They are meeting again shortly in secret to discuss a further thinning down of your basic human rights …this is very important info to share as widely as possible … as indicated below with this short opening excerpt… EWR
Science and opinion have become increasingly conflated, in large part because of corporate influence. As we explain in “Science for Sale,” an investigative series by the Center for Public Integrity and co-published with Vice.com, industry-backed research has exploded — often with the aim of obscuring the truth — as government-funded science dwindles. Read more.
The lawyer, Darrell Grams, explained that Ford had been losing lawsuits filed by former auto mechanics alleging asbestos in brakes had given them mesothelioma, an aggressive cancer virtually always tied to asbestos exposure. Grams asked Paustenbach, then a vice president with the consulting firm Exponent, if he had any interest in studying the disease’s possible association with brake work. A meeting cemented the deal.
Paustenbach, a prolific author of scientific papers who’d worked with Grams on Dow Corning’s defense against silicone breast-implant illness claims, had barely looked at asbestos to that point. “I really started to get serious about studying asbestos after I met Mr. Grams, that’s for sure,” Paustenbach testified in a sworn deposition in June 2015. Before that, he said, the topic “wasn’t that interesting to me.”
Thus began a relationship that, according to recent depositions, has enriched Exponent by $18.2 million and brought another $21 million to Cardno ChemRisk, a similar firm Paustenbach founded in 1985, left and restarted in 2003. All told, testimony shows, Ford has spent nearly $40 million funding journal articles and expert testimony concluding there is no evidence brake mechanics are at increased risk of developing mesothelioma. This finding, repeated countless times in courtrooms and law offices over the past 15 years, is an attempt at scientific misdirection aimed at extricating Ford from lawsuits, critics say.
“They’ve published a lot, but they’ve really produced no new science,” said John Dement, a professor in Duke University’s Division of Occupational and Environmental Medicine and an asbestos researcher for more than four decades. “Fifteen years ago, I thought the issue of asbestos risk assessment was pretty much defined. All they’ve accomplished is to try to generate doubt where, really, little doubt existed.”
The glut of corporate-financed science has yielded mixed results. Exponent had a role in jury trials won by Ford in St. Louis and Pittsburgh last year, for example, and in a trial Ford lost in Tennessee. Judges have noted the infusion of controversy into a subject that for many years was not controversial in the least. A veteran asbestos judge in Wayne County, Michigan, wrote in an opinion that he’d never encountered the argument that “the science was not there” on mesothelioma and brakes until he heard a case involving an Exponent witness.
The discord over brakes bankrolled by Ford “has, in certain cases, tipped the scales for the defendants with juries,” said plaintiffs’ lawyer Jon Ruckdeschel. “More frequently, it has been used by industry lawyers to increase the costs and burdens on the courts and sick mechanics by creating a tidal wave of pre-trial litigation regarding the ‘science.’ ”
A troubling history
Over the past decade 109 physicians, scientists and academics from 17 countries have signed legal briefs affirming that asbestos in brakes can cause mesothelioma. The World Health Organization and other research and regulatory bodies maintain that there is no safe exposure level for asbestos and that all forms of the mineral — including the most common one, chrysotile, found in brakes — can produce mesothelioma.
Worries about brakes as a source of disease go back decades. A 1971 Ford memo shows that while the company didn’t believe brake dust unleashed by mechanics contained significant amounts of asbestos, it already was exploring alternatives to asbestos brake linings. One of them, made of metal and carbon, performed well, the memo says, “but the cost penalty is severe ($1.25/car just for front-end brakes).”
A Ford spokeswoman declined to comment for this article. In its 2014 annual report, the company said, “Most of the asbestos litigation we face involves individuals who claim to have worked on the brakes of our vehicles over the years. We are prepared to defend these cases, and believe that the scientific evidence confirms our long-standing position that there is no increased risk of asbestos-related disease as a result of exposure to the type of asbestos formerly used in the brakes on our vehicles.” Ford announced recently that it earned a record pretax profit of $10.5 billion in 2015.
A written statement to the Center for Public Integrity delivered on behalf of Paustenbach by a public-relations firm says, “Dennis was viewed as one of the leading risk assessment experts in the country, and was contacted by Ford because of his experience and expertise in this field. … As Dennis and others learned more about brake dust, it was clear that while there was considerable data on the subject, the scientific information had never been synthesized and analyzed.”
His conclusion after reviewing the scientific literature, according to the statement: “There is no credible study that has shown an increased risk of disease in auto mechanics.”
An Exponent vice president declined to comment. On its website, the 49-year-old firm, originally known as Failure Analysis Associates, says, “We evaluate complex human health and environmental issues to find cost-effective solutions. … By introducing a new way of thinking about an existing situation, we assist clients to overcome seemingly insurmountable obstacles.”
A Center review of abstracts on the National Institutes of Health’s PubMed website turned up 10 articles on asbestos brakes co-authored by scientists affiliated with Exponent or Cardno ChemRisk since 2003. (The latter was known simply as ChemRisk until it was acquired by Brisbane, Australia-based Cardno in 2012). None of the articles reported an elevated risk of mesothelioma among vehicle mechanics.
Many physicians and scientists say, however, that these papers muddy the waters by drawing overly broad conclusions from earlier studies of workers who might have had no contact with asbestos brakes. “In the asbestos area the whole literature has been so warped by publications just supporting litigation,” said Dement, of Duke. “It has a real negative impact on pushing the science forward.” Dement said he has, on rare occasions, consulted for plaintiffs in the past 10 or 15 years, earmarking nearly all fees for the university.
In a 2007 article, two researchers at George Washington University — one of whom, David Michaels, now heads the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration — reported finding six “litigation-generated” papers on asbestos and auto mechanics published from 1997 through 2001. In the ensuing five years, 20 such papers were published. All told, 18 of the 26 papers published from 1997 through 2006 were “written by experts primarily associated with defendants, while eight were written by experts who work primarily for plaintiffs … Sponsorship by parties involved in litigation leads to an imbalance in the literature … whoever is willing to fund more studies will have more studies published.”
Craig Biegel, a retired corporate defense lawyer in Oregon who represented plaintiffs later in his career, did an update of the Michaels paper as part of his doctoral dissertation. Biegel searched the National Library of Medicine’s PubMed website using the words “asbestos” and “brake.” He found 27 articles written from 1998 to 2015 by experts known to work for industry; all, he said, showed either no elevated risk of mesothelioma among mechanics or minimal asbestos exposures.
He found 10 articles written by plaintiffs’ experts; all showed an association between the disease and brake work. And he found 11 articles written by foreign scientists, who, as far as he knew, were not involved in litigation. All but one showed an association or documented high asbestos exposures.
“As far as I’m concerned, both sides in a lawsuit do the same thing: They both fund research to obtain evidence for trial, not to advance science,” said Biegel, who once defended asbestos property-damage claims for a Fortune 500 company he declined to identify. “The only difference is that defense counsel have almost unlimited industry money and plaintiffs’ counsel do not want to spend their own money.”
Ford’s knowledge of asbestos
There are several ways microscopic asbestos fibers can be sent airborne and enter the human body during brake work. Over time, friction wears down brake linings and pads — many of which contained asbestos prior to the mid-1990s and some of which still do — and they need to be replaced. A mechanic who opened a brake drum would find it filled with fine dust from the decayed lining. The easiest and most common way to clean it out was to use compressed air, a technique that generates grayish, fiber-bearing clouds that can trigger disease years later if the worker is not properly protected. Many weren’t.
Other opportunities for exposure: filing, grinding or sanding brakes, or cleaning up work areas.
Ford wasn’t the only U.S. automaker to use asbestos brakes. General Motors and Chrysler did as well and found themselves in court as a result. Of the so-called Big Three, however, only Ford continues to get hit with mesothelioma lawsuits; GM and Chrysler are immune by virtue of their 2009 bankruptcies. “The extent of our financial exposure to asbestos litigation remains very difficult to estimate,” Ford said in its 2014 annual report. “Annual payout and defense costs may become significant in the future.”
Documents show Ford was mindful of concerns about asbestos brakes by the late 1960s. An unpublished report by an industrial hygienist with Ford of Britain in 1968 said that while brake linings at the time contained between 40 and 60 percent asbestos, field tests indicated dust that collected in brake drums had a low asbestos content because much of the material decomposed after repeated braking. Consequently, he wrote, there was no evidence that blowing out the drums presented a “significant hazard to health.”
The hygienist added, “It would be helpful, however, for clinical examinations to be made of some repair mechanics with long experience of brake cleaning to confirm this view. It would also be desirable to include in Service manuals a general instruction that inhalation of dust during brake cleaning should be minimised.”
A 1970 Ford memo titled “Asbestos Emissions from Brake Lining Wear” included a bibliography of 40 articles on the cancer-causing effects of asbestos, dating to 1954. And the same 1971 memo bemoaning the $1.25 cost of asbestos-free brakes noted that the state of Illinois was considering banning the use of asbestos in brake linings, beginning with the 1975 model year.
In 1973, Ford began telling its own employees to use “an industrial type vacuum cleaner” to remove dust from brake drums. “Under no circumstances shall compressed air blowoff be used to clean brakes and brake drums,” the company said. It first told its dealers about what it called “a potential health hazard” in 1975.
In a court filing, Ford said it began putting “caution” labels on packages of asbestos-containing brakes and clutches in 1980; many mesothelioma victims who have sued the company say they never saw such labels. In the same document Ford said it began a “complete phase-out of asbestos-containing brake products” in the 1983 model year, starting with its Ranger pickup truck. A decade later, only Ford Mustangs and certain limousines were equipped with asbestos brakes; some asbestos-containing parts for older model-year vehicles were available until 2001through dealerships and authorized distributors.
That was the year lawyer Grams reached out to toxicologist Paustenbach to gauge his interest in studying mesothelioma in ex-mechanics. “I contacted Dr. Paustenbach because he is one of the leading professional experts in the world,” Grams, who no longer represents Ford, said in a brief phone interview. Grams said he had read none of the recent deposition testimony about the relationship between Ford and its two brake consultants, Cardno ChemRisk and Exponent.
