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?
From greenmedinfo.com
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.
TRANSCRIPT:
(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.
Why?
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)
Figure 1: (Map clipped 4 July 2019 from the onlineDOC map.)
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.
Figure 2: Milford steep gradient waterways during heavy rain in Milford Sound (Photo: Sacha Stevenson)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.
Figure 3: Flight path for 2017 drop (from EPA Report) Figure 4: Topography (from Camping Map)
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.
“Urgent samples for 24-hour turnaround testing may be sent unfrozen to the testinglaboratory, but they must be chilled to 4°C and placed on ice as soon as possible after collection.”
Looking closer at Landcare’s testing regime (at 4.0): “Results will be available no later than 9.30 a.m.
on the following day.” This means, at a minimum, no water should be drunk in Milford for 24hrs.
The precautionary principle
The HSNO Act (at s7) is predicated on a precautionary approach, especially where there is uncertainty about the effects of a course of action, which there must be in this case.
“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.
Check out the 1080 pages at the main menu, particularly the sub tab, ‘suspected 1080 poisoning cases’. 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′. EWR
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:
Dr. Graham Downing, Totnes Civic Hall, 11th August 2018 this video is poor quality. click here for a better version. https://www.brighteon.com/5989656708001
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.
From herbs-info.com
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][2]
#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? [3]
![Milford_Sound_vertical_water_ways[1]](https://envirowatchrangitikei.files.wordpress.com/2019/08/milford_sound_vertical_water_ways1.jpg?w=474)
