The International Health Regulation (2005) and the 75th World Health Assembly: Saved by Africa and BRICS Countries
Where We Are At – A Downward Trajectory
We are rapidly approaching the one-year anniversary of the infamous inflexion point that divided our nation. The government has now done a U-turn on the vaccine and mask mandates and it is likely, given the pressure on New Zealand businesses, the private sector will follow, saving many the agonising decision of whether to inject themselves yet again with an intervention that does not prevent covid but may damage the immune system and potentially cause irreparable harm.
Reports from the UK show that it is progressing along a trajectory of recovery, at least with respect to the pandemic and its unprecedented measures. The picture seems more mixed in the other commonwealth nations and the United States. Here in New Zealand the recovery curve appears stunted as much of the population still hasn’t broken its entrainment and is oblivious to what is unfolding in the world at large.
We have seen a single revealing inconsistency that may signify a shift in the prevailing narrative. The sudden flurry of unsubstantiated and callow “hit pieces” which have been directed at prominent members of a community in search of scientific truth seems out of place. So why is it happening now? This is perhaps a sign that somewhere the message is starting to penetrate the façade. It’s a strange phenomenon watching journalists sacrifice their professional standards and journalistic integrity in the pursuit of character assassination at any cost.
The shallow, slanderous and vexatious attack directed at Dr Guy Hatchard has been a great disappointment and has once again confirmed that the media, irrespective of its shade, will only ask questions as long they remain within certain clearly demarcated boundaries. The brash and dismissive rhetoric of the offending organisation, while perhaps marketable, does little to answer important questions for the people of New Zealand. Its trademark tone and blunted lowbrow tenor are a poor substitute for the candid yet courteous discussions that once took place between inquiring minds engaged in the pursuit of truth.
Leveraging a Small International Concession at The World Health Assembly
While it is all too easy to focus on the downward trajectory of the last two years, it is at times important to reflect upon the small concessions that have been achieved as humanity pushes back against this leviathan.
In the weeks preceding the 75th World Health Assembly (22nd-28th of May 2022) NZDSOS wrote several articles placing the World Health Organisation (WHO) under the microscope and probing it’s funding mechanisms, agenda and prior indiscretions. Much of our discussion was focused on the pandemic preparedness treaty and the sweeping powers that could be granted to the WHO under its auspices.
The decision of the United States to advance the WHO agenda through its proposed amendments to the existing international health framework, the International Health Regulations (2005) brought a measure of urgency to the 75th World Health Assembly. In its submission the United States, proposed amendments to the following articles of IHR (2005). Articles 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 18, 48, 49, 53, 59.
The proposed amendments carried a concerning common thread, in that they tended to confer a reduced consideration of the perspective of the affected state party in the event of a health emergency of international concern, placing them directly under the explicit guidance of the WHO. Given a little consideration, it easy to determine the mechanisms through which the proposed amendments might limit the autonomy and independence of signatory states.
Despite all of the build-up, the 75th World Assembly came and then went with little fanfare, an event without incident, conspicuous only in its absence from the reports of global media outlets. So, what was it that led to the muted reporting of such an important global event? The Washington Post had pre-framed the event with the expectation that it would be clouded by conspiracy theories, filtering its narrative through the tinted lens of partisan politics.
Certainly, concerns were raised about the competence of the WHO and the speed at which it is moving to consolidate its authority. It seems that these quite legitimate questions are being deterred through an orchestrated attempt to consign them to the realm of conspiracy theory.
While our western leaders did all they could to advance the agenda, the proposed amendments to IHR (2005) were opposed by Botswana speaking on behalf of 47 Afro nations. The African nations had reservations about the proposed amendments to IHR (2005), stating that the process should not be “fast tracked” and that any changes should be postponed and presented as part of a “wholistic package” at a later date. Malaysia and Iran also voiced reservations about the proposed amendments, while Russia and Brazil, of BRICS signalled an intention to leave the WHO.
It’s an important concession, as it has postponed the WHO’s rushed attempt to use its own chaotic pandemic response to consolidate its power. It has created breathing space and has provided a window of opportunity to raise awareness in preparation to oppose the more pervasive and definitive WHO pandemic preparedness treaty.
The Pandemic Preparedness treaty is currently in draft form and resides with an intergovernmental negotiating body (INB). It is anticipated that a progress report will be presented at the 76th World Health Assembly in 2023 and on the current timeline, the final outcome will be submitted for consideration at the 77th World Health Assembly in 2024.
We have a window, so let’s use it wisely, keep applying pressure and work on the alternatives required to furnish a world that is more suited to supporting the aspirations of humanity.
In just a few months, the World Health Organization received approximately 20,000 reports of new eye disorders that occurred post covid-19 vaccination. These reports include 303 cases of blindness and 1,625 cases of visual impairment! The European drug monitoring agency had never recorded such a severe spike in eye injuries until after the experimental vaccines were launched. These reports were collected by VigiBase and analyzed by the Uppsala Monitoring Centre in Uppsalla, Sweden.
About half of the new eye disorders were additionally reported to the U.K.’s Yellow Card adverse event reporting system, which was set up to monitor the influx of adverse events that were anticipated during this live, experimental vaccine study. Back in 2020, the vaccine makers had already entered into liability-free contracts with governments around the world. This has enabled mass vaccine injury with no recourse or accountability and set up the framework for a historic, worldwide holocaust.
EWR note: the header image featuring Helen Clark (courtesy of Investigate Magazine)is a reminder to all she is a globalist. As also is her socialist successor Jacinda Adern.
from lifesitenews.com
Patrick Wood, Editor in Chief of Technocracy News told LifeSiteNews that, were the recommendations of the report to be implemented, ‘the top political leaders of each nation would become the puppets of the WHO whenever it decides to declare a pandemic.’
May 20, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – The pro-abortion World Health Organization (WHO) has released a report calling for greater authority for itself in countries around the globe, a global surveillance system, as well as billions more dollars in financing for itself.
In a report released this month entitled, COVID-19: Make it the Last Pandemic, a group called the “Independent Panel” established by the WHO, analyzed the global response to the Wuhan Virus and delivered a strong message for international changes.
They state, “Our message is loud and clear: no more pandemics. If we fail to take this goal seriously, we will condemn the world to successive catastrophes.”
“On the basis of its diagnosis of what went wrong at each stage of the COVID-19 response, the Panel makes […] seven recommendations directed to ensuring that a future outbreak does not become a pandemic. Each recommendation is linked directly back to evidence of what has gone wrong. To be successful they must be implemented in their entirety.”
The panel is co-chaired Rt Hon. Helen Clark, former Prime Minister of New Zealand and H.E. Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, former President of Liberia and Nobel Laureate and includes eleven other professionals from around the world.
Follow the link below, then tick the ‘agree’ box at the bottom of the page which brings you to the search box. Type ‘Comirnaty ‘ which will take you to the page showing covid-19 info: click on ‘Adverse Drug Reactions’. If you then click on the arrow next to each class of info an itemized list will open up. Some of these are extremely long. Listed below are those for ‘Psychiatric Disorders’ and ‘Cardiac’ related FYI.
Following reports of people developing blood clots shortly after receiving a dose of AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 vaccine, Germany, France, Italy and Spain have joined a growing list of countries to suspend use of the drug, pending a full investigation. While the decision to pause the rollout of the vaccine is highly disputed – the World Health Organization and the European Medicines Agency have all advised against it – there’s no argument this couldn’t have happened at a worse time.