In his curriculum vitae, Paustenbach, president of Cardno ChemRisk, says he is “a board-certified toxicologist and industrial hygienist with nearly 30 years of experience in risk assessment, environmental engineering, ecotoxicology and occupational health.” The 181-page CV shows he has worked on topics ranging from arsenic in wine to heavy metals in hip implants; authored or co-authored 271 peer-reviewed articles; and given 440 presentations at conferences. He is regularly retained as a defense expert in asbestos litigation and other toxic-tort cases.
Paustenbach offered a window into his thinking in a 2009 article written by a University of Virginia business professor.
“Without a doubt, a large percentage of environmental and occupational claims are simply bogus, intended only to extract money from those who society believes can afford to ‘share the wealth,’” Paustenbach told his interviewer. He said, “The vast majority of cases that I’ve seen were fraudulent with respect to the scientific merit and billions upon billions of dollars are redistributed annually inappropriately — at least from a scientific standpoint.
“… Nonetheless,” Paustenbach said, “I am a firm believer in the wisdom of juries and support giving generous awards to those that have been truly harmed by bad corporate behavior.”
In a 2010 letter to Dolores Nuñez Studier, a lawyer in the Ford general counsel’s office, Paustenbach claimed his firm’s papers had “changed the scientific playing field in the courtroom. You know this better than anyone as you have seen the number of plaintiff verdicts [in asbestos cases] decrease and the cost of settlement go down over time.”
In the letter, which surfaced in the discovery phase of a lawsuit, Paustenbach complained that the fee structure in place between Ford and Chemrisk was “out of date” and too low.
“Dolores, currently, you are among our largest clients,” he wrote. “And, Ford has certainly been a loyal supporter. The Big 3 [automakers] were the foundation of the firm during our formative years, and for this reason, I have tried to go the extra mile to satisfy your needs.”
Asked to explain the letter during a 2014 deposition, Paustenbach said he was merely emphasizing to Studier that “we invested in scientific research to answer questions that remained unanswered in the courtroom for many, many years …. And I was pretty proud of that.” He said he didn’t feel it was fair for his firm to lose money “when, in fact, I was so committed to getting the science straight.”
The World Health Organization estimates that 107,000 people die each year from asbestos-related diseases. “Exposure to asbestos, including chrysotile, causes cancer of the lung, larynx and ovaries, and also mesothelioma (a cancer of the pleural and peritoneal linings) [and] asbestosis (fibrosis of the lungs),” the WHO says. “No threshold has been identified for the carcinogenic risk of asbestos, including chrysotile.”
OSHA says, “There is no ‘safe’ level of asbestos exposure for any type of asbestos fiber. Asbestos exposures as short in duration as a few days have caused mesothelioma in humans.”
Taking the WHO and OSHA statements at face value, the case against asbestos would seem to be closed: Even someone with very low exposure to the mineral should worry.
In papers published over the past 15 years, however, scientists with Exponent, Cardno ChemRisk and other consulting firms have questioned whether brake mechanics truly are at heightened risk of developing mesothelioma, the disease that has fueled litigation against Ford and others.
A 2004 Exponent paper funded by Ford, GM and Chrysler, for example, concluded that “employment as a motor vehicle mechanic does not increase the risk of developing mesothelioma.” An update of that paper in 2015 found the same result. Each paper was a meta-analysis — an agglomeration of the results of multiple studies that, taken individually, may be too weak to indicate an effect.
In a deposition last October, Exponent’s Mary Jane Teta, a co-author of both meta-analyses, defended her firm’s findings. “I disagree when they say there is no safe level [of asbestos],” she testified. “I know the level of chrysotile … experienced by vehicle mechanics is safe.”
In his statement to the Center, Paustenbach wrote, “It is implausible that nearly 20 epidemiology studies” – on which he bases his legal opinions – “would conclude that there is no increased risk of mesothelioma for the time period during which brakes contained chrysotile asbestos if that were not the appropriate conclusion.”
The studies Paustenbach cites, however, are fraught with limitations, such as small sample sizes, vague job classifications and lack of exposure data. And not all of them found, as he put it, “no increased risk of mesothelioma” among mechanics. In a 1989 paper, for example, a Danish researcher who studied causes of death among auto mechanics reported finding a single case of mesothelioma among her subjects, where none would have been expected in the general population. As with other cancers, she wrote, this number was “too small to state or rule out a potentially increased risk.”
A co-author of another paper, Kay Teschke of the University of British Columbia, testified in a 2012 deposition that her research was being mischaracterized.
“Vehicle mechanics do many different things in their day; some might work on engines, some might only work on wheel alignment,” Teschke testified. “And when you dilute the [asbestos] exposure in that way, you can’t find the relationship with the job … It doesn’t mean that people in that job are somehow immune to the effects of the exposure … “
Christian Hartley, a lawyer in Mount Pleasant, South Carolina, who has represented about 100 mesothelioma victims in brake cases, said the papers used in the defense of such lawsuits “push all this data together that’s totally incomparable. That’s what gets reported in the literature and is used to persuade judges and some experts. It’s very misleading to think we have any kind of real handle on what a typical mechanic has for exposure.”
Dr. David Egilman, a clinical professor of family medicine at Brown University and editor of the International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health, argues that the papers are deceptive by design. Many reanalyze previously published studies of workers described as mechanics who may have had no contact with asbestos brakes, he said. The effect, Egilman said, is to dilute the cancer data so the overall risk appears low.
Egilman, who consults for asbestos plaintiffs, spends much of his time rebutting Paustenbach and other industry-funded researchers. “They can throw a lot of things at the wall and hope something sticks with the jury,” he said. “It forces people like me or other scientists to try to clean up each thing that was thrown at the wall, one at a time. And by the end of the day, that could be confusing to a jury or judge.”
Egilman said the body of work underwritten by Ford and other asbestos defendants is being used to try to deprive sick workers, or their families, of compensation. “Some courts have adopted it as a standard,” he said.
More broadly, the industry-funded papers can confuse the public – and even government experts.
In 2009, the National Cancer Institute published a fact sheet on its website stating there was no evidence brake work was associated with an increased risk of mesothelioma or lung cancer. The 2004 meta-analysis funded by the automakers was cited as a reference.
Dr. Arthur Frank, chair of the Department of Environmental and Occupational Health at Drexel University, was incredulous.
“What is truly ironic about such a statement is that it is incontrovertible that asbestos, including chrysotile, the type of asbestos found in brakes, does, in fact, cause lung cancer and mesothelioma,” Frank wrote in a letter to the institute’s director obtained by the Center for Public Integrity through a Freedom of Information Act request. “Since we have not banned asbestos in this country, those who might read this statement could well think asbestos brakes are safe, putting at risk both professional and ‘shade tree’ mechanics, and their family members.”
Frank said the meta-analysis cited by the institute was “unreliable and should not serve as the basis for any statement by the NCI.”
Then-NCI Director Dr. John Neiderhuber replied that he had discussed Frank’s critique with an in-house expert who agreed that the language on the website should be amended. The new statement, posted less than two weeks after Frank sent his letter, read that while studies of cancer risks among auto mechanics were limited, “the overall evidence suggests that there is no safe level for asbestos exposure.” The citation of the 2004 paper was deleted.
The brake studies have had global reach. The “chrysotile-is-safe” argument has been used to stave off asbestos bans and preserve markets in developing nations such as India and China, where building materials and other products containing asbestos are widely used.
“The real nefarious part of this research … is that a lot of people who live in those countries are continuing to be exposed under uncontrolled conditions to asbestos,” Egilman said. “That’s the real horror story here.”
A Ford loss in Tennessee
While the brake papers and the experts who write them have contributed to defense verdicts in mesothelioma cases, things occasionally go the other way.
Ronnie Stockton operated an auto repair shop 100 feet from his home in Jackson, Tennessee, for 30 years and specialized in brake jobs, often on Ford vehicles. He’d attended training classes in which instructors recommended that paper masks be worn around brake dust but never heard a “full description of what asbestos did,” he said in a recent interview. “We wasn’t warned it could kill you when you swept it up and didn’t wear the mask.”
As it turned out, Stockton’s wife, Joyce, was the one who got sick. She used to help her husband sweep out the shop. She kept the books and washed Ronnie’s dusty clothes. One night in December 2010 she lay down in bed and felt her chest tighten. “I thought I was having a heart attack,” she said. A biopsy confirmed that she had mesothelioma, to that point merely a strange word she’d heard in lawyers’ TV commercials. “I would sit in front of the television trying to learn how to pronounce it, not ever knowing I had the disease,” she said.
The Stocktons sued Ford and went to trial in August. Two Exponent scientists were among the defense experts.
In his closing argument after nearly two weeks of testimony, Ruckdeschel, the Stocktons’ lawyer, said Ford’s experts had “spun the literature” on asbestos. “They’re not taking what the studies say; they’re putting a spin on it.”
If independent research had shown no connection between brake work and mesothelioma, Ruckdeschel said, “they wouldn’t have had to go and pay Exponent to write all the papers to say, ‘Well, we’ve reanalyzed the data, and there really isn’t any evidence.’ ”
Defense lawyer Samuel Tarry urged jurors not to be swayed by the millions of dollars Ford had invested in the papers. It “shouldn’t come as any surprise that over time it costs a lot of money to defend these cases and to publish research where it can be critiqued and criticized and start discussions,” he said. Tarry recounted the testimony of Exponent’s Mark Roberts, who “told you that the majority of mesotheliomas in women are unrelated to asbestos. … He explained that all of us have a background risk, not just for mesothelioma but for any type of cancer …. They can happen naturally. They can happen with an environmental insult.”
After deliberating about two days, the jury returned a $4.65 million verdict in the Stocktons’ favor. It assigned 71 percent of the liability to Ford and 29 percent to brake manufacturer Honeywell, which had been brought into the case on Ford’s motion. Ford has asked for a new trial.
Latisha Strickland was the jury foreman. She’d wanted to assign 100 percent of the blame to Ford but agreed to the 71-29 split to avoid a hung jury.
“I felt ashamed — I had compromised what I thought it should be,” Strickland, a home-school teacher, said in a telephone interview. “You couldn’t give me the Powerball lottery to go through the amount of surgeries this woman [Joyce Stockton] has gone through.”
