The CDC’s recommended schedule of vaccines include 50 doses of 14 vaccines for children between day of birth and age 6, some of which may increase the risk of meningitis; six were found to increase the risk of mortality
Meningitis is an inflammation of the membranes around the brain and spinal cord. It can be triggered by an infection, certain drugs, cancer and parasites
The Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System is a database of voluntary reports of vaccine injury, disability and death; yet the U.S. government has shielded vaccine manufacturers from civil liability from these injuries
It is vital to get involved at the local level where decisions are made for your area to protect your right to make vaccine choices. By becoming a user of the free online NVIC Advocacy portal you’ll have access to the information you need about vaccine legislation to take action to protect the legal right to make voluntary decisions about vaccination
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration maintain a database of information about adverse effects from the administration of vaccines licensed in the U.S. The database is called the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS),1 a federally operated program created under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986.
One study published in the journal Neurology evaluated data from VAERS to look at the rate of occurrence of meningitis after vaccines were administered to individuals from infancy to 74.7 years. Reports were pulled from 1990 to 2010 looking at the onset of meningitis within six weeks after an individual was vaccinated.
They found 722 cases. Of these, 415 (57.5%) occurred in the first six weeks and 327 (45.2%) occurred within the first two weeks. In the group, 76% of the individuals were hospitalized and 6.9% were disabled after the infection cleared. Meningitis was reported after several types of vaccinations.
COVID-19 is uncommon in children, who typically have milder symptoms and better prognoses than adults. However, the psychological trauma they experience because of the pandemic is much worse
Data show that children may make more suicide attempts and intentionally injure themselves; they may exhibit clinginess, irritability, inattention, nightmares and sleeping disorders
Social distancing, lockdowns and parental stress increase their risk of reduced physical activity, maltreatment and food insecurity, which raises their risk of heart disease and obesity as adults
Loneliness can worsen the effects of social isolation, which some are attempting to solve with a pill. Consider using Emotional Freedom Techniques to help reduce stress and improve your ability to support others
Here is an excellent, comprehensive overview of how to navigate your options & rights around whether or not to vaccinate yourself or your children. Some of the links no longer work however you could contact the site for further info. If there’s one thing we need it is to be prepared in advance. Better to be fully informed and know your rights than to be caught unaware & in the dark about which way to turn. EWR
Vaccination in New Zealand – Know Your Rights
Part 1 – A Quick Introduction to Your Parental Rights
New Zealand is one of the best countries in the world to be living in if you want to be able to choose what to do with you and your family regarding vaccines… one thing we need to make sure of, today and for future generations, is that it stays this way.
A reminder also … the CDC is not an independent government agency, it is a private subsidiary of Big Pharma … go figure … EWR
Posted on Feb 08, 2019, 7 p.m.
Del Bigtree and RFK Jr. have been credited for the 2018 landmark lawsuit victory in which the demand for relevant government documents proving that all federally approved vaccines had been tested for quality and safety over the past 32 years be presented had not been met in a court of law.
The court case has revealed that there has been no quality control over vaccines that have been manufactured by Big Pharma over the past three decades. There are legal and practical implications for this legal victory for American citizens, and it means that the American people have been lied to for 32 years about the effectiveness and safety of vaccines. The five healthcare agencies now in doubt for complicit and neglect of doing their jobs are the CDC, FDA, IOM, NIH, and DHHS itself as a result.
The July 2018 lawsuit showed vaccine makers had been exempt from what every other pharmaceutical drug manufacturer has been forced to do concerning biennial recertification for quality and effectiveness; meaning their vaccines had not been tested for quality and have had no proven safety or effectiveness testing for over 30+ years.
This case can now be legally cited by all citizens, employees, and parents who are being mandated by any government, organizational regulation or requirements that they must be or have their children vaccinated for school, work, or any other activity to stop forcing vaccination.
Additionally this case can now be legally cited for any seeking compensation for a vaccine injury, making it likely that the big pharma vaccine industry may be in hit with many lawsuits which could lead to being bankrupted out of existence; much like Bayer-Monsanto after the landmark legal victory won by the dying San Francisco landscaper, and their stock value plummeting precipitously.
As result of this landmark lawsuit victory the future of allopathic medicine as it stands is under scrutiny and in doubt, as well as the global pharma cartel since most drugs prescribed by come from pharma corporations that have been involved. Existence of deep state corporate mainstream news media will also be endangered as 70% of their income comes from the global pharma cartel.
Officials who passed laws to legalize vaccination at state, national, or at international levels, or have otherwise aided and abetted this vaccine fraud may now be legally charged with fraud, criminal malfeasance, and in some cases under the Nuremberg Code possibly war crimes.
The following comes from a letter written by Dawn Bell, a health professional warning that vaccines are no longer safe and have become ineffective after 10 years, who claims her daughter was injured by vaccination:
100% of the mumps cases were college students who were ALL 100% vaccinated in the recent mumps outbreak; and 90% of the people who died from last years flu epidemic had received the flu shot.
Herd immunity is achieved when 85% of the population is immune to a disease; vaccines are only good for around 10 years to 20 years max, most people over the age of 20 are not immune any longer creating a false immunity; and people who catch chicken pox are immune for life; those who get vaccinated are not.
Vaccines can and have saved lives, but when MD’s were handing out antibiotics were given out like movie popcorn they started to have a bad effect on the immune system, it’s very probable to think the same thing can happen with overuse of vaccines.
For deadly diseases, I’m for it, but they started to make so much money from it all of the sudden there was a vaccine for everything, and it was made mandatory, even for everyday childhood diseases and stuff such as Hep B at one day old.
When 32 people got sick from E.coli the FDA told everyone to stop buying romaine lettuce, yet thousands have reported issue with vaccine and it becomes pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, then when people get upset and start asking question everyone is surprised.
I am an Occupational Therapist and was all in with vaccinations, until I had to watch my daughter lose speech ability directly following a vaccine. Up until that point I was another person telling everyone it was a coincidence, until I saw it happen with my own eyes to my own child. Safety studies have never been done in these vaccine, and they have NEVER been studied being given all at once as they do.
It is common sense all of these vaccines given to children with developing immune system and neuro system that there may be some issues. When they say safety studies have been done, when they were asked in court for them and no one could produce them, of course Kenedy won the lawsuit.
My OBGYN told me the flu shot was studied and proven safe during pregnancy, I went into work and looked at the flu insert to find it clearly stated it had not been studied in children and pregnant women and if given to pregnant women you should call and add them to a registry, also on the front of the box it states not to give to children under the age of 5.
If you have not watched the CDC video approving the Hep vaccination you should as it is interesting. In the video it is given to 1 day old newborn babies and it has not been approved for those under the age of 18. When asked if it is safe to give with other vaccines they said they don’t know, but were making the assumption it was generally safe like other vaccines. When asked about the “new mutated gene thing” they replied the same of making the assumption that it’s safe like other vaccines. When asked about heart and autoimmune markers seen in their internal study they acknowledged they saw the markers and were going to monitor it and make a determination December 2020 whether or not there was a problem, but in the meantime it is being given to day old newborn babies. Yes, there are concerns that need to be addressed about safety, and I am thrilled that they may finally be addressed.”
Lord Sumption a former Supreme Court judge speaks out saying life will never be without risks & we should all be making our own decisions about whether or not to self isolate … at last, some common sense to add to that of all the health professionals who’ve been silenced! Or censored! EWR
According to data from the best-studied countries and regions, the lethality of Covid19 is on average about 0.2%, which is in the range of a severe influenza (flu) and about twenty times lower than originally assumed by the WHO.
Even in the global “hotspots”, the risk of death for the general population of school and working age is typically in the range of a daily car ride to work. The risk was initially overestimated because many people with only mild or no symptoms were not taken into account.
Up to 60% of all persons may already have a certain cellular background immunity to Covid19 due to contact with previous coronaviruses (i.e. common cold viruses).
The median or average age of the deceased in most countries (including Italy) is over 80 years and only about 1% of the deceased had no serious preconditions. The age and risk profile of deaths thus essentially corresponds to normal mortality.
In most Western countries, 50 to 70% of all extra deaths occurred in nursing homes, which do not benefit from a general lockdown. Moreover, in many cases it is not clear whether these people really died from Covid19 or from extreme stress, fear and loneliness.
Up to 50% of all additional deaths may have been caused not by Covid19, but by the effects of the lockdown, panic and fear. For example, the treatment of heart attacks and strokes decreased by up to 60% because many patients no longer dared to go to hospital.
Even in so-called “Covid19 deaths” it is often not clear whether they died from or with coronavirus (i.e. from underlying diseases) or if they were counted as “presumed cases” and not tested at all. However, official figures usually do not reflect this distinction.
Many media reports of young and healthy people dying from Covid19 turned out to be false: many of these young people either did not die from Covid19, they had already been seriously ill (e.g. from undiagnosed leukaemia), or they were in fact 109 instead of 9 years old.
The normal overall mortality per day is about 8000 people in the US, about 2600 in Germany and about 1800 in Italy. Influenza mortality per season is up to 80,000 in the US and up to 25,000 in Germany and Italy. In several countries Covid19 deaths remained below strong flu seasons.
In countries such as Italy and Spain, and to some extent the UK and the US, hospital overloads due to strong flu waves are not unusual. In addition, up to 15% of doctors and health workers were put into quarantine, even if they developed no symptoms.
The often shown exponential curves of “corona cases” are misleading, as the number of tests also increased exponentially. In most countries, the ratio of positive tests to tests overall (i.e. the positive rate) remained constant at 5% to 25% or increased only slightly. In many countries, the peak of the spread was already reached well before the lockdown.
Countries without curfews and contact bans, such as Japan, South Korea or Sweden, have not experienced a more negative course of events than other countries. Sweden was even praised by the WHO and now benefits from higher immunity compared to lockdown countries.
The fear of a shortage of ventilators was unjustified. According to lung specialists, the invasive ventilation (intubation) of Covid19 patients, which is partly done out of fear of spreading the virus, is in fact often counterproductive and damaging to the lungs.
Contrary to original assumptions, various studies have shown that there is no evidence of the virus spreading through aerosols (i.e. particles floating in the air) or through smear infections (e.g. on door handles, smartphones or at the hairdresser).
There is also no scientific evidence for the effectiveness of face masks in healthy or asymptomatic individuals. On the contrary, experts warn that such masks interfere with normal breathing and may become “germ carriers”. Leading doctors called them a “media hype” and “ridiculous”.
Many clinics in Europe and the US remained strongly underutilized or almost empty during the Covid19 peak and in some cases had to send staff home. Numerous operations and therapies were cancelled, including some organ transplants and cancer screenings.
Several media were caught trying to dramatize the situation in hospitals, sometimes even with manipulative images and videos. In general, the unprofessional reporting of many media maximized fear and panic in the population.
The virus test kits used internationally are prone to errors and can produce false positive and false negative results. Moreover, the official virus test was not clinically validated due to time pressure and may sometimes react to other coronaviruses.
NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden warned that the “corona crisis” will be used for the massive and permanent expansion of global surveillance. The renowned virologist Pablo Goldschmidt spoke of a “global media terror” and “totalitarian measures”. Leading British virologist professor John Oxford spoke of a “media epidemic”.
More than 500 scientists have warned against an “unprecedented surveillance of society” through problematic apps for “contact tracing”. In some countries, such “contact tracing” is already carried out directly by the secret service. In several parts of the world, the population is already being monitored by drones and facing serious police overreach.
Below you will find monthly updates on medical and political developments.
May 6, 2020
Stanford professor John Ioannidis explains in an interview with CNN that Covid19 is a “widespread and mild disease” comparable to influenza (flu) for the general population, while patients in nursing homes and hospitals should receive extra protection.
Stanford professor Scott Atlas explains in an interview with CNN that “the idea of having to stop Covid19 has created a catastrophic health care situation”. Professor Atlas says that the disease is “generally mild” and that irrational fears had been created. He adds that there is “absolutely no reason” for extensive testing in the general population, which is only necessary in hospitals and nursing homes. Professor Atlas wrote an article at the end of April entitled “The data are in – Stop the panic and end total isolation” that received over 15,000 comments.
