“It bothers me not that they steal my ideas; it bothers me that they have none of their own.”–N Tesla
On August 2019, Dr Pollard sent an open letter to Mike Slater, Deputy-Director General of Operations for the New Zealand Dept of Conservation.
This letter summarised the oft-repeated unscientific claims made by DoC as they present a ‘case’ to try to justify their inhumane aerial 1080 poison operations – in this case, Arthur’s Pass, South Island.
Some parts of this public land had never been poisoned before, so like Makarora in 2017, it would have been an excellent research ‘control area’ to compare the potential benefits to our ecosystems of NOT using this indiscriminate, inhumane toxin. But now that opportunity is lost, on November 25th 2019, 23,000 ha of Arthur’s Pass were aerially poisoned with 1080, as were some surrounding areas. Further aerial 1080 poisoning operations in the surrounding areas are also imminent (see yellow areas on pesticide summary map below).
In this scientific evidence-based letter, Dr Pollard clearly points out that:
1) DoC’s own so-called ‘pest’ control monitoring shows that there is no evidence of any pest ‘problem’.
2) There is also no evidence of the claimed ‘benefits’ of aerial poisoning operations such as this.
3) Furthermore, the risks are not fully acknowledged in any assessment. These risks include: contamination of our food chain, including drinking water; death of native species, secondary and by-kill of other species.
This is NOT an isolated case for Arthur’s Pass – Official Information Act responses from many other poison operations – including the one proposed for Mount Pirongia, central North Island – also have presented facts that prove DoC have NO evidence to support their claims that aerial poison operations are a necessity.
But sadly that does not currently stop the Government from over-ruling any public or professional objectives in order to carry out those poisonings.
1080 poison is an endocrine disruptor and in even minute traces can potentially cause miscarriage, infertility, heart conditions and harm to the unborn child. There have been NO public health studies into the potential long-term impact from a sub lethal dose of 1080 poison – for humans or any other species.
Dr Pollard’s Open Letter to Mr Slater is available here:
The hoax of the man-made Global Warming is being imposed on the world by many methods, both subtle and blatant. Proponents of the Global Green Agenda have embarked on a programme of mass deception, while scientists who attempt to blow the whistle on the fraud are silenced, tarred, ridiculed and fired. The Gaian cult that has permeated the United Nations is using the hysteria of Global Warming to impose draconian control measures on society and centralise world power.
“Humanity is sitting on a time bomb. If the vast majority of the
world’s scientists are right, we have just ten years to avert a
major catastrophe that could send our entire planet’s climate system
into a tail-spin of epic destruction involving extreme weather, floods,
droughts, epidemics and killer heat waves beyond anything we have
ever experienced – a catastrophe of our own making.“
– Al Gore,
An Inconvenient Truth
With the continual bombardment of ‘climate doom’ stories today, it is hard to imagine a time when global warming was not a ‘top priority’ on the social, political and economic agenda. Everything from floods in England to poverty in the Third World is now being blamed on global warming. However, it is a relatively new phenomenon, barely discussed until 20 years ago, and established as a significant policy issue only in the past 15 or so years.
Usually a scientific theory takes many decades to become established, and only after the most rigorous testing under many different scenarios, does it achieve ‘scientific consensus’. However, when it comes to Global Warming its proponents claim that there is no argument or debate to be had. Their current crusade is to turn Global Warming into something that supposedly no honest and decent person can disagree about, as they have already done with ‘environmental sustainability’. Al Gore often says “Climate change is a moral issue.” In other words it is all about you, and your destructive behaviour.
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has confidently announced ‘the science is settled’ on man-made Global Warming. Their most recent set of reports declares that “the debate over the science of climate change is well and truly over. Unified international political commitment is now urgently required to take action to avoid dangerous climate change.”
However, the science is not settled. Many renowned climatologists strongly disagree with the IPCC’s conclusions about the cause and potential magnitude of Global Warming. More than 20,000 scientists have now signed the Oregon Petition which criticises it as ‘flawed’ research and states that “any human contribution to climate change has not yet been demonstrated.” Dr Chris Landsea resigned from the IPCC because he “personally could not in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound.”
The IPCC claims that more than 2,500 respected scientists and policy makers collaborate to write its climate change assessments but less than a tenth of these ‘experts’ actually hold qualifications in climatology, most were in fact educated in the political and social sciences. The panel that edits and approves the reports are appointed by the United Nations, and more than half are actually UN officials. Dr Richard Lindzen, who is a genuine climate expert, resigned from the IPCC process after his contributions were completely rewritten by the panel.
“It’s not 2,500 people offering their consensus, I participated in that. Each person who is an author writes one or two pages in conjunction with someone else. They travel around the world several times a year for several years to write it and the summary for policymakers has the input of a handful of scientists, but ultimately, it is written by representatives of governments, and of environmental organizations, each pushing their own agenda.” – MIT’s Professor of Atmospheric Science Dr. Richard Lindzen on the IPCC report.
