(The Exposé) On Thursday 17 August 2023, the Pretoria High Court ruled in favour of the Health Justice Initiative’s (“HJI’s”) bid to compel the NDOH to provide access to all covid “vaccine” procurement contracts and other documents. The Court ordered that all covid vaccine contracts (“Part 1”) and negotiation-related documents (“Part 2”) must be made public within 10 court days of the Judgment.
On 1 September, HJI issued a press statement saying that NDOH had handed documents for Part 1 to HJI’s legal team. NDOH has undertaken to share the remainder of the documents, Part 2, which it was ordered to disclose, and in agreement with HJI, by no later than 29 September 2023.
On 5 September, HJI held a press briefing after which they uploaded the Part 1 documents to their website HERE. The Part 1 documents comprise:
- COVAX Facility/Gavi Alliance – Committed Purchase Agreement (dated 11 December 2020).
- Janssen Pharmaceutica – Advance Purchase Agreement (26 February 2021).
- Janssen Pharmaceutica – Advance Purchase Agreement, Additional Doses (_ April 2021).
- Janssen Pharmaceutica – Term Sheet (19 November 2020).
- Pfizer – Manufacturing and Supply Agreement (30 March 2021).
- Pfizer – Amendment to Manufacturing and Supply Agreement (4 June 2021).
- Pfizer – Binding Term Sheet.
- Serum Institute of India – Vaccine Purchase Agreement (18 January 2021).
- Serum Institute of India – Term Sheet (7 January 2021).
It is worth noting that the HJI was launched in July 2020 in South Africa “to advocate for a more inclusive, equitable public health system, locally and globally, both during and beyond the pandemic.” It was established using all the verbiage of the Globalist agenda.
The founder of HJI is Fatima Hassan, a South African human rights lawyer and social justice activist. She is the former executive director of the Open Society Foundation of South Africa, founded by infamous globalist George Soros.
We can safely assume that HJI is under the influence, if not the control, of the Globalists.
Pfizer Covid Vaccine Contract
In the March 2021 manufacturing and supply agreement (“vaccine contract”) between Pfizer and NDOH, there is a paragraph that admits the safety and the efficacy of Pfizer’s covid injection were unknown:
Janssen Covid Vaccine Contract
The NDOH contract with Janssen shows a similar lack of confidence in the “safety and efficacy” of its covid injection.
The Janssen covid injection was developed by Janssen Vaccines in Leiden, Netherlands, and its Belgian parent company Janssen Pharmaceuticals, a subsidiary of American company Johnson & Johnson (“J&J”).
The South African government signed two agreements with Janssen. The first was an ‘Advance Purchase Agreement’ dated 26 February 2021, to secure 11 million doses, followed by a second for the supply of additional doses on an unspecified date in April 2021.
Notably, on the ‘Additional Doses’ purchase agreement’s title page is an EMEA document reference. EMEA refers to Europe, the Middle East, and Africa, a geographical grouping used by global corporations to define regional business activity. Does this mean that Janssen used the same contract for all countries in the EMEA region?
Bottom of the title page for Advance Purchase Agreement for SARS-CoV-2/Covid-19 Vaccine (Additional Doses), Janssen Pharmacuetica JV and the Government of the Republic of South Africa Acting Through the National Department of Health (the “Government Purchaser”)
According to Wikipedia, South Africa began its mass covid injection campaign on 17 February 2021. This is not true. It is more than a week before NDOH signed its first contract to purchase injections on 26 February. The date Wikipedia gives is, in fact, the date when the trial for Janssen’s vaccine in South Africa began.
The trial participants were healthcare workers, whether they realised they were taking part in a trial or not. In the week ending 21 February, nearly 15,000 people had been injected as part of J&J’s Sisonke covid vaccine trial. By the end of the following week, 28 February, more than 71,000 healthcare workers had been injected as part of the Sisonke trial.
Enrolment in the Siskone study began on 17 February 2021 and as of 12 April 2021, a total of 288,368 healthcare workers had received J&J’s Ad26.COV2.S vaccine, among whom 5898 (2%) reported adverse events. Fifty of the trial participants, in other words, healthcare workers, had serious side effects including 12 people who had allergic reactions and six who had neurologic conditions, including a case of Guillain-Barre syndrome and another with Bell’s palsy. The majority (85%) of participants experienced mild to moderate effects.
In April 2021, South Africa suspended the use of J&J covid injections as a “precautionary measure” and J&J delayed its European vaccine rollout following an FDA decision to pause the jabs while blood clot cases are examined. A few days later, South Africa announced it had resumed its J&J vaccination rollout.
The trial’s early safety data was reported in the New England Journal of Medicine in June 2021. The authors noted that no cases of the blood clotting condition, known as vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (“VITT”), were detected in the South African study. Although, around 28 cases had been identified in vaccinated people in other countries. However, five participants in the Sisonke study did develop blood clots – four of the five cases were linked to the vaccine, while one case was possibly linked.
In June 2021, there was a delay in the South African rollout of the J&J vaccine after it was found that there was a lack of adherence to proper standards at a manufacturing plant in the United States, News24 reported. The J&J injections intended for South Africa were suspended following a US ruling that ingredients for the country’s doses may have been contaminated during production in a plant in Baltimore. The US Food and Drug Administration said on 11 June 2021 that some batches of the J&J “vaccine” were not fit to use.
Did the Government Fully Inform the Public?
Did the South African government fully inform the public about the lack of safety and efficacy? No. In fact, the Government did the opposite.
