As per the title, if you’re new to this ongoing reality or still think it’s conspiracy, Geoengineering Watch provides some answers to your questions.
Here’s THE LINK
All posts by Pam Vernon
NZ’s Silent Forests – Where have all the Birds Gone? (Send us your stories)
I’m posting out our page on the disappearing bird populations. If you have noticed the same in your area do send us details via the contact page. We can raise awareness by adding them. You can retain anonymity on request. EWNZ
Here is a link to the page:
Image credit: envirowatchnz ‘Poisoning the Birds’
In 2002 in NZ a Landcare scientist estimated the likely death toll from an Otago 1080 drop to be around 10,000 birds
And DoC claims 1080 targets non native species?
Read a quote from DoC’s own website:
1080 targets predators
New Zealand is unusual, because apart from bats, there are no native land mammals. This means we can control introduced mammalian predators without negatively impacting populations of native species.
1080 targets introduced predators such as rats and possums. Stoats are also controlled through scavenging of poisoned rat carcasses. SOURCE
Would they have us believe that of these 10K deaths, none were natives? Other drops indicate otherwise (read at the link below).
What’s Driving New Zealand’s Health Crisis?
From Guy Hatchard
Our last two articles ‘It’s not unusual‘ and ‘We need a real open national debate on healthcare and biotechnology‘ discuss the unfolding health crisis in New Zealand which is straining our health service to its limits and beyond. Accompanying this, excess death rates remain 5% above the long term pre-pandemic rate. This article examines results of multiple recently published studies which indicate that COVID-19 vaccination is increasing sickness incidence across multiple disease types and driving the health crisis.
READ AT THE LINK
Image by pixabay.com
5G was tested in Russia on humans & animals with disturbing results: what you are not being told – Dr Barrie Trower & Mark Steele discuss
A timely repost of this one that has seen many thousands of shares over the years since originally posted. Barrie Trower is ex military. He knows what he is talking about.
“The USSR experimented on humans and animals with 5G in 1977, 1972 and 1997. A proper military experiment. The humans suffered metabolic problems, ie everything started to fall apart, blood problems, immune system dysfunction, severe medical and neurological problems. With animals, since they were able to dissect them, they found the bone marrow was suffering (the marrow produces the immune system), respiration damaged, enzyme activity damaged, nuclear dna damaged, and the total exposure time was only 15 hours over 60 days. Roughly 15 minutes a day and the levels were not high. Not as high as you are going to get in a classroom.” …. Dr Barrie Trower
READ MORE AT THE LINK
Safe & Effective: Compare the possible side effects listed by the NZ Govt with those listed by the FDA
This important data was heavily censored at the roll out, preventing you from making a truly informed decision. It’s not medical advice, it’s just putting out there for you, the respective and differing medical points of view that we have been served up EWNZ
Here are those supplied by the authorities in NZ:
The most common reported reactions are:
- pain or swelling at the injection site
- feeling tired or fatigued
- headache
- muscle aches
- chills
- joint pain
- fever
- redness at the injection site
- nausea.
Uncommon side effects
In the clinical trials, uncommon side effects were reported in every 1 in 100 to 1 in 1,000 people. These include:
- enlarged lymph nodes
- feeling unwell
- pain in limb
- insomnia
- itching at injection site
KNOWN POSSIBLE SIDE EFFECTS FROM THE COVID-19 EXPERIMENTAL mRNA INJECTION LISTED BY THE FDA
This is a draft list compiled by the FDA – the Food and Drug Administration in the US (link below):
Guillain-Barre syndrome, Acute disseminated encephalomyelitis, Transverse myelitis,
Encephalitis, Myelitis, Encephalomyelitis, Meningoencephalitis, Meningitis, Encephalopathy,
Convulsions, Seizures, Stroke, Narcolepsy, Cataplexy, Anaphylaxis, Acute myocardial infarction (heart attack), Myocarditis, Pericarditis, Autoimmune disease, Death, Pregnancy, Birth outcomes,
Other acute demyelinating diseases, Non anaphylactic allergy reactions, Thromocytopenia,
Disseminated intravascular coagulation, Venous thromboembolism, Arthritis, Arthralgia, Joint pain,
Kawasaki disease, Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children, Vaccine enhanced disease.
https://www.fda.gov/media/143557/download (see page 17)
You are advised that you aren’t necessarily going to get all of those or even any of them if you have the treatment. But those are the possible side effects that the FDA has listed. They’re all unpleasant, most of them very serious and you can’t get more serious than death.
Remember only 1% on average are reporting adverse events.
Be sure also to read this article:
Pro-Vax Doctor Blows Whistle, Warns Public About ‘Major Cover Up’ of ‘Devastating Side Effects’
For related health articles go to https://truthwatchnz.is/
Also, https://nzdsos.com/
ALSO RELATED:
Safe & Effective linked to Turbo Cancer Explosion in Massive South Korea Study
Image by Free-Photos from Pixabay
1080 – “There was a deathly silence … no birds … I went into the bush with 3 dogs that day & came out with none”
A New Zealander whose name I have on record, relates a story of his lucky escape from 1080 poisoning during the 1980s. He reflects on how he could have gone the same way as his three dogs all tragically poisoned by 1080 pellets …. one he had to shoot to put out of its misery.
“During the 1980s I was living on a ten acre block bordering native forest and Lake Taupo above the cliffs adjacent to the Waihi waterfall. They put a sign up saying 1080 had been dropped but at that time there were no media explanations about how 1080 worked and they said it was for rats and possums only. I’d never really heard about 1080. I came across a deer that looked like it had just died. It was in prime condition and I was wondering if 1080 worked like cyanide in which case I was going to take some meat home for the table. While I was making up my mind my dog started running around in circles and the blood vessels in his eyes started exploding. There was a deathly silence. No birds nothing. I looked at the deer and it’s eyes were the same as my dog. My dog saved my whole family. That day is emblazoned in my mind and I will never forget it as long as I live. I thought that I had stumbled into hell. I went into the bush with three dogs that day and came out with none. I just didn’t see what happened to the other two.
The emotional anguish I felt that day is right up there with the worst experiences of my unsheltered life. It was decades later that I educated myself totally about 1080 and realized how lucky I was that I never chopped some meat off that deer. We were on rainwater from our roof and our house was meters from the bush edge but they only dropped on the other side of the state highway where there were no buildings.
DOC can say what it likes.
I don’t believe them because I have seen the truth.”
Note: Peter if you see this please get in touch
Visit our page titled ‘NZ’s Silent Forests – Where Have All the Birds Gone?’ for further observations on topic. If you have noticed similar in your neck of the woods, do let us know. We can highlight that on the page. Use the contact page. EWNZ
RELATED:
In 1957 a 1080-poisoned horse was fed to local dogs leaving 250 of them dead
Over 65 dogs are killed in New Zealand each year by 1080 poison
A dog was euthanized in 2018 after suspected 1080 poisoning in Ak’s Hunua Ranges
Photo credit: Clyde Graf
In 2023 the UN Was Calling For The Decriminalization Of Pedophilia, Underage Sex, And Trafficking (seriously)
From THE WINE PRESS @ substack
I saw/read the beginnings of this away back in around 2012 or thereabouts. Little news items were appearing … to gradually warm you to the acceptance of their hideous proposals. MAPs they call themselves…. Minor Attracted Persons. That’s how it works. Now it’s all out there. Folk should have been outraged but of course 2023 was midstream of the fake pandemic. Same MO as introducing Bills to Parliament right before Christmas when nobody has time or energy to begin making submissions. It is all diabolically clever….and clearly reveals the character and the intent of those who are now obviously intent on ruling over you …+ EWNZ
“With respect to the enforcement of criminal law, any prescribed minimum age of consent to sex must be applied in a non-discriminatory manner.”
