EWNZ comment: Of course Monsanto & its poisons never ever went away, as per corporate MO they just morph into another in this case Bayer. They continue, with impunity, to poison us via the food chain. What’s left of it ie as they busily create a famine to expunge us completely. As the saying goes they don’t grasp that we are seeds and burying us in the ground isn’t going to work. Hopefully Mexico can maintain its stance. Not hopeful unfortunately as these corporate bullies simply sue the pants off the non compliant. They are intent on destroying everything. All purity gone. All pure food sources gone. It’s fake meat, bugs and processed everything that they intend for us. If you still think glyphosate (their infamous poison) is harmless as advertised read here.
The Biden administration and Tom “Mr. Monsanto” Vilsack have emerged victorious in their effort to use the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) to force Mexico to accept U.S. grown genetically engineered corn.
On Friday, an international trade panel ruled in favor of the United States in their ongoing dispute with Mexico over an attempted ban on imports of American genetically modified (GM) corn.
The Mexican Department for the Economy said it disagreed with the ruling but would follow it. The Mexican government has been attempting to limit the introduction of GM corn to their country because they believe it poses an unreasonable risk to the domestic corn supply, and thus the health of the country’s numerous indigenous communities and farmers who depend on corn.
“The Mexican government does not agree with the panel’s finding, given that it considers that the measures in question are aligned with the principles of protecting public health and the rights of Indigenous communities,” Mexico’s Economy Department told the Associated Press. “Nonetheless, the Mexican government will respect the ruling.”
The U.S. government celebrated the decision. Ambassador Katherine Tai said the ruling “underscores the importance of science-based trade policies”.
The decision was the latest in an ongoing legal battle between the Mexican and American governments over Mexico’s previous calls for banning imports of U.S. GM corn for human consumption. In 2020, former Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) announced plans to ban GE corn for human consumption. This plan was later watered down, but the country did continue their fight against cross-pollination of their world-renowned corn seeds.
In February 2023, AMLO issued a decree announcing an immediate ban on the use of GM corn for dough and tortillas. The order also called on Mexican government agencies to phase out the use of GM corn for other food uses, including animal feed, which is where a majority of Mexico’s current imports of US GM corn ends up.
Mexico is currently the leading importer of GM corn from the US. This fact alone makes Mexico’s efforts to ban or reduce the presence of GM corn a huge potential financial loss for the American industry growing and exporting GM crops.
For the Mexican farmers who have been cultivating corn for an estimated 8,000 years, GM corn represents a significant threat. GM corn can spread via the birds, bees, and wind, resulting in cross-pollination between traditional crops and GM versions.
In response to Mexico’s initiatives, the US established the dispute panel in August 2023, accusing Mexico of violating the terms of the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement launched under the first Trump administration. The US brought six legal claims against Mexico, including charges that Mexico’s process for determining that GM corn poses a risk was insufficient and not scientifically sound.
The USMCA dispute panel found in favor of the US on all legal claims, stating that, “Mexico’s measures are not based on science and undermine the market access that Mexico agreed to provide in the USMCA.”
Under the USMCA, Mexico has 45 days to comply with the Panel’s findings.
Mexico’s President Claudia Sheinbaum Responds to the Ruling
One day after the trade panel ruling, Mexico’s recently elected President Claudia Sheinbaum stated that the incoming Mexican Congress will pass a ban on the planting of GM corn.
“We must protect Mexico’s biodiversity in our country. As we say: without corn, there is no country,” Sheinbaum stated.
“Transgenic corn cannot be sown here in Mexico. There are already decrees, but now we want to take it to the Constitution,” Sheinbaum stated. “And let it be very clear that in Mexico it is forbidden to sow transgenic corn.”
Sheinbaum noted that while she was Secretary of the Environment in Mexico City there was a decree that GM corn cannot be sown in the city. She noted that the Mexico City government made efforts to save native-corn in genetic banks.
Sheinbaum also noted that because of the nature of the corn it makes the farmers less dependent on biotech corporations.
“A part of the corn is saved, that seed is saved and is resown and used in the next harvest. This is very important because it does not depend on the farmer to buy the seed from a transnational company,” she stated. “So, preserving the corn in Mexico, not transgenic, is something mandatory.”
The Mexican Government’s Arguments for Banning GM Corn
The USMCA panel’s main conclusions repeatedly attack Mexico’s ability to decide which products constitute a threat to its peoples and culture. The panel refused to accept Mexico’s national sovereignty and introduction of a “zero risk” policy as legitimate reasons for apparently violating the terms of the USMCA.
Mexico’s agencies found that consumption of GM corn in Mexico could impact human health, and GM corn poses a risk to native corn of “transgenic contamination”. The nation implemented the zero risk policy precisely because “the presence of contaminants and toxins in GM corn grain, such as transgenic proteins and glyphosate, has been well documented.”
“In addition, the adverse health effects of these contaminants and toxins have been scientifically demonstrated,” the Mexican government has previously stated. The government said that it “cannot be coerced into ignoring the independent scientific evidence that indicates the harmful effects of transgenic proteins and pesticide residues in GM corn”.
America’s southern neighbor said current international standards, recommendations, and guidelines are based on industrial agriculture in the U.S. and Canada, and do not address the risks of transgenic contamination and uncontrolled spread of GM to Mexico’s native corn.
Mexico said there was concern about GM corn and Mexico’s native non-GM corn varieties growing together in the same small fields and milpas, a traditional crop growing system which is intrinsic to indigenous ways of life in Mexico.
The Mexican government argued that it was acting in defense of their vast indigenous population for which corn is a part of diet, culture, and spiritual practices. Numerous national and international treaties, as well as national and state laws, were cited by the Mexican government in an effort to show that defending indigenous people is a tightly held legal commitment.
The US government responded by stating that Mexico’s claims of legal obligations to indigenous peoples were actually “vague, highly generalized concepts” such as “protecting the cultural heritage of Indigenous peoples and communities.” The US argued that these “vague concepts” do not constitute a concrete legal obligation.
Biden and Mr. Monsanto Win… For Now
The most strongly worded statement from the Mexican government came in response to the well-known revolving door relationship between U.S. government agencies and the industries they are supposed to regulate. In this case, the incestuous relationships between U.S. regulators and those who work for pesticide companies and producers of GM seeds.
In their rejection of the U.S. governments demands about GM corn, the Mexican government said they would not place the “economic interests of U.S. biotech corporations ahead of people’s health in Mexico”.
Indeed, the decision was praised by members of the biotech industry. John Crowley, CEO of the biotech industry trade group BIO, celebrated the ruling as a “monumental victory for the future innovation of agricultural production technologies.”
The perfect example of this relationship between regulators and lobbyists for the biotech industry is the current US Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, former Governor of Iowa and former president and CEO of the US Dairy Export Council. Secretary Vilsack was appointed by the Biden administration after previously serving as Secretary of Agriculture during the Obama administration.
Vilsack cheered the decision by the dispute panel, calling it a “thorough and impartial assessment” which concluded that “Mexico’s approach to biotechnology was not based on scientific principles or international standards”. Vilsack said the ruling was a victory for “countries around the world growing and using products of agricultural biotechnology to feed their growing populations and adapt to a changing planet.”
Vilsack is notable for being given the nickname “Mr. Monsanto” in reference to his work helping the biotech giant Monsanto Inc, now owned by Bayer. In 2001 the Biotechnology Innovation Organization named Vilsack “BIO Governor of the Year” for “his support of the industry’s economic growth and agricultural biotechnology research” while serving as Iowa’s Governor.
In 2016, Politico reported on Vilsack’s role in accelerating the approval of GM crops during the Obama administration:
“Progressives say they are also disappointed that during Vilsack’s seven-and-a-half-year tenure, the Agriculture Department sped up approval of controversial GMO crops, backed trade deals they say cost Americans’ jobs and cleared changes to let poultry slaughter facilities police themselves, among a slew of initiatives favoring big producers.”
The Organic Consumer Association also reported on the various GM food products approved during Vilsack’s tenure. According to the OCA, while Vilsack was USDA Secretary from 2009 to 2017 he approved more new GM crops than any Secretary before him or since. Here are just a couple examples:
Monsanto’s Roundup Ready sugar beets: A judge ruled that inevitable contamination would cause the “potential elimination of farmer’s choice to grow non-genetically engineered crops, or a consumer’s choice to eat non-genetically engineered food.”
Monsanto’s Roundup Ready alfalfa: The first genetically modified perennial crop. By the end of the Obama administration, it had gone wild, costing American alfalfa growers and exporters millions of dollars in lost revenue. Vilsack’s long-term relationships with the biotech industry should be a warning sign for the Mexican government, and a clear sign of where his allegiances remain.
Vilsack’s habit of moving between government and industry continued during his absence from government under Donald Trump. Forbes recently reported:
“In February 2017, Vilsack joined an organization that the agriculture department helps fund, called the U.S. Dairy Export Council. As its chief executive and president, Vilsack promoted dairy products overseas. He also communicated with the Department of Agriculture, reaching out to his successor, Sonny Perdue. The work paid well, as revolving-door positions often do. During the four years Vilsack led the organization, he earned an estimated $3.6 million.”
There are questions surrounding Vilsack’s ownership of a farm and conflicts of interest with farming programs he oversees at the USDA. Forbes notes that the majority of Vilsack’s $4 million net worth comes from his farm which gives him “personal insight into the ag industry—and potential conflicts of interest as the head of the USDA.”
One clear example is the Conservation Reserve Program which pays farmers to refrain from planting and harvesting on sensitive land. In the first months back in the White House under Biden, Vilsack announced an expansion of the program and raised the rates it pays to farmers. Vilsack has reportedly collected thousands of dollars of subsidies from his farm as part of the program.
The Mexican Government Continues to Oppose GM Crops
Despite the US government’s repeated claims that Mexico’s policies on GM crops are not based in science, the Mexican government has offered numerous studies and reports outlining their view.
For example, in March 2023, Mexico’s National Council for Science and Technology (CONACYT) hosted an online webinar laying out the science behind the nation’s decision to ban imports of GM corn. The webinar itself was a response to repeated claims by the U.S. government that Mexico positions to GM corn are not based on science.
CONACYT, the Mexican government’s senior science department, organized several presentations from Mexican scientists detailing the health concerns surrounding GM food and the herbicide glyphosate which is typically sprayed on GM corn produced by Bayer, formerly Monsanto.
During his presentation, Alejandro Espinoza Calderón, director of Mexico’s biosecurity agency Intersecretarial Commission for Biosafety and Genetically Modified Organisms (Cibiogem), noted that,
“Mexico has a rich store of exceptionally healthy varieties of corn. It is alarming to find that 90 percent of tortillas were shown to have traces of both glyphosate and transgenics. The biosecurity of Mexico is of utmost importance.”
National University biologist Ana Laura Wegier Briuolo, a biologist at Mexico’s National University made it clear that “without healthy corn we cannot have healthy people.”
During the webinar Dr. Omar Arellano, from the National University’s Ecology and Natural Resources Department, shared data from Mexico, Argentina, and the United States, detailing how glyphosate impacts human health. “The science is much clearer now than it was twenty years ago,” Arellano stated.
The Last American Vagabond Substack is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
“Just five weeks ago, New Zealand had a so-called “vaxxathon,” a kind of festive campaign, with the sole purpose of giving as many people as possible a shot. Dr. Monchy reported that one health center made 175,000 NZD (105,000 euros) during that vaxxathon.”
By Amy Mek
Veteran New Zealand doctor René de Monchy’s career came to an abrupt halt after refusing to be vaccinated. Wanting to remain “vaccine-free,” the physician of over 48 years was fired, banned from his hospital, and not allowed to say goodbye to his patients.
The general practitioner and psychiatrist is shining a spotlight on the Globalist forces using Covid to help them seize control of New Zealand. The brave doctor questioned why doctors and patients receive monetary “vaccine” incentives. Furthermore, Dr. Monchy believes the actual number of people who have died from the vaccines is not reported, and relatives of those killed from the injection are receiving “hush money.”
“At some point, it dawned on me: this is not so much about health, but more about politics, money, power, and social manipulation.” – Doctor René de Monchy
Critical From The Beginning
From their inception, Dr. Monchy was very critical of the “experimental, never-before-used mRNA vaccines.” The Doctor disagreed with the vaccine’s “lack of a control group and long-term outcomes,” reports the Doctors Collective. Even more so, the Doctor is outraged that the injection is being promoted to children and pregnant women,
…what closed the door for me was when the vaccines were also given to children, who are absolutely not at risk with corona infection. In addition, the mRNA vaccines were also promoted for pregnant women, which is completely contrary to any medical and scientific tradition of carefully weighing the pros and cons. The immune system, especially of a child, is a delicate interplay. It is like a symphony orchestra with several sections; the winds, strings, and percussion, all of which must fill in at just the right time. By administering vaccines whose effects are still largely unknown, you are going to disrupt this interplay. We have every reason to be cautious.
“Peverse”Monetary Incentives
Since the arrival of the gene-therapy injections, New Zealand has pushed to have 90% of its population receive two injections. In December, the country successfully reached its milestone. To achieve its 90% “vaccination” goal, Dr. Monchy explained that every citizen who received the injection was bribed with a voucher of 20 NZD (12 euros). At the same time, doctors have been given 359 NZD (216 euros) per vaccine.
Just five weeks ago, New Zealand had a so-called “vaxxathon,” a kind of festive campaign, with the sole purpose of giving as many people as possible a shot. Dr. Monchy reported that one health center made 175,000 NZD (105,000 euros) during that vaxxathon. “There is a perverse incentive for doctors to participate in this kind of campaign,” stated the Doctor.
No Vaccine Exemption
Vaccine exceptions were initially allowed in New Zealand, but were soon withdrawn by the government. The only exception now is if someone has suffered anaphylactic shock or a pulmonary embolism after the injection, explains the doctor. “I have had patients who suffered a stroke or Guillaume Barré after the first injection. But what do you think? No exception was given for a second vaccination.”
Similarly, in Australia, Senator Gerard Rennick condemned his government for forcing citizens to take a second shot if they suffered an adverse event from the first.
Chance Of Fine Or Jail
Those who don’t get pricked are demonized as anti-vaxxers and increasingly socially excluded. Since November 18, an unvaccinated person is no longer allowed to work in health care, education, or air and sea transport. Following the introduction of the Corona Pass on December 3, the unvaccinated are no longer welcome in hospitality, sports, cultural events, and non-essential stores. Those who fail to comply risk a fine of NZD 12,000 (€7210) or six months in prison. We have become a segregated society, explains Dr. Monchy.
Because the Doctor works in healthcare, he was also required to get vaccinated. On the day the deadline passed, the manager called him in her office. She asked if he had been vaccinated. He replied, “no.” Immediately his computer account and swipe card were blocked. He was unable to say goodbye to patients and colleagues. He received a restraining order from the hospital, “like a hooligan receiving a stadium ban,” stated Dr. Monchy.
One of the doctor’s closest colleagues told him that there is no talk about the people forced to leave the hospital. The doctor’s co-workers are afraid of losing their livelihoods. The rumor is that doctor’s medical licenses will be revoked, which has already happened to three colleagues.
The doctor is sporadically working under the radar. He sees patients through teleconsultations. His only hope is to continue doing the work he loves.
Posthumous PCR Positive
At the onset of the corona crisis in early 2020, the doctors were initially shocked by the extreme outlook we were presented with, states Dr.Monchy. However, it soon became apparent that the mortality rate was much lower than predicted; in New Zealand, exactly 46 people have died from Covid-19 from January 2020 to date, according to official statistics. Anyone who dies within 28 days of a positive PCR test is counted as a corona death, regardless of other circumstances. Recently, the police in New Zealand shot and killed a criminal. Posthumously, the PCR test turned out to be positive. As a result, he, too, went down in the books as a corona death explains the Doctor.
Leaders Do Not Care About Peoples Health
Standard ways of improving health are not encouraged, such as diet, exercise, and fresh air, but rather suppressed. Moreover, any dissent by doctors is being dealt with harshly, either in the media or through the Medical Councils (professional organizations), states Dr. Monchy. “At some point, it dawned on me: this is not so much about health, but more about politics, money, power, and social manipulation.”
Globalists Have Seized Control Of New Zealand
New Zealand is a testing ground for international organizations wanting to roll out systems worldwide, explains Dr. Monchy. For example, credit cards and PIN payment (EFTPOS) were first introduced in New Zealand. In addition, the country is remote and easy to manage, as the population is generally accommodating.
The Doctor slammed the country’s globalist Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern,
She is intelligent, but also shrewd woman, who has mastered political maneuvering to her fingertips. After the attack in Christchurch, she was able to count on much goodwill among the population. Ardern has a degree in communications which you can see, she knows how to play to the masses. What has also helped her is that the press was completely in her hands, and still is by the way.
Jacinda Ardern is closely connected with World Economic Forum (WEF) and was its selected Young Global Leader. RAIR Foundation USA recently reported on her and the Young Global Leaders school, which was established and managed by Klaus Schwab of the WEF. Arden, like many of the school’s famous for Covid dictator attendees are exploiting the pandemic with the aim of crashing national economies and introducing a global digital currency.