What Could Go Wrong? WHO Launches Global ‘No-Fault’ COVID Vaccine Injury Compensation Program
The World Health Organization’s announcement this week raises questions about funding, fairness and the basic ability to execute the program, but this much is clear: taxpayers will foot the bill.
Countries like the U.S., UK, Israel, Saudi Arabia and others have their own regulatory process for granting emergency use approval for vaccines and other drugs, but those countries that lack the necessary regulatory framework rely on WHO to vet vaccines.
It is common knowledge to anybody who reads other than lamestream media that eugenicist Bill Gates openly targets poorer countries out of ostensibly philanthropy, in fact these are the people targeted for depopulation. The Royals have also openly espoused that nations like Africa should be depopulated. Note it is never themselves who should be eradicated. They cannot openly say this now although those of their eugenicist roots used to. Research Margaret Sanger (now no longer a hero, see James Corbett’s work on that topic) who was an avowed eugenics proponent back when they unashamedly stated certain ‘strains’ of humanity that needed to be sterilized. EWR
(NaturalHealth365) When mainstream media has its way, any criticism of billionaire computer geek – turned so-called global health expert – Bill Gates is quickly quashed with accusations of “conspiratorial arrogance.” But when even the World Health Organization (WHO) is forced to acknowledge that a polio vaccine funded by Gates is responsible for a polio outbreak, it’s nearly impossible not to feel alarmed by the billionaire’s huge presence in the worldwide medical sphere.
The outbreak in Africa is one of at least two dozen confirmed episodes of vaccine-derived polio outbreaks throughout the world over the past five years, affecting countries ranging from the Phillippines to Ukraine … and despite this news, we’re supposed to depend on a Bill Gates-backed COVID vaccine (rushed to market) – which “hopefully” restores life as usual after the coronavirus pandemic?!
Over a dozen cases: Polio outbreak in Africa linked to polio vaccine funded by Bill Gates
On September 1, 2020, the WHO announced on their website that just one month prior, the Federal Ministry of Health in Sudan notified the troubled organization of an emerging “vaccine-derived” polio outbreak, caused by what’s known as poliovirus type 2, or cVDPV2. Sudanese officials so far have identified two young children suffering the effects of the vaccine.
“The first case,” reports the WHO, was a four-year-old child who experienced “onset of [acute flaccid paralysis] on 7 March 2020 … in South Darfur,” located in Western Sudan. The next child to become paralyzed by a vaccine was a three-year-old from “Shari city of AI Gedarif locality in Gedarif state in the east, close to the border with Eritrea and Ethiopia.”
“Both children,” the WHO admits, “received their last bOPV ( type 1 & 3) dose in 2019.”
In just the month of August alone, a total of 13 cases of cVDPV2 have been reported all over Africa, including the areas of the Red Sea, West Darfur, East Darfur, White Nile, River Nile, and Gezira. These cases are genetically linked to another vaccine-derived outbreak detected back in October 2019 and currently circulating in Chad and Cameroon.
Thanks to James Corbett for the video. This is Global Government by the decree of the health technocrats basically. The head of WHO is not a medical doctor. Its largest funder is Bill Gates whose expertise is IT not health. He is also self appointed. He used to be second largest funder next to the US. That tells us a great deal. See also in the video, the huge conflicts of interest regarding the vaccine manufacturers / Big Pharma. EWR
SHOW NOTES AND MP3: https://www.corbettreport.com/?p=37476 John writes in to ask about the founding, the funding and the true intentions of the World Health Organization. Join James as he lays out some of the information connecting the WHO to big pharma, Bill Gates and the Covid World Order agenda.
Since this topic has been uppermost in many minds of late, particularly that of the parents of young children I’m recapping here in light of this announcement yesterday. The article is from mainstream and brings reassurance that children testing positive will not be snatched by Oranga Tamariki (NZ’s child welfare services). I hope that this will be as stated. The public is slated in the headline for spreading false rumours … however, what else can they expect with the kinds of things that have been happening and the kinds of announcements that have been made of late.
Number one … during the last lockdown we had a Dr Michael Ryan, a leader of the WHO, saying, and I quote, ‘authorities may have to enter people’s homes and remove family members’. You can hear him below:
So, understandably this has set the scene, sowing fear in the minds of parents. “Remove them and isolate them” he says. There is no arguing with that even though the ever alert fact checkers have now denied what this sounds like, indeed the presenter himself interpreted it thus by adding “by force presumably”. You can read the fact checkers’ statements at this link. I certainly don’t see the fact check as allaying anybody’s fears however. He said what he said, and as a Doctor should have had sense enough to explain exactly what he meant if he had something else in mind. In my opinion the blame for rumours should be laid right at his door. And one would hope that the authorities including NZ’s have learned to be very specific about their intentions.
Number two … In NZ we have had the recent example of the family returning from Australia, a couple and their young children who were in fact told they would need to be separated in the quarantine facility. They declined. Then later on when their two year old was unwell, another try was made to separate that child from them in the facility. A two year old to a separate room? To be looked after by whom? Smart parents, they declined again, threatening legal action should they persist.
Number three … Bloomfield himself said families could be separated as in the video here from the MOH. At 25 mins 23 secs the question starts.
See the article below for other ‘reassuring’ statements made by Adern and Bloomfield and make up your own mind. I personally think they are not being specific and clear enough.
My conclusion from the evidence thus far is file away statements like this one by Hipkins, where it’s said no they will not take your children. Hold them to account should anybody come and seek to separate you from any of your children. Film everything.
Jun 16, 2020 – President of Burundi Pierre Nkurunziza, 55, has died “following a cardiac arrest”. The sudden death comes as a surprise as he had been evaluated recently as being in good overall health.
But controversy has emerged in the African country as local pundits have suggested that his death could have been the consequence of poisoning.
Less than a month ago, the Burundian government ordered the expulsion of experts from the World Organization of Health (WHO) responsible for ‘advising’ on the false pandemic COVID-19.
The President and his Ministry of Foreign Affairs had declared that the WHO representatives would henceforth be ‘persona non grata’, that is not welcome on Burundian territory. For information, to date, and despite its courageous opposition to the WHO, Burundi officially declared only one COVID death. This is compared gainst around 30,000 dead in France, who are largely enslaved by the ‘recommendations’ of the WHO.
The unexpected death of Nkurunziza is reminiscent of the mysterious plane crash of Polish President Lech Kaczyński in 2009, in which he was killed shortly after he refused the vaccine made by the WHO against the H1N1 flu.
Note: there’s been some confusion over this posting, however it appears to arise for some from the combining of two items. The lawsuit in 2018 & the pulling of funding by the US govt recently (the latter provide 15% of WHO’s funding so clearly not all of it). I’ve added the relevant links for clarity:
Finally, below here is an excerpt from nvic.org that provides the percentages & amounts of funding to WHO:
“Today, the WHO is the world’s largest and most influential public health agency with an annual budget for 2018-2019 of $4421.5M ($4.4 billion). 55 About 20 percent ($956.9M) of the WHO budget is funded by assessments on member states and the remaining 80 percent funded by “voluntary contributions.” The biggest individual programs funded by WHO are for polio eradication vaccine campaigns ($903M); vaccine campaigns for other communicable diseases ($805M); and corporate services/enabling functions ($715.5M).
