Kia ora, tatou! Half-past eleven on a Thursday morning, midwinter. I shall try to be brief.

The Court case. There has been something of an hiatus while we endeavoured to engage the Crown in constructive discussion. This follows their nonchalant changing of the law to suit themselves and the more recent confirmation of their intention to inject 12-15 year olds. So, finally, Crown Law has responded, having consulted presumably with their obnoxious clients.

Two fairly insulting emails. One (in essence) offering us a paltry sum to go away. The other declining our invitation to meet, mainly because we wanted to talk about a trend to dictatorship. They kindly point out how difficult and expensive we should find it to pursue our case against them. We are ‘too far apart’, they say, and for once I agree.

So all of this is very hot stuff, and the email waves have been zInging as your KTI MedAct Inc executive and others have expressed their opinion as to how we react. I had best moderate the language to ‘they can get stuffed’. I think we have complete consensus to instruct Sue Grey to proceed.

My own opinion is that we should apply for costs, continue the actions we have commenced and seek leave to introduce our outrage at the intended injection of this hazardous substance into our young people, at school sites, or anywhere else. It is quite possible that we shall seek to lay new charges at the feet of these defendants, perhaps of being party to homicide.

The general mood is one of extreme anger. We are not to be insulted. We are not to be intimidated. We are right, and they are plain wicked. This must stop. No doubt Sue will shortly publicise her formal responses. We are going to need to appeal to you again for funds, in the completely confident expectation that the public will rise to this occasion out of plain necessity.

Unlike this tyrannical ruling class, we are prepared to hear argument to the contrary, and invite your views especially if you find those expressed here unsatisfactory. Diversity of opinion, freedom of speech, are essential to the proper functioning of democracy. Win or lose, we must carry out our moral duty as citizens. Thank you for your attention, and for your money. It’s going to be a hard fight, but we shall of course prevail.

Open letter # 2: An urgent request regarding research showing the S-Protein is a toxin

To: Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern <>, Hon David Parker <>, Hon Andrew Little <>, Hon Chris Hipkins <>, <>, Chris James <>, <>

Dear Prime Minister, Attorney-General, Minister of Health, Minister of Covid, Minister or Seniors, Director General of Health and Chris


I attach below some new and very important research which I must assume your advisors have not yet provided to you, or the experimental Pfizer injection rollout would surely already have been suspended.


It is now clearly established that the S-Protein [spike protein] is a toxin that causes the harmful symptoms known as “Covid”.


I surely don’t need to explain the legal, ethical and human rights consequences of a government knowingly promoting a program which intentionally injects a life threatening toxin into healthy people.


I also attach a report indicating that injected nanoparticles (and the S-Protein) do not remain in the arm muscle but instead circulate throughout the whole body.


The combined effect is that the Pfizer jab injects mRNA to take over cells to manufacture the deadly S-Protein toxin and this spread throughout much of the body, manufacturing the S-Protein toxin for days and in some cases many weeks.


This explains why even the limited available research from the two months of study as summarised in the Comirnaty Data Sheet identifies possible harm to many different parts of the body including the heart, blood, brain, musculoskeletal system, nervous system, fainting and dizziness etc.


This is no longer just a shocking experiment. Everyone involved is now on notice of this “injection roulette” which may result in death or serious injury to previously healthy people. The health and safety implications for employers and those who push this jab, are significant.


No post injection death can legitimately be ruled out as being caused or contributed by the injection, at least not without a full coroner’s report. Certainly any post vax stroke, heart attack, other blood disorder, nervous system disorder or even suicide or car accident (known overseas as “vaccidents”) must prima facie be assumed to be caused or contributed to by the jab, at least until a full coroners report is undertaken.


Similarly it is not good enough to claim that our seniors who die post jab were frail and likely to die. Surely if they were that frail they should have been spared from the jab. Anyway, surely “deaths post Jab” should be treated consistently with “deaths post Covid”.


Despite the secretive, flawed and very passive official post jab injury reporting process ( CARM), and as a result of the more active community led follow up, you are already on notice of a number of deaths and life threatening and life changing harm from this injection. The deaths and harm will inevitably continue if there are any further injections. Perhaps initially you had an excuse that you thought the S-Protein was “safe”. However now you are on notice that it is not “safe” by any definition.


