Using her legal acumen and working tirelessly to protect New Zealanders, lawyer Kirsten Murfitt has filed a petition to Release the Pfizer/BioNTech contract for the supply of the Covid-19 vaccines. She recently shared the importance of this on social media.
The Top 12 Reasons to Release the Pfizer Contract
- Taxpayer Funds: the public must know how taxpayer funds are spent. The degree of public concern in the Government’s response to Covid-19 has resulted in the Royal Commission of Inquiry being extended. The public requires the contract to make fully informed submissions in phase two of the inquiry; given that the government refuses to release the phase one report until 2026.
- Profit Making Business: Pfizer sells products for substantial profits and is subject to consumer protection laws. If Pfizer misrepresented the safety and effectiveness of the product, then the government was induced into the contract by a misrepresentation and entitled to damages.
- History of Criminal Fines: Pfizer has paid out billions in fines for safety-related and false claims offences, along with fines for government contracting and foreign corrupt practices. Pfizer paid the largest criminal fine ever imposed in the United States for any matter. When contracts are hidden, the risk of corruption increases. Public scrutiny is required to ensure that decisions are made in the public’s best interest, free from improper influence or conflicts of interest.
- Mandates: the government used extraordinary executive powers to introduce mandates. New Zealanders were forced to decide whether to take a product, with no medium- or long-term safety data, or lose their family’s income and/or rights to participate in society. If the government introduced the mandates based on a misrepresentation that the product stopped transmission, then the house of representatives has a duty to the public to hold Pfizer accountable.
- Indemnities: the publicly released South African contract confirms that Pfizer made the purchaser acknowledge that the long-term effects, efficacy and adverse effects of the product were not known at the time of entering the contract and that the product should not be serialized. Secrecy surrounding the indemnities undermines trust in the government processes and the public response to any future crisis.
- Withholding Information: if Pfizer withheld adverse safety data from the government, then the contract may be illegal or breach the warranties. If the contract affects health or the economy in a harmful way, New Zealanders need the information to protect themselves and make plans for their future. The government acknowledges that Pfizer refuses to release the details of two active ingredients in the product. It is imperative to public health that these ingredients are disclosed to ascertain any causation with health outcomes.
- Health Outcomes: the contract may reveal whether the product is being studied for medium- and long-term health effects. New Zealanders have the right to know if there are future risks and how these will be managed or monitored. If the product causes harm, New Zealanders need to know if they have legal grounds to seek compensation.
- Lack of ACC Cover: prior to the rollout of the product, ACC admitted that it did not have enough funds to cover the likely injuries. ACC is not providing the level of care that injured New Zealanders require. The contract may outline which party is liable and the injured may have grounds to bring a claim (which may also be the reason why Pfizer and/or the government want to keep the contract secret).
- Pfizer’s Strategy: the government claims that the release of Pfizer’s vaccine strategy, relationships with third parties, and negotiating position would commercially prejudice the company. Pfizer’s commercial position should not be put ahead of the public interest if Pfizer made misrepresentations or required New Zealand assets to be offered up as security (as has happened in other nations).
- Alternative Treatments: it is important that the public can trust in the government’s procurement process. There is an overarching public interest in promoting the transparent conduct of public affairs and for the public to know whether Pfizer’s vaccine strategy included the banning of alternative treatments.
- Informed Consent: every person has the right to fully understand the risks and benefits of any medical procedure and to make decisions about their own body. If the Government signed a contract that involves any harmful or potential impacts on health, we need to understand what risks the government accepted on our behalf and if any information is being withhold from the public. This information is important to ascertain if people gave informed consent for the administration of the product.
- Public Interest: if the contract negatively affects New Zealanders or our assets, it is in the public’s interest to have access to the terms of the contract. A well-functioning democracy requires transparency, especially when public health is at stake. Releasing the contract allows New Zealanders, experts, and advocacy groups to engage in an informed discussion and creates space for challenges or suggestions for improvement, ensuring better future outcomes. When important information is kept secret, it can lead to rumours and misinformation. Releasing the contract prevents speculation, promotes clear, factual communication and reduces panic or distrust.
Help Us Gather Petition Signatures
As well as signing the petition yourself, we hope that some of you are able to help with gathering signatures. The Health Forum New Zealand created this printout which could be used for mail drops, or to place in prominent places so that more New Zealanders can become aware of the issue, and the ways in which they can help.
Learn More
Read our recent article on the corruption taking place, at Pfizer Crimes and the Complicity of “Independent” Representatives.
Due to the rushed nature of the contracts made between Pfizer and national governments across the globe, it is highly likely that contracts are duplicates of each other. Released on court order in 2023, the South African contract probably represents the same terms and conditions as the New Zealand contract. This includes Clause 5.5: “… Purchaser further acknowledges that the long-term effects and efficacy of the Vaccine are not currently known and that there may be adverse effects of the Vaccine that are not currently known…“
A FreeNZ interview on Chasing Down the NZ Pfizer Contract reveals actions being taken by individuals such as Erika Whittome and John Armstrong.
This article was originally published by New Zealand Doctors Speaking Out With Science.
