iSAYSO
Medsafe Confirms It Never Used the Phrase “Safe and Effective”
Public Post: Medsafe Confirms It Never Used the Phrase “Safe and Effective”
BY NIGEL GRAY 3 JUNE 2026
PLEASE SHARE!
Summary:
Medsafe has now formally confirmed — in writing — that it never used, defined, or relied on the terms “safe”, “effective”, or “safe and effective” in any of its regulatory work or public communications.
This directly contradicts years of government‑wide messaging that claimed vaccines were “safe and effective because Medsafe approved them.”
Medsafe has now formally confirmed — in writing — that it never used, defined, or relied on the terms “safe”, “effective”, or “safe and effective” in any of its regulatory work or public communications.
This directly contradicts years of government‑wide messaging that claimed vaccines were “safe and effective because Medsafe approved them.”
What Medsafe told me (OIA H2026082448)
In response to my Official Information Act request asking for:
Medsafe refused the entire request under section 18(g)(i) — information not held.
And then they added this extraordinary statement:
“Medsafe does not use the terms ‘safe’, ‘effective’ or ‘safe and effective’. Medsafe uses the terms ‘acceptably safe’ or ‘benefits outweigh the risks’.”
This is now an official, documented position.
Why this matters
For years, New Zealanders were told:
But Medsafe now confirms:
Instead, Medsafe uses the statutory language:
These are not the same as “safe and effective”.
The core contradiction
If Medsafe never used or defined “safe and effective”, then:
This is a cross‑agency communications failure, and the public deserves clarity.
What happens next
I will be taking this to the Ombudsman, because:
The Ombudsman is the appropriate authority to investigate how this happened and why no agency appears to hold the underlying information.
