Dear Health New Zealand,
This request is directed specifically toward CE Margie Apa
Talofa lava Margie,
Earlier this month you have made definitive statements about the claims of the vaccine data whistleblower, such as these below....
"What he is claiming is completely wrong and ill-informed and his comments demonstrate this,"
"Basically that he had information that suggested there were excess mortalities due to the Covid vaccine that were not reported, and purported to have made connections to data that proved that, which is not true."
“The misinformation about vaccines that has been put in the public arena in relation to our data is completely wrong.”

Can you please provide the supporting evidence that you used to make the definitive statements that the claims of the whistleblower are “completely wrong”, “ill formed”, “not true” etc
Faafetai tele lava,
M Bell

Hi Michael,
As per the other request I have received some kind of a cut and paste reply from you that does not seem to have much to do with my actual request. In this particular case the whistleblower appears to have met the criteria to be protected by the protected disclosures act 2000 and the current reprisals on the individual that have been taken appear to be illegal. To my knowledge, it has also already been well established that the privacy of individuals in the data has been maintained.
I have not asked about any of that in my OIA request, in part I am asking for the supporting evidence that Margie Apa relied on for her recent public statements.

You have stated that....
“Vaccination is safe and effective, and everyone should keep up to date with their shots to protect themselves, whanau, and their communities. We assure people THERE IS NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that vaccination is responsible for excess mortality in New Zealand.”

There are 2 significant issues with this.
1 If your comment is in response to the leaked data then you are making a publication of “information derived from it” and have therefore gone against the supposed non publication order, and consequently as has Margie in her public statements.
2 The part of your statement I have put in CAPS is clearly false as there is evidence extant from the data itself and quite few public articles analyzing the data showing that vaccination is responsible for excess mortality.

Regarding the purported “non-publication order” at this point I do not see any information to indicate that this has any legal bearing on the NZ public. As there is enormous public interest in this whole topic, NZ and worldwide, anything less than full transparency is an admission that there is something to hide by Health NZ.
Regards, M Bell

Dear hnzOIA,
Please note that I did not ask for a list of the people that may have provided supporting evidence, nor did I ask for a comparison of excess deaths with other countries. I have asked for the actual supporting evidence that backed the definitive statements that were made by Margie Apa, such as, "Basically that he (the whistleblower) had information that suggested there were excess mortalities due to the Covid vaccine that were not reported, and purported to have made connections to data that proved that, which is not true."
Please provide this information.
Yours sincerely,
M Bell

Dear hnzOIA,
Can you please respond, I do not believe the request originally made on December 12 has been answered.

Yours sincerely,

M Bell

Dear hnzOIA,
That response still does not begin to answer my actual request.
If I assume there is no further information to come, in your response you have essentially told me that there is no supporting evidence for Margie’s public statements apart from the existing official government messaging admitting only 4 deaths.
Due to the fact that HNZ have admitted in another OIA that they have not actually rebutted or debunked the analysis of the whistleblower data at all, then perhaps this is correct that there is no supporting evidence. If so however this would amount to a classic example of the begging the question fallacy. Just assume that the whistleblower information is wrong without examining it, and then conclude that the whistleblower information is wrong. Obviously 100% circular reasoning. What I do not know is whether this is just poor reasoning and confirmation bias on the part of HNZ, or whether the reply is for the for the purpose of attempting to avoid an embarrassing answer.
If you can please confirm that there is truly no further information available I will withdraw the complaint to the ombudsman and mark this FYI request as “information not held”. Please advise.

Yours sincerely,

M Bell

Dear hnzOIA,
Thankyou for confirmation that there is no further information to provide. The request is now marked as “information not held” and I have withdrawn the complaint made to the ombudsman.
Yours sincerely,
M Bell