We, Concerned Citizens and Health Professionals of New Zealand have grave concerns that the process of ‘informed consent’ for the citizens of New Zealand has been misleading and incomplete in respect of the Covid vaccine roll out. 

We set out below our primary issues and appeal to the New Zealand Government to take action to address these concerns.    

The contemporary doctrine of informed consent is one of the most important developments in health care. Informed consent as we know it today is a fundamental principle of health care ethics, an essential aspect of practice care, and a legal obligation enforced in jurisdictions around the world in case law, regulations, and statutes.

Informed consent according to Oxford Languages is ‘permission granted in full knowledge of the possible consequences.’

In New Zealand the Health and Disability Commissioner (Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers’ Rights) Regulations 1996 (“the Code”) enshrines informed consent into New Zealand law granting a number of rights to all consumers of health and disability services in New Zealand, and placing corresponding obligations on providers of those services. The Government has obligations to the people they serve and are also bound by this code. 

Of particular interest is:

1. Right 6: “The right to be fully informed”; and

2. Right 7: “The right to make an informed choice and give informed consent”.

In particular, we note that under 6(1)(b): “Every consumer has the right to the information that a reasonable consumer, in that consumer’s circumstances, would expect to receive, including an explanation of the options available, including an assessment of the expected risks, side effects, benefits, and costs of each option”; and

Under 6(2): “Before making a choice or giving consent, every consumer has the right to the information that a reasonable consumer, in that consumer’s circumstances, needs to make an informed choice or give informed consent”.

Those amongst us who are primary care health practitioners are particularly concerned. We take our ‘duty of care’ seriously and recognise that we have an important role to play in providing evidence-based advice and information within the scopes of our practices. 

In this instance, one way we can do this is to ensure we point people to sources where they have the ability to be fully informed.

We are concerned, having reviewed the websites, social media, audio and visual advertising as well as various printed materials of the Ministry of Health, Medsafe and Unite Against Covid, that these sources (“the official Government sources”) are deficient. Namely that they:

a.    omit important information that a reasonable consumer, contemplating an injection with Pfizer ‘Comirnaty’, needs in order to make an informed choice or give informed consent (thereby failing to fulfil section 6(2) of the Code) – including omitting serious potential side effects and other risks associated with receiving the injection; and

b.     downplay the potential severity of such effects and fail to warn consumers about the injection’s experimental nature.

The official Government sources fail to declare:

a.    many of the more severe and known risks associated with the ‘vaccine’ e.g. myocarditis and pericarditis;

b.    the limited knowledge of the ‘vaccine’ due to its incomplete testing and continued clinical trial (not due for completion until 2023); 

c.    information on the mRNA mechanism of action within the body and the spike protein;  

d.    that, by definition, Comirnaty is not a ‘vaccine’.  A “vaccine” as defined by the CDC as “a product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease”;

e.    that Comirnaty utilises an experimental technology where the body creates proteins not specific antibodies to the target virus;

f.    that it is the first injection of genetically modified polynucleotides in the general population and what that means for the person ; and

g.     that it is the first use of PEG (polyethylene glycol) in an injection.

The above is information that should be included in an informed consent process in order to meet our Health & Disability Commissioner Act. 

Given it is not, we are very concerned that New Zealanders are not being fully informed of the risks involved with taking this new and experimental ‘vaccine’ of which no one knows the medium to long term safety outcome.

Coerced consent is not the same as legally and ethically required and acquired informed consent.

The Nuremberg Code of 1947 and Declaration of Helsinki 1952 contain fundamental tenets which include: complete disclosure of the risks and unknowns to the participants in medical experiments; the obligations on the experimenter for care and after-care of adverse outcomes; and the freedom from coercion, standover tactics and overreach. 

Even the Pfizer fact sheet lodged with FDA in the USA is much more robust in the information provided and provides a stark contrast to the extremely basic information being provided in New Zealand.

We hereby put the New Zealand Government on notice of its failure to comply with the Code – namely the ‘right to be fully informed’ and the ‘right to make an informed choice and give informed consent.’ 

We request, as a matter of urgency, that the Ministry of Health, Medsafe, Unite Against Covid and all other “official” websites, media and documentation be required to alter their ‘Informed Consent’ process to meet the legal and ethical standards required by the Code and to which we are bound.

Given the Government’s stated objective to have 97% of our population have the Pfizer injection it can be appreciated that the repercussions of a lack of informed consent are extremely serious indeed.

We trust that this matter will be accorded due importance and expediency.

If you are a concerned citizen or health professional we invite you to join us in signing the declaration below and sharing it with your friends, families and colleagues.