The following report was first published on April 17th, 2023, on winepressnews.com.
Last month the United Nations (UN) discreetly published a report that calls for nations to decriminalize sexual relations between adults and minors, opening Pandora’s Box for the normalization of things like pedophilia and pederasty, along with a variety of other sexual-related issues.
Published on March 8th, 2023, UNAIDS – a subdivision within the UN designed to end AIDS disease by 2030, one of the group’s sustainability development goals by 2030 – in collaboration with the International Committee of Jurists (ICJ) and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR); released a document that introduces “a new set of expert jurist legal principles to guide the application of international human rights law to criminal law,” to wit, a new “approach to laws criminalizing conduct in relation to sex, drug use, HIV, sexual and reproductive health, homelessness and poverty.”
Other sponsors include people such as Catalina Botero, Director of the UNESCO Chair of Freedom of Expression; and Fanny Gomez-Lugo, J.D., LL.M., Adjunct Professor of Law at the Jesuit Georgetown University Law Center in the United States, amongst over two dozen more endorsees.
UNAIDS condemns countries that criminalize “sex work” (prostitution and pornography), and seeks to impose new laws that protest “sexual and reproductive health and rights, consensual sexual activity, gender identity, gender expression,” among other things.
UNAIDS wrote in their press release:
In the world of HIV, the abuse and misuse of criminal laws not only affects the right to health, but a multitude of rights including: to be free from discrimination, to housing, security of the person, movement, family, privacy and bodily autonomy, and in extreme cases the very right to life. In countries where sex work is criminalized, for example, sex workers are seven times more likely to be living with HIV than where it is partially legalized.
To be criminalized can also mean being deprived of the protection of the law and law enforcement. And yet, criminalized communities, particularly women, are often more likely to need the very protection they are denied.
UNAIDS Deputy Executive Director for the Policy, Advocacy and Knowledge Branch, Christine Stegling said in a statement:
“I welcome the fact that these principles are being launched on International Women’s Day (IWD), in recognition of the detrimental effects criminal law can, and too often does have on women in all their diversity.
“We will not end AIDS as a public health threat as long as these pernicious laws remain. These principles will be of great use to us and our partners in our endeavors.”
Volker Türk, High Commissioner for Human Rights, added:
“Today is an opportunity for all of us to think about power and male dominated systems.
“I am glad that you have done this work, we need to use it and we need to use it also in a much more political context when it comes precisely to counter these power dynamics.
“Frankly we need to ask these questions and make sure that they are part and parcel going forward as to what human rights means.”
But the United Nations wants to do more than just decriminalize typical sex work, but take things a step further and decriminalize and destigmatize grown adults having sexual relations with a minor, as laid-out in their 32-page document.
For starters, on page 23 under “Principle 11,” the UN says nations need to adopt the following:
No one under the age of 18 may be held criminally liable for any conduct that does not constitute a criminal offence if committed by a person who is 18 or older.
Under “Principle 14,” the UN believes that an individual be not charged for expressing their “sexual and reproductive health,” unless there is a lack of informed consent.
No one may be held criminally liable for providing assistance to another to enable them to exercise their rights to sexual and reproductive health, unless there is coercion, force, or lack of free and informed decision-making in relation to the exercise of such rights.
Parents, guardians, carers, or other persons who enable or assist children or people in their care, including persons with disabilities, to exercise their sexual and reproductive rights, including by procuring sexual and reproductive health services, goods or information, may not be held criminally liable, unless they have engaged in coercion, force, fraud, or there was a lack of free and informed decision-making on the part of the child or person for whom they were caring.
Principle 16, however, is more direct and clearly advises that sexual relations between adults and minors should not be frowned upon. The UN prescribes:
Consensual sexual conduct, irrespective of the type of sexual activity, the sex/ gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression of the people involved or their marital status, may not be criminalized in any circumstances. Consensual same-sex, as well as consensual different-sex sexual relations, or consensual sexual relations with or between trans, non-binary and other genderdiverse people, or outside marriage – whether pre-marital or extramarital – may, therefore, never be criminalized.
With respect to the enforcement of criminal law, any prescribed minimum age of consent to sex must be applied in a non-discriminatory manner. Enforcement may not be linked to the sex/gender of participants or age of consent to marriage.
Moreover, sexual conduct involving persons below the domestically prescribed minimum age of consent to sex may be consensual in fact, if not in law. In this context, the enforcement of criminal law should reflect the rights and capacity of persons under 18 years of age to make decisions about engaging in consensual sexual conduct and their right to be heard in matters concerning them.
Pursuant to their evolving capacities and progressive autonomy, persons under 18 years of age should participate in decisions affecting them, with due regard to their age, maturity and best interests, and with specific attention to non-discrimination guarantees.
Proceeding this, Principle 17 also calls for the decriminalize of any and all sex work, “for money, goods or services and communication with another about, advertising an offer for, or sharing premises with another for the purpose of exchanging sexual services between consenting adults for money, goods or services, whether in a public or private place, may not be criminalized, absent coercion, force, abuse of authority or fraud” – which, based on the context and calls for decriminalization of pederasty and pedophilia, could open the door for broader legalization and acceptance of human and child trafficking, in the de-facto sense, if the previous principle 16 and others are to be upheld.
Other globalist groups have been working towards similar agendas in decriminalizing sex work and the age of participants.
Since 2017 the International Planned Parenthood Federation has been seeking to allow commercial sex work for children aged as young as 10, calling age groups “arbitrary.” The IPPF wrote in a document:
The ‘Key Learnings’ section provides guidance on the key knowledge, attitudes and skills expected for individuals under the age of 10, 10-18 years old, and 18-24+.
The age division is arbitrary, as young people’s sexuality, sexual debut, concerns and needs develop in different ways around the globe. However, in general we can say that children’s interests, needs and capacities will change as they start going through puberty around the age of 10. Also, young people’s engagement in decision-making processes and participation in society will transform once they reach the legal age of consent.
An effective CSE programme needs to respond to these changes by adapting the content and learning formats. Member Associations are encouraged to use existing evidence to assess the best age parameters for their local context, ensuring that the evolving capacities of individuals are considered in the delivery of their CSE programmes. The content delivered to specific age groups should not be influenced by personal views on what is acceptable.
Furthermore, in a breakdown concerning the sexual rights of children aged 10 and younger, the IPPF writes: “Sexual activity may be part of different types of relationships, including dating, marriage or commercial sex work, among others;” and, similarly worded to the UN’s recent document, the IPPF added: “Some relationships may involve sexual activity. Sexual activity should always be mediated by consent. This means that each individual agrees, free from any pressure, to engage in intimate relationships.”
The UN and other parties proscribe identical protections for abortions and women’s autonomy, drug dealers and possessors in many contexts, and homeless people trying to stay alive by camping out and congregating in the streets.