Czech President Klaus stated “It is not fair to refer to the UN panel as a group of scientists. The IPCC is not a scientific institution. It’s a political body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavour. It’s neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicized scientists, and UN bureaucrats, who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment.”
Asserting ‘the science is settled’ ignores the debate that still rages, and the constant shrieking by alarmists like Al Gore reveals that Global Warming is being used to push a hidden agenda. They are not really interested in the science at all. Even their much vaunted consensus is a myth. The Global Warming Petition Project has been signed by more than 31,000 American scientists, including more than 9,000 with PhDs. Signers include world renowned physicists such as Prof. Edward Teller and Prof. Freeman Dyson. Nearly 4,000 signers are scientists trained in specialties directly related to the physical environment of the Earth and the past and current phenomena that affect that environment.
The petition states: “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”
Proclaiming that “climate change is real” is a nonsensical statement and ignores the Earth’s continual natural warming and cooling cycles. Vikings settled in Greenland and raised crops and cattle 1000 years ago, while Britons grew grapes in England. Four hundred years later, Greenland froze and the Vikings starved. Europe was gripped in a Little Ice Age. The Thames froze all the way up to London. Another surge in temperatures saw widespread global droughts in the mid-1600s. Temperatures plunged again around 1700’s. The globe warmed in 1800-1940, cooled for the next 35 years, then warmed again. The 1940-1975 cooling period occurred despite the fact that industrial production and release of CO2 vastly accelerated during this time. This led to political and media scaremongering about Global Cooling, and the threat of a new ice age.
Again, this arose out of a misunderstanding of long term temperature fluctuations. Scientists have discovered that the sun not only has a regular 11 year cycle of sunspot activity. They have now discovered a significant 200 year cycle. Sunspot and solar radiation activity almost exactly parallel temperature changes on the Earth. It correlates well with the anomalous post-war temperature dip, when global carbon dioxide levels were rising very fast. The increase in solar radiation prevents the formation of clouds, which have a cooling effect on the planet, therefore the temperature rises.
Other recent studies, published in Nature and other leading journals, conclude that the sun’s radiant heat and solar radiation levels affect planetary warming and cloud formation more strongly than acknowledged by Global Warming alarmists. After all, why would natural forces that caused the climate to change in past centuries suddenly stop now? And how does man-made Global Warming explain why every planet in our solar system appears to be simultaneously warming up? Does this not suggest that Global Warming is a natural cycle as a result of the dynamic nature of the sun?
The 21st century organized crime lords—the pharmaceutical industry—archetypal la cosa nostra mafia-like cartels, have risen to unprecedented dominion over humanity. These renegade modern-day, too-big-to-fail outlaws have mastered and expanded the industry corruption playbook to levels that make the tobacco industry seem relatively tame and honest in comparison. Big Pharma has methodically choreographed a stealthy take-over of our most fundamental democratic institutions necessary to maintain industry in check: the regulatory institutions, the legislatures, politicians, free press/media, academia and objective science.
Big Pharma today not only influences legislation for drugs, but the vaccine producers are also guaranteed a self-serving, automatically-captured consumer market in the form of 74 million children to whom the government mandates their limited-liability vaccine products in unprecedented numbers.
Americans spend the highest amount on health care in the world at $3.65 trillion, which represents 18% of the GDP. Big Pharma today not only influences legislation for drugs, but the vaccine producers are also guaranteed a self-serving, automatically-captured consumer market in the form of 74 million children to whom the government mandates their limited-liability vaccine products in unprecedented numbers. Today’s bloated childhood vaccine schedule is a direct result of the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA), a law passed by congress at the time, to keep the vaccine producers from going bankrupt from lawsuits brought forth by families with vaccine-injured children. This law, in effect, unfastened the free-market incentives to make safe products from the vaccine producers, unleashing increasingly more and more inadequately tested and monitored products on to the market.
The pharmaceutical industry spends a combined $26 billion annually to influence doctors to sell their drugs and to entice consumers to purchase their drugs. Pharma strikes a one-two knockout punch in drug sales by investing an average of $6 billion annually in direct to consumer advertisement, followed by an even larger $20 billion investment to persuade doctors to sell their drugs to consumers who are herded to their offices to obtain the direct to consumer (DTC) advertised drugs.
Financial incentives and conflicts abound in pediatrics as well. Major streams of income come from “wellness” visits, a euphemism for infants and children being brought into the pediatrician’s office, in order to receive the closely followed CDC mandated childhood vaccine schedule. In addition to the steady foot traffic generated by the vaccine schedule, pediatricians are rewarded financial incentives per fully vaccinated child in their practice by insurance companies.
… drug companies and allied advocates have an army of lobbyists in all 50 states and have spent more than $880 million on lobbying and political contributions at the state and federal level over the past decade.