Arden’s Labour party has an absolute majority in parliament. The Doctor explains that this allows Arden’s party to publish laws on Thursday, and her government will quickly and quietly push them through on Monday. The leader operates at a pace that the public is supposed to struggle to keep up with.
The Prime Minister has already said that there will be no end to vaccines. The latest Covid-19 law is far-reaching: the Minister of Health can declare a location an emergency area, after which agencies have the right to enter a home, test the people present, and provide mandatory “treatment.” All court cases brought against this type of measure, up to the Supreme Court, have been lost.
“It would be a mistake to think that this system is unique to New Zealand or that only here will it be so extreme.” I think the system is only being perfected here before it is introduced in other places, explains the Doctor.
Powerful international organizations, such as the WEF are out to bring about an overall social transformation. A new plan is launched almost every week in our area, such as a general smoking ban. So much is unknown, but what the Doctor feels sure about is, “so much power should never be in the hands of a government.”
“It is fascinating but creepy to see how a small group of people around Jacinda Ardern have taken control of this country,” states the Doctor. He questions why a majority of the population goes along with this?
Why do we allow ourselves to be split into “good citizens” and the “anti-vaxxers” or “outcasts”? I have noticed that it is precisely the more intellectual people who fall for it. That includes, unfortunately, many fellow physicians, when you cannot possibly maintain that this regime of vaccines and measures is good for public health. I think the scale of the deception certainly has something to do with it. It is simply too big to grasp. The moment you see through it, you lose much of what you have assumed to be valid up to that point. Intellectuals have more invested in the system; they, therefore, have more to lose. Perhaps our greatest fear is that we will lose our minds. To give up confidence in this corona system is maddening; many people do not yet dare to do so.
Sums Of Hush Money
According to official figures, 117 deaths have been reported as “possibly associated” with the Pfizer vaccine, of which only one case has been assessed as “probable.” The rest are still under investigation, or the deaths were dismissed as “not related to the vaccine.”
These are entirely different figures reaching us through the unofficial route, explains the doctor. We have collected 220 cases via next of kin in which the vaccine is most likely the cause of death. For example, a healthy 50-year-old man or a 15-year-old youth died a day after their shot. He reports that “there are indications that relatives are being offered sums of hush money.”
History Repeating Itself
The doctor grew up in the Netherlands and was conceived around the liberation. His father was active in the underground, helping Allied pilots to escape. But, of course, this was dangerous, so his family lived in a certain tension.
During his childhood, the war was never far away. He grew up playing in the bomb craters in the street. His family regularly discussed the war in their home; it was not taboo. Dr. Monchy’s father described how the occupying forces gradually tightened the thumbscrews: “identification requirements, more and more restrictions, then excluding entire groups.” Exactly as is happening now in New Zealand and elsewhere worldwide, explained the doctor. Unfortunately, it is the known way to take control, as history has repeatedly shown.
Hope For New Zealand
The doctor has not lost hope and praised activist organizations like Voices for Freedom for doing fantastic work in New Zealand. Demonstrations are held in many cities almost every week and attract hundreds or even thousands of people. The Globalists can only suppress human beings for so long stressed the doctor,
You have to remember that our “opponents” see us as interchangeable, as expendable units. For everyone the same vaccine. For all the world the same QR system. There is no place for our sense of self in their human vision. But this clashes with the uniqueness of the human being. You can suppress the sense of self for a while, but not for very long. Once people have rediscovered themselves, they start to see the seriousness of the current situation and the turnaround comes.
In April 2021, doctors, dentists, pharmacists and veterinarians set up an organization, New Zealand Doctors Speaking Out with Science. Their group objected to pharma companies actions and the harsh consequences they faced for voicing their concerns,
Our group formed around an open letter to the New Zealand government that expressed our concerns with the Pfizer Comirnaty Covid-19 injection, as well as the implication from our regulatory bodies that we would be considered incompetent in our duties if we provided fully informed consent about this procedure.
The organization is growing quickly as hundreds of doctors, nurses, and other paramedics have been fired for being vaccine-free – they deliberately do not call them “unvaccinated.” When the first side effects of the gene therapy injections appeared, people noticed that their complaints were brushed aside, as was the personal experience of nurses in hospitals. Their organization tries its best to help these brave individuals.
Seeking Connection
Many colleagues Dr. Monchy speaks to express open doubts about the harsh corona policy in private. They wonder whether the measures still have to do with public health. The doctor is glad that they are expressing their doubts and seeking a connection with other medics. “For myself, I will remain true to my principles. I stand for individual freedom and responsibility, for ‘Respect for Life.’ No one can judge me on that.”
Read more of RAIR’s coverage on coronavirus vaccines at the link
More than two years after all covid19 policies were dropped… qualified, experienced Kiwis remain excluded from jobs they love
I’ve written before – extensively – about the totalitarian policies of the Ardern Government that imposed coercive ‘vaccine’ mandates on most public sector workers, and commercial entities too. For instance, here, here, here and here. But what is happening today, three years on. And what the hell can we do about it?
Many people are sceptical of the forthcoming NZ Gov Covid Inquiry, including the conflicts of interest of the Commissioners involved and the recent expansion of its Terms of Reference, to include the ‘vaccination’. Those of us who sat through some of the harrowing but censored scenes from witnesses to the Scottish Covid Inquiry, may also be wondering how on earth the essential evidence from these hearings, gets ‘out there’. And with our continued effort and support, it will. Eventually.
Meanwhile, here in NZ, there remains numerous examples of the >3 years old policies rigidly still in place. This is despite the High Court judgment against the NZ Defence Force confirming jab mandates an unreasonable imposition on our Human Rights.
Protests about the jab mandates (image from 2022)
Why we can’t ‘move on’.
To highlight the extent of the problem, I’m providing a ‘snapshot’ – eight job vacancies – advertised with covid ‘vaccination’ requirements (screenshots included):
Support Worker for ‘Nurse Maude’
This job involves caring for people with disabilities in the community. That means intimate care and overseeing meals and medications, including weekend work. This company claims:
“Our reputation for delivering consistently high-quality home support and nursing care is due in no small measure to the experience, professionalism, commitment, and sheer drive of our people. We are seeking experienced support workers to join our Homecare team across Christchurch.”
They are paying the minimal wage (or just above) for these ‘experienced, professional’ carers. That’s NZ$23.38 p/h. Oh, and only those who have had ‘ at least’ two doses of a ‘vaccine’ for a ‘flu’ that is now five years old. The mind boggles…
This entity is a ‘charitable trust’ and subsidiary of Te Rūnanganui o Ngāti Porou. They claim to be “an integrated Hauora, Housing and Whānau Oranga (support services) provider…” and this role involves working with offenders and their families. It is full-time, and looks extremely demanding. This is from the job description:
To be successful in this role, you will have:
Great people skills and ability to build rapport/ Previous experience working in a community work type role
TPO accreditation, social work registration, and/or restorative justice accreditation an advantage
A positive attitude and a passion for working with people
Excellent time management and organisational skills/ Excellent planning, report writing, and documentation skills
Ability to work calm under pressure/ Maintain confidentiality at all times
Operating Competencies:
Full, clean NZ Driver License/Excellent oral and written communication skills.
A proven leader with self-motivation and initiative.
High level of organisational skills/Able to establish a good rapport with people.
Proficient computing skills/ Trustworthy and confidential. But don’t forget, if you want to apply:
Readers familiar with the story by now won’t be surprised to read Ngāti Porou Oranga’s Annual Report in Charities Services confirms last year, their income was nearly $30million, with most of that funding sourced from, you guessed it, the NZ Ministry of Health for ‘services rendered’.
Next? While paradoxical images of Trump flipping burgers whilst promoting MAHA are fresh on our minds, and we’re on the subject of wealthy tax-exempt commercial giants, let’s look at a job at McDonalds:
Housekeeper: shift-worker at a Ronald McDonald’s House for families with sick kids.
The role includes cleaning, stock management and liaising sensitively with guests. And states explicitly:
“COVID-19 Vaccination: In order to maintain a safe and healthy work and accommodation environment and minimise the risk of Covid-19 transmission, RMHC New Zealand recommends that all employees and volunteers are fully vaccinated against Covid-19.”
Again, this is a demanding, full-time job, requiring high level expertise and qualifications in nursing. The pay is only $70,000 – $89,999 per year. Requirements:
Be eligible to work in New Zealand
Be registered with the Nursing Council of New Zealand
Have a current practicing certificate with the Nursing Council of New Zealand
Be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 (!!!)
Have previous experience in Primary Healthcare setting or Community Health
Be interested in nursing in a Primary Health team who have a focus on working with and improving the health outcomes for Maori and Pasifika clients
Have an understanding of the importance of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, Te Ao Maori and other cultural competencies
Desirable attributes are Independent Vaccinator, Smear taker, with experience in B4S’s, phlebotomy and managing chronic conditions. (my emphasis)
In addition: “The successful candidate will demonstrate the ability to work in a variable workflow environment, build strong report with team members, have good communication and interpersonal skills, and a positive “can do” attitude.” Sound like you? The advert asks. (are they taking the piss?)
The problem for many (mandated-out) healthcare professionals looking at this job, is not only are they not ‘vaccinated’ but they no longer hold an Annual Practising Certificate (APC). Nurses have been unfairly blacklisted and discriminated against for over three years; without an APC they are at risk of a Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal and cancellation of Nursing Council registration. Again, Tui Medical is a PPP – taking large sums from taxpayers’ funds to pay for interventions like covid jabs and ‘worried well’ tests that no-one wants. I’ve written about that topic previously, eg here and here.
Photo from a meeting of mandated healthcare workers. Credit: NFFNZ
The purpose of the position is to offer a screening, surveillance, education and support service to all New Zealand children/ Pacific and their family from birth to five years old. The position provides a child-centered comprehensive service that focuses on improving child health, social and educational outcomes.
This is a nursing role focused on Islander [Pasifika] families: “Purpose: To contribute to the overall management of Child Development by providing expert nursing care, as necessary. To provide expert nursing care ensuring excellent health and improved child growth and development.” The role demands high level quals and experience, oh and at least THREE doses:
For those unfamiliar with the word Kirikiriroa it’s the Maori name for Hamilton (apparently). Incidentally, in an attack of wokeness by Council similar to that seen overseas, Hamilton’s statue was removed from the centre of the city ‘for safety reasons’. Anyway, that’s another Kiwi rabbit hole! Pathways is a nationwide provider of mental health support organisations providing a wide-range of services:
The requirement for this office-based role states at least three doses of the experimental jab are required for all employees:
Other discriminating organisations
Meanwhile Student Nurses are still subject to jab mandates at Waikato University.Student Midwives are still subject to covid injection mandates at Auckland University of Technology (AUT). Defence Force recruits are also subject to ‘vaccination’ mandates. The madness seems endless.
And this isn’t limited to healthcare vacancies, a factory job in a commercial bakery also insists on jabbed applicants only:
The purpose of this post about NZ job advert snapshots is to point out that:
a) staff shortages continue in healthcare and other sectors
b) these shortages could be lessened, if discriminatory (and quite frankly, ludicrous) ‘vaccine’ mandate requirements were removed.
c) Our New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (BORA), Anti-Discriminatory laws, the Privacy Act and most Employment legislation aimed at fair equality have all apparently been abolished, without a single word from the Human Rights Commission, professional bodies or the judiciary (to name a few).
Solutions!
Back in July 2022 the shortage of healthcare staff was causing tension when mandates were still in place. In response to the current, ongoing and unacceptable situation, Nurses For Freedom NZ (NFFNZ) Founder Deborah Cunliffe, explains how:
“The MOH and Health NZ implicated unvaccinated nurses as being unprofessional and unfit to work putting our communities at risk due to vaccine refusal. The MOH and Health NZ now need to bring healing to our nursing community by righting the wrongs and correcting the information. Strong leadership is needed. The messages that were given need to be rescinded otherwise we will continue to see mandates by proxy.” (my emphasis)
Helpfully, NFFNZ suggest two ‘Actionable Solutions’ :
1. A Governmental apology clearing all nurses, carers, midwives (students) of any wrongdoing in refusing the ‘vaccine’ – hence limiting the ongoing prejudice against us not only by employers but also by our professional communities and colleagues i.e. nursing council & nursing unions.
2. A clear consistent message from Government and Health New Zealand that any action by employers or professional associations discriminating against unvaccinated workers will be looked on unfavourably and subject to BORA/ law. This information needs to be disseminated to training institutions (ie AUT, Waikato University), contractors, those who are paid by Te Whatu Ora to provide services (ie private hospitals, GP Clinics) etc and include lower management in Health NZ ie Charge Nurses who still think unvaccinated nurses cannot be employed despite policy.
I remain an optimistic informed heart. But my patience is paper thin: when will our coalition Government acknowledge the elephant in the room and stop this illegal discrimination? How can our healthcare systems and patients recover from this?
Informed Heart is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
The Supreme Court only takes 1% or less of cases it is asked to decide. This is a critically important case the court needs to take.
Parents Appeal to US Supreme Court after Vermont Courts Ruled Schools Can Vaccinate Kids Against Parents’ Wishes
A Vermont family whose 6-year-old son was vaccinated with an experimental Covid-19 intervention against the family’s wishes has appealed a Vermont Supreme Court ruling. The Vermont court had ruled that the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP) prohibits such claims, granting immunity to school and government personnel when they mandate vaccinations.
Stunningly, the Vermont Supreme Court did not even pay lip service to the constitutional liberties implicated, ruling against traditional protections of parental rights and informed consent. But the PREP Act is not above the Constitution’s supremacy clause; it’s the other way around.
Parents’ rights are being chiseled away rapidly. In Vermont, minor children may obtain transgender hormones and birth control without parental consent, and a 2024 law bars parents from seeing which library books are checked out by their children 12 years and older. Yet these are examples where the child wants something against his parents’ wishes. In Vermont’s Covid-19 vaccination case, the child protested and was forced to be jabbed anyway.
Leo’s Case
According to the Supreme Court petition, for which I was the lead attorney, Tony and Shujen Politella and their son Leo were shocked that their clear expressions of opposition to Leo being vaccinated were ignored. Tony had visited his son’s school with the express purpose of ensuring his child would not receive a Covid-19 vaccine, offering to keep Leo home on the day of an upcoming clinic. He was assured Leo would be fine, but instead Leo was given an arm tag displaying another boy’s name and vaccinated despite his vocal protests.
It was a further insult when the public school, which was eligible to obtain monetary “awards” from the state of Vermont based on vaccination rates, provided no explanation for how such a gross error occurred, as Mrs. Politella related in her testimony. Leo transferred to a private school the family trusts. Yet a third injury was inflicted when the Vermont attorney general and Vermont court system employed laws designed to grant product liability immunity to Big Pharma to instead insulate incompetent government employees from accountability for their wrongs.
Vermont’s appalling Politella decision threatens every child in America. Other courts may rely upon its implied federal preemption of family rights and extinguishing of informed consent rights. As Ninth Circuit Judge Daniel Collins recently opined in a concurring opinion in a related ruling: The “‘right of a competent individual to refuse medical treatment’ was ‘entirely consistent with this Nation’s history and constitutional traditions,’ in light of ‘the common-law rule that forced medication was a battery, and the long legal tradition protecting the decision to refuse unwanted medical treatment.’”
Other State Rulings
This common-sense recognition of such fundamental rights has been absent from supreme courts in Wyoming and Nevada in addition to Vermont, as well as the Kansas Court of Appeals and federal courts in Kentucky and Oklahoma. A North Carolina case involving a football player vaccinated against his wishes is also making its way up the court system ladder.
Congress never intended for the PREP Act to abolish fundamental medical ethics or the legal rights of patients and parents. The PREP Act does not shield public servants from accountability for actions that have nothing to do with vaccine safety or efficacy. The Politellas did not sue a vaccine manufacturer for a harmful product; they sued school officials who inflicted very real harm.
All American children are constitutionally entitled to the protections of informed parental consent. Should these abhorrent court decisions stand, “vaccine hesitancy” may be joined by “public school hesitancy.” The distrust of vaccines and pharmaceutical companies engendered by Covid-19 policies extends to schools and courts that favor negligent or ill-willed workers over the rights — and health — of young children.
EWNZ Note: be informed, and educate your children. In NZ I have been watching developments during & since the recent covid scam era, as our understanding and perceptions of our true rights and options regarding medical treatments and our right to decline have been seriously eroded. With this in mind we have had what appear to be drills happening with many threats of gunmen & bombs in schools requiring lock downs where parents were not permitted to call or to go into schools to retrieve their children, one parent arrested even. With that scenario was also the right for schools to administer any ‘required’ medical treatments. For two must reads on topic go here and here.
In this episode (video link), I speak with VAERS expert Albert Benavides about the ongoing VAERS data fraud. He shows evidence of how the system is being scrubbed to cover up true injury and mortality rates. Albert’s current shocking estimates for global mortality are at 35 million dead. This is a Genocide unfolding.
