"Any continued roll out of the current mass vaccine programme, especially the continuation and increasing powers of vaccine mandates through Vaccine certificates and ‘no jab, no job’ is by law a crime against humanity according the 1947 Nuremberg Code (see Appendix for reference) as well as the NZ Bill of Rights."
Dear NZ Government,
I reject this Amendment Bill as well as the original Health Response Bill No.1. In particular I reject all aspects of it related to the COVID-19 vaccine. Any continued roll out of the current mass vaccine programme, especially the continuation and increasing powers of vaccine mandates through Vaccine certificates and ‘no jab, no job’ is by law a crime against humanity according the 1947 Nuremberg Code (see Appendix for reference) as well as the NZ Bill of Rights. Even ‘coercion’ for the COVID-19 vaccine is classified as a crime against humanity according to the Nuremberg Code, and the NZ government is most definitely guilty of coercion, as well as mandating/forcing through the threat of loss of employment and further discrimination and restrictions to basic freedoms through the medical apartheid system of vaccine certificates.
The current Bill No.1 and Bill No.2 are both illegal and a crime against humanity on many levels which will be detailed and evidenced in this letter. The NZ government is therefore asked to cease and desist from the entire COVID-19 Public Health Response Bill, including Amendment No.2, especially with regards to all points relating to the use of the Pfizer BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine.
Successful Treatments
The use of experimental vaccines are not permitted if there are viable treatments available. Ivermectin, Hydroxychloroquine, Vitamin D, Zinc and other treatments have all been proven through peer reviewed science to be very successful treatments, they are all FDA approved, and proven safe over many decades without any adverse effects. Ivermectin has been proven as a successful treatment for COVID-19 in over 60 peer reviewed scientific studies, and when used correctly and used as an early treatment, it provides close to 100% cure. Here is a link to the latest major scientific study on Ivermectin treatment of COVID-19 just completed in Argentina;
Below is a link summarizing the situation regarding peer-reviewed scientific research into Ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19 published in 2021 by the American Journal of Therapeutics. This review was led by the ‘Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance’. Here is part of a quote from this review;
“…………we conducted the most comprehensive review of the available data on Ivermectin. We applied the gold standard to qualify the data reviewed before concluding that Ivermectin can end this Pandemic”
https://clinicalnews.org/2021/05/07/latest-peer-reviewed-research-immediate-global-ivermectin-use-will-end-covid-19-pandemic/amp/
Ivermectin is currently being used successfully to contain and eradicate COVID-19 in many countries around the world, including India, Japan, and El Salvador, as well as many others. Large parts of India who are now using Ivermectin have virtually eliminated COVID-19 in a matter of just a few weeks when COVID-19 was previously running rampant there.
The NZ government needs to immediately stop the mass vaccine programme and start making Ivermectin and other scientifically proven safe treatments available instead, rather than suppressing these treatments. It is a high crime to withhold these treatments from the people of NZ and to instead coerce and force a never before used, experimental gene based medical procedure onto the entire population.
Safety of the experimental vaccine
The anecdotal evidence and the official data and evidence are overwhelming and shocking with regards the safety of the COVID-19 Pfizer BioNTech vaccine. Here is a scientific study just published on October 1st showing that the Pfizer BioNTech vaccine causes a huge increase in cases of myocarditis in young people, which is an extremely serious condition of the heart.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0146280621002267?via%3Dihub
This alone should result in the vaccine being withdrawn globally. To not do so is a medical crime of the highest level, especially when it is now essentially being forced onto the entire NZ population through Vaccine Certificates.
Alongside this scientific evidence, are we also seeing real life evidence of large scale adverse effects of the vaccine in NZ? When Prime Minister Ardern made her recent post on Facebook requesting feedback about effects of the vaccine, there were approximately 30,000 comments on that post within 24 hours. Almost all of those comments were giving examples of adverse effects or raising serious concerns. That is a quite incredible response and is EXTREMELY alarming.
In Sweden, Denmark, Finland and other countries they are halting their COVID-19 vaccine programme due to finding exactly the same effects of Myocarditis from their COVID-19 vaccines. Why is the NZ government not doing the same? Why are they instead trying to push the vaccine campaign even harder and trying to push through this amendment to the Health Response Bill which will allow a much more aggressive approach to forcing this dangerous and unknown experimental vaccine onto the NZ public according to the ‘90% campaign’.
Effectiveness of the experimental vaccine
The evidence is now very clear that the COVID-19 vaccines do not stop people from catching COVID-19 and there is no evidence that they prevent transmission. Therefore both vaccinated and unvaccinated can still catch and transmit COVID-19. Therefore what benefit to overall community health is the introduction of extreme and discrimatory legislation such as ‘vaccine certificates’ and locking out of society only the unvaccinated people through medical apartheid?
The evidence around the world, including data from the UK, US, Israel, and Australia is showing us that at least 60% - 80% (or even higher sometimes) of the people in hospital with COVID-19 and/or dying from COVID-19 are vaccinated. If the vaccines work in stopping people from catching COVID-19 then how is this possible?
Here is recent official UK health data confirming this.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1009243/Technical_Briefing_20.pdf
Israel is the most vaccinated country in the world with 80% double vaccinated and is showing exactly the same outcome as the UK, as the United States and Australia. According to the evidence around the world, it seems that the more you vaccinate, the more COVID-19 cases and deaths you get.