Equally disturbing, pharma has strategically and systematically neutered regulatory bodies such as the CDC and FDA, through a constant cross-pollination of industry and government heads. This revolving door has expressly created ever deeper conflicts of interest and blurred lines of duty. For example, Julie Gerberding, the former director of the CDC (2002-2009), joined Merck in January 2010 as the president of Merck’s vaccines department. In fact, this revolving door appears to be quite a prevalent phenomenon. Dr. Presad, an oncologist from Oregon Health and Science University discovered: “a quarter of the Food and Drug Administration employees who approved cancer and hematology drugs from 2001 through 2010 left the agency and now work or consult for pharmaceutical companies”.
In addition, the Associated Press and Center for Public Integrity, show drug companies and allied advocates have an army of lobbyists in all 50 states and have spent more than $880 million on lobbying and political contributions at the state and federal level over the past decade. The opioid lobby, for example, contributed to 7,100 candidates for state level offices.
These unorthodox, forged relationships, all together, serve as a secure and impervious interconnected web for pharma to wield more influence and power as it creates an ever more captive audience for its products.
Pharma’s reach also extends into media and science garnered through strategic financial entanglements. The U.S. and New Zealand are two of the only countries that permit drug makers to advertise their products directly to consumers, a practice that is illegal or frowned upon in the rest of the globe. As previously discussed a large portion of the revenue for the mainstream media, (up to 70%) in the U.S. comes from pharmaceutical advertisement: “Just considering television, 187 commercials for about 70 prescription medications have collectively aired almost half a million times since the start of 2018, and to do that, drug companies shelled out $2.8 billion”.
Lastly, most of the clinical safety trials performed on vaccines and drugs is performed by institutionalized scientists who are on the industry payroll, and the FDA is increasingly approving and fast-tracking drugs despite dangerous or inconclusive evidence that they are either safe or effective. These unorthodox, forged relationships, all together, serve as a secure and impervious interconnected web for pharma to wield more influence and power as it creates an ever more captive audience for its products. This behemoth power’s next move is the fierce state-by-state push to remove exemptions and the basic human right to informed consent. The last barrier to pharma’s complete unadulterated power is removing human autonomy and the ability to decide for one’s self and family what medical interventions are beneficial and which ones may be rife with potential risk and little benefit. Any rudimentary perusal of the main vaccine makers’ track record, Merck, GSK, Pfizer and Sanofi (The BIG 4), will illuminate a sordid history of criminal behavior with $billions paid for fines, otherwise known “as the cost of doing business”.
© [Article Date] Children’s Health Defense, Inc. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of Children’s Health Defense, Inc. Want to learn more from Children’s Health Defense? Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. Your donation will help to support us in our efforts.
An Open Letter to Legislators Currently Considering Vaccine Legislation from Tetyana Obukhanych, PhD
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.
1. IPV (inactivated poliovirus vaccine) cannot prevent transmission of poliovirus. (see appendix for the scientific study, Item #1). 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.
2. Tetanus is not a contagious disease, but rather acquired from deep-puncture wounds contaminated with C. tetani spores. Vaccinating for tetanus (via the DTaP combination vaccine) cannot alter the safety of public spaces; it is intended to render personal protection only.
3. While intended to prevent the disease-causing effects of the diphtheria toxin, the diphtheria toxoid vaccine (also contained in the DTaP vaccine) is not designed to prevent colonization and transmission of C. diphtheriae. Vaccinating for diphtheria cannot alter the safety of public spaces; it is likewise intended for personal protection only.
4. The acellular pertussis (aP) vaccine (the final element of the DTaP combined vaccine), now in use in the USA, replaced the whole cell pertussis vaccine in the late 1990s, which was followed by an unprecedented resurgence of whooping cough. An experiment with deliberate pertussis infection in primates revealed that the aP vaccine is not capable of preventing colonization and transmission of B. pertussis. The FDA has issued a warning regarding this crucial finding. 
Furthermore, the 2013 meeting of the Board of Scientific Counselors at the CDC revealed additional alarming data that pertussis variants (PRN-negative strains) currently circulating in the USA acquired a selective advantage to infect those who are up-to-date for their DTaP boosters, meaning that people who are up-to-date are more likely to be infected, and thus contagious, than people who are not vaccinated.
5. Among numerous types of H. influenzae, the Hib vaccine covers only type b. Despite its sole intention to reduce symptomatic and asymptomatic (disease-less) Hib carriage, the introduction of the Hib vaccine has inadvertently shifted strain dominance towards other types of H. influenzae (types a through f). These types have been causing invasive disease of high severity and increasing incidence in adults in the era of Hib vaccination of children (see appendix for the scientific study, Item #4). The general population is more vulnerable to the invasive disease now than it was prior to the start of the Hib vaccination campaign. Discriminating against children who are not vaccinated for Hib does not make any scientific sense in the era of non-type b H. influenzae disease.
6. Hepatitis B is a blood-borne virus. It does not spread in a community setting, especially among children who are unlikely to engage in high-risk behaviors, such as needle sharing or sex. Vaccinating children for hepatitis B cannot significantly alter the safety of public spaces. Further, school admission is not prohibited for children who are chronic hepatitis B carriers. To prohibit school admission for those who are simply unvaccinated – and do not even carry hepatitis B – would constitute unreasonable and illogical discrimination.