EWNZ NOTE: Remember the estimates calculated from VAERS are only less than 5% of the real total, the reason being, it’s been shown that less than 5% of populations actually report to VAERS. Dr Mihalcea mentions this in the video. Must watch. See also the cover up in Aussie. And let’s not forget how they silenced NZ’s whistleblower, smartly. Raided, arrested, charged, censored. And right now in NZ, they are continuing to coerce folk to take the ‘safe & effective’, whilst saying that during the last round ‘we chose and were not coerced’ (according to our ‘leaders’ via lamestream media). They have now ensured that next time, dissidents will meet with stronger measures to comply.
Albert Benavides is a twenty-five-year Medical Billing Revenue Cycle Management Expert, former HMO Claims Auditor and medical billing company owner. He now runs his own website, vaersaware.com visualizing VAERS using corporate style interactive dashboards. Sadly, after auditing VAERS for three years, my conclusion is CDC/FDA uses VAERS to run cover for big pharma. For more information for Dr Ana Mihalcea: Dr. Ana Maria Mihalcea, MD, PhD is a board-certified Internal Medicine Physician with a PhD in Pathology and over 20 years of clinical experience. She is the President of AM Medical LLC, an anti-aging clinic dedicated to the reversal of all diseases. She is the Award-winning Author of the book “Light Medicine – A New Paradigm – The Science of Light, Spirit and Longevity” (www.arthemasophiapublishing.com). She is also the founder of Tru Blu Medical, developer of Blue Light Wellness wraps (www.trublumedical.com ). You can reach her website for research updates and treatments at https://www.dranamihalcea.com/ Dr. Mihalcea writes Humanity United Now Substack Newsletter – discussing topics like dangers of C19 injectables, Long Covid, vax injury reversal, self-assembly nanotechnology and more https://anamihalceamdphd.substack.com/. Her research field is C19 vaccine shedding, therapeutic approaches including metal detoxification and disabling self-assembly nanotechnology. She serves on the Board of Directors for the National American Renaissance Movement https://nationalarm.org/board/. She is also an Advisor for https://www.targetedjustice.com/
A major peer-reviewed study has concluded that chronic illness and deadly diseases, such as cancer, are virtually non-existent in people “who’ve never received a vaccine in their life.”
A major peer-reviewed study has concluded that chronic illness and deadly diseases, such as cancer, are virtually non-existent in people “who’ve never received a vaccine in their life.”
The study compares rates of chronic disorders – such as heart disease, diabetes, cancer, developmental disabilities, and autism – among unvaccinated Americans with those vaccinated with a varying number of vaccines.
The team of researchers, led by scientist Joy Garner, found that unvaccinated people have far lower rates of illness and death.
The study’s lead author also notes that vaccine trials use faulty baselines, as their control groups do not consist of wholly unvaccinated individuals.
“Because 99.74% of the U.S. population is vaccine-exposed, published national disease rates invariably reflect the frequency of observed negative outcomes arising from exposure to vaccines,” Garner explains.
In the “Abstract” section of the study, the author notes that “those refusing vaccines are thriving while those accepting them are being injured and met with a multiplicity of grave injuries as well as sudden unexpected death.”
However, the journal has scrubbed the study’s paper without explanation.
A copy of the study’s paper has now been published by Slay News here.
The apparent cover-up of the study has meant that the findings have gone unreported in the media.
However, renewed attention has been brought to the study following a recent interview between attorney Greg Glaser and Dr. Lee Merritt which highlights the findings.
Glaser, the general counsel for Physicians for Informed Consent, notes that the study shows “the unvaccinated are the healthiest people on the planet.”
The cohort study analyzed “unvaccinated” Americans.
The group of “unvaccinated” only included those who have never received a single “vaccine” in their lifetime.
The strict criteria also meant those whose mothers did not receive any “vaccines” while they were in the womb.
The study notes in the “Abstract” section:
“The null hypothesis, that no significant difference would be found between vaccinated vs. unvaccinated persons in heart disease, diabetes, digestive disorders, eczema, asthma, allergies, developmental disabilities, birth defects, epilepsy, autism, ADHD, cancers, and arthritis, is rejected with overwhelming statistical confidence and power in every single contrast.”
In fact, Glaser notes that “the unvaccinated today are as healthy as children were in the 1950s before all the shots.”
“I participated in a control group survey where we looked at the health of the genuinely unvaccinated children who’ve never received a vaccine in life and adults who’ve never received a vaccine,” Glaser says.
“There’s approximately 100,000 adults in America who’ve never received a vaccine in their entire life.”
“We looked at the unvaccinated and compared [them to vaccinated Americans and the] unvaccinated are virtually entirely healthy for life,” Glaser adds.
“Their chronic illness rate among [unvaccinated] children is approximately 2%.
“That means 98% of all children who are unvaccinated are healthy for life.
“Like, they don’t have anything,” he notes.
“They don’t have ADHD, diabetes, obesity, asthma, epilepsy, cancer.
“We found zero of these things, with the exception of some minor [ADHD].
“Like, you’d find, like, maybe a little bit of ADHD, but then it was just that one condition.
“Whereas in the vaccinated group, you find that multiple children have many conditions, and the conditions are severe.”
“I participated in a control group survey where we looked at the health of the genuinely unvaccinated children who’ve never received a vaccine in life and adults who’ve never received a vaccine.
“Can you believe it? They’re out there.
“There’s approximately 100,000 adults in America who’ve never received a vaccine in their entire life.
“Dr. Merritt, you have done your homework. That is correct.
“Yeah [that means even their mothers didn’t receive a ‘vaccine,’ including the vitamin K shot].
“And, and that’s very important.
“The vitamin K shot has benzyl alcohol, which a baby’s liver cannot handle, and it also has a spike of aluminum, which is also not good for a baby.
“And so what we did is we compared the health of these two groups.
“Our national data on just people’s illnesses, diabetes, heart disease, other forms of chronic illness that just make life really hard.
“And we looked at the unvaccinated and compared that, and the unvaccinated are virtually entirely healthy for life.
“Their chronic illness rate among the children is approximately 2 percent.
“That means 98 percent of all children who are unvaccinated are healthy for life.
“Like, they don’t have anything.
“They don’t have ADHD, diabetes, obesity, asthma, epilepsy, cancer.
“We found zero of these things, with the exception of some minor.
“Like, you’d find, like, maybe a little bit of ADHD, but then it was just that one condition.
“Whereas in the vaccinated group, you find that multiple children have many conditions, and the conditions are severe.
“And so the data was clear to us that the unvaccinated are the healthiest people on the planet.
“And the way it made sense to me was that I looked at our national data from the 1950s and it matched the unvaccinated.
“Like, basically, the unvaccinated today are as healthy as children were in the 1950s before all the shots.”
I spoke with “Tea Time,” a program by Children’s Health Defense, about the dangers of fake meat products to help raise awareness about this latest assault on human health
Fake food — including lab-grown meat, animal-free dairy and plant-based meat — is the globalists’ latest attempt to control the food supply
The globalists are trying to replace animal husbandry with lab-grown meat, which will allow private companies to effectively control the human population
The idea that animals must be removed from agriculture to save the planet is flawed; animals are an integral, and necessary, part of the restorative process
Fake meat is an ultraprocessed mixture of chemicals, GE ingredients, pesticides and toxic linoleic acid that will promote chronic disease
Editor’s Note: This article is a reprint. It was originally published March 12, 2023.
At face value, fake meat sounds like the perfect solution to end world hunger, protect animal welfare and save the planet from environmental destruction. Even a brief look below the surface reveals a much more nefarious reality, however.
To help raise awareness about this latest assault on human health, I recently spoke with host Polly Tommey on “Tea Time,” a program by Children’s Health Defense, about the dangers of fake meat products.1
Fake Meat Is All About Controlling the Food Supply
Fake food — including lab-grown meat, animal-free dairy and plant-based meat — is the globalists’ latest attempt to control the food supply. Former U.S. Secretary of State and national security adviser Henry Kissinger once said, “Control oil and you control nations; control food and you control people.”2 Controlling people is their whole agenda.
The globalists have long held a monopoly on the grain industry with their patented genetically modified organisms (GMOs). In the early 2010s, not many people knew about GMOs. In 2011, we started to educate the public about their dangers, as they posed a major threat to public health and the environment.
In 2012, a ballot initiative was launched in California to require mandatory labeling of genetically engineered (GE) foods and food ingredients. The initiative was narrowly defeated due to massive donations from multinational corporations, but we won in the long term because awareness of GMOs in the food supply significantly increased. Now, most health-conscious people avoid GE/GMOs.
A similar trend is now occurring with fake food. The globalists are trying to replace animal husbandry with lab-grown meat, which will allow private companies to effectively control the entire food supply.
Fake Meat Is Even Worse Than CAFOs
Many people are aware of the pitfalls of concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) — unnatural diets of GMO grains, crowded conditions, inhumane treatment, excessive pollution and rampant spread of disease. CAFOs are bad — but the new fake food era is going to be even worse.
With their patented fake meat products, the globalists will have unprecedented control over people’s health.3 It sounds noble to try to provide for the entire world’s population using animal-free methods, but it’s a deception.
Will Harris is a regenerative farming pioneer who runs White Oak Pastures in Bluffton, Georgia. He produces high-quality grass fed products, including beef and other animal products, in a way that’s good for consumers, the environment and the financial health of his business. While the globalists are spinning the idea that animal foods are destroying the planet, when raised regeneratively the way Harris does, this is far from the truth.
It’s the fake foods that will ultimately jeopardize the environment. “We are sequestering 3.5 pounds of carbon dioxide equivalent for every pound of grass fed beef we sell. Ironically, the same environmental engineers did an analysis on Impossible Burgers,” Harris said on “The Joe Rogan Experience.” “They’re emitting 3.5 pounds of carbon dioxide equivalent.”4
Impossible Foods, along with Beyond Meat, is a major player in the fake meat marketplace. It claimed to have a better carbon footprint than live animal farms and hired Quantis, a group of scientists and strategists, to prove its point. According to the executive summary, its product reduced environmental impact between 87% and 96% in the categories studied, including land occupation and water consumption.5
This, however, compares fake meat to meat from CAFOs, which are notoriously destructive to the environment and nothing like Harris’ farm. Harris commissioned the same analysis by Quantis for White Oaks and published a 33-page study showing comparisons of White Oaks Pastures’ emissions against conventional beef production.6
While the manufactured fake meat reduced its carbon footprint up to 96% in some categories, White Oaks had a net total emission in the negative numbers as compared to CAFO-produced meat.
Further, grass fed beef from White Oak Pastures had a carbon footprint that was 111% lower than a typical U.S. CAFO, and its regenerative system effectively captured soil carbon, which offset the majority of emissions related to beef production.7
“The WOP [White Oak Pastures] system effectively captures soil carbon, offsetting a majority of the emissions related to beef production,” the report stated. “In the best case, the WOP beef production may have a net positive effect on climate. The results show great potential.”8
So, the idea that animals must be removed from agriculture to save the planet is entirely flawed. In fact, animals are an integral, and necessary, part of the restorative process.
What Is Fake Meat?
Fake meat is marketed as a health food, but it’s nothing more than a highly ultraprocessed mixture of chemicals. Impossible Foods, for instance, uses genetic engineering to insert the DNA from soy plants into yeast, creating GE yeast with the gene for soy leghemoglobin.9
Impossible Foods refers to this compound as “heme,” but technically plants produce non-heme iron, and this is GE yeast-derived soy leghemoglobin.10 Heme iron only occurs in meat and seafood. Impossible Foods’ GE heme is used in their fake meat burgers as a color additive that makes the product appear to “bleed” like real meat.
The health effects of GE heme are unknown, but this didn’t stop the U.S. Food and Drug Administration from approving soy leghemoglobin in 2019. The Center for Food Safety (CFS) filed a lawsuit challenging the approval, which they called “unusually rapid”11 and risky for public health.
In their lawsuit, CFS points out that soy leghemoglobin is produced using synthetic biology, or “genetic engineering on steroids,” which does not shuffle DNA pieces between species but instead constructs new biological parts, devices and systems that do not exist in the natural world.12
The reason why Impossible Foods turned to synthetic biology to produce GE soy leghemoglobin is because it couldn’t extract enough of the substance directly from soybean roots to produce its fake meat products on an industrial, mass-produced scale. The FDA GRAS for soy leghemoglobin is 526 pages long, if that gives you any idea of the industrialized complexity of this so-called GRAS “health” food.13
Beyond Meat is similarly industrially processed. Beyond Burger patties contain 22 ingredients. Among them are expeller-pressed canola oil, pea protein isolate, cellulose from bamboo, modified food starch and methylcellulose14 — hardly “health” foods. To morph these ingredients into a patty that resembles meat require further processing.
It’s revealing, too, that while truly natural foods cannot be patented, Impossible Foods holds at least 14 patents, with about 100 more pending.15
Impossible Foods’ Fake Meat Is Loaded with Glyphosate, LA
Considering that many ingredients in fake meat products are made from GE soy,16 it’s not surprising that they’re also contaminated with the herbicide glyphosate. Consumer advocacy group Moms Across America (MAA) commissioned Health Research Institute Labs (HRI Labs), an independent laboratory that tests both micronutrients and toxins found in food, to determine how much glyphosate is in the Impossible Burger and its competitor, the Beyond Burger.
The total result of glyphosate and AMPA, the main metabolite of glyphosate, in the burgers was 11.3 parts per billion (ppb) in the Impossible Burger and 1 ppb in the Beyond Burger.17
When the concerning results were revealed, Impossible Foods engaged in a smear campaign to try and discredit MAA, labeling the group of moms “an anti-GMO, anti-vaccine, anti-science, fundamentalist group that cynically peddles a toxic brew of medical misinformation and completely unregulated, untested, potentially toxic quack ‘supplements’ …”18
The glyphosate in fake meat is one issue. The excess amounts of omega-6 fat in the form of linoleic acid (LA) are another. In my opinion, this metabolic poison is the primary contributor to rising rates of chronic disease. It’s important to realize that fake meat alternatives do not contain healthy animal fats. All the fat comes from industrial seed oils like soy and canola oil, which are top sources of LA.
Eliminating ultraprocessed foods from your diet is essential to keeping your LA intake low, and this includes fake meat.
‘Precision Fermentation’ Isn’t Natural Either
Fake food companies want you to believe their products are natural because they’re made with components of plants, even though nothing like them exists in nature. Precision fermentation is another term used by the biotech industry to piggyback off the popularity of truly health-promoting natural fermentation.
Precision fermentation, however, is nothing like its natural counterpart. What is perhaps most disturbing about the use of precision fermentation is that companies are allowed to claim that it’s natural.
Metabolic engineering is a major subset of precision fermentation, which involves methods such as next-generation sequencing, high-throughput library screening, molecular cloning and multiomics “to optimize microbial strains, metabolic pathways, product yields, and bioprocess scale-up.”19 It sounds just like something down on the farm, doesn’t it?
Whether it’s called precision fermentation, gene editing, GMO or something else, don’t fall for the hype that it’s good for you or the planet.
Where Should You Get Your Meat?
If fake meat isn’t healthy, and CAFO meat isn’t a good choice either, a reasonable question is where can you find meat that’s beneficial for your health and the planet? The answer is to get to know a farmer in your area. Visit the farm and view how the animals are being raised.
Get to know the resources available to you within your local community. The community will naturally validate the vendors who are raising food the right way. If you can’t find a local farm for ruminant animals like cows, buffalo or lamb, look for certified organic options at your local grocery store. However, it’s best to stay local and find a source of real, whole food near you.
As much as you can, plant a garden for vegetables, grow fruit trees and even raise chickens if it’s allowed in your area. For the food you can’t source on your own, lean on your community to fill in the gaps.
Just as was the case with GMOs, raising awareness about the dangers of fake meat is also important, especially in this early and aggressively expanding phase. Tell your social circle that to save the planet and support your health, it’s necessary to skip all the fake meat alternatives and opt for real food instead.
When you shop for food, know your farmer and look for regenerative, biodynamic and/or grass fed farming methods, which are what we need to support a healthy, autonomous population.
Unstitching what happened to the New Zealand teachers who were sacked as a result of the NZ COVID-19 Public Health Response (Vaccinations) Order 2021 is proving a long and depressing task. But it is essential. This post continues the conversation about what went on behind the scenes when, on Nov 15th 2021, Covid-19 Response Minister Chris Hipkins declared all teaching staff should be ‘vaccinated’.
Brief Background to the NZ ‘No Jab, No Job’ Mandates:
I’ve explained previously about how the NZ Government secretly worked with the biggest commercial companies behind the scenes during August and Sept 2021. The ‘pilot scheme’ took place over 6 weeks and involved analysing various coercive strategies, or ‘nudges’, in order to get the maximum numbers of Kiwi folk compliant with the experimental injections. The subsequent ‘staff consultation period’ then, was a sham…
“The goal of this operation and [Hurricane Helene] is an operation, it’s not a natural event…[it] got steered in my opinion,” Fitts says. “The goal of this operation is to take assets and…it’s basically a giant taking…to grab land.”
