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

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