In summary, a person who is not vaccinated with IPV, DTaP, HepB, and Hib vaccines due to reasons of conscience poses no extra danger to the public than a person who is. No discrimination is warranted.
How often do serious vaccine adverse events happen?
It is often stated that vaccination rarely leads to serious adverse events.
Unfortunately, this statement is not supported by science.
A recent study done in Ontario, Canada, established that vaccination actually leads to an emergency room visit for 1 in 168 children following their 12-month vaccination appointment and for 1 in 730 children following their 18-month vaccination appointment (see appendix for a scientific study, Item #5).
When the risk of an adverse event requiring an ER visit after well-baby vaccinations is demonstrably so high, vaccination must remain a choice for parents, who may understandably be unwilling to assume this immediate risk in order to protect their children from diseases that are generally considered mild or that their children may never be exposed to.
Can discrimination against families who oppose vaccines for reasons of conscience prevent future disease outbreaks of communicable viral diseases, such as measles?
Measles research scientists have for a long time been aware of the “measles paradox.” I quote from the article by Poland & Jacobson (1994) “Failure to Reach the Goal of Measles Elimination: Apparent Paradox of Measles Infections in Immunized Persons.” Arch Intern Med 154:1815-1820:
“The apparent paradox is that as measles immunization rates rise to high levels in a population, measles becomes a disease of immunized persons.” 
Further research determined that behind the “measles paradox” is a fraction of the population called LOW VACCINE RESPONDERS. Low-responders are those who respond poorly to the first dose of the measles vaccine. These individuals then mount a weak immune response to subsequent RE-vaccination and quickly return to the pool of “susceptibles’’ within 2-5 years, despite being fully vaccinated. 
Re-vaccination cannot correct low-responsiveness: it appears to be an immuno-genetic trait.  The proportion of low-responders among children was estimated to be 4.7% in the USA. 
Studies of measles outbreaks in Quebec, Canada, and China attest that outbreaks of measles still happen, even when vaccination compliance is in the highest bracket (95-97% or even 99%, see appendix for scientific studies, Items #6&7). This is because even in high vaccine responders, vaccine-induced antibodies wane over time. Vaccine immunity does not equal life-long immunity acquired after natural exposure.
It has been documented that vaccinated persons who develop breakthrough measles are contagious. In fact, two major measles outbreaks in 2011 (in Quebec, Canada, and in New York, NY) were re-imported by previously vaccinated individuals.  
Taken together, these data make it apparent that elimination of vaccine exemptions, currently only utilized by a small percentage of families anyway, will neither solve the problem of disease resurgence nor prevent re-importation and outbreaks of previously eliminated diseases.
Is discrimination against conscientious vaccine objectors the only practical solution?
The majority of measles cases in recent US outbreaks (including the recent Disneyland outbreak) are adults and very young babies, whereas in the pre-vaccination era, measles occurred mainly between the ages 1 and 15.
Natural exposure to measles was followed by lifelong immunity from re-infection, whereas vaccine immunity wanes over time, leaving adults unprotected by their childhood shots. Measles is more dangerous for infants and for adults than for school-aged children.
Despite high chances of exposure in the pre-vaccination era, measles practically never happened in babies much younger than one year of age due to the robust maternal immunity transfer mechanism.
The vulnerability of very young babies to measles today is the direct outcome of the prolonged mass vaccination campaign of the past, during which their mothers, themselves vaccinated in their childhood, were not able to experience measles naturally at a safe school age and establish the lifelong immunity that would also be transferred to their babies and protect them from measles for the first year of life.
Luckily, a therapeutic backup exists to mimic now-eroded maternal immunity. Infants as well as other vulnerable or immunocompromised individuals, are eligible to receive immunoglobulin, a potentially life-saving measure that supplies antibodies directed against the virus to prevent or ameliorate disease upon exposure (see appendix, Item #8).
1) due to the properties of modern vaccines, non-vaccinated individuals pose no greater risk of transmission of polio, diphtheria, pertussis, and numerous non-type b H. influenzae strains than vaccinated individuals do, non-vaccinated individuals pose virtually no danger of transmission of hepatitis B in a school setting, and tetanus is not transmissible at all;
2) there is a significantly elevated risk of emergency room visits after childhood vaccination appointments attesting that vaccination is not risk-free;
3) outbreaks of measles cannot be entirely prevented even if we had nearly perfect vaccination compliance; and
4) an effective method of preventing measles and other viral diseases in vaccine-ineligible infants and the immunocompromised, immunoglobulin, is available for those who may be exposed to these diseases.
Taken together, these four facts make it clear that discrimination in a public school setting against children who are not vaccinated for reasons of conscience is completely unwarranted as the vaccine status of conscientious objectors poses no undue risk to the public.