Epidemiologist Dr Knut Wittkowskiexplains in a new interview that the danger of Covid19 is comparable to an influenza and that the peak was already passed in most countries before the lockdown. The lockdown of entire societies was a “catastrophic decision” without benefits but causing enormous damage. The most important measure is the protection of nursing homes. According to Dr. Wittkowski, Bill Gates’ statements on Covid19 are “absurd” and “have nothing to do with reality”. Dr. Wittkowski considers a vaccination against Covid19 “not necessary” and the influential Covid19 model of British epidemiologist Neil Ferguson a “complete failure”.
German virologist Hendrik Streeckexplains the final results of his pioneering antibody study. Professor Streeck found a Covid19 lethality of 0.36%, but explains that this is an upper limit and the lethality is probably in the range of 0.24 to 0.26% or even below. The average age of test-positive deceased was approximately 81 years.
Biology professor and Nobel Prize winner Michael Levitt, who has been analyzing the spread of Covid19 since February, describes the general lockdown as a „huge mistake“ and calls for more targeted measures, especially to protect risk groups.
The emeritus microbiology professor Sucharit Bhakdi explains in a new German interview that politics and the media have been conducting an “intolerable fear-mongering” and an “irresponsible disinformation campaign”. According to professor Bhakdi, face masks for the general population are not needed and may in fact be harmful “germ catchers”. The current crisis was brought about by the politicians themselves and has little to do with the virus, he argues, while a vaccine against coronavirus is “unnecessary and dangerous”, as was already the case with swine flu. The WHO has “never taken responsibility for its many wrong decisions over the years”, professor Bhakdi adds. (Note: The video was temporarily deleted by YouTube).
The Swiss chief physician for infectiology, Dr. Pietro Vernazza, explains in a new interview that the Covid19 disease is “mild for the vast majority of people”. The “counting of infected people and the call for more tests” would not help much. In addition, most of the people listed in the corona statistics did not die solely from Covid-19. According to Dr. Vernazza, there is no evidence for the benefit of face masks in people who do not show symptoms themselves (archive).
A new antibody study from Iran, one of the earliest and most affected countries by Covid19, also showed a very low lethality of 0.08% to 0.12%.
A new antibody study from Japan comes to the conclusion that about 400 to 800 times more people there had contact with the new coronavirus than previously thought, but showed no or hardly any symptoms. Japan had done rather few tests so far.
A new study from Germany, with the participation of leading virologist Christian Drosten, shows that about one third of the population already has some cellular immunity to the Covid19 corona virus, presumably through contact with earlier corona viruses (cold viruses). This cellular immunity by so-called T-cells is significantly higher than PCR and antibody tests suggested and may partly explain why many people develop no symptoms with the new coronavirus.
In a prison in the US state of Tennessee, only two out of 1349 test-positive people showed any symptoms at all.
On the French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle, none of 1046 test-positive sailors have died so far. On the US aircraft carrier Theodore Roosevelt, one of 969 test-positive sailors has died so far (preconditions and exact cause of death are not known). This yields a lethality rate of 0 to 0.1% for this population group.
Numerous media reported about alleged “re-infections” of already recovered persons in South Korea. However, researchers have now come to the conclusion that all of the 290 suspected cases were false-positive test results caused by “non-infectious virus fragments”. The result again highlights the well-known unreliability of PCR virus tests.
I’m a day late posting this unfortunately, but not too late to register and view. With mandatory vaccines being touted of late, everywhere pretty much, then this is a timely offering. The Truth About Vaccines is offering their series of videos free to view for a limited time. Register & avail yourselves of this opportunity. EWR (info below)
The Truth About Vaccines docu-series is COMING SOON! Secure your free, virtual seat for the 9-day online health event right here. ➡️https://bit.ly/register-free-TTAV-2020 You may or may not have heard much about this highly argued topic, but you definitely will after this “Coronavirus quarantine” is all over. In light of the current coronavirus pandemic, doctors are weighing in, the media is weighing in, and even the government is weighing in and discussing the possibility that the coronavirus vaccine might be mandatory for everyone in the USA! States like California have already enacted forced vaccine legislation for children to attend school (both public AND private). In light of the current climate of fear and panic, it’s not a stretch of the imagination to think that legislation could be passed which requires “proof of vaccines” to travel or even assemble in a public place. It’s time to educate yourself and your family about this vitally important issue! Our brilliant team behind some of the most successful health documentary series in history has turned its eye firmly to investigating the “pro vs. anti” vaccine safety debate. We’ve pulled together more than 60 of the foremost experts on the planet to give you a “no holds barred” look at the vaccine debate so you can get the very best information for your own family. Our explosive 9 episode docu-series, “The Truth About Vaccines 2020,” is coming soon and you can watch it 100% for free. ➡️https://bit.ly/register-free-TTAV-2020
Parents should be informed about both the benefits and the risks associated with vaccines — without pressure, propaganda, or agenda.
So we brought together more than 60 of the world’s foremost health experts to investigate both sides of this contentious debate to give you the science, the history, and the untold story… the REAL information you need to make an informed decision on how to best protect your child.
What You Will Learn
The History of Vaccines
Vaccination programs are given credit for eradicating some of the most devastating illnesses of the past, but they’re no longer immune to controversy of their own.
Vaccine Risks and Safety Concerns
Concerns about vaccine injuries, mercury toxicity, and autism have increased substantially in recent years, and public debate is once again heating up.
Full List of Options and Alternatives
You don’t have to pro- or anti-vaccine anymore. New options are available to guard against serious illness, based on your unique situation and risk factors.
ALL NEW Episodes for 2020!
Two new full episodes titled: “Censorship & Suppression” and “W.H.O.’s Not Telling the Truth?”
An OIA request reveals that during the period 1-July-2017 to 30-June-208 a sum of $325,221 was paid out in NZ for vaccine injuries. The intent of pointing this out is to draw your attention to the claim that injuries from vaccines are extremely extremely rare. Whilst that my once have been the case, currently the stats in the US are recorded by CDC as 1 in 39. Not by any stretch of the imagination ‘rare’. Having this information is crucial when making the decision to vaccinate. Do ask for the inserts to the vaccine to learn the risks of side effects or risk of injury as frequently these are not pointed out. There is many a testimony online of people who became injured and wish they had asked. This all of course is called informed consent. Very important when using the precautionary approach to all things health. Bear in mind also that many injuries are not reported.
Below is a copy of the OIA request for your perusal:
“A clear theme that emerged was the lack of accountability for mesh-injured patients – many of whom, in hindsight, had not been given adequate information about the surgery they were having and whether their surgeons were properly qualified to be undertaking procedures in the first instance”
“Patients injuries and needs have rarely been acknowledged or validated by those in the health system, leaving them feeling desperate and, in many cases, contemplating suicide”
New Zealand Surgical Mesh Restorative Justice Report Finally Released.
Tangible Concrete Commitments… Where Are They?
The use of surgical mesh for medical procedures has come under increasing scrutiny around the world because of high complication rates and problems with patient safety.
Consumer advocacy group Mesh Down Under has been lobbying since 2012 for practical help and changes in health care based on patient safety and rights.
The report, written by the Victoria University Restorative Justice research team dedicated to the 7-month long surgical mesh project (https://www.restorativehealth.net/), was published today by the Ministry of Health.
The researchers analysed feedback that was provided by both patients and surgeons who contributed anonymously to the report. Several surgeons said when they tried to raise concerns about a colleague’s ability to perform mesh surgery, they were severely bullied. That has perpetuated a culture which fails basic patient care and safety standards.
Even more devastating it was noted that when patients have been injured, they have found their original surgeons unable to fix injuries caused by surgery. Their concerns, injuries and pain were reported as often dismissed and labelled as “being in their head”.
That harm continues when the patient then deals with state agencies. Hundreds of patients detailed obstructive and protracted claims processes with the ACC. When they tried to raise concerns with the Health and Disability Commissioner regarding the medical treatment that had led to their injuries, the process was also arduous and difficult.
A clear theme that emerged was the lack of accountability for mesh-injured patients – many of whom, in hindsight, had not been given adequate information about the surgery they were having and whether their surgeons were properly qualified to be undertaking procedures in the first instance.
The report encapsulates the sometimes harrowing details and personal stories from hundreds of men and women in New Zealand who have been harmed by the use of surgical mesh in their treatment.
Stories regale poor health information, surgical incompetence, medical negligence and an alarming lack of accountability among health professionals and other agencies which are supposed to put patient rights and safety first.
Mesh Down Under fully supported this Restorative Justice process. It was an extremely significant and important step to take, although it is several years too late. We commend the way that this process has been undertaken, finally giving the mesh injured community to share their lived experiences of what has been going on behind the scenes.
While the report identifies a raft of proposals, we would like a clear commitment from the Government on these. There is no need for further consultation or review, as they have been identified to be in patients’ best interests and safety numerous times, including as part of the Health Select Committee report three years ago.
The continual delays in the progress of the necessary initiatives and changes that had previously been identified as urgently needed have been reiterated once again within this report. Seeing the same proposals come up yet again, for the specific help that we have been asking for several years, has resulted in a great deal of distress for some of our members.
After a summation meeting in Wellington, last month, Mesh Down Under was told that the relevant individual health agencies would be contacted by the Restorative Justice Team to confirm their commitments to action.
We are yet to see these commitments in full but will continue to push for robust funding. Without it, we wonder how the Government can support these agencies to make any meaningful progress on the proposed programs or ensure change is implemented with urgency.
We are pleased with the few measurable, tangible concrete commitments and timelines identified and we will be watching closely to ensure these promises of action are kept.
Mesh Down Under believe that these questions need to be asked of the government-
1. Will implementing the actions identified in the report meet the needs of those already harmed and prevent future harm?
2.Will the government provide the funding that will be required to implement the actions identified and when?
3.Will New Zealand finally follow overseas action and suspend mesh procedures whilst mandating high vigilance scrutiny on non-mesh procedures, until all recommendations are actioned and fully implemented?.
We look forward to the Government’s timely response.
Link to report: www.
Excerpts from the report:
“Patients emphasized that a meaningful apology must include acknowledgement of harm…….”The loss of trust they now have in health care providers and institutions cannot be overstated”.
“Restoring trust and confidence in clinicians and the healthcare system was considered a major priority” of this process. But patients identified that “this is dependent on “seeing tangible progress” in rectifying the problems created by surgical mesh.”
“Patients injuries and needs have rarely been acknowledged or validated by those in the health system, leaving them feeling desperate and, in many cases, contemplating suicide”.
By 2002 surgical mesh devices were freely available in New Zealand, which had (AND STILL HAS ) no requirements for pre-market testing or proof of safety or efficacy for medical devices. Surgeons recommended the procedure to patients, who received very little information about what the surgery involved. Research showed that very few, if any, were warned about the potential risks of lifelong complications.
In 2008 a statement was released by the FDA, warning of risks from pelvic mesh such as erosion of vaginal tissues, pain, infection, recurrence of POP, and new onset of SUI. At that time New Zealand’s Medsafe had received only 14 reports of adverse events (such reports are not mandatory, and the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) did not share treatment injury information with Medsafe until 2017. After a review, Medsafe concluded that the benefits outweighed the risks.
This all changed in 2012 when the first US court case against a mesh manufacturer concluded in favour of the patient. The gag order came off and media coverage began. Affected people made the link between their pain and suffering and the mesh implant, and realised they were not alone. As Carmel Berry recalled: ‘The feeling of finally being believed was overwhelming. I wanted to talk to other people, share my story publicly and warn others to avoid mesh.’
The formation of Mesh Down Under
Mesh Down Under was initially conceived as an online support group for people to share their lived mesh experiences. From the initial group of six members, numbers grew to over 50 within a few months. Co-founders Carmel Berry, Patricia Sullivan and Charlotte Korte realised that the number of mesh-injured New Zealanders was increasing and that the issue needed to be highlighted to the health sector and lawmakers.
Over the following two years, calling themselves ‘The Three Meshketeers’, they undertook to fully research the scale and scope of the issue, and endeavour to highlight to health authorities the difficulties faced by these patients, as they searched for the recognition of their symptoms and the help they needed.
They doggedly sought help from many organisations and people in the health sector, including Medsafe, Women’s Health Action, representatives of various medical colleges, the Health Quality and Safety Council, Health and Disability Commissioner (HDC), and ACC. Almost every meeting concluded with a recommendation that they pursue another agency or organisation that ‘may be able to help’.
