RE: DRAFT BILL AMENDING FINANCE REGULATIONS FOR VACCINE COMPENSATION SCHEME 16 APRIL 2021
By: Shabnam Palesa Mohamed
Tags: South Africa, Human Rights, Health

OBJECTIONS TO AMENDING FINANCE REGULATIONS FOR VACCINE INJURY COMPENSATION SCHEME.

16 APRIL 2021

Via email: NFCcomments@health.gov.za CC: Info@THJ-Africa.org.za

A. INTRODUCTORY COMMENTS

1. The dangerous and expensive no fault vaccine compensations scheme represents a massive threat to public health in South Africa. This government is holding our nation, mostly unaware, hostage to Big Pharma corporations with a record of fraud, corruption, racketeering, and harm. Instead of taking the nation into confidence, this government is creating a scheme we cannot afford, on top of vaccines, and Covid corruption, that will enslave us for generations. It is clear government is captured by Big Pharma and its related accomplices.

2. The minister of health and cooperative governance announced a bill on 15 April 2021, giving those they answer to, the people of our country, an insulting and irresponsible 5 days to respond. This ridiculous deadline is only for those who can access the bill, and who have data to respond, via email, thus discriminating against the poor and working class, who yet again, are most affected by not having access to information that affects our lives. This government knows that this farce of a public comment attempt will not stand the scrutiny of our courts and will be robustly challenged. Costs related will certainly not be for the public purse, but for those responsible.

3. Legality: The constant blurring of lines between the NCCC and Cabinet is a subject of debate as a threat to democracy. It must be noted that the NCCC has no authority to make decisions. Executive responsibility is entrusted to Cabinet, responsible to the people of our country. Therefore, the draft bill is invalid and unlawful.

4. Legality: It must be noted that a high court in June 2020 decided that a significant number of regulations promulgated are unconstitutional and unlawful. Therefore, many laws are invalid to that extent. Moreover, given our remarkable over 90% recovery rate, and doubts about the effectiveness of vaccines on the local variant, there is no emergency need to make decisions immediately. In any event, companies may not deliver.

5. COVAX fund: In February, WHO announced a no fault vaccine injury scheme through COVAX, that would be funded by an extra charge on vaccines. Applications could be made from 30 March via www.covaxclaims.com . As South Africa is part of COVAX, it is not clear why there is a need to establish another fund for vaccine injuries, unless the government expects that the COVAX fund will not be enough to cover all people harmed by vaccines.

B. COMMENT ON THE DRAFT AMENDMENT TO FINANCE REGULATIONS, FOR A NO FAULT VAX INJURY SCHEME

The 5-page draft amendment to finance sector regulations, to allow a vaccine injury fund, is infected by these issues:

1. The public have not seen any agreements signed with pharmaceutical companies, and cannot consent. Non-disclosure agreements in matters of health especially, are not ethical nor binding in our rights-based democracy.

2. The public is expected to fund compensation for injuries caused by vaccine injuries from products (vaccines / injections) made by pharmaceutical companies, which are heavily subsidized. They should pay for all injuries.

3. S 90 (3): This section states that funds for the scheme consists also of “funds accruing from any other source”. This could mean from the budget for housing, water, electricity, education, social services, policing, or even, pension funds. This section is deliberately vague so government can avoid accountability. We refuse consent.

4. S 92 (4): The following directives have still to be made, without which the public is blind in the dark:

(a) the requirements relating to the administration of the Scheme;

(b) the policy in respect of the administration of the Scheme;

© the reporting of vaccine injuries;

(d) the claims system;

(e) the reporting of claims; and

(f) any other matter relevant for the effective, efficient and fair administration of the Scheme

5. S 92 (5): Refers to an adjudication panel compromising of experts, but there is zero mention of civil society representation or a nomination process. This is the very first requirement in a constitutional democracy.

6. S 93 (2): Refers to compensation only for “severe injuries resulting in permanent or significant injury, serious harm to a person’s health, other damage or death.” The definitions of significant and permanent injury and serious harm to health and other damage are not made clear. Moreover, the public is aware that given the number of reported injuries on VAERS and Open VAERS, there is a startling number of people who are not able to report to work after vaccines, meaning they lose out on income, in addition to expenses, and suffering.

7. S 93 (3): States the injury or death must be causally related to the vaccine. Already, this government, in pandering to the dictates of pharmaceutical companies (one example is the demand by J and J that the Department of Trade and Industry ‘recognize’ Aspen), refuses to accept that vaccines do cause injury and death. Though suppressed, people are increasingly aware of cases where our frontline workers are injured by strokes and blood clots, which are being hidden by big pharma, government, and certain media platforms.

