So in Victoria Australia the children are being told they should not divulge the contents of their ‘safe schools’ curriculum outside of the classroom? There is your red flag right there. Turns out this mother’s kids are spending their time in class creating vaginas, learning to masturbate, studying dildos & learning the various positions for having anal sex. When she figured out what the curriculum contained & asked the school were they signed up to this they replied no. There’s your second red flag. Turns out yes they were. Why are they hiding? EWR
NOTE: Should the video disappear again please go to this link to see it at FB. This may not work however if you are not a FB member.
…ultimately the wishes of capable patients with respect to confidentiality must be respected,’ the essay stated.
Bioethicists have started preparing the way for the legalisation of child euthanasia in Canada, with one of the proposals advocating assisted suicide without parental approval.
Euthanasia in Canada is currently only available to capable patients aged 18 years or older, however the medical essay titled, Medically Assisted Dying in a Paediatric Hospital, published in the Oxford-based Journal of Medical Ethics, was written “with an eye to the near future when capable young people may gain access to Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID).”
In all other regards [than who initiates the euthanasia discussion], our working group has, at present, elected to conceptualise MAID as practically and ethically equivalent to other medical practices that result in the end of life. This theorisation of MAID is justified on the grounds that these practices share a common purpose of alleviating unendurable suffering and facilitate the patient dying on their own terms…and is reflective of our concern that the conceptualisation of MAID should not place additional burdens on the patient or function to limit the rights and freedoms to which patients are typically entitled.
The proposal goes on to state, if a child is mature enough to make decisions, doctors will not be required to inform parents or family members about the child’s decision to commit suicide.
If, however, a capable [child] patient explicitly indicates that they do not want their family members involved in their decision-making, although healthcare providers may encourage the patient to reconsider and involve their family, ultimately the wishes of capable patients with respect to confidentiality must be respected. If we regard MAID as practically and ethically equivalent to other medical decisions that result in the end of life, then confidentiality regarding MAID should be managed in this same way.
Can you imagine a child discussing euthanasia with a trigger-happy doctor but deciding not to include her parents because she knows they’d oppose it? Can you imagine her parents turning up to the hospital to see their daughter, only to find an empty bed?
The essay goes on to suggest protections for medical staff willing to provide assisted suicide for children. “We will not make public the names of the healthcare providers at The Hospital for Sick Children who have volunteered to provide MAID, nor will we disclose a full list of persons who comprised our working group.”
We will, however, as an institution, publicly discuss the provision of MAID in an effort to normalise this procedure and reduce social stigma for everyone involved. It is right and appropriate for this duty to fall to a well-resourced institution rather than rest on the shoulders of individual patients and providers.
When it comes to euthanasia, the slope is slippery indeed. Assisted suicide is always sold with temporary restrictions.
If euthanasia is no longer restricted to adults, we have good reason to think someday it will no longer be restricted to the terminally ill. Rather, it will be extended to people with varying quality of life circumstances. How do we know this? Because it’s already happening in the Netherlands.
More evidence of insanity in the ranks of the so called academics. Or is it simply evidence of the deep seated corruption we are now facing? I think the latter. EWR
From the Telegraph, UK
Rules which bar sex offenders from working with children are ‘unfair’ and even convicted paedophiles should have the right to adopt, a leading legal academic has said.
Helen Reece, a reader in law at the London School of Economics, called on Theresa May, the Home Secretary, to relax rules which automatically ban sex offenders from caring for children, saying that this could breach their human rights.
In an article in the respected Child and Family Law Quarterly, Miss Reece suggested that reoffending rates were not high among sex criminals, adding: “despite growing public concern over paedophilia, the numbers of child sex murders are very low.”
A review is currently ongoing into the Vetting and Barring Scheme, introduced following the 2002 Soham murders, amid concerns by ministers that it is too heavy handed.
As well as banning certain offenders, the law currently requires adults coming into regular contact with children other than their own to be screened.
Mrs May ordered the review amid concerns about the vetting of ordinary volunteers such as parents who drive children to football practice and church flower arrangers.
In her article, Miss Reece suggested that the review should also introduce an assumption that sex offenders including child abusers posed no threat once they had served their sentence.
She said: “There is no reason why all sex offenders should not be considered as potentially suitable to adopt or foster children, or work with them.
“The Vetting and Barring Scheme and other legislative measures single out sex offenders for unfair special treatment and they destroy the principle that a prisoner pays his or her debt by serving their sentence before re-entering society on equal terms.”