“The investment banker says:
“We’re having lots of reports of land grab tactics being applied” and adds that the operation “relates to the [U.S. presidential] election.”
“I suspect we’re seeing the White House basically—and, again, this is conjecture—negotiate terms. You know, you’ll get disaster recovery if, you know, you do this, this, and this for the election,” Fitts says.
“The president is saying he’s gonna call back Congress, that there’s not enough money at FEMA to go through the hurricane season, and so they’re strong-arming Congress to come back and basically give the administration what they want on the continuing appropriations process.”
“Furthermore, Fitts says this is also an instance of central bankers attempting to wrangle more control for themselves. “This is all part of installing the digital ID and financial transaction infrastructure you need to assert absolute control,” Fitts says. “And if you look at the patterns, whether it’s the taking or the land grab or other other reports we’re getting out of that area, it looks to me like a lot of assertion of top-down control of counties.”
I just want to reflect on this a little bit. My thoughts may seem obvious and incomplete but I still want to try to put this down:
The recurring pattern we see, from Pearl Harbor, to JFK’s assassination, to Vietnam, to AIDS, 9/11, Katrina, “War in Iraq,” “Covid” and many more induced events I have not listed, is that the magic trick demands we view all aspects of the US “government” as an incarnated spectral being that can vanish and re-appear at will. The main thing to observe is that it is never protective. The guardians of the gates of culture, the ruling classes, guard and protect the trance state that insists Government could not possibly have known/anticipated/done better etc. They do this in many entrenched ways, including by donning windbreakers, going to the scene, and intoning the “tragedy,” but never who let it happen and how.
It (Government) is all-mighty and good and yet it can’t anticipate, nor prevent any catastrophic events its numerous spectral “enemies” (these days including MAGA, imaginary viruses, climate change and “misinformation” on social media.)
Nixon’s War On Cancer And The Growth Of The HHS-NIH-NIC-CDC Beast
Just one example among millions once could point to:
Kate Middleton, Princess of Wales, getting an annihilating cancer, means (apart from mRNA induced turbo cancer reality) that the entirety of the “cancer research” establishment and apparatus since at least Nixon is bankrupt. It can neither predict, prevent, nor cure most cancers.
But nobody says: “Doesn’t that mean none of your models for causes of cancer were correct?”
Instead, the focus is always in the proper funereal emotions, with special emphasis on how brave everybody is.
Linked here (halfway down the post) is my 2006 article on Peter Duesberg’s decades long battle with the Anaconda, and Fauci, in American “cancer science.” It’s a story about a vindictive mafia.
There you see the pattern: Destroy the best scientists. Then land grab their work and attribute it to your own, controllable scientists. Read more about the Duesberg/Rasnick Chromosomal Imbalance Theory Of Cancer at Dr. David Rasnick’s amazing website here, and you can access Peter Duesberg’s essential works here. These vintage papers cling like Waterford crystal when you read them, compared to the swill of the Covid era’s “scientific literature.”
PEARL HARBOR: Roosevelt’s 9/11
James Perloff on Pearl Harbor is a must read. I also passionately recommend his jaw-dropping “13 Pieces Of The Jigsaw: Solving Political, Cultural and Spiritual Riddles Past and Present.This book contains the blueprint for the endlessly repeated Magic Tricks of the Global Anaconda. The media’s role is usually underestimated, but not by Perloff, not in this book. What he documents about William Randolph Hearst is astonishing.
Hearst only needed to commission and publish crude drawings of foreign enemies, and their supposed dark deeds, raping women and what have you: This sufficed to turn the nation to become hellbent on bloodthirsty revenge in various induced “wars.” Only the technologies have changed, not the essence of the Trick. Manipulate the mass response by creating the calamity, then point away, then start a new war. Repress human liberty. Seize property. Enslave. Give people nourishing moral myths.
1. They plan it and make it happen. Then stand back and start churning allowable mass emotions for the public, via the media. Then only crazy people would oppose what must happen next.
They never explain why or how they let the shocking catastrophe happen.
Congress releases colossal funds and green lights new wars. The “anything they need” part of the Trick.
Recent epoch: Areas destroyed by HAARP fires, hurricanes, and other weather weapons are overtaken by the government, in the name of safety.
Media propaganda keeps all language and brainwaves focused on “Mother Nature,” or “pandemics” or plagues of racism and conservatism. Requires abandonment of all knowledge of the natural sciences, from climate to human biology.
Tech billionaires beckon with a Better Way.
NGOs, including many with religious cover, locked in with colossal government “funding.”
IF WE KEEP NORMAL-THINK HATS ON; These Are NOT Real Questions:
Why did the entirety past and present of all US military budgets, surveillance etc, fail to detect or prevent 9/11? All cameras broken, even at the Pentagon, and so on and so on. Norad. (Bill Binney can answer this in full and everybody who has not seen “A Good American” really should watch it.) (In the beginning, I believed the government narrative. My brain was hijacked.)
Why did Anthony Fauci get paid so much money since 1982, and get to crush so many allegedly wrong scientists, for decades, yet failed entirely to protect Americans from what he claimed was a “virus” called SARS Cov- 2, in 2020? (Again, I mean with Normal Hats on.) Why would people worship him in the middle of a “pandemic” it was his job to “prevent?” I would argue for Stockholm Syndrome, and collective PTSD.
How, in 2024, does the entirely of meteorological prediction fail such that the citizens of Western North Carolina, were not warned of such a devastating “weather” event their entire town might obliterate and explode into mud, loaded with their dead, including children and babies?
How did the Secret Service in 1963 fail to protect JFK from being shot in the head in Dallas?
How did one of America’s great cities, New Orleans, wind up almost entirely under water, in 2005? You can read some basic facts here. The evacuation of 1.2 millions residents, before Katrina hit by then Mayor Ray Nagin seems like a mirage from a bygone era. It was, of course, too little, too late, and Nagin’s role, allegiances, and actions, could be debated for decades.
Prepare for lengthy Wikipedia outtake, from Ray Nagin’s page:Hurricane Katrina
In August 2005, Hurricane Katrina entered the Gulf of Mexico. Early on Friday, August 26, Mayor Nagin advised New Orleanians to keep a close eye on the storm and prepare for evacuation. He then made several public statements encouraging people to leave but promising that if they did not evacuate, “[w]e will take care of you”.[25] By 10:00 a.m. Saturday, a mandatory evacuation was called for low-lying areas in the surrounding parishes—St. Charles, St. Tammany, Plaquemines, and Jefferson—and a voluntary evacuation for St. Bernard Parish. Nagin had, however, ignored federal and state offers of help and a recommendation to evacuate the entire city. [No citation here. Is this true? CF]
In accordance with the regional evacuation plan, New Orleans, along with the surrounding areas of Jefferson and St. Charles parishes, were given formal voluntary evacuation orders around 50 hours from Katrina’s landfall. This phased approach along with “contraflow“, wherein all incoming interstate highway lanes are reversed outward, ensured that additional vehicles moving onto already congested roads would not create massive gridlock. The local newspaper reported that Nagin stopped short of ordering a mandatory evacuation because of concerns about the city’s liability for closing hotels and other businesses.[26] (That was somehow magically no longer a concern for any US politician in the winter of 2020 when “Covid hit.” They build out the Anaconda black project by black project. CF)
Back to Wikipedia on Nagin:
After receiving a late night Saturday call from Max Mayfield, head of the National Hurricane Center, Nagin was advised that Katrina was headed to New Orleans. He ordered the city attorney to prepare legal documents for a mandatory evacuation of the city, the first in New Orleans’ almost 300-year history. On Sunday, August 28 at 9:30 a.m., the mandatory evacuation order was signed and communicated to the public. The Superdome was opened as a shelter of last resort, and police went throughout the city with loudspeakers alerting all remaining citizens to head to key pickup points for free bus rides. By Sunday evening 80% of New Orleanians and visitors were evacuated or relocated.[27]
After the hurricane hit, the federally built and maintained levees collapsed throughout the city. 80% of the city flooded, some areas as high as 20 feet, over rooftops. Food and water became scarce, and looting was common. After hearing reports of this, Nagin criticized the federal and state response on WWL radio, and his passionate outburst went viral.[citation needed]
(Note, I think it is significant that it says “citation needed” here. I want to hear it. CF)
In response to a question at a town hall meeting in October 2005, Nagin said: “I can see in your eyes, you want to know, ‘[h]ow do I take advantage of this incredible opportunity? How do I make sure New Orleans is not overrun with Mexican workers?'”[28]Some Hispanic groups, including the United States Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, criticized Nagin’s statement,[29] although those attending the town hall meeting reportedly applauded—many believing jobs should first go to locals displaced by the hurricane. Despite this comment, Nagin went on to say this was the city’s biggest economic opportunity and urged New Orleanians to get more comfortable working beside someone who did not look like them, as everyone’s help was needed. During a subsequent interview on Telemundo with Jose Diaz-Balart, Nagin praised the great work Hispanic workers did in New Orleans and said the city would not have recovered without them.[30]
(Do you see it? The creators of the catastrophe install the “good news” and “good things” that must be in place for the OPS of the future, in this case: Imported migrant populations taking jobs from struggling Americans. They are to be thanked. End of bad emotion, implantation of spell/trance. CF)
Shortly after Katrina devastated New Orleans, there were calls for moratoriums on rebuilding certain neighborhoods.[31] Two weeks after Katrina struck, Nagin took a weekend trip to Dallas to reunite with his family. While there, he was asked to meet with leading New Orleans businessmen to discuss the city’s future. Nagin says he made it clear at the meeting that everyone had a right to return home, a claim contradicted by some businessmen in attendance.
[Highlights mine.]
Katrina Must Be Revisited: It Is The Blueprint For Helene, As AIDS Was The Blueprint For Covid
Bibi wrote a harrowing, incredible article about her experience and I have asked her to see if she can find it because I would like to publish it.
Ken McCarthy of Brasscheck TV, and “What The Nurses Saw,” made a Katrina expose film but I am unable to find it. I’ll keep trying.
The Anaconda laid the groundwork in New Orleans, for this horrifying model of “land grabs,” and massacre of undesirable populations. Of course, the Anaconda “laid the groundwork” centuries earlier, one could argue, but I mean in the “modern age.”
GeoEngineeringWatch.Org
Caller to InfoWars says there is video proof of the creation of Hurricane Helene, here.
At the very least, any mention of a “tropical storm,” “hurricane” or “tornado,” should henceforth be interpreted by all Americans as an incoming HAARP attack, and believe nothing of what media says about it. Assume they are perfectly content to kill you.
“Helene,” got way worse after landfall, in addition to the altered direction. I thought hurricanes were weakened by landfall. No?
Characteristic of The Anaconda is:
New.
Shocking.
Never Before Seen.
Impossible To Anticipate.
Malevolent.
No sign of “nature” as we know her, or ever knew her.
WEF-associated Presidents and Prime Ministers are falling like dominoes, first in Ireland, now Canada, Germany, France, UK. Long gone in NZ and elsewhere.
EWNZ comment: clearly with each domino fall they have another schooled in WEF ways to replace them, however, every fall is worth celebrating nevertheless.
Here are two PARTIAL lists of WEF Young Global Leaders, as the WEF has become more cagey about who it has been training:
Weapons expert Mark Steele explains the weaponry they are using against the public without their knowledge or consent. Clearly they lie about the health risks. Mark took his Council to court and won.
5G IS A ELECTRONIC ASSAULT WEAPON AND WE NOW KNOW ITS LINKED TO THE CONTAMINATION IN THE SHOT FOR THE PLANNED MASS EXTINCTION EVENT – BE THE RESISTANCE GET YOU NONE GOVERNANCE DOCUMENTS FROM INFO@SAVEUSNOW.ORG.UK GET THEM SERVED
Just this week the UK Telegraph has been warning us of the next possible plandemic, with their eye this time on your pet cat that might be putting us all in danger:
Experts have long regarded pigs as one of the greatest zoonotic threats to public health because their cells allow viruses to mix and mutate, creating new strains capable of causing human pandemics. This is how the 2008/09 H1N1 swine flu pandemic started and it is suspected that pigs in Haskell country, Kansas may have triggered the 1918 Spanish Flu pandemic which is estimated to have killed between 50 and 100 million people. Now a new study suggests that pet cats could be just as dangerous – and could provide the bridge that allows H5N1 bird flu to mutate and jump to humans.
We should be very afraid and be looking to getting rid of our pets, or so they’d have us believe. Meanwhile the Guardian is hyping it up by warning all pregnant women who contract bird flu will die!
They’ve actually been targeting cats in NZ and elsewhere for some time now.
We’ve also been targeting possums, deer,birds, rabbits, tahr and other animals considered by our conservation authorities to be pests. They even reward children these days for their efforts in killing them.Then there’s the NZ poultry farm in the South Island that recently had to have its birds culled to the tune of 80,000 plus.
In NZ here we have Pest Free NZ (PFNZ). It fuels the production of 1080 poison a lucrative business. Here begins the unravelling.
The poison 1080 is a deadly poison NZ uses with impunity (has done for 60+ years) claiming it is harmless, breaks down in water and targets pests… it doesn’t. It is a very dangerous poison and Doctors are deterred from reporting 1080 poisoning of humans as one MD found out following the death of a hiker that he reported in 2006. The NZ lab lost her heart!
(To learn more about NZ’s favourite poison go here and here. Particularly informative is the Graf Boys’ award winning doco called ‘Poisoning Paradise’. Also, find ‘1080 poison’ in the categories drop down box, top left of page, here.)
To throw some light on all of this seemingly senseless culling and the endless hype about yet another ‘flu’ strain that looms ready to kill us all, I draw your attention to an excellent article by Jenese James written in 2018. She uncovers the underlying agenda to much of this.
Jenese describes NZ’s Pest Free agenda in her article, Who is driving PFNZ?:
There is much more to this story that you can research yourself but the core thing here is that NZ is part of a much bigger extremist idea under the guise of protecting biodiversity – or purism as I call it – where everything and anything non native and not productive to human use will be destroyed
What is driving the Pest Free NZ Agenda and the hysteria in eradicating non native species. Answer – International agreements and a global agenda [Agenda 21, 2030] to purge all non native species of animals and plants around the world…
All over the world the word has gone out that all creatures great and small that are not indigenous to that land will be terminated. Its not just New Zealand..
So in the mix of the plandemic threats from lamestream, and the culling of both wild and pet animals, you will see what is really afoot. Do read the whole article.
The plandemic of course kills (pun intended) more than one bird with one stone. They get the next human cull with the new speedily produced, untested, EUA jab designed for whatever deadly disease presents itself (especially targeting those ‘miscreants’ who declined the first one) and they eradicate all of the food sources you may draw on in the coming famine that they will have created by destroying farmers, Bill Gates is hogging all the farm land, promoting fake meat production and targeting all good food like raw milk and home gardens. NZ is currently working on the GM front to feed us unlabeled GM poison without even consulting us. We’ve gotten used to that.
On reflection they are actually killing three birds with that one stone. It’s long been rumoured that another long term agenda the poisoners have is that of clearing the environment for mining. You can read about that in the following two articles which go into the purpose of all those recent man made disasters we’re now seeing world wide. It is all interrelated! One of the purposes of those is land grab:
So it’s multi purpose, multi layered rape and pillage by the corporates. All cleverly hidden ‘behind the green mask’, to quote Rosa Koire.
UN Agenda 21/Sustainable Development is the action plan implemented worldwide to inventory and control all land, all water, all minerals, all plants, all animals, all construction, all means of production, all energy, all education, all information, and all human beings in the world. INVENTORY AND CONTROL.—-Rosa Koire
Which leads us to the recent revelations about David Seymour’s corporate links to the Atlas Network. You can learn about that here. In more ways than one it is also ‘cui bono?’
They wish to deceive we the public into thinking they have our best interests at heart. Saving native species, saving us from so called man made global warming by herding us into 15 minute ‘smart’ cities, ensuring we own nothing and are happy.
Fortunately folk have woken up to the agenda & are pushing back.
“Whether we’re fighting for Te Tiriti or against new coal mines, for tax reform and fair pay, to protect Te Taiao or even just to keep NZ’s stop-smoking programme on track – we all face the same well-funded and well-organised ideological opposition”.
Further to our previous article revealing David Seymour’s links to the Atlas Network, I came across this one recently at Substack by Torfrida Orme (posted at Tapatahi Substack) and was intrigued to see Seymour’s Waitangi 2024 interview with Mihingarangi Forbes. It’s earlier on in the piece with relation to the Treaty Principles Bill, soon after it was introduced.
In it he shifts uncomfortably when asked ‘does the Act Party have any links to the Atlas Network?’ (@ 13 mins this topic begins)
He replies ‘no’, but resorts to the now time-worn and fizzled go-to … ‘conspiracy theory’. Trying unsuccessfully to heap shame on Mihingarangi for descending to such ‘low quality’ information, casting aspersions upon her journalistic ability. Her ability IMO towers well above today’s lamestream endeavours.