~ Tetyana Obukhanych, PhD
Tetyana Obukhanych earned her Ph.D. in Immunology at the Rockefeller University, New York, NY with her research dissertation focused on immunologic memory. She was subsequently involved in laboratory research as a postdoctoral research fellow at Harvard Medical School and Stanford University School of Medicine, before fully devoting herself to natural parenting.
(Original Source: legislature.vermont.gov – Testimony Senate Health & Welfare Committee Wednesday April 22, 2015 H.98 – public records)
Editor’s Note: This article has been slightly edited to reflect the language from the letter submitted to the Vermont General Assembly on April 22, 2015. As part of the Vermont Senate Health & Welfare Committee, it is a matter of public record and accessible here.)
UPDATE: The above links on the Vermont government website no longer work. Here is a copy.
For appendix also go to the SOURCE:
Nearly 70% of DoC’s studies justifying aerial 1080 operations were conducted by employees of either AHB [Animal Health Board] or DOC [Dept of Conservation] with only three being published internationally (Robinson, pp 34, 35).
Reihana Robinson in her book titled ‘The Killing Nation, NZ’s State-Sponsored Addiction to Poison 1080’ cites the research of US biophysicist Dr Alexis Mari Pietak of Tufts University, Massachusetts.
Dr Pietak ‘conducted a comprehensive literature search for “peer-reviewed scientific investigations into the effects of aerial poison operations on non target fauna” and compared “the costs and benefits to native species poison operations versus unchecked possum populations at their peak density”.’
Quoting from Robinson’s book (emphases mine):
“Her research indicated aerial poisoning has “twice as many costs to native species as benefits, and that aerial poison operations were twice as costly to native species as unmanaged possum populations at their peak density.” this potential for widespread poisoning of insectivorous, omnivorous and carnivorous endemic and endangered or threatened bird species she believes is “a serious issue worthy of international and immediate action,” Namely, to immediately halt aerial poison operations.
Dr Pietak notes the few bird species that have actually been the subject of “proper radio-transmitter, colour banding, and mark-recapture analysis before and after poison operations’ are the nectar, fruit and foliage eating birds such as hihi, kereru, kōkako and kaka and are indeed most likely to benefit from possum removal. Missing from thorough research are those birds identified as being high risk of primary or secondary poisoning. They number 24 indigenous bird species. She references work by Armstrong 2001 that “notes that data derived from bird or call counts cannot be analysed to separate changes in abundance from changes in detection, due to the fact that bird behaviour is affected by the presence of a human observer. Detection rates can vary depending on the weather, human observer, and unknown bird behavioural patterns.” She states the “science seems to have been selectively interpreted, ignored, and moreover left grossly incomplete in its scope, presumably in the name of non-environmental economical interests” “
Like a growing number of researchers Dr Pietak notes the potential for bias given the large number of studies funded by AHB [Animal Health Board] or DOC [Dept of Conservation]. Of the 28 studies retrieved she finds 19 of 28, (nearly 70%), were conducted by employees of either AHB or DOC with only three being published internationally”. (Robinson, pp 34, 35)*.
* Pietak, Alexis Mari A Critical Look at Aerial-Dropped, Poison-Laced Food in New Zealand’s forest Ecosystems 2010 Creative Commons
NOTE: For further articles on 1080 use categories at left of the news page.
If you are new to the 1080 poisoning program, a must watch 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 to make your own informed decision on this matter.
With the ranks of those who oppose the aerial spreading of 1080 swelling exponentially, you may well be asking, why are folk so concerned about this poison? (Note, If you are new to 1080 poison read here for an overview). I’ve been following this issue for at least three years now & this widespread aerial distribution of 1080 into NZ’s environment for pest control is the issue that gets by far the most views and shares at EnvirowatchRangitikei. The article by Jenese James on the GrafBoys’ press release on 89 (dead & not tested) Kiwi has had 54K shares to date on facebook. Folk are outraged at what is coming to light and rightly so. I personally began researching the independent information about 1080 after watching the documentary by the GrafBoys called Poisoning Paradise. These two Kiwi guys were raised in the bush, they know their stuff. Their doco has won four international awards (see here also) and yet … get this … NZ television will not play it here in our own country. They are assuming that we cannot listen & judge for ourselves? Does that not raise alarm bells for you? It should. That doco was the starting point that left me with enough question marks around the official line, to prompt me to look further than DoC’s own research. That is literal too, for the research DoC uses to justify the alleged safety of aerial distribution of 1080 in NZ is 70% in-house, writes Reihana Robinson in her book The Killing Nation.
So what is coming to light then? Does NZ’s Department of Conservation (DoC) not have our best interests at heart? The best interests of our native flora & fauna? Don’t they have all the right checks & balances in place? Do they not have a body of scientific data & research (including follow up data) justifying the use of this poison, that has been banned incidentally by most other countries on the planet? Well, as it turns out, no they don’t appear to have a sound, watertight body of scientific data that actually proves 1080 is both safe & achieving (after 60+ years) what it set out to do.