Currently, the top 10 UN member state annual funders of WHO are the governments of United States of America ($125M); Japan ($49M); China ($40M); Germany ($33M); France ($27M); United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland ($23M); Brazil ($19.5M); Italy ($19M); Canada ($15M); Australia ($12M). 56
The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is the largest non-state funder of the WHO, having donated more than $2B in earmarked grants to the international health agency since 1998, and is the second largest WHO funder overall (after the U.S. government). Because Gates Foundation grant money is earmarked for specific programs, such as vaccine purchase, delivery and promotion, the Gates Foundation significantly influences the setting of WHO’s program priorities. 57 ”
The current article for this posting is below. Hopefully this is clarified now. EWR
From c-vine.com
(U.S. Government lost LANDMARK VACCINE LAWSUIT in 2018.)
Vaccine injury lawyer Robert F. Kennedy Jr.,Del Bigtree, producer of the suppressed vaccine documentary, ‘VAXXED’ and the Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN)are credited with this victory.
They demanded the relevant government documents proving that all federally approved vaccines had been tested for quality over the past 32 years — and there were NONE! Zero, zilch, nada!
Here are the huge legal and practical implications in this victory for the American people:
This means that the US Department of Health and Human Services and all vaccine makers have been deceiving the American people for over 30 years about the effectiveness and safety of vaccines.
This may ultimately mean that the continuing existence — at least in their current form — of five US “healthcare” agencies is now in doubt: the CDC, the FDA, the IOM, the NIH and the “Health” part of DHHS itself!
This may also threaten the existence of state medical boards and exclusive medical guilds like the AMA.
This means that vaccine makers have been fraudulently exempt from what all other pharmaceutical drug makers have been forced to do concerning biannual recertification for quality and effectiveness — meaning that their vaccines have never been tested for quality and have had no proven safety or effectiveness for over 30 years.
This case can now be legally cited by all parents fraudulently mandated by any government/ organizational regulation/ requirements that they must vaccinate their children for school or any other activity to stop the forced vaccination of their children.
This case can now be legally cited by all employees being mandated by their employers to be vaccinated in order to retain their jobs.
This case can now be legally cited by all those who seek compensation for vaccine injury.
The future of allopathic medicine in its current form is now in doubt, and the global pharmaceutical cartel, since almost all of the drugs allopathic practitioners prescribe come from pharmaceutical corporations that have also committed vaccine fraud and injury. (edited)
LIABILITY: All government officials who have passed laws legalizing vaccine fraud at the state, national, or international level, or otherwise aided and abetted this vaccine fraud can now be charged with vaccine fraud, criminal malfeasance and in some cases, war crimes under the Nuremberg Code.
Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
If the World Health Organization (WHO) deceived the world into fear and panic THEN, in 2003, why should you believe them NOW re COVID, when both instances involve epidemics?
As some readers will recall, in 2003 the World Health Organization (WHO) put out a travel advisory—don’t go to Toronto. Toronto was “infected” with epidemic SARS. The loss of tourist income was significant. At the time, I was in touch with a Canadian activist who was trying to assemble a group of Toronto merchants and file a law suit against WHO for a few billion dollars, but it fell apart.
The Canadian Encyclopedia describes the wild scene in the country: “The outbreak led to the quarantine of thousands…and took an economic toll on Toronto. It also exposed the country’s ill-prepared health-care system…In late April 2003, the World Health Organization (WHO) issued an advisory against all non-essential travel to Toronto. Government officials and experts criticized the decision as being unnecessary…During the outbreak, thousands of Canadians were quarantined. Many voluntarily quarantined themselves in their homes. Airports in Toronto and Vancouver screened travellers for high fever. News coverage spiked with each wave of the outbreak in Toronto and right after the WHO travel advisory. Major Canadian newspapers would each publish up to 25 stories per day on SARS…”
You can see how the World Health Organization stimulated a panicked response with its travel advisory.
So SARS must have been a large outbreak, an epidemic of major proportions.
Canadian Encyclopedia: “In total, there were 438 probable cases of SARS in Canada, resulting in 44 deaths.”
What??
What about the total number of SARS cases and deaths, worldwide? WHO states: “An epidemic of SARS affected 26 countries…Other countries/areas in which chains of human-to-human transmission occurred after early importation of cases were Toronto in Canada, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of China, Chinese Taipei, Singapore, and Hanoi in Viet Nam.”
Sounds quite serious.
The CDC: “During November 2002 through July 2003, a total of 8,098 people worldwide became sick with severe acute respiratory syndrome [SARS] that was accompanied by either pneumonia or respiratory distress syndrome (probable cases), according to the World Health Organization (WHO). Of these, 774 died. By late July 2003, no new cases were being reported, and WHO declared the global outbreak to be over.”
I see. Across the entire planet, in this sweeping epidemic—8098 cases and 774 deaths. Out of 6.3 billion people.
CDC: “In the United States, only eight persons were laboratory-confirmed as SARS cases. There were no SARS-related deaths in the United States.”
The capper? Let’s go back to Canada. As the Canadian Encyclopedia states, a mere week or so after WHO declared the “epidemic” was over, “English rock band The Rolling Stones headlined a benefit concert in Toronto in response to the outbreak’s economic toll on the city. Informally called ‘SARSStock’ and ‘SARS-a-palooza,’ the concert took place on 30 July 2003. Estimated attendance at Downsview Park was 450,000 to 500,000 people.”
Right. And the residue of this “deadly virus”—with half a million people standing cheek to jowl—did…
Nothing.
History matters.
If you want to believe anything the World Health Organization is claiming now, in 2020, do so at your own peril.
Absolutely stunning admissions by WHO professionals. Those folk we’re directed to by the ‘fact checkers’ each time we post some truth on the lack of safety of vaccines, or truth according to the parents of vaccine injured children. Innocents taken down by the slack standards of a crowd who profess to have our best interests at heart. For starters we hear that since the ’80s injuries are up from 12.8% to an incredible 54%!! And they have the nerve to tell us the science is settled. It is NOT settled & is clearly illustrated here straight from their OWN MOUTHS!
The director of their Vaccine Confidence Project ADMITS that their biggest problem in our hesitancy is vaccine SAFETY! Next up they are seeing that the PROFESSIONALS (ie Doctors and nurses) are starting to wobble on vaccine safety. They’re losing confidence in safety! They ADMIT Doctors only get half a day’s education on vaccines at med school … get this … IF THEY’RE LUCKY! Not good enough. They’re losing confidence that they can reply to mothers’ questions. So your questioning parents is paying off. They are noticing the gap that you’ve been seeing all along, that your gut’s been telling you whilst they brush your baby’s reaction or even death off as ‘coincidence’. Coincidence is not cutting it any more. There is much more, read the notes below the video & please do watch these so called ‘professionals’ as they blunder through this ridiculous conference devoted to safety. What a farce. Thanks Del Bigtree for exposing the detail on vaccine ‘safety’. EWR
This 56-minute video is condensed from Highwire for easy sharing with your state Representatives, Senators, and US Congressmen and women. Markers are below for skipping ahead. Thank you to Highwire for exposing this conference! Please become a $20/month ICAN supporter: https://www.icandecide.org/support-ican
2:00 Dr. Heidi Larson, PhD, Director of the Vaccine Confidence Project says the biggest factor in vaccine hesitancy is vaccine safety.