Individuals are placed on the “Barred List” and banned from working with youngsters or vulnerable adults if they are convicted of a sexual or violent offence, or one involving the mistreatment of a child.
Miss Reece criticised the rules for leading all sex offenders to be “tarred with the same brush,” saying that while “careful screening” was “important,” the issuing of a “blanket ban” violated the rights of criminals who wanted to adopt or work with young people.
She highlighted the case of a grandfather with a conviction for having sex with a 15-year-old dating back to when he was 29, who was refused permission to adopt his own grandchildren.
The ban could contravene the principle of non-discrimination enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights, and may leave the Government open to legal challenge, Miss Reece warned.
Comparing sex offenders to cohabiting couples, she suggested that if blanket bans on the former were allowed, it would make sense to bar those who were not married from adopting because parents who were wed were less likely to separate with harmful consequences for the child.
She also highlighted the case of four nurses who recently won a High Court challenge after being barred for having convictions. One of the nurses was banned over a police caution for leaving her own children alone in their home.
“Rather than presuming that everyone is a potential risk to children and must therefore be vetted, any vetting or barring should be based on very strong evidence that they are a risk,” the academic said.
“This would represent a victory not only for human rights but for protecting the best interests of children.”
Miss Reece has been at the LSE since September 2009, having previously worked at the University of London, University College London and Birkbeck College.
A trained barrister, she has an MSc in logic and scientific method, and was awarded the Socio-Legal Studies Association Book Prize in 2004 for a monograph called “Divorcing Responsibly.
She has also argued that rape victims should no longer be granted anonymity.
A Home Office spokesman said: “It is safe to say that the vetting review will not be considering allowing paedophiles to adopt. It wouldn’t exactly go down well with the public.
“The review is very much focused on seeing whether the rules have gone too far in stopping normal volunteering with children, while continuing to carry out criminal records checks on people in sensitive posts, such as in the NHS.”
Don’t California my [Insert State Here]: The egregious injustice of SB276 and its trailer bill, which solidified sweeping vaccine legislation into law, was enacted under the false pretenses of fraudulent exemptions, targets medically fragile children, and will usher in an age of medical tyranny
“They came first for philosophical exemptions and I said nothing, because my kids are in private school. Then they came for religious exemptions and I said nothing, because I am not that kind of religious. Then they came for our medical freedom and I said nothing, because I could still home school. Then they came for me and took my children. And no one was left to speak up.” – Lavenda Memory
How a bill becomes a law: apparently, by enough good people who know better–doing nothing, saying nothing.
Yesterday, both SB276 and its trailer bill, SB714 passed through the California Assembly and Senate and were signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsom, catapulting the next civil rights movement into full swing, and setting the stage for a sweeping wave of medical tyranny and government overreach.
Medical freedom fighters came out in droves to decry the draconian bill SB276, peacefully occupying the assembly and the senate, until threatened with arrest and ordered to disperse from the latter.
Despite mainstream media portrayal, SB276 opponents are by and large not anti-vaxxers, but rather, ex-vaxxers and vaccine-hesitant mothers (and a few courageous fathers) with documented adverse reactions in themselves or their children that by the testimony of their own doctors has rendered them ineligible for further vaccinations.
Despite lack of coverage by every major media outlet, some of the California legislators who voted no and supported the protestors relayed to SB276 opponents that this was the largest outpouring of activism that they had ever witnessed for any bill during their political tenure.
In spite of the widespread opposition to the bill at the California Capitol, the viral #JUSTASKING and #SOS social media campaigns that lit up Governor Gavin Newsom’s Instagram page in yellow, and vocal outcries by parents across the nation, the bills were signed into law amongst pleas from medical freedom fighters, “No segregation–no discrimination–yes on education, for all!”.
Voting was divided squarely down party lines. These bills were passed thanks to unanimous yes votes by Democrats, revealing that their allegiance unequivocally lies with corporate interests over the constituents to which they are beholden on this issue.
Republicans voted no across the board, with some assembly members, such as Waldron, Mathis, and Melendez, cheering on the protestors as they chanted, “Moms know best!” from the rafters.
“It is quite stunning to watch liberals applauding censorship, particularly the muzzling of the bullied mothers of injured children in order to protect pharmaceutical products from criticism”.
“We are pleased to have the privilege of inviting you, your colleagues, family and friends, to a presentation covering one of the most pressing issues of our time: ‘screens’ and their effect on human health, wellbeing and behaviour.”
July 23, 2019
Website editor’s note:EMR Health and Safety, Christchurch have organised a public talk in Christchurch on Friday, 9 August, 2019 from 7.00 – 8.30 pm at Christchurch Rudolf Steiner School Hall, 19 Ombersley Terrace, Christchurch. For full details, please see below.