“… there is not a single scientifically credible study showing that aerial 1080 when used on the mainland is of net benefit to any species of New Zealand’s native fauna. Thus the upside for native species is entirely unproven, despite 15 years of increasingly desperate attempts by DoC to show one.” … Pat and Quinn Whiting-OKeefe, Scientists
In light of this, people are understandably worried about their food sources. If it’s touted as being ‘safe’, safe in our food, safe in water and so on, yet the science has any kind of question mark over it, then logically, folk will be concerned. I certainly am. The authorities should be practicing the precautionary principle:
“The precautionary principle is the concept that establishes it is better to avoid or mitigate an action or policy that has the plausible potential, based on scientific analysis, to result in major or irreversible negative consequences to the environment or public even if the consequences of that activity are not conclusively known, with the burden of proof that it is not harmful falling on those proposing the action. It is a major principle of international environmental law and is extended to other areas and jurisdictions as well.” (New World Encylopedia)
Always I go back to the statements of the late Dr Peter Scanlon on this:
“Where are the cancer causing or carcinogenicity studies? … there aren’t any;
Where are the reproductive studies, particularly focusing on female eggs? … there aren’t any;
Where are the developmental studies, early exposure to brain, immune system? … there aren’t any;
Where are the long term chronic exposure studies looking at mitochondrial DNA content and mutation rates? there aren’t any.
There’s a lot of doubts about this substance, it’s dangerous.”
Should they not be stopping the use of aerially dropped 1080 until the studies are done as a US Biophysicist from Tufts University has suggested?
NZers are keen hunters and fishers. Wild food (pigs and deer, fish & eels from the rivers, koura from the streams, whitebait and so on) are a staple for many. This is their families’ kai (food). The rivers and bush or forests are their food cupboard. And now they are seeing that source becoming a safety risk because a toxic poison is being dumped into it and has been for 60+ years. In spite of verbiage telling us it’s harmless as a cup of tea or a packet of crisps (potato chips) (the oft quoted justifications on blogs by pro 1080 folk).
So not only is there concern about contamination of hunted animals, but contamination of the flora as well.
Not only is 1080 highly toxic to mammals, birds and insects- one scientist has even discovered that it is toxic to plants and so forests do not do so well after 1080 drops. (interview with Clyde Graf) ourplanet.org
Forest & Bird Say 1080’s as Safe to Eat as a Packet of Crisps … and DoC Says it’s Deadly to Dogs?
1080 poisoned trout risk much greater than first declared says researcher – fishermen BEWARE
TROUT MASS-POISONED IN NEW ZEALAND-DOC warned fishermen in 2014 not to eat their catch
Family face permanent disablity after eating wild pig 17/11/17
Take for instance the recent poisoning of the family in Putaruru in the Waikato. This family, after beginning a meal of wild pork, fell instantly ill and had to be rushed to hospital by ambulance. The scenario that followed is revealing indeed regarding the apparent cover up that is going on with regard to testing possible victims of 1080 poisoning. A Doctor suspected 1080 as the source of the problem early in the piece as records showed when they were finally released after some of the usual foot dragging that seems to be characteristic of any request by the public for official documentation around possible 1080 poisoning. The family could not even access their own records! Not only did the hospital fail to test for 1080 within the required time frame, the fact that the patients were literally tied to their beds because of the violent convulsions characteristic of 1080 poisoning, was never mentioned in the media.
The ongoing mantra from mainstream media on this was ‘botulism’.
You can read about this whole shocking debacle at the 1080 page, ‘Suspected 1080 Poisoning Cases’. Please read the evidence there if you at all hunt or fish for food. And if you are a tourist, it is better in my opinion, not to drink from the streams as many have been observed doing. Observers have described how tourists are sometimes not even aware of the purpose of 1080 drops going on right over their heads. So much for public warnings.
Invariably what I am seeing in the reports, articles and general chat by eye witnesses is that the toxicity of 1080 is totally downplayed. It is even being taught in children’s school texts that 1080 is ‘not very dangerous’ to humans. This is a substance that is banned in most countries. That kills all breathing organisms from insect life to worms, right up to larger animals such as horses. And yet we are supposed to believe it specifically targets pests? How ever is that possible? Another miracle from NZ’s Department of Conservation? Read Dr Meriel Watts’ exposé of that theory.
Then we heard this year from research by the Graf Brothers that the authorities have changed the rules to allow the dropping of 1080 into our waterways without a Regional Council consent. They can now effectively bypass the pesky Resource Management Act. And dropping it they are. Prior to this, it was ending up in waterways anyway as witnesses have shown with their many photographs posted online. The late Bill Benfield’s research revealed that a drop in the Hunua Ranges, home of Auckland’s town water supply, saw the water filters filled with 1080 pellets! Seriously. In addition, there is NO antidote! It is undetectable as the cause of death if tests are not done early enough.
