(File photo: Graeme Robertson/AFP)
A new court application claims, among other things, that the South African Health Products Regulatory Authority (Sahpra) knew full well at the time that the Pfizer vaccine against Covid-19 was not as effective as was claimed. According to the court documents, this authority was also well aware of the health risks that the vaccine poses. The documents were submitted to the High Court in Pretoria last week.
The application aims to set aside the decision of Sahpra to approve and register Pfizer’s Covid-19 vaccine, as the information that Sahpra had before it shows that the vaccine is not safe and effective.
The court documents are expected to be served on Sahpra this week, after which this authority will have approximately two weeks to oppose them. In addition to Sahpra, which is the main respondent in the court application, other respondents include Pfizer, the president of South Africa, the national and provincial departments of health and the minister of health.
The applicant in the case is the non-profit human rights organization Freedom Alliance of South Africa, and the comprehensive court document of 737 pages relies, among other things, on the affidavits of six medical experts and various investigations undertaken, among others, by Pfizer.
(Photo: Justin Tallis/AFP)
Daniël Eloff, lawyer at Hurter Spies Ing. who represents the applicant in the case, explained to Rhewal on Monday that when the Pfizer vaccine was registered by Sahpra in 2020, Sahpra submitted a dossier for registration – which is a normal process for the registration of medicines to make sure that it is safe and effective.
However, according to Eloff, it has recently come to light that the data and information that Pfizer gave Sahpra before the vaccine was registered indicated that “the vaccine is not as effective as has been publicly claimed”.
“That is to say the studies they [Pfizer] did, showed that the vaccine did not make any significant difference in preventing the spread of Covid-19.
“The second important thing is that they [Pfizer en Sahpra] did not publicly disclose the adverse effects the vaccine had on certain people,” says Eloff. This includes a sharp increase in cancer cases recorded in people who were vaccinated with the Pfizer vaccine.
Doctors testify to serious side effects
Corroborating affidavits by various medical doctors that form part of the court documents also indicate which side effects were noticed and recorded in their patients after those patients were vaccinated with Pfizer.
Eloff says the court application therefore not only represents a group of people who simply decide themselves that they are against the vaccine, but is supported by world-renowned experts in the medical field, among whom Dr. Herman Edeling, a neurosurgeon with almost 40 years of legal medical experience.
“It’s not just people who complain about the vaccine. A truly scientific approach is being followed here.”
(Archive photo: Pfizer)
The court application is further substantiated by research studies undertaken by Pfizer itself – including the information that Pfizer recently had to disclose in terms of another court application in the USA, which was previously withheld from the public.
Many of the side effects of the vaccine were also disclosed by Sahpra himself. Eloff says that although much of this data and information surrounding Pfizer has been publicly known for some time, it was difficult for Jan Alleman to analyze this complicated data and information, and that it was therefore important to call in experts to do so. .
Eloff goes on to say that this case is also important for future decisions made during other pandemics.
“Science shows us that we can expect more pandemics of this nature. How we as a society react to these pandemics is becoming more important and people must react in a responsible way and make safe decisions.
“This case [die Covid-19-pandemie en die goedkeuring van Pfizer] is a good example of how the country and the world actually reacted and acted hastily. We were so afraid of Covid-19 that we quickly prepared the vaccine and actually ignored all our normal standards and procedures in testing medicines and vaccines. The court case therefore has an important, broader purpose – not only for South Africa, but worldwide. It’s not just about Covid-19 anymore.”
A court date will be set later.
