Voices for Freedom produced a flyer with 8 claims in which vaccinologist Helen Petousis-Harris quickly refuted in a Newsroom article.

 

Our response is in the right-hand column.

This response is not endorsed or written by Voices for Freedom.

VoicesforFreedomflyer.jpeg
VoicesforFreedomflyer.jpeg
VoicesforFreedomflyer.jpeg
VoicesforFreedomflyer.jpeg
VoicesforFreedomflyer.jpeg

by Amanda Vickers

Article:

Response:

"dangerous misinformation".png

Unpopular information does not equal dangerous misinformation. The Voices for Freedom flyer provides links to all claims which should be considered on their own merit.

Claim 1:

The Voices for Freedom flyer provides this reference for Claim 1, which in turn provides links to VAERS and other authorities about deaths and adverse events.

 

While the use of the word "alarming" by Voices for  Freedom may be considered subjective, so too is Helen's statement that the vaccine "appears very safe".

 

The link for Helen's "very safe" comment uses the "spontaneous vaccine safety surveillance systems" (VAERS data) that the CDC does. This is the same VAERS data that Voices for Freedom used in the original claim Helen is disputing in the first place.

Where the problem lies is that Helen's linked article sees fit to discuss the 372 non-serious reports but doesn't mention the 45 reports of serious adverse reactions of death and other life-threatening illnesses.

CDC overview.png

The article's statement that "experts tell us the risk of severe (vaccine) reaction is outweighed by the protection it offers us against the deadly coronavirus" is a sweeping statement removing our own personal choice of risk and placing the decision outside of ourselves.

Note that quantitatively, the "deadliness" of Coronavirus is an Infection Fatality Rate of 0.15%

Nobody is disputing that VAERs has its limitations. However using its data does not make one "devious". Indeed, the CDC also use and quote the data as it is the best and only real-world post-vaccination data available.

Claim 2:

Risk Management Plan summary.png

Specifically, Medsafe have stated that "Medsafe considers that the safety specification for this product is currently inadequate and does not accurately reflect the important known risks, important potential risks or missing information. "
 

Nobody is disputing Medsafe's monitoring process. 

Concerns about potential genotoxicity and autoimmunity are listed in paragraphs 28 and 5 respectively, of Medsafe's 58 conditions for consent.

As these have not been met, only provisional consent has been granted.

Potential risks and missing information are summarised in their Risk Management Plan.

Claim 3.png

The Covid-19 vaccine has not been tested
for carcinogenicity and genotoxicity as made clear in the Comirnaty datasheet- section 5.3.


The possible effects of the development of placenta was discussed by Ex-Pfizer head of respiratory research Dr. Michael Yeadon and lung specialist and former head of the public health department Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg who filed an application with the European Medicine Agency responsible for EU-wide drug approval, for the immediate suspension of all SARS CoV 2 vaccine studies, in particular the BioNtech/Pfizer study. (see section XI)

Claim 3:

Claim 4:

Voices for Freedom provided a reference to this claim here.

The claim being made by Voices for Freedom is a statement of fact: animals did become sick. 

There is no evidence that Vaccine Associated Enhanced Disease (VAED) could not occur in humans which is why Medsafe have listed this as an important possible risk in their Risk Management Plan.

Risk Management Plan summary.png

This "consensus statement" is an abstract only and was a discussion about safety development. It did not state what the outcome was. It states that a meeting was held to "consider what vaccine designs could reduce safety concerns and how animal models and immunological assessments in early clinical trials can help to assess the risk. (...) it provides considerations for safety assessment of COVID-19 vaccine candidates in accelerated vaccine development."

Claim 5:

Claim 6.png

Claim 6:

Voices for Freedom provide a link to the British Medical Journal article explaining that Vaccine trials were not designed to assess whether the vaccines can interrupt transmission. 

This is also stated in NZ government advertising  

government ad.png

Nor does vaccination necessarily mean we can go back to normality.

Claiming that the vaccine won't stop you from catching and passing on the virus is stated by the government and that is why we still need to take precautions after the vaccine

 

Vaccine data to date is only shown to reduce the severity of symptoms and death. 

(23 secs) "We entirely expect that people who are vaccinated will still get Covid-19. It just means that they won't get sick and they won't die"

Medsafe committee meeting minutes2.png

Claim 7:

Claim 7.png

Phase III trials do not end till 2023 as evidenced here.

End points to grant provisional approval are in place with 58 conditions which still need to be met. As quoted from Medsafe above, robust post-market information gathering is of utmost importance.

mRNA vaccinations have never been used in humans before. Whether one is scared or not is not relevant to the central point that this technology is new, that trials are still ongoing and data is still being collected. This is the reason that the "safety and effectiveness are closely monitored".

Claim 8:

Claim 8.png

Every company and every other medicine besides vaccinations are liable if they do not provide a product that is safe. 

Vaccination companies can be sued for gross negligence (wilful misconduct), just like all other companies, however they are not liable for providing compensation for any adverse event. This is the case whether or not a country has a scheme similar to ACC in New Zealand.

New Zealand discussed and then granted immunity from liability to Pfizer in order to secure the order.

To be precise, the only liability the vaccine companies do not have protection from is fraud or deceit. Other than that they do have complete immunity and as such, for all intents and purposes, have less accountability and motivation to ensure their product is 100% safe.