Nadine Connock investigates global regulatory capture and controlled bureaucratic incompetence.
In the throes of an emerging global pandemic, I vividly remember experiencing my first red flag.
Governments are paying people to stay at home?
In a move that saw Workers Unions and Human Rights groups heads spin after decades of lobbying and campaigning for improvements in fairer and equitable working conditions, the majority of the population did not raise an eyebrow. Our Governments were doing the ‘right’ thing.
Two years on, and society’s global fabric has eroded into all manner of battlefields over vaccine equity, medical apartheid, and the politicization of science. The buzz word ‘unprecedented’ became standard sedative rhetoric.
Yet what was not mainstream news was the unprecedented pressure to push through vaccine trials to achieve authorisation; financial incentives in untested technology; and censorship of scientific research.
Warp speed parliamentary legislation changes were rushed through without public mandate. All in order to accommodate preferential bilateral trade agreements due to vaccine negotiations and acquisition.
The New Zealand Labour Government Vaccine Taskforce citing “timeliness” (not due diligence) as utmost priority.
But one aspect remains unchanged: BigPharmaTech is pocketing big bucks through fraudulent manufacturing and supply contracts secured under regulatory capture and indemnification overreach.
“Pfizer, BioNTech and Moderna making $1000 profit every second”
The Pharmaceutical Industry has been dubbed the most corrupt industry on Earth ever since the revelation that curing patients was not a sustainable business model. Covid-19 has entered Brand Wars into a new domain of biomedical warfare. Teaming up with BigTech, in the worst merger yet, to irrevocably alter the global social contract to a dystopian social license where human beings as patentable intellectual property, are the new tradable commodity. Silicon Surveillance Capitalism heads towards the final frontier and New Zealand is the pilot project.
According to Oxfam Aotearoa, new figures in 2021 from the Peoples Vaccine Alliance reveal that the monopoly over profitable contracts these companies hold, have produced five new billionaires during the pandemic.
With a combined net wealth of USD $35.1 billion, which works out at over USD $1000 a second, USD $65,000 per minute or USD $93.5 million per day.
Attempts to expose the measures pharmaceutical companies have taken to accelerate global supply, maintain monopoly control, and protect their profits are beginning to surface via a number of whistleblowers.
So much so, that Pfizer and other known pharmaceutical corporations: Amgen, AstraZeneca, Merck and Genentech are now trying to block False Claims Act legislation enabling whistleblowers to make it easier to expose corporate fraud.
Rewind to 2009, and it is easy to see why. After a six-year investigation into unethical corporate conduct initiated by whistleblower John Kopchinski, Pfizer, the world’s then largest drugs company, settled under a record setting out-of-court deal.
As a result of this criminal fine, Pfizer now holds the record for paying the largest healthcare fraud settlement in US history of US $2.3 Billion for false claims, off-label promotion, and negotiated bribery in the form of medical kickbacks/commission to compliant doctors.
Kopchinski contended patients were at risk of heart attacks, strokes and blood clots.
The criminal histories of these vaccine manufacturers are not for bed-time reading. Particularly, if you are still under the impression that these vaccines are effectively and adequately tested and safe because of the trusted science. Even more so, if you believe adverse reactions are only ‘rare’.
As a result of whistleblower Kopchinski in 2009, US Federal Authorities were assigned as a form of an ‘independent integrity watchdog’ to monitor Pfizer’s promotional and compliance practices after their criminal activity. Fast forward to 2021 and these same watchdogs and regulators such as the EPA and FDA are colluding over secret deals and contract clauses as the cycle of profits continue.