Strickland said she was especially put off by the 1971 memo showing Ford decided not to spend $1.25 per vehicle to replace front-end asbestos brakes.
Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, Japan, India, Indonesia, Italy, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States, and European Union. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/pr…
Part 22 We recognize that the extensive COVID-19 immunization is a global public good Section 23 We recognize the need for strengthening local and regional health product manufacturing capacities We support the WHO mRNA Vaccine Technology Transfer hub We acknowledge the importance of shared technical standards and verification methods, to facilitate seamless international travel, interoperability, and recognizing digital solutions and non-digital solutions, including proof of vaccinations. Establishment of trusted global digital health networks, that should capitalize and build on the success of the existing standards and digital COVID-19 certificates.
Part 24 The COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated the transformation of the digital ecosystem and digital economy. We recognize the importance of digital transformation in reaching the SDGs. We also reaffirm the role of data for development, economic growth and social well-being. G20 update
“Endeavour to move towards interoperability of systems including mechanisms that validate proof of vaccination, whilst respecting the sovereignty of national health policies, and relevant national regulations such as personal data protection and data-sharing.” Indonesia’s Minister of Health Budi Gunadi Sadikin
G20 countries should adopt digital health certificate using WHO standards Let’s have a digital health certificate acknowledged by WHO — if you have been vaccinated or tested properly — then you can move around (next World Health Assembly in Geneva) WHO seem to be on it already
Digital documentation of COVID-19 certificates: vaccination status: technical specifications and implementation guidance, 27 August 2021 Use of scan codes Klaus Schwab, World Economic Forum (WEF) Chair Attended From a doctor in Austria It is currently a very emotional situation in my hospital (and in general in hospitals in Austria) because many of us in the health care sector are more or less forced to get a fourth vaccine dose. Even in my case as a physician who has received three doses and one infection just 6 months ago. The rule is that if the last vaccination is more than one year and/or the last infection is more than 6 months ago you either have to test all 72 hours or to get an additional vaccine dose; if not you are at risk of having to pay 500 to 3600 Euros and may even get fired.
“The Food Bill” resurfaces again (also here) … some things are introduced ‘gradually’ a hallmark of Fabian Socialism… gradualism. So the Bill looked fairly benign to the folk who 100% trust & don’t bother to look deeper. However you need to examine it within the context of our diminishing rights and freedoms that began around the end of last century with those several notorious plane crashes into buildings. More links to info (historically) in this article … https://envirowatchrangitikei.wordpress.com/food-bill-nz/
Important to know about Codex Alimentarius. Codex Alimentarius is United Nations (UN), WHO (World Health Organization) and FAO (Food and Agriculture Organisation) way of making sure the industry get more protected and that you the consumer get food with more toxins and less nutrients. It has everything to do with international trade and nothing to do with food safety.
– Codex Alimentarius is not about consumer protection. – Codex is designed to protect the industry (read: Pharmaceutical, Chemotherapy, Biotech, Agrobusiness, etc.) by eliminating natural health products and treatments, and by allowing insanely high residuelevels of toxins. – Codex is unscientific because it classifies nutrients as toxins.
[On March 9th] the World Health Organisation issued an Interim Statement on COVID-19 vaccines in the context of the circulation of the Omicron SARS-CoV-2 Variant from the WHO Technical Advisory Group on COVID-19 Vaccine Composition (TAG-CO-VAC), 08 March 2022
The document contains an extraordinary juxtaposition of contradictory information which points to disagreements and confusion at the World Health Organisation:
“….current COVID-19 vaccines continue to provide high levels of protection against severe disease and death, even in the context of the circulation of Omicron”, (even though severe disease and death rates from Omicron are significantly lower than flu and almost exclusively involve people already seriously ill from other conditions).
Immediately followed by:
“….to ensure COVID-19 vaccines provide optimal protection into the future, they may need to be updated.…particularly for groups at risk of developing severe disease….but the timeframe for their development and production is uncertain.”
“The TAG-CO-VAC continues to encourage COVID-19 vaccine manufacturers to generate and provide data to WHO on performance of current and variant-specific COVID-19 vaccines…but robust data on the global immunologic landscape is limited.”
“The TAG-CO-VAC recognizes the independent role and procedures of relevant regulatory authorities in establishing the necessary requirements for evaluation under the currently established regulatory pathways…”
The double speak needs interpretation, perhaps WHO meant to say that the current Covid-19 vaccines do not work and we have no idea when if ever effective ones will be developed, but they refrained from doing so because a canon of WHO religion requires that nothing can be said if it might lead to vaccine hesitancy.
Perhaps they then meant to say that Covid-19 vaccine manufacturers have been giving us incomplete data, so we want to warn regulators to be more careful in future, and make up their own minds sensibly after independent research, but WHO can’t say that because a lot of health funding comes from vaccine manufacturers.
I can’t really tell you what is going on at WHO, but it clearly requires copywriters who can convey mixed messages with great skill. No doubt the wise pandits at WHO with their global perspective are pondering the fact that published comparisons between different countries and areas do not show that higher levels of Covid-19 vaccination lead to lower infection and death rates. What they actually admit is:
“There are heterogeneous levels of population immunity between countries…”
I am rather hoping that plain speaking will come back into fashion, but I am not sure that will happen anytime soon at WHO. In the meantime, governments like ours still relying on WHO bulletins to inform their policies will need to employ skilled translators.
Guy Hatchard PhD was formerly a senior manager at Genetic ID a global food safety testing and certification company (now known as FoodChain ID)
I saw the analogy drawn recently to the boa constrictor and how with each relax of its grip it then tightens even more. Knowing what we do about the agenda of the globalists this makes perfect sense. It was right there from the start, the promises by JA there would be no mandates. A year later? Mandates. Two weeks to flatten the curve. Two years later? Less freedoms. One thing is certain, you cannot trust a globalist. They lie with impunity. EWR
An easier read from thebuzz.nz: The WHO wants countries to sign a new Covid-19 treaty in only about 2 months. This treaty would have the “WHO Constitution” take precedence over a country’s constitution during natural disasters or pandemics. This would allow them to make their “guidelines” mandatory to the public of all countries who sign. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is the second highest donor to the WHO, after the US government. We know how this would end. Dr. Astrid Stuckelberge worked for the WHO for 20 years. She says that every country should send a public letter of protest to the WHO, saying that their people DO NOT accept a signature of their Minister of Health. WHO wants all countries to sign this letter before May 2022.
BREAKING – EMERGENCY: Dr. Astrid Stukelberger, PhD: World Health Dictatorship by Treaty to replace the Constitutions of the Nations (20 February 2022)
The following is a transcript made on Wednesday, 23 February 2022, between 5h56 am and 3h31 pm of Dr. Astrid Stukelberger giving her main presentation of about 24 minutes’ length. The video panel discussion continues but has not been transcribed. Some of Dr. Stukelberger’s comments may need clarification.
READ / LISTEN AT THE LINK:
ABOUT THE TREATY:
An international treaty on pandemic prevention and preparedness
World Health Assembly agrees to launch negotiations for an agreement to fight pandemics
On 1 December 2021, the 194 members of the World Health Organization (WHO) reached consensus to kickstart the process to draft and negotiate a convention, agreement or other international instrument under the Constitution of the World Health Organization to strengthen pandemic prevention, preparedness and response.
An intergovernmental negotiating body will now be constituted and hold its first meeting by 1 March 2022 (to agree on ways of working and timelines) and its second by 1 August 2022 (to discuss progress on a working draft). It will then deliver a progress report to the 76th World Health Assembly in 2023, with the aim to adopt the instrument by 2024.
Join Claire Deeks from Voices For Freedom when she catches up with Ivor Cummins talking about the global response to Covid19.
Ivor Cummins BE(Chem) CEng MIEI PMP is a Biochemical Engineer who has spent over 25 years in corporate technical leadership and management positions. His career specialty has been leading large worldwide teams in complex problem-solving activity. Since 2012 Ivor has been intensively researching the root causes of modern chronic disease. A particular focus has been on cardiovascular disease, diabetes and obesity. Since March 2020, Ivor has dedicated his analytical and biochemical expertise to deep and revealing analysis of the Covid19 pandemic situation.
In this podcast Ivor and Claire discuss the following:
[02:52] Ivor’s background in low-carb and how this investigation of the corruption in the food industry.
[06:58] How his corporate problem-solving background informs his views on the COVID-19 response.
[08:31] The corruption of the WHO and the changing definition of “pandemic” and the real severity of the virus.
[10:19] The New Zealand situation – why its been a failed experiment, a look at QALYs and the average age of death versus average age of COVID-19 death.
[14:50] Lockdowns and all the science and real word experience and now published papers that show they don’t work.
An article by a UN World Health Organization (WHO) employee suggests that lockdowns will be reused and rebranded when globalists move away from their pandemic narrative and focus on climate change as part of the Great Reset. Author Mariana Mazzucato, a professor of economics at University College London, argued that “In the near future, the world may need to resort to lockdowns again – this time to tackle a climate emergency […] To avoid such a scenario, we must overhaul our economic structures and do capitalism differently.” Her statements assume the false narrative that lockdowns are necessary and effective. She stated that under a “climate lockdown,” governments would limit private-vehicle use, ban consumption of red meat, and impose extreme energy-saving measures, while fossil-fuel companies would have to stop drilling.
If and when the powers-that-be decide to move on from their pandemic narrative, lockdowns won’t be going anywhere. Instead it looks like they’ll be rebranded as “climate lockdowns”, and either enforced or simply held threateningly over the public’s head.
At least, according to an article written by an employee of the WHO, and published by a mega-coporate think-tank.
NEW DELHI — India has received the baton for title of COVID Capitol of the World after China, Italy and the United States held it for much of last year.
The world second-most populace country after China had fewer than 138,000 total active COVID cases in early February 2021. That’s the lowest figure since January 2020. India active COVID cases sit around 3.6 million today, according to the India Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. Mainstream media are blaming the massive spike on a “scary, mutant variant” called B.1.617.
Said media are also speculating whether or not the “vaccines” will work against the variant. Only about 2.8% of India is vaccinated. Have no fear. Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine are here.