They also regularly wrote to politicians and ministers asking them to investigate the growing number of mesh-related treatment Injury claims. They established relationships with media contacts and got regular coverage by investigative journalists, who were also seeing the global scandal unravelling.
By March 2014 they believed they had enough evidence to convince the government to launch a full inquiry into the problem. They launched a petition calling for the Health Select Committee to recommend an independent and transparent inquiry into the use of surgical mesh in New Zealand. This was followed by their supporting submission, providing ‘overwhelming evidence about the use and issues of surgical mesh and … concrete ways to improve outcomes for patients’.
After numerous gruelling sessions where the women were challenged by top health officials, the Health Select Committee’s report was presented to Parliament on 1 June 2016. It included seven recommendations, in three areas: the investigation of options for a surgical registry, improvement in medical practice, and the role of the regulator in pre-market medical device approval. In a report tabled on 24 August 2016, the government carefully considered the Committee’s report and supported all of its recommendations.
8 critical words were part of the Select Committee recommendations was “take note of the petitioners’ and others’ experiences. And that was the basis for kick-starting and implementing the ‘Restorative Justice Mesh Project which finally began in late 2018.
“Meanwhile, in the Philippines, this infant received 3 vaccines and now they are doing CPR on the child.” The baby died.
The deepest condolences to these parents. Absolutely heartbreaking. Watch the video of the medical staff trying to revive the little one they just minutes before injected with three vaccines. Safe? Really? (Note the video is currently pinned to the top of the Rangitikei FB page & you will only be able to view it if you are a FB member. You will also have to ‘uncover’ it as they have protected you from seeing the ‘violent or graphic content’ … the violence of the staff trying to revive a little one killed with their violent medical procedure). And no disrespect to this dear family who lost their precious baby … I am sure they have posted it as a warning to others. I am re posting it for the same reason.
If you watch Vaxxed testimonies on Youtube you will find many many more examples like this one. Perfectly healthy babies gone for their wellness checks & immunisation only to end up disabled or dead.
The risks for vaccine injury are 1 in 39 and the pharmaceutical companies are exempted from liability. These are frequently explained away as mere coincidence. Heartbreaking reports from parents indicate this may occur minutes, hours or days after the vaccine. Any parent’s worst nightmare. I had a conversation recently with a mother whose baby began to seizure 15 minutes after a vaccine was administered. A vaccine she did not want due to a previous reaction, however she was threatened with child protection services and did not want to lose her child. She had no come back, attempts by her to complain about these health professionals were met with brick walls. This was NZ too.
http://www.StopMandatoryVaccination.com – “If you believe what you are told by the AMA and the CDC and your doctor, you’re not doing enough research.” In 1991 Scott Cooper and his wife researched vaccine safety and efficacy, determined vaccines are NOT safe or effective, and refused to vaccinate their son. Interestingly, their son was much healthier than his vaccinated peers throughout childhood. At the time, Scott worked as a sales rep for Merck & Co., a large vaccine manufacturer, and he had dived deep into researching vaccines and the risk associated with vaccination. His Pediatrician was befuddled that Scott would not vaccinate, especially because he worked for a large vaccine manufacturer! His son continues to be healthy, and Scott and his wife have no regrets about not vaccinating their son. A STOP Mandatory Vaccination Production Produced by Larry Cook Founder and Director of http://www.StopMandatoryVaccination.com Contribute here: http://www.gofundme.com/ohwupg The Vaccine Research Library http://vaccineresearchlibrary.com
New Zealand is a leader in government use of artificial intelligence (AI). It is part of a global network of countries that use predictive algorithms in government decision making, for anything from the optimal scheduling of public hospital beds to whether an offender should be released from prison, based on their likelihood of reoffending, or the efficient processing of simple insurance claims.
But the official use of AI algorithms in government has been in the spotlight in recent years. On the plus side, AI can enhance the accuracy, efficiency and fairness of day-to-day decision making. But concerns have also been expressed regarding transparency, meaningful human control, data protection and bias.
In a report released today, we recommend New Zealand establish a new independent regulator to monitor and address the risks associated with these digital technologies.
There are three important issues regarding transparency.
One relates to the inspectability of algorithms. Some aspects of New Zealand government practice are reassuring. Unlike some countries that use commercial AI products, New Zealand has tended to build government AI tools in-house. This means that we know how the tools work.
But intelligibility is another issue. Knowing how an AI system works doesn’t guarantee the decisions it reaches will be understood by the people affected. The best performing AI systems are often extremely complex.
To make explanations intelligible, additional technology is required. A decision-making system can be supplemented with an “explanation system”. These are additional algorithms “bolted on” to the main algorithm we seek to understand. Their job is to construct simpler models of how the underlying algorithms work – simple enough to be understandable to people. We believe explanation systems will be increasingly important as AI technology advances.
A final type of transparency relates to public access to information about the AI systems used in government. The public should know what AI systems their government uses as well as how well they perform. Systems should be regularly evaluated and summary results made available to the public in a systematic format.
Our report takes a detailed look at how well New Zealand law currently handles these transparency issues.
New Zealand doesn’t have laws specifically tailored towards algorithms, but some are relevant in this context. For instance, New Zealand’s Official Information Act (OIA) provides a right to reasons for decisions by official agencies, and this is likely to apply to algorithmic decisions just as much as human ones. This is in notable contrast to Australia, which doesn’t impose a general duty on public officials to provide reasons for their decisions.
But even the OIA would come up short where decisions are made or supported by opaque decision systems. That is why we recommend that predictive algorithms used by government, whether developed commercially or in-house, must feature in a public register, must be publicly inspectable, and (if necessary) must be supplemented with explanation systems.
Human control and data protection
Another issue relates to human control. Some of the concerns around algorithmic decision-making are best addressed by making sure there is a “human in the loop,” with a human having final sign off on any important decision. However, we don’t think this is likely to be an adequate solution in the most important cases.
A persistent theme of research in industrial psychology is that humans become overly trusting and uncritical of automated systems, especially when those systems are reliable most of the time. Just adding a human “in the loop” will not always produce better outcomes. Indeed in certain contexts, human collaboration will offer false reassurance, rendering AI-assisted decisions less accurate.
With respect to data protection, we flag the problem of “inferred data”. This is data inferred about people rather than supplied by them directly (just as when Amazon infers that you might like a certain book on the basis of books it knows you have purchased). Among other recommendations, our report calls for New Zealand to consider the legal status of inferred data, and whether it should be treated the same way as primary data.
Bias and discrimination
A final area of concern is bias. Computer systems might look unbiased, but if they are relying on “dirty data” from previous decisions, they could have the effect of “baking in” discriminatory assumptions and practices. New Zealand’s anti-discrimination laws are likely to apply to algorithmic decisions, but making sure discrimination doesn’t creep back in will require ongoing monitoring.
The report also notes that while “individual rights” — for example, against discrimination — are important, we can’t entirely rely on them to guard against all of these risks. For one thing, affected people will often be those with the least economic or political power. So while they may have the “right” not to be discriminated against, it will be cold comfort to them if they have no way of enforcing it.
There is also the danger that they won’t be able to see the whole picture, to know whether an algorithm’s decisions are affecting different sections of the community differently. To enable a broader discussion about bias, public evaluation of AI tools should arguably include results for specific sub-populations, as well as for the whole population.
A new independent body will be essential if New Zealand wants to harness the benefits of algorithmic tools while avoiding or minimising their risks to the public.
Alistair Knott, James Maclaurin and Joy Liddicoat, collaborators on the AI and Law in New Zealand project, have contributed to the writing of this piece.
Across America, women are taking the fight to Johnson & Johnson. The massive company behind many of the nation’s favorite products has come under fire amongst claims that their product, talcum powder, can cause ovarian cancer. If you want to take part in this class action lawsuit, make sure you seek out a professional compensation lawyer and get the Johnson & Johnson ovarian cancer risks details here.
About the lawsuit regarding Johnson & Johnson ovarian cancer risks
The claims come after the resurfacing of a study from 1982. As a result of this study, a group of researchers took their findings to Johnson & Johnson. They told them that the results of their research clearly suggested a link between talcum powder and a higher risk of developing cancer.
Twelve years later, in 1994, the Cancer Prevention Coalition also appealed to the company to ask them to recall the products and stop making talcum powder with its current ingredients.
The group spearheading the lawsuit versus the company claim that the company knowingly ignored the research and never told the public about it. They didn’t put warning labels on their products, and they even advertised that people use the potentially cancerous products on high-risk parts of their bodies.
An estimated 17.3 million American adults (7.1% of the adult population), experienced at least one major depressive episode in 2017. The highest rates are reported among those aged between 18 and 25
The vast majority are prescribed antidepressant drugs, despite the fact there’s virtually no evidence to suggest they provide meaningful help, and plenty of evidence showing the harms are greater than patients are being told
Hundreds of thousands of toddlers are also being medicated with powerful psychiatric drugs, raising serious ethical questions, along with questions about the future mental and physical health of these children
There’s no scientific evidence to suggest depression is the result of a chemical imbalance in your brain. A lot of the evidence suggests unhealthy living conditions are at the heart of the problem
Antidepressants are not beneficial in the long term and antipsychotic drugs worsen outcomes over the long term in those diagnosed with psychotic disorders such as schizophrenia
In the U.S., an estimated 17.3 million American adults (7.1% of the adult population), experienced at least one major depressive episode in 2017.1 The highest rates are reported among those aged between 18 and 25.2 However, not only is there evidence that depression is vastly overdiagnosed, but there’s also evidence showing it’s routinely mistreated.
With regard to overdiagnosis, one 2013 study3 found only 38.4% of participants with clinician-identified depression actually met the DSM-4 criteria for a major depressive episode, and only 14.3% of seniors 65 and older met the criteria.
As for treatment, the vast majority are prescribed antidepressant drugs, despite the fact there’s virtually no evidence to suggest they provide meaningful help, and plenty of evidence showing the harms are greater than patients are being told.
According to a 2017 study,4 1 in 6 Americans between the ages of 18 and 85 were on psychiatric drugs, most of them antidepressants, and 84.3% reported long-term use (three years or more). Out of 242 million U.S. adults, 12% were found to have filled one or more prescriptions for an antidepressant, specifically, in 2013.
According to data5 presented by a watchdog group, hundreds of thousands of toddlers are also being medicated with powerful psychiatric drugs, raising serious ethical questions, along with questions about the future mental and physical health of these children.
Recent studies are also shedding much needed light on the addictive nature of many antidepressants, and demonstrate that the benefits of these drugs have been overblown while their side effects — including suicidal ideation — and have been downplayed and ignored for decades, placing patients at unnecessary risk.
The VAXXED team interviewed a mother in Long Beach, California, who is a nurse and was pro-vaccine. She explains that all her children were up-to-date on their vaccines before she gave her daughter the Gardasil vaccine at age 16.
As a nurse, she routinely gave vaccines to patients at work, and never questioned these vaccines. She states that she was never taught about their side effects.
So when she heard that Gardasil was a vaccine to prevent cancer, and that her daughter needed to have it before she became sexually active, she did not hesitate to have her daughter come in to the office where she worked, where she herself administered the first vaccine.
After that first vaccine, her daughter was always tired, and they thought maybe she had “mono.” Her body ached all the time, and she had difficulty walking long distances. Prior to the vaccine, her daughter was healthy and active.
Her mother did not associate these symptoms with the vaccine, however. She attributed it to a poor diet and a busy lifestyle.
Because of her daughter’s fear of vaccines, she decided to bring the second Gardasil vaccine home and give it to her daughter in their home.
Soon after the second vaccine, her daughter was diagnosed with leukemia. 10 months later, she was dead.
I want to share my story because it is very important.
This vaccine is horrible. I don’t know if I wouldn’t have given it to her if she would still be here.
And I feel really responsible because I gave it to her physically…
I just thought I was doing what was right to protect my daughter from cancer, and she got cancer!
Ten Thousand Chemicals in Food and Food Packaging: What Are These Substances Doing to Our Children?