All of these principles and more are designed to, they say, combat governments and people that promote and believe, “for example, those proscribing: apostasy; blasphemy; truancy; defamation; libel; propaganda; public nuisance; loitering; vagrancy; immorality; public indecency; same-sex marriage; the promotion of homosexuality; obscenity and sexual speech; certain kinds of pornography; non-exploitative surrogacy; certain harmful practices; migration-related infractions; the provision of humanitarian assistance; acts of solidarity; and certain types of civil disobedience,” the UN writes.
Recently a new show has begun airing on mainstream British television that features grown adults and transgenders that have undergone surgery, strip naked and flash their bodies in front of children and teenagers, in a claim to teach them more about the body and to be comfortable with it and with others. A show echoing this was also released in The Netherlands just a few weeks prior, reported by The WinePress.
RELATED:
Ted Cruz Says ‘Let’s Stop Attacking Pedophiles!’
Spanish Minister Of Equality Says Children Have The Right To Have Sex With Adults
Spain Legalizes Bestiality But Imposes Jailtime For Injuring A Rat And Other ‘Vertebrate Animals’
Image by Mary_R_Smith from Pixabay
Raising NZ’s GST? … It’s high time politicians pulled in THEIR belts
“It’s quick…but it’s much harder on low-income people”… says a tax expert … really?
It’s not rocket science! With another round of taxing the poor down under, the guinea pig nation is set for another milking. Milking the poor that is. GST should never have been on food in the first place.
These pariahs are proposing a 32% rise! And blaming of course, the ageing population. They forget of course, how it is they got here. “Treasury said the country’s policies were not sustainable for the long term.” (There’s that word again … ‘sustainable’). Well, I’ll tell you what’s not sustainable. Politician’s perks! . And their salaries could do with downsizing as well. They now have their own private (no public allowed) pub at Parliament, all built on tax payer funding. It’s called Pint of Order no less. And don’t be thinking you’ll ever find out how much you paid for that.
Luxon is claiming a $54,000 accommodation allowance whilst living in his mortgage free apartment in Wellington! Along with some MPs claiming their $36,400 as well. Luxon is collecting a $471,049 salary!
The Post reports that “At least 20 MPs are claiming up to $45,000 a year allowance to stay in their own Wellington homes, a perk that sees the taxpayer help politicians pay off their mortgages.”
Did you know by the way, that 112,496 people are homeless in NZ? The NZ Herald reported in 2024 that NZ is among the world’s worst developed countries for homelessness.
It’s time that politicians pulled in their belts. Instead of exhorting the lower-income folk to.
RELATED LINKS:
GST at 32 percent, pension age of 72 among Treasury solutions to financial crunch
‘Harder on low-income people.’ Tax expert discusses GST changes
More than 20 MPs rent back their own homes at the taxpayer’s expense
Sustainable practices?
I was sitting outside in NZ’s Northland sunshine, December 2024. All year round, it’s the warmest district in the country and has a wealth of orange orchards. The temperature was 24 deg and set to get warmer. I was eating an orange however, that had traveled all the way to NZ from 7798 miles away. Grown in the US of A. I don’t generally buy imported oranges on principle, however someone else had brought me these. Similarly, I also had in my fridge, some Australian oranges. Those had traveled 2583 miles to get here. How big were those carbon footprints? Good luck with those calculations. Generally speaking, it would appear, according to the Davos boys, we shouldn’t be traveling too far or buying stuff that traveled a long way?
Now Northland is known for its orange orchards. It is one of the two leaders in our citrus industry. The other district is Gisborne. Twenty years ago I lived in the Eastern Bay of Plenty, which is near there, during which time we had free access to a local orchard to pick all the oranges we wanted. Why? Because the owner told us the supermarkets weren’t interested in buying them and to pick and sell them themselves was not cost effective at all. Meanwhile, just down the road the local supermarket sold fruit from, you guessed it, Australia and the US. So we would drive to town to shop, passing multiple orange orchards with beautiful ripe oranges falling on the ground and frequently going to waste.
Check out Davos and their ‘sustainable menu’. No mention of where they sourced their fruit from.
Can you see the hypocrisy? And the scam that it is?
Why are there high concentrations of Aluminum, Barium and Strontium in New Zealand’s rainwater?
Reposting some of the older material that is still relevant today, perhaps moreso in light of the global pollution we now have .. EWNZ
Here is a video by South Canterbury Skywatch (NZ). Rainwater analyses world wide, it’s been found, have high concentrations of Aluminium, Barium, Strontium and even Titanium. Alarmingly, these high concentrations are also being found in New Zealand’s rainwater. These three elements have also been found in the fallout from weather modification programs (aka chemtrails), so they are in the air we breathe. And, as is pointed out in this video ‘we were not designed to breathe these materials’. Their presence in our water is not a natural occurrence. Soil Biologist Frances Mangels tells us there should be no heavy metals in rainwater. Mangels has been investigating the cumulative effects of these metals on animal and plant life at Mt Shasta California. In this video you will hear Mangels speak. Do pause and consider:
“… we were not designed to breathe these materials …”
Aluminum has been scientifically linked with Alzheimer’s Disease. “Aluminum has been long known to be neurotoxic, with mounting evidence that chronic exposure is a factor in many neurological diseases, including dementia, autism, and Parkinson’s disease.” Dr Mercola
And Barium? “Ingesting large amounts of barium can cause changes in heart rhythm, paralysis and possibly death.”
Here is a list from StopSprayingCalifornia.com outlining all the other ingredients found present in chemtrails from independent testing:
Aluminum Oxide Particles, Arsenic, Bacilli and Molds, Barium Salts, Barium Titanates, Cadmium, Calcium, Chromium, Desiccated Human Red Blood Cells, Ethylene Dibromide, Enterobacter Cloacal, Enterobacteriaceae, Human white Blood Cells-A (restrictor enzyme used in research labs to snip and combine DNA), Lead, Mercury, Methyl Aluminum, Mold Spores, Mycoplasma, Nano-Aluminum-Coated Fiberglass, Nitrogen Trifluoride, Known as CHAFF), Nickel, Polymer Fibers, Pseudomonas Aeruginosa, Pseudomonas Florescens, Radioactive Cesium, Radio Active Thorium, Selenium, Serratia Marcscens, Sharp Titanium Shards, Silver, Streptomyces, Stronthium, Sub-Micron Particles, (Containing Live Biological Matter), Unidentified Bacteria, Uranium, Yellow Fungal Mycotoxins
If you think geoengineering aka chemtrails are a hoax, the practice of weather modification has in fact been in motion for more than 60 years and is very well documented (ClimateViewer.com). Just not covered or acknowledged by mainstream media, or our governments. It is covert, however on top of all the scientific evidence now of soil and water contamination, there are also many whistleblowers who have exposed the practice.
EnviroWatchNZ
Video Information from South Canterbury Sky Watch:
Published on Jan 4, 2016
“Once again another rain test showing contaminants of Aluminum, Barium and Strontium. These samples were taken in September and its a follow up on the samples i had tested in 2014.
You can find an article on
“NORTHLAND NEW ZEALAND CHEMTRAILS WATCH”
https://chemtrailsnorthnz.wordpress.com/
Also links to the other test article and many, many more can also be seen here.