The India health ministry updated its guidelines on April 28 for quarantines, treating the asymptomatic and those with mild symptoms of COVID-19. The agency now says that asymptomatic patients should “consider Tab Ivermectin (200 mcg/kg once a day, to be taken empty stomach) for 3 to 5 days.” Caregivers of patients in quarantine are instructed to “take Hydroxychloroquine prophylaxis as per protocol and as prescribed by the treating medical officer.” See the full document here.
World Health Organization, big pharma freak out
There are 292 studies (219 are peer-reviewed) proving the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine as both a treatment and prophylaxis against COVID-19. Ivermectin has 93 studies (54 peer-reviewed) showing its effectiveness as treatment and prophylaxis against COVID-19. Despite the now-indisputable fact that these drugs essentially kill COVID-19 within hours or days, the Bill Gates-funded World Health Organization (WHO) and big pharma are having fits over India’s new guidelines and the results.
This comes right after a challenge in the High Court by NZ Lawyer Sue Grey highlighting the fact that approval for the experimental CV VX was only ever for a limited number of people. That ‘limited number’, the government has claimed in their own defense, was NZ’s entire population excluding children and teens. Note, the NZ Govt has already purchased enough of Pfizer’s product to jab the entire population of NZ.
With this announcement there are some things parents need to be aware of (aside from familiarizing themselves with all of the possible side effects). (Visit these two NZ websites for further info on those, here and here).
The plan is for late in Term 3. The official NZ term dates are as follows: Term 3 begins Monday 26 July, ends Friday 1 October.
Note also it’s been said that numbers of adverse reactions on CARM, NZ’s site for documenting those, won’t be available until July. (Unlike the US’s VAERS which presents figures as they unfold).
RNZ reports on Bloomfield’s plans for your children:
“The Ministry of Health is looking at launching a school-based programme for teenagers to get their Covid-19 vaccinations from the end of term 3.
Director-General of Health Dr Ashley Bloomfield said once the Pfizer vaccine was approved for 12 to 15-year-olds, that group would be added to the programme and would be vaccinated by the end of the year.”
Should you decide, no you do not consent for your child to have the medical treatment offered (it is not mandatory) consider the following two posts that detail for one that historically in NZ young people have been known to experience coercion from health workers at their schools to take vaccines, and two, WHO now considers your child’s presence at school as informed consent to vaccinate them: it’s called ‘implied consent. See links below. Never before has it been so crucial that parents study the literature carefully about risks versus benefits of vaccines in general, and in particular this experimental injection.
3,544 deaths and 12,619 serious injuries reported between Dec. 14, 2020 and April 23, 2021
One of the world’s most prominent medical doctors with expertise in treating COVID-19 has gone on the record with a scathing rebuke of the U.S. government’s approach to fighting the virus. He says the government’s strategy, carried out in cooperation with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the United Nations World Health Organization, has resulted in tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths and is now being followed up with thousands more deaths caused by a mass-injection program.
McCullough holds the honor of being the most cited medical doctor on COVID-19 treatments at the National Library of Medicine, with more than 600 citations. He has testified before Congress and won numerous awards during his distinguished medical career.
HeadlineExcerpts: “Just 2 1/2 weeks before his death Friday at age 86, Aaron joined civil rights icons to receive the COVID-19 vaccine. He wanted to spread the word to the Black community that the shots were safe in the midst of a devastating pandemic … The Atlanta Braves, Aaron’s longtime team, said he died in his sleep. No cause was given.”
“The World Health Organization added that since there was “no certain connection” of the vaccines to Norway’s deaths, there is no reason to discontinue giving it to senior citizens.”
Additionally, to add insult to injury. baseball legend Hank Aaron, 86, died January 22, 2021. News reports said he died “peacefully in his sleep” and no cause of death had been announced. Aaron was famous for being the home-run king of baseball, and broke Babe Ruth’s record when he hit homerun No. 715; he had hit 755 by the time he retired from the sport.
Aaron made the news January 5, 2021 — 16 days ago — when he was vaccinated for COVID-19. He said at the time that he hoped other Blacks would follow his lead and get their vaccines too.
In other news, Norway recorded 23 deaths of senior citizens after they started vaccinating older citizens there. Health officials downplayed any connection with the vaccine to their deaths. Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, commented that the deaths have to be “put into context with the population they occurred in.”
The World Health Organization added that since there was “no certain connection” of the vaccines to Norway’s deaths, there is no reason to discontinue giving it to senior citizens.
The South Pacific archipelago of New Zealand is in the process of being fully absorbed into an emergent technocratic bio-security operating system amid the ‘Great Corona Reset’.
This global reset bears the hallmarks of a sophisticated bio-terrorism plot authorized by a ‘supreme group’ at the head of supranational deep state network that are operating at a level well above the pay-grades of the world’s visible political, military, corporate and religious leaders.
Indeed, the rhetoric emerging from the billionaire-funded World Economic Forum about Covid-19 opening up an opportunity for a ‘Great Reset’ to accelerate the Fourth Industrial Revolution is highly revealing, given that key players seek nothing less than to re-purpose the bio-functionality of all life – including humans.i
The drive to re-code culture with new language, images, and their metaphors by a Global Health Syndicate – which is a subsidiary of the Western Empire Syndicate – is actually critical to the capture of the most valuable frontier: the space between mortal human ears.
The lock-step bio-security mechanisms that have unfolded occurred in accordance with a directive issued in a health emergency preparedness report titled, “A World at Risk”, that was published on September 18th 2019 by a teething one-year-old institution of the United Nations called the Global Policy Monitoring Board (GPMB). This United Nations board – which was convened by the World Bank Group and the World Health Organization at the request of the United Nations Secretary-General – called for two system-wide ‘pandemic exercises’ to be performed by September 2020, including the deliberate release of a lethal respiratory pathogen.ii
By Kiwi4Justice These are unprecedented times in history around the world and in New Zealand right now. Deeply troubling things occurring that just make no rational sense. Is there something else going on behind the scenes with the global COVID-19 pandemic? It’s a very strong word to use, but is it treason? It’s a deadly serious question. Has the New Zealand Prime Minister been using COVID-19 to engage in a deliberate attack on New Zealand and the New Zealand people on behalf of powerful global interests? The evidence is unfortunately stacking up against her. As difficult as this concept is for us to accept, the actions are increasingly speaking for themselves and it is getting more and more difficult to find other reasoning for things.
The evidence is now showing us with greater certainty every day in many countries around the world, including New Zealand, that deceptive and deeply concerning agendas may be in play with COVID-19. Initially to substantially over inflate the severity of the threat, and then to deliberately and artificially maintain COVID-19 as an apparent ongoing severe threat to our population. A threat requiring ongoing substantial disruptions to our freedoms, our economy and livelihood, our basic way of life, and our NZ Bill of Rights.
Are there deliberate crimes against humanity being committed here by Jacinda Ardern and other national leaders? Look at what is also happening in Australia, in Germany, the UK, Ireland, and other places where historically enormous public protests have been taking place against this over the past few weeks. Over a million people marched through the streets of Berlin recently. A country that is very well aware of dangerous developments in government.
When considering this question of crimes being committed, we are not talking here about Jacinda Ardern receiving poor advice and incorrect information from the expert advisers, or making well-meaning errors of judgement, or failures of management down the chain of command. We are talking here about deliberately and wilfully blocking, banning, and removing the most vital tools and information available to New Zealand for combatting the alleged threat from COVID-19 which could restore normality to our now crippled nation. Why on earth would Jacinda Ardern and the New Zealand government do that to their own country and their own people?
Let’s not dwell too much here on the first part of the COVID response situation, which was the initial grossly over inflated severity of the risk. We can potentially give Jacinda Ardern the benefit of the doubt that she initially acted according to the information and advice being given to her by the ‘global experts’. The evidence is now well confirmed and acknowledged around the world that the initial doomsday estimates of the lethality of COVID-19 were hugely over-stated. Imperial College in London and the World Health Organisation initially had their computer model projections showing a mortality rate at a devastating 3.4%. This led to the initial pandemic response and worldwide lockdown, including New Zealand’s Level 4 lockdown. This has long since been shown by the real-life data from front-line doctors, scientists, and health organisations around the world to have been enormously overstated. The mortality rate of COVID-19 is now confirmed and acknowledged to be somewhere between 0.05% and 0.8% depending on how the data is interpreted. This puts it in the same mortality spectrum as normal seasonal flu, not a catastrophic global pandemic https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/06/05/fact-check-cdc-estimates-covid-19-death-rate-0-26/5269331002/.
This real-life data showing this true mortality rate should have been enough on its own to trigger a substantial shift in the government’s strategic policies towards the COVID response. Does it make any sense for New Zealand to continue to enforce severe restrictions on society and catastrophic damage to the economy for something now proven and acknowledged to have the same mortality rate as seasonal flu? No, not at all. So immediately that is a major red flag for Jacinda Ardern’s COVID response. We’ll come back to the current big issue of the exploding number of ‘positive cases’ in New Zealand, Victoria, and other places.
But let’s move on for now as we look at the second part of the COVID response situation, which is a lot more damning and inexcusable for Jacinda Ardern. This is where the issue really arises of potentially deliberate crimes against New Zealand and the question of treason. Why have the most important tools and information for New Zealand to combat the COVID-19 threat been deliberately banned and withheld by Jacinda Ardern and the New Zealand government? I am referring here to three main points, all of which would be enormously useful to our COVID fight; 1. Antibody/serology testing, 2. Proven treatments such as Hydroxychloroquine, which is now scientifically proven in dozens of peer reviewed scientific studies around the world to have a powerful effect on reducing deaths from COVID-19, and 3. The brazen censoring, banning, and ridiculing of any information and evidence that goes against their own COVID narrative, no matter how scientifically robust that information is, and no matter how professionally credible the source of the information is. Remember, Jacinda Ardern paid $50 million to our media. They now seem extremely compliant and supportive.
Let’s deal with Point 3 first. In Jacinda Ardern’s own words, she and the New Zealand government are now to be “the one source of truth about COVID-19”. Information from anywhere else should be ignored, dismissed, or removed https://youtu.be/ENEUktOrQV8 including information from renowned doctors, scientists, and world leading medical researchers. Those who disobey and go against Jacinda Ardern’s ‘one source of COVID truth’ will be severely fined, banned, and potentially even arrested. What sort of leader speaks and acts like that? A corrupt dictator with something serious to hide or cover up, that’s who.