The majority of additives in U.S. foods have undergone either inadequate or zero regulatory oversight. American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) just issued a policy statement about the risks to children’s health of the more than 10,000 chemicals directly or indirectly added to food and “food contact materials” in the U.S. with three primary aims: (1) to review and highlight the significant health concerns associated with the chemicals in foods; (2) to formulate recommendations that pediatricians can share with families; and (3) to propose “urgently needed reforms” pertaining to regulation of food additives by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
Public health challenges related to the foods that American children eat are a not-infrequent topic of national conversation. With 38% of children either overweight or obese, the childhood obesity epidemic tends to top the list of concerns, along with related issues such as children’s fast food consumption and the damaging effects of junk food advertising.
According to a recent nationally representative survey, about 60% of the calories consumed by Americans come from “ultra-processed” foods and beverages–defined as products resulting from “several sequences of industrial processes” and including additives “used to imitate sensory properties of foods or to disguise unpalatable aspects of the final product.” Alarmingly, the survey showed that adolescents (10- to 19-year-olds) were among the biggest consumers of ultra-processed foods and that their intake of these foods increased from 2007 to 2012, rising to over two-thirds (68%) of total calories consumed.
Given that teens are relying on additive-filled processed foods for the bulk of their calories, it is noteworthy that the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) just issued a policy statement about the risks to children’s health of the more than 10,000 chemicals directly or indirectly added to food and “food contact materials” in the U.S. Published in July 2018 in Pediatrics, the AAP commentary has three primary aims: (1) to review and highlight the significant health concerns associated with the chemicals in foods; (2) to formulate recommendations that pediatricians can share with families; and (3) to propose “urgently needed reforms” pertaining to regulation of food additives by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The majority of additives in U.S. foods have undergone either inadequate or zero regulatory oversight.
NOTE: The NZ authorities do not practice the precautionary principle with the spreading of 1080 poison. In fact they are now legally allowed to drop it into your waterways without the previously required consents, even though the manufacturer’s warning says take care not to drop it into the waterways. Whilst they continue to claim it is harmless, there is much independent research that says otherwise. (See 1080science for further independent info). In light of that, in my opinion it is safer to follow the precautionary principle, that is, proceed as if there were a possible risk to your health rather than assume there is none. Since 1080 is a known teratogen I believe it is particularly important for pregnant mothers or even those who think they may be or who could be pregnant, to distance themselves from an area where 1080 is being distributed, particularly aerially because of the drift of the dust over long distances. I believe these are the concerns being raised here, and particularly also with regard to warning tourists of the risks of drinking the water, who may not be able to read the signs (if there indeed are any). Finally, of particular concern is the topography of Milford Sound. When it rains at Milford Sound, “all of the steep landscape can be considered a streambed”. EWR.
By Carol Sawyer
Bowen Falls, Milford Sound….. the water intake for supplying Milford Sound township, and all tourist boats and accommodation, is approx. 200m upstream of the Bowen Falls and approx. 100m below the 1080 poison bait drop zone, where 1080 poison baits were aerially dropped on 15 October, 2019.
See smallest map attached. The person who provided that map says:
“Blue (circle) is rough location of intake. Red is a big pipe running from intake into the hydro electric station. It creates the power. Also here is where the only filter for our drinking water is…it’s a UV filter. Then it is distributed to vessels and accommodations. Our drinking water is straight from the Bowen River valley. I have walked up the pipeline before… quite steep in places.”
The significance of all of this is that the aerial 1080 drop could possibly have contaminated the water supply. As well as that, poisoned carcasses will, as we know from experience in all aerial 1080 drops, end up in that waterway as well, also then being a source of contamination.
1)Bowen Falls – Photo Te Ara, Encyclopaedia of NZ
2)Water intake – approximate position provided.
3)Area around Milford Sound excluded from aerial 1080 poison… map provided by Dept of Conservation.
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.”
Note re sharing: you are welcome to share but please link back to this site. Or use the reblog button. Thanks. EWR
“The USSR experimented on humans and animals with 5G in 1977, 1972 and 1997. A proper military experiment. The humans suffered metabolic problems, ie everything started to fall apart, blood problems, immune system dysfunction, severe medical and neurological problems. With animals, since they were able to dissect them, they found the bone marrow was suffering (which produces the immune system), respiration damaged, enzyme activity damaged, nuclear dna damaged, and the total exposure time was only 15 hours over 60 days. Roughly 15 minutes a day and the levels were not high. Not as high as you are going to get in a classroom.” …. Dr Barrie Trower
Note: Since posting this people in NZ are asking what can we do? Some suggestions … visit the nz site http://www.5g.org.nz/ … they have addressed what we can do in NZ. Also Mark Steele from the video, he has a website https://www.saveusnow.org.uk/ (save us now) & all the detail on how he fought his council in Gateshead in court & won (article coming on that). Note there is a campaign to discredit him & his work which should tell you something. Please ignore the debunking links you will see when you search. If there were anything dodgy with this man Dr Barrie Trower would not be teaming up with him for this video interview. Also visit Josh del Sol’s site, if you go to https://takebackyourpower.net/ you will find his doco of the same name, an excellent although shocking intro to the shonky science we’re dished out on the so called ‘safety’ of emfs/wi-fi particularly relating to smart meters (if you are new to this or have hitherto believed it’s all good, no problems). When you land at that site you will be alerted to an upcoming online series of teaching (free at the viewing times, you can also purchase these for your own reference later). It screens in late August. Lastly Dr Trower has many other interviews on Youtube that will give you insight into how wi-fi is affecting us already. Particularly our children. 5G he illustrates is a military grade weapon they used for crowd control. Fact. (Here is a 14 minute clip with the essentials from him). EWR
THE VIDEO …. (quoting here from Dr Barrie Trower)
“The roll out already started in Vienna, the unsuspecting people immediately suffered from nosebleeds, cardiac problems, chest pains, fatigue, dizziness, vomiting in fact all of the symptoms of microwave sickness … known since 1932.”
“The USSR experimented on humans and animals with 5G in 1977, 1972 and 1997. A proper military experiment. The humans suffered metabolic problems, ie everything started to fall apart, blood problems, immune system dysfunction, severe medical and neurological problems. With animals, since they were able to dissect them, they found the bone marrow was suffering (which produces the immune system), respiration damaged, enzyme activity damaged, nuclear dna damaged, and the total exposure time was only 15 hours over 60 days. Roughly 15 minutes a day and the levels were not high. Not as high as you are going to get in a classroom.” …. Dr Barrie Trower
This is such important information here I’ve transcribed half of the video in note form (note particularly there are some words that may not be spelled correctly, you will need to listen for yourself). Transcription below. Here is some detail about how Dr Barrie Trower is someone we should be listening to about the dangers of wi-fi and in particular 5G.
Dr Barrie Trower
“I trained at the Governments Microwave Warfare establishment in 60’s. I worked with the underwater bomb disposal unit, which used microwaves.
In the 70’s I helped de-brief spies trained in microwave warfare.
My first degree is in Physics (I specialised in microwaves)
My second degree is a research degree.
I have a teaching diploma in human physiology.
I teach advanced physics and mathematics at South Dartmoor College.
Author of the Tetra Report for the Police Federation. I predicted the illnesses, which the officers now complain of. I predicted the illness’s the residents now complain of.
These are illness’s that occurred before my report was published and cannot be psychosomatic.
Mark Steele And about Mark Steele, he is a technical weapons expert, patent writer, inventor and nuclear research technology officer. SOURCE A UK Judge declared Mark Steele as a credible expert and engineer on EMF and GSM technologies. SOURCE
Barrie Trower has come out of retirement to blow the whistle & likewise Mark Steele who (in Barrie’s words) ‘has stuck his head above the parapet‘ to warn people of what is coming. He has taken on the fight & won in Gateshead UK where 5G has been rolled out since 2011. This interview will shock you. EWR
Mirrored from: Barrie Trower & Mark Steele on 5G https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BAs5… Barry Trower & Mark Steele discuss 5G as a weapon and also answer the confusion relating to Bemri’s visit to Gateshead and how 5G encompasses the Sub Ghz range.
(VIDEO-Barrie Trower and Mark Steele on 5G (2019)
350 environmental organizations from 96 countries have said, stop 5G.
WHO advisor came out & said stop 5G
Early on in its development they noted it kills birds, cattle, tadpoles & insects.
California fire fighters have an exemption from 5G because of dangers to their health.
A new weapon they have developed that is stronger than 5G was tested on Special Forces & caused them to drop to their knees.
A Professor of Medicine has said nature has no defense against 5G.
5G will affect our eyes … cataracts, glaucoma, macular degeneration and kidney problems.
Another Professor has said 5G on lamp posts will cause insect Armageddon because they hover around lamp posts. They won’t survive.
5G has to be compliant because it has to be linked as it has been in other countries, to all radar systems, wi-fi, smart meters, hospital equipment … the internet of things… all have to be compatible. So not just getting 5G but all the other Gs and wi-fi.
The calculations for 5G are time averaged… the data is around a 100x greater than 4G.
The roll out already started in Vienna, the unsuspecting people immediately suffered from nosebleeds, cardiac problems, chest pains, fatigue, dizziness, vomiting in fact all of the symptoms of microwave sickness that Barrie Trower has known since 1932.
The USSR experimented on humans and animals with 5G in 1977, 1972 and 1997. A proper military experiment. The humans suffered metabolic problems, ie everything started to fall apart, blood problems, immune system dysfunction, severe medical and neurological problems. With animals, since they were able to dissect them, they found the bone marrow was suffering (which produces the immune system), respiration damaged, enzyme activity damaged, nuclear dna damaged, and the total exposure time was only 15 hours over 60 days. Roughly 15 minutes a day and the levels were not high. Not as high as you are going to get in a classroom.
So it has been used as a weapon, and it has been tested experimentally on animals and humans. So yes it is definitely going to make you ill.
Has to have megahertz frequencies to comply with other transmitters & receivers. Also in other countries it has to have the low gigahertz frequencies.
In some countries you have as many as 22 different frequencies when it’s fully functional because it has to comply with all of the other things. It will be added to wi-fi 2,3,4G, smart meters. Its compliance with smart meters is actually quite frightening because each smart meter has to have two transmitters. One low frequency to go into the house & talk to the fridge and the telly etc and one to reach the main transmitter. Each house may have up to 15 appliances. Each small group of houses, goes from 500-5000 houses, in a mesh. When look at the maths… like a little group of tower blocks on a big estate, you can have as many as 5000 smart meters, two transmitters for each smart meters, so you have ten thousand smart meters in a small area transmitting. Each of them (15 per house) so in one reasonably sized council estate can have up to 150,000 transmitters. They are producing the 5G wave forms and wi-fi, 2.4 gigs which is a known weapons frequency. It is known in the military & published, Stanford Institute Research California, did their own experiments and said the two most dangerous frequencies for living cellular structures which is all of nature, trees, animals, insects, humans, is the wi-fi frequency and .95 gigs … a Doctor with 22 years experience in WHO cancer dept. has said that all of this will cause cancer. No question.
5 Gigahertz isn’t 5G, it is a telecom signal frequency. Shows the deceit of these people. It is capable of spying, on every device in your home.
5G has already been here for many years. Rolled out in Gateshead in 2011 & 12. Mark didn’t know until Sept 2016 when LED … the architecture, the equipment 5G’s been attached to is LED streetlights. They’re also part of a weapons system … post modulated, terahertz range lights can be extremely hazardous. The blue phospha coating … professor John O’Hagan has stated these lights are a risk, a risk to biology, a risk to children, a risk to eye sight etc. This is Public Health England. You have American Medical Assn stating the same, Anzi (?) stating the same, and Shia (?) the emerging risk team in Europe stating that flicker, post modulation on these LED street lights is risky. Ask yourself, why are your local authorities at speed, rushing this technology out on top of you when there’s already been identified a double increase in prostrate cancer from the exposure to these blue light systems, phospha coated blue light systems, so what’s going on? These councils are totally disregarding this. Regulatory bodies we pay to protect are still rolling them out. They’re on the motorways. Children are being born today that by the time they’re 25 they won’t be able to see. That’s because the exposure to this type of radiation, non ionized radiation, the secretary of state has a duty of care he’s totally ignoring. The plan is to make sure these people are seen in a court of law to bring them to justice.