Seymour’s own links to Atlas are easily-verifiable by his historical job stints at two Canadian Atlas-affiliated think tanks.
Because we appear to have a repeat scenario such as happened in Australia, particularly with regard to the Treaty Principles Bill here and Aussie’s referendum with respect to an indigenous voice in Parliament. (Video links all in the article). Rather than promoting equality for all, it is becoming more apparent that he really is inciting racial division. Going by the Aussie playbook at least. Race is another time-worn tactic. It is the ace card of those who seek to divide and rule. It’s how GB retained control over so many millions in India for so long.
“In all our varied campaigns we are up against the same powerful groups trying to keep hold of their resources. It’s in their interest that we are fragmented.”
The last thing these corporate pariahs want is environmentalists messing up their mining plans. Isn’t it all making sense now?
The article below by Torfrida Orme is a must read IMO.
Remember (quote):
“we all face the same well-funded and well-organised ideological opposition”.
EWNZ
ATLAS – how a right-wing global network is building influence in Aotearoa
Over the last six months it’s become so much clearer what we’re up against.
Whether we’re fighting for Te Tiriti or against new coal mines, for tax reform and fair pay, to protect Te Taiao or even just to keep NZ’s stop-smoking programme on track – we all face the same well-funded and well-organised ideological opposition.
As we plunge into fight-back, it’s worth spending some time to find out more about this opposition, why it seems to have appeared now and how it functions.
There are some aspects of the source article we don’t agree with however the main thrust is Seymour’s links to Atlas and their agenda. Re climate change. We do recognize there is a change in climate however who is behind that, in our opinion, is not you & I and our alleged use of ‘fossil fuels’, rather it is the well documented practice of weather modification. (Read Elana Freeland’s books on topic and if you can’t do that at least visit our geoengineering pages, main menu). See also Sen Malcolm Roberts exposé. The other aspect I have reservations about is the Fabian Socialists. Barry Smith spoke often of them (including the Mont Pelerin Society). Their original logo is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Read more here. It is quite a web we have to negotiate to get to the truth of things, even moreso in the past few years. There will always be differences of opinion and it’s best we don’t play into the hands of those who seek to maintain rule over us, by building walls in response to their divisive tactics. Rather we need, now more than ever, to put aside those differences (agree to disagree) and unite. They are a few thousand, we are a few billion. They are culling us and intend to continue. EWNZ
IMO a must see. A not too long doco style presentation of just how Schwab operates & what he has in view for all useless eaters. Not what he calls us openly but we know that’s how we’re classified hence the drive for depop. These characters have infiltrated all govts (corporations in actuality) and they mean for us to own nothing, parading that concept as being inclusive… sharing is caring and all that. Nothing could be further from the truth … it is communism in new garb. Make no mistake, it is tyrannical and evil.. EWNZ
Description Stakeholder Capitalism is an investigative documentary series about our undemocratic transition away from free-market capitalism to a global, authoritarian political system called Stakeholder Capitalism. Enacted in 2020, Stakeholder Capitalism replaces both Shareholder Capitalism (free-market) and State Capitalism (communism) with a single, universal system that is governed by the World Economic Forum’s exclusive elite members, including the presidents of Russia and China.
In the first episode ‘Our New Political System’, former TV producer and tech entrepreneur, Richard Jeffs, discovers what Stakeholder Capitalism is and how its Inclusive and Sustainable policies are changing our society. Richard also investigates how the ESG corporate credit score forces us to adopt Stakeholder Capitalism.
Please tell us what you think and join the debate by signing up to Yellow.Forum for FREE by clicking on the button in the header.
This article is also available as a PDF to download, print, and share.
Alarming Developments in Australia Following Their Gene Deregulation
To win the debate about the Gene Technology Bill, we have to expose the unscientific and misleading claims being parroted by politicians to gain public acceptance of an egregious takeover of our food choices and medical rights.
To do so, we have to not only make clear submissions to the Health Select Committee. But more importantly, persuade our friends, colleagues and contacts of the potential impact and the need for action.
Our task is made clear by a comment from David Farrar, prolific National supporter and Kiwiblogger-in-chief, that needs deconstructing and examination for misinformation. He quotes Judith Collins speaking at the first reading of the Bill as follows:
“Our current regulations for genetically modified organisms are some of the most backward looking in the world. New Zealand has lagged behind other countries, such as Australia, Canada, and England, which have safely embraced these technologies for the benefit of their people and their economies.
“Despite gene technologies having been in use in New Zealand since the 1970s, the restrictive rules and time-consuming processes we have imposed on researchers have made testing and embracing innovation outside the lab all but impossible. But no more. This Government has listened to our research, primary industry, and medical communities and the frustrations that they have felt over many years. Today, New Zealand moves into the present with a safe enabling regulatory regime. The legislation will enable the sorts of innovation that will benefit New Zealand while effectively managing risks to the health and safety of people and the environment.”
Farrar then adds his 25c “After 25 years of dithering, we finally have a Government that is not letting hysteria trump science. Amazing that this legislation has been introduced in the first year of office – rather than just another working group.”
Misinformation:‘other countries have safely embraced these technologies for the benefit of their people and their economies’
The Gene Technology Bill is the New Zealand version of an international push by commercial interests to free up genetic experimentation from any last fetters of regulation. The massive profits made during the pandemic under emergency deregulation and government mandated participation have set a new benchmark for industry greed. Our Bill is far ahead of the rest of the world in terms of permissiveness. In a world of corporate giants from the food and pharmaceutical sectors seeking to push the envelope, New Zealand’s proposed out-on-a-limb laissez faire stance is a welcome development and something they have actually had a hand in creating.
We have seldom seen a more brazen claim than the use of the word ‘safely’ after 30 million excess deaths have been attributed to the pandemic during the last five years. Whether they come from a gene altered pathogen or a genetic vaccine is largely irrelevant here. As to citing England as a country accepting Gene Technology, a few days ago we pointed to the growing tide of public protest in the UK about the first use of anti-methane medicine Bovaer for cows and the sale of their milk and butter in supermarkets.
In the EU, proposed gene technology legislation has stalled due to disquiet among member states and in any case includes the precautionary principle which says that new technology must be proved safe before use, something that our Gene Technology Bill rejects. Nor does it liberalise research on microbes or animals as our Bill does.
Misinformation: ‘safe enabling regulatory regime’ that mostly classifies gene editing as safe, but supposedly can identify and mitigate any level of risk
A key plank of the government’s contention is the idea that gene editing has become more exact and therefore the need for testing, regulation, labelling, etc is reduced and in many if not most cases eliminated. This is not based on any valid scientific principle. Accuracy does not equate with safety. Just because you can achieve something more accurately does not guarantee its safety. A sniper trains every day to hit the target, but this does not make assassination a safer prospect.
As a result of serious adverse effects, the prospects for gene therapy dimmed in the 90s and early 2000s, but in 2008 new supposedly more exact gene editing techniques using CRISPR/cas gene scissors were developed. Research efforts stepped up and PR went back into overdrive—gene technology and medicine, according to this new narrative, now being promoted by our government, was going to be safe and effective. Today we know this to be false, as a paper published in November 2022 by the Karolinska Institute shows. CRISPR/cas techniques lead to unpredictable on-target genetic rearrangement which can interfere with vital cellular gene repair mechanisms.
During the pandemic, the supposed action of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines was outlined in great detail for the public and indeed, novel genetic instructions were ported into billions of an injected individual’s cells successfully by mRNA vaccines, but the outcome itself was not as predicted. The vaccines did not stop first infections, transmission or repeated infections. In theory the injected vaccine agents would be cleared up within days after having elicited the required protective immune memory. This didn’t happen.
More worrying: investigative journalist Alex Berenson formerly of the NY Times reports scientists at prestigious Yale University have announced the imminent publication of a study that has found concentrations of COVID-19 spike protein in the blood of individuals two years after mRNA vaccination, suggesting the genetic sequences in the vaccine may have integrated into the DNA of recipients to the detriment of their health.
These and many many other studies published during the last year in learned journals which we have reported reveal there are unexpected and unpredictable classes of serious risk to health with gene technology that can only be detected years after the event with careful research. Genetic material can reproduce and perpetuate itself in a way that chemicals cannot.
The misery of gene technology safety has been greatly simplified and altered for public consumption by corporations, scientists and politicians with vested interests. In reality the interior of the cell contains great complexity with trillions of elements involved. In this situation accuracy is not possible, always there are off target effects.
Moreover there are the ever present risks of lab accidents. A 2022 study of the Prevalence of Accident Occurrence Among Scientific Laboratory Workers found: “Among 220 participants recruited in the study, 99 participants (45.0%) have had accidents during their lab works. 59.6% have been exposed once, 32.3% between two and four times, only 1.0% between four and six times, and 7.1% more than six times.”
What sort of gene technology projects might be approved?
The Gene Technology Bill owes much of its content to Australian legislation so we decided to look over the ditch and see just how it all works or rather doesn’t work. The Australian Office of the Gene Technology Regulator has just issued an Invitation to comment on Clinical trials of controlled infection with seasonal influenza viruses (DIR 210). The project has been submitted for approval by the Doherty Institute, a subsidiary of the University of Melbourne. Its principal purpose is described as follows:
“The initial aim is to evaluate the safety and infectivity of recombinant seasonal human influenza viruses in healthy volunteers. These GM viruses will then be used to assess the effectiveness of therapeutic drugs or vaccine candidates to prevent and control influenza infection.”
In other words the lab is to make gene altered versions of the flu and then test out various genetic drugs and/or vaccines on human volunteers over a five year period. It does sound eerily similar to what went on at Wuhan Virology Lab for the five years prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, but then the Gene Regulator is there to put us right. They have already rated the project as posing ‘negligible to moderate risks to human health or safety’. In other words, whatever the public submits to the regulator, the project, which creates new viruses, is likely to be a shoo in for a rubber stamp. You might like to reflect that there is a big difference between the words ‘negligible’ and ‘moderate’. This points to the highly arbitrary and misleading risk classification process being used in Australia which is akin to pinning the tail on a donkey. You can dive into the details here.
The project at the Doherty Institute has at least reached the desk of the gene regulator. If you have enough money, it needn’t actually ever come near the regulator or his desk. An article in the UK Guardian on Dec 10 2024 is entitled “Moderna’s mRNA vaccines to be exempt from advisory committee scrutiny under $2bn Morrison-era deal“. It reports Australians will be offered respiratory mRNA vaccines from next year under a confidential $2bn onshore manufacturing deal struck with Moderna. The agreement exempts Moderna’s mRNA vaccines from assessment by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC), a government memorandum has revealed. The contract signed with the American pharmaceutical company commits successive Australian governments to buying locally produced Moderna vaccines for at least a decade. They will be manufactured at a specially built plant at Melbourne’s Monash University. The memorandum which is raising alarmed red flags even among researchers says the Moderna vaccines “will not go through the PBAC process and therefore will not be listed as designated vaccines on the National Immunisation Program”.
Our Minister of Science, Innovation and Technology Judith Collins no doubt realises what is going on in Australia and approves. She has cited Australian legislation as the lead we are following. The Gene Technology Bill sets the stage for our newly appointed government regulator to dust off his rubber stamp in a similar fashion and expose us all to unquantifiable risk.
Protection from civil and criminal liability
Despite the bogus claims of safety, the Gene Technology Bill seems to anticipate that there might be a few problems so they have included Clause 187—Protection from civil and criminal liability to remove any responsibility as follows:
This protects most persons from civil and criminal liability for any act that the person does or omits to do in the performance of their functions or duties under this Bill. It applies to the following persons:
the Regulator
an employee or agent of the Regulator
an enforcement officer
a member of the Technical Advisory Committee or the Māori Advisory Committee
a member of any subcommittee of those committees.
The person is protected from civil and criminal liability, however it may arise, for any act that the person does or omits to do under a requirement of this Act or simply if they are believed to be acting in good faith in the course of their duties under the Act.
Short version: the government is washing its hands of any liability.
Just reflect for a moment that the Consumer Guarantees Act (CGA) in New Zealand is part of the everyday fabric of our lives. We rely upon it. The CGA guarantees that products must be:
Safe
Of acceptable quality
Fit for their intended purpose
Match the description given
Match the sample or demonstration model
In acceptable condition when received
If a product doesn’t meet these guarantees, consumers can claim a refund, repair, or replacement. The Gene Technology Bill completely bypasses these provisions. Of course those damaged by gene technology will not be able to be refunded or repaired, perhaps the government envisions they will be replaced as happened with vaccine mandates.
So will we know what we are eating or being subjected to?
The Gene Technology Bill includes clauses which repeal and replace all provisions of previous legislation relating to gene technology. A global search of the Bill reveals that the word ‘labelling’ appears zero times. Any previous legal requirement that the presence of genetically modified content be identified on food labels is thereby rescinded. We won’t know what we are eating. This bypasses the need for traceability in the food chain which has formed a protective envelope over public health for a hundred years. No more.
I am sure many of you, like all of us at the Hatchard Report, are becoming more alarmed at the content of the Gene Technology Bill, but our hope lies with the vast majority of Kiwis who care about their food choices. This Bill has been rushed into Parliament without any clear understanding of its clauses. A sober look at the Bill reveals its glaring flaws and misconceptions. Our hope is that clear simple facts will create public pressure and sink the bill. We have until midnight on February 17th to make ;submissions to the Health Select Committee. More importantly, discussing the implications with friends and lobbying MPs directly can create a stir.
This will require steady hands, clear heads and a willingness to discuss the issues with our peers. The key points needing emphasis in submissions and discussions are as follows:
Gene technology content in foods will no longer be identified in labels. We will not know what we are eating.
Without labelling and traceability through the food chain any adverse effects cannot be identified or assessed overturning the lessons of food safety learned during the last 100 years. People with allergies are especially at risk.
Gene technology is imprecise and subject to off target effects affecting health.
Gene tech manufacturing processes are plagued by rogue genetic contamination.
Genetically modified organisms can spread without limit and cannot be recalled or remediated as we found out during the pandemic.
Claims of safety and effectiveness are totally misleading, gene technology is known to produce both short and long term adverse off-target effects.
The Bill provides provision for the government to reimpose vaccine mandates whenever it decides to do so.
The Bill abandons the precautionary principle and allows for the implementation, release and consumption of experimental gene technology products before they are proven safe.
The Bill does not specify how the regulator will assess any risk. The pandemic shows how far off such assessments can be.
Claims of economic and health benefits from gene technology have been wildly exaggerated. Most projects fail. Projects will be mostly funded by the government and be a drain on the public purse. NZ’s economy will be better served by fostering our traditional strengths in farming. Overseas farmers have found patented gene technologies to be costly and no more productive than prior methods. Widespread implementation of gene technology in New Zealand is likely to face consumer backlashes and close our overseas markets.
In his comment, David Farrar believes that the existing HSNO legislation and the precautionary principle it enshrines have allowed ‘hysteria to trump science’. Nothing could be further from the truth, five COVID-19 pandemic years should have taught us the dangers of funding gene research while abandoning precaution.
Good luck with your submissions. This is winnable if we all stand together and speak out. People don’t just care about their food, they rely on it for health and well being.
More detailed information and extra scientific references are available in our articles here , here, here, here and here
A group of eminent scientists from the prestigious Yale University is sounding the alarm after a long-term study found that Covid mRNA “vaccines” remain in the bodies of recipients and continue to cause harm for years after the last injection.
Shockingly, the researchers found that the genetic material from the “vaccines” can integrate into human DNA.
The unpublished study is led by world-renowned Yale scientist Dr. Akiko Iwasaki.
The findings have sent shockwaves through the scientific community as they conflict with the “safe and effective” dogma that has been pushed by health officials, doctors, politicians, and the corporate media.
During their study, the researchers analyzed people who had received at least one shot of a Covid mRNA “vaccine” but had never been infected with COVID-19.
This was to rule out the possibility that the virus could have caused genetic material traces in the bloodstream.
As we’ve seen before with other vaccine side effects, such as myocarditis, the virus has often been blamed.
The researchers found that uninfected patients who had received an mRNA shot still had spike protein in their bloodstream years after their last injection.
Dr. Iwasaki found evidence of the spike protein still being present 700 days after the recipient received the last shot.
Several of the other recipients had received their last injection over 450 days prior and still had “vaccine” spike protein in their bodies.
In addition, the Yale researchers also found a drop in CD4 T cells (key immune system regulators).
The drop in CD4 T cells indicates that “vaccinated” individuals are suffering long-term immunosuppression.
These findings reveal that genetic material from the Covid mRNA injections is integrating with human DNA.
According to Alex Berenson, the integration with human DNA explains the prolonged presence of spike protein in the bloodstream in vaccinated individuals.
The fact that the study was led by Dr. Iwasaki is also notable.
Iwasaki had previously advocated for the vaccine and dismissed safety concerns as “absurd.”
During the pandemic, she also publicly supported vaccine mandates.
However, these new findings may have shifted her perspective on the issue.
Yale researchers are reportedly facing pressure to suppress the findings due to their explosive implications.
The study from the highly respected team of scientists could collapse the “safe and effective” narrative propagated by the government and media.
