BLOCKBUSTER: This has huge implications!
From Jon Eisen:
PLEASE SHARE WIDELY.
The attached document was released to lawyer Sue Grey after a request under the Official Information Act as stated in the also attached letter.
It shows Medsafe declined full approval of the Pfizer mRNA vaccine (so called) due to insufficient safety, efficacy and product integrity data.
This information is at odds with Prime Minister and Minister of Health propaganda/PR which claims that the Pfizer Vaccine is safe and effective.
I refer to specific text in the attached document:
Page 73 (seventh paragraph)
Due to the unresolved concerns and additional quality, safety and efficacy data to be provided
at the time of completion of the evaluation, Medsafe is unable to recommend that this product
be granted consent. It is therefore recommended that the application be referred to the
Medicines Assessment Advisory Committee (MAAC) under section 22(2) of the Medicines Act
1981 for their consideration. In referring the application, it is requested that the MAAC focus
on the specific aspects in their consideration of the application:
Page 69 Final Recommendation
A number of quality issues, and some clinical issues arising from this application still remain
unresolved. The applicant has committed to providing the outstanding information to address
these issues, with many of these issues aligning with the EMA/CHMPs specific obligations
that were listed in the EU’s conditional approval. Due to this outstanding information the
product cannot be recommended for consent under Section 20 of the Medicines Act 1981 for
distribution in New Zealand. However, due to the COVID-19 global pandemic situation and the
clinical need for the product, provisional consent under Section 23 of the Medicines Act 1981
may be considered for the following indication:
How dare they claim this jab is safe based on just one month trial and how dare they force government employees and others to choose between their job and their health based on misleading and decorative claims.
Martin’s note: The attached document referred to wasn’t included in the communication, but clearly this is a vital item to share. I’ll update as more becomes available.
Get your copy from our Online Store or your local book and magazine retailer
Australian Retail Locations » Uncensored Publications Limited
New Zealand Retail Locations » Uncensored Publications Limited
As censorship heats up and free thought becomes an increasingly rare commodity, we appeal to our readers to support our efforts to reach people with information now being censored elsewhere. In the last few years, Uncensored has itself been censored, removed from the shelves of two of our biggest NZ retailers – Countdown Supermarkets and Whitcoulls Bookstores – accounting for 74% of our total NZ sales.
You can help keep the Free Press alive by subscribing and/or gifting a subscription to your friends and relatives.
whgeuther@gmail.com
I am firmly AGAINST vaccines, however this is not a vaccine, it it is a poisonous medical intervention on mostly healthy people making them very often quite sick.
So, what is the use, it is like playing gambling with with cards that could kill you. I am astounded that our Government is not looking better after its people. They simply do not care!
Thank you,
I will not have that.
This is bigger than our national government though. They are just a cog in a wheel doing as they are told. And its bigger than vaccinating the population against a virus. Thats just an excuse. We will see in due course what this mRNA jab does or does not do.
As Richard says it would be good to know the outcome of Sue Greys excellent letter. A recent opinion piece in the British Medical Journal states: The FDA should demand adequate, controlled studies with long term follow up, and make data publicly available, before granting full approval to covid-19 vaccines,..
Whatever one thinks about the “95% effective” claims… measuring vaccine efficacy two months after dosing says little about just how long vaccine-induced immunity will last. The US clinical trials test only healthy individuals, whereas the people most at risk from Covid are those who are frail, and have underlying medical conditions or compromised immunity. There have been no independent safety trials on frail or immune suppressed people.
I reiterate our call: “slow down and get the science right—there is no legitimate reason to hurry to grant a license to a coronavirus vaccine.” FDA should be demanding that the companies complete the two year follow-up, as originally planned. They should demand adequate, controlled studies using patient outcomes in the now substantial population of people who have recovered from covid. And regulators should bolster public trust by helping ensure that everyone can access the underlying data.
https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/08/23/does-the-fda-think-these-data-justify-the-first-full-approval-of-a-covid-19-vaccine/
Full approval has been granted by the FDA for the vaccine labelled Cominarty. This approval seems to amount to nothing in NZ and Pfizer are not liable for any harm it may cause here. Medsafe approval is provisional and we have seen no studies supporting its use for 12 year olds, yet the government intends to vaccinate them. Even without parental approval or knowledge.
Have you noticed, Father, that the NZ government’s language and promotion of the vaccination campaign has changed? They have phased out the message that “vaccination equals elimination” and shifted the message to “Vaccines will lessen the impact”. However, one look at the failure in Israel shows that any alleged “97% efficiency” can only be very temporary at best: Double-jabbed recipients are now lining up for a third shot on the grounds that the original shots are “wearing off”. Really? It hasn’t been that long? I’m starting to think this is a Jab-A-go-round where the herds will line up every three months like sheep for the drenching.
(PS good luck to them trying to get a needle in my 12 year old! She’ll rip their eyes out!).
Do we have anymore information on this yet?
Nope. I’ve asked the sender for more but no response yet. It’s possible the document simply predates Medsafe’s approval, but I like to leave these items on site in case anyone comes forward with independent corroboration or rebuttals. Even if this turns out to be a dead duck I’ll let everyone know publicly (unlike the MSM who simply delete articles without explanation!).