This brings you to half way through the video (32 mins in).
The NZ authorities do not practice the precautionary principle with the spreading of 1080 poison. In fact they are now legally allowed to drop it into your waterways without the previously required consents, even though the manufacturer’s warning says take care not to drop it into the waterways. Whilst they continue to claim it is harmless, there is much independent research that says otherwise. (See 1080science for further independent info). In light of that, in my opinion it is safer to follow the precautionary principle, that is, proceed as if there were a possible risk to your health rather than assume there is none. Since 1080 is a known teratogen I believe it is particularly important for pregnant mothers or even those who think they may be or who could be pregnant, to distance themselves from an area where 1080 is being distributed, particularly aerially because of the drift of the dust over long distances. I believe these are the concerns being raised here, and particularly also with regard to warning tourists of the risks of drinking the water, who may not be able to read the signs (if there indeed are any). Finally, of particular concern is the topography of Milford Sound. When it rains as per the above image, “all of the steep landscape can be considered a streambed”. EWR.
Re: Response to email on 31st July 2019 from John McCutcheon (MSI) to the community andstakeholders, regarding the impending 1080 drop into the public water supply water catchment area of Milford Sound
The key issue:
DOC has issued its intentions to drop a VTA (1080) between Aug 1st and Dec 2019 in the Cleddau/Milford Sound area, including the Bowen River valley, which is the water catchment for the public water supply of Milford Sound.
How might this affect the public water supply and its consumers in the Milford Sound area?
It won’t, if the drop is aborted in the Bowen River valley water catchment area.
However, if the drop in the catchment area goes ahead, I believe that – on reading the information and links below, both DOC & Milford Sound Infrastructure (MSI –the local public water supply company) should act in good faith, and with the prudent exercise of ethical responsibility, to make sure that an alternate water supply is arranged during and after the 1080 drop. Also, adequatesignage should be supplied about the drop –which seems to be the responsibility of Workplace NZ.
The alternative supply should be offered until testing is carried out and levels of 1080 found to be below the government standard for tests (set at 2 parts per billion, though under 3.5 parts per billion is deemed safe by the EPA.) Note: No human trials have been carried out to know if this level is indeed correct)
Failing the delivery of an alternate water supply, responsibility lies with us – the end operators and consumers, along with WorkSafe NZ – to place signs at all water outlets where human consumption could reasonably be expected to take place. For example, all tourist vessels, port and airport facilities, and all lodgings should have 1080 danger signs erected where water (including tea or coffee) is to be offered during and after aerial operations in the Bowen River catchment area, until post-drop test results are available.
I have now received an email (dated 1 Aug 2019) from Renee Cubitt (Health Protection Officer Public Health South, Southern DHB) where she states:
“… Mitigation measures are discussed between the water supplier and the applicant andmonitoring includes testing the water before consumption. Water samples tested for 1080 toxin residue in New Zealand are tested to a very low level of detection. Alternative suppliesare arranged before results are cleared(highlight added). In our view the risk to those consuming drinking water is extremely low – and most likely nil.”
But as recognised in this statement, some risk – however small – exists, so an alternative water supply should be offered.
What regulates these requests to drop 1080 and relevant mitigation of risk?
The Ministry of Health is responsible for ensuring that the provisions of the HSNO Act are complied with where it is necessary to protect public health. The Public Health Unit (PHU) is empowered by the Ministry of Health to approve permission and attach conditions to interested parties applying a VTA (Vertebrate Toxic Agent) in a public place. This applies especially to drops into (or near) a public water supply. Public Health South (PHS) processes and approves permissions for VTA use in the Fiordland area, in so doing, sets minimum standards for the intended dispersal area in the Milford Sound public water supply catchment area.
Permission is required because VTAs (of which 1080 is one) are toxic to humans through acute poisoning and chronic exposure. 1080 is considered a hazardous substance, for good reason. (See link to 1080 effects at p7.)
The PHU have issued a Model Permission Statement (see p32 onwards) with examples – one of which focuses on a VTA to be dropped into a public water supply. (Case study 2 at p63.)
Some things that stand out for me with the model PHU permissions:
Full disclosure to users is expected, with signs and warnings – which would logically be placed at the point of possible consumption. (See conditions 19 & 20 p47 of VTA permission guide.)
An alternate water supply should be offered, if requested, until testing has been completed. (See Case example – Condition 25 p68 note ii and conditions 25 – 32 of VTA permission guide.)
I see the above two points as meeting a legal and moral duty to protect tourists (and locals) from potentially drinking contaminated water.
It should be noted that, according to the opening segment of condition 30 (p57) of the VTApermission guide:
Mitigation shall be mutually agreed in writing between the applicant and water supply managers and involve either or both of the following [emphasis added]:
No 1080 shall be applied within 200 m of the water supply intakes. For flowing surface watercourses, the 200 m exclusion shall be extended to 400 m upstream of the point of intake. (p57)
If an interim water supply is available, the affected water supply shall be temporarily disconnected until such time as water testing finds no VTA contamination above 50 percent of the Ministry’s PMAV*, in accordance with the requirements of the Drinking-water Standards of New Zealand. (p57)
The first point above is modified (example given in condition (30 pg57) by:
In steep areas, the exclusion area may need to be increased to avoid bait falling in to the waterway [emphasis added].
Local conditions affecting the toxicity of any drop in this area
Let’s be honest, the whole Milford Sound area has extremely steep gradients.
Bowen River valley and public water supply catchment area (see red circled area)
Fiordland is a unique area in terms of its topography and rainfall. The Bowen River catchment valley is rather like a giant granite bath, with very little top soil, and average rainfall of 7000mm per annum.
During rainfall, all of the steep landscape can be considered a streambed.
Contrasting the 2D nature of the 2017 GPS flight path map for the 1080 drop in this area with the reality of the length of the Bowen River and its many, many feeder streams (via a camping map) also gives perspective to the special nature of this landscape and its potential for major 1080 runoff into the waters feeding our drinking water supply.
This unique topography, together with winter temperatures, ice and snow melt, will likely increase the risk of 1080 arriving at the intake area intact, and at the same time and breaking down much more slowly. According to TBFree: “How 1080 Breaks Down in Soil and Water”:
“Biodegradation of 1080 is faster in warmer conditions (20degC), but still occurs at 5degC. Atcooler temperatures rates of degradation are slower…..”
Imagine the perfect storm: A huge rain soon after the drop and all the aerially dispersed 1080 pellets wash straight into the streams and make their way to the public water supply intake around the same time. This poison then, being a deadly toxin at single digit parts per billion, arrives to be consumed by a pregnant woman, above the levels that the mother and child can metabolize safely.
Is it possible that 1080 might get to the intake before it breaks down? Considering the nature of the topography here, the winter temperatures and the international exposure of our iconic location, ALL options of mitigating risks should be enacted.
The 2017 DOC report (at p6) reported a positive 1080 test at 1ppb for the Bowen River (ie a fairly small risk). However, as discussed above, different conditions (eg heavy rain around the time of the drop) may adversely affect that risk level.
“The specific characteristics and risk profile of each VTA operation is different, depending onthe VTA being used, the terrain and factors such as public use patterns and/or proximity to dwellings and water supplies. The Model Permit Conditions may need to be modified in order to adequately manage the level of the risk to public health.[From page iii, emphasis added]
“The Model Permit Conditions are intended as astarting point. They should not be applied as ageneralised standard ‘set’ of conditions. They provide a framework that officers can adjust in order to meet local needs. However, officers need to ensure that they fully consider the various risks and characteristics of each specific proposed VTA operation in order to determine the appropriate Model Permit Conditions to be used and how such conditions might need to be modified to adequately manage the public health risks posed by that particular operation.” [From page 2, emphasis added]
Guidelines are not the law. They are a mechanism for giving effect to the law – and to its precautionary approach.
Milford Sound – a major tourist attraction
Milford Sound is one of NZ’s iconic tourist locations. We have somewhere between 500 to 5,000 guests per day visiting the Fiord, hosted by various companies across the different seasons. The large majority of tourists are foreign nationals, many of whom don’t speak or read English very well.
Until at least the 24th July 2019, Milford Sound Infrastructure acknowledged they hadn’t been notified of the impending drop. Since the community was notified by MSI on the 31st July, we can assume we now have at least 2 months until the scheduled drop begins, as per the guidelines:
The notice must be given sufficiently prior to, but within two months of, the proposed application of the VTA (PHU VTA Permission – condition 27 Notification)
I understand that some of the companies here are planning to make bottled water available for their staff, but none of them (as far as I know) are planning to offer bottled water to the tourists, or even to put notices up in the terminal or on the vessels to warn them of the 1080 drop – so they can at least make an informed choice as to whether they will consume the potentially contaminated water or not.
I believe in ‘free will’ and I can understand some people believe the Government/DOC scientists when they say the water will be safe to drink.
However, around 3% of 1080 tests in water have come back positive for 1080 over the years, with at least 4 positive tests in drinking water, albeit in low concentrations. (See TBFree, p3.)
Knowing that 1080 is teratogenic (may cause birth defects) and with my partner being pregnant, I wouldn’t wish her to have any exposure whatsoever to 1080. I assume no foreign national in her position would wish to be exposed to that risk either. (See MOH Guidelines p7 re known 1080 effects.)
I am disappointed that neither DOC, MSI Milford Sound Infrastructure, or MST Milford SoundTourism NZ (the port operational company that operate the terminal and dock facilities) are planning to at least inform the tourists that the water they may drink in the terminal and on board the vessels may potentially have a birth defect causing agent in it.
It is probably true that signs will likely be erected along the road into Milford, as we have seen done in various locations around NZ. But it is wrong to conclude that because those signs are at rest areas etc, that foreigners will equate that with the drinking water supply inthe terminal and on the vesselsetc, as being also potentially contaminated. One must remember that many visitors can’t read English for a start, plus many come from areas where it is obvious that one doesn’t drink from any tap water.
Is it obvious here?
I would expect the duty of care and a minimum standard would mean that we’d firstly err on the side of caution. I would also assume that foreign governments would want us to set the minimum standard bar rather high when it comes to looking after the health and welfare of their citizens. As we would hope they do for our citizens when they’re abroad.
We know that the US and China for example, among others, take the safety of their citizens travelling overseas very seriously.
Do we need reminding that there is no antidote to 1080 poisoning?
It really seems easy to avoid the vast majority of the risks in this case. Just don’t drop 1080 in the water catchment area: meaning no 1080 to be aerially dropped in the Bowen River valley area of Milford Sound.
If DOC is so determined to go-ahead with the poison drop in the catchment area, then full disclosure to tourists should be made and an alternate drinking water supply offered (as per the model PHU statement example of 1080 in a public water supply).
It’s embarrassing that we call our country ‘Open and Inclusive’ ‘Clean Green’ etc and yet treat foreigners with this sort of disrespect.
I would like to add, I have no issue with the normal supply and delivery of water in Milford Sound. As long as I’ve worked here, MSI and MST have both operated with professionalism and worked to fix any issues with the greatest of haste.
A final point
If the aerial drop in the Bowen River catchment area is aborted, there would be no risk to the public water supply.
If you are concerned, please speak up and send your concerns to DOC and MSI.
A must watch also is Poisoning Paradise, the doco made by the GrafBoys (banned from screening on NZ TV, yet a 4x international award winner). Their website is tv-wild.com. Their doco is a very comprehensive overview with the independent science to illustrate the question marks that remain over the use of this poison. There are links also on our 1080 resources page to most of the groups, pages, sites etc that will provide you with further information.