Hence the introduction of Jacinda Ardern’s ‘Internet Filtering Bill’ to ensure that any ‘inappropriate’ information and evidence can be quickly removed to retain the desired COVID narrative. It will be introduced to New Zealand on October 1st and will allow Jacinda Ardern, as the self-appointed “one source of truth”, to remove from the internet or Facebook anything she feels is contrary to what she wants people to know. It’s a simple 3-step process for Jacinda’s modern day ‘book burning’ policy; 1. Warning, 2. Heavy fine, 3. Removal from the internet or Facebook. What’s next? Will we see Kiwis arrested and dragged out of their homes by the police for posting something critical of Jacinda on Facebook like the pregnant mother in Victoria, who simply posted on Facebook about a lockdown protest and was then arrested and marched out of her house in handcuffs, in her pyjamas, in front of her young children https://youtu.be/hn0wWVNXmks. As of October 1st, Jacinda Ardern’s Internet Filtering Bill allows her to do exactly the same thing to Kiwis. These are very major concerns for the New Zealand public which deserve the most serious examination.
Let’s now return to Point 1 of Jacinda Ardern’s alleged treason. In April 2020 Jacinda Ardern and the New Zealand government banned and withdrew COVID-19 antibody/serology testing in New Zealand. Why on earth would she do that? Antibody testing would provide New Zealand with the most scientifically robust method of understanding exactly what the overall COVID situation is in New Zealand. Simon Thornley, epidemiologist at Auckland University, has been very vocal in his criticism of antibody testing/serology being shut down as a critical tool to help track the current outbreak and assess its prevalence in the community. Thornley called for serology testing back in April, but by the end of that month, the Ministry of Health had specifically banned the importation and sale of serology tests. https://thebfd.co.nz/2020/08/21/serology-testing-essential-but-banned-in-nz/. Why on earth would they do that? Antibody testing would tell us what percentage of the overall population has already been exposed to the virus and now recovered. It would tell us if the virus had already swept through the population some months ago, done its thing (as contagious viruses do), it would tell us if the country had achieved ‘herd immunity’ (like Sweden now has), and that the virus had essentially now reached the end of its natural life cycle in New Zealand. Or it could tell us that this hadn’t yet happened and there was still an issue. If it showed us that the virus had indeed already swept through the population, then the issue of COVID-19 in New Zealand is finished. Done with. Like Sweden, we now get on with life as normal, like we do every year with the seasonal flu virus.
Instead of having that very clear picture from antibody testing, we instead have our daily mass hysteria on the mainstream news networks about the latest outbreak of the latest ‘positive cases’. Bombarding us daily with terrifying terminology like the danger of the latest new ‘sub cluster’. Those people that ‘test positive’ or have been in close contact with a positive test are locked into COVID detention centres under military guard. But what does a ‘positive case’ actually mean? It means absolutely nothing. The PCR test that is used for this is incapable of telling us whether or not a person has active and infectious COVID-19. Even the inventor of the PCR test told the world this fact. https://uncoverdc.com/2020/04/07/was-the-covid-19-test-meant-to-detect-a-virus/
There are around three dozen different types of Corona Virus, including COVID-19, the common cold, and others. All the PCR test might tell us is that a person at some point recently may have had, or has, one of those many different Corona Viruses. If you had a common cold several months ago but now recovered, then you might well test positive on the PCR test. If you had COVID-19 several months ago, didn’t realise it, or only had minor symptoms and now recovered, then you might test positive on the PCR test. So, are these new explosions of ‘positive cases’ in New Zealand, Victoria, and other places actually just people who have already had COVID-19 and are mostly now fine? Would that explain why virtually everyone who is now ‘testing positive’ are showing no symptoms (asymptomatic) and feel fine?
We now know that the mortality rate of COVID-19 is very low (similar to seasonal flu). We also know from figures around the world, that the numbers of death and severe illness from COVID-19 have plummeted over the last few months, and continue to plummet, despite the explosion of so called ‘positive cases’. Almost as if the virus is coming to a natural and normal end and the positive tests are mostly just picking up people who have previously been exposed to the virus but are mostly fine. The media and governments around the world, including New Zealand, now barely even mention the rather critical issues of how many people now are actually dying from COVID-19 or in critical condition. All the talk is now focussed on how many new ‘positive cases’ there are. Is New Zealand, and other countries, unnecessarily remaining in COVID catastrophe only because of a pandemic of arbitrary ‘positive cases’ from a test that is largely meaningless?
This brings us back to the point about antibody testing. If Jacinda Ardern had not banned and withdrawn antibody testing in New Zealand back in April then we could answer that question right now with great scientific certainty and quite possibly have returned and kept New Zealand in relative normality long ago, rather than now watching the destruction of our economy and the very fabric of our society being ripped up. So why on earth did Jacinda Ardern ban it and withdraw antibody testing? She specifically went out of her way to ban and withdraw such a powerful and useful tool, and shut down dissenting dialogue from experts about these things. This suggests a wilful agenda rather than incompetence and mismanagement. It suggests that she doesn’t actually want to be able draw the COVID catastrophe to a conclusion. That thought is rather disturbing.
What about Point 2 of Jacinda Ardern’s alleged treason. Why would she withdraw proven, effective, cheap and easy treatments for COVID-19? We’ve been told that vaccine trials are being rushed through as quickly as possible. Bill Gates has told us that because his vaccines are having to be rushed through the normal safety protocols that he will need to be legally indemnified against any negative effects on health from his vaccines. That doesn’t really inspire me to line up for his medicine. If something is robustly and properly tested as being safe and effective then that’s fine for people to have that option to choose to take a vaccine. However, through the New Zealand ‘Health Response Bill’ that Jacinda Ardern has just rushed through parliament without due process, the legal framework has now been created for potential mandatory vaccines in the future, as was outlined in parliament. If not technically mandatory for the general population, then at least making the vaccine a requirement for return to ‘normal’ society. The wording in one Ministry of Health COVID-19 document being “Immunisation status verification for return to work” – page 29 of the document in this linkhttps://www.privacy.org.nz/news-and-publications/statements-media-releases/privacy-commissioner-backs-nz-covid-tracer-app/. So the people of New Zealand could soon find themselves in a position whereby if they do not consent to taking a vaccine that has been rushed through the safety processes, then they cannot return to work or to normal society. A vaccine for which Bill Gates says he will have to have legal indemnity for any negative health impacts. These vaccines that will have been rushed through the safety testing processes, then being forced onto Kiwis, against their will for a great many, specifically against the New Zealand Bill of Rights which used to protect them from that. This is for a virus confirmed and acknowledged to have a natural recovery rate of 99.95% or higher without a vaccine. Does this make any rational sense at all?
Why would Jacinda Ardern enforce these types of extremely draconian breaches of our Bill of Rights when the recovery rate without a vaccine is already 99.95% or higher, and when there are numerous other safer, cheaper, and easier treatments? Why is Jacinda Ardern not having discussions with us about these other treatments and is instead shutting them down? There are numerous potential treatments that have been put forward by doctors and researchers around the world. We won’t go into all of them here, but one in particular seems to get extra special treatment from many western governments, including New Zealand, in terms of ensuring that it remains out of the conversation and remains off the table as a prevention and treatment option. That being Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), which is an anti-malaria drug used extensively and safely around the world, and approved by the FDA for over 60 years. When it comes to HCQ, never in history has a proven safe drug been so demonised by politicians, media, and small elements of seemingly corrupted and politicised science. Why is that?
The official line is that there is contradictory evidence and that there are potential health side effects from HCQ. But all of these claims have been very quickly shown to have been rushed out by the media and politicians on the back of what can only be called corrupted ‘politicised science’, which has quickly been exposed as such. It has angered researchers into HCQ and other potential treatments. Associate Professor Justin Denholm from Australia’s Doherty Institute, who has been working with New Zealand researchers, said “I’m angry about the level of misinformation and mistrust that puts on the scientific community”. The clearest example of this with regards HCQ is the Lancet report. A quite staggering situation. The Lancet is one of the oldest and best known peer reviewed Medical Journals in the world. On May 22, right at the time when doctors around the world were pushing HCQ into the spotlight as an effective treatment for COVID-19, the Lancet published an article stating that HCQ did not help COVID-19 patients and might actually cause death. It was seized upon by the World Health Organisation, the media, and political leaders around the world to demonise and help shut down the conversation on HCQ. Incredibly, only 10 days later, after immediately being called out by the science and medical community, the Lancet was forced to retract the article along with an apology https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20200605/lancet-retracts-hydroxychloroquine-study. A quite staggering occurrence that would never normally occur in the world of medical research with a publisher of the level of the Lancet. Why have certain elements of the political-medical axis been so hell bent on shutting down HCQ and other treatments? It’s a troubling question.
With nearly 100 studies, and real life doctors on the frontline of COVID-19 all over the world demonstrating and pushing the effectiveness of HCQ, why has Jacinda Ardern shut down further research on this treatment and prohibited its use in New Zealand? Why not give Kiwis the choice of Bill Gates’ rushed through vaccine, or other treatments such as HCQ? Flu vaccines have been around for 80 years and people are still getting the flu and are still dying from it with a similar mortality rate to what COVID-19 has without a vaccine. Yet Jacinda Ardern’s new rushed through health response policies suggest that once Bill Gates’ (or someone else’s) rushed through vaccine is available, she will make us unable to return to work until we have agreed to take it. Meanwhile HCQ is not allowed to be talked about or taken.
We have reached a level of insanity with all this that would be simply laughable if it were not so deadly serious and not so deeply concerning for the future of our country and our people. Jacinda Ardern has banned the one medical test that could be so useful to us understanding our COVID-19 situation in New Zealand, she has shut down any discussion or access to extremely positive and very cheap treatment options, and has instead pushed us towards mandatory vaccines that will have to be rushed through the health and safety controls, and she is now systematically shutting down our ability to question these things and to share information and research about these things. As she has told us herself, for the benefit of the country, she needs to be the “one source of truth”. This is precisely why more than a million people marched through Berlin several weeks ago, why 40,000 people just gathered in Trafalgar Square in London, and why thousands of people just marched down Queen Street in Auckland in the NZ Freedom March. Alongside all this, we have Sweden. Sweden is now rapidly becoming extremely problematic for all those countries like New Zealand who have gone into extreme COVID measures. No lockdowns in Sweden and COVID-19 is essentially no longer an issue there. It’s finished. Whereas in New Zealand, it seems very much like Jacinda Ardern and the New Zealand government are doing everything they can to keep it going. Why?