According to Midwestern Doctor, Yale officials revealed that there is a “battle going on” to suppress the study and prevent it from being published.
“A battle is going on behind the scenes over publishing it,” the doctor revealed.
“We wanted to wait until Yale buried it to reveal what had been leaked to us (and thereby prove incriminating vaccine data was suppressed) so that we would not interfere with the normal publication process (which is often critical for these types of things to be accepted by the scientific community).
“In this case, given the people involved and the data given, this study will prove ‘long vax’ is a real condition and that the vaccine needs to be immediately pulled (which hence puts Yale in a very awkward position if they publish it).”
The Yale scientists are reportedly planning to publish their study on an unreviewed pre-print server.
Meanwhile, leading medical experts have been raising the alarm after a new study proved that vaccinated people can pass on the genetic material from the mRNA injections to people who have never received a shot.
As Slay News reported, the major new peer-reviewed study has confirmed that unvaccinated people can suffer from the harmful side effects of Covid mRNA “vaccines” by just being around people who have received the injections.
The study finally confirms the existence of “vaccine shedding” – an issue previously shot down by health officials as a “conspiracy theory.”
Alarmingly, the study found that unvaccinated people suffer vaccine harms even if they are “indirectly exposed” to those who received Covid mRNA shots.
A study titled, “Menstrual Abnormalities Strongly Associated with Proximity to COVID-19 Vaccinated Individuals,” was just published in the peer-reviewed International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research.
The team of top American researchers behind the study was led by Professor Jill Newman and Dr. Sue E. Peters.
One of the authors of the study wrote:
“After more than a year of censorship from the medical journals, our landmark study and manuscript have been published demonstrating significant circumstantial evidence that something is being shed from the COVID-19 vaccinated population to the unvaccinated population.
“It is far beyond time for these toxic injections to be withdrawn from the market.”
Reacting to the study’s alarming findings, esteemed physician Dr. Pierre Kory wrote on X:
“The most puzzling thing we’ve seen with the vaccine is its ability to ‘shed’ and harm those who never got it.
“A peer-reviewed study just validated the thousands of shedding reports sent to us.”
Dr. Kory also detailed the “vaccine shedding” phenomenon during an interview on American Thought Leaders.
The author of this nauseating piece of propaganda, is Joel Abrams. He also wrote this patronising piece of bs called “A recipe for trustworthy journalism” which included this not-to -be-missed video (1m 40 secs) where a woman in a kitchen tries to promote the metaphor of cooking-up a ‘news’ article by dumbing-down its ingredients…
The Cook Islands prime minister, Mark Brown, was recently in Aotearoa for a week-long tour of community halls and churches.
His mission? To convince the large Cook Island population living here of the benefits of deep sea mining.
Teuila Fuatai was at the first meeting in Māngere.
With his bright blue shirt and neck ‘ei or flower garlands, Prime Minister Mark Brown looked right at home in Māngere’s Enuamanu Hall.
Brown sat centre-stage, flanked by Bishop Tutai Pere (chair of the government’s Seabed Minerals Authority advisory committee), Tou Travel Ariki (the kaumaiti nui or president of the House of Ariki, the body of high chiefs that advises the Cook Islands parliament), and Alex Herman (the government’s now outgoing Seabed Minerals commissioner), among others.
As one person observed, it was “an intimidating line-up” of the country’s political, religious and cultural leaders.
There to listen was a largely elderly crowd of over a hundred Cook Islanders who’ve made New Zealand their home.
Brown was undoubtedly the main attraction for this audience. He spoke convincingly of the anticipated benefits of deep-sea mining, about university scholarships for young Cook Islanders, and infrastructure basics like good roads and better air access to the pā enua or outer islands, where the cost and availability of flights remain a major issue.
The message from more than two hours of speeches and presentations was clear: A future with mining in the Cook Islands will give us and our people options that we don’t have right now.
“There were a lot of examples around how this industry was leading to ‘firsts’ for our country,” said one attendee, Charlotte Samuela. “Like it’s the first time we’re getting to look at the deep sea, or the first time we’re leading our own research mission as Cook Islanders.”
Charlotte grew up in Rarotonga and now works as a theatre nurse in Auckland. Like many others there, she wanted to know more about how the government planned to manage environmental concerns.
“There was less emphasis on the potential impacts, or really what the research simply can’t tell us yet, which is what I would’ve liked.”
But deep-sea mining is an emerging industry, with very little available long-term research on its impacts, something the government representatives themselves acknowledged.
Still, the Cook Islands government has granted three mining companies exploratory research licenses in the Cook Islands’ exclusive economic zone (EEZ). These companies are hoping to identify, and eventually access, vast deposits of rare earth minerals. It’s a plan that is dividing Cook Islanders at home and overseas.
(Photo: Cook Islands Seabed Minerals Authority) Cook Islands prime minister Mark Brown spent a week in Aotearoa in November talking to NZ-based Cook Islanders about deep sea mining in their home country. He’s pictured here in Dunedin.
Mandatory medical activity authorisations:for a human medicine that is or contains gene technology that has been approved by at least two recognised overseas gene technology regulators.
Emergency authorisations: when there is an actual or imminent threat to the health and safety of people or to the environment, for example, threat from a disease outbreak, or an industrial spillage. The Minister responsible for the Gene Technology Act (the Minister) will have the power to grant an emergency authorisation.
These clauses bypass the medical choice provisions of the NZ Bill of Rights.
They violate the conclusions of Phase 1 of the Royal Commission on the pandemic which found that vaccine mandates hurt people and the economy.
They pre-empt the findings of Phase Two of the Royal Commission which has yet to examine the safety of Covid vaccines produced via gene editing.
It empowers the Minister to make health decisions affecting all Kiwis on the say-so of foreign gene regulators of his choice.
The Bill is being passed under Fast Track legislation designed to prevent public discussion of its controversial provisions and adequate understanding of its impact by MPs. There is no time sensitive need for this.
The Bill ignores the experience and lessons of the last five years of the pandemic which has been a gene technology disaster responsible for 30 million deaths worldwide. Its logic is therefore incomprehensible even to well-informed observers, but it appears to find echoes in a dark history:
“The sun shines” wrote Christopher Isherwood in his 1930s Berlin Stories“and Hitler is the master of this city. The sun shines, and dozens of my friends are in prison, possibly dead.” As are too many of my friends recently, young and old alike.
Following the 1933 Nazi acquisition of power, Germany underwent a rapid and sweeping revolution that reached deep into the fabric of daily life. At the beginning, it occurred quietly and out of sight of most of the population. At its core was ‘enabling’ legislation that empowered the government and its appointees (read: regulators) to take far reaching decisions on behalf of the whole population. Its core aim was Gleichschaltung—coordination—designed to bring citizens, government ministries, universities, cultural and social institutions inline with Hitler’s extreme beliefs and attitudes.
Today we are facing efforts aimed at global coordination of technology, including biotechnology, food tech and information technology. The NZ government appears very willing to play a leading role in this revolution, whatever the implications. We have reported on these previously at length (here, here, here and here).
In addition to the prospect of government reimposition of medical mandates, the Bill does not require labelling of gene altered foods. As this flies in the face of all the canons of food safety and traceability established over the last 100 years, the only possible motivations are either a desire to deny consumers any right to preferences, or a wish to avoid any safety monitoring or culpability. Not only will we be unable to exercise medical autonomy, but we will no longer know what we are eating. This is an extraordinary and frightening prospect and not just for those who struggle with allergies. Food choice is not the prerogative of the government or bioscientists no matter how sure of themselves.
Something absolutely fundamental and personal is being taken away from us.
This Bill is being promoted and steered by Judith Collins, with the full support and encouragement of the Prime Minister Chris Luxon and the leader of the ACT Party David Seymour. Collins is a lawyer and long time Parliamentarian, she will fully understand the import of the Bill. As a previous leader of the National Party who lost an election, it is hard to escape the suggestion that Collins may be taking satisfaction from the imposition of her will on those who rejected her leadership. We have all heard stories of waiters who piss in the awkward customer’s beer and laugh behind their backs. I am sorry to draw such a gross comparison, but my sense of outrage demands it.
VIDEO CLIP AT ARTICLE LINK (Luxon & Collins’ celebratory speech)
The Gene Technology Bill seeks to institute a revolution, it spits in the face of the public who suffered during the pandemic and who voted in a new government with the thought that things might change. Instead we appear to have more of the same or worse. The refusal of Health NZ to publish up to date health statistics such as those for cancer incidence, speaks volumes about a government determined to avoid any accountability, even at the expense of public health. For the record, US insurance data reveals that cancer incidence has had a steady and unremitting upward trajectory since the introduction of Covid vaccines. Ignored by our government and worse: covered up.
There is a time for everything and a season for every purpose under Heaven. A time to be born and a time to die, Now is the time to lobby your MP and let them know exactly what you think. Time to make our voice heard. Please write to your MP before the summer break brings consideration to a close and put a note in your diary to follow up afterwards. This fight is winnable.
Guy Hatchard PhD was formerly a senior manager at Genetic ID a global food testing and safety company (now known as FoodChain ID). You can subscribe to his websites HatchardReport.com and GLOBE.GLOBAL for regular updates by email.
Some good news for a change! From those medical professionals who do actually adhere to the Hippocratic Oath. Meanwhile in the US folk are still being told ‘Trust the Science’. Unfortunately, some NZ Councils are falling in line). EWNZ
Defying the Directive: Whangarei Council Fluoride Decision
We are encouraged and heartened by a recent vote taken by the Whangarei District Council resolving NOT to chemically fluoridate the city’s water supply despite the direction given by the former Director General of Health (DGoH) Dr Ashley Bloomfield and now being continued by the current DGoH Dr Diana Sarfati.
The councillors of Whangarei who voted NO are to be commended for having listened to their constituents and having taken it upon themselves to look at the science and human rights issues rather than just trusting and obeying the words of the Ministry of Health.
No engagement
Despite many approaches from concerned individuals, groups and councils, the Ministry of Health and Dr Sarfati have refused to engage in discussion or conversation, instead referring those asking questions to out-of-date reports, ignoring the questions altogether or doubling down on their threatening behaviour.
If the science is so settled in their favour, the Ministry of Health should be able to engage in a polite public discussion, answer questions and defend their actions. They should be able to explain why the risk of neurotoxicity to children in the US that has caused a Federal Court to rule that action must be taken, does not apply to New Zealand children.
Perhaps Dr Reti could provide the different science he believes in such that he can discount the US neurotoxicology report?
If the benefits are so large and the risks so small that it is justified to override right 11 (Right to refuse to undergo medical treatment) of the NZ Bill of Rights, it should be straightforward to provide a BORA analysis. However, it is over a year since Dr Sarfati was ordered by the courts to produce one and it is yet to be provided.
Not once has Dr Sarfati been seen publicly justifying her actions and threats to councils. She continues to hide behind her officials and lawyers (all funded by the taxpayer, of course).
Unanswered Questions
Despite repeated requests the MoH has not been able to point to any research that shows the combination of fluoride and chlorine in NZ water has been proven to be safe, particularly for iodine-dependent tissues such as the thyroid gland and female breast.
Despite several inquiries it is still not clear who the official provider of the medical treatment (water fluoridation) is. The MoH says it has no provider-consumer relationship with the recipients of the medication, so it is not responsible, while the local councils say they are following orders and are not medically responsible. Meanwhile, the Health and Disability Commissioner (HDC) has just answered an OIA enquiry, saying it too has no responsibility for protecting our rights against compulsory medical treatment with fluoridation chemicals. That’s strange as the law says exactly that. Another agency throwing up its hands.
The impacts of fluoridated water discharged into the environment also appear not to have been considered and many questions remain unanswered.
Benefits, Risks, Alternatives
In ordinary times when a doctor or health practitioner is helping a person to make a medical decision, they would consider the benefits, risks and alternatives.
Current research shows the benefits of community water fluoridation in a time when fluoride is readily available (to those who want it) from other sources (such as toothpaste or a visit to the dental nurse) are minimal to non-existent.
Current research also shows that the harm from ingested fluoride on developing brains is serious, as per the US Government’s National Toxicology Program (NTP) report recently released under court order.
There are far better ways of obtaining the outcome that, presumably, we all want – healthy teeth for all New Zealanders. These include avoiding sugary drinks, eating better, optimising levels of micronutrients and healthy bacteria, brushing teeth, and attending to dental problems early.
Moving On
We urge other councils to take a closer look at the science and human rights issues involved, listen to their communities and (take similar actions) push back against over-reach, community harm and commercial agreements.
Thank you very much to the courageous councillors of Whangarei.
He spoke up very loudly early on in the plandemic and put his colleagues on notice about administering the treatment hailed as ‘safe and effective’ but which he had noted, was killing people. Do watch his clip – he is bold and specific in his announcement…
“Stop forcing these vaccines on people who are getting killed by them!”
Before long many of these white coats, I now refer to them as, start filing out one by one.
They are no longer to be trusted.
He doesn’t blame them however and explains that they are powerfully persuaded by Big pHarma and peer/colleague pressure.
Notice how lamestream headlines in caps the anti vax rhetoric. Anything to divert your attention from his real message.
“We are rightly appalled by the genetic effects of radiation: how then can we be indifferent to the same effect in chemicals that we disseminate widely in our environment”.
She also accused the chemical industry of:
“poisoning humanity with the consent of scientists whose knowledge and concept of toxicity dates back to the Stone Age, and we have become the victims of cancer, nerve paralysis, genetic mutations, and…are now in no better situation than Borgia’s guests”.
The veracity of her remarks are borne-out by the severe decline in the health and sustainability of all ecosystems in the decades since then, due largely to changes in agricultural practices which include the subject of this article, namely the use of acidic fertilisers and the use of the ensuing waste product, fluoride, as unregistered, illegal medical treatment for tooth decay in humans with little success but with disastrous adverse effects on all ecosystems.
From before the date of Carson’s comments our environment has been subjected to 30kgs of fluoride per tonne of acidic phosphate fertiliser; augmented by the toxic waste from production at the rate of 1 mg/litre of public drinking water, including that used in food preparation, and preparing infant formula. In addition to fluoride there are significant levels of accumulative heavy metals adding to the neurotoxic load on many metabolic systems in the whole food chain hence environmental, animal and human health, particularly that of the developing child.
ALL Regulatory Authorities have the fundamental obligation, a fiduciary obligation, to act in the interests of the population who have delegated authority to do so.
The history of water fluoridation is rife with the illegal use of this delegated authority by the Ministry of Health (MoH) and therein lie several significant failures including failure to provide ALL relevant information.
Fluoride is shown to harm the brain and reduce IQ.
An excellent short doco about fluoride use in New Zealand’s drinking water, can be found here.
This has resulted in the misleading of Parliament and the people and in courts making decisions based on lack of full disclosure, decisions that demand constitutional judicial review because-
Fluoride is a byproduct of the agrichem industry, and defined as a hazardous substance.
In addition:
a) MoH has taken on sole administration in this matter when:
it has neither the authority, expertise nor knowledge to administer what is an environmental and animal health issue: in fact evidence in the promulgation of this FA suggests they have no expertise or knowledge of the many adverse effects of their pollution of public water supplies for the last 60 years with fluoride and other ecotoxic Hazardous Substances (HS) from the fertiliser industry all of which are accumulative and potentiate each other.
[ii] This role belongs to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) which is the case in the USA, and which has had no role in the promulgation of this FA and failed to provide ALL relevant information to Parliament or courts. EPA have also failed to inform MoH this FA is outside their remit, exceeding their powers..
[iii] The Ministry of Primary industries (MPI) has also failed in their duty to provide relevant information in a matter that has serious repercussions in animal food and health and hence human health issues; this demonstrates the serious lack of competence to fulfil their obligations, including failure to perform due diligence to safeguard the health and safety of the food chain; and to inform MoH this FA contravenes the statutes which MPI administer.
The failure to perform due diligence applies to all areas of government from the Attorney General and Crown Law Office, who drafted the legislation and failed to ensure principles of Constitutional and Administrative Law have been followed, down to local government decision makers,
There is also the complete failure to ensure there is no inconsistency with many other statutes and international Charters and Conventions, especially those relevant to the special needs of the child.
Unlucky for some….
This is why we need to concentrate our efforts on constitutional judicial review of all decisions made and taking into account all the decision makers in this issue of environmental and public health violations.
Informed Heart is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
This stack is I believe, the last bastion of Agent131711, he’s been removed from various venues already. Exposing too many untruths? EWNZ
RECYCLING IS A SCAM! How Big Plastic Fooled Us All: a 40+ YEAR SCANDAL
I don’t throw around the word “scam” but when it comes to Plastic “Recycling”, this is some next-level-Enron-sh*t that is going to blow your mind and equally make you livid that you spent all those years peeling labels. I have Carpal tunnel from my mom making my 9-year-old-self soak and scrub off labels in the late 1980s (I’m joking…but for real, those labels were a pain in the… hand.
