Paul Deacon

Dear Liz

I write to you in your capacity as Chair of the Health Committee, which is in practice the only watchdog over the government on these matters.
Please ask the government to pause (or at least modify) the vaccine rollout on the basis of information that has come to light in the last few months (see below).

1. Adverse Effects of the Vaccine

Governments are not tracking the adverse effects of vaccination.  We are reliant on voluntary reporting (CARM in New Zealand, equivalent databases overseas).

In these databases, the number of deaths, serious adverse events and total adverse events reported for the vaccine exceed those reported for other vaccines by a large multiple (typically by between one and two orders of magnitude).

The swine ‘flu vaccine was stopped in the USA in 1975 after 25 reported deaths.  Reported deaths for the vaccine in New Zealand are over 100.
In August of this year, Dr. Peter Schirmacher, head of pathology at the University of Heidelberg (and acting head of the German Association of Pathologists) estimated that 30% to 40% of people dying within 2 weeks of vaccination were dying from the effects of the vaccine (sources in German herehere, and here, barely covered in English language media e.g. hereherehere, and here).  This estimate was made after conducting a study at the request of the German federal government, involving 40 histology-based autopsies.
Would it not be prudent to conduct similar autopsies in New Zealand?

2. Under-Reporting of Adverse Effects

Medsafe make the following statement on their website:

“To-date, the observed number of deaths reported after vaccination is actually less than the expected number of natural deaths”.  

Medsafe appear to be claiming that vaccination prevents deaths from things other than Covid-19 in the New Zealand population.
A more plausible explanation (post-vaccination deaths being significantly below the expected number of natural deaths) is that post-vaccination deaths are under-reported.  Under-reporting is a well-known phenomenon to researchers (e.g. this Harvard study from 2011 stating that less than 1% of adverse events are reported).

A large health service provider in Boston actively tracked vaccination adverse events for their employees (25,929 of whom received the Pfizer vaccine).  Comparing adverse events data for anaphylaxis, the rate per dose is 22 times higher in the Boston data (JAMA) than in New Zealand (Medsafe).  There is no obvious explanation for this discrepancy other than under-reporting in New Zealand.  Anaphylaxis is chosen because it is hard to miss (dramatic event with mean time to onset of 17 minutes).

Comparing vaccination adverse events data for myocarditis /pericarditis (Pfizer only), the rate per dose in Australia (TGA) is 2.66 times higher than in New Zealand (Medsafe).  There is no obvious explanation for this discrepancy other than under-reporting in New Zealand.  Myocardits/pericarditis is chosen because it is a well-known adverse effect of the vaccine, acknowledged by all.

Would it not be prudent to multiply the number of reported adverse events from vaccination in New Zealand by a factor of at least several times?  What reason do Medsafe have to believe that 100% of vaccination adverse events are reported (this appears to be their stance in multiple lines of argument)?

3. What Are We Protecting Against?

More people are dying from vaccination in the current “Auckland” outbreak than are dying from the disease.  In part, this is because the now dominant Delta strain of the virus is less lethal than previous strains, in part because effective early treatment protocols have been put in place for Covid-19 patients (in contrast to last year).  

The case fatality rate (CFR) for Covid-19 in the United Kingdom is now below 0.1% (UK Parliament).  This means that fewer than 1 in 1,000 people who contract Covid-19 die of it.  Analysis of current public health data in other countries gives similar figures (which may differ markedly from historic data).

Does this not make the disease of similar lethality to the ‘flu?
For children, the risk from Covid-19 is tiny (see e.g. this recent study from Germany showing that no healthy children aged 5-18 died from the disease in the first 15 months of the epidemic).

4. Experimental Nature of the Vaccine

The vaccine is still at the experimental stage.  Clinical trials conclude in early 2023, with publication some months later (in say 18-24 months time).  Therefore safety data is only emerging as the vaccine is rolled out.

Double-blinded randomised clinical trials (RCTs) are the gold standard of research for new medicines.  There has been one such RCT for the vaccine, conducted by Pfizer from September 2020 to March 2021, and published on 28th July 2021 (5 months after the vaccine rollout began in NZ).  Supplementary material here.

Serious concerns have been raised by a whistleblower over data integrity and regulatory oversight in this RCT (well-documented article in the British Medical Journal).  There are also discrepancies in the number of deaths reported in the published RCT and those reported by Pfizer to the FDA (page 23).  The published study says 15 died in the vaccinated group, 14 in the placebo group. The figures reported to the FDA are 21 and 17.  No explanation has been forthcoming for these discrepancies.

The RCT was deliberately unblinded after conclusion (by vaccinating the participants in the placebo group).  It is therefore likely that we will never have better quality data (and that we will have no RCT data for the medium and long term).  The RCT does not show a mortality benefit from the vaccine.  The published data is opaque (e.g. causes of death are not given).

Pfizer’s RCT deliberately excluded pregnant women and children (among others), so we have no RCT safety data for these vulnerable groups.

There are warning signs of significantly elevated heart disease risk in the vaccinated (e.g. here).

