Friday, 7 January 2022

HERE WE GO: ACC STARTS COUGHING UP FOR THE VAX

To comment please open your gmail account or use my email address or Messenger. Significant Facebook comments on matters of faith and morals may also also be posted on this page.


Self-explanatory ... 



"I suppose you realise you're collaborating with tyranny?" 

A reader of this blog in pursuit of a flat white and a smoothie had pounded a fair bit of pavement today before finding herself in a cafe patronised by Hastings' chattering classes. 

"You haven't got a vaccine pass?" the wait person asked, in tones of sheer disbelief. 

"You realise this is not about a virus," said our reader, "it's about control."

"I can't serve you."  

"I feel sorry for you," said our reader, and she went round the corner to New World. There she obliged by producing her mask exemption (first explaining the law didn't require her to do so ) and bought an iced coffee. 

Heretaunga Street was full of masked sheople, presumably all blissfully unaware of ACC's list of vaccine adverse reaction claims - and ACC's talking about only those lodged before August 7. 

Of the 201 Treatment Injury claims received by ACC up to 7 August 2021, 89 had been accepted, 65 had been declined and 47 were still pending a decision.

Primary Injury for Accepted Covid Vaccination Treatment Injuries Received by 7 August 2021

Primary InjuryNumber of Accepted Claims
Allergic Reaction39
Adverse Drug Reaction13
Anaphylactic Reaction12
Wound Infection5
Other Infections including Cellulitis5
Contusion4
Other Injuries11

 ‘Other injuries’, we're reliably informed, include injuries where fewer than four injuries were recorded in total, for example nerve damage and cardiac injuries.

It also says 54 of the 65 declined claims were declined because there was no physical injury. This included 13 claims for allergic reactions and seven claims for adverse drug reactions.  Seven claims for acute pain were also declined.

Notes on this data (from ACC)

  • The number of claims lodged with ACC cannot be taken as an accurate indication of injuries during treatment or the quality of care. This is because, among other reasons, not all treatment injuries are lodged with ACC.

You can say that againReported adverse reactions can be multiplied by as much as ten (the US FDA).

  • We do not provide exact figures where there are fewer than four claims for a particular injury, time frame, or region etc. This is to avoid inadvertently identifying a client, and thereby breaching their privacy. In such instances we indicate the claim figure as <4.

Vaccination related claims

  • For this response, a combination of a structured data extraction (for specific treatment events) and a free text search was used.  Free text search methods are not reliable data extraction methods and can result in anomalies in the data.  In this case all vaccination treatment injury claims where the free text has indicated 
  • ‘covid’ and ‘vacc….’ have been manually reviewed and some false positive matches removed.  The previously reported 201 claims up to 7 August 2021 were selected this way.
    • At the time the 201 claims were first reported, not all the claims reported had been assessed for cover so the primary injury was not confirmed.  To provide better coverage, all 201 claims have been matched to the database as of 20 September 2021 and injuries that have been confirmed are included in the analysis below.

    Notes on treatment injuries 

    ACC has provided cover for treatment injuries since 1 July 2005.

    A treatment injury is a personal injury caused as a result of seeking or receiving medical treatment from a registered health professional.  In order to fulfil the criteria for cover, the person must have suffered a personal injury and there must be a clear causal link between the treatment and the injury, and the injury must not be a necessary part or ordinary consequence of the treatment.

 The ACC website contains further information on treatment injury https://www.acc.co.nz/for-providers/treatment-safety/ and a dedicated covid-19 page is here.

 

ACC also says: “Section 32(1)(ii) of the AC Act states that a treatment injury means a personal injury suffered by a person receiving treatment from, or at the direction of, one or more registered health professionals.

 

“Specifically, in relation to the covid-19 vaccination, I refer to the Medicines Amendment Regulations 2021 (the Regulations), which came into force on 28 May 2021.

 

“The Regulations cover the authorisation of vaccinators for COVID-19. Section 44AB states: A person authorised as a covid-19 vaccinator must, at all times while performing the tasks authorised under these regulations, work under the clinical supervision and direction of a suitably qualified health practitioner.

 

“Given the above, ACC can consider vaccine-related treatment injury claims for cover in cases where the vaccine is administered by an authorised vaccinator at the direction of one or more registered health professionals.”

 

There are three core requirements which need to be met for a treatment injury claim to be accepted:

 

An injury has occurred that has resulted in physical harm or damage

The injury has been caused by treatment provided by a registered health professional

The injury is not a necessary part, or an ordinary consequence, of treatment.

“Where a treatment claim is accepted, ACC will pay or contribute to the cost of treatment, rehabilitation and compensation,” says ACC.

"If the preacher of truth is really not deceiving us when he says that all who want to live godly lives in Christ will suffer persecution, then no one, I think, is exempted from the general rule" - St Raymund of Penyafort.


St Raymund of Penyafort, on your feastday please pray for us.



 



2 comments:

  1. one would think that the political class, being more concerned about their own survival more than anything else, would start to pay attention to the fact that the covid narrative is falling apart as more information as to the minor nature of the covid and the dangerous nature of the "vaccine" as well as the criminal measures used to mandae and experiemtnal treatment (Nuremberg Code) is coming available.

    So in the name of pragmatic survival they surely woul back trck as fast as their venal and cowardly legs would carry them.

    Are they too arrogant, too stupid, or simly just too ego invested to something they signed off on.

    They should know that the longer they hold contumaciously to this business the worse it will be for them

    ReplyDelete
  2. Sometimescthe political class have to make the tough decisions.

    ReplyDelete