To date there are no known epidemiological studies that have been carried out in relation to 1080 and potential adverse health effects on humans.
… NZ Ministry of Health 2008
Then there is the risk to outdoors people who simply walk or hike. Over the past three years I’ve seen various reports of folk out picnicking, out tramping or simply enjoying the scenery, rained down on by 1080 pellets.
Two women fell ill after this kind of scenario while innocently out for a picnic. Nobody will of course admit to any link between their illness & exposure to 1080. The most upsetting of all the examples of this has been that of the young US woman who died following a tramp in the Queenstown area. Her Doctor suspected 1080 poisoning & tried to bring about an investigation into that. Her heart was sent for testing as to the cause of her cardiac rest and unbelievably the NZ lab lost her heart. Seriously. They lost her heart! Dr Charlie Baycroft a retired MD, recently warned the public that if anybody dies from 1080 poison nobody will know. He was threatened with prosecution by the Ministry of Health for publicly advising folk how to go about getting tested if they feared poisoning.
Are you beginning to feel uneasy at all about our wild food sources?
I read a comment just the other day by a woman who has stopped taking her children to a recreational/scenic area where she’s noticed signs up saying it’s been treated with 1080. I spoke recently with a university lecturer on the poisoning program, he has noticed a proliferation of poison signs when he goes into the bush. This is a common comment from tourists and locals. Poisoning signs everywhere. There are 65 dogs die each year from 1080 poisoning a NZ site called Pause for a Cause reports. Then there are the ongoing and endless reports of farmers whose stock have succumbed to death by 1080. Dr Meriel Watts in her book ‘The Poisoning of New Zealand’ (1994) of a South Island farmer who lost 570 sheep in a bungled drop, with sheep still dying six months later. To make things even worse, they die a long slow horrific death that, says a veterinarian, is like two days worth of electrocution. The NZ authorities changed the animal welfare act to allow this. To top it off, adding insult to injury, they are forced to lie about this in the paperwork should they desire compensation for their losses. Hobson’s choice.
Then there was the Whitianga debacle. The attendance by one concerned man at the scene of the unloading of 1080 in the CBD of Whitianga with no public warnings or signage out as legally required, a man who was subsequently assaulted by a security guard, was himself charged with assault, the case eventually dismissed but leaving him with more than $22K in court costs. If you were at all conspiratorial you might think a clear message was being sent to the public. You can read about that at these links. Then in Levin a Horizons storage facility where 1080 was stored caught fire, with apparently no public warnings in place. I observed myself, comments on social media by a man who had noticed symptoms of illness following that fire. He lived in the vicinity. His conversation around the effects cut abruptly short I noticed.
More recently we’ve had revelations on lack of safety with 1080, by an ex employee of Horizons. Diluted solutions of 1080 were sprayed all over the Palmerston North landfill by a contractor surprised that he was allowed to do this. What of the leachate from that dump? What of public in the vicinity of the spraying? What of the earth it was sprayed onto? Of nearby water sources/streams/ditches and so forth?
ERMA’s Agency warned that “No studies have been conducted using standard international guidelines to assess the route and rate of degradation of 1080 in soil. The rate of such degradation under New Zealand conditions is uncertain.”And regarding water: ”Overall, the relevance of the aquatic plant/water studies to the degradation of 1080 in water in NZ is not clear.” … Dr Jo Pollard (BSc (Hons, PhD)
You can read about that at this link:
Shocking revelations on 1080 from a former Horizons employee
And yes there is more that folk are concerned about.
The birds. Frequently we are reading comments by people who note there is no birdsong … no birds in the bush. Folk who have lived long enough to remember how things used to be, like an 82 year old gentleman recently who said the Kiwi, Kereru, Kea, Weka & Tui had all disappeared from where he lived on the West Coast. Reports also come from people who aren’t even anti 1080 or even aware of these drops. Tourists. One I read commented that since their last trip to NZ in the ’70s the birds were noticeably scarce. The GrafBoys & others have posted videos online following 1080 drops & illustrated the lack of birdsong. Listen below.
Below a blogger comments about Lake Matheson in the South Island:
It seems pertinent at this point to highlight one of the apparent major incentives for the continuation of 1080 drops, as a former Mayor of Taupo expounded:
Orillion, the company in Whanganui that makes 1080 baits is a State Owned Enterprise, its two share holders are the Minister of Finance & the Minister of Primary Industry. (Info at 2.40 in this video).
People need to look beyond the diversions mainstream is constantly throwing out … were the dead birds on Parliament steps killed by 1080 or blunt force? Seriously? What does it matter?
Some better questions to ask would be … were the 89 dead Kiwi documented in DoC’s own records killed with 1080? Or was the young female hiker’s heart really lost? Or why is DoC allowed to wipe out 10K non target birds in one 1080 drop? And why were they allowed to wipe out all the Weka on Tawhitinui Island? Or why DoC would ask that their lawyer not be questioned in court?