So yeah, the government essentially created the plastic industry during WWII and this is what ultimately led to the birth of Big Plastic. Now keep in mind, Plastics are produced from what? Natural Gas and Crude Oil. Who regulates natural gas? The government. Who owned oil? Rockefeller. [insert DUN, DUN, DUNNNNNNNN! sound effect]
The problem was that, unlike glass, plastic didn’t break, so people were not becoming repeat-plastic customers so, in order for this to be a goldmine, the industry needed people to keep buying more and more and more plastic. What they did was so incredibly diabolical that it will make you wonder how on earth they can ever utter the phrase “climate change”… be sure to send this article to your mother who made you prep the recyclables… (30 second video)
“Edward Dowd, world-renowned data expert has just issued a red alert after uncovering evidence that reveals excess deaths are continuing to skyrocket in children who received” the safe & effective treatment.
A world-renowned data expert has just issued a red alert after uncovering evidence that reveals excess deaths are continuing to skyrocket in children who received Covid mRNA “vaccines.”
According to an alarming warning from leading Wall Street data analyst Ed Dowd, excess child deaths are still accelerating and show no sign of slowing down.
Dowd is a former executive at the world’s largest investment firm BlackRock and is considered one of America’s leading data experts.
Through his expert analysis of insurance industry data, Dowd has become a prominent figure in investigations into the impact of the global Covid vaccination campaign.
Dowd is currently a founding partner with Phinance Technologies a global macro alternative investment firm.
The team at Phinance, which includes a handful of high-level scientists, data analysts, and financial experts, has been investigating surges in deaths and injuries following the Covid “vaccine” rollout.
During a new interview on “The Jimmy Dore Show,” Dowd produced shocking data showing that excess child deaths are still surging higher, long after the Covid mRNA “vaccines” were first released almost four years ago.
Dowd made the discovery while analyzing the official data from the UK government’s Office for National Statistics (ONS).
“The UK has a problem,” Down warns.
However, while the deaths were identified in UK data, the trend is most likely reflected in other nations with a similar mass vaccination protocol, including the United States, Canada, Australia, and much of Europe.
Dowd’s data shows that excess deaths for children aged one to fourteen have surged higher each year since the Covid mRNA “vaccines” were rolled out in 2021.
According to Dowd, excess deaths for children in this age group spiked by a staggering 22% in 2023 – the last full year of data.
Dowd notes that this trend didn’t start until “the magic juice started to be issued to children later in 2021.”
The data shows that deaths were actually lower than expected in 2020 but started surging in 2021.
According to Dowd’s findings, each year’s data shows:
2020: 9 percent fewer deaths than expected
2021: 7 percent fewer deaths than expected
2022: 16 percent MORE deaths than expected
2023: 22 percent MORE deaths than expected
As Dowd notes, while the “vaccines” were rolled out for public use in early 2021, they were authorized for children later in the year.
Although the data for 2024 isn’t yet complete, Dowd reveals that, so far, the official figures show that the surging death trend has continued through this year.
“Figures from the Office for National Statistics show about 10% more deaths (across all age groups) than expected since April this year,” Down adds.
Yet, despite the clear correlation with the mass vaccination campaign, UK health officials insist that “circulatory diseases and diabetes are … behind the increase.”
WATCH: (click on image for video at rumble)
The revelation comes as Dowd and his team continue to uncover alarming data exposing the impact of the Covid mRNA “vaccines” on public health.
As Slay News previously reported, Dowd recently exposed the shocking number of sudden and unexpected deaths caused by the Covid mRNA “vaccines” around the world.
Dowd revealed that up to 15 million people have now been killed by the injections globally.
During an interview with Bret Weinstein, former professor of evolutionary biology, Dowd dropped bombshell figures for the number of vaccinated people who have died suddenly and unexpectedly.
“So five billion people on the planet got a vaccine of some sort,” Down told Weinstein.
“If you apply the range of the death rate in the US that I gave you earlier, you get a range of globally 7.3 million to 15 million died from the vaccine.”
Dowd’s upper-range numbers align with figures produced by leading expert Denis Rancourt, a former professor of physics at the University of Ottawa.
Rancourt estimates that 17 million people have been killed by the Covid shots.
However, despite the alarming nature of the death toll figures, Down revealed that the situation is far direr.
Dowd continued by detailing the number of people left injured and disabled from the injections.
“Disabilities, when you look at the ratio of four to one, you multiply the 7 million and the 15, approximately 15 million times four, you get a range of 29 to 60 million disabled globally.
“And then injuries, if you take 18% of the vaccinated, just using the Pfizer [trial data], so that again, this could be money, but we get a range of at the high end, 900 million, 500 million at the low end injured.
“500 million to 900 million who had an injury that has not disabled.”
To review the long lists of ‘Died Suddenly’ world wide see the substack of Dr Mark Crispin Miller (NY University) who is documenting them. More recently the listings of children began to increase.
“Clown world” doesn’t even begin to describe the absurdity gripping certain corners of the medical establishment. It’s hard to fathom, but one of the newest and most heavily promoted initiatives for healthcare professionals is to get involved in combating climate change. Yes, climate change. At a time when the very foundations of healthcare are crumbling—longer wait times, skyrocketing costs, and millions struggling to see a doctor and get good care—this has somehow become a top priority for some medical leaders.
Go ahead and Google “doctors and climate change.” You’ll find an avalanche of articles from supposedly respected organizations promoting this agenda. Medical journals are also full of articles on “climate and healthcare.” Many are suggesting that doctors should shift their focus from immediate patient care to becoming warriors in the battle against a phenomenon as complex as Earth’s climate.
Let’s be clear: the climate has been evolving for billions of years. To suggest that human beings can wield complete control over such vast systems is, frankly, ludicrous. Of course, we should care for our environment responsibly and strive to make it as clean and non-polluting as possible—but making climate change a healthcare priority? That’s insane.
Misaligned Priorities
The state of healthcare today is nothing short of a disaster in many Western countries. Patients face unprecedented barriers to accessing basic care. Chronic conditions—largely preventable through proper lifestyle interventions—are skyrocketing. Yet, rather than addressing these glaring issues, medical schools and healthcare organizations are diverting attention to training “climate-savvy” doctors.
A piece from CNN highlights this perfectly. Published just a few months ago, it encapsulates this new movement.
The article discusses a new program designed to “mint certified experts in climate medicine.” This program claims to prepare doctors to combat “climate-driven health effects”. Medical schools are also rushing to include climate change in their curriculums— all while basic courses on nutrition and metabolic health remain glaringly absent from medical education.
One anecdote in the piece described a doctor motivated by a serious summer heatwave. Another highlighted an oncologist inspired by a patient who passed away during a winter storm. Tragic weather events, sure—but natural disasters have occurred since the dawn of time. Meanwhile, real medical emergencies—including our failing healthcare system and metabolic health catastrophe (patients battling obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and other lifestyle-related inflammatory diseases)—are being sidelined.
Who Suffers?
Ultimately, it’s the patients who pay the price for these misplaced priorities as doctors’ attention shifts away from where it should be. Instead of focusing on what truly matters—helping individuals improve their health through real evidence-based interventions, giving our patients better access to care, adequately staffing healthcare facilities, encouraging lifestyle changes, and campaigning against the corporate-driven establishment that creates a toxic food environment and pharma-happy culture—leaders are chasing an agenda far removed from patient needs and would truly benefit the general public.
This is why so many people have dismal experiences with healthcare, and suffering continues to escalate. The system is failing because those at the top prioritize flashy, ideological campaigns over fixing what’s broken.
Stay Grounded
I urge you to stay grounded. I know you are sensible—after all, that’s why you’re here. While the above may seem somewhat amusing, it’s actually a travesty for healthcare. Let’s focus on what truly matters: improving the system, empowering our patients, and addressing the root causes of our health crises.
Keep calling out their nonsense. Don’t let them fool you or divert your attention.
In 1996, Henry Lamb exposed the UN’s plan to take over the world using a book the UN had published the year before. The title of the book is ‘Our Global Neighbourhood’.
Written by 28 “experts” the book describes a global taxation scheme to fund the UN’s operations; a standing UN army; an Economic Security Council; UN authority over the global commons, expanded authority for the Secretary-General and much more. By 1996, some of the plans had already been implemented. As the years have gone by, more and more of the plan has been and is being rolled out.
In 1996, Lamb gave a t talk on the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Wildlands Project at the Granada Forum.
“All of the conspiracy theories that you’ve ever heard about ‘One World Government’, about the UN takeover of the world, all of those conspiracies have now been laid to rest,” he said. “There’s nothing conspiratorial about it. It’s all published!”
“The UN-funded Commission on Global Governance began meeting in 1992, in earnest … and last fall released their final report. It is entitled ‘Our Global Neighbourhood’,” he said.
After briefly describing the 1995 document, he goes on to talk about Agenda 21, the Biodiversity Treaty, The Wildlands Project and the Global Biodiversity Assessment.
If the video above is removed from YouTube, you can watch it on Rumble HERE and BitChute HERE. Hyperlinks to some of the documents referred to above can be found HERE.
In the video above, Lamb also mentioned topics on which we have previously published articles: Agenda 21, the Biodiversity Treaty, The Wildlands Project, Global Biodiversity Assessment and the 30×30 plan. See our articles HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE and HERE.
For this article, we are focusing on the first document Lamb mentioned: ‘Our Global Neighbourhood’.
Our Global Neighbourhood is the report of the Commission on Global Governance issued in 1995. The Commission on Global Governance, an international commission of 28 people, was established in 1992 to suggest new ways in which the international community might cooperate to further an agenda of global security.
The report presented the Commission’s conclusions and recommendations for discussion at the General Assembly of the United Nations’ 50th-anniversary session. Divided into seven chapters, the report served as “a call to action,” encouraging world leaders and non-governmental actors to work together toward achieving the goals expressed by the commission.
In 1996, Henry Lamb published ‘A Summary Analysis’ which is 22 pages. The following is a summary of Lamb’s analysis. You can read his full analysis HERE.
A Summary of Henry Lamb’s Analysis of Our Global Neighbourhood
The Commission on Global Governance released its recommendations in preparation for a World Conference on Global Governance, scheduled for 1998, where official world governance treaties were expected to be adopted for implementation by the year 2000.
The Commission’s proposals included expanding the authority of the United Nations (“UN”) to provide global taxation, a standing UN army, an Economic Security Council, UN authority over the global commons and an end to the veto power of permanent members of the Security Council.
Other proposals include the establishment of a new parliamentary body of “civil society” representatives (“NGOs”), a new “Petitions Council”, a new Court of Criminal Justice, binding verdicts of the International Court of Justice and expanded authority for the UN Secretary-General.
The Commission consisted of 28 people, carefully selected for their prominence, influence, and ability to effect the implementation of the recommendations. It was endorsed by the UN Secretary-General and funded through various trust funds and foundations.
The Commission on Global Governance has released its recommendations in preparation for a World Conference on Global Governance, scheduled for 1998, where official world governance treaties are expected to be adopted for implementation by the year 2000.
‘Our Global Neighbourhood’, was published by Oxford University Press in 1995 and reflects the work of dozens of different agencies and commissions over several years.
Background and Formation of the Commission
The Commission on Global Governance was established in 1992 with 28 members and funding from the UNDP, nine national governments and private foundations.
The Commission was formed after a report on global governance opportunities was presented in April 1991, in Stockholm, by Ingvar Carlsson, then Prime Minister of Sweden, and Shirdath Ramphal, Secretary General of the Commonwealth.
The report was initially requested by former West German Chancellor Willy Brandt, who called a group of international leaders to Konigswinter, Germany in January 1990.
The Commission’s co-chairmen, Ingvar Carlsson and Shirdath Ramphal, met with UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali in April 1992 to secure his endorsement of the effort.
Members of the Commission
1. Ingvar Carlsson, Sweden Prime Minister of Sweden 1986-91, and Leader of the Social Democratic Party in Sweden.
2.Shirdath Ramphal, Guyana Secretary-General of the Commonwealth from 1975 to 1990, President of the IUCN, Chairman of the Steering Committee of the Leadership in Environment and Development Program; Chairman, Advisory Committee, Future Generations Alliance Foundation, Chancellor, University of the West Indies, and the University of Warwick in Britain, member of five international commissions in the 1980s, and author of Our Country, The Planet, written especially for the Earth Summit.
3. Ali Alatas, Indonesia Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Indonesia since 1988; permanent representative to the United Nations.
4. Abdlatif Al-Hamad, Kuwait Director-General and Chairman of the Arab Fund for Economic and Social Development in Kuwait. Former Minister of Finance and Minister of Planning; member of the Independent Commission on International Development Issues; Board member of the Stockholm Environment Institute.
5. Oscar Arias, Costa Rica President of Costa Rica from 1986 to 1990; drafted the Arias Peace Plan which was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize; founded the Arias Foundation for Peace and Human Progress.
6. Anna Balletbo i Puig, Spain Member of the Spanish Parliament since 1979; member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and on Radio and Television; Executive Committee of the Socialist Party in Catalonia; General Secretary of the Olof Palme International Foundation; President of Spain’s United Nations Association; and activist on women’s issues since 1975.
7. Kurt Biedenkopf, Germany Minister-President of Saxony since 1990; member of the Federal Parliament; Secretary General of the Christian Democratic Union of Germany.
8. Allan Boesak, South Africa Minister for Economic Affairs for the Western Cape Region; Director of the Foundation for Peace and Justice; Chairman of the African National Congress (ANC); President of the World Alliance of Reformed Churches and a Patron of the United Democratic Front.
9. Manuel Camacho Solis, Mexico Former Minister of Foreign Affairs and Mayor of Mexico City; Mexico’s Secretary of Urban Development and Ecology.
10. Bernard Chidzero, Zimbabwe Minister of Finance; Deputy Secretary-General of UNCTAD; Chairman of the Development Committee of the World Bank and the IMF; and member of the World Commission on Environment and Development.
11. Barber Conable, a former United States President of the World Bank, is mentioned alongside his roles as Chairman of the Committee on US-China Relations and Senior Advisor to the Global Environment Facility.
12. Jacques Delors, President of the European Commission since 1985, is noted for his positions as Minister for Economics, Finance and Budget, and Mayor of Clichy.
13. Jiri Dienstbier, Chairman of the Free Democrats Party in the Czech Republic, also served as Deputy Prime Minister of Foreign Affairs.
14. Enrique Iglesias, President of the Inter-American Development Bank since 1988, held various positions including Minister of External Relations and Executive Secretary of the UN Economic Commission for Latin America.
15. Frank Judd, a member of the House of Lords in the United Kingdom, served as Under-Secretary of State for Defence, Minister for Overseas Development, and Director of Oxfam.
16. Hongkoo Lee, Deputy Prime Minister of the Republic of Korea, held positions as Minister of National Unification, Ambassador to the United Kingdom, and Professor of Political Science at Seoul National University.
17. Wangari Maathai, founder of the Green Belt Movement in Kenya, also served as Chair of the National Council of Women of Kenya and spokesperson for non-government organizations at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio.
18. Sadako Ogata, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees since 1991, held positions as Director of the International Relations Institute and Chairman of the Executive Board of UNICEF.
19. Olara Otunnu, President of the International Peace Academy in New York, served as Foreign Minister of Uganda and Chaired the UN Commission on Human Rights.
20. I.G. Patel, Chairman of the Aga Khan Rural Support Programme, held various positions including Governor of the Reserve Bank of India, Chief Economic Adviser to the Indian Government, and Deputy Administrator of the United Nations Development Program.
21. Celina Vargas do Amaral Peixoto, Director of the Getulio Vargas Foundation, also served as Director-General of the Brazilian National Archives and Director of the Centre of Research and Documentation on Brazilian History.
22. Jan Pronk, Minister for Development Co-operation in the Netherlands, held positions as Vice Chairman of the Labor Party, Member of Parliament, and Deputy Secretary-General of UNCTAD.
23. Qian Jiadong, Deputy Director-General of the China Centre for International Studies, served as Ambassador and Permanent Representative in Geneva to the United Nations and Ambassador for Disarmament Affairs.
24. Marie-Angelique Savane, Director of the Africa Division of the UN Population Fund, held positions as Director of the UNFPA in Dakar, Advisor to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, and President of the Association of African Women for Research and Development.
25. Adele Simmons, President of the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, served as a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, the UN High Level Advisory Board on Sustainable Development, and President Carter’s Commission on World Hunger.
26. Maurice Strong is a prominent figure from Canada, holding multiple positions including Chairman and CEO of Ontario Hydro, Chairman of the Earth Council, and Secretary-General of Earth Summits I and II. He is also a member of the World Commission on Environment and Development, and his work is featured in the November/December 1995 issue of Ecologic.
27. Brian Urquhart, from the United Kingdom, is a Scholar-in-Residence at the Ford Foundation’s International Affairs Program and has served as the United Nations Under-Secretary-General for Special Political Affairs from 1972 to 1986. Urquhart is also a member of the Independent Commission on Disarmament and Security Issues.