Probably botulism or another unidentified neuro-toxin again? It could never be 1080 because that is just a deadly chemical weapon that is not supposed to harm the people of NZ. The MOH says that “there is no evidence”. There is no evidence because the Ministry of Non-health does not allow the evidence to be looked for. There is plenty of evidence that 1080 efficiently kills people, causes abortions, causes stillbirths, and causes birth defects and no evidence that it does not. There are no valid clinical trials of 1080 or other poisons because they are POISONS. The only place where people do experiments in which people are exposed to poisons is New Zealand. Other countries have heard about the precautionary principle and medical ethics but the people of New Zealand don’t seem to have been provided with that news. All we get here is false propaganda, published by a tame media, controlled by self-serving bureaucrats in dysfunctional and corrupted government enterprises. When people who are potentially exposed to poisons become ill the cause of illness is ASSUMED TO BE DUE TO POISONING UNTIL CONCLUSIVELY PROVEN OTHERWISE. That is how medicine is practiced in most countries. In New Zealand we already know that the people are potentially exposed to 1080 and other poisons but our Ministry of NOT-Health policy is that people are presumed to NOT BE POISONED by this exposure unless it can be proven beyond any doubt that they have been poisoned. Just to make sure that the PROOF CANNOT BE FOUND the appropriate investigations are also prohibited. This is called a catch 22 conspiracy. People are told that exposure to a deadly poison cannot harm them “because there is no evidence”. There is no evidence because it is not allowed to be looked for. The evidence is not allowed to be looked for because the people have been told that the poison cannot harm them. Without any intent to insult any specific employee of any government enterprise, it has always been generally agreed that any doctor who is competent and capable would never work for the government.
Vaccine injury cases are on the rise people, so if you’ve got your head in the sand and you haven’t been paying attention, it’s time to wake up.
Here’s a little background for those of you just getting started.
Ronnie Reagan… almost 30 years ago to the day, the 40th president of the United States signed away the rights of Americans to sue vaccine makers, replacing them with a law that forces families who have suffered vaccine injury or death to sue the U.S. government instead of a pharmaceutical company.
As a result, special masters from the United States Special Claims Court, also known for our purposes as the vaccine court, are given full authority as judge with no jury to decide the fate of Americans who have had the unfortunate ‘luck’ to be stricken by a vaccine injury — which can range from chronic, mild symptoms to death.
Once a year, this non-traditional court provides the public with a glimpse into its inner workings, by issuing an annual report on its website — a ritual that happens every January. The report is sent to the President of Congress, otherwise known as the Vice President of the United States, where it is intended to serve as a bell weather monitoring reactions the American public may be having to vaccinations that are increasingly becoming forced by government mandates around the country.
No headlines, no press release, no analysis, no alert the media, no nothing.
No surprise, given that most people in America don’t even know that vaccines were ruled to be unavoidably unsafe by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2011. Also no surprise, that mainstream, co-opted, globalist elite media constantly ignore this report, along with sane arguments made by health freedom advocates about the dangers and risks of vaccine injury (‘look! a unicorn!’), instead using terms like ‘the science is in,’ and vaccine risk has been ‘debunked,’ to deter rational discussion pertaining to evidence that is hiding in plain sight.
Also no surprise that the U.S. Special Claims Court offers up an ineffective, low tech, archaic version of the report every year. Instead of a nice, sort-able spread sheet, the court posts a scanned PDF document — a format which requires labor-intensive activities to conduct any sort of concrete analysis. One must either re-data-entry all 220+ pages which would take weeks, or conduct an extensive, hand-written breakdown by vaccine of each case, combined with extensive tallying and organization efforts in order to identify statistical relevance and trends emerging from the vaccine court.
Is this by design? Perhaps. Most definitely it is at the very least a deterrent from having anybody actually sit down and try to analyze the damn thing.
Which is exactly why we do it, every year since 2014. Not to be deterred, it took us 10 months to finally finish our analysis of this year’s report. But once we did, the trends we found were shocking — not just because of what they revealed about the continual increase in vaccine injury, but also because of the deafening silence present among the halls of mainstream media, as vaccine injury continues to be a subject that journalists and media outlets ignore — chalking it up to yet another conspiracy theory from yet another fake news site.
Well pull up a chair and hold on to your hats, because guess what we discovered:
And why would this be any different in NZ Kiwis? Same drug companies. Same medical model. Same addressing of symptoms not root causes as is generally the case.
A damning Harvard University report has advised that according to the European Commission, about 328,000 patients in the U.S. and Europe die from prescription drugs each year – making prescription drugs the 4th highest cause of death, on a par with stroke.
We could get into legal trouble if we advised you to go against the recommendations of your doctor; however we can advise you to be as informed as possible about the risks involved in taking prescription meds.
According to the World Health Organization, the pharmaceutical industry is worth 300 billion dollars annually – with an additional hundred million expected to add to the value in the next three years. A third of this entire multi-billion-dollar market is controlled by ten of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world. According to CMR International, a partner of Thomas Reuters, global pharmaceutical sales reached one trillion dollars in 2014 and will be booming to 1.3 trillion by 2018.
It goes without saying that this is big business – but like every big business, there is a dark side as well. Can we really trust the research – seeing as the same companies selling the pills are funding many of the medical journals? And then we have the issue of doctors receiving kickbacks for prescribing certain drugs, after being “educated” on the benefits of the drugs by pharma salesmen.
Take a look at this list of seven of the most dangerous prescription drug typesand see how they can hurt you. 
#1: Sleeping Pills (OTC and prescribed)
The use of sleeping pills has been associated with an increased risk factor for stroke. A study published by Petrov, et. al. in 2014 revealed that over-the-counter and prescription sleeping pills increased a person’s risk for stroke, independently and beyond any of the other known risk factors like blood pressure, personal history of heart disease, and vices like smoking and drinking alcohol. Isn’t it worrying that compared to all other factors that place a person at risk for stroke, sleeping pills top that list? 
The NIH has been studying the effects of cell phone radiation on rats, mice and people since 1999
Cell phones emit radio frequency radiation that allows them to communicate with cell towers
Some studies have suggested patterns in development of certain cancers and cell phone use
The NIH released preliminary findings in 2016 because rats exposed to high levels of radiation developed certain cancers early on
Now, the final results show ‘clear evidence’ of a link between heart, brain and adrenal gland cancers in male rats
There is now ‘clear evidence’ that cell phone radiation can cause cancers of the heart, brain and adrenal glands, a landmark National Institutes of Health (NIH) study warns.
A final report, released today, confirms the preliminary findings that were released in 2016 after scientists were alarmed by early indications that cell radiation may be carcinogenic.
Although the tests were done on rodents at levels much higher than humans are currently exposed to, the link between cell phones and cancer in male rats was undeniable.
For female rats and mice of both sexes, the evidence was less clear as to whether cancers observed were associated with signal exposure.
Still, scientists warn that the new research suggests that men in particular should take precautions to minimize the exposure of sensitive areas to cell phone radiation.
A new report from the NIH warns of ‘clear evidence’ of a link between high levels of cell phone radiation and brain, heart and adrenal cancers in male rats
Senior scientist Dr John Bucher at the National Toxicology Program (NTP) in Durham, North Carolina said: ‘The exposures used in the studies cannot be compared directly to the exposure that humans experience when using a cell phone.
‘In our studies, rats and mice received radio frequency radiation (RFR) across their whole bodies.
‘By contrast, people are mostly exposed in specific local tissues close to where they hold the phone.
‘In addition, the exposure levels and durations in our studies were greater than what people experience.’
The finding was the result of a $30 million 10-year study to assess the health effects in animals exposed to RFR with modulations used in 2G and 3G cell phones.
The final reports represent the consensus of NTP and a panel of external scientific experts who reviewed the studies in March after draft reports were issued in February.
Dr Bucher explained: ‘Cell phones utilize a specific type of radio waves, or radio frequency radiation (RFR), to transmit between the devices and the network.
‘Exposure of people to RFR occurs primarily through use of cell phones and other wireless devices.’
The newly-published study focused on 2G and 3G technology. Now, cell service companies have moved on up to 4G, LTE and are rolling out 5G.
Though newer phones are equipped to communicate through these frequencies, the researchers say the new study’s finding’s still shed worrying light on what our technologies do to our bodies.
‘While newer technologies have continued to evolve, it is important to note that these technologies have not completely replaced the older technologies,’ said Dr Bucher.
‘In fact, today’s phones are very complex in that they contain several antennas, for Wi-Fi, GPS, 2G/3G bands, etc. The results of these studies remain relevant to current exposures, although the power levels of the exposures were much higher than typical patterns of human use.’
The lowest exposure level used in the studies was equal to the maximum local tissue exposure currently allowed for mobile phone users but this power level rarely occurs with typical use.
The highest exposure level in the studies was four times higher than the maximum power level permitted in our cell phones.
Dr Bucher, his team, and outside experts that they consulted about the study agree that this report represents the most solid evidence to-date that the link between cell phone radiation and the tumors they saw in rats is real.
‘A major strength of our studies is that we were able to control exactly how much radio frequency radiation the animals received – something that’s not possible when studying human cell phone use, which has often relied on questionnaires,’ said Dr Bucher.
Exposure to RFR began in the womb for rats and at five to six weeks old for mice, and continued for up to two years, or most of their natural lifetime.
The RFR exposure was intermittent, 10 minutes on and 10 minutes off, totalling about nine hours each day.
RFR levels ranged from 1.5 to 6 watts per kilogram in rats, and 2.5 to 10 watts per kilogram in mice.
These studies did not investigate the types of RFR used for Wi-Fi or 5G networks, which may have very different health effects.
Future studies will focus on developing measurable physical indicators, or biomarkers, of potential effects from RFR.
These may include changes in metrics like DNA damage in exposed tissues, which can be detected much sooner than cancer.
‘This animal evidence, together with the extensive human evidence, coupled with the rising incidence of brain cancers in young people in the US, conclusively confirms that radio frequency radiation is a Category 1 human carcinogen,’ said Dr Anthony Miller, a University of Toronto Dalla Lana School of Public Health Professor Emeritus.
Please do read our recent related article on mainstream media’s take regarding alleged threats to DoC staff about the use of 1080 poison in NZ. Their information does not match the findings of a recent OIA request … to be specific there were actually only 9 threats in the last 31 months, DoC reports there were 93 last month. A very considerable discrepancy there.
People who want a class 1A ecotoxin kept out of their waterways, as the 1080 manufacturer’s warning data instructs, are not violent terrorists. They simply want to protect their families. Please consider all of the info before jumping to conclusions on this.
See the GrafBoys’ channel, tv-wild.com for further info on 1080. Be sure also to watch their 4x international award winning doco, Poisoning Paradise for an exposé of the real facts around the use of 1080. This doco is one your government appears to not want you to see given it is banned from screening on NZTV. Not the first one that hasn’t made it beyond private viewing, I will be posting more on that one later.
For further articles here on 1080 use the ‘categories’ drop down box at the left of the news page. Check out the 1080 pages at the main menu, particularly the sub tab, ‘suspected 1080 poisoning cases’. Educate yourself on the risks & protect your children. Discuss the risks & caution them never to touch the 1080 baits.
Finally, remember what the retired MD Charlie Baycroft said recently …‘if you die from 1080 poisoning, nobody will know because the Ministry of Health is bullying NZ Doctors into not testing for 1080′.
Administering vitamin K shots to newborns has been a standard medical procedure in most western countries since 1944. However, according to Vitamin K expert Dr. Cees Vermeer PhD, vitamin K offered orally is a better option for your infant than injection
Vitamin K shots are given to infants to prevent Hemorrhagic Disease of the Newborn (HDN)
Giving newborns a syringe full of vitamin K may cause psychological trauma, give infants 20,000 times more vitamin K dose than what is needed, and create an environment for infections to occur.
There are safer ways to raise vitamin K levels in newborns; giving vitamin K orally is one way. While breastfeeding enables mothers to transfer low doses of vitamin K to their child, this will depend on the mother’s vitamin K levels.
Whether you choose to give your baby the shot or give vitamin K orally, gather all the information needed to make informed decisions.
By Dr. Mercola
It has been standard practice in the US and most western countries since 1944 to welcome babies into the world by subjecting them to a variety of medical interventions, one of which is a jab with a syringe full of vitamin K.
This injection is routinely done to almost all newborns, unless you, as a parent, refuse to consent.
Birth is an overwhelming sensory experience for your baby. He has never before experienced sensations of cold or hunger, been blinded by artificial lights, or felt the touch of human hands or metal instruments, paper or cloth. Even gravity is a foreign sensation.
A needle stick can be a terrible assault to a baby’s suddenly overloaded sensory system, which is trying to adjust to the outside world.
Vitamin K is Necessary for Your Newborn
I recently had the pleasure of interviewing the foremost expert in the world on vitamin K, Dr. Cees Vermeer, PhD, Associate Professor of Biochemistry at the University of Maastricht (in The Netherlands). I am thrilled to be able to share with you some of the latest information about vitamin K that he shared with me.