To Listen to more from retired USDA Biologist, Francis Mangels you can find the 42minute video clip here:
https://youtu.be/9jf_nVLGDTo
…………………..2014………….……………..
https://chemtrailsnorthnz.wordpress.c…
………………….2015…………..……………
https://chemtrailsnorthnz.wordpress.c…
Websites mentioned in video:
http://globalskywatch.com/chemtrails/…
http://www.rense.com/general21/conf.htm
Audio:
Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/b…
“Echoes Of Time”
5G Warfare Weapons In Your LED Urban Street Lights (from a weapons expert)
From Mark Steele @ substack
Mark Steele, weapons expert, explains the street lighting systems and the harms they inflict. The ‘authorities’ rely on your not digging deeper into what they deploy … they rely on your ignorance and gullibility. These folk (in this case Mark’s local Council) lie with impunity as the video demonstrates.
Check out Mark’s other posts on topic at the link.
DARPA Adviser Admits Publicly That DARPA Has Officially Achieved Non-Surgical Brain Control (2020) Straight from the Horse’s Mouth
From Exposing the Darkness @ substack
Be sure to look at the related links at the source … EWNZ
Straight from the Horse’s Mouth
Dr. James Giordano, DARPA Adviser: “…This is why it becomes so important to understand the novelty and the viability of neuroscience as being leveraged as weapons”
“ Then we have the use of nano particulate agents, aerosolizable nanomaterials that can be breathe in and disrupt blood flow and neurological network activity.
That can be used as an inclose weapon, or perhaps that can be used as a more broad weapon of disruption and destruction.”
“We also have the capability to utilize nanomaterials to get electrodes into a head and to create a vast array of viable sensors and transmitters.
Utilizing these technics and technologies to create vast arrays of implantable electrodes that need not be put into the brain surgically.”
RELATED: Scientists Discover How To Willfully Manipulate Brain Chemicals For Control
Photo Credit: pixabay.com
In 2021 the WHO Released a New Panel To Help Prevent Future Pandemics By Mitigating Farms
From THE WINE PRESS @ substack
Note how they are now adding their nano tech poison to just about everything…in order no doubt to capture those who have diligently declined the said safe & effective…. EWNZ
The blueprints include necessities such as mandatory vaccination for all livestock, quarantining, and AI to track the animal’s health.
The following report was first published on July 8th, 2021, on winepressnews.com. The follow report is by Carel du Marchie Sarvaas, executive director at HealthforAnimals, a nonprofit NGO representing the global animal health industry based in Brussels, Belgium – via AgFunder News:
The Covid-19 pandemic has highlighted the clear dangers and difficulties in controlling a worldwide outbreak of an emerging disease.
But a new World Health Organisation (WHO) panel aiming to address the emergence and spread of other zoonotic diseases doesn’t have to look too far to find the best practices and models that can — and in many cases already do — prevent the next pandemic.
If governments and health authorities want to secure a healthy future and protection from the threat of zoonotic diseases, they need only look to the modern farms in countries like Canada, Australia, the US, and throughout Europe, where such outbreaks are increasingly rare.
“Bird flu is a complete rerun of the COVID script,” only now it’s your food supply, not your freedom, under siege
From mercola.com
Story at-a-glance
- Public health officials are responding to bird flu (H5N1) using strategies similar to COVID-19, including extensive PCR testing and fearmongering, leading to significant food supply disruptions and price increases
- Since 2022, over 150 million birds have been killed due to H5N1, with 41.4 million culled between December 2024 and January 2025 alone, resulting in soaring egg prices
- The USDA has spent $1.25 billion on compensation to affected farmers, while granting Zoetis a conditional license for a bird flu vaccine for chickens despite CDC stating H5N1 is low risk to humans
- Studies show chickens can develop natural immunity to H5N1, suggesting mass culling is unnecessary, while evidence indicates that depopulation efforts actually increase the risk of chicken-to-human transmission
- Health authorities are pursuing mRNA vaccine development, with HHS giving Moderna $590 million for human H5N1 shots, despite concerns about vaccine effectiveness and safety, and the risk of creating vaccine-resistant strains
You’ve noticed the news about a bird flu health crisis — sick birds, egg shortages, price hikes. The empty shelves, constant updates and confusing directives likely stir up memories of COVID. But there’s a reason why bird flu, or H5N1, feels like a repeat performance. For starters, officials have been warning about a coming bird flu pandemic for years, but every instance of fearmongering about a lethal bird flu has turned out to be false.
That’s why I wrote “The Great Bird Flu Hoax” in 2009. Now, bird flu is making headlines again as outbreaks occur in birds, other animals and even humans across the U.S. If it seems like déjà vu, you’re not imagining it; it’s deliberate. Dr. Clayton Baker, an internal medicine physician and author with the Brownstone Institute, cuts through the noise: “Bird flu is a complete rerun of the COVID script,” only now it’s your food supply, not your freedom, under siege.1
Consider bird flu a set of calculated steps — pages from a playbook you’ve seen before. Those tasked with solving these crises — public health officials — often fuel them, a tactic rooted in years of “pandemic preparedness” groundwork. But this time, your groceries are the new battlefield. Clayton explains:2
“Last time, with COVID, the pandemic-planning bioterrorists directly blackmailed us by taking away our civil rights, in order to coerce us to accept their unsafe and ineffective vaccines. This time, with bird flu, the pandemic planning bioterrorists are indirectly blackmailing us by targeting our food, in order to coerce us to accept more of their unsafe and ineffective vaccines into our food supply and those who supply it.”
Understanding Bird Flu Basics
What exactly is bird flu? H5N1 is a virus that typically affects birds such as chickens and ducks. The World Health Organization explains it’s been present in wild bird populations for decades, sometimes crossing over to farm animals or, in rare cases, humans.3 The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) reports that since 2022, more than 150 million birds have been killed due to H5N1, with 41.4 million culled between December 2024 and January 2025 alone.4,5
Authorities are testing flocks extensively, eliminating entire groups if even one bird tests positive. The ramifications extend far beyond the barnyard to your everyday routine. With tens of millions of chickens lost, eggs and poultry have become scarcer and costlier. Egg prices are expected to increase 20.3% in 20256 and reached a 45-year peak in January.7
Further, vaccines are likely to be introduced into your food supply, altering what you consume without your consent. For instance, the USDA granted a conditional license to pharmaceutical company Zoetis for its bird flu vaccine, labelled for use in chickens.8 According to Baker, the CEO of Zoetis, formerly a subsidiary of Pfizer, has “close ties to Pfizer, BlackRock, and the Gates Foundation, all well-established bad actors during the COVID era.”
Further, many aren’t aware that in 2012, scientists genetically modified the wild H5N1 virus in a lab to create a pandemic strain that could spread through the air, raising concerns about unintended releases and lab leaks, a risk that feels all too familiar in the post-COVID era.9
The COVID Playbook — Same Game, Different Field
Recall the COVID pandemic for a moment. You likely remember scientists altering a virus in a lab, its subsequent escape and the sudden restrictions that kept you on lockdown awaiting a shot. As Baker notes, COVID’s SARS-CoV-2 emerged from lab manipulation under the guise of pandemic preparedness, leaking in 2019, and bird flu is tracing a parallel path.
A 2012 report in The Guardian details similar experiments with H5N1, including how scientists manipulated the virus to become airborne and able to spread via droplets from coughs or sneezes.10 Bird flu shifts the focus from lockdowns to your food supply. Baker explains that instead of confining you, authorities are culling flocks to create food shortages that pressure you into accepting vaccines.
The approach remains consistent — craft a virus, develop an injection, then instill fear to ensure compliance. During COVID, PCR testing was rampant, even though PCR tests detect minute, non-threatening traces of the virus, leading to false positives and raising alarm unnecessarily.
