Sue Grey's OIA for New Zealand Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Authority (1 Viewer)

  • Welcome to the Roundtable! If you have an account already, please sign in, otherwise feel free to register. Note that you will be unable to post or access some boards and information unless you sign in.


QHHT Hypnotherapist, Energy Healer, SpiritualCoach
Staff member
Creator of & The Roundtable
Jul 19, 2016
Nelson, New Zealand
Medsafe, New Zealand Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Authority, just put out a warning that the vaccinations for COVID in New Zealand may cause Myocarditis, which is inflammation of the middle layer of the heart wall.

Sue Grey, a lawyer in Nelson, New Zealand, who recently won a case against the NZ Government for illegally distributing the COVID vaccines to too many people, just wrote this information request (OAI, which = Official Information Act), to get additional information from them.

You can find Sue's Facebook page here if you want to keep up to date on what they say in response.

Dear Minister Chris and DG​
Please can you provide by reply a copy of the Government's press release announcing that upgraded Medsafe warning posted yesterday about the risk of myocarditis and advising that contrary to earlier government assurances the experimental Pfizer jab #clotshot is not safe and effective and is not approved by Medsafe or indeed by any other international authorities (other than for Emergency use).​
Please also provide a list of media and other agencies this Press Release was circulated to.​
If there is no such press release, please provide copies of any information held by any of you or your staff of advisors where you considered what infraction to advise the public and how to do this.​
By way of background you are all all well aware that various PR advisors, the government, and the media were parties to a substantial propaganda campaign that misled the public to believe that the experimental Pfizer and other covid jabs are safe and effective when you knew or should have known that they are not.​
In particular:​
a) Medsafe now acknowledges the risk of myocarditis​
b) the Pfizer Jab known as Comirnaty failed to meet the criteria for approval as a new medicine and only has only "provisional consent". At this time of the Gazettal (3 Feb 2021) the benefit was considered by medsafe to exceed the risk for a limited number of patients. Justice Ellis in the High Court vax challenge identified MIQ workers as a possible example.​
c) Provisional consent does not require assessment of safety and efficacy. The relevant assessment criteria under s21(1) of the Medicines Act are very limited.​
d) Since the Pfizer Jab was approved experts around the world have published very concerning information that the Spike Protein is toxic and that the nanogel and its contents spread through the body with the residual potentially remaining for many weeks where it aggregates in the ovaries, liver and other organs.​
e) The number of deaths and serious post jab adverse incidents is significantly higher than is reported by Medsafe. Community records indicate well over 40 post jab deaths in New Zealand and an array of very serious and debilitating adverse outcomes. The inadequately promoted and resourced passive reporting system is grossly inadequate to monitor an experimental injection that is being promoted for the entire population based on unfounded claims it is safe and effective​
f) Proceedings filed this week in the USA (America's Frontline Doctors v Xavier Becerra Civil Action 2.21-cv-00702-CLM seeking a preliminary injunction provide an excellent summary of some of the many concerns.​
g) in addition to concerns about misleading and deceptive claims and assurances by and on behalf of various government officials raise extremely serious concerns about breaches by public servants of the Health and Disability code and the absence of informed consent which would result in each injection amounting to criminal conduct in the nature of assault, wounding with intent or even homicide in some cases.​
h) the situation is exacerbated with the Covid Vaccination Order which results in duress for healthy people to receive this experimental injection to protect against a hypothetical risk under threat of loss of employment.​
I look forward to your urgent response about steps taken to brief yourselves on these matters to meet your professional, fiduciary and other duties as elected and/or employed representatives of the people.​
Thank you and regards​
Sue Grey LLB(Hons), BSc, RSHDipPHI​

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)