While this injection itself may be inappropriate for reasons I will cover in detail, vitamin K is absolutely necessary for your newborn. However, there are safer and non-invasive ways to normalize your baby’s vitamin K levels that don’t require a potentially damaging injection.
Why Is This Shot Given in the First Place?
Vitamin K is necessary for normal blood clotting in adults and children. Some babies (in fact, most of them) are born with insufficient vitamin K levels.
In some newborns, this deficiency can lead to a serious bleeding disorder, typically in the first week of life, called Hemorrhagic Disease of the Newborn (HDN). Internal bleeding occurs in the brain and other organs, leading to serious injury or potentially even death.
While this disease is rare (incidence of 0.25 percent to 1.7 percent),i it is has been standard practice to give injections of vitamin K as a preventative measure to all infants, whether or not risk factors are present.
A Silicon-valley engineer turned technology health advocate, Jeromy Johnson discusses our attachment to technology and the health hazards such an addiction may hold. [AV and event video provided by http://repertoireproductions.com]. Jeromy Johnson is an expert in mitigating the negative impacts of Electromagnetic Field (EMF) exposure. He has a leading website on the topic and consults with individuals, families and organizations around the world to implement solutions that reduce and eliminate EMF pollution. Jeromy has an advanced degree in Civil Engineering and has worked in Silicon Valley for 15 years. After becoming what medical doctors call “Electro-hypersensitive” (EHS) in 2011 after extensive exposure to EMF radiation, he embarked on a journey of regaining his own health and educating others to critically evaluate theirs. This talk was given at a TEDx event using the TED conference format but independently organized by a local community. Learn more at http://ted.com/tedx
“How can the Prime Minister have missed the fact that at least 73,000 adverse events following the administration of the quadrivalent HPV vaccine, Gardasil, and that so many of these teenagers are still ill, and can’t go to school or play sport?”
Gardasil 9, the latest human papilloma virus vaccine, will be given to all Australian 12- and 13-year-old students beginning in 2018. The announcement that Gardasil 9 would replace the quadrivalent Gardasil was made by the Prime Minister at the North Bondi Surf Club.
That Malcolm Turnbull was involved in the ceremony surprised me, but clearly it illustrates the strong support the government has for the practice of vaccination. The spectacle is worth examining, firstly for the pageant itself and what it signifies along with the likely repercussions of this decision.
On a bright sunny day and surrounded by lifesavers from the local surf club, Malcolm Turnbull began the proceedings: “It is an extraordinary development, Australian medical science – it is, so many of those young boys and girls down there will be proofed throughout their whole lives from this virus that is of course the cause of cervical cancer and other cancers as well.”
Of course the choice of venue was deliberate. The news that a more potent HPV vaccine was now to be given to teenagers was announced at one of Australia’s most iconic beaches. Bronze surfers provided the important backdrop to Malcolm Turnbull as he purposely promoted the new human papilloma virus vaccine, claiming it was a vital new step in saving lives and “an example of the way in which we are keeping Australians safe and healthy, we are saving lives, the young lifesavers behind us, they’re getting ready to save lives on this beach.”
If the repercussions in the wake of HPV vaccines weren’t so tragic it would be comical. How can the Prime Minister have missed the fact that there have been at least 73,000 adverse events following the administration of the quadrivalent HPV vaccine, Gardasil, and that so many of these teenagers are still ill, and can’t go to school or play sport?
How can he talk about the value of ‘saving lives’ when he is endorsing this vaccine that is associated with thousands of adverse events leading to sustained illness in so many young people — people who were encouraged to have a vaccination for a disease they were most unlikely to ever get?
Nevertheless Turnbull’s ‘life saving’ announcement was praised by the media, who quoted the mantra of Suzanne Garland, the lead Australian author of a global trial published in The Lancet and funded by the drug’s manufacturer, Merck, which came to the unsurprising conclusion that the new HPV vaccine Gardasil 9 could prevent 90% of cervical cancers worldwide: “Here we have the additional five types, which means you have 93 per cent protection against cancer, so that’s an extra 23 per cent cover. It’s a real bonus, whereas we previously had protection for cancer-causing types, which were 16 and 18, which made up 70 per cent.”
My name is Tetyana Obukhanych. I hold a PhD in Immunology. I am writing this letter in the hope that it will correct several common misperceptions about vaccines in order to help you formulate a fair and balanced understanding that is supported by accepted vaccine theory and new scientific findings.
Do unvaccinated children pose a higher threat to the public than the vaccinated?
It is often stated that those who choose not to vaccinate their children for reasons of conscience endanger the rest of the public, and this is the rationale behind most of the legislation to end vaccine exemptions currently being considered by federal and state legislators country-wide. You should be aware that the nature of protection afforded by many modern vaccines – and that includes most of the vaccines recommended by the CDC for children – is not consistent with such a statement. I have outlined below the recommended vaccines that cannot prevent transmission of disease either because they are not designed to prevent the transmission of infection (rather, they are intended to prevent disease symptoms), or because they are for non-communicable diseases. People who have not received the vaccines mentioned below pose no higher threat to the general public than those who have, implying that discrimination against non-immunized children in a public school setting may not be warranted.
IPV (inactivated poliovirus vaccine) cannot prevent transmission of poliovirus. Wild poliovirus has been non-existent in the USA for at least two decades. Even if wild poliovirus were to be re-imported by travel, vaccinating for polio with IPV cannot affect the safety of public spaces. Please note that wild poliovirus eradication is attributed to the use of a different vaccine, OPV or oral poliovirus vaccine. Despite being capable of preventing wild poliovirus transmission, use of OPV was phased out long ago in the USA and replaced with IPV due to safety concerns.
(Natural News) A CDC-funded medical study being published by the medical journal Vaccine has confirmed a shocking link between flu shots and spontaneous abortions in pregnant women. The study was rejected by two previous medical journals before Vaccine agreed to publish it, further underscoring the tendency for medical journals to censor any science that doesn’t agree with their pro-vaccine narratives.
“A study published today in Vaccine suggests a strong association between receiving repeated doses of the seasonal influenza vaccine and miscarriage,” writes CIDRAP, the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy.
“A puzzling study of U.S. pregnancies found that women who had miscarriages between 2010 and 2012 were more likely to have had back-to-back annual flu shots that included protection against swine flu,” reports Medical Xpress, a pro-vaccine news site that promotes vaccine industry interests. Notice that the opening paragraph of their study assumed the study couldn’t possibly be true. It’s “puzzling” that mercury in flu shots could cause spontaneous abortions, you see, because these people have no understanding of biochemistry and the laws of cause and effect.
“That study was conducted after the CDC made the recommendation 2004 that all pregnant woman in all trimesters get the seasonal flu shot,” explains CIDRAP. That’s because the CDC is primarily a vaccine propaganda front group that buries whatever science it doesn’t like while promoting the interests of vaccine manufacturers.
400% increase in miscarriages among pregnant women who receive vaccines
The study found a more than 400% increase in spontaneous abortions / miscarriages among pregnant women who received flu shots vaccines in back-to-back years. As ABC News reports:
The study’s authors, two of whom are CDC researchers, saw a big difference when they looked at women who had miscarried within 28 days of getting a shot that included protection against swine flu, but it was only when the women also had had a flu shot the previous season. They found 17 of 485 miscarriages they studied involved women whose vaccinations followed that pattern. Just four of a comparable 485 healthy pregnancies involved women who were vaccinated that way.
(NaturalHealth365) Across the country, we are beginning to see the rise of so-called “Smart Cities.” The city of the future may include 5G wireless antennas on most utility poles, self-driving vehicles whisking us from place to place, and “Internet of Things” sensors everywhere. But, most people remain uninformed about the dangers of this new technology and the increase in EMF pollution.
EMF warning: Should we move forward with smart cities if they are ultimately harmful to our health?
In this article, you will learn about the key elements of the smart city and understand the steps to protect your family and community from the health risks of these developing technologies.
What Is 5G?
5G stands for “5th generation” wireless technology. Our devices currently run on 3G and 4G technology, which utilize a limited range of the microwave spectrum. 5G will greatly expand the amount of spectrum used and include high gigahertz range frequencies that have never been used before in consumer devices.
These high frequencies, between 14 GHz and 73 GHz, do not travel as far or penetrate building as easily. However, they will allow for incredibly fast download speeds. This will enable 5G devices to download a movie in a few seconds and will allow companies like AT&T to deliver HBO programs wirelessly, rather than via a cable.
The biggest issue with 5G is that wireless antennas will be placed on most light and utility poles within our neighborhoods. It is estimated that the 5G network will require each of the four major wireless carriers to install one million new base stations. To show you the scale of this expansion, AT&T currently has approximately 70,000 cell sites. This will exponentially increase the amount of microwave radiation in our communities, creating an electromagnetic environment unlike anything humans have ever experienced.
Never told because after all, people might catch on and tell others (which they are anyway now). This has to be one of the biggest cover ups in history. I too cringe when I see these masts towering over school yards for heaven’s sakes. People are so oblivious to the dangers because they so trust the authorities. These towers have been found to have clusters of cancer sicknesses and deaths around them. Watch Take Back Your Power, very enlightening. If you hear of the erection of one of these things near your home or workplace, get involved in opposing it. The industries will otherwise just plonk them wherever they choose. They have no regard whatsoever for your health and will literally deny everything. (All that independent research included). Look at our EMF, and related pages at the main menu for further info. For good measure I’ve thrown in two other videos on topic, one on the health risks from a PhD in physics (ex British Royal Navy, SAS so you should listen to him) and one on how some people in California managed to keep one out of their vicinity. They put up a huge stink and succeeded. The industries rely on the fast-asleep folks not noticing. Educate yourself and be forearmed. 5G is already here and that is worse. Search categories (at the left of page) for articles on that. EnvirowatchRangitikei
Here is a short video of a cell tower located directly inside a residential neighborhood in McCloud, CA, near Mount Shasta. Most likely nobody in this neighborhood even considers the fact that this tower is exposing their families to potentially unhealthy levels of radio frequency radiation. Please let this be a warning to you, no matter where you live. Because cell towers like this are arriving in greater numbers in residential and commercial areas all over the world! And this is exactly why I tell my friends, clients and customers that it is essential to own a decent quality RF (radio frequency) meter so you can discern the RF exposures levels where you may choose to work and live.
Mr. Barrie Trower, a British physicist who was a microwave weapons expert and who worked for the Royal Navy and the British Secret Service, talks about the health effects of WiFi and other forms of microwave radiation.
Mr. Trower came out of retirement because he was concerned that the microwave frequencies and intensities to which children are exposed in schools are similar to those used for microwave weapons.
dailyalternative.co.uk | iknowdoyou.co.uk | Alternative News for the People
This short video shows how the residents of 555 South Barrington, Los Angeles, Ca. 90049, defeated Verizon and Douglas Emmett Real Estate and prevented them from installing a cell tower on the top of this building.
This video covers a short speech by Douglas Emmett’s Vice President promising not to install the tower.
Everyone knows these towers cause cancer, but the FCC will not let us use that as a reason to deny the installation because of lobbyist’s payments to our Congressmen.
Furthermore, the American Cancer Society will not say they cause cancer due to the donations they receive from the cell phone companies.
So the only defense that residents now have against these towers is to PUT UP A BIG STINK and let them know there will be a DEAR PRICE TO PAY if they go forward. We had planned shorting DEI stock, street protests, neighborhood activities, and they realized it was not worth the BAD PR they would get as a public company if they went forward with it.
So if you want to prevent a cell tower, here are some things that you can do:
1-A restraining order for more time
2- Picket lines on your street with signs that say “xxxxxx doesn’t care about its tenants” “NO CANCER AT XXXXX”, “HELP US FIGHT CELL TOWER CANCER AT XXXX,” “STOP VERIZON’S CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS TO CITY OFFICIALS,” “HONK YOUR HORN FOR NO CELL TOWER AT XXXX,” “YOUR BUILDING IS NEXT,” and whatever else you can think of…
3- Get a long list of signatures from everyone in the neighborhood and send to your officials and Congressman
4- Anything else we can think of that makes xxx realize they will have much too dear a price to pay to go through with it.