4:26 Dr. Larson: doctors and nurses are “very wobbly” and “starting to question the safety of vaccines,” and it’s a “huge problem.”
6:20 Dr. Larson: doctors don’t have confidence in vaccine safety to stand up to mothers asking questions. Doctors only got a “half day of vaccine instruction in medical school.” 8:06 Dr. Larson: the WHO’s issue with social media is not vaccine “misinformation,” but that the information “seeds doubt.”
10:24 Dr. Larson admits that global health replaced natural immunity with dependence on vaccine-induced immunity on the “assumption that populations would cooperate.” People got the 6 vaccines in the 1960s-1980s, but now it’s a problem. But since they got the world dependent on vaccines, global health has no choice but to continue pushing vaccines.
13:10 Dr. Larson: there is a lot of safety science needed, they can’t keep repurposing old science that isn’t relevant to the new problem that vaccines are causing.
16:04 Dr. Marion Gruber, FDA, admits that vaccines NEED to have safety monitoring specifically tailored to the one vaccine under consideration. Risk management plans WILL NEED to take into account all of the safety evidence they have. (These safety measures do not exist.)
19:40 Dr. Martin Howell Friede, WHO, cautions vaccine makers against using adjuvants because they cause adverse events. If makers must use an adjuvant, they should use an old one with a “history” (that allows the vaccine maker to say the adverse event wasn’t the adjuvant). The new adjuvants will be accused of causing adverse events, but there will be no new vaccines without adjuvants. His solution is to build confidence, not make them safer.
25:15 Professor Stephen Evans says “It seems that adjuvants multiply the immunogenicity of the antigens they’re added to; they multiply the reactogenicity, so it’s not unexpected they multiply the adverse reactions. Is my thinking is correct?”
27:22 Dr. Friede: the “major health concerns they see are the long term effects of vaccines,” not the sore knot on your arm. Adjuvants act differently with every antigen, and impurities. We need larger studies and we need to measure the appropriate things. 31:28 Dr. Friede: it’s necessary that we figure out how adjuvants work so they can start to assess how plausible it is that adjuvants are causing the major health concerns.
31:38 Dr. David Kaslow, Center for Vaccine Innovation and Access admits that they do their studies on very small groups of people. Says that “one of the things they need to invest in” are better biomarkers and mechanistic understanding of how adjuvants work so they can understand the adverse events.
32:25 Dr. Gruber: one issue that complicates the safety evaluation is the length of follow-up because the longer you study the group, the more “coincidental” adverse events pop up. Giving adjuvants to the elderly may do nothing, but be reactive in younger people. 38:13 Dr. Kaslow: “Coming down the pike relatively quickly is a new target population for us in vaccines: maternal immunization. We don’t have a strong pharmaco-epidemiologic baseline in that target population to say ‘is this an expected adverse event due to pregnancy, or is this the vaccine?’ We need an investment in that study so we don’t derail our pregnancy vaccines as they go into low-resource settings.”
40:07 CDC ACIP meeting vaccinating pregnant women is “off-label.”
41:24 The FDA admitted they have no studies about vaccines and pregnancy.
41:55 Nigerian doctor asks if there are any safety studies on injecting multiple vaccines, from multiple makers, with multiple adjuvants, into a child at once.
44:12 ACIP meeting, the CDC admits they have no data on injecting multiple adjuvants at once, but they recommend it anyway, in different limbs.
45:22 Dr. Robert Chen admits no, they don’t have data on injecting multiple adjuvants at this time, they need to link databases together to “start to answer these types of questions.”
50:01 Dr. Soumya Swaminathan, Chief Scientist with the WHO, says in a commercial that vaccine safety tracking is robust, and examining the data lets them promptly address problems. They are “thoroughly monitored.”
52:40 Dr. Swaminathan in the WHO meeting, admits, “We really don’t have very good safety monitoring systems in many countries. We can’t give answers about the deaths. We need to put mechanisms in place to monitor what’s going on. With many drugs, we only learn about adverse events after they are introduced to the populations.”
Headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland, the WHO is now 7,000 employees strong, with six regional offices and 150 country offices around the world, and over 194 member states adhering to the regulations released by the organisation as per the United Nations system.
Whether it’s the effects of smoking, the swine flu pandemic or a nuclear disaster, the WHO is the body we rely on to advise on and resolve a public health crisis. But can it be trusted? How does the WHO decide on its recommendations? And how reliable are they?
Trust in the WHO’s ability to objectively address global health matters is not as strong as it may have been at its inception. And concerns regarding the organisation’s finances and the influences of independent contributors have been circulating since the 1950s when, after years of inaction, the WHO’s relationship with key players in the tobacco industry came to light.
“The tobacco industry founded institutes and bought scientists who would represent their position and they made sure their own names didn’t appear anywhere,” says former secretary of health of Switzerland, Thomas Zeltner. “So the organisations were called things that wouldn’t make you suspect they were really representing the tobacco industry.”
Scientists and other important figures within these institutes would often have links to both tobacco giants and the WHO, simultaneously. One example was a toxicologist who served as a consultant for the WHO in the prime of the tobacco movement, while on the payroll of an institute funded by multinational tobacco and cigarette manufacturer, Philip Morris.
After the toxicologist’s polyamorous relationship was revealed, however, he still remained a consultant to the WHO.
There have since been numerous instances where seemingly unnatural relationships have arisen within institutes with a vested interest in the WHO; most of which appeared to occur at the height of alleged global health threats.
One such connection was between pharmaceutical companies such as Glaxo and Novartis, the countries that had signed agreements to purchase swine flu vaccines produced by the aforementioned companies, and the WHO.
The trigger-point for the agreements was a pandemic alert issued by the WHO in 2009.
In the first quarter after the alert, France‘s largest drugmaker reported a whopping $1.95bn (1.71bn euro) profit annual increase. The flu, however, did not live up to its deadly reputation. In Germany, 258 people died in the flu’s first year of the outbreak – a figure far fewer than deaths caused by a ‘normal’ flu outbreak.
While the WHO blamed its extravagant $18bn swine flu budget on being overly cautious, others were, and remain, sceptical.
“At the time of the swine flu outbreak, I was WHO general-secretary in the Department of Public Health, Intellectual Property and Medication. Nobody there was afraid,” says German Velasquez, who currently works with the Green Climate Fund (GCF).
“I didn’t know anyone at the WHO who had himself vaccinated, including the director-general, who told journalists in response to their questions that she hadn’t had time but would get herself vaccinated later.”
Wolfgang Wodarg, former delegate to the European Council, enforces the scenario of uncertainty and veiled truths, saying WHO personnel often turn a blind eye to the realities of certain situations in exchange for funding.
“The WHO officials have no idea about such things. They have to depend on scientists. And the scientists are allocated to them by the countries and by the organisations that finance the WHO. And many of them gave advice and made decisions that benefited the pharmaceutical industry,” says Wodarg.
Over the years, similar trends in relationships between the WHO, the UN and specific businesses and organisations have emerged; some in the most unlikely and critical situations, including the Chernobyl disaster.
