Media Info

The “Hood is happy to answer any queries sent to us at - please make subject line MEDIA QUERY and be sure to state both your name and the name of your media organisation. 

Because the ‘hood is a community of concerned parents, our children’s social, mental and physical wellbeing is our first priority. The current highly-charged social climate around Covid-19 means many of our children are experiencing harassment due to their vaccination status.

Unfortunately this means we must remain anonymous to protect them from further harm. We fully acknowledge this is not ideal from a media perspective. 

Thanks for your interest in the ‘hood - we look forward to answering any questions and will respond as soon as we can.

Application For Judicial Review Of Pfizer Vaccine Rollout For 5 To 11-year-olds

Media Release - 20th January 2022

As parents, we love our kids and want to protect them from harm. 

That’s why we’re delving deeper and asking questions. 

A group of concerned parents is taking issue with the goverment for similar reasons, so the ‘hood has banded together with them to help facilitate an injunction designed to get the answers we all seek.

If none are given, NZ must hit pause until there is sufficient information and data to prove this vaccine rollout to young children is fully safe and effective.

Application For Judicial Review Of Pfizer Vaccine Rollout For 5 To 11-year-olds

Legal action has been launched by a group of concerned parents calling for an urgent review of Medsafe’s decision to roll out the Pzifer vaccine to 5 to 11 year olds.

Following lodgement at Wellington’s High Court last week of an application for a Judicial Review, Justice Rebecca Ellis held the first court conference yesterday and granted anonymity to the applicants and their families.

The applicant families stated they wish to protect themselves and their children from further bullying that has been apparent in school, as well as socially, due to their decision not to vaccinate.

The application for a preliminary order to immediately halt the rollout to children aged 5 to 11 was not granted. However a substantive hearing for orders halting the rollout is scheduled to proceed next Thursday 27 January before Justice Ellis.

Vaccine manufacturer Pzifer will be served with the proceedings and will be given an opportunity to be heard in court.

The legal action has been brought by the group of parents who have questions for the government that they feel have not been properly answered.

Some have experienced reactions to the Pfizer vaccine themselves, have children at risk, or are simply concerned about the new technology used. They draw attention to Pfizer's very small trials for this age group which the New Zealand Government appears to have relied in provisionally approving this vaccine, as well as the lack of robust safety information generally.

Further questions arise given the recommendations currently on the WHO website that state:

“There are currently no efficacy or safety data for children below the age of 12 years. Until such data are available, individuals below 12 years of age should not be routinely vaccinated.” 

Read the article HERE

An organisation called The ‘Hood is supporting the applicants by facilitating the case. Made up of a wider group of 1500 concerned parents, doctors, nurses, academics, scientists, lawyers and others, The ‘Hood said in a media statement that it shares a common goal: to make the best decision for their children and young people.

“Like the applicants calling for a Judicial Review, we want the government to answer the many questions we’ve also been raising.

“The ‘Hood has filed numerous OIA requests and sent letters sent to the Children’s Commissioner, Government Ministers and agencies, requesting clarification of the specific criteria and data that Medsafe used to approve this latest rollout of the Pfizer vaccine. “Too many of these questions remain answered unsatisfactorily, or not addressed at all.

“There are just too many unknowns with the Pfizer vaccine and not enough evidence to satisfy us that the benefits of vaccination outweigh the risks.”

“These parents are not ‘anti-vax’ – in fact, many have vaccinated their children against measles, mumps, rubella and other childhood illnesses.”

The ‘Hood website launched this month to act as a resource for parents and children to find answers to their concerns and questions. It features a video of parents (none of whom are applicants in the court case) talking openly on camera about their concerns. See: HERE.

A ‘Hood survey currently underway via the website shows 900 out of the 1400 people who have completed it so far know someone who has had an adverse reaction to the Covid-19 vaccination.

Download this HERE

Media advisory re Timings and Spokespersons

This media release was distributed on Tuesday last week.

We are seeking permission from Justice Rebecca Ellis to allow us to publicly release all our international expert witness statements in full. Unfortunately the Judge’s determination won’t be known until Thursday.


Wellington High Court, 2 Molesworth Street, Wellington.

9am   A group of concerned parents and citizens (not the legal applicants) will assemble outside the court with banners.

One parent  (not one of the legal applicants) who is a member of the ‘Hood which is supporting the group of parents brining the case, will read a short, pre-prepared statement, however they will not be answering any media questions.

Lead counsel Nick Williams will arrive and be available for a short period to answer media questions. Counsel for the Crown and Pzifer will also be in attendance.           

10am   Legal proceedings begin. Court will be closed to everyone except the legal teams.

Conclusion of proceedings              

Most likely around 4pm, Nick will be able to answer media questions for a short period.

Our legal counsel is obviously very limited as to what they can say in advance of the case, however should you wish to undertake media interviews please contact so we can ensure Nick is aware of your request after the hearing tomorrow. Please include MEDIA ENQUIRY in the subject line so we don’t miss it.