If you can help publicise this event by downloading the poster at the link below and printing it and putting it up on your work, community centre, library or church noticeboard etc. that would be appreciated by the team of volunteers who are organising this event. Thank you.
“Victoria State Government Education website confirms teachers will facilitate gender transition of children without parental consent:
“If no agreement can be reached between the student and the parent regarding the student’s gender identity, or if the parent will not consent to the contents of a Student Management Plan, it will be necessary for the school to consider whether the student is a mature minor enabling the student to permissibly make decisions for themselves without parental consent.
Should the school consider that the student is a mature minor, in these circumstances it may not be appropriate for the student’s family representative/carer to be invited to participate in formulating the school management plan. “
The 21st century organized crime lords—the pharmaceutical industry—archetypal la cosa nostra mafia-like cartels, have risen to unprecedented dominion over humanity. These renegade modern-day, too-big-to-fail outlaws have mastered and expanded the industry corruption playbook to levels that make the tobacco industry seem relatively tame and honest in comparison. Big Pharma has methodically choreographed a stealthy take-over of our most fundamental democratic institutions necessary to maintain industry in check: the regulatory institutions, the legislatures, politicians, free press/media, academia and objective science.
Big Pharma today not only influences legislation for drugs, but the vaccine producers are also guaranteed a self-serving, automatically-captured consumer market in the form of 74 million children to whom the government mandates their limited-liability vaccine products in unprecedented numbers.
Following the money
Americans spend the highest amount on health care in the world at $3.65 trillion, which represents 18% of the GDP. Big Pharma today not only influences legislation for drugs, but the vaccine producers are also guaranteed a self-serving, automatically-captured consumer market in the form of 74 million children to whom the government mandates their limited-liability vaccine products in unprecedented numbers. Today’s bloated childhood vaccine schedule is a direct result of the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA), a law passed by congress at the time, to keep the vaccine producers from going bankrupt from lawsuits brought forth by families with vaccine-injured children. This law, in effect, unfastened the free-market incentives to make safe products from the vaccine producers, unleashing increasingly more and more inadequately tested and monitored products on to the market.
The pharmaceutical industry spends a combined $26 billion annually to influence doctors to sell their drugs and to entice consumers to purchase their drugs. Pharma strikes a one-two knockout punch in drug sales by investing an average of $6 billion annually in direct to consumer advertisement, followed by an even larger $20 billion investment to persuade doctors to sell their drugs to consumers who are herded to their offices to obtain the direct to consumer (DTC) advertised drugs.
Financial incentives and conflicts abound in pediatrics as well. Major streams of income come from “wellness” visits, a euphemism for infants and children being brought into the pediatrician’s office, in order to receive the closely followed CDC mandated childhood vaccine schedule. In addition to the steady foot traffic generated by the vaccine schedule, pediatricians are rewarded financial incentives per fully vaccinated child in their practice by insurance companies.
… drug companies and allied advocates have an army of lobbyists in all 50 states and have spent more than $880 million on lobbying and political contributions at the state and federal level over the past decade.
Neutering the regulatory bodies
Equally disturbing, pharma has strategically and systematically neutered regulatory bodies such as the CDC and FDA, through a constant cross-pollination of industry and government heads. This revolving door has expressly created ever deeper conflicts of interest and blurred lines of duty. For example, Julie Gerberding, the former director of the CDC (2002-2009), joined Merck in January 2010 as the president of Merck’s vaccines department. In fact, this revolving door appears to be quite a prevalent phenomenon. Dr. Presad, an oncologist from Oregon Health and Science University discovered: “a quarter of the Food and Drug Administration employees who approved cancer and hematology drugs from 2001 through 2010 left the agency and now work or consult for pharmaceutical companies”.
In addition, the Associated Press and Center for Public Integrity, show drug companies and allied advocates have an army of lobbyists in all 50 states and have spent more than $880 million on lobbying and political contributions at the state and federal level over the past decade. The opioid lobby, for example, contributed to 7,100 candidates for state level offices.
These unorthodox, forged relationships, all together, serve as a secure and impervious interconnected web for pharma to wield more influence and power as it creates an ever more captive audience for its products.