As the WHO allegedly played down the number of deaths as caused directly by and due to the aftereffects of the nuclear explosion, it had become clear that organisation was working closely with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). As a matter of fact, the IAEA was initially founded as the ‘Atoms for Peace’ agency under the UN umbrella.
And while the two organisations have, ultimately, two very different endeavours – once concerning global health and the other, the ‘safe’ use of atomic energy – not only Chernobyl, but also Fukushima were undersold in their levels of devastation.
TrustWHO shines a light on how industry lobbies have infiltrated the WHO and asks whether the organisation can be trusted to keep the public healthy.
Two leading pediatricians in India have published a critique of the World Health Organization’s (WHO) newly revised manual on the classification of Adverse Events Following Immunization
The doctors claim that the new guidelines are too lax, resulting in more children dying from adverse reactions to vaccines, with no accountability for the vaccine manufacturers to produce safer vaccines.
In the U.S., pharmaceutical companies manufacturing vaccines cannot be sued due to faulty vaccines, which allows them to put as many vaccines into the market as they want, with no repercussions if the vaccine proves to be faulty or have a high injury and death rate. Victims must sue the U.S. government and top DOJ attorneys who protect the drug companies. (See quarterly reports from the DOJ on vaccine injuries and deaths here.)
This move by the WHO may very well be an attempt to protect drug companies manufacturing vaccines by preventing lawsuits in the rest of the world for faulty vaccines.
New Guidelines from WHO Put Children’s Life At Risk: Paediatricians
Two leading paediatricians in India have urged the World Health Organization (WHO) to urgently revise its manual on classification of Adverse Events Following Immunization (AEFI), warning that the new guidelines put children’s life at risk.
This needs to be done “urgently in the interest of child safety,” Doctors Jacob Puliyel at St Stephen’s Hospital in Delhi, and Pathik Naik of Children Hospital in Surat, say in a report published in the prestigious journal ‘F1000Research‘
Under WHO’s revised manual on AEFI, only those adverse reactions observed during clinical trials of a vaccine, should be classified as vaccine related. All new serious adverse reactions, including deaths seen during post-marketing of the vaccine should be considered as ‘coincidental’ or ‘unclassifiable’, and the vaccine should not be blamed.
The WHO has also changed the definition of “causal association,” the doctors say. Under the revised guidelines, if there is an alternate explanation for the adverse event, or another factor is involved, causative association with vaccine should not be made.
“In other words, if after vaccination, a child with an underlying congenital heart disease develops cardiac failure, it would not be considered causally related to the vaccine.”
The revised classification by WHO “is a major step backward for patient safety,” the authors say, adding, “This could embolden vaccine manufacturers to be more reckless with regard to adverse reactions.”
Puliyel and Naik note that the Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety has documented many deaths in children with pre-existing heart disease after they were administered the pentavalent vaccine (combined diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, Hib, and hepatitis-B vaccine).
Check out our Glyphosate pages for further info & research links on this poison that we’ve been told for decades is harmless as dish liquid. Kiwis love it and spray it everywhere … while refusing to examine the independent research … all with official approval. EnvirowatchRangitikei
The GM foods giant Monsanto is calling for an investigation into an agency of the World Health Organisation. That’s after the body published a report claiming some of the company’s products, like the weed-killer glyphosate, are linked to cancer. Monsanto says the WHO ignored two major studies that found no connection to the disease. RT LIVE http://rt.com/on-air Subscribe to RT! http://www.youtube.com/subscription_c… Like us on Facebook http://www.facebook.com/RTnews Follow us on Twitter http://twitter.com/RT_com Follow us on Instagram http://instagram.com/rt Follow us on Google+ http://plus.google.com/+RT Listen to us on Soundcloud: https://soundcloud.com/rttv RT (Russia Today) is a global news network broadcasting from Moscow and Washington studios. RT is the first news channel to break the 1 billion YouTube views benchmark.
Note glyphosate’s in more than just Roundup, NZ’s favourite spray for just about everything, edges, roadsides, footpaths, schools, even their veggie gardens before replant! Nary a thought to WHO’s decision it’s ‘probably carcinogenic’. Check the fine print at your garden store and preferably don’t use it. See our Glyphosate pages at the main menu. EnvirowatchRangitikei
(Natural News) The Flemish government has joined the number of countries banning glyphosate, as reported by the Baum Hedlund. The prohibition on the use of glyphosate is not new in the country as the Belgian cities of Brussels and Wallonia have already issued their own laws regarding the individual use of the chemical. In addition to Belgium, four more countries have banned glyphosate for this year. These are:
Sri Lanka – The President of Sri Lanka also banned the use of glyphosate nationwide to protect the health of the its citizens. The herbicide has been linked to a quintuple increase in the prevalence of chronic kidney disease (CKD) in the nation and resulted in about 20,000 deaths in northern Sri Lanka.
The Netherlands – The Netherlands likewise prohibited the herbicide after hearing the arguments of Party for Animals, an organization that focuses on animal rights issues.
Argentina – Meanwhile in Argentina, about 30,000 doctors demanded the prohibition of glyphosate in their country since the chemical is associated with cancer, spontaneous abortions, birth defects, skin diseases, respiratory illness, and neurological disease.
In 2015, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) identified glyphosate as a potential carcinogen to humans. They found a strong association between glyphosate and non-Hodgkin lymphoma, which is a type of blood cancer that affects the white blood cells called lymphocytes. Lawsuits against Roundup — Monsanto’s flagship product — began piling in after the IARC report. Over 1,100 people all over the U.S.have filed lawsuits against Monsanto. Allegedly, exposure to Roundup caused them to develop non-Hodgkin lymphoma. There are more than 50 lawsuits against Monsanto that continue to pile up in the U.S. District Court in San, Francisco.
Moreover, the glyphosate manufacturer is also facing a class action lawsuit in Wisconsin after six consumers claimed that Roundup was falsely promoted as safe when it actually caused adverse impacts on human gut bacteria.
“The following piece was contributed by a New Zealander who interviewed a New Zealand health care worker who was prepared to share their observations of the effects of vaccination on staff and vulnerable patients.”
Health Care Provider Whistleblower: Vaccines Leading to Sickness, Days off Work and Death
“A little experience often upsets a lot of theory.” – S. Parkes Cadman
A New Zealand health care worker has witnessed vaccines causing harm and shares some observations in an interview conducted in mid-May, 2017. As ‘Corey’ (not real name) wishes to remain in employment, some details, including dates, locations and Corey’s gender, were omitted.
Corey worked at a rest home where residents were provided with hospital level care. The death rate was typically about five over the course of a year, but following the administration of flu shots, there was an unprecedented number within a four-week week period. Seven died within a month according to this concerned whistleblower.
Corey said the flu vaccines, which research has indicated are not only ineffective in the elderly, but immune suppressive, [1] were administered on the recommendation of a General Practitioner, (GP), who was working to Ministry of Health and World Health Organization immunization targets.
Offers Corey: “The residents were aged between 78 and 90-years-of age and some of those who died had been in good health. Within about 10 days of receiving the vaccine, the first deaths started to happen. We lost three patients within in a few days of each other and then two more a few days after that. That’s five deaths within a little more than a week!”
