“Dear Air NZ: I am appalled by your consideration of bringing in a so-called ‘Health Passport'” (updated)

A letter here from a NZer, Concerned Kiwi, to Greg Foran, CEO of Air NZ:

Greg Foran 

CEO – Air NZ 

Dear Greg, 

As a long-term frequent customer of Air NZ I am shocked and appalled by Air NZ’s consideration of bringing in a so called ‘Health Passport’ linked to the experimental COVID-19 vaccine, as will a very significant percentage of the NZ population.  This action would in fact be, according to the 1947 Nuremberg Code, a crime against humanity.  As such, I will no longer be using Air NZ and will be encouraging others to take a similar stance.  There will no doubt be very large numbers of Kiwis and international customers also taking this position with Air NZ as polls have indicated that more than one third of Kiwis do not wish to take the experimental COVID-19 vaccine, at least until it has been properly long term tested and proven to be safe and effective in the long term.   

This is absolutely not a position of being ‘anti vax’.  It is simply a position of being pro vaccines so long as they have been properly scientifically tested over the required period of time, to be appropriately safe and effective.  The position that Air NZ is considering taking on this issue is a gross breach of the NZ Bill of Rights even if the COVID-19 vaccine had gone through thorough long term scientific testing and been shown to be safe and effective.  However, due to all COVID-19 vaccines currently being in an experimental phase (as officially admitted), the proposed position of Air NZ is a clear breach of the 1947 Nuremberg Code (see enclosed extract from the Nuremberg Code below).  The breach of the Nuremberg Code comes under the section relating to being forced or coerced/pressured to take experimental medical procedures through having basic liberties (to travel) being removed if people refuse those experimental medical procedures.   

By taking this position of a ‘Health Passport’, Air NZ will not only be sure to lose a huge amount of business, but they will also surely have a deluge of high level legal action coming their way on many different fronts.  Pfizer, and every other COVID-19 vaccine producer in the world, have refused to make themselves legally liable for any injury or death resulting from their experimental COVID-19 vaccine.  That is very understandable due to the vaccines being in such an experimental state and thousands of health injuries and deaths already recorded around the world, according to official figures from the World Health Organisation.  Will Air NZ therefore be picking up this legal liability if it forces its customers to take this experimental medical procedure in order to travel on Air NZ?  I am quite sure they will not.  However, due to the 1947 Nuremberg Code, Air NZ will be making themselves open to high level criminal action if they enforce this policy and some people in NZ subsequently have health injuries or death as a reaction to the experimental vaccine.   

If someone takes the experimental vaccine in order to be able to travel on Air NZ, and they subsequently die or have a serious health injury from a reaction to the experimental vaccine, as thousands already have around the world, will Air NZ be held criminally liable for that person’s death or health injury under the 1947 Nuremberg Code?  The Nuremberg Code makes this situation of ‘coercion’ very clear, and you can be sure that major legal actions will be taken under such circumstances, and that Air NZ will be forced to legally defend themselves on these potential situations. 

Not only is Air NZ putting themselves at huge business risk and legal risk with this proposed Health Passport, they would be actively pushing the emergence a truly appalling situation of what can only be described as ‘medical apartheid’.  NZ polls indicate that a huge number of Kiwis have similar feelings on this.   

Air NZ needs to be very careful what it stands for on this issue.  I would love to be able to continue as a loyal customer of a company that chose to do the right thing on this issue according to medical science and according to basic human rights.   

Yours sincerely, 

Concerned Kiwi 

___________________________________________________________

BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL No 7070 Volume 313: Page 1448,
7 December 1996. 

CIRP Introduction 

The judgment by the war crimes tribunal at Nuremberg laid down 10 standards to which physicians must conform when carrying out experiments on human subjects in a new code that is now accepted worldwide. 

This judgment established a new standard of ethical medical behavior for the post World War II human rights era. Amongst other requirements, this document enunciates the requirement of voluntary informed consent of the human subject. The principle of voluntary informed consent protects the right of the individual to control his own body. 

This code also recognizes that the risk must be weighed against the expected benefit, and that unnecessary pain and suffering must be avoided. 

This code recognizes that doctors should avoid actions that injure human patients. 

The principles established by this code for medical practice now have been extended into general codes of medical ethics. 

The Nuremberg Code (1947) 

Permissible Medical Experiments 

The great weight of the evidence before us to effect that certain types of medical experiments on human beings, when kept within reasonably well-defined bounds, conform to the ethics of the medical profession generally. The protagonists of the practice of human experimentation justify their views on the basis that such experiments yield results for the good of society that are unprocurable by other methods or means of study. All agree, however, that certain basic principles must be observed in order to satisfy moral, ethical and legal concepts: 

  1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment. 

Photo: Wikipedia: By G B_NZ – Air NZ 787 ZK-NZI at AKL, CC BY-SA 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=57983259