“Pfizer accused of abuse of power. Purchasers must protect and defend Pfizer. Pfizer becomes the legislator and judge that controls the contract”
On the 26th of July 2021, whistleblower Cybersecurity IT Researcher Ehden Biber leaked a series of findings on Twitter relating to discovered Pfizer contracts. A synopsis of his findings are:
- Pfizer uses standardised formats for contracts with a slight variation for each country
- Advance Purchase Agreements (APA) opt out clause of only 5 days
- Non-Disclosure clause of ten years, Israel signed to 30 years
- Contracts are above any local law of the purchasing country or receiving State
- Even if another drug treatment for Covid-19 is found, the contract cannot be voided
- Vaccine Ingredients are redacted
- Contracts prohibit the testing, identification and serialization of vaccine batches
- Intellectual Property theft and Patent waivers
- State Assets as ‘future’ collateral and compensation and preventative seizure
- Out of Court private arbitration settlements are governed by the International Chamber of Commerce
- Pfizer will not be held liable for ANY damages due to long-term effects
- Efficacy of the vaccine is not currently known
Non-disclosure clauses relate to advertisement, commercial sensitivity, donation, pricing, delivery delay, discussion of treatment, symptoms, reactions, technology, devices.
You name it, they’ve silenced it. Only Pfizer can instruct who receives doses in the receiving countries, and countries must agree to all Pfizer instructions.
Contract disputes shall be governed by the Laws of the State of New York, USA and attempted assignment of rights or delegation or subcontracting of duties without the required prior written consent of the other Parties shall be void and ineffective.
Biber’s revelations were then published in an investigative piece titled Revealed: How Pfizer blackmails countries for shots. In a bold and damning move, the reporter accused Pfizer’s silencing of Governments in order to maximise profits as vaccine terrorism.
For anyone still wringing their hands that this is just ‘standard’ contract indemnification and liability protection is ‘warranted’, one can only hope you are living in a country that has either very little to offer in terms of assets, or big Super Power States like China or Russia that will intervene in their geostrategic interests of part-owned foreign assets shareholder base. As State-Owned Sovereign Assets negotiated as collateral and compensation comprise of:
- Federal Bank Reserves
- Military bases
- Offshore Accounts and Holdings
- Water, Oil, Gas
How long before BigPharmaTech twist the definitions of Intellectual Property and argue they are secured indirectly regardless, through these contract acceptances.
#PfizerMandate: Pfizer Interfering in New Zealand Politics
When the New Zealand Government started rolling out a nationwide campaign of financial rewards and incentives to solely promote the Pfizer vaccine, whilst simultaneously staying silent on promoting natural immunity support and treatments, this was so counter-intuitive, I experienced my second red flag.
New Zealand remains tightly aligned with all US agency decisions and regulators for our own policy implementation such as the FDA, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Pharmac despite clear reports of Regulatory Capture.
A number of leaked Pfizer contracts reported multiple unreasonable terms and tense conflicts that led to several countries rejecting the contract negotiations. Accused of “bullying” in relation to precautionary State-Owned asset seizure and unprecedented indemnification conditions, Latin American Governments spoke of the costs associated with requiring specialist lawyers to navigate complex new legislation that would need to be passed.
In New Zealand, three pieces of complex new emergency legislation, formulated under executive orders arguably relating to Pfizer’s Covid-19 purchase contracts, have raised further red flags.
Without adequate public mandate, the New Zealand Government has enacted the Covid-19 Response Bill, Digital Identity Services Trust Framework Bill, and Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Bill. Pae Ora Healthy Futures Bill if passed, will disestablish District Health Boards and Health Promotion Agencies, transferring their assets into a singular, centralized amalgamation named ‘Health NZ’. A new Crown agent. Pharmac becomes a Crown Entity and the Board appointed by the Crown. Pharmac is given exemption from Part 2 of the Commerce Act 1986 meaning the following protections against corporate impunity will no longer apply:
- Prohibition of activity that substantially lessens competition
- Equates to contain a cartel provision (resale price maintenance)
- Restrictive trade practices
- Taking advantage of market power
This is not the first time that New Zealand has fallen victim to the dirty trade politics of Pfizer.
This is one of the diplomatic cables about New Zealand held by Wikileaks.
In 1990, Pfizer “lobbied against New Zealand getting a free trade agreement with the United States because it objected to New Zealand’s restrictive drug buying rules and tried to get rid of New Zealand’s former Labour Government Health Minister, Helen Clark”. Pfizer would “oppose free-trade negotiations” until the New Zealand Government changed policy.