The impact that all of this is having on New Zealand simply can’t be stated in strong enough terms. It is literally destroying our country. Apart from crushing the nations psyche and emotional strength through the daily bombardment of terrifying updates about the latest ‘sub cluster’, we have debt levels that can never be repaid, small businesses crushed, unemployment set to go to levels beyond anything ever seen or imagined in New Zealand, and suicide rates going off the charts.
These are unprecedented scenes and unprecedented times in human history, and none of it makes any rational sense. Unless that is if there is something else going on that we aren’t supposed to know about. It is becoming increasingly difficult to avoid a conclusion that, somehow, there are some big global agendas involved here that wanted the initial global threat of COVID-19 to be substantially over inflated, and now for that threat and that danger to be artificially maintained. It sounds absolutely crazy. No question about that. But nothing we are seeing makes any rational sense for any kind of ‘normal’ situation.
Thanks to James Corbett for the video. This is Global Government by the decree of the health technocrats basically. The head of WHO is not a medical doctor. Its largest funder is Bill Gates whose expertise is IT not health. He is also self appointed. He used to be second largest funder next to the US. That tells us a great deal. See also in the video, the huge conflicts of interest regarding the vaccine manufacturers / Big Pharma. EWR
SHOW NOTES AND MP3: https://www.corbettreport.com/?p=37476 John writes in to ask about the founding, the funding and the true intentions of the World Health Organization. Join James as he lays out some of the information connecting the WHO to big pharma, Bill Gates and the Covid World Order agenda.
Since this topic has been uppermost in many minds of late, particularly that of the parents of young children I’m recapping here in light of this announcement yesterday. The article is from mainstream and brings reassurance that children testing positive will not be snatched by Oranga Tamariki (NZ’s child welfare services). I hope that this will be as stated. The public is slated in the headline for spreading false rumours … however, what else can they expect with the kinds of things that have been happening and the kinds of announcements that have been made of late.
Number one … during the last lockdown we had a Dr Michael Ryan, a leader of the WHO, saying, and I quote, ‘authorities may have to enter people’s homes and remove family members’. You can hear him below:
So, understandably this has set the scene, sowing fear in the minds of parents. “Remove them and isolate them” he says. There is no arguing with that even though the ever alert fact checkers have now denied what this sounds like, indeed the presenter himself interpreted it thus by adding “by force presumably”. You can read the fact checkers’ statements at this link. I certainly don’t see the fact check as allaying anybody’s fears however. He said what he said, and as a Doctor should have had sense enough to explain exactly what he meant if he had something else in mind. In my opinion the blame for rumours should be laid right at his door. And one would hope that the authorities including NZ’s have learned to be very specific about their intentions.
Number two … In NZ we have had the recent example of the family returning from Australia, a couple and their young children who were in fact told they would need to be separated in the quarantine facility. They declined. Then later on when their two year old was unwell, another try was made to separate that child from them in the facility. A two year old to a separate room? To be looked after by whom? Smart parents, they declined again, threatening legal action should they persist.
Number three … Bloomfield himself said families could be separated as in the video here from the MOH. At 25 mins 23 secs the question starts.
See the article below for other ‘reassuring’ statements made by Adern and Bloomfield and make up your own mind. I personally think they are not being specific and clear enough.
My conclusion from the evidence thus far is file away statements like this one by Hipkins, where it’s said no they will not take your children. Hold them to account should anybody come and seek to separate you from any of your children. Film everything.
Post Script 20/8/20 – according to Chris Hipkins, no children will be taken from their homes by Oranga Tamariki if they test positive. That has been rumoured apparently. Nevertheless in the video in this post below, Ashley Bloomfield does say children can be separated from the family within the facility, still traumatizing if you have a very young child. Very. How is separation into another room with strangers in PPE gear, masks and so on, no visits allowed, going to help a little child recover? He would need his mother. It is not surprizing rumours are circulating. We know that the WHO rep Michael Ryan said quite plainly on television that members could be removed and put into quarantine. Listen to Adern (at 7 mins 38 secs) this link as she kind of says families will be managed carefully … she does not outright say, no they won’t be separated though. Just as Bloomfield wouldn’t.
Since Adern switched the rules with no consultation note, it appears that the military in NZ are allowed to enter homes with no warrant and forcibly remove your children in the interests of health should it be deemed necessary.
This was first uttered back in the first global lockdown by Michael Ryan speaking from WHO (now ‘fact checked’ as untrue). I recall the horror then at such a suggestion. That was a lead in. A sure indication it was coming down the pipe. ‘In a humane fashion’ or similar he said.
How humane can ripping a small say one year old child from its mother be? By perfect strangers in military uniforms wearing masks? This is not humane!
This is out and out tyranny.
Any reasonable person would know that this is not sound medical / psychological / humane practice. Aside from it being just plain common sense, the life long fall-out from separation anxiety has been well documented. This is simply not acceptable. This attitude towards our children is absolutely cold and cruel. We have already had one little 7 year old boy try twice to end his life during the last lock down. This whole current scene is terrifying and traumatizing for children and parents and shows total disregard from our authorities on the value of individual lives and the effects their decisions are having. Today I heard also of parents considering a suicide pact with their family because of the fear of possible forced vaccination. (See video at 11mins 28 secs).
One person on social media (where the discussions occur, after all mainstream or should I say lamestream won’t allow it… it’s labeled ‘misinformation’) … she said she had asked at Whanau Ora if children would be separated from their parents. The response was no, that they would not separate families from their children.
And yet this is not reinforced at all by what Ashley Bloomfield is saying in his announcements, or by the experience of the following family who were in quarantine from Australia. They were told on arrival here that they would have to be separated (they declined) then it was suggested again that their two year old who was unwell, be isolated from them. They firmly declined again adding that legal action would be taken if they persisted. This one case has been now sorted but why did it happen like that? Parents less knowing might well have gone with the separation out of fear. The whole operation is being managed by the military. This implies force at the ready. Many (or is that most?) will be intimidated by this.
Below are two video clips, one from the UK (yes news is traveling on this) and one from Ashley Bloomfield, DG of NZ Health, spokesperson in this regard for Jacinda Adern. Note how Bloomfield (see video at 25mins 23 sec) is reluctant to say outright when asked, will you separate children from their parents … after a few ‘ums’ and ‘ahs’ and hand waving (just like Bill Gates does) he admits, ‘yes we will take your children if necessary’. If a paid staff member can care for a child in isolation, then equally that child’s parent can. End of story.
So what is the justification for complete separation?
Jacinda Adern needs to step up immediately and reassure the parents of NZ that their children will NOT be separated from them.
Note: Bloomfield has a Masters in Public Health with first class honours. He also has three children. I wonder would he be agreeable to any of those three at two years old being removed forcibly from he and his wife and children by strangers in camo with masks for who knows how long… for the benefit of their health? The same question goes to Jacinda and her partner.
Please consider emailing your MPs, MOH and Jacinda Adern, and remind them of the trauma such separation of children from their parents/caregivers would bring and such action should not be remotely considered as an option. EWR
Go to 25 mins 23 sec for the questions on quarantine & children with their parents. Question (Reporter):“If you’re a single parent with one kid does your kid come into quarantine with you?” Answer (Bloomfield): “Ah what we’re generally trying to do is encourage where … especially where it’s helpful … ah for, for families, is that … in case any, any close household contacts who might be at risk of still developing an infection or showing infection that they go into quarantine … they’re kept separate in the quarantine facility … ah… so it absolutely reduces the risk of passing it on to other household family members or other household members … so that’s why we see … so some of those ah will just be individual cases there ah … others will be the whole family in there and again the main … one of the key drivers of this is to protect the rest of the whanau members from infection … it’s very common inside the household if there’s not that isolation of the case or cases from other family members”.
Jacinda Adern speaking. Watch at 7 mins 38 secs re quarantine. For the record should the video disappear, she says in response to the question, Will families be forced apart in quarantine? … “We are very careful about the way that we manage that & people’s care arrangements … we work through all of that in a really ah … careful … responsible way… so that’s something we work through with families”.
Listen at 14 secs in Dr Ryan says: “now in most parts of the world due to lock down most of the transmission that’s actually happening in many countries now is happening in the household …. at family level. In some senses transmission has been taken off … off the streets and pushed back into family units. Now we need to go and look in families to find those people who may be sick and remove them and isolate them, in a … in a safe and dignified manner”.
NOTE: To share posts to FB any more than around 2 days old, you will need to click on the heading which takes you to the post page, the FB share button appears only on those pages as of around a month ago. Cannot get to the bottom of why. EWR.
The Facts:Michael Levitt, a Biophysicist and a professor of structural biology at Stanford University, criticizes the WHO as well as Facebook for censoring different information and informed perspectives regarding the Coronavirus.
Reflect On:Can we continue to rely on global organizations like the WHO and our federal health regulatory agencies to guide us in times like these? Do they work in our best interests? Do they work from honesty and truth?
As many of you reading this may already be aware, a number of prominent scientists around the world have been “muzzled’ so to speak when it comes to their positions on COVID-19. Their YouTube videos have been censored, and they have not been given any air time on mainstream media. This has made it so only a few perspectives are aired to the masses. Mainstream media also began a ridicule campaign against these types of scientists, while organizations like Facebook and the World Health Organization (WHO) chose to censor anything that contradicts the WHO’s position.