5- Call your local news channels to cover your protests
6- Do a huge SOCIAL MEDIA CAMPAIGN to let the world know that you won’t stand for this.
Dr. Diane Harper, one of the leading experts on HPV vaccines, has spoken out about the ‘deadly effects’ the vaccines have on those who take it.
Dr. Harper was responsible for the Phase II and Phase III safety and effectiveness studies for Gardasil and Cervarix, which secured approval for their use on the public.
“Dr. Harper explained in her presentation that the cervical cancer risk in the U.S. is already extremely low, and that vaccinations are unlikely to have any effect upon the rate of cervical cancer in the United States.”
During a speech at the 4th International Conference on Vaccination, she decided to come clean to the public about the dangers of receiving the HPV vaccine – saying that she could no longer sleep at night.
For more info and links to docos see our Vaccine pages (remember the sub pages). Educate yourself and make informed decisions from all the data, not just what mainstream feed you. Over 35 years ago (I learned this only recently) one of our local country GPs did not vaccinate his own children. That tells you something.
Raymond Francis Author “Every year the mainstream media war drum beats for you to get vaccinated against the flu. They rarely discuss anything but the benefits of the vaccine. Why is that?”
via truthkings.com “We all know people, family members, co-workers, who push flu shots on us. Those people who tell us that if we don’t get a flu shot, we are going to contribute to mass apocalyptic death around the world. The fact is, however, many of us have NEVER gotten a flu shot. And guess what? We’ve all turned out just fine.
Raymond Francis, author of “Never Be Sick Again,” is one of those very people. Watch this video where he sounds off on the flu shot scam. He makes a lot of sense.”
In this short clip Raymond Francis will tell you that the prestigious journal Lancet published a study using 100,000 people over three years – finding that the flu shot had NO beneficial effects. Then he says another study demonstrated that children getting the flu shot tripled their chances of being hospitalized over that of the unvaccinated. Yet another study demonstrates that the flu shot actually doubles your risk of getting the flu. This is all very much food for thought … and worth doing some in-depth research for yourself! (See our Vaccines page for some links).
It is still almost sacrilege to suggest ‘no mammograms’ … it’s still inconceivable that the medical fraternity could be wrong on anything. Unfortunately they are not infallible and as always we need to do our own research (research the sound research that is) and make informed decisions about our health. Given that there are indeed multiple cures for cancer that we never hear about in mainstream media, so also there is other data that is not widely publicized.
“In almost perfect timing for Breast Cancer Awareness Month, a new study has just recently been published on mammography. One which once again shows that the practice of breast irradiation in an attempt to protect against breast cancer is harmful and should be abandoned…
Unfortunately, attitudes toward mammography are often greatly distant from reality, with many even believing that this screening method reduces breast cancer risk by at least half! This is not helped by the awareness brigade parroting slogans such as “early detection is the best protection” on television, including on Australian breakfast news programs.
This is from the Feed the World website and via GM Watch, by Claire Robinson.
“The International Society of Doctors for the Environment (ISDE) has written to officials of the EU Parliament and Commission asking for an immediate ban on glyphosate herbicides and four insecticides judged by the World Health Organisation’s cancer agency, IARC, to be probable carcinogens.
The letter states that glyphosate herbicides are associated with health problems such as birth defects, infertility, damage to the nervous system, Parkinson’s disease and several forms of cancer.
The letter adds, “for safeguarding the health of European populations, ISDE states that the rational basis is already strong enough” to justify an immediate and permanent ban…”
Following on from the RDC meeting in late March 2015 where the topic of eliminating the spraying of glyphosate in urban Rangitikei’s public places was discussed following a report by Council into cost effective alternatives. If you missed the previous parts, follow the links to Part 1 and Part 2 before continuing here.
The Cost Effective Alternative
Returning to the Council discussion that day, Cr Ash raised the issue regarding cost effective alternatives to spraying Glyphosate. As outlined there, the alternatives were explored in the Council report however some of the detail was incorrect. It was claimed hot water treatment is fifteen times more expensive than chemical spraying. In fact, a company in Auckland, whose contact details I had supplied prior to the completion of the report, was prepared to present information to Council on their system that can operate at the small margin of 10-15% more than chemical spraying. That price, says the company director, is set to drop even further by the end of 2015 to be on a par with that of chemical spraying. This option however was never pursued and by all appearances isn’t going to be. According to the recent Rangitikei Mail article, Mayor Andy Watson, who was not available for comment, “endorsed the council’s position based on the commissioned report”. The RDC will only be establishing a no-spray register where those who wish to opt out can, and they take responsibility themselves for keeping that area weed free. A no-spray register is standard practice in many cities. If you wish to avoid any other exposure to public spraying activity, basically you can’t, and I’ve seen folk spraying in fairly high wind around here. I’ve also observed children walking on the regularly used track that they take to school … within minutes of being sprayed. The label on Roundup packaging warns about spraying on calm days and waiting for the product to dry before touching what is sprayed. My initial presentation had also included a request for warning the public of imminent spraying and/or the placing out of signs saying spraying is in progress. Nobody has been agreeable to this either. Neither the contractors nor RDC.
One of the bonuses we’ve been told about market competition is that prices will be driven down. In this respect I’ve suggested in previous discussions with those concerned here that surely the Council need only seek quotes for chemical free treatment from several competing contractors then secure the most favourable price. During my own research a contractor in one city who applies a salt solution to hardstand areas, said they were simply told to submit a quote for chemical free treatment. For some reason that remains unclear to me, the RDC prefers to lean favourably towards helping the current contractor, Fulton Hogan, to continue the status quo, and are not willing to introduce any competition. Surely this would benefit the rate payers. It is possible a local contractor may go even lower than the current one. The Auckland company is willing to look at working with and training a suitable contractor to establish its system of hot water and foam here in Marton.
The important matter for me in all this, is health. There is a very long list of health issues with glyphosate and research clearly states it is a ‘probable carcinogen’. Class 2A. I’m left wondering, are people really interested in figuring out what causes cancer?
Bear in mind also, this product is sprayed all over pastures so it has to be in much of our food. It has been found in blood, urine and even breast milk. As I pointed out in my presentation, the cancer stats are now ONE in THREE. So one third of your friends / acquaintances / family will statistically be affected by this terrible
plague, and plague it is. I personally can name three brushes with it in my close family. In one branch of my extended family, three deaths from it. In another, two. Among friends, two deaths. These stats are very high. Common sense should be telling us to err on the side of caution and when an organization like WHO is sounding warnings, why are we not listening? Or should I say, why are they not listening?
So, in summary, should you be interested in curbing the spraying of chemicals in your vicinity, be prepared for possible unpleasantness and vilification. Not for the faint hearted. I have received similar from the contractors themselves, one, when I asked him not to spray near my flat, walked right by me spraying within inches of my feet. The company has now agreed to a compromise and they are weed whacking again. I am spraying a non toxic spray under the trees, at their request and at my own expense.
For further information on glyphosate visit the glyphosate page on this site. You will find direct links to the extensive research near the bottom of the page. (You can view the actual research reports by the researchers themselves). There is also the very defining video by Professor Seralini illustrating his research conducted for two years on lab rats, after which France’s highest Court ruled Monsanto had deceived the public about the safety of their product.
This comes from the Take Back Your Power website, a must read if you are interested in protecting your health:
“The UK’s leading business network of company directors has issued a damning report and warning against the UK’s planned “smart” meter rollout…
IoD calls for Smart Meters scheme to be ‘halted, altered or scrapped’ to avoid ‘unjustified, over-engineered and expensive mistake’
The Government’s rollout of Smart Meters, digital energy meters designed to provide real-time usage statistics, should be “halted, altered or scrapped” to avoid a potentially catastrophic government IT disaster, the Institute of Directors warns today…”
I’ve been invited to speak to the Hunterville Senior Citizens group (my home town) and present information on smart meters. I’m always glad of the opportunity to supply folks with some of the pertinent facts and to encourage them to research for themselves and make their own informed decisions. So much we are told is motivated by profit nowadays we need to be wise and educate ourselves. I will upload my notes at the weekend as they’re a handy condensed version of the basics to be aware of. In the meantime you can view information on smart meters here at the Smart Meters page. You’ll find links there to the excellent NZ site that provides the latest info relevant to Kiwis … http://www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz
From Sustainable Pulse: “Research lead by a team from the University of Canterbury, New Zealand has found that commonly used herbicides, including the world’s most used herbicide Roundup, can cause bacteria to become resistant to antibiotics….”
An update here on the ongoing Glyphosate research this time from our own laboratories here in NZ … it gets more disturbing by the day. Each piece of research that is damning of the product should be leading all countries to ban it. Posts soon to follow regarding our own district and submissions to Council to restrict its use in public places….
From takebackyourpower.net … following on from my last post about smart meters, read the latest in the growing list of risks entailed following the installation of one of these meters. Be forewarned & forearmed:
“The utilities lied when they said “smart” or AMI meters would make the electricity grid “resilient” and“self-healing.”
Nothing could be further from the truth, and this latest episode is more proof of the failure of “smart” meter programs everywhere.
On Monday, hundreds of “smart” meters simultaneously exploded in Stockton, California, when a truck ran into a utility pole. Watch the video [at the source: …..]”
Do you have one of these new meters on … or worse … in your house? Near where you sleep or work?
The little known information about smart meters … that they carry health and fire risks, will often escalate your power costs (I know of a local instance where a customer’s bill rose from $400 pmth to $1,000 pmnth!) and compromise your privacy. You will have been told prior to their installation (should you have asked questions and many don’t because after all we expect our power companies have our best interests at heart don’t we?) that it was just a standard replacement of your old and less efficient meter. That it will save you money because it won’t require a meter reader.
Well, in brief here (and I’ll provide links for you to check this out for yourself) … they are causing fires, headaches, heart problems, sinus problems and potentially, cancer … they emit RF radiation that has been classed by the World Health Organization as a Class B Carcinogen. They operate like a cell phone, transmitting data from your meter to your power company at levels way higher and more frequently than they are telling us.
Corporations are about making money and their bottom line is profits. Hence, you need, in this era, to check out what they tell you. Get independent information from investigation and research done by those who have no other interests or agenda than our collective health. Profits have skewed the playing field and the information we receive from them is not always the whole truth. Read in particular the statement made by Dr David Carpenter, a Harvard Graduate and expert for 18+ years in the field of electromagnetic fields. Smart meters were never thoroughly researched before they were rolled out he says, and yet there is plenty of research that demonstrates the RF radiation they emit is damaging to health. Prolonged exposure to these frequencies increase the risk of cancer, affects reproduction and cause electrical sensitivity.
Be sure to watch Josh Del Sol’s ‘Take Back Your Power’ Doco … it is a prize winning doco and covers everything you need to know. It contains some shocking revelations, particularly about the cancer risk. A university hostel room situated right next to a cell phone mast is shown to have hosted many victims of cancer deaths, year after year. This fact is uncovered by the mother of one of its victims, her young son who died of brain cancer. A heart rending story.
Ok, this is not to scare monger. Nor is it to cause you to think you have to do without these technologies. It is a warning for you to take note and protect your loved ones, and to know there are ways and means of minimizing your exposure. These aspects are only in very fine print on the manufacturers’ info leaflets … they do not want to scare you into not buying. As I continually emphasize, you need to simply do the research, be forewarned and forearmed. Knowledge is power. Be aware also, it is easier to say no to installation beforehand (they are NOT compulsory … a call center person recently admitted this to a customer I know), than to get one removed. Often folks have had to change power companies to do this. Myself included. And what they do is remove the chip that controls remote transmission of data, not the whole meter. If notifying your power company in advance (advised) that you do not consent to a smart meter installation, be succint. Your non-consent is enough and you do not have to provide a hundred reasons why you don’t want one. Another tip: consider investing in your own emf measuring device to measure emissions for yourself. There is information on Lloyd Burrell’s site (and elsewhere) about that.
http://www.stopsmartmeters.org.nz (includes info on how to get rid of a smart meter if you already have one). Note stopsmartmeter sites are in other countries also with the relevant ending to the address (uk, au etc)
Sign up at stopsmartmeters NZ and receive regular updates on the latest information on the NZ industry.