Pharma’s reach also extends into media and science garnered through strategic financial entanglements. The U.S. and New Zealand are two of the only countries that permit drug makers to advertise their products directly to consumers, a practice that is illegal or frowned upon in the rest of the globe. As previously discussed a large portion of the revenue for the mainstream media, (up to 70%) in the U.S. comes from pharmaceutical advertisement: “Just considering television, 187 commercials for about 70 prescription medications have collectively aired almost half a million times since the start of 2018, and to do that, drug companies shelled out $2.8 billion”.
Lastly, most of the clinical safety trials performed on vaccines and drugs is performed by institutionalized scientists who are on the industry payroll, and the FDA is increasingly approving and fast-tracking drugs despite dangerous or inconclusive evidence that they are either safe or effective. These unorthodox, forged relationships, all together, serve as a secure and impervious interconnected web for pharma to wield more influence and power as it creates an ever more captive audience for its products. This behemoth power’s next move is the fierce state-by-state push to remove exemptions and the basic human right to informed consent. The last barrier to pharma’s complete unadulterated power is removing human autonomy and the ability to decide for one’s self and family what medical interventions are beneficial and which ones may be rife with potential risk and little benefit. Any rudimentary perusal of the main vaccine makers’ track record, Merck, GSK, Pfizer and Sanofi (The BIG 4), will illuminate a sordid history of criminal behavior with $billions paid for fines, otherwise known “as the cost of doing business”.
From NZ’s ‘Breakfast’ program with John Campbell …
So nobody, Nats included, has done anything about this?
Eleven thousand dollars a year for a box? And your government happily subsidizes these rents to the sharks. Same way they draw the unfortunate homeless into thousands of dollars of (depressing) debt for residing in motels when that money could have been loaned towards a house.
Our recent inquiries are revealing the demolition (if you call bulldozing demolition) of state homes as we speak still. Taken out at around three or more at a time. Perfectly good homes. A post will be coming on that but folk tell me they are observing homes sitting empty for up to 18 months still since a loved one died. Also stories of people evicted for no good reason, or purportedly for the building of new homes, with none appearing up to a year later.
This is predatory, property developers’ heaven basically. Where anything goes & by some accounts you even choose which race you’d prefer in your slums. More to come. EWR
What does the housing crisis look like when you’re trapped at the bottom of the heap?
John Campbell went to a controversial caravan park in West Auckland, where people are living in barely-habitable circumstances.
“The worst thing was they pointed a rifle at my 12-year-old daughter who was picking up horse poo. They told her to put the fork down and walk towards them. She is still anxious and shaken. The whole family is.”
Why is it necessary, in the quest for seizing guns from adults to ‘protect the public’ (so we are told) to terrorize young children? How is that conducive to protecting the public, the rationale that is being given for this sudden strange turn of events? Do these Police persons not have children themselves? Are they not trained to realize the trauma that this behaviour will embed in a child’s memory …. for life? This is the stuff of movies & it’s happening right here in New Zealand. It is not new however. This same behaviour occurred in 2007 when the Tuhoe people in Te Urewera (who are no strangers to illegal Police raids) were raided & similarly, armed offenders boarded a school bus, terrorizing little children.
They also detained a family with little ones, one of them a four year old, in their family garage with no food, water or toilet for NINE hours. To update yourself on that one, watch ‘Operation 8’ on Youtube. If you listen to the first minute of the video you will hear a 12 year old child describing what happened:
I saw all these people in black, and this man had a dog and it was right behind me and, just saw all these lights and, these guns, and it was really scary. All of us had to get down on our knees and put our hands on our heads. They asked for my name, did I know anything about terrorist things, or if I’ve been in trouble with the Police … I just started crying, and crying and … my nan tried to come over to me and asked me if I was okay, and then the Policeman behind us said ‘Shut up, don’t talk to her’ and moved closer towards me and pointed the gun down at my head. Oct 15 2007
Those children would not sleep in their bedrooms for three months after this event, they were so afraid. They all slept together in their lounge. Shame on the NZ Police. Protecting the public? Really? When you see images of these armed offenders (see image above) they are enough to strike terror into the heart of an adult let alone a child. It all really beggars belief. Was this all a warm up for today’s scenarios?
Do read the article below, it’s from mainstream’s Stuff even (which surely tells you something). Pontificate on what has happened to your country Kiwis. The article describes a similar raid on another person.
Police seize gun collector’s firearms in ‘over the top’ raid
A community-minded contractor who dug the mass grave for victims of the mosque shootings for free says police went “way over the top” in raiding his house to seize his 11 firearms.
The colourful figure – who asked not to be named for security reasons but whose record of helping out people in the community and raising money is known to have endeared him to many – said about 30 police raided his west Christchurch block on April 2 about 5pm while he was still at work.
