A group of concerned parents presented their case seeking an interim suspension of the rollout of Pfizer’s Covid-19 vaccine to healthy 5–11-year-olds at Wellington’s High Court on Thursday 27 January.
In a closed court hearing before Justice Rebecca Ellis the parties agreed that there were serious risks from the vaccine, with the Crown admitting that there had been at least 100 severe adverse events reported in the United States since the Pediatric Vaccine roll out in November 2021.
The applicants sought an interim decision from the judge that, instead of a mass roll out of the vaccine to healthy children, vaccination be limited to children under the care of a doctor, were immunocompromised, and could receive the Paediatric Vaccine on prescription – as is the ordinary course with most medications.
Lawyers for both the Crown and the applicants stated the risk of covid-19 in healthy children was nil.
Justice Ellis is expected to deliver her decision on Monday.
Court affidavits from international experts were presented in support of the parents’ case.
The concerned parents, whose identities are suppressed, are being supported by an organisation called the ‘Hood, which is facilitating the case. The ‘Hood is made up of a wider group of 1,500 concerned parents, doctors, nurses, academics, scientists, lawyers and others.
Summarising the applicants’ case, a spokesperson for The ‘Hood said the key points were:
· Healthy 5 to 11-year-olds are at extremely low risk from serious symptoms of Covid-19.
· The risk/benefit assessment for Pfizer’s Covid-19 vaccine is materially different between children and adults.
· mRNA vaccines are causing unexpected and serious side-effects.
· The risk to otherwise healthy children from adverse vaccine events significantly outweigh any benefits conferred.
· The long-term safety of mRNA vaccines was not established by Pfizer’s clinical trials and continue to remain unknown.
· Pfizer’s vaccine does not prevent transmission.
· Although vaccination of 5 to 11-year-olds is not compulsory, vaccination is effectively mandated because of the significant restrictions placed on unvaccinated children’s activities.
· Informed consent, which requires that parents would expect to receive an explanation of the options available to them and an assessment of expected risks, side effects, and benefits does not apply if consent is given under duress.
· Pfizer’s vaccines are experiencing waning effectiveness.
· Negative vaccine efficacy is an increasing concern.
“Both sides in court today [Thursday 27 January] stated the risk of covid-19 in healthy children is nil,” the parent group spokesperson said.
“The parties also agreed that there were serious risks from the vaccine, with the Crown admitting that there had been at least 100 severe adverse events reported in the United States since the paediatric vaccine commenced roll out in November 2021.
“At the core of the applicants’ submission was that the judge should apply the fundamental principles of ‘do no harm’ and precaution when considering the risk benefit analysis to vaccinate this age group – namely that she err on the side of caution given there was greater unnecessary risk from the un-trialed paediatric vaccine than known risks of the disease – at least until the substantive hearing can be heard.”