“They had developed a cough in the first week, they went off food and their temperatures were raised. They had bacterial pneumonia and we had to give them antibiotics, but they still went on to die. It was not a natural death and the rest home could have been in serious trouble if residents’ family members found out that the vaccines had been given, as the GP responsible had not sought consent on behalf of those who were mentally unable to say ‘no’. It’s not written anywhere that a doctor has the right to make the decision to vaccinate.”
Vatican Radio last week charged that United Nations organizations promoting population control are using vaccines to surreptitiously sterilize women in Third World countries. Kenya’s Ministry of Health, along with the UN organizations — World Health Organization (WHO) and UNICEF — deny the charges, which carry the full weight of the Vatican. Vatican Radio is the official “voice of the Pope and the Church in dialogue with the World.”
“Catholic Bishops in Kenya have been opposed to the nationwide Tetanus Vaccination Campaign targeting 2.3 million Kenyan women and girls of reproductive age between 15-49 years, terming the campaign a secret government plan to sterilize women and control population growth,” reported Vatican Radio, as it took the occasion of the ordination of a Kenyan Bishop, Joseph Obanyi Sagwe, as an opportunity to remind the world of its concern.
The church, which operates 30% of Kenya’s health care facilities and has been providing health care in Kenya for more than 100 years, is not opposed to vaccinations. To the contrary, its health facilities have long been administering vaccines as part of its public health mission.
See the UN Agenda 21/2030 program. And yes they’re operating here in NZ through our Councils as well in case you think we’re exempt. We’re told depopulation is good as there are too many people on the planet. The big lie. There is ample room and resources for all on the planet, it is just that a wealthy few want it all for themselves. (Read Susan George’s exposé ‘How the Other Half Dies’ on that, it’s available as a free pdf online). Study Agenda 21/2030 and see what the UN agenda is. They plan to inventory and control every piece of land and every resource on the planet (see Rosa Koire’s info on that). As to vaccines, Bill Gates is on record as advocating vaccines for population control (and we all thought they were to save lives). Watch when there’s a disaster in a poor country and the help will arrive in the form of the military and a stock of measles vaccines or similar. (You will have noted this if you watch/read alternative media, not mainstream).
Don’t mess with Monsanto Co. That is the message being delivered right now by the agrichemical industry as it makes a full fledged assault on the team of international cancer scientists who dared to declare cancerous connections to the widely used herbicide called glyphosate, the chief ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup brand.
Industry swagger is on full display in Washington where Monsanto and its friends at CropLife America are driving efforts to cut off U.S. funding for the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) after IARC scientists declared glyphosate a probable human carcinogen in March 2015. The industry is also demanding that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) fully repudiate the IARC classification and green-light continued use of glyphosate herbicides, which spell billions of dollars in sales annually to Monsanto and the agrichemical brethren.
The EPA has been evaluating glyphosate as part of a re-registration review process for more than five years, and was initially expected to complete that review last year.The EPA then said it would complete the review by the end of 2016, and now says it will be 2017 before it offers a final report.
Remember those rats in the header image were fed for two years on very diluted Roundup plus GE corn which is laced with Roundup being sprayed on it during its growing time. Yes this supposedly harmless herbicide is IN your GE food which of course isn’t labeled because they consider you don’t need to know, it being so safe. You can watch the video on the rat experiment on our Glyphosate pages. You could sign our petition on glyphosate use in the Rangitikei, praps also like our FB pages & spread the word. Thank you. EnvirowatchRangitikei
What is especially infuriating about this is Monsanto’s original claim their product would “solve the world’s food problem”. Food problem? Read Susan George’s exposé of the real root cause of the world’s food problem. It’s not because of laziness and overpopulation as the powers that be would have you believe. You can download that book (written in the ’70s) for free (search pdf). Agribiz corporations created the food problem, now corporations claim they can fix it … well of course they can! … and for a whole lot more profit – to themselves. EnvirowatchRangitikei
The horrific truth about this disastrous chemical is that, while Monsanto claims it’s harmless, it actually creates nutritional deficiencies and systemic toxicity in the human body, and is linked to multiple chronic diseases and conditions including autism.
Sprayed in a section adjacent to a primary school in NZ, farmers are told Roundup is harmless
Reuters news service has discovered that the World Health Organization’s (WHO) cancer agency advised a review panel not to disclose documents on the weed killer glyphosate requested under U.S. freedom of information (FOIA) laws, according to America Online News. The report said the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) claims they are exempt from FOIA laws because they alone own the information.
Critics of the IARC’s “possibly carcinogenic” classification of glyphosate — including Monsanto vice president Scott Partridge — say they want to review the agency’s work. Glyphosate is the most heavily used agricultural chemical of all time, with 1.8 million tons of it applied to U.S. fields since 1974; two-thirds of that in the last 10 years.
When this toxic poison was first released in connection with “Roundup Ready” genetically engineered (GE) glyphosate-tolerant crops (soy, corn and cotton), Monsanto promised it would reduce the use of pesticides worldwide and solve the world’s food problem. Instead, it’s been a dismal failure, with “super weeds” resistant to glyphosate posing a massive worldwide problem.
The horrific truth about this disastrous chemical is that, while Monsanto claims it’s harmless, it actually creates nutritional deficiencies and systemic toxicity in the human body, and is linked to multiple chronic diseases and conditions including autism.
In 2009 a French court found Monsanto guilty of lying about its safety, and since then other research has shown more evidence of glyphosate’s dangers.
Find further articles on glyphosate under ‘categories’ top left of any page and visit our glyphosate pages. Please share the info and help expose corporate corruption and lies.
I’m reblogging this article from 2014 to remind us all of the evidence. WHO some twelve months or so ago decided that glyphosate was probably a carcinogen. That got everybody frantically spreading the word however the probably has now given them a convenient little out for later in my opinion anyway… going by what has since happened, that being the major flip flop they’ve done. So … to recap, they (IARC) look at the myriad of independent research and decide on the probably carcinogenic scenario (yes rats fed very diluted glyphosate and GE corn for two years grew enormous tumours all over their bodies) then a year or so later do an about turn. Even if their current conclusions are correct they don’t inspire much trust in their processes to have done a major flip flop like that within a year. And remember, first up after the Séralini experiment Monsanto went into debunk mode by discrediting the Professor’s choice of rat as not being the correct type as in that particular rat is supposedly prone to tumours anyway. All the links to that info are on our Glyphosate pages (the independent research etc) and a brief google search will tell you that you can relax and start spraying everything with Roundup again because yes it’s perfectly safe. After all it is in the GM food you are eating that you don’t know about because it’s so safe they don’t need to label it for you. Please do yourself a favour and watch carefully Professor Séralini’s evidence, and/or read the transcript below. EnvirowatchRangitikei
The Séralini Experiment
Transcript: Pay close attention to what you are about to see. These images will be seen around the world. These rats have been fed with transgenic corn during their entire life cycle. The tumours they suffer from are enormous. The study that revealed the effect of these GMOs on the health of these rats has just been completed. It benefited from exceptional financial & technical means. We were able to witness the study in its entirety. It lasted for two years. Following years of doubt and controversies will we finally know the truth about GMOs? Would we then be faced with a health crisis of global proportions?
Paris, December 16th, 2011, Criigen offices, Committee for Research & Independent Information for Genetic Engineering…. Presentation of the results collected by Professor Seralini during his study focused on determining the potential harmfulness of the GMO corn Nk603 for humans and animals….