Some were Armed Offenders Squad members and others were in ordinary police uniform. A specialist search squad searched his house, outbuildings and a granny flat housing his 80-year-old mother.
“They even went through her underwear drawer. The worst thing was they pointed a rifle at my 12-year-old daughter who was picking up horse poo. They told her to put the fork down and walk towards them. She is still anxious and shaken. The whole family is.”
Police then rang him at work. He arranged to stand in the middle of the yard and asked the police to leave their guns in their vehicles.
“They still pointed their guns at me and made me walk towards them with my hands up. I got to them and said, “put that away before you hurt yourself”.”
He is now waiting for an explanation. He does not believe police were acting on a tip that he was dangerous. Police refused to comment, citing privacy – despite the man providing a privacy waiver.
“Unfortunately for privacy reasons we can’t respond to requests which seek to confirm whether specific individuals have made complaints to police, or if police have attended a specific address,” a police spokesperson said.
The man said: “I’ve seen them raid the Headhunters with less firepower than they raided us. It was just out of this world. Way over the top.”
He accepts police might have wanted a chat with him because after the mosque shootings, he had bought an AR15 rifle, from Gun City. The mosque shooter used an AR15 class rifle and they are now banned under new arms legislation.
A rush of gun sales was reported in the aftermath of the March 15 mosque shooting after it was announced gun laws would change. The AR15 is amongst the most popular as a semi-automatic sporting rifle often used for deer, goat and pig hunting, as well as competitive target shooting.
“But all they needed to do was ring me and say we are coming around for a chat. If I was really up to no good I would have bought a firearm off the internet. Everyone knows that.”
The contractor said he had had a firearms licence since 1982 and had been shooting as a sport since he was 12.
He collected firearms and had two other AR15 rifles before the shooting.
When he bought the firearm, he thought he would be able to keep the gun under a grandfather arrangement where those who owned the guns before the law change would be allowed to keep them.
“It would have told a story.”
His confidence in the police had gone down to about zero, he said.
All his guns were confiscated in the raid and he is now trying to get them back.
“This didn’t need to happen. I’m not a criminal. They could have made a few other checks and seen I was not a risk.
He had two assault convictions from 35 years ago and had been out of trouble since, he said.
An Ashburton farm manager, who also declined to be named, told Stuffhe was also angry about the way he was treated by the police.
He was in his garage searching through his deep freezer shortly after eating lunch on Thursday when his wife told him there were some police officers coming up the drive.
“There were about three armed police that came out from the back of my section, and three more units pulled up at the driveway.”
Of the 14 police officers, eight were “heavily armed”.
The officers wanted to speak to him about the terror attacks, his views on police, Muslims and other religions. He was then asked if anyone was home.
“I said ‘no, my kids are at school’. Then they sent a team in to clear the house like in the movies, going into each room guns pointed clearing the house.”
The man said the officers told him the hour-long visit was initiated in part because he purchased an A-category AR15 from Gun City a day after the March 15 terror attack. His gun, which was being held in a secure safe, was seized, along with some other items including a scope and ammunition.
He told Stuff he travelled from Ashburton to Christchurch after the attack to buy the gun because he had always wanted one. His wife was planning on buying him one for his birthday in June, and was worried they would become harder to buy.
“It was probably the wrong decision but I thought if I don’t get one now I may miss the opportunity.”
He said he was not racist or anti-Islamic.
“I said so I’m not a fan but I understand there are good people out there, there are good Muslims. I’m not a fan of the religion but I’m not going to go out and kill people.”
He said the number of police officers was over the top and believed a call or visit from a local police officer would have been enough.
“I can’t understand why they needed that many armed police to come in here to ask me my views on this and then seize my gun.”
The Gardasil vaccine scandal once again was the top news topic on Health Impact News for 2018, as it has been for the past several years.
Three of our top 10 stories from 2018 were in the vaccine topic area, with the top 2 news stories dealing with the Gardasil HPV vaccine.
The top story, by far, was the tragic story of 14-year-old Christopher Bunch, originally published at The Vaccine Reaction, who died shortly after receiving a Gardasil vaccine.
The Gardasil vaccine was also the focus of the second most-read article in 2018, where Vera Sharav, from the Alliance for Human Research Protection, reported how public hearings in Japan were exposing the dangers of the vaccine and seeking help for the victims.
Four of our top 10 stories from 2018 were from our MedicalKidnap.com website, documenting how dangerous it is today to disagree with medical doctors who can call in Child Protection Services (CPS) to remove your children simply for disagreeing with their medical advice.