Further, although you in privileged position are on notice, many members of the public who you were elected to represent remain deceived by misleading claims in crown propaganda that the jab is “safe and effective”. In these circumstances there can be no “Informed consent”. Each jab without Informed Consent is in breach of the Health and Disability Code and is an assault.


In these circumstances, the ongoing program is surely criminal, and indeed may result in Homicide as defined by the Crimes Act:

158 Homicide defined

Homicide is the killing of a human being by another, directly or indirectly, by any means whatsoever.

Compare: 1908 No 32 s 173

Anyone who aids, abets or otherwise incites homicide is a party to that homicide.


I note that the Director-General of Health has shared his view in sworn evidence that Covid is the most serious health issue for New Zealand in 100 years.


I invite you all to consider that claim very carefully and critically. Please put Covid in perspective against the many other challenges which we face, including for example heart attacks, strokes, cancer, suicide accidents and diabetes and the nitrate and other contamination of much of our water.


Surely you must agree that the harm is not from “Covid” but from the “Response to Covid”.


The best expert evidence is that the risk from Covid is similar to the risk from influenza. Many experts are now saying that Covid is simply a rebranding of influenza and colds, supported by PCR testing that was never intended as a diagnostic tool. The WHO says that PCR testing should not be used beyond 20-25 cycles. OIA responses indicate that in NZ PCR tests use up to 45 cycles, which simply multiplies any contamination.


Our government is about to enter dangerous new phase if it proceeds to inject more healthy New Zealanders with an injection that experts have established is toxic.


Apart from the direct harm to those who choose, or are bullied to accept this injection, there is considerable peripheral harm. This includes the contamination of our Blood Bank with S-Protein. We can only speculate on the risks for vulnerable people who receive blood contaminated with this toxin.


Please stop and reflect. Please listen to international experts who are independent from Big Pharma and who are not invested in the Covid paradigm.


Please listen to the New Zealand scientific and medical experts who have put their careers and reputations on the line out of extreme concern.


Please correct the misinformation that this injection is “safe and effective” and “approved by Medsafe” when in fact it did not meet the statutory criteria that “benefit exceeds risk”.


There is no imminent health risk from suspending the program. Dr Bloomfield’s sworn evidence was that the risks were mainly financial and reputational.


Please find the courage to challenge whoever is driving this, and any who act on dogma rather than evidence, reason or ethics.

The future of New Zealand depends on your courage to step up and make this critical call for our people.

I urge you to listen, engage and act in the public interest.

Please put aside your pride and the dogma, and suspend this program.

I am happy to assist however I can.

Sue Grey LLB (Hons), BSc (Biochemistry and Microbiology), RSHDipPHI Co-leader NZ Outdoors Party (

VaxChallenge: Nga Kaitiaki Tuku Ihu Medical Action Society Incorporated v The Minister of Health – Court Decision

Press release.  18/05/2021

VaxChallenge: Nga Kaitiaki Tuku Ihu Medical Action Society Incorporated v The Minister of Health – Court Decision

The High Court has just released its decision on the urgent challenge to the Pfizer vaccine approval and vaccination rollout plan, agreeing with the plaintiff that it was reasonably arguable that the Minister’s approval was unlawful.

Her Honour Justice Ellis has agreed that everyone in New Zealand over 16 is not a limited number of patients, and so the decision is arguably ultra vires the requirements of s23 of the Medicines Act, and she has urged the government to reconsider the lawfulness of the provisional consent they granted for the Pfizer vaccine.

Her Honour stopped short of ordering the vaccine rollout to stop, out of concern of undermining public confidence in the vaccine and wasting vaccine stock that is already in New Zealand.


Call Alan Simmons

0274 980 304


Nga Kaitiaki Tuku Ihu Medical Action Society Incorporated

Stroke/Death following Comirnaty vaccine in elderly care facility

Adverse events reported from Tauranga:  “Two people in our elderly care facility who were on anti-coagulants were adversely affected by the Comirnaty vaccine. One had breathing difficulties and was admitted to hospital, where he was taken off the anti-coagulants and has returned to the facility and is on the mend. The other had a stroke within 24 hours and died three days later.” (anonymous)

A grave new threat

A decree was made two days ago, to take effect from tomorrow night. Broadly, it sets up a set of sanctions to affect those who resist vaccination in particular workplaces. There is a context, to which I wish to draw attention. Regardless of the history of this extraordinary dictate, its announcement took place after a phone conference with Ellis J. on 22 May, six days prior. In her minute of the same day, Ellis J. records that “Ms Grey helpfully agreed that only the first two orders (orders A and B) in the amended application would be pursued on an interim basis.”