This is the longest most thorough study to have been carried out on a GMO and we’ve also carried out a joint study on the most used pesticide in the world, the Roundup which is a herbicide. It belongs to the main pesticide category. We spent over a year trying to obtain transgenic corn because no GMO manufacturers were willing to provide them. This is because Monsanto requires contracts to be signed stipulating that the seeds must not be used for testing and an arrangement must be made prior to the testing. We wanted our study to be independent.
Joel Spiroux Vendomois
Doctor specialized in Environmental Health
President of the CRIIGEN
This is the first time that a two year study has been conducted on GMOs and there lies the big difference. Furthermore, we tried to evaluate a maximum of biochemical & biological parameters with repeated blood tests, weighing of the specimens and urine tests. We studied the hepatic & urinary parameters as well as the blood parameters, all the parameters that can be studied. We also studied the hormonal parameters which has never been done in previous studies. This experiment is a world premiere.
Up until now the corn NK603, the very one selected for the study had only been tested over a three month period and that in a test environment entirely controlled by Monsanto, its manufacturer. Furthermore, concerning the Roundup, also manufactured by Monsanto & which is used for growing corn, only its active agent, Glyphosate had been assessed. But one needs to understand that the manufacturers in order to enable the agent to penetrate the plant cell successfully, use additives that are sometimes more harmful than the actual Glyphosate.
Gilles-Eric Seralini
Molecular biologist
University of Caen (France)
We have two clear objectives, firstly to conduct the studies exactly according to international requirements, but making sure we are very thorough when it comes to analyzing the results. Secondly we want to determine if there are secondary effects. The only way to do this is to carry out tests on animals, and then to examine all the blood parameters whilst paying close attention to their organs.
Commentator: At this stage it might prove useful to know exactly what GMOs are used for. It is a plant that has been developed either to produce its own insecticide or to be tolerant to a herbicide, thusenabling it to be exposed to massive doses of it without dying. One can understand how GMOs can be useful to farmers, for example they would be able to spray their entire field with Roundup, killing all the weeds in the process & never harming the genetically modified plant. On the other hand it is hard to see the benefits for the consumer who will effectively be ingesting substances coming from a plant that has absorbed the pesticides. That is why it is crucial to test not only the GMO, but also the GMO with its residue & the pesticide on its own.
Professor Seralini: This type of testing had never been done before because the corporations doing the test would do them on GMOs with the Roundup which meant that we had no idea what between the GMO & the Roundup caused the pathologies. Or they did them on GMOs without specifying that this was the case. So what we decided to do was to address the question, are we dealing with the effects of the GMO or the pesticide. During the last ten years of testing the national commissions did not envisage a pesticide effect.
Commentator: Therefore Europe does not even demand chronic or toxicity tests to be systematically carried out on animals, & when they are required, it is the manufacturers who decide the protocol to be used. For example, the Amflora potato was only tested on a group
of thirty rats, ten of which were being fed the GMO. The Monsanto corn was tested on 400 rats. Eighty of them were fed the transgenic plant, but only forty of them were then subjected to blood tests. Either way, none of these studies lasted longer than 90 days.
Professor Seralini: What is represented by this figure is that certain groups of rats, male and female, have ingested GMO corn. GMO with Roundup residue and Roundup on its own. Every time we go up a level a rat dies. The limit is ten due to the number of rats that constitute a group. The dotted line represents the females in the group who die but have a completely normal diet. Only two animals die spontaneously after 550 days. On the other hand, every female that has been fed on the GMO, GMO with Roundup or Roundup diet has died more frequently than the other rats. Some will challenge
the relevance of such results but what is undeniable is in the group that has been exposed to the GMOs there is a 600% increase or six times more deaths compared to the control group. As far as medicine or biology is concerned there is no need for further testing. An important fact is that all the studies carried out on the rats are done over a three month period. It so happens that none of the effects are visible until the fourth month. This is fundamental in understanding that studies conducted over a three month period are useless. This conclusion is easily understandable. It could be said that their only use is to soothe their consciences.
Commentator: Every rat out of the 200 that were tested was dissected by Professor Seralini’s team. They did this to discover
exactly what had affected their organs. The purpose behind this was to identify the way each diet, GMO, GMO & Roundup & Roundup on its own had acted on the metabolism of each animal. Focusing on the development rate of the tumours, that, and this comes as no surprise, only start to manifest themselves after the initial three month period.
Professor Seralini: This figure represents a number of palpable tumours contracted by the animal during the experiment. Here we can see the rats subjected to GMOs compared to those with a regular diet. As you can see, very few males contracted tumours. This is due to them being more resistant to the testing process. What these figures show are the for the large tumours, each step up
represents a large tumour which can measure 17 millimeters by 17 millimeters. For a rat these measurements are colossal. It would equate to a tumour of this size if seen on a human being. It is enormous. After having studied these tumours it can be said that 94% of them take effect in the mammary glands which would equate to breast cancer in a woman. We are faced with renal tumours for the males but not only. Some males also suffer from mammary tumours. This points towards a hormonal effect that isn’t affected by the dosage. Sixty percent of breast cancer cases are caused by hormonal deficiencies.
Commentator: Professor Seralini’s study holds one last surprise for us, and this is a major one. Up until now, one could have thought that the main cause of death for the tested rats was coming from the
pesticide added to the corn. But what the study highlighted, and this for the first time ever, is the fact that the transgenesis itself could have killed the rats. What this means is that just by interfering with the genome of the plant in order to modify it, we are faced with repercussions that no one could have anticipated. This is enough to make us reconsider all the scientific precepts that have led to the creation of GMOs.
Professor Seralini: Roundup had never been tested separately. Whilst conducting cellular studies we saw that the cells of the liver, embryos, placenta, kidneys and the umbilical cord died much faster and so we could deduce that there was a toxic effect on the organism. What can be said is that there is an increase in deaths due to GMOs and Roundup. The biggest surprise came when we realized
that GMOs without any Roundup residue were responsible for an increase in the death rate of females and of some males. This could be the result of the GMO gene that has been badly assimilated by the plant and that has therefore resulted in a negative effect, or due to a secondary metabolical effect.
Joel Spiroux Vendomois: What that means is that we are dealing with a GMO in particular. The modification of a cereal or GMO corn, with regard to the genes inserted into the corn, to make it a GMO corn can make it result in different effects. It’s not because a certain GMO has a particular effect that other GMOs will have an effect, but some have even more of an impact. What is alarming is that this
is the GMO that is being eaten by the Americans but, also the GMO that has been proved for importation by European agencies including the French ones and that obviously contaminates our food.
Commentator: Nowadays, only two types of GMOs are being produced in a few European countries. One is corn and the other potato. But what about the 27 million tons of transgenic soya that are being unloaded each year in European ports. This soya is used to feed our cattle, but it also makes its way into a number of our foodstuffs.
Professor Seralini: What we want to achieve with this study is a moratorium. The situation is serious enough, and we’re not going to eat anything and everything. We imported without knowing what was being imported. And the United States have produced crops without knowing what they were producing. There needs to be more studies of this kind, and GMO manufacturers need to conduct them before commercializing their products.