There are warning signs of high rates of miscarriages and still birth among women vaccinated during pregnancy (e.g. herehere and here).

There are widespread reports of elite sports players collapsing and/or dying at an elevated and unprecedented rate (typically young men, and often of heart-related conditions).  These reports are necessarily anecdotal (see e.g. hereherehereherehere and here).

In the light of such data, might it not be appropriate to pause the vaccine rollout while we work out what is happening in these areas?

5. Waning Efficacy of the Vaccine

All agree that the efficacy of the vaccine wanes over time.  What is less widely known is that efficacy continues waning until it is negative (i.e. the vaccinated become more likely to contract Covid-19 than the unvaccinated).  The UK government has shortened the gap from 2nd dose to 3rd (“booster”) dose to 3 months.  Israel is on its 4th dose.
In September this year, the European Journal of Epidemiology published a paper showing that the vaccinated are slightly more likely to contract Covid-19 than the unvaccinated (based on current data from 68 countries and 2,947 US counties).

Latest public health data from the UK (Office of National Statistics) appear to show that in all age groups over 30, you are more likely to contract Covid-19 if you are vaccinated than if you are unvaccinated. For some age groups this appears to be more than twice as likely.
Some of the most vaccinated countries and territories (e.g. Singapore, Israel, Iceland, Gibraltar) have lately seen some of the biggest increases in Covid-19 cases.  This is consistent with what we now know about waning vaccine efficacy. 

In the face of such a large accumulation of data on waning efficacy, is it time to re-think vaccination strategy and purpose?

6. Natural Immunity

A well-known Israeli study from August this year showed that people who have contracted Covid-19 and recovered are 13 times less likely to contract Covid-19 than the double-vaccinated.  This natural immunity appears to be long-lasting.
Why are we vaccinating the naturally immune in New Zealand?

7. Vaccination Risks at the Level of the Whole New Zealand Population

The following risks are well known to virologists and immunologists.
Firstly, all agree that vaccinees are at greater risk (up to 100%) of contracting Covid-19 in the 14 days following vaccination.  This risk does not show in public health data (these cases are counted as unvaccinated).

Secondly, original antigenic sin (OAS) – a longstanding concept – says that your body is primed to fight the first virus of each type that it encounters (or against which you are vaccinated).  This weakens the body’s antigenic response to subsequent variants of the same virus (as the virus drifts genetically).  In the case of Covid-19, we are vaccinating against no longer dominant strains of the virus (Alpha and Beta).  The vaccine appears to be less effective against the Delta variant, and even less effective against the Omicron and other variants.

The body’s natural immune response may be better against future strains of the virus (as it drifts genetically) than the vaccine (which may inhibit such a response through the mechanism of OAS).  This is especially the case for children, who, through their naturally robust immune response (and with very little risk from the disease) may represent New Zealand’s best defence against future strains of the virus.

Thirdly, antibody dependent enhancement (ADE) is a phenomenon that has been observed in animal trials for other coronavirus vaccines. When vaccinated animals were subsequently exposed to the viruses in question, they died (from excessive immune responses).  Since the main animal trial phase has been skipped for the Pfizer vaccine, we do not have data on ADE risks.

Fourthly, the Pfizer vaccine is acknowledged by all to be “leaky”.  It does not confer sterilising immunity, it does not prevent contracting Covid-19, it does not stop replication of the virus, nor does it stop transmission of the virus to others.  According to virologists, a “leaky” vaccine of this kind (when rolled out in the middle of a pandemic to more than say 30% of a population) creates ideal pressures for the emergence of mutant variants of the virus that are partly or wholly resistant to the vaccine-induced immune response of the body.  This appears to be what we are seeing, first with the Delta variant, and now with Omicron and other variants.  Since ideal conditions have been created, we may see the emergence of vaccine-resistant strains within the New Zealand population.

What research has the Committee undertaken, and what advice has been sought, on these risks?

8. Conclusion

From my previous dealings with the Health Committee, and my correspondence with my electorate MP Sarah Pallett, I know that much of this information is known to you. Please ask the government to pause (or at least modify) the vaccine rollout.  

In particular:

  • Should we be vaccinating only the most vulnerable groups (the very elderly, the morbidly obese, the severely immuno-compromised)?
  • Should we really be vaccinating children and teenagers?
  • Should we really be vaccinating pregnant women?
  • Is there an age band for people in good health below which the disadvantages of vaccination might outweigh the benefits?
  • Why are we vaccinating people who have had Covid-19 and recovered?
  • Are we creating population-level risks by vaccinating a large majority of the population?
  • What risks does the vaccine bring to fertility (male and female) and to the next (unborn) generation?
  • How do we monitor the unknown medium and long term effects of the vaccine?

Much of the above information is new, having appeared only in the last 5 months or less.  This is not a partisan issue.  I firmly believe the electorate will respect a government that revises policy on the basis of new evidence and data.

Best regards

Paul Deacon

Letter to Chair of the Health Committee
Guest Post

Guest Post

Guest Post content does not necessarily reflect the views of the site or its editor. Guest Post content is offered for discussion and for alternative points of view.