Ramola D Reports 11.7K subscribers Major documentary confirmation of something many of us have come to know for certain in recent times: the entire COVID-19 world-shutdown is part of a live training and simulation exercise run by the unscrupulous WHO and United Nations, as documented in their Global Preparedness Monitoring Board’s annual 2019 report and their International Health Regulations treaty of 2005—which 194/or 196 countries signed off on—which pretty much establishes a Global Government (of the WHO & United Nations, & the high-level international GMPB) along with their sponsors, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Wellcome Trust, & other unnamed donors. Please share this video widely. People in office have failed their oaths to protect the people, and We the People need to wake up and do something definitive about it. Every government has been complicit in the destruction of their own country’s economy, the vast suffering of their people brought on by these massive shutdowns and house-arrest assaults-on-the-psyche as people lost jobs, livelihood, purpose in life, social life, and were held back from any normalcy in going outdoors, even to sanctuaries in Nature but forced to wear masks in public instead and submit to police tyranny. Meanwhile, small and large businesses have crashed, families have been prevented from seeing their elderly relatives in hospice, many have died alone. Hospitals are cooking up numbers for COVID deaths, MSM plays out strings of new cases and new deaths. DOCS HERE: A World at Risk, 2019, Annual Report GPMB: https://apps.who.int/gpmb/assets/annu… International Health Regulations (2005) https://www.who.int/ihr/publications/… Some of the links/pages I referenced during this talk: https://www.who.int/ihr/about/en/https://www.who.int/gho/ihr/en/https://www.gatesfoundation.org/How-W…https://www.aspeninstitute.org/https://www.gatesfoundation.org/searc… *** SUBSCRIBE TO STAY INFORMED: Subscribe to this channel for regular notice of further updates (please click the Subscribe button above). SUPPORT THIS CHANNEL: To keep this unique brand of explorative & investigative print/broadcast Truth-Journalism continuing, you can “co-create” with tech fees and funds to help targets & whistleblowers in need on a recurring or one-time basis–all support appreciated. Patreon: Patreon.com/RamolaD. Paypal: Paypal.me/RamolaD FIND PRINT/VIDEO CONTENT: Media Site and Magazine: everydayconcerned.net Author website: ramolad.com Vimeo, Bitchute, Brighteon, Youtube: Ramola D Reports CONTACT WITH INFO OR INTERVIEW REQUESTS/REFERRALS: Email: email@example.com Twitter: @EccEveryday Facebook: Ramola Dharmaraj THANK YOU FOR WATCHING, DO SHARE WIDELY.
Could it be because he’s the largest funder in the world (used to be second largest next to the US) of the WHO? After all in a technocracy money speaks doesn’t it, little to do with science, qualifications and the usual long gone required standards to count for anything. EWR
The world’s second richest man Bill Gates “landed the job of dictating world health policy with no election, no appointment, no oversight and no accountability”says Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who is demanding to know how and why this happened, adding “Does anybody else think this is creepy?“
These two with eugenicist backgrounds have set themselves up as health advisors to the world – not via their expertise backed up by medical degrees … but by their extensive donations to the WHO. They are the second largest donors next to the US of A. Tell me please why that should qualify them to treat us medically? And as we speak they are busily funding the ‘cure’ which according to them must be a vaccine. Please ask yourself why? Why has the establishment suppressed alternative less risky treatments that others have found to work? If you cannot see this duplicity you are blind indeed. If you listen below here to Gates speak you will see they are confidently expecting another wave. Word has it, early August. This is what contacts of mine tell me. Although I personally was expecting one come Sept/Oct anyway. How can we know there’ll be another wave? The end game of Agenda 2030 if you’ve at all been studying their documents right there in plain sight … the end game has always been & still is … global governance, world control. The last round was in my opinion the test run for your compliance. You did really well (in their eyes) so they will be back with round two. Unless folk wake up real soon. (I’ve not linked some of my comments with references today, if you doubt what I say go to the Corbett Report’s YT channel & watch his series of four videos exposing the Gates’ agenda. It’s all there & meticulously researched). EWR
Jacinda Ardern is now the ‘poster politician’ of the world. She ‘crushed the curve’ and showed the world how to act ‘early and decisively’ to defeat this unprecedented threat to New Zealand and the world. It sounds good. It looks good. We can quite rightly be proud Kiwis leading the world. Or can we?
Underneath the daily COVID media circus, was it actually something very different? Was it in fact New Zealand’s darkest hour? Did Jacinda Ardern, under the direction of the United Nations and very powerful global financial and corporate influencers, just commit the most devastating attack on our nation’s sovereignty and freedom in our short history? Was this in fact Jacinda Ardern’s COVID Coup? If it was, what can the people of New Zealand now do about it?
In 1915-16 at Gallipoli, New Zealand lost around 0.3% of our entire population. It was the most devastating episode of our nation’s history. Those Kiwis died in the mission of fighting to protect the sovereignty and freedom of both New Zealand and other nations. In 2020, it may well be that Kiwis have a new and very different looking ‘Gallipoli moment’, but the threat to our nation’s sovereignty and freedom may well be our most severe ever. On the back of an historically unprecedented lock-down of society, New Zealand as a nation needs to look at this situation very quickly and very seriously. We need to push aside the media propaganda circus and try to assess this situation with a clear mind and true heart. We have no choice but to do this. There is no hiding from this fact, as we have all just experienced.
Let’s take a look at the reality of COVID-19 as we know it now. What the impact has been, and will be, on New Zealand from the actions taken. What has Jacinda Ardern and the New Zealand government really been doing here? It requires the most stringent examination and consideration by the people of New Zealand, RIGHT NOW.
We now know that the severity of the threat of COVID-19 was vastly over-stated by the ‘global advisors’. Neil Ferguson, at Imperial College in London, provided the original projections of tens of millions of deaths globally, based on his computer modelling for which he has a career track record of getting catastrophically wrong. The World Health Organisation (WHO) then adopted Ferguson’s projections, without considering all the other world renowned scientists providing contradictory analysis, and came up with, through extremely ‘dubious methodology’, their own COVID-19 projected mortality rate of 3.4% . A devastating mortality rate when compared to normal flu mortality rate of around 0.1%. This included a projection of 80,000 deaths in New Zealand.
These figures by Imperial College and the WHO are now completely discredited(1). Doctors and scientists all over the world have now come forward with the real-life data showing that the true mortality rate of COVID-19 is in reality very similar to normal flu, but with a very high skewing towards the elderly and health vulnerable (2). Bill Gates funds the Imperial College and is also the number one funder of the WHO, having given them billions of dollars. Bill Gates and the WHO are more or less the same thing. Bill Gates also funds the Pirbright Institute in the UK that in 2015 was granted the patent rights for Corona Virus. Yes, you read that correctly. Bill Gates effectively owns the patent for Corona Virus. In October 2019 Bill Gates also funded and supported ‘Event 201’, a global workshop on how nations could best respond to a hypothetical catastrophic global pandemic of Corona Virus (3) . Two months later the world got that exact scenario. Bill Gates seems to be extremely strongly connected to every single element of COVID-19/Corona Virus, before, during, and after this global event. In 2019 Bill Gates signed off a $100 billion Contact Tracing contract (4). What did he know was coming? He has also set himself up to potentially provide the world with the COVID-19 vaccine solutions, potentially worth hundreds of billions, if not trillions of dollars. In his own words, people will not be able to return to ‘normal society’ until they have received (his) vaccine and his ID2020 solution which combines his two main loves in life, which are vaccines and human tracking technology that can be implanted together inside the human body (5) .
The world is starting to catch up with all this now. On social media during lock-down, the theme #ExposeBillGates went globally viral on social media. This led to many large street protests in the United States and Australia where protestors ignored lock-down orders to take to the streets to demand the arrest of Bill Gates. The United States have now de-funded and broken ties with the WHO/Bill Gates on the back of COVID-19. Italy are now demanding the same thing , and Neil Ferguson has resigned in disgrace from Imperial College (6). Yet despite us now knowing all these things, the narrative of the ‘COVID Catastrophe’ continues in New Zealand and around the world through daily media and political spin and misinformation. Yes, we should take reasonable and appropriate precautions for the virus, but the actions need to be proportionate to the severity of the threat, and they need to be consistent with the OVERALL welfare of the New Zealand people.
So what has been the true impact, the real implications for New Zealand of the government response? The COVID response saw the largest removal of human rights in history, the country was put into a level of financial debt that will take generations to repay, small businesses across the country have been crushed out of existence, hundreds of thousands unemployed, and poverty and suicides sky rocketing.
In response to COVID-19, somewhere in the vicinity of $6-7 trillion was borrowed globally to help cover the costs of lock-down. In New Zealand, Jacinda Ardern borrowed more that $50 billion to keep us all happy with our grants and pay outs while being locked up. The entire world suddenly got put into enormous debt and whoever lent that money just got enormously powerful. Who lent Jacinda Ardern that money? We absolutely need to know, and we absolutely need to know what the conditions of that loan were. Because whoever it was, they now control or dictate how New Zealand operates. That’s how these things work. Does New Zealand still have its national sovereignty, or has Jacinda Ardern effectively sold that?
Was this all linked through the World Economic Forum in some way, which is the sister organisation of the United Nations, which is the sister organisation of the WHO/Bill Gates? The ‘Event 201’ global Corona Virus training exercise conducted in October 2019 was conducted in partnership by the World Economic Forum and Bill Gates. On the back of COVID-19, the sister organisations of the World Economic Forum, the United Nations and the WHO/Bill Gates, have since recommended to the world that 10% of every country’s GDP be paid to them. That is approximately $8.7 trillion per year (7). Something is smelling very bad here.
Then we have the NZ COVID-19 Public Health Response Bill (8). Some people have referred to this as Jacinda Ardern’s ‘God Bill’, because it gives Jacinda Ardern the power to do almost anything she likes. It gives her the power for Police Officers or ‘Enforcement Officers’ to forcibly enter homes and other premises without any due process or evidence, detain people, and put them into isolated confinement for an undetermined period of time. It allows Jacinda Ardern to order the shut-down of a business or businesses at her discretion as she feels necessary, and allows her to ban public gathering to protest, which is one of the foundations of the Bill of Rights and freedom of speech (9). The new Internet Filtering Bill is also something that looks potentially alarming in its move towards government powers to decide what type of information and messages the New Zealand public can and can’t communicate.