Today, they’re applying the same tactic to poultry, relying on misleading PCR tests as they ramp up testing for bird flu. They’re testing not only birds but also milk and farmers relentlessly, stacking up misleading positive results to sustain the tension. Baker explains that this isn’t conspiracy theory — it’s pattern recognition:11
“To perpetuate the mass slaughter and worsen food shortages, ‘public health’ authorities are performing indiscriminate PCR testing for the virus among the animal population and farmers, knowing full well this will generate countless false positives …
Authorities are using this excessive testing along with media-generated fear-mongering and governmental abuse of power, to prolong the mass slaughter of farm animals and the food shortages. The mass slaughter of farm animals and resulting food shortages are being used to blackmail the population into mass acceptance of the vaccines in their food supply, in exchange for a return to normal life.”
Save This Article for Later – Get the PDF Now
Why This Hurts You and Your Food
Eliminating over 150 million birds doesn’t halt the H5N1 virus — it reduces your food availability. Yet, the USDA has invested $1.25 billion in indemnity and compensation payments to farmers affected by bird flu since 2022.12 This means your tax dollars are directly funding a strategy that isn’t working.
In fact, it’s making things worse. As Nicolas Hulscher, an epidemiologist with the University of Michigan School of Public Health, points out, this massive expenditure not only incentivizes farmers to comply with the mass killing of their animals but also represents a serious misuse of taxpayer money, triggering a cascade of severe downstream consequences.13
One of the most immediate consequences you’re experiencing is the skyrocketing price of eggs. This makes a basic food staple less affordable for everyone. Further, Hulscher highlights a disturbing connection between mass culling and chicken-to-human transmission of H5N1. A study published in The New England Journal of Medicine found that 100% of poultry-linked human H5N1 cases were traced back to these depopulation efforts.14
So, the very actions intended to “protect” public health are increasing the risk of human infection. Perhaps most concerning is the fact that mass culling isn’t even necessary. Hulscher cites three separate studies demonstrating that chickens can survive H5N1 infection and develop natural immunity. This natural immunity then helps to limit future spread of the virus. This evidence suggests a far more effective and less costly approach than the current mass slaughter.
Hulscher argues that the USDA’s current biosecurity strategies are clearly failing, especially given the continuous reinfection of farms by wild mallard ducks. He calls for the USDA to be transparent about their testing methods to end the unnecessary culling of healthy birds, and to allow natural immunity to develop as a more sustainable solution.
Bird Flu Shots on the Horizon
Bird flu shots are now front and center. In addition to the USDA’s conditional license for Zoetis’ bird flu vaccine for chickens, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services agreed to give Moderna $590 million to develop an mRNA vaccine for H5N1 in humans — even though the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said bird flu is a low risk to people.15
Dr. Robert Malone draws parallels to the COVID-19 pandemic response, particularly regarding the use of mRNA technology:16
“No evidence exists that any influenza vaccine will provide anything even close to sterilizing immunity (complete protection from infection, replication, and spread). In other words, what we can reliably predict is that the Moderna product that you are paying for will provide yet another leaky influenza vaccine with the added risks associated with current mRNA vaccine technology.”
Why, Malone asks, aren’t they exploring other options, like breeding poultry that are naturally resistant to H5N1? It’s a valid point, especially considering H5N1’s prevalence in wild birds — it’s not going away. He echoes Hulscher’s criticisms of mass culling, pointing out its failures: the virus continues to spread, egg prices are through the roof and there’s even an increased risk of the virus jumping from chickens to the people handling them.
And remember, all this is costing you — $1.25 billion of your tax money has been spent on this ineffective strategy. Malone warns that the USDA’s current policies, including mass culling and the upcoming use of these leaky mRNA vaccines, could make things worse.
They could lead to the evolution of vaccine-resistant strains of H5N1, which could then spread back into wild birds and even infect humans. There’s also the fact that influenza viruses, like H5N1, mutate rapidly. So, even if an mRNA shot is developed for one strain, it won’t work against the next. This would lead to the promotion of ongoing booster shots, another page from the COVID playbook.
What You Can Do to Stop the Playbook
The first step to break free from this destructive cycle is understanding that it exists. From there, urge officials to stop mass flock culls. “It traumatizes farmers, wastes resources, creates food shortages, is inhumane in the extreme to animals, and does nothing to stop the virus. Let the flocks develop natural immunity,” Baker says.17
He also advises ending the use of PCR testing for bird flu in animals and humans, noting, “Willy-nilly PCR testing creates innumerable false positives, which fuels the … hysteria, paralyzes decision-makers, and promotes population-wide blackmail.” Baker recommends an overhaul on leadership as well, including removing USDA and CDC heads stuck on this flawed approach and disbanding the Office of Pandemic Preparedness and Response Policy.
While cleaning house, Baker calls for investigations into the USDA Southeast Poultry Research Lab in Athens, Georgia, and the Kawaoka Bird Flu Lab at the University of Wisconsin, which are involved in gain-of-function research on H5N1. Multiple accidents involving H5N1 have been reported at the University of Wisconsin lab over the years.18 Meanwhile, oppose hasty shot rollouts while supporting natural immunity and breeding H5N1-resistant flocks instead.
The unfolding bird flu narrative serves as a chilling echo of the COVID-19 pandemic, starkly illustrating a playbook dusted off and redeployed. From the familiar refrains of fearmongering and questionable testing to the push for pharmaceutical interventions and the disregard for natural solutions, the patterns are undeniable.
This time, the battlefield has shifted from our civil liberties to our dinner tables, with food security now under siege through policies that are less about genuine public health and more about control and corporate gain.
To break free from this déjà vu, you must recognize this pattern for what it is: a calculated strategy playing out once more. The lesson from COVID is clear: unquestioning compliance with top-down directives leads to predictable and detrimental outcomes. It’s time to demand transparency, challenge the prevailing narrative, advocate for evidence-based solutions like natural immunity and, ultimately, refuse to let history, or rather, the playbook, repeat itself.
Sources and References
- 1, 2, 11, 17 Brownstone Institute February 18, 2025
- 3 World Health Organization, Influenza (avian and other zoonotic)
- 4, 7, 12 Think Global Health February 12, 2025
- 5, 8 Zoetis February 14, 2025
- 6 USDA Economic Research Service, Food Price Outlook, 2025
- 9 Science June 22, 2012
- 10 The Guardian June 21, 2012
- 13 Focal Points February 18, 2025
- 14 The New England Journal of Medicine December 31, 2024
- 15, 16 Who is Robert Malone? February 20, 2025
- 18 USA Today April 11, 2023
RELATED: Bird Flu Pandemic of 2025
Brought to You by The New World Order
Image by Nicky ❤️🌿🐞🌿❤️ from Pixabay
The Aggressive Push to Install 15 Minute Cities, Digital ID And CBDCs is a Desperate Attempt to “Erect a Totalitarian Surveillance State” Before Too Many People Wake Up
From Exposing the Darkness @ substack
“What they don’t get, though, is people are waking up because they’re ramping it up.”
German MEP Christine Anderson: The aggressive push to install 15 minute cities, digital ID and CBDCs is a desperate attempt to “erect a totalitarian surveillance state” before too many people wake up.
“What they don’t get, though, is people are waking up because they’re ramping it up.”