28. Yuli Vorontsov, from Russia, has held various diplomatic positions including Ambassador to the United States, Ambassador to the United Nations, and Advisor to President Boris Yeltsin on Foreign Affairs. Vorontsov has also served as Ambassador to Afghanistan, France and India.
The Reasoning for Global Governance
The Commission believed that world events, advances in technology and global awareness of environmental catastrophe create a climate in which the people of the world would recognise the need for global governance.
According to the report, global governance “does not imply world government or world federalism,” but rather a new system of governance that employs a variety of methods, without giving the governed an opportunity to vote on the outcome.
The foundation for global governance is based on the belief that the world is ready to accept a “global civic ethic” based on core values such as respect for life, liberty, justice and equity, and that governance should be underpinned by democracy and the rule of enforceable law.
However, the report’s definition of “respect for life” is not limited to human life, but rather means equal respect for all life, consistent with the biocentric view that all life has equal intrinsic value.
[We have previously published articles to explain that “equity” is not the same as “equality.” In fact, the two concepts are fundamentally different. See HERE and HERE.]
Core Values and Principles
The Commission’s proposals were based on a set of core values that prioritise human security, environmental protection and global governance. These core values have been emerging in UN documents since the late 1980s and have dominated international conferences, agreements and treaties since 1992, including Agenda 21 adopted in Rio de Janeiro.
The Commission on Global Governance emphasised the importance of extending respect for life to all living beings, not just humans, and noted that the impulse to possess territory is a powerful one that must be overcome.
It also highlighted the need to balance national sovereignty with international responsibility, stating that although states are sovereign, they are not free to do whatever they want and that global rules of custom constrain their freedom.
Maurice Strong, a member of the Commission, suggests that sovereignty cannot be exercised unilaterally by individual nation-states and that it will yield to the imperatives of global environmental cooperation.
The Commission proposed sweeping changes to the UN based on the core value of “justice and equity,” which aims to reduce disparities and bring about a more balanced distribution of opportunities around the world.
It also emphasised the importance of “mutual respect,” defined as “tolerance,” and noted that individual achievement and personal responsibility may be counter to this value.
The UN’s World Core Curriculum, authored by former Assistant Secretary-General of the United Nations Robert Muller, aims to promote a global approach to education and encourage students to become “true planetary citizens.”
The Commission’s proposals also institutionalised the value of “caring,” which aims to encourage cooperation to help those in need and defines “integrity” as the adoption and practice of core values and the absence of corruption. It believed that as the world adopts these core values, a “global ethic” will emerge, which will embody a set of common rights and responsibilities and provide a framework for effective global governance.
A Global Ethic and Human Security
The proposed global ethic would bestow upon all people certain rights, including a secure life, an opportunity to earn a fair living and equal access to the global commons.
The Commission noted that the effectiveness of this global ethic will depend on the ability of people and governments to transcend narrow self-interests and agree on a set of common rights and responsibilities.
The Commission on Global Governance emphasised that the right to a “secure life” encompasses not only freedom from war but also protection from chronic threats such as hunger, disease and repression, as well as sudden disruptions in daily life.
Human security was considered a goal as important as state security, marking a significant expansion of the United Nations’ responsibilities, which would now include the security of individuals within member states.
The Commission also highlighted the importance of environmental security, emphasising the need to control human activities that harm the planet’s life support systems and applying the “precautionary principle” to mitigate these risks.
Economic Security and Global Governance
The right to earn a “fair living” has far-reaching implications, including the need for fair distribution of natural resources, elimination of extreme income disparities, and the creation of job opportunities for all people.
The Commission proposed the establishment of an Economic Security Council to oversee global economic governance and ensure that all people have the opportunity to earn a fair living.
The Trusteeship Council would be given the mandate to exercise trusteeship over the global commons, including the administration of environmental treaties and the levying of user fees, taxes and royalties for permits to use the global commons.
The global commons are defined as the atmosphere, outer space, the oceans and related environment and life-support systems that contribute to the support of human life.
Restructuring the UN System and UN Army
The Commission’s recommendations for achieving global governance involved enforcing core values through a global bureaucracy, which would be established through a revitalised and restructured United Nations system.
The UN Security Council, the supreme organ of the United Nations system, would be reformed to have 23 members, with the permanent members’ veto power phased out and the remaining members serving as “standing members” until a full review of member status can be conducted.
New principles for the Security Council’s actions would be established, including the right to a secure existence for all people, the prevention of conflict and war and the elimination of conditions that generate security threats.
The Security Council would be empowered to intervene in the affairs of sovereign states when the security of individuals is in jeopardy, including military intervention as a last resort, and would be authorised to raise a standing army, known as the United Nations Volunteer Force.
The United Nations Volunteer Force would be a small, highly trained, well-equipped force of 10,000 troops, available for rapid deployment anywhere in the world, under the exclusive authority of the UN Security Council and the day-to-day command of the UN Secretary-General.
The Trusteeship Council, an original principal organ of the United Nations system, would be reconstituted to have authority over the global commons, with a fixed number of members, including qualified members from “civil society,” such as accredited NGOs.
The Commission proposed a significant shift in the UN system, giving unelected, self-appointed environmental activists a position of governmental authority on the governing board of the agency controlling the use of the atmosphere, outer space, the oceans and biodiversity.
The Economic and Social Council (“ECOSOC”) would be retired, and its agencies and programmes would be shifted to the Trusteeship Council, which would ultimately be governed by a special body of environmental activists chosen from accredited NGOs appointed by delegates to the General Assembly.
The United Nations Environment Programme (“UNEP”), along with all environmental treaties under its jurisdiction, would be governed by this special body, and the environmental work programme of the entire UN system would be authorised and coordinated by it.
Enforcement would come from an upgraded Security Council and the new Economic Security Council (“ESC”), described as an “Apex Body,” that would have the standing concerning international economic matters that the Security Council has in peace and security matters.
The ESC would be a deliberative, policy body that works by consensus without veto power by any member, and its responsibilities would include continuously assessing the overall state of the world economy, providing a long-term strategic policy framework to promote sustainable development and securing consistency between the policy goals of international economic institutions.
The ESC would also study proposals for financing public goods by international revenue raising, address long-term threats to security and promote sustainable development, with a focus on issues such as shared ecological crises, economic instability, rising unemployment, mass poverty and environmental sustainability.
The Commission recommended that the ESC have no more than 23 members, be headed by a new Deputy Secretary-General for Economic Co-operation and Development, and use Purchase Power Parity (“PPP”) to measure the gross domestic product (“GDP”) of all member nations.
The ESC would have authority over telecommunications and multimedia, and businesses that use the airwaves and satellites would be subject to its policies, to provide a measure of global public service broadcasting not linked to commercial interests.
The World Trade Organisation (“WTO”) and the International Labour Organisation (“ILO”) would be brought under the authority of the new ESC, which would aim to promote open and stable trade based on multilaterally agreed rules to raise the living standards of the poor and achieve environmental sustainability.
Global Governance of Trade, Development and Migration
The Commission on Global Governance emphasised the need for a system of global governance to oversee the global information society through a common regulatory approach, with the World Trade Organisation (“WTO”) giving preferential treatment to poor countries in license allocations and creating rules to counter national monopolies.
The Economic Security Council (“ESC”) is expected to address various global issues, including tariffs and quotas, technical and product standards, social provision and labour markets, competition policy, environmental control, investment incentives, corporate taxation and intellectual property law.
The ESC aims to centralise and consolidate policymaking for world trade, the international monetary system and world development, with a broad consensus on elements such as environmental sustainability, financial stability and a strong social dimension to policy.
To deal with third-world debt, the Commission recommended establishing a system similar to corporate bankruptcy, where a state’s affairs are managed by the international community, allowing for a fresh start.
The ESC is expected to facilitate technology transfer, crucial for development in developing countries, and establish immigration policies to address the inconsistency in government treatment of migration.
Environmental policies will be under the authority of the Trusteeship Council, with implementation and enforcement coordinated through UN organisations and non-governmental organisations (“NGOs”) such as the World Conservation Union (“IUCN”), the World Resources Institute (“WRI)” and the World Wide Fund for Nature (“WWF”).
The Role of NGOs
The Commission on Sustainable Development (“CSD”), created as a result of the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, would serve as the focal point for coherence and coordination of UN programmes, providing political leadership in implementing Agenda 21 and achieving sustainable development.
The Commission recognised the importance of NGOs and institutions as partners with government and businesses in achieving economic progress and sustainable development, citing the contributions of organisations such as the IUCN, WRI, and WWF.
The Commission emphasised the importance of involving civil society in global governance, leading to more people-focused and productive programmes and projects. To achieve this, the Commission proposed the creation of two new bodies: the Assembly of the People and the Forum of Civil Society, which would provide a platform for representatives of NGOs to participate in global governance.
The Assembly of the People would consist of representatives elected by national legislatures, with the possibility of direct election by the people in the future.
The Forum of Civil Society would comprise 300-600 representatives of accredited NGOs, meeting annually before the UN General Assembly to provide considered views on global governance.
The Commission recognised the essential role of NGOs in global governance, which is a demonstrated fact of life, and sought to institutionalise their participation through legal status.
The idea of NGO participation in global governance dates back to the founding of the UN, with Julius Huxley playing a key role in establishing the International Union for Conservation of Nature (“IUCN”) in 1948.
The IUCN has been instrumental in promoting NGO participation in global governance, with 980 accredited NGOs as of 1994, and has created influential organisations such as the WWF and the WRI.
These NGOs have been involved in shaping major environmental documents and have a significant presence in global and regional conferences, including the UN Conference on Environment and Development (“UNCED”).
The Commission noted that there are 28,900 known international NGOs, many of which are directly involved in advancing the agenda of global governance, and have significant resources and national constituencies.
The participation of NGOs in global governance is not limited to international conferences but is also being applied to domestic policy, with national NGOs playing a key role in shaping the domestic agenda on global issues.
The structure of “civil society” participation in global governance is revealed in various documents from UN organisations, the IUCN, WWF and the WRI, often described as “Public-Private Partnerships.”
These partnerships involve the creation of “boards” or “councils” representing the interests of all “stakeholders,” but are often dominated by well-prepared NGOs.
At the local level in the USA, NGOs are frequently full-time professionals, funded through the Environmental Grantmakers Association or the federal government, and coordinate with regional and national NGOs.
The NGOs that set the US national agenda are often the same ones accredited to the UN or members of the IUCN and ultimately aim to establish a “Bioregional Council” with authority over local land and resource use decisions.
The Commission recommended the creation of a “Right of Petition” available to international civil society, which would allow NGOs to petition the UN directly through a Council for Petitions.
This Council would be a high-level panel of five to seven persons, independent of governments, appointed by the Secretary-General with approval of the General Assembly, and would make recommendations to the Secretary-General, the Security Council and the General Assembly.
Although this mechanism had not been formally incorporated into the UN system in 1996, it was being used, as seen in the example of the Greater Yellowstone Coalition petitioning the World Heritage Committee of UNESCO to intervene in a private company’s plans to mine gold near Yellowstone Park.
International Law and Global Governance
The Commission aimed to remedy the historical limitations of international law by developing and drafting proposed international law through the UN International Law Commission and the IUCN’s Environmental Law Centre.
The Commission recommended that treaties and agreements include binding adjudication by the World Court and that all nations accept compulsory jurisdiction of the World Court, with the WTO being a step in this direction.
Even in 1996, the WTO had a system where members agreed to accept WTO decisions and not seek bilateral resolution of disputes, ensuring compliance with global rules.
Also by 1996, the International Law Commission (“ILC”) had developed statutes for a new International Criminal Court, which would have an independent prosecutor to investigate alleged crimes, acting independently without instructions from governments or other sources.
The Commission recognised that implementing international standards could face opposition from internal political processes within nation-states and populist action, citing the example of the Biodiversity Treaty that was not ratified by the US Senate due to grassroots opposition.
The Commission noted that accredited NGOs and their affiliates are seen as “expanding democracy” through civil society participation, while non-accredited civil society activity is viewed as “political pressure” and “populist action.”
Financing Global Governance Through Global Taxation Schemes
The Commission proposed a fresh look at globally redistributive tax principles to finance global governance, suggesting a more sustainable approach to managing the global commons, particularly environmental issues.
The UN’s annual expenditures in 1996 were around $11 billion, with the cost of implementing Agenda 21 estimated at $600 billion per year, which in a Globalist’s mind highlights the need for a more robust financing system.
The Commission proposed establishing practical, small-scale schemes of global financing to support specific UN operations while avoiding giving the UN direct taxing power and instead relying on member nations’ assessments and voluntary contributions.
The Commission noted that the United States had often withheld payment to influence UN policy and that the UN has no power to enforce payment of assessments or voluntary contributions, constraining the exercise of the General Assembly’s collective authority.
The Commission on Global Governance suggested that user charges, levies and taxes should be agreed upon globally and implemented through a treaty or convention to generate revenue for the United Nations. The Law of the Seas treaty served as an example, authorising a UN organisation to charge application fees and royalties to companies mining the sea bed, despite the United States not having ratified the treaty.
The Commission proposed various global revenue-raising schemes, including charging for the use of common global resources, corporate taxation of multinational companies and a tax on international monetary exchange, as suggested by Nobel Prize winner James Tobin.
The Commission says “It would be appropriate to charge for the use of some common global resources. Another idea would be for corporate taxation of multinational companies.”
The favoured scheme was first advanced by Nobel Prize winner, James Tobin. He has proposed a tax on international monetary exchange which would yield an estimated $1.5 trillion per year.
“Charges for use of the global commons have a broad appeal on grounds of conservation and economic efficiency as well as for political and revenue reasons.”
The Commission supports a $2 per barrel tax on oil, which automatically escalates to $10 per barrel in 10 years.
“A carbon tax introduced across a large number of countries or a system of traded permits for carbon emissions would yield very large revenues indeed.”
As well as charging for the use of the global commons, and taxation on multinational companies, monetary exchange, oil and carbon, other recommended global revenue sources included a surcharge on airline tickets, charges for ocean maritime transport, user fees for ocean fishing and special fees for activities in Antarctica and geostationary satellites.
The Commission supported the concept of global taxation and urged the evolution of a consensus to realise this concept.
Implementation and the Future of Global Governance
By 1996, many of the Commission’s recommendations had already been incorporated into treaties, agreements and proposals, with some already implemented, and the General Assembly was scheduled to hold a World Conference on Governance in 1998.
The Commission called for preparatory work to develop documents on global governance, which will be adopted at the 1998 Conference and ratified for implementation by the year 2000.
Only accredited NGOs would be allowed to participate in the preparatory work, and only delegates appointed by the President of the United States would be able to cast votes on issues affecting Americans. The same would apply to all countries.
The NGO machinery of global governance is active in America, promoting the global governance agenda through various means, including agitation, lobbying and discrediting dissenting voices.
By 1996, the US national media was already portraying dissenting voices as right-wing-extremist, militia-supporting fanatics, leaving many American citizens unaware of the progress of the global governance agenda.
The United States is the only remaining power strong enough to influence the UN, and 1996 may be the last opportunity to avoid or influence the shape of global governance, Lamb said.
Lamb added that the Commission on Global Governance’s recommendations, if implemented, would lead to a dramatic transformation of society, creating a global neighbourhood managed by a worldwide bureaucracy under the authority of a small group of appointed individuals. This bureaucracy would be policed by thousands of individuals paid by accredited NGOs, certified to support a specific belief system that many people find unacceptable.
This article from The People’s Voice is ‘fact checked’ internet wide which would usually tell us it’s likely true. Basically they’ve (re) set their sights on the over 70s with view to expunging them. It is of course no secret that those whose lip service is sustainable development, long for the elimination of we ‘useless eaters’. ‘What to do with us’ asks Schwab’s adviser, Yuval Noah Harari. Drugs and pc games he reckons.
Note, the overpopulation myth is required to keep this evil agenda going of course. It really is a myth and most folk have bought into it unfortunately.
“In The Affordable Care ACT in the U.S.A., it says that every 5 years, the elderly will get “end of life counseling.” I think this is when they are convinced that their life is not worth living, they are a burden, and they may as well be gone. It is required, so nobody can escape it.”
Survivors speak of that horrendous day, those who barely escaped with their lives. Who can forget that NZ’s official rescuers decided not to go?
Civil Defense had morphed into NEMA just 10 days prior. You can read about that at this link. We were on the ‘eve’ literally of many changes that would come with the ensuing 4 year event that has changed lives forever. It has also changed life as we knew it.
60 Minutes Australia also report on the aftermath for the surviving victims:
There are many more videos on YT that tell the stories of respective survivors.
Image Credit: By GNS Science (formerly Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences Ltd.) – GeoNet: Whakatane, archived from the original on 9 December 2019, CC BY 3.0 nz, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=84750271
Since the arrival of the gene-therapy injections, New Zealand has pushed to have 90% of its population receive two injections. In December, the country successfully reached its milestone. To achieve its 90% “vaccination” goal, Dr. Monchy explained that every citizen who received the injection was bribed with a voucher of 20 NZD (12 euros). At the same time, doctors have been given 359 NZD (216 euros) per vaccine.
You must be logged in to post a comment.