With these latest Warp speed legislative changes, it appears Big PharmaTech is on the way to cementing total State capture. New Zealand appears to have been bullied into legislative submission under duress of the pressure to retain bilateral agreements in order to secure vaccine acquisition through a complex performance of invested- interests-business as usual and controlled bureaucratic incompetence. Here we hear the sedative rhetoric again as the need to move quickly to secure Advanced Purchase Agreements (APAs) due to unprecedented global demand.
Whilst some countries have a choice of as many as five drug treatments, New Zealand opted to sign into the Pfizer contract as the sole vaccine provider. As part of Pfizer’s manufacturing of fear around vaccine availability, countries were picked as potential candidates and played off against each other with a scramble for first wave delivery batches on a first come first served basis. Eligible participants were ‘chosen’.
New Zealand was told it would be restricted by EU contract negotiations over introductions of new export regulations for Covid-19 vaccines manufactured in European Union (EU). Vaccines could only be exported outside of the EU once they had met their contractual obligations to supply Covax Facility participants. Pfizer’s manufacturing sites were based in Belgium. New Zealand would not be among countries allocated access to the ‘very limited first wave distribution’ of Pfizer doses.
Pfizer sent a letter to Minister David Clark on the 30th of June 2020 requesting New Zealand’s vaccine taskforce to discuss vaccine acquisition. Covid-19 Vaccine Strategy Taskforce chair Dr. Peter Crabtree was also contacted by Pfizer. MBIE advised Minister of Finance Grant Robertson to grant Pfizer indemnity in October 2020 under the Public Finance Act 65ZD.
In an Official Information Act (OIA) document titled ‘201001 Pfizer indemnity business case’, Benefits to the Crown of the Indemnity of Pfizer/BioNTech came down to a matter of expedience.
Crucial takeaways from this document are:
50. This vaccine candidate has the advantage of being one of the group expected to have the earliest delivery date, and may be suitable for a wide range of adults. There is no information about the suitability for particular population groups or for those with health conditions.
It is worth noting that specifics of these ‘particular’ population groups are either redacted or never named explicitly in communications. In meeting minutes dated Wednesday 27th of January 2021 from the Covid-19 Vaccine Strategy Science and Technical Advisory Group (STAG), discussion points are raised in relation:
4. Medsafe Approvals
“Medsafe does not stipulate explicitly which groups the vaccine can be given to”.
7. Prof David Murdoch workshop December 02 2020 on ‘Surveillance, post-marketing and associated needs for NZ and Polynesia’
“commencing trial and associated research activity…is deemed critical, including respect of populations not well covered in offshore trials (e.g. Māori and Pacific peoples)”
51. This vaccine candidate is an RNA vaccine. Due to the relative newness of this platform, and truncated clinical trials (which means a reduced ability to identify rare or long-term side affects), we are unlikely to want to immunise the entire population using solely this vaccine
66. Bell Gully has advised that the scope of the indemnity is in practice very close to the scope of ACC and…some risk remains that the indemnity goes beyond what the ACC scheme will cover
A Covid-19 Vaccine Strategy Taskforce was set up with the lead agency as MBIE and consisted of Ministry of Health, MedSafe, Pharmac and MFAT. DOIA request 2122-0912 advised MBIE negotiations for the Pfizer vaccine contract were comprised in part, by advice from legal firm Bell Gully – legal advisors to Pharmac – and Medicines New Zealand, of which Pfizer is a member. DOIA request 2021-1518 advised no due diligence was taken to investigate Pfizer’s management team or its ethics as a company. The due diligence focused on assessing the performance and delivery of Pfizer’s vaccine. However, they were satisfied that Pfizer had not been reckless in the development of its vaccine, despite admitting ethical due diligence was not undertaken.
In February 2021, Pfizer applied to an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) decision-making committee to formally determine whether the Covid-19 vaccine would be considered a ‘new’ organism in New Zealand.