The Court has, helpfully, been treating our claim as urgent, but, with this agreement, antecedent to the decree since promulgated, regarded that part of our claim which had to do with infringement by the Crown of the Bill of Rights Act as of lesser urgency. By issuing this decree, the Crown has put a match to the issue of the lawfulness of the decree, and others like it of which we complain in respect of the Bill of Rights. Simply put, this matter has become, by virtue of the Crown’s intervention,  supremely urgent, and ought now, in my view, be given priority for consideration by the Court.

Sue manages not to run out of superlatives when it comes to the grossness of the Crown’s actions. Peter Williams gets the point. This is an exceedingly dangerous time for our democracy. The issue is not one of public health. It is one of resistance to tyranny.

Letter by NZ Doctors with Concerns Over Pfizer Vaccine


We write formally to express our shared concern that:

  1. A new prescription only medicine with s23(1) provisional approval, which legally can only be for the treatment of a limited number of patients, is being promoted for the entire adult population of Aotearoa/New Zealand. 

  1. Medsafe asked 58 questions, but the answers for most of these are not due until March to July 2021.

  1. The clinical trials will not be completed until 2023.

  1. Nobody currently knows how safe or effective this novel mRNA technology is in the medium to long term, but highly credible medical experts around the world, and even some vaccine developers themselves, are predicting problems and raising urgent red-flag concerns.

  1. If any safety issues are identified in the remaining period of the trials the effects could be catastrophic for our community or a proportion that have already received the vaccine.

  1. The signatories are mindful of their obligations to discuss risks, benefits and uncertainties of any treatment and to ensure informed consent of all patients before giving any treatment and of the other important obligations under the Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers Rights. Our insurers have affirmed this obligation.

  1. Compelling patients or workers to receive drug, medicine or vaccine which is still investigational would set a significant medical precedent, which would run counter to all international codes of medical ethics since the Nuremberg Code of 1947 and Declaration of Helsinki in 1952. The fundamental tenets of these include complete disclosure of the risks and unknowns to the participants in medical experiments; the obligations on the experimenter for care and after-care of adverse outcomes; and the freedom from coercion, stand over tactics and over-reach. This would seem to include threats of job loss, travel bans etc. Many patients feel pressured to accept this vaccine in the mistaken belief they may protect others due to representations in the media and/ or pressure from their employers, and that they may lose their employment or may be disadvantaged in their employment if they do not accept this experimental vaccine.

  1. The signatories are concerned to ensure that the Ministry of Health, College of GPs and the Medical and Dental Councils of NZ are aware of the above concerns, and that they are addressed with urgency to ensure the way the vaccine is being promoted to healthy people who do not require treatment is both lawful and represents best practice.

  1. We are eager to clarify that any patients injured by the vaccine will have acknowledgement and cover from ACC.

  1. The signatories note that even the promoters of the vaccine do not claim that it prevents transmission and that public representations that the vaccine is effective for this purpose are misleading.

  1. We do not accept that lay vaccinators are qualified or competent to partake in the process of informed consent to patients re this vaccine, especially as they have no medical expertise and no prior knowledge of the individual circumstances of the patient or their health issues. Any risk benefit assessment and consideration of alternatives is complex and requires a considered consultation by a qualified practitioner.

Ref: Informed consent disclosure to vaccine trial subjects of risk of COVID-19 vaccines worsening clinical disease. Int J Clin Pract 2021:75e13795.