“The window is kind of closing, because the critical voices are becoming more and they’re becoming louder. So that’s why they’re ramping things up.”
“Digital identity [is] not so your life is easier. It’s so government has total control over you.”
“Digital currency [is] the crème de la crème of all control mechanisms… What do you think is going to happen the next time you refuse to take an mRNA shot?”
“With the flip of a switch, they just cancel your account. You cannot buy food anymore. You cannot do anything anymore.”
Major Health Alert: the Extraordinary Genetically Modified Invasion of Our Supermarkets by Stealth
Pixabay.com
The Gene Technology Bill — What Kiwis Need to Know
Another Scam Exposed: American Chicken Farmer Says it’s NOT Bird Flu that is Killing Chickens
From Exposing the Darkness @ substack
Just like with Covid, they’re counting all deaths as bird flu, “Every time a bird dies, they say bird flu. I’m telling you, they’re bullshitting you.”
“I’m a chicken farmer and they are bullshitting you about the reasons why your eggs are so expensive.”
“They say the same shit every year. I know it ’cause I’m a chicken farmer. I see the same alerts. When you look at these large facilities, a lot of these birds aren’t dying of bird flu. They are dying of neglect.”
“They don’t give the vegan vitamins, oregano, all the supplements they are supposed to be getting in these mega facilities and these birds are dying of disease and neglect and every time and every time a bird dies, they say bird flu.
I’m telling you, they’re bullshitting you.”
VIDEO LINK @ X
The same thing appears to be happening again. Oddly enough, it’s precisely the same cast of characters as last time.
Dr. Mike Yeadon: You’re Being Lied to About Chicken Influenza
By Dr. Michael Yeadon June 7, 2024
Obviously, I now understand the methodology.
There’s absolutely nothing to fear except fear itself. Familiar ring, eh?
Do remember, a century of published clinical experimentation has failed to demonstrate that, whatever the causes of acute respiratory illnesses, they are NOT CONTAGIOUS.
In no case, when a healthy person (“recipient”) was asked to remain in close proximity for hours to a person unwell with such an objectively determined illness (“donor”), like we used to use to decide if someone is unwell, did the recipient healthy person go on to develop the same symptoms.
Just to be clear, we mean here “the recipient people didn’t develop similar symptoms to those of the donor people at a frequency greater than when two healthy people shared the same space for the same period of time”.
They sought evidence of transmission, aka contagion, and failed to find it, study after study, from 1918 to the present day.
Some investigators very recently made the same kind of attempt to see if healthy recipients would “catch covid19”, whatever it was that had caused the donors here to be unwell. In that study, too, the healthy recipients did not become unwell.
I recognize that many people will reject this evidence. They’ll cast around for reasons why the conclusions must be invalid. They do that because many people are “sure” that they’ve definitely “caught” colds or the flu from sick people or that they’ve “infected” others in the same manner.
I confess I struggled with this at first, dismissing what I was being told out of hand. I did so because i, too, “knew” that in the past, I’d “caught” colds from others.
The evidence shows that this doesn’t happen.
That then simply invites us to find other explanations for our strong sense that contagion in relation to acute respiratory illnesses does happen.
Do note I’m not commenting on contagion generally. Right now, I suggest we focus only on the type of illness being used to crush our freedoms and medical autonomy. Diversionary discussions aren’t helpful.
As a scientist, I’ve explained before that one is in no way obligated to provide a new hypothesis while invalidating a current one, now shown to be in discord with a mass of empirical evidence.
However, it might be helpful in making a mental transition to be aware of some possible alternative explanations.
1. Acute respiratory illnesses are really quite common. I experience a couple of colds annually. Flu, rarely, only 3 times in my life. Being commonplace, consider how likely it is that you might develop a cold over the next couple of weeks. It’s not that low a probability. If you do, you’ll cast your mind back. If you recall a person with similar symptoms, you may well conclude you caught it from them. How many occasions did you have such encounters, yet not go on to develop a cold? It would be fair to ask that question. I think we rarely notice when we don’t “catch a cold”. Here, the explanation proposed is coincidence of two, not uncommon things.
2. People do become unwell with acute respiratory symptoms. There’s no argument against that, only it’s cause. Whatever the cause is, imagine there’s an environmental or other shared component (like diet, or even genetics). You develop a cold and someone you live with or work with shortly afterwards also goes down with a cold. While it’s entirely understandable that you both conclude it was passed between you, here I’m proposing that you both developed the same kind of illness because of shared environmental factors.
3. We’ve this mental model of causation of acute respiratory illnesses. We’re told they’re due to submicroscopic, infectious particles called “viruses”. But if they’re not the cause, what might be? I confess I do not know. However, I laid out a decent length hypothesis a while ago on this channel. Essentially, a derangement of regulation of airway surface liquid and associated mucus and the mucocilary escalator mechanism which, among others, keeps your airways in good order.
Changes in temperature, humidity, various solutes and salts, are hypothesised to trigger an inflammatory response & it’s this that we notice as “a cold”. In this hypothetical model, if you’re run down, stressed and don’t have time to attend to your bodily clues and cues, you’re more likely to develop all sorts of syndromes.
Anyway, bottom line is, you’re being lied to about chicken influenza. Ditto cow flu. Just laugh at them and point out to others, this sounds the same sort of lying & catastrophising that we heard in early 2020.
It was mad and illogical for the events that followed to have happened. None of it happened by luck. There was an agenda to amplify whatever it was for malign motives.
The same thing appears to be happening again. Oddly enough, it’s precisely the same cast of characters as last time.
Please don’t give in to fear.
Best wishes,
Mike
RELATED: The Grotesque Bird Flu Scam and How to Actually Treat Colds and Flus
Chicken farm raided – disturbing news – (video)
Image by Thomas Quinn from Pixabay
Scientists Are Developing mRNA Foods To Replace Injections (in case you plan on declining)
“Not just for food, but for high-value products as well, like pharmaceuticals.”
Note: Don’t fool yourself into thinking they’ll label it …EWNZ
The following report was first published on September 17th, 2021, on winepressnews.com.
Scientists are actively creating new foods that are similar to the current Covid vaccines in use, as a way to replace traditional inoculation. Both Pfizer and Moderna Covid vaccines use messenger RNA (mRNA) technology that rewrites a person’s genetic code to fight disease. Moderna refers to this technology as an “app,” “software,” “operating system,” and more.
Currently, mRNA tech used in the Covid vaccines must be stored at cold temperatures to work, or they lose their stability.
However, researchers at the University of California-Riverside are testing ways for this mRNA tech to be functional under normal temperatures. In this case, if they are successful, they would then design plant-based mRNA food for public consumption.
For further development and functionality, the researchers received a $500,000 grant courtesy of the National Science Foundation.
The team seeks to accomplish three goals: first, attempt to successfully carry and transport DNA containing the same mRNA vaccine tech into plant cells, where they can replicate.
From there, the team wants to see if these newly cultured plants can replicate enough to generate sufficient mRNA to replace the traditional injection via syringe. Finally, the group of researchers will establish what the proper dosage will be for the masses to consume to effectively replace vaccinations.
Juan Pablo Giraldo, an associate professor in UCR’s Department of Botany and Plant Sciences, said in a university release:
“Ideally, a single plant would produce enough mRNA to vaccinate a single person.
“We are testing this approach with spinach and lettuce and have long-term goals of people growing it in their own gardens. Farmers could also eventually grow entire fields of it.”
