Interview with Sue Grey Lawyer
MJ:
Hi everyone, today we have the delightful, Sue Gray, lawyer once back again and we’ve got so much to talk about. It’s great to see you. Look, it’s so exciting. I mean, we had the coalition, the agreements in place, And we’ve finally got someone who can actually stand up, which as I’m referring to Winston Peters, if you saw him the other day with his inaugural speech, he’s actually starting to flex, hey, this is one New Zealand, one policy, we’re all New Zealanders.
SG:
Yeah, I mean, we’ve basically written off politics for the last few years because we weren’t getting really any sense out of anyone, opposition or government. But good on Winston. I had a few doubts, but I have to say, he’s doing a great job so far and he did a great negotiation.
MJ:
Some very interesting people that have moved into various portfolios no less than Judith Collins who is our Attorney General. Well, of course, in charge of all the judges. What do you make of that?
SG:
Yeah, I’ve actually had experience with Judith being Attorney General because when I was working on the Saxmere case and it turned out that Christopher Finlayson, the Attorney General, was conflicted because he was close friends with Justice Wilson, she was belatedly appointed as Attorney General in matters relating to Justice Wilson. And I have to say she actually did a pretty good job. She certainly did a lot more than what Chris Finlayson had been doing. So, yeah, it’s promising I think.
MJ:
I think so. I think that, you know, the dealt cards from the Labour government and the tyrannical response that we’ve had even from media being as Winston, quote, unquote, a unelected party, which I thought was a very, very good quote, I think we’re starting to break through a little bit. And that’s what the exciting part is, isn’t it?
SG:
Well the media is looking pretty silly isn’t it, because they really missed all of the main stories over the last few years. They’re miles behind international media and they’re just not focusing on the issues at all. They’re still locked into the old Jacinda narrative from what I can see.
What was interesting even with their, the funding from New Zealand On Air, I had a look at it at the time, and I haven’t looked at it again recently. But the criteria were that they had to promote the co governance narrative, and they had to promote the COVID narrative, or they didn’t get the money.
And so we just all came to understand that was just the way it was, but it seems that they’re now trying to deny that, which is really, really odd. It was all a matter of record. It’s still there on the New Zealand On Air webpage. Or it was, when I last saw it.
I know other media who were sort of on the edge of mainstream and in the smaller mainstream who actually stopped doing what they were doing because they weren’t willing to prostitute their work and sign an agreement that really corrupted what they were wanting to publish.
But you know, they’re still calling a lot of us conspiracy theorists and all these names when we’ve had the evidence for a long time and they have none. And you know, we have evidence from government regulator Medsafe. Medsafe had many of the concerns that I’ve had right from the start. In fact, that’s where I got some of my concerns from by reading the documents. And it just seems like we have media that haven’t read any of the important documentation, they’ve just said what they’ve been asked to say. I don’t know, I don’t understand how it can possibly work as badly as it’s been working. It certainly needs a big change.
MJ:
Interestingly enough, what I’ve been able to understand is the fact that MedSafe, they had 40 odd conditions with the approval process, and it was a limited approval. And also MedSafe, they actually, and correct me if I’m wrong, but MedSafe didn’t actually agree with the government going ahead with it. So the government went ahead on their own accord. And they actually bypassed MedSafe. Is that correct?
SG:
Almost, So I did the first Vax Challenge Court case in about, I think, May 2021. We call it the KTI case. And at that stage, the Pfizer Vax had only provisional consent subject to 58 outstanding conditions. And they were conditions about its safety, its effectiveness, and also the product integrity. And so that was when they were making it in the laboratory. They used one to make commercial volumes, massive millions of doses, they used a whole different technology, which we didn’t actually know that at the time, but we did know that there’s always a risk if you’re going from doing something under sort of laboratory conditions to industrial conditions. So, and even on that basis Medsafe declined to recommend consent because they weren’t satisfied that the benefits exceeded the risks, and that was what their own documentation, their own advice say.
So, they had to refer it to one of the government advisory committees and that committee recommended that they did give provisional consent, obviously subject to the conditions. But then the next problem was at the time provisional consent only allowed for use for the restricted treatment of a limited number of patients and that was that first court case we did again, we said everyone in New Zealand over 16 is not a limited number of patients and that’s when the court agreed and that’s when the government changed the law overnight. So it was an incredibly checkered history all the way through. The other thing is under the Medicines Act you’re not allowed to claim that something’s safe and effective because it’s got med-safe approval.
So MedSafe doesn’t warrant safe and effective, yet there’s been what looked to me like quite serious breaches of the Medicines Act all the way through. They’ve been making all sorts of crazy claims and they’re still making these safe and effective claims, even though we know, even on their own admission, we’ve had at least four people have died from the Pfizer vaccine in New Zealand, plus obviously way more than that, according to other data.
Yet they’re still saying it’s safe and effective. So nothing makes sense.