My understanding is that MBIE were the handlers of the Pfizer contract, and presumably, the orchestrators (and advisors) of the liability waiver extended by Grant Robertson to Pfizer and BioNTech. That didn't and hasn't turned out at all well, but nothing ever does when ethics, morality and science are supplanted by ideology, and co-opted scientivism complicated by unfettered greed becomes a political and bureaucratic mantra.
As reported by RNZ, it was asserted that Grant Robertson notified the NZ Parliament regarding the Pfizer and BioNTech indemnity on 22 November 2020, after granting it to those entities on 5 October.
Contrary to the above RNZ report, Minister Robertson did not "notify the House" as it was a Sunday and the House was not sitting. There is consequently no report of such a notification, or any notification on this day in Hansard.
Moreover, no New Zealand media appears to have reported the following salient fact, one which may be considered an intentional omission until proved otherwise?
The Hon. Grant Robertson, New Zealand Minister of Finance, signed-off on Pfizer / Bio-NTech liability waivers on October 5, 2020, apparently notifying the NZ parliament of the Pfizer and BioNTech indemnity on 22 November. Therefore, Grant Robertson, NZ Finance Minister signed the waivers of liability BEFORE the Pfizer study DATA CUT-OFF DATE of October 9.
"At the data cut-off date of October 9, a total of 37,706 participants had a median of at least 2 months of safety data available after the second dose and contributed to the main safety data set." Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 VaccineDecember 10, 2020; N Engl J Med 2020;383:2603-2615. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577
Maybe the Minister had a crystal ball? ... May be the Pfizer study "results" were already "in" and "recommended" to the Minister, 5 days before the stated data cut-off? One might even suggest that the study "results" were already known a priori, that "safe and effective" was already up and running as a political mantra?
Naturally, another possible interpretation is that the Ministerial indemnifying waiver of liability may have had absolutely nothing to do with, "safe and effective?
Yes - thank you. So many of us have witnessed & then documented the force & speed at which NZ Ministers and Cabinet moved, the gaming of information, the absence of scientifically appropriate evidence and the failure of any sort of public health ethics. Recorded for posterity. People come to this atrocity - because it is and was - and grieve for what has been done by those in power - at their own speed. https://www.talkingrisk.nz/covid-19-papers/
It's time for separation of science and state. The state needs to be told to keep it's nose out of science.
Yes absolutely. MBIE secured powers over NZs science funding by way of secondary legislation. Underhanded.
For those interested in the current science reforms 👇🏼👇🏼👇🏼
https://psgr.org.nz/component/jdownloads/send/1-root/174-science-system-reforms-hijack-democracy
My understanding is that MBIE were the handlers of the Pfizer contract, and presumably, the orchestrators (and advisors) of the liability waiver extended by Grant Robertson to Pfizer and BioNTech. That didn't and hasn't turned out at all well, but nothing ever does when ethics, morality and science are supplanted by ideology, and co-opted scientivism complicated by unfettered greed becomes a political and bureaucratic mantra.
As reported by RNZ, it was asserted that Grant Robertson notified the NZ Parliament regarding the Pfizer and BioNTech indemnity on 22 November 2020, after granting it to those entities on 5 October.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/435107/government-grants-vaccine-suppliers-indemnity-against-claims
Contrary to the above RNZ report, Minister Robertson did not "notify the House" as it was a Sunday and the House was not sitting. There is consequently no report of such a notification, or any notification on this day in Hansard.
Moreover, no New Zealand media appears to have reported the following salient fact, one which may be considered an intentional omission until proved otherwise?
The Hon. Grant Robertson, New Zealand Minister of Finance, signed-off on Pfizer / Bio-NTech liability waivers on October 5, 2020, apparently notifying the NZ parliament of the Pfizer and BioNTech indemnity on 22 November. Therefore, Grant Robertson, NZ Finance Minister signed the waivers of liability BEFORE the Pfizer study DATA CUT-OFF DATE of October 9.
"At the data cut-off date of October 9, a total of 37,706 participants had a median of at least 2 months of safety data available after the second dose and contributed to the main safety data set." Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 VaccineDecember 10, 2020; N Engl J Med 2020;383:2603-2615. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577
Maybe the Minister had a crystal ball? ... May be the Pfizer study "results" were already "in" and "recommended" to the Minister, 5 days before the stated data cut-off? One might even suggest that the study "results" were already known a priori, that "safe and effective" was already up and running as a political mantra?
Naturally, another possible interpretation is that the Ministerial indemnifying waiver of liability may have had absolutely nothing to do with, "safe and effective?
Yes - thank you. So many of us have witnessed & then documented the force & speed at which NZ Ministers and Cabinet moved, the gaming of information, the absence of scientifically appropriate evidence and the failure of any sort of public health ethics. Recorded for posterity. People come to this atrocity - because it is and was - and grieve for what has been done by those in power - at their own speed. https://www.talkingrisk.nz/covid-19-papers/