New Zealand Doctors Speaking Out with Science
To access the detailed arguments in the NZTSOS appeal directly, click here or scroll down. This series was compiled by members of NZTSOS and NZDSOS in collaboration.
Introduction to NZTSOS & NZDSOS Grounds for Appeal
This series of six articles looks in more detail at the fourth ground of appeal of the March 2022 NZDSOS and NZTSOS court case that challenged the vaccine mandates.
During this appeal by NZTSOS on 19 April 2023, only points of law can be argued; the science is not revisited.
The four grounds of appeal are:
- Whether the right to refuse medical treatment is absolute;
- Whether the exemption criteria set by Dr Bloomfield were ultra vires (outside the remit of) the Covid Response Act;
- Whether the exemption criteria were too narrow and unreasonably applied by Dr Bloomfield;
- Whether the Crown had demonstrated that the mandatory vaccination was a reasonably justifiable limitation on New Zealanders’ right to refuse medical treatment.
The articles will consider some points that the court needed to consider in the NZTSOS appeal when concluding that a mandate was appropriate and justified. We’re not convinced that the court did a sufficiently thorough job in March 2022 and hope that the appeal judges look at this in more detail.
Part 1 looks at the Bill of Rights in relation to this case.
Part 2 looks at the significance of the difference between provisional and full consent.
Part 3 considers the evidence for effectiveness, recognising that if the vaccine was not effective in preventing transmission, there could be no justification for a mandate.
Part 4 ponders how ‘safe’ is safe and recognises that if a product is not 100% safe, then there will be collateral damage that needs to be considered when determining justification.
Part 5 discusses more rights compliant options that the court should have considered.
Part 6 discusses the role of the Precautionary Principle invoked by Justice Cooke.
Has the Crown really demonstrated that the limitation on the Right to Decline Medical Treatment was reasonable and demonstrably justified?
When deciding whether the vaccine mandates for health and education workers were ‘a reasonable and demonstrably justified limitation on a fundamental right’, Justice Cooke’s job was to ensure that the evidence in support of mandates was overwhelming. He himself said that there was a very significant evidential burden placed on the Crown, to demonstrate this.
We have observed that the courts do not like to deal with ‘the science’. Justice Cooke made a number of statements to that effect in the Judgement of 8 April 2022. For example: that many of the opinions expressed by the applicant’s experts were not responded to, that he had two sets of expert evidence, effectively in parallel, that the court was unable to make findings on some of the more technical aspects.
The question is: Did Justice Cooke ensure that the Crown provided the significant evidential burden expected by the courts when limiting one of the most fundamental rights of New Zealanders?
Bill
of Rights
Provisional vs Full Consent
Effectiveness for what?
Safety & Collateral Damage?
More Rights Compliant
Precautionary Principle
Summary
So, in summary, NZ has a Bill of Rights, the purpose of which is to protect fundamental rights of the citizens of New Zealand. Vaccine mandates for education and health workers were imposed by the government of New Zealand in late 2021 and significantly curtailed those rights. These were challenged in court.
The court found that vaccine mandates were a justified limitation of New Zealand citizens’ Right to Decline Medical Treatment. However, we are suggesting that the evidence in front of the courts did not comprise the significant burden of proof required to justify the mandates, and that the evidence provided was not adequately assessed. We are not convinced that the law was upheld.
Full consent for the vaccine was not granted on more than one occasion due to lack of evidence that benefits outweighed risks, evidence of effectiveness against transmission (crucial for the mandate to be valid) was dubious at best, safety data in significant areas was lacking and there was no consideration of collateral damage, and there was no serious assessment of more rights compliant alternatives which was required by law.
We will be watching the case with interest.
Read more on the case at:
NZTSOS Legal Challenge : Do We Have a RIGHT to Decline Medical Treatment?