These are all government powers and individual powers of enormous significance. The Public Health Response Bill completely overrides the New Zealand Bill of Rights, which is the single biggest protection of human rights that the people of New Zealand have. This is not reflective of a democratic and free society. This is much more reflective of what countries with dictatorships and tyranny look like. Not New Zealand. Remember, these extreme looking government powers have been rushed through parliament, and many more are currently being rushed through, on the back of something that has now been confirmed as having a mortality rate similar to normal flu. We need to stop and think. Does this make rational sense? If it doesn’t, then we need to ask ourselves why it doesn’t make sense.
Who would want to own a small business in New Zealand now? Small local businesses are the life blood and the backbone of the New Zealand community. But more and more we see this being engulfed by big corporations and big government. COVID-19 has put that trend onto steroids. Now we also have the military taking over COVID-19 quarantine. What’s going to be next?
A very disturbing aspect of the whole global COVID-19 event is that so many of the extreme measures that have been implemented in New Zealand and around the world are very consistent with a direction towards United Nations Agenda 21, which has now been morphed into United Nations Agenda 2030. If people in New Zealand don’t know what UN Agenda 21 and UN Agenda 2030 are, they need to research this. Quite urgently. The United Nations and the WHO/Bill Gates have a very clear blueprint for how they want the world to look and operate in the future. That blueprint for the world is VERY different to how today’s global society looks. It is based on an extremely restrictive society and extremely restrictive way of life, based on a total command and control structure, tracking and control of every aspect of people’s lives, and dictated from a centralised global power structure. It also includes Bill Gates’ ID2020 plans described earlier. Agenda 21/30 is not a way of life that most people in the world would be sprinting towards and embracing by choice. But COVID-19 sure did introduce and acclimatise the public to a lot of the features of the Agenda 21/30 blueprints. Many of the UN Agenda 21/30 templates and community behaviours have now been established for the future through COVID-19, whether that comes through COVID-19 Part 2, or something else down the track.
An important point to note here. Jacinda Ardern spent significant and focussed time in 2019 with both the United Nations and Bill Gates, and pledged to lead the world in implementing their plans (10). She appears to be true to her word on that front.
So, is New Zealand being run by a government representing New Zealand, or is it being run by the United Nations, the WHO/Bill Gates, and others? There are some very disturbing looking things at play here. As highlighted earlier, right now may well be New Zealand’s new ‘Gallipoli moment’. Our country, our sovereignty, our freedom, and our way of life look to be in severe jeopardy.
So what can be done about it? How can the people of New Zealand fight such high levels of corruption and such powerful global influences and threats to our country? To try to fight this it cannot be anything that vaguely resembles political business as usual. The big traditional political parties of National and Labour are both going to be completely controlled and obedient to this power structure. That is the law of the jungle in geo-politics at the moment unfortunately. A very dark level of corruption has taken hold and has been embedded very deeply, very strongly, and very widely.
The only possible way is for a true bottom up, grass roots political uprising. It will require New Zealand government to actually be taken back by ‘non politicians’. By people who actually don’t want the power and influence that comes with that. We are seeing this developing in New Zealand right now. We are seeing a big rise in new political parties, driven by non politicians. Driven instead by patriotic Kiwis who actually have no desire to be politicians, but who just want to fight to get their country back for the people of New Zealand and for the Kiwi way of life.
It has to be this way. There has to be a seismic shift in who and how New Zealand is run. Right at the top of the list of what will be needed is a ‘People’s Constitution of NZ’. A core framework of human rights and values for New Zealand which sits at the very top of the New Zealand legal framework as the supreme law of the land. Something that cannot be overridden by someone like Jacinda Ardern taking instructions from someone like Bill Gates. The power of big decision making needs to swing back much more into the hands of the people so that career politicians can’t just sell off New Zealand’s sovereignty and freedom.
These are things that are easy to say, but mighty difficult to do. There is no denying that. But the people of New Zealand have to throw everything at this, RIGHT NOW. The situation is very time urgent. This is New Zealand’s new Gallipoli. Courageous and committed people are standing up around New Zealand and drawing their line in the sand to ‘fight’ this right now.
So far, two new political parties have come forward and pledged to run specifically on the agenda of creating a ‘People’s Constitution of NZ’ as described above. The NZ Outdoors Party have pledged to do this, and leading Environmental Lawyer Sue Grey is driving the party on that front (11). Renowned international musician Billy Te Kahika has stepped up and is now inspiring a dramatic rise of a new political party, the NZ Public Party (12). His speech in Auckland on June 11th to a packed house to launch the new party laid out a clear framework for returning power from the United Nations power grab and global power systems, back to the New Zealand people, and back to New Zealand sovereignty (13). Other parties and other committed Kiwis are stepping up with similar messages and similar agendas right across New Zealand.
A grass roots political revolution driven by real Kiwis may well be blowing in the winds when spring hits in the lead up to the September election. Will this be the cure for COVID-19? New Zealand desperately needs it. Support for this is spreading rapidly across New Zealand. It’s spreading like…….well…….a virus.
The President of Madagascar, Andry Rajoelina has called on all African Nations to quit the World Health Organization (WHO) because of the bad faith of Europe towards Africa.
The Malagasy president says,
Europe created organizations with the desire for Africans to remain dependent on them. Africa has found a medicine against Coronavirus but Europe thinks they have a monopoly of intelligence as such they are refusing to acknowledge it. It is against this backdrop that I invite all African Nations to quit the international organizations in order for us to build ours.
President of Madagascar, Andry Rajoelina
Rajoelina has put his reputation and credibility on the line touting the medicine as a cure. He said it cures COVID-19 in 10 days.
“No one will stop us from moving forward – not a country, not an organisation,” Rajoelina said in response to the WHO’s concerns.
He said the proof of the tonic’s efficacy was in the “healing” of “our patients”.
He called the medicine a “preventive and curative remedy”.
Rajoelina said Madagascar till date, has reported 212 coronavirus infections and 107 recoveries.
The country has one critical case, but no death.
“The patients who have healed have taken no other product than Covid-Organics,” the president said, adding that his country has a history of traditional medicine.
“What if this remedy had been discovered by a European country, instead of Madagascar?”, Rajoelina queried WHO and other skeptics.
“Would people doubt it so much? I don’t think so,” Rajoelina told FRANCE 24 and RFI .
The drink is derived from artemisia – a plant with proven anti-malarial properties – and other indigenous herbs.
Sara Cunial, the Member of Parliament for Rome denounced Bill Gates as a “vaccine criminal” and urged the Italian President to hand him over to the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity.
This report is a follow-up to one where I cover how Michael Ryan of the WHO stated in a press briefing how the WHO (which is of course in the pocket of Bill Gates) now believes it is time to start removing people from their homes. I know many people, especially those of you who are in the US, think that could never happen here … well, those are probably the same people who thought just a couple months ago that it would be impossible to lockdown the entire country because people would never put up with it and because we have rights… right? This is being said even as we are ON lockdown. For those of you who can’t wait for the government to lift the lockdowns, as many states are preparing to do, remember that we were told things will not go back to normal until there is a vaccine and the entire planet has largely received it… we have also been told about how we must embrace the new normal. Part of that new normal is contact tracing. Hmm, sounds normal enough – or at least harmless – kind of like how the Patriot Act sounds harmless or Operation Iraqi Freedom may have sounded like a good thing to many, despite the fact that it was a war of aggression based on lies which resulted in the death of over a million people… but, hey, it has the word freedom in it. So what exactly is contact tracing? Well, according to California Governor Newsom… Contact tracing, combined with expanded testing, is a pillar of the state’s modified stay-at-home order and The goal is to track and trace every person in the state who may have been exposed, then quickly isolate and test them. So, in other words, the state cannot open up without contact tracing; and only then it would be a modified stay-at-home order, and not actually removing the lockdown in its entirety. And how are they going to accomplish this? In their own words… “California is building an army of 20k people who will be trained as disease detectives, serving six- to 12-month-long gigs that demand skills ranging from data entry and psychology to project management and crisis intervention.” Saying the state is providing a “customer service,” while others may see this customer service as the new secret police. California will be the test pilot for this program which they have stated will serve as the template nationwide. Welcome to COVID1984. And here is the official House Resolution H.R.6666 – COVID-19 Testing, Reaching, And Contacting Everyone (TRACE) Act https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-c… Coronavirus: Inside the Bay Area’s growing army of disease detectives https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/05/0… California County To Remove COVID-19 Patients From Homes Based On ‘Living Situation’ — Will Place In ‘Other Kinds Of Housing’ https://www.zerohedge.com/health/cali… Clinton Foundation Discusses creating Army Of “Contact Tracers” to Monitor Citizens who had COVID-19 http://thejewishvoice.com/2020/04/cli… Bloomberg Philanthropies Commits $10.5 Million for Contact Tracing http://philanthropynewsdigest.org/new… COVID -19 Social Compliance Officer – Military Experience Required https://www.indeed.com/viewjob?jk=53b… CV-1984: Facial Recognition Technology To Be Used To Combat Spread of Virus Globally https://www.activistpost.com/2020/05/… WHO Official: It’s Time To Remove People From Their Homes & COVID Task Force Admits Inflated Numbers https://www.activistpost.com/2020/04/…
Thanks to Journeyman Pictures YT Channel, we have here 6 in depth interviews with health professionals including MDs. If you’re already up to speed you may want to go straight to no 6 and the two Doctors who got quickly pulled from publication following their discussion of the anomalies with testing, treatment and other things around the covid-19 virus. These are the issues mainstream (lamestream) should be speaking about but are they? Of course not. They are the long arm of the corporatocracy. They wouldn’t speak out of turn. Listen to the health professionals speak. I prefer not to ignore these voices that are bravely swimming upstream. Listen also to the much censored Dr Judy Mikovits who also has much truth to offer that mainstream will never tell you. EWR
Episode 1: Dealing with Coronavirus, a fiasco in the making? As the coronavirus pandemic takes hold, we are making decisions without reliable data. Watch previous episodes of Perspectives on the Pandemic here:
This is the second whistleblower nurse I’ve watched, here is a link to the other. Horrific detail described by this nurse who has a conscience she’s unable to fully exercise amidst a scene of total mayhem. When she tries to advocate for her patient, the patient is taken from her & she is moved. Read more at the link below the video. Watch before it’s taken down. EWR