8. S 93 (4): The following information is not provided, without which no informed decision can be made:

(a) persons eligible to make claims under the Scheme;

(b) the vaccine injuries covered;

© the specific vaccines to be covered;

(d) facilities referred to in subregulation (1), where CoVID-19 vaccinations are officially administered;

(e) the timeline and duration of injury and the period of vaccinations that the Scheme will cover;

(f) the types of claims that may be made;

(g) requirements and procedures for instituting claims; and

(h) the period in respect of which claims may be instituted with the Scheme.

8. S 94: The amounts and structure of the scheme are not determined, nor provided for public analysis. Given that government sees it moral to pay a R350 to indigent people over the lockdown, with zero understanding of the people who are starving and depressed, we cannot trust government to decide on amounts and structure.

9. S 95 (1): Claimants may not approach a court for relief, until the scheme has adjudicated. Given the historic ineptitude of managing processes in, for example, matters involving children, housing, the Road Accident Fund etc, it is likely that a claimant/s will suffer or die, before an adjudication and appeal are made, before approaching a court. Moreover, the majority of our people cannot afford lawyers, and will be left helpless.

10. S 95 (3): Big Pharma indemnity: A claim via a court process would not against the product or service provider, as it would be for any other medical injury, but rather against “government”. The word government, unless members pay in their personal capacities, actually means the people of this country. The use of the word government is dishonest, as the resources and assets of this country belong to its people, and not to politicians.

11. S 95 (4): This regulation provides blanket indemnity also to any organ of state, mystery service provider, health establishment, or person causing vaccine injury to any person. Again, national or provincial “government” must pay for these injuries, which again means the people of our country, over 50% of whom are unemployed. We must remember that this government is already trillions in debt, with failing provinces and municipalities.

12. S 96: There is no public representation to decide what the undefined period for the expiry of claims is, moreover there is no provision for public representation in deciding when the escalation of the “disaster” is mitigated, minimized or alleviated. To date, there is no accurate measure for deciding what these words even mean.

13. Accountability: Given the pandemic of corruption, it is critical to always priorise regulations related to protection of funds from fraud and corruption. Without a clear plan, serious consequences, and public accountability of the institutions that will administer this scheme, this bill is not worth the paper it was typed on.

C. CONCLUDING COMMENTS

1. No refunds: The budget for health decreases by 1% per year, resulting in horrific suffering for patients, families and healthcare workers. And yet, this government has signed our country up for no refund agreements. Pharmaceutical companies, whether deliver late, don’t deliver, or cause harm, will not refund the billions paid.

2. Reporting system: We are informed that doctors reporting vaccine injuries to SAHPRA are ignored. There is no credible, proactive, well-publicised, and transparent adverse effects reporting system. This is deliberate, so that injuries are not documented, and so people are not aware of their various rights. Moreover, the message that vaccines are safe are drummed into people daily, so they would not associate injuries with vaccines.

3. Transparency: There is no information provided on what will happen with the no doubt thousands of comments that will be emailed to the designated persons. The bill’s gazetting seems to be a forgone conclusion. In the public interest, all comments on the bill must be made public via government websites, media platforms and grassroots movements.

4. International experience: In America, via the VICP programme, as of 2020, $4.4 Billion in vaccine compensation (not including attorney fees and costs) was awarded to injured claimants. This was paid to roughly 48% of claimants, at great personal cost. Our country simply does not have the fiscus to pay for injuries or death caused to her people.

5. State capture: it is critical to raise that pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer are holding countries like Argentina ransom, and demanding their reserve banks, military bases, embassies, billions in cash and a change to laws that may hold them liable for non-delivery, fraud, corruption or harm. Given both Pfizer and J and J’s known demands, our nation has no reason to believe that these state capture demands are not also made of us.

It remains to be seen how civil society and political parties will respond to this draft bill with 5 days to respond. The difference between those who rubberstamp it and those who robustly challenge it will make clear who has our people’s interests at heart. THJ is willing to work with groups and organisations to take this fund to court.

In solidarity for health justice

TRANSFORMATIVE HEALTH JUSTICE

NB: Comments in this communication are not full and final. They have been made under inhumane deadline, and can be expanded into further pages.

SIGN AND SHARE THE PETITION TO MAKE ALL VACCINE DEALS PUBLIC: https://www.change.org/p/president-cyril-ramaphosa-make-all-vaccine-agreements-public-in-south-africa?recruiter=48630515&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink&utm_campaign=share_petition