be diplomatic. If you read
on you will see my request:
1) My request is that any/all contracts between Her Majesty the Queen in
Right of New Zealand (NZ Government) and Pfizer Biontech,from Jan 2019 to
the present, be made available to the public so any possible corporate
interference in our nations public health can be ruled out.

I trust this is less confusing and thank you for your time.

Yours sincerely,

D J Blair

show quoted sections

Kia ora

 

 

Thank you for your email. As previously advised, this is withheld in full
under section 9(2)(b)(ii) of the Act. 

 

You have the right, under section 28(3) of the Act to ask the Ombudsman to
review any decisions made under this request. The Ombudsman may be
contacted by email at: [email address] or by calling 0800 802
602. 

 

Ngâ mihi 

  

 
Nick Allan 

Manager, OIA Services 

[1]Ministry of Health information releases 

[2]Unite against COVID-19 

 

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

From: D J Blair <[FOI #16590 email]>
Sent: Friday, 10 September 2021 22:46
To: OIA Requests <[email address]>
Subject: Re: Response to your correspondence of 31 August 2021

 

Dear OIA Requests,

I would not wish to prejudice the commercial position of any person so I
am happy to accept the information from the supplier in anonymity.

Yours sincerely,

D J Blair

show quoted sections

Kia ora,

 

Thank you for your email. The commercial sensitivity of this information
currently the subject of an Ombudsman investigation. The Ministry does not
consider it to be in the public interest to circumvent that process. Once
the investigation has concluded, the Ministry will be able to provide you
further information about this matter. As previously advised, you have the
right under section 28(3) of the Act to ask the Ombudsman to review this
decision.

 

 

Ngā mihi 

 

OIA Services Team 

  

[1]Ministry of Health information releases 

[2]Unite against COVID-19 

 

 

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

From: D J Blair <[FOI #16590 email]>
Sent: Monday, 27 September 2021 04:37
To: OIA Requests <[email address]>
Subject: Re: Response to your correspondence of 31 August 2021

 

Dear OIA Requests,

Thanks for responding, can you please just clarify the reply?
What exactly does "...likely to unreasonably prejudice the commercial
position of the person who supplied the information." mean?

It's my understanding that this is to be given its natural or ordinary
meaning rather than the need for statuatory interpretation, and yet it has
a vagueness or I should say there is room for ambiguity within definition.
I am just a regular man, the interpretation of legislative instruments is
not a strong point of mine.
I'm uncertain to whom " the person who supplied the information" refers
to.
Does this refer to the executive (as a collective body/person), a specific
minister or certain authorized signatories?
In light of certain events that the people of New Zealand have faced, the
complete & prolonged curtailment of our inherent rights and freedoms, the
loss of income and jobs that will push average people into poverty, small
business owners who have put their life savings into businesses, some
working long hours above and beyond into the evenings 7 days to create a
future. Many of these small businesses don't have the luxury of
contingency funding and simply will not make it.
 Especially if they are required to turn away a large percentage of their
market due to an aparthied vax vs unvaxed policy. We all know friends and
family members that are suffering from depression and other mental health
issues currently, including daily reports about suicide attempts by young
people, along with the increased dependencies on booze and narcotics, not
to mention the increase in domestic violence figures I heard on the radio
last week.
It's not an exaggeration to say we are in for a tough year or so. All that
considered I'm not sympathetic when it comes to protecting the commercial
position of a state actor under the act. Someone who has clearly not
suffered hardship and been under full employment. We are talking about a
public servant who I don't believe is eligible for the priviledge of
commercial protection when the public has been stripped of their
priviledges and benefits.
There's an obligation & fiduciary duty to serve and be accountable to the
people who have potentially been harmed and suffered hardship due to the
information within that contract. The disclosure of the Pfizer Covid-19
vaccine contracts is in the greatest public interest as it effects every
person in New Zealand, their health, wellbeing and financial future. It is
essential to help the public make informed decisions about the degree of
risk or danger around them and how best to manage or mitigate any
potential harm to themselves and others and how to plan their financial
survival moving forward. 
We will demand to know whether the terms in the contract are responsible
for any injury or death of citizens. There is no logical reason for
treatments like Ivermectin and others to remain unapproved, or for adverse
events to be witheld other that it would affect the pfizer roll out and
sales. Ivermectin is a WHO essential medicine, in human use for 40 years
extremely safe and effective, both as a therepeudic medicine and as a
prophalytic.
This is not an accusation, I don't make unfounded  claims but it seems
logical that Pfizer would have strong interest in keeping those
off-license products from destroying their program, which looks likely
after viewing the latest studies from Tess Lawrie et al .
[3]https://scanmail.trustwave.com/?c=15517&...
The desire to determine why after 18 months of unprecedented restrictions
and hardship, mandated to the entire population of New Zealand we are no
closer to a resolution, in fact it seems the nations health is
worsening.   
Disclosure would also promote the accountability of officials. Although
statutory decision makers are not required to justify their decisions
under the OIA (other than their obligations under section 19) the scheme
and purposes of the OIA clearly envisage decision makers disclosing
sufficient information to adequately explain the basis for decisions that
impact on individual New Zealanders to promote their accountability.
However, to the extent that part of the information required relates to
the expenditure of our public money on vaccines, adds to the weight of
public favour. The government is always promoting openess & transparency,
they are obligated when it comes to opening the books on the expediture of
public funds. We strongly feel the public interest in the release
outweighs the need to withhold.  Claiming unreasonable prejudice of the
persons commercial position who supplied the information can not be
justified proportionate to an entire nation demanding answers, this is
well within what is fair and equitable. The state has an obligation to
perform when it comes to freely and openly keeping the public informed
both on terms of contract and expedature.
There is  wide public interest in officials having to account for their
expenditure and guardianship of public money. It is clear that officials
entrusted with the care of public funds have a duty not only to their
employers in the first instance, but also to the wider community. There is
much judicial weight to support the notion that officials must be above
reproach in respect of the administration of public money. The public
interest required disclosure because otherwise public officials may not be
held accountable to the wider community for their actions.
The real difficulty arises when there is a need for an urgent decision to
control some biosecurity threat and the manufacturer of a medicine is
claiming scarcity or limited production of the product to force
commitment. Further issues arise if a manufacturer insists that there can
be no public disclosure of the ingredients as this would reveal a trade
secret.
What else may the manufacturer have insisted upon? The withholding of
vaccine related injuries? The non-approval of any other treatments for a
specific period?
Disclosure of this information would remove any unfounded suspicion that
the Ministry in some way favoured the treatment of Pfizers new vaccine
over inexpensive off licence treatments. Or more importantly whether the
Ministry has been the victim of ruthless business tactics that border on
extortion or coercion.

The conversation that raises the question, what's in that contract?
[4]https://scanmail.trustwave.com/?c=15517&...

Yours sincerely,

D J Blair

show quoted sections