Thread: nCoV 2019
View Single Post
Old 9th November 2021, 16:36     #2079
Lightspeed
 
Sue Grey is awful, but thanks to her we now have a legal judgement as to whether the vaccine is experimental or not:

Quote:
Ms Grey argued that the Order also limited other fundamental rights under the Bill of Rights, including:

(a) the right not to be deprived of life under s 8;

(b) the right of freedom of thought conscience and religion under s 13;

(c) the right of freedom of expression under s 14; and

(d) the right not to be subjected to medical or scientific experimentation under s 10.

The argument that those rights are limited by the Order can largely be rejected out of hand. Of these only the argument that the right under s 10 not to be subjected to medical or scientific experimentation is engaged justifies closer analysis.

The primary basis for arguing that this right is limited by the Order is that the consent to the Pfizer vaccine under the Medicines Act 1981 has only been granted on a provisional basis, and it is subject to a number of conditions. Ms Grey argued that vaccination amounted to an experimental treatment on the basis that a number of further steps are required under the provisional consent and a number of these matters would normally have been attended to before a full consent was granted.

I do not accept this argument for two reasons.

First, as Mr Powell submitted, the concept of experimentation in s 10 requires an intervention which aims to lead to a new standard of treatment or to advance knowledge. By contrast, medical treatment is characterised by its therapeutic aim, and connotes an existing measure used by healthcare professionals in treating or preventing illness.The vaccine is a new treatment for a new virus. But it is plain that the vaccine has been approved and used here for therapeutic, not experimental, purposes.

Secondly, I do not accept Ms Grey’s submission that the fact that the consent given to the Pfizer vaccine was provisional means that it is experimental. Evidence was provided by Christopher James, the Group Manager of New Zealand Medicines at Medsafe. His evidence establishes that the vaccine has been through a rigorous assessment of its efficacy and safety. To require it to go through the procedures that would be required for full consent would take time, and there was an urgent need to make the vaccine available once it had been assessed as safe and effective. This does not mean that the vaccine is experimental, or that there is material concern about its availability.
https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/asset...-NZHC-3012.pdf
__________________
Stay shook. No sook.
  Reply With Quote