The EPA and Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) voted no and approved their decision under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act (HSNO) 1996. The MPI then cleared the vaccine under the Biosecurity Act 1993.
The committee’s determination was on the basis that the vaccine is unable to replicate itself, so it does not meet the definition of a new organism and is not subject to regulation as a GMO. However, human medicines are exempt from the hazardous substances part of the Act, so the EPA did not assess vaccine chemical properties. The EPA relies upon information provided by manufacturers and does not conduct a chemical analysis of the product. The determination also relied on the basis that no EPA approval was required for a ‘release’ into people’s arms as opposed to the environment.
‘Intellectual Property protection is the blood of the private sector’
CEO of Pfizer Albert Bourla
The New Zealand public is currently held hostage by procedural democracy: that is, the run around antics of OIA and Ombudsmen treadmill. Being thrown through the revolving doors of MBIE, Ministry of Health, MPI, EPA, The Treasury and the DPMC in a blatant abuse of these process in order to evade scrutiny and accountability.
Only to then receive redactions and the following responses:
- 6(b)(ii): information provided in confidence from an international organisation
- 9(2)(a): to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of deceased natural persons
- 9(2)(ba)(i): to protect information which is subject to an obligation of confidence, where the making available of that information would be likely to prejudice the supply of this information, or information from the same source, and it is in the public interest that such information should be continued to be supplied
- 9(2)(ba)(ii): to protect information which is subject to an obligation of confidence, where the making available of the information would be likely otherwise to damage public interest
When an OIA responds that “the DPMC does not hold any information related to the purchase and supply agreements between the Government and Manufacturers of Covid-19” this is WORD SALAD and is a blatant lie.
It is now clear Covid-19 vaccines aren’t as safe and effective as our Governments and the manufacturers claim, and this is why they need unprecedented levels of protection and indemnification.
What did New Zealand commit to when it did not opt-out of the Pfizer Agreement? This raises questions that citizens in a functioning whole-process democracy should be entitled to express.
What happened on the 26th of February 2021, that saw a drastic shift to revise the approach to managing the vaccine portfolio under orders that the “context of operation has shifted”?
How has a supposed democratic nation, enabled and accepted Pfizer’s contractual agreements to diminish the role of parliament and the judiciary and allow provision for execution of extreme executive powers under emergency public health orders?
Should New Zealand’s Attorney General David Parker, who is saying there are no Human Rights breaches or issues with downstream legislation be the same person who is also the Associate Minister of Finance, Minister for Environment, and introduced the Covid Response Bill and Digital Identity Bill, be in charge of these legislation changes?
And the rate at which New Zealand is seeing such unprecedented financial incentivisation and reward to promote and defend vaccines and their mandates as a global public good despite the dangers highlighted in the recently emerging FDA Pfizer approval documents, has raised more than just a few red flags.
These red flags indicate that New Zealand requires an instigation of a material breach of the contract by Pfizer, not so much to prevent bankruptcy, but use conventional methods to preserve the health of our people and the future viability of our DHBs. As the current Labour Government moves to disestablish all DHBs under a new centralized Crown Entity in order to hand over exclusive tender of Health NZ, to Pharmac, and exempting itself from protection of the Commerce Act.
The New Zealand Labour Government has failed us. They have lied to us. They are harming us.
And now the Ministry of ‘Stealth’ are trying to scramble and backtrack over vaccine associated myocarditis and pericarditis harms.
Be warned New Zealand. This country is predated upon as a small but optimal testing ground for a number of experiments. Pharmaceuticals are just the tip of the needle.
In 2011 a landmark Waitangi Tribunal Wai262 lodged in 1991, tried to warn New Zealand of appropriation and theft by the Crown of intellectual and cultural property. We did not heed this advice. And as usual, the arm of the State and their respective Crown agents have gone one step further in absolving personhood and sovereignty through structural legislation that is now dictating power, possession, possessiveness and patenting their citizens as privately owned data under medical and digital intellectual property contracts.
How much more do we need to read? To watch? To write?
Are we convinced yet?