These are questions however that mainstream media quietly & persistently ignore. It is fairly obvious who they are working for & their current mandate is clearly painting any persons who are against poisoned food & environments as dangerous terrorists.
And we are never of course going to hear answers to those questions … figuring them out for ourselves really isn’t rocket science though is it?
NOTE: For further articles on 1080 use categories at left of the news page.
There are links also on our 1080 resources page to most of the groups, pages, sites etc that will provide you with further information to make your own informed decision on this matter.
If you are pro poisoning of the environment, EnvirowatchRangitikei is not the place to espouse your opinions. Mainstream would be the place to air those. This is a venue for sharing the independent science you won’t of course find there.
Finally we don’t endorse violence in any way shape or form.
NOTE: Periodically & randomly the facebook share option will disappear from posts on the front (news) page. If it is not appearing, click on the heading of the article to go to its own page, usually the share button will show up there. (All else failing copy & past the url to your facebook page).
Former Greens MP Steffan Browning, interviewed recently by Raglan Community Radio, discusses his preference for exploring alternative methods in culling pests. He also believes the information supplied to Eugenie Sage regarding the frequency of finding 1080 in water samples is at odds with independent testing. Official figures say 1080 is detected only 3% of the time however, from the calculations of an independent scientist that incidence is closer to 60%. The 3% figure supplied to OSPRI, Forest & Bird and so on, is in Browning’s opinion inaccurate & a gross misrepresentation. To go straight to the water sampling discussion go to 12 minutes.
And by the way, in addition to saying there are other Green MPs who are pro alternatives to 1080, he mentions former Green Party Co-Leader Rod Donald’s preference for the trapping alternative, illustrated by the Possum covering he had for his Parliamentary seat. What a shame their current Party stance is not so green on this topic.
Below is an excerpt from 1080’s product information warning about dropping baits in water, however the government has changed the rules so that they can drop it into waterways without a resource consent. The point of this news item is the way tests are carried out to determine poison levels, however, it is also pertinent to remember the manufacturer’s warning regarding water sources & 1080 risks:
Having heard recently of NZ GPs advising pregnant mothers to vaccinate I’m posting this for you to consider. Ask your Doctor to show you the research that tells you it’s been tested thoroughly on pregnant women. It would seem there will be little if anything to show you. You may be the guinea pig perhaps. This article is from an Dr Mercola’s website. From the article:
Drug companies did not test the safety and effectiveness of giving influenza or Tdap vaccine to pregnant women before the vaccines were licensed in the U.S
Check it out for yourself.
By Barbara Loe Fisher
It was 1977 when I found out I was going to become a Mom. I instinctively knew I needed to be careful while I was pregnant, especially during the first two trimesters when the major organ systems of the fetus develop at a rapid rate. In the 1960s, there had been a lot of publicity about babies dying or being born without arms or legs because women had taken a drug (Thalidomide) for morning sickness in the first or second trimester of pregnancy1 and I wanted to make sure I did everything I could to protect my health and the health of my baby before and after he was born.
Mothers to be in my generation were told to take extra vitamins and eat nutritious food but, most of all, to avoid anything that could harm the developing fetus like alcohol, cigarette smoke, medications, radiation, household cleaning products and other toxic exposures. Some of us were aware of the risks of heavy anesthesia during delivery and signed up for Lamaze classes to prepare for a drug-free birth, which many obstetricians discouraged, and we chose to breastfeed, even though a lot of pediatricians were pushing formula and bottles back then.
Today, pregnant women face a different set of difficult questions and choices about keeping themselves and their babies healthy. Among them are whether or not to get vaccinations during pregnancy that public health officials, obstetricians and pediatricians say will protect pregnant women and their newborns from getting sick with influenza and B. pertussis whooping cough.
Although since the 1970s, public health officials have recommended influenza vaccinations for pregnant women in the second or third trimester,2 relatively few obstetricians promoted the vaccine until the past decade when, in 2006, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) strengthened recommendations that all pregnant women, healthy or not, should get a flu shot in any trimester.3
Then, in 2011, a pertussis containing Tdap shot was recommended for all pregnant women, preferably after 20 weeks gestation.4 Both current vaccine recommendations are5, 6, 7 endorsed by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG),8, 9 the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and other medical trade associations.10, 11
With these recommendations, the time-honored rule of avoiding any potential toxic exposure that might interfere with the normal development of the fetus has been suspended and replaced with an assumption that vaccination during pregnancy is safe. But what is the scientific evidence documenting that this assumption is a well-informed one?
You have to look no further than information in the vaccine manufacturer product inserts and posted online by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Centers for Disease Control (CDC) to quickly answer that question.
FACT: Drug companies did not test the safety and effectiveness of giving influenza or Tdap vaccine to pregnant women before the vaccines were licensed in the U.S.12, 13 and there is almost no data on inflammatory or other biological responses to these vaccines that could affect pregnancy and birth outcomes.14
For further info watch the following video also on the DTAP vaccine while pregnant:
Published on Feb 8, 2017