In order for this to work properly, the plant’s chloroplasts are key, says Giraldo and a team of scientists from UC-San Diego and Carnegie Mellon University. Chloroplasts are tiny organs inside plant cells that aid in the conversion of sunlight into usable energy.
“They’re tiny, solar-powered factories that produce sugar and other molecules which allow the plant to grow. They’re also an untapped source for making desirable molecules,” Giraldo added.
Previous studies have been reported to have shown gene expression, which is not a natural part of the plant. This was discovered when Giraldo and his team successfully injected genetic material into the chloroplasts.
Professor Nicole Steinmetz of UC-San Diego worked with Giraldo and the team to utilize nanotechnology to help deliver even more genetic material – identical to how the Covid vaccines work, not just the Moderna or Pfizer ones either.
“Our idea is to repurpose naturally occurring nanoparticles, namely plant viruses, for gene delivery to plants. Some engineering goes into this to make the nanoparticles go to the chloroplasts and also to render them non-infectious toward the plants,” Steinmetz explained.
Giraldo added:
“One of the reasons I started working in nanotechnology was so I could apply it to plants and create new technology solutions. Not just for food, but for high-value products as well, like pharmaceuticals.”
AUTHOR COMMENTARY
In light of these new ambitions to put mRNA technology into food, it gives a whole new perspective to the saying, “You are what you eat:” If you eat GMOs, you are a GMO.
As far as I am aware of, I have not heard much on this line of development, but that is not to say mRNA foods won’t become more mainstream and commercialized at some point. Whatever the case, don’t consume them, don’t get injected with this technology.
Proverbs 4:14 Enter not into the path of the wicked, and go not in the way of evil men. [15] Avoid it, pass not by it, turn from it, and pass away.
Photo Credit: The WinePress
Exposing the big con: The false promise of Artificial Intelligence
From Marty Hart-Landsberg
via William Bowles @ The New Dark Age
“The more we trust AI, the less we think for ourselves. . . . “
The leading big tech companies are working hard to sell Artificial Intelligence (AI) as the gateway to a future of plenty for all. And to this point they have been surprisingly successful in capturing investor money and government support, making their already wealthy owners even wealthier. However, that success doesn’t change the fact that their AI systems have already largely exhausted their potential. More concerning, the uncritical and rapidly increasing adoption of these systems by schools, businesses, the media, and the military represents a serious threat to our collective well-being. We need to push back, and push back hard, against this big tech offensive.
The big con
According to tech leaders like Elon Musk, we are only years away from building sentient computers that can think, feel, and behave like humans. For example, as reported by Business Insider,
Tesla CEO Elon Musk said in a [February 2025] interview with Dubai’s World Governments Summit that the economic returns of artificial intelligence investments will be seen in humanoid robots.
Speaking to the UAE’s AI minister . . . Musk said that humanoid robots and deep intelligence will unlock the global economy’s potential by providing “quasi-infinite products and services.” . . .
“You can produce any product, provide any service,” Musk said of humanoid robots. “There’s really no limit to the economy at that point. You can make anything.” . . .
“Will money even be meaningful? I don’t know; it might not be,” he said, adding that robots could create a “universal high-income situation” because anyone will have the ability to make as many goods and services as they want.
Musk recently rebranded Tesla as an AI robotics company and, in a January earnings call, said that the company will soon be building thousands of Otimus robots which will likely earn it “north of $10 trillion in revenue.”
And Tesla is not the only company pursuing this strategy. According to a Bloomberg article, “Apple and Meta are set to go toe-to-toe” in competing to build “AI-powered humanoid robots.” The article continues:
It’s the stuff of science fiction — robots at home that can fold your laundry, bring you a glass of water, load up the dishwasher or even push the kids on the swing in the backyard. For years, that future seemed far off. But it’s getting closer, with help from some of the world’s largest technology companies.
If the stock market is to be taken seriously, a lot of investors are true believers. The so-called Magnificent Seven stocks–Apple, Microsoft, Google parent Alphabet, Amazon.com, Nvidia, Meta Platforms and Tesla—have been responsible for almost all the market’s gains over the past several years. At the beginning of 2023, the seven accounted for 20 percent of the S&P 500. A year later it was 28 percent. It is now 33 percent.
Getting real
The 2022 release of ChatGPT by OpenAI marked the start of public engagement with AI. It was free, easy to access, and required no technical knowledge to use it. And while it remains the most widely used chatbot, other companies have launched their own competing products, including Tesla, Amazon, Meta, Google, and Microsoft. But, although these chatbots can perform a variety of tasks, there is nothing “intelligent” about them. And despite heavy spending to boost their speed and computing power, they do not represent a meaningful step towards the creation of artificial general intelligence systems with the ability to think, learn, and solve problems on their own.
Existing AI systems, like ChatGPT, rely on largescale pattern recognition. They are trained on data, most of which has been scraped from the web, and use sophisticated algorithms to organize the material when needed in line with common patterns of use. When prompted with a question or request for information, chatbots identify related material in their database and then assemble a set of words or images, based on probabilities, that “best” satisfies the inquiry. In other words, chatbots do not “think” or “reason.” Since competing companies draw on different data sets and use different algorithms, their chatbots may well offer different responses to the same prompt.
At the same time, all chatbots do suffer from the same weaknesses. Their systems need extensive data and scraping the web means that they cannot help but draw on material that is highly discriminatory and biased. As a result, chatbot responses can be compromised by the worst of the web. One example: AI-powered resume screening programs have been found to disproportionately select resumes tied to White-associated names. And because of their complexity, no one has yet been able to precisely determine how a chatbot organizes its data and makes its words selection. Thus, no one has yet devised a way to stop chatbots from periodically “hallucinating” or seeing non existing patterns or relationships, which causes them to make nonsensical responses.
The BBC recently tested the ability of the leading chatbots to summarize news stories and found that the resulting answers contained significant inaccuracies and distortions. Here is what the BBC News and Current Affairs CEO Deborah Turness had to say:
The team found ‘significant issues’ with just over half of the answers generated by the assistants. The AI assistants introduced clear factual errors into around a fifth of answers they said had come from BBC material.
And where AI assistants included ‘quotations’ from BBC articles, more than one in ten had either been altered, or didn’t exist in the article.
Part of the problem appears to be that AI assistants do not discern between facts and opinion in news coverage; do not make a distinction between current and archive material; and tend to inject opinions into their answers.
The results they deliver can be a confused cocktail of all of these – a world away from the verified facts and clarity that we know consumers crave and deserve.
This is certainly not a record that inspires confidence. For its part, the BBC recommended a “pull back” on AI news summaries.
No light at the end of the tunnel
Aware of these shortcomings, tech companies argue that they can be overcome by increasing the amount of training data as well as the number of parameters chatbots use to process information. That is why they are racing to build new systems with ever more expensive chips that are powered by ever bigger data centers. However, recent studies suggest that this is not a winning strategy.
As Lexin Zhou, the co-author of a study published in the journal Nature, explains, “the newest LLMs [Large Language Models] might appear impressive and be able to solve some very sophisticated tasks, but they’re unreliable in various aspects.” Moreover, “the trend does not seem to show clear improvements, but the opposite.”
One reason for this outcome, says Zhou, is that the recent upgrades tend to reduce the likelihood that the new systems will acknowledge uncertainty or ignorance about a particular topic. In fact, it appears that the changes made were motivated by “the desire to make language models try to say something seemingly meaningful,” even when the models are in uncertain territory.