Parents vow to continue landmark legal fight to stop 5-11 year old's vaccine rollout despite setback

Media release – 1 February 2022

Today (late on Tuesday 1 February) Justice Ellis delivered her interim judgment declining to halt the roll out of the Pfizer vaccine to 5-11 year olds until a full substantive hearing is heard.

Justice Ellis found that Medsafe’s decision to approve the vaccine for 5-11 years was based solely on the therapeutic benefits of the vaccine to this age group and no other considerations.  

As to the applicants’ concerns about effective mandates excluding unvaccinated children from society, her Honour noted that the government's recommendation was that children in this age group should not be denied access to locations or events based on their vaccination status. 

A spokesperson for The ‘Hood said; "We are very disappointed but are not surprised at the decision today. 

“While we are concerned the Judge did not act in a precautionary way, by temporarily halting this roll out until the matter could be heard in full, our case remains compelling.” 

“We are concerned that the government continues to state that this vaccine is safe and effective, when on its own evidence, in less than two months of the vaccine roll out in the United States, over 100 severe adverse events have been reported.  All we are asking is that, in light of the ever-increasing number of reports (in a short period of time), that we halt the roll out of this new vaccine technology to healthy young children who have the rest of their lives in front of them.”

The spokesperson said they are committed to continuing their fight.

“This does not in any way stop this landmark case to halt the roll out to children, due to serious concerns around the vaccine’s safety and efficacy.”

The interim case lodged by a group of concerned parents presented extensive evidence in support of four key claims:

  1. The risk of COVID-19 in healthy children is nil to negligible (which both the applicant parents and government agree). 
  2. The benefits of the vaccine do not outweigh the risks in healthy children.
  3. In the short time that the vaccine has been administered to 5-11 year olds, severe adverse events following the paediatric vaccine are being documented globally. 
  4. In these circumstances, judge should adopt the precautionary principle and halt the roll out until the substantive matter can be heard.

Regardless of Justice Ellis' decision today, this fight is by no means over. 

The next stage for the applicant parents – indeed all concerned parents – is a substantive legal hearing within the next couple of months on two key points:

  1. Medsafe's decision to approve the paediatric vaccine involved a trial for a different vaccine 
  2. In Pfizer's own words, the company states “Limitations of the [Paediatric Trial] study include lack of longer-term follow-up to assess the duration of immune responses, efficacy and safety” – in other words, there is no safety data supporting giving the paediatric vaccine to children.  

“Our evidence is compelling and clearly shows this vaccine is not sufficiently safe for healthy children to outweigh the risks from adverse events, let alone potential long-term negative health effects that cannot be known – and all this, while the risk of COVID-19 to healthy children is nil.'

To quote from the conclusion of one of our international experts who gave evidence: 

It has only recently become apparent that these vaccines can cause serious life-threatening adverse reactions such as thrombosis and myocarditis at much higher rates than would be expected of other established vaccines used in childhood or adult immunisations programs, such as the hepatitis B and seasonal influenza vaccines. The extremely late identification of this serious mRNA vaccine-induced side effect raises the risk that there are other serious mRNA vaccine-induced side effects yet to be identified.” 

Another of the parents’ experts concluded: 

There is no benefit for children or their families to vaccinate healthy children against the small risks of the virus, given the known health risks of the vaccine – as a parent, you and your children may have to live with for the rest of their lives. The risk/benefit analysis for vaccination of otherwise healthy 5-11 year children with the Pfizer Comirnaty mRNA vaccine technology is not even close.

The very nature of an mRNA vaccine means that a viral gene will be injected into a child’s cells. That gene forces the child’s body to make toxic spike proteins. These proteins can cause permanent damage in critical organs, including the brain and nervous system; heart and blood vessels, which could cause inflammation of the heart including blood clots; reproductive systems in both boys and girls, but predominantly girls. 

The most alarming point about this is that once these damages have occurred, they are irreparable and cannot be reversed. The lesions within the brain cannot be fixed; the heart tissue scarring cannot be repaired; the reproductive damage could affect future generations to come. 

The spokesperson said: “Of bigger concern was one of the Crown's submissions was that if the court were to grant interim orders, ‘The logistics of the rollout would be severely disrupted at huge cost’. 

We find it disturbing that the Crown’s position could include a commercial and ‘convenience imperative’ to continuing the roll out where clear safety concerns are being raised. When it comes to children, their health is paramount and commercial considerations safety is, unsurprisingly, a key consideration, should be irrelevant.” 


Justice Ellis has indicated in her ruling that media can request copies of the expert evidence from the court.


The ‘Hood is happy to answer any queries sent to us at Please make the subject line MEDIA QUERY and be sure to state both your name and your media organisation.

Because The ‘Hood is a community of concerned parents, our children’s social, mental and physical wellbeing is our priority. The current highly charged social climate around Covid-19 means many of our children are experiencing harassment due to their vaccination status.

Unfortunately, this means we must remain anonymous to protect them from further harm. We acknowledge this is not ideal from a media perspective.

Download this release HERE