ARE WE WITNESSING BIG PHARMA CLOUT INTERFERING WITH DUE PROCESS IN THE NZ ROYAL COMMISSION OF INQUIRY?
No....not a "conspiracy theory". A rational, logical question with evidence to support, in a thread below
It has been an emotional and fraught few days in New Zealand.
Two days ago 4 of the key decision makers during the Covid 19 response, have in unison, refused to appear before the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the NZ Covid response.
They were set to appear next week for livestreamed cross examination....only the second (and final) such transparent and open week of the entire inquiry.
Everything else has been conducted privately behind closed doors.
Who were the four?
*Jacinda Ardern - former Prime Minister
*Christopher Hipkins - former Covid Response Minister, replacement Prime Minister when Ardern fled (and current leader of the Labour party)
*Grant Robertson - former Minister of Finance
*Ayesha Verrall - associate Minister of Health; Minister for Covid 19 response
The live testimony was designed to demonstrate TRANSPARENCY to a New Zealand population, many of whom are jaded, distrustful and oppositional as a result of the plethora of heavy handed and questionable governmental decisions during the Covid 19 response.
The "pushback" to this refusal has been pervasive with a Curia poll showing more than 60% of the 500 surveyed, believing they should appear live.
The political OPTICS are devastating for Chris Hipkins as he hopes to lead the TRANSPARENT Labour party to victory in the next election.
WHAT IS REALLY HAPPENING HERE?
All 4 key decision makers refused to front following legal advice from the SAME legal company - Dentons.
First point.....you and I (tax payers) paid for this legal counsel.
Dentons is a leading specialised health law practice in New Zealand. The firm advises a diverse range of clients in the health sector including PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES AND REGULATORY BODIES.
Dentons has experience acting on behalf of pharmaceutical suppliers in CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS WITH PHARMAC (the Govt department responsible for funding drug contracts in NZ)
Dentons’ global and New Zealand health law practices include advising overseas pharmaceutical companies on clinical trial agreements, INDEMNITY arrangements, and commercialization of novel pharmaceutical ingredients.
Globally, Dentons’ Pharmaceutical and Medical Device Litigation practice handles PRODUCT LIABILITY compliance, and regulatory issues for life sciences companies, which could include vaccine manufacturers, but no New Zealand-specific cases involving Pfizer are mentioned.
The choice of the law firm that all four of these politicians has turned to, with its extensive background in health law, pharmaceutical contracting with PHARMAC, leads me to the obvious question....
IS THE EMBARGOED NZ PFIZER CONTRACT BEHIND THEIR REFUSAL TO FRONT THE NZ PUBLIC?
Note below: "Advising overseas pharmaceutical companies on INDEMNITY ARRANGEMENTS in New Zealand.
Also note Dentons France works directly for Pfizer
Think Pfizer. Think Pfizer mRNA Covid vaccine.
Note too that Denton's also advised in relation to arrangements with BioNTech (Pfizer's partner in the Covid mRNA injectable), to establish an mRNA research and development platform with clinical scale manufacturing and fill/finish capability in Victoria.
They are in boots and all in the legal arena of mRNA and biotech in Australia
Dentons also works with BIODEFENSE company PharmAthene (a biodefense company focused on developing medical countermeasures against biological and chemical weapons threats.)
Then we need to ask the question....if Dentons Legal is working FOR PFIZER anywhere in the world, does it present a conflict of interest for them to provide legal advice to New Zealand key respondents in the NZ Royal Commission of Inquiry.....given that the very questions they would be asked on the public stand pertain to SAFETY AND EFFICACY OF THE PFIZER VACCINE
Artificial Intelligence has an opinion and it's a YES
What work HAS Denton's done with PFIZER?
Is there an issue if Dentons advised a New Zealand minister in the current Royal Commission of Inquiry circumstances, (when the Inquiry has the terms of reference of Covid vaccine safety and efficacy) when the company is working for Pfizer in any other country in the world?
We asked....and we used the probable Dentons lawyer that our Politicians turned to - Linda Clark
BUT WHY WOULD DENTON'S ADVISE THE 4 POLITICANS NOT TO FRONT PUBLICLY?
Could it be something to do with liability clauses in the Pfizer mRNA contract that the NZ government signed when they purchased our covid injectables?
To this day we have not seen the Pfizer contract. Well over 100 applications to the Official Information and Ombudsman have been refused on the grounds of "commercial sensitivity".
So for this next bit of the puzzle I am going to assume the highly likely probability that the NZ Pfizer contract contains identical clauses to those found in the 7 global contracts now leaked or released as a result of legal action.
In particular pay attention to clause 8.1
This states that the purchaser (the NZ Government) agrees to INDEMNIFY DEFEND AND HOLD HARMLESS Pfizer and their partner BioNTech
On the public stand being questioned by the NZ Royal Commission about SAFETY AND EFFICACY of the Pfizer product....the 4 refusers could have found themselves in the situation of either breaching this contractual clause or purgering themselves to the Royal Commission
They could have faced the same position if questioned about the known safety and efficacy profile of the vaccine at the time of its Provisional consent and beyond.
All the publicly available Pfizer contracts for this product include clause 5.5
When the NZ government purchased the product they almost certainly signed a contract that included this clause -
Purchases acknowledges that the long term effects and efficacy of the vaccine are not currently known and there may be adverse effects of the vaccine that are not currently known.
In summary....
have the 4 key decision makers who refused to appear for live cross examination....
been advised by Denton's legal (who also work for Pfizer, and the Bio Tech industry around the world) to refuse to appear...
because appearing live could potentially place them in jeopardy of violating contractual clauses in the Pfizer mRNA contract signed by the NZ Government?
Has our NZ Royal Commission effectively been stymied by the still confidential Pfizer contract?
Men and women from around the land came together PEACEFULLY to protest the Covid vaccine MANDATES that destroyed their lives.
No, they were not "anti vaxers"
They were
teachers, doctors, nurses, midwives, surgeons, psychologists, home makers, shop assistants, hair dressers, road diggers....and teenagers who had been sacked from supermarket jobs.
Ordinary New Zealanders whose lives had been upended by a mandate to take a still experimental, novel Gene Therapy product.
Some read the clinical trial data and said NO
Others had pre existing medical conditions that made them high risk for harm from the injection.
Still more had taken a first dose through mandates, and nearly died....and were REFUSED MEDICAL EXEMPTIONS
Today I celebrate the
COURAGE AND RESILIENCE
of ordinary New Zealanders who made a medical decision and lost everything
I think I lost my love because we no longer deliver on the most important part of what we promised to do. We are no longer the “critic and conscience of society”.
you might not be aware that we are no longer a place for debate.
We are no longer centrists. We have drifted to the political left, way left. And that leftist view which has many merits, and many downfalls cannot be debated with impunity. We are strong on virtue signaling.
No updates to public data since NOV 2022 and when we ask the date of the next report they can't even tell us!
You think that's shocking, how about this -
From Dr Guy Hatchard:
On December 17th, I received a letter from Astrid Koornneef, Director of the National Immunisation Programme, who was replying on Ashley Bloomfield’s behalf to my letter to him of 28 October 2021 raising concerns about vaccine safety.
Incredibly, the reply asserted that
“an accurate measurement of all adverse events [following vaccination] is NOT REQUIRED"