Commentator: A moratorium on growing GMOs has been approved by most European countries. Now that we know the results of the study conducted by Professor Seralini, could it be time to extend this moratorium to all the GMO used in many of our foods. To establish an undeniable scientific truth, one needs teams, time and means. Some will say that it takes too much time and that this is too expensive. But had we taken this precaution, could we not have avoided recent sanitary scandals? Will GMOs be responsible yet again for a calamitous scenario? And while we are waiting for scientific certainties, evidently, this is a risk we cannot afford to take.
For further Info visit our Glyphosate pages … and don’t forget to share 🙂
Monsanto and Gates Foundation Pressure Kenya to Lift Ban on GMOs
(ecowatch.com) Kenya is on the verge of reversing its ban on genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The East African country—which has banned the import and planting of GMOs since 2012 due to health concerns—may soon allow the cultivation of GMO maize and cotton after being pushed for approval by pro-GMO organizations including Monsanto, the agribusiness giant and world’s largest seed company.
(naturalsociety.com) Greenpeace said in a report released last Wednesday that farmers in northeast China are illegally growing genetically modified corn. [1]
Brazil Slaps Nestle, Pepsi, and Others for Hiding GMO Ingredients
(naturalsociety.com) Six major food manufacturers – including Nestle, PepsiCo, and Mexican baking company Grupo Bimbo – have been slapped with fines by the Brazilian Ministry of Justice, which alleges the companies failed to include labels indicating the use of genetically modified ingredients.
It was announced recently, that WHO has concluded that glyphosate ‘probably causes cancer’ …. they have classed it 2A. It is surely well past the time for NZ authorities to reconsider its approval of this widely used herbicide. There comes a point we have to consider prevention and not closing the gate when the horse has already bolted. The damage is already done given this product is now found widely in blood, urine and breast milk, and cancer statistics are one in three. People need to read this research, study it carefully and take action. France’s highest court ruled around six years ago that the product is carcinogenic following the research of Professor Seralini. If you are from the Rangitikei, live in the Rangitikei or have connections with the region, please sign our petition at this link: https://www.toko.org.nz/petitions/ban-the-use-of-carcinogenic-chemical-in-rangitikei-towns-public-places-now-7
“In March, 2015, 17 experts from 11 countries met at the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC; Lyon, France) to assess the carcinogenicity of the organophosphate pesticides tetrachlorvinphos, parathion, malathion, diazinon, and glyphosate (table)…”
If you follow the link, to download the pdf file you’re required to register (it’s free).
Following on from the recent update on the chemical spraying presentation made to the Rangitikei District Council forum in November 2014, and featured in the Central District Times recently, I’ve offered some thoughts on the Council process. This may be informative for some, and may also dispel some illusions about our so-called democratic processes.
When anyone presents an issue of concern at a Council forum the time limit is five minutes which includes question time, so it is really only four. Bear in mind with an issue this large this is not long. I had to condense my case to the quintessential and speak at top speed. Also bear in mind that in attending Council meetings there is little if any space for actual dialogue around issues. Five minutes is it. The process is not that people friendly (one Cr didn’t hide the fact he found the issue humorous) nor conducive to meaningful interaction or problem resolution. The Mayor, Andy Watson, allowed two questions from the Councilors … one centered around other possible alternatives. These I provided as I’d researched them. The other was not a question, rather it was to tell me that Horizons could provide the correct information about spraying parameters / guidelines / exposure etc. That completed I was duly thanked for my presentation and I sat down. I quietly whispered to a member of the Community Committee who was also there that day, asking her what happens next (quietly because you’re not supposed to be talking in there … and the Community Committee by the way, is a conduit group between community and Council). It appears that I should have asked specifically for somebody to get back to me on the issue. Since I hadn’t, that could well have been the very last I’d have heard about the issue. Now who ever would know that ‘minor’ technicality about being heard? It could have effectively disappeared into the black hole, forgotten forever. As good fortune would have it however, after I’d left and the meeting continued, Cr Sheridan voted for the matter to be put on the Agenda. It was seconded by Cr Ash. The Council was going to research other NZ Council methods of weed treatment and write a report.
The History
Now, bear in mind here, seven or so months prior, I’d emailed Council citing the research on the health risks of using glyphosate sprays (the herbicide of choice by most councils throughout the country). This research had been dismissed as ‘unproven extrapolation’. Cr Ash, and myself, had then met with the Mayor to discuss the research and the possibility of using non chemical sprays in the urban areas. He had sent us each away to research weed control methods used by other Councils with the prospect of RDC’s possibly considering a non-chemical alternative that was cost-effective … should we find one that is. In addition, information was given regarding how to get this issue onto the agenda using Council protocols. By all appearances, to the uninitiated, a very convoluted process. Because of these prior happenings, I already had a great deal of information on other councils, so later, I emailed contact details for an Auckland contractor with a cost effective hot water treatment.
During the interim I endeavoured to email updates to the Mayor and all Councilors about the surrounding facts on this issue since four minutes had clearly not enabled me to do this. In addition I kept them up to speed with all the latest research that comes in at quite a steady pace these days. Councilors apparently, have a great deal of information to wade through I’m told, so there are seldom any responses. Not even an ’email received’ message.
The Research
Anyway, regarding the research (and the case against Glyphosate is mounting) the latest is the World Health Organization’s announcement that Glyphosate probably causes cancer (and I see Dr Oz weighing in on this as well). In addition, Canterbury University has said Glyphosate causes resistance to antibiotics. Neither the
The Seralini Rats
Mayor, the CEO nor the Councilors (bar two) are impressed by WHO’s research, or any of the large body of research that is available on Glyphosate. Not surprising since our Government approves it, end of story. Note here, many governments have actually banned it though and France’s highest Court ruled that Monsanto (the manufacturer) has lied about Roundup’s biodegradability. Sadly, with the way Council works, there has been no opportunity for dialogue on this issue. Still, I do not believe it is rocket science. I would be placing my money on WHO, Professor Seralini’s evidence and France’s highest Court, as opposed to the wisdom of the Rangitikei District Council in Marton or the NZ government (aka corporation) that says it is GE free by the way and is not. Remember, Monsanto initially tested their lab rats for the required ninety days … not long enough for tumours to develop. Professor Seralini’s team tested them for two years… long enough to grow enormous tumours.
Why is Monsanto not now re-testing for two years themselves to prove to the public their product is safe? And why was it so difficult for Prof Seralini to even get a sample of their Glyphosate-laced GM corn to use in his research?
(Watch the Seralini video HERE or read the damning transcript). Would you buy a used car on the car salesman’s word alone? This is historically what the authorities have done with Roundup. It’s all been on Monsanto’s say so. Read more about the RDC’s decision in my next post.
This is not a long article and it illustrates yet again the dangers of this product, dangers it seems nobody wants to consider going by our persistence here in NZ (and elsewhere) in using it:
WHO Declares that Glyphosate Herbicides Probably Cause Cancer
-assessment is by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)
-IARC reached its decision based on the view of 17 experts from 11 countries, who met in Lyon, France, to assess the carcinogenicity of 5 organophosphate pesticides.
-The IARC’s assessment of the 5 pesticides is published in the latest issue of The Lancet Oncology. (LINK TO LANCET PROVIDED)
LINK TO ARTICLE http://sustainablepulse.com/2015/03/21/who-declares-that-glyphosate-herbicides-probably-cause-cancer/
Rangitikei Environmental Health Watch 
You must be logged in to post a comment.