Matt Shelton 17031

Anne O’Reilly 23539

Anna Goodwin 48183

Paul Butler 10712

Caroline Wheeler 17374

Tracy Chandler 29070

Tessa Jones 08775

Ulrich Doering 16398

Aida Hasbun 70825

Adeline Lee 22765

Cindy De Villiers 20053

Damian Wojcik 10754

Rob Maunsell 08554

Wellington Tan 09716

Simon Thornley 23706

Fred M. Timmermans, MSC, Dental Surgeon (Picton), DCNZ 11281

Rene de Monchy 08986

Mike Godfrey 07144

Samantha Bailey 40705

Emanuel E Garcia 40834

William J Reeder 07018

Graham H. Evans 36808

Tihomir Djordjic 23070

Matthius Seidel 32235

Elizabeth Harris 18284

Robin Kelly 10370

Reuben Tomlinson 40821

Anna Harvey 15766

Kate Armstrong 22941

Stephen Joe 11754

Fraser Burling 18908

Mark Bailley 23736

Elena Bishop 43989

Joy Sutton 39442

Claire Halford 26703

Tiina Voolmann 12699

Winsome-Aroha 23473

Jaques Imbeau DCNZ 7763

Pavel Gajdusek 23491

Maurice McGrath PhD MSc Clinical Anatomy

Anonymous Doctors (don’t want their names public) X 3

Advice on Vaccine bullying from employer or student body.

Lawyer Sue Grey is getting lots of questions from employees and students who are being pressured to receive the experimental Pfizer vax.
Her suggestion is to write to your boss or course supervisor to ask for more information. You can use this as an opportunity to educate
Below is an example which you are free to use or modify:
I am keen to get as much information as possible before I make an informed decision on whether or not I receive the Covid vaccine.
1 Please could you confirm why the Cominarty Vaccine has only provisional consent in New Zealand and who are the limited number of patients it has been authorised for?
2 What is the status of the 58 outstanding questions Medsafe asked Pfizer about the safety, effectiveness and quality of production?
3 Please can you help me understand why this Vaccine is being used on the public before the 58 conditions have been addressed.
4 Please can you help me understand which of the risks identified in this report to Medsafe have been answered, and which are still outstanding. Please can you give me any research you are aware of to show that this Vaccine is Safe for pregnant women and does not trigger miscarriages, and which medications it has been tested with.
5 I have read research that indicates that many of the Covid vaccines and the SProtein in these vaccines affects human blood clotting. Please can you provide research to show that SProtein manufactured by the Pfizer Vaccine will not cause any changes to recipients blood
6 I understand that the Pfizer Vaccine does not prevent infection or transmission. Please can you explain why therefore it is not a decision for each individual as to whether they wish to receive it or not, depending on their own health, genetics and ethical beliefs.
7 Please can you explain the consequences for my employment/training if I choose to not have the experimental Pfizer Vaccine at this time, and who will decide this.
I really appreciate your help with this.
Student’s name
Sue Grey LLB (Hons), BSc
PO Box 1653 Nelson, NZ
pH +64 22 6910586

NZ Government’s Vaccine Rollout Under Threat as High Court Challenge Filed

NZ Government’s Vaccine Rollout Under Threat as High Court Challenge Filed

The Pfizer Comirnaty vaccine rollout is under threat as the legality of the vaccine approval and many of the Government’s claims are being challenged in the High Court.  The plaintiff claims that the people of New Zealand are not being given honest and complete information about the legal status of the vaccine or the major gaps in safety testing.

The misleading media campaign and use of a squad of vaccinators who have just two hours online training undermines the patient practitioner relationship and the requirement for informed consent so people can make an informed choice around the safety and efficacy of the vaccination.

Nga Kaitiaki Tuku Ihu Inc. filed the proceedings last week in the Wellington High Court and Crown Law is now racing to find a way to defend the claims which include questions around the lawfulness of the approval process.   The defendants are: Minister of Health, Director General of Health,  Christopher James, The Prime Minister,  Minister of Covid response and the Attorney general.

The proceedings are supported by doctors, academics and experts in their field who are unhappy about the claims of safety and effectiveness undermining the ability of patients to give informed consent. as is the lack of alternative health strategies.

Council for the applicant, Nelson based lawyer, Sue Grey said that “the current situation undermines the rule of law and the integrity of the medicines regime.”


Further information go to

Click here to donate to the Vaxchallenge campaign

Click here to fill out our volunteer form.

Click here to report an adverse reaction to the COVID vaccine. Your personal identifiying data will be keep private.  Please also file with the official Medsafe CARMS COVID adverse reactions system.

Why do I need to report to both systems?
CARMS data is not currently available to the public so we need our own reporting system as a back up and you also need to let Medsafe know what is happening.

Click here to report workplace coercion for  the COVID vaccine.