Results of a recent scientific study prove that there is no difference in the amount of ‘viral load’ between vaccinated and unvaccinated. They both have the same amount of virus in them.
So why discriminate against the unvaccinated? They pose no more threat to the health of the community than the vaccinated, and yet the unvaccinated are being demonized and threatened with medical apartheid.
On the issue of transmission of COVID-19, likewise there is no evidence that the vaccine will prevent people from transmitting COVID-19. This has been admitted by the vaccine manufacturers who have not even attempted to make this a function of the vaccine. The function of the vaccine is to decrease the negative impact on health if someone does catch COVID-19. This has been admitted by the NZ Ministry of Health in their response to a request under the Official Information Act.
Here is the Director of the Centre for Disease Control (CDC) admitting the same thing
The Pfizer BioNTech Vaccine is under Experimental Status
The Pfizer BioNTech vaccine only has ‘Experimental Use Authorisation’ (EUA). That means it is a clear breach of the 1947 Nuremberg Code to force or coerce anyone to take the vaccine.
While it may have been reported and promoted that on August 23rd the FDA upgraded the Pfizer vaccine to full authorisation status, they did not. On August 23rd the FDA provided a ‘Letter of Authorisation’ to Pfizer for the ‘Comirnaty’ COVID-19 vaccine. That Comirnaty vaccine is not currently in use. On August 22nd the FDA provided a ‘Letter of Concurrence’ to Pfizer for the Pfizer BioNTech vaccine, which is the vaccine in use in NZ. That ‘Letter of Concurrence’ maintained and extended the original Emergency Use status of the Pfizer BioNTech vaccine that is in use in NZ. It did NOT give it full Authorisation. Here is a link to the relevant page of the FDA website showing this.
Comirnaty and Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine | FDA
So the vaccine in NZ is still under EUA status which means that the NZ government’s current use and conduct towards that vaccine is a clear and very major breach of the 1947 Nuremberg Code and the NZ Bill of Rights. It is therefore by international law a crime against humanity as the NZ government is both forcing and strongly ‘coercing’ the people of NZ to take what is an experimental medical procedure.
Every person in NZ parliament who endorses the use of the Pfizer BioNTech vaccine in NZ in this way is guilty and wilfully complicit in that crime, and will be personally liable for the legal consequences of that crime.
Aside from the legal position above, there is zero medium term and long term safety data for this vaccine. Therefore it is impossible for anyone in NZ to provide full informed consent as they are unable to be informed about what the medium and long term safety data is.
Final Statement
The entire NZ Health Response Act, including the suggested amendments, need to be reviewed in light of the information and evidence available, particularly regarding any aspects relating to the use of the COVID-19 vaccines. This needs to be done on the basis of what the science and what the evidence is clearly demonstrating on the following points, as evidenced in this letter, and in other much more comprehensive evidence that is available:
-
There are proven highly successful treatments for COVID-19 which should be made available alongside people’s freedom to choose the vaccine option if they wish, without negative repercussions if they do not wish to take the vaccine
-
The scientific evidence proves that COVID-19 vaccines do not stop people from catching COVID-19, and there is no evidence that the vaccines stop transmission of COVID-19. Therefore Vaccine Certificates and other similar ‘health policies’ achieve no health advantage
-
60% - 80% of people in hospital and dying from COVID-19 are double vaccinated. Therefore why discriminate against the unvaccinated?
-
The science has proven that the vaccines cause dangerous health side effects, therefore give the people of NZ their right to choose without coercion, according to the 1947 Nuremberg Code and the NZ Bill of Rights
Since June 2020, out of 3,000+ positive tests in NZ, two people have died reportedly from COVID-19. One was 92 years old and the other one had other serious health conditions. The NZ governments Health Response Bill, and the suggested amendment, are completely out of balance and proportion to the level of threat, and makes absolutely no sense according to the information and evidence available.
The NZ government should make the proven successful COVID-19 treatments available to the people of NZ instead of suppressing these, they should put in place actions to support and safeguard the elderly and at risk people, and they should let NZ get on with living their lives.
What this NZ government is doing to destroy businesses, destroy lives, force people to take an experimental medical procedure against their will, and essentially implement medical apartheid in NZ can only be described as a crime against humanity.
THE NUREMBERG CODE
1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved, as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that, before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject, there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person, which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment. The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity.
2. The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature.
3. The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation and a knowledge of the natural history of the disease or other problem under study, that the anticipated results will justify the performance of the experiment.
4. The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.
5. No experiment should be conducted, where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects.
6. The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment.
7. Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability, or death.
8. The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons. The highest degree of skill and care should be required through all stages of the experiment of those who conduct or engage in the experiment.
9. During the course of the experiment, the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end, if he has reached the physical or mental state, where continuation of the experiment seemed to him to be impossible.
10. During the course of the experiment, the scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probable cause to believe, in the exercise of the good faith, superior skill and careful judgement required of him, that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject.
["Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals under Control Council Law No. 10", Vol. 2, pp. 181-182. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1949.]
Comments powered by CComment