The resulting danger is obvious. In fact, according to Lucy Cheke, a professor of experimental psychology at the University of Cambridge, “Individuals are putting increasing trust in systems that mostly produce correct information, but mix in just enough plausible-but-wrong information to cause real problems. This becomes particularly problematic as people more and more rely on these systems to answer complex questions to which they would not be in a position to spot an incorrect answer.” Using these systems to provide mental health counseling or medical advice, teach our students, or control weapons systems, is a disaster waiting to happen.
Some perspective
Tech leaders confidently assert that AI will lead to revolutionary changes in our economy, boosting productivity and majority well-being. And if we want to reap the expected rewards we need to get out of their way. But what can we really expect from the massive AI related investments projected for the coming years?
One way to ground our expectations is to consider the economic consequences of the late 1990s tech-boom, which included the growing popularity and mass use of computers, the internet, and email. This pivotal period was said, at the time, to mark the beginning of the Information Age and a future of endless economic expansion. As for the economic payoff, the data on post-adoption trends in US labor productivity is not encouraging. As the International Monetary Fund reports,
Labor productivity gains slowed from the range of 3–3.5 percent a year in the 1960s and 1970s to about 2 percent in the 1980s. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, the US economy experienced a sizable but temporary productivity boom as productivity growth rebounded to 3 percent. Since about 2003, productivity gains have been lackluster, with labor productivity slowing to an average growth rate of less than 1.5 percent in the decade after the Great Recession.
Yes, these technologies and the many companies and products they spawned have changed how we work and live, but the economic consequences have been far from “revolutionary,” if by that we mean significantly improving the lives of most people. Worker earnings and economic growth have followed labor productivity in a similar downward trajectory. And given the limitations of AI systems, it is hard to imagine that their use will prove more effective in producing strong productivity gains and higher earnings for workers. Of course, that isn’t really the main point of the effort. Tech companies have made a lot of money over the years and they stand to make a lot more if they succeed in getting their various AI systems widely adopted.
The fightback
In exchange for their promised future of “quasi-infinite products and services,” tech companies are demanding that we help finance—through tax credits, zoning changes, and investment subsidies—the massive buildout of energy and water hogging data centers they need to develop and run their AI systems. There is no win in this for us—in fact, Bloomberg News reports that Microsoft’s own research into AI use:
shows a disturbing trend: The more we trust AI, the less we think for ourselves. . . .
The researchers found a striking pattern: The more participants trusted AI for certain tasks, the less they practiced those skills themselves, such as writing, analysis and critical evaluations. As a result, they self-reported an atrophying of skills in those areas. Several respondents said they started to doubt their abilities to perform tasks such as verifying grammar in text or composing legal letters, which led them to automatically accept whatever generative AI gave them.
And who will get blamed when the quality of work deteriorates or hallucinations cause serious mistakes? You can bet it won’t be the AI systems that cost billions of dollars.
So, what is to be done? At the risk of stating the obvious: We need to challenge the overblown claims of the leading tech companies and demand that the media stop treating their press releases as hard news. We need to resist the building of ever bigger data centers and the energy systems required to run them. We need to fight to restrict the use of AI systems in our social institutions, especially to guard against the destructive consequences of discriminatory algorithms. We need to organize in workplaces to ensure that workers have a voice in the design and use of any proposed AI system. And we must always ensure that humans have the ability to review and, when necessary, override AI decisions.
RELATED: Cyrus Parsa From The AI Organization Found Dead
Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay
Genetic Engineering Juggernaut Down Under .. And Why the New Zealand Monkey is Set to become the Harvestable Big Data Product
From Steve Snoopman @ substack
New Zealand is fast-tracking a far-reaching totalitarian regulatory framework. In this dispatch, Snoopman highlights what lies beneath the genetic engineering jugganaut train that is set to undergo a biggering in a South Pacific archipelago inhabited by endearingly naïve monkeys, who often identify as ‘Kiwis’, and are labelled as such.
In the forthcoming, “The Gene Tech Cosplay of the White Coats”, which is Part 3 of my series, “Lux Luthor’s Secret Worship of Mammon” — I examine how this biggering of the gene tech jugganaut, is but one strand of an imperialist DNA blueprint that is intended to alter the trajectory of human evolution, and that of all life with a biotech paradigm, wherein the Earth is managed by a technocratic empire.
The deadline for providing your feedback on the Gene Technology Bill currently before Parliament is 11.59pm on Monday February 17th. Click the link to feedback.
N.B. An endearing idiosyncrasy of New Zealanders is that they refer themselves as ‘Kiwis’, a flightless nocturnal fat beaky avian creature that eats roots and leaves. Ironically, New Zealand soldiers adopted the Kiwi as a monika during World War I; a conflict that resulted from a conspiracy discussed on Feb. 15 1890 at Nathaniel Rothschild's mansion — to re-invigorate the British Empire.*
New Zealand is fast-tracking a far-reaching regulatory framework to allow the release of genetically engineered organisms, and derivative products of gene editing from laboratory, manufacturing and containment settings into farmlands, market gardens foodstores and medical clinics, pharmacies, hospitals, households, and home gardens.
This rail-roading chess move has been widely criticized by health action networks such as NZ Doctors Speaking Out with Science, and Hapai Hauora, and citizen action groups such as GE FreeNZ, Voices for Freedom and informed individuals such as Jodie Bruning, Guy Hatchard and Mary Hobbs, and has been radically reported on by Reality Check Radio (RCR), the Daily Telegraph NZ and FreeNZ Media.
READ AT THE LINK
RECKLESS GENE TECHNOLOGY BILL AN ATTACK ON LOCAL DEMOCRACY, FARMERS, AND COUNCILS (GE Free Nthland Media Release)
Protecting Our Democratic Right to Be GE-Free
GE Free Northland (in food & environment)
12 February 2025 Media release
Whangarei, Far North, Kaipara, and Auckland communities share the concerns of many New Zealanders about the controversial Gene Technology Bill, quietly released just days before Christmas 2024.
The Bill proposes removing all ethical considerations and the Precautionary approach to outdoor GE/ GMO applications and the authors of the Bill have failed to adequately consult with the farming sector. In addition, the Bill proposes stripping local councils of their authority and jurisdiction in regard to outdoor GE experiments, field trials, and releases.
Removal of the authority of these councils would destroy what they have worked hard to achieve – much needed additional protection for the biosecurity of particular regions and the wider environment. These were put in place to address significant risks that would be faced by farmers and other ratepayers.
The Northland and Auckland Region, along with the Hastings District, are established GE Free food producing zones that provide protection from outdoor GE field trials, and releases.
“The Northland /Auckland Councils collaborated in a fiscally responsible manner to meet the needs of farmers and other ratepayers, after robust public consultation over a period of many years. “
“The councils wisely prohibit the release of any Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) and make any EPA approved outdoor GE experiments and field trials a Discretionary activity, subject to liability provisions including the posting of bonds,” said GE Free Northland spokesman Martin Robinson.
“We fully support council rules without which GM free primary producers, including conventional, IPM, and organic, would be at risk of serious financial consequences, if not the complete loss, of their valuable enterprises, in the case of GE contamination from EPA approved activities,” said Robinson. “We urge concerned Northlanders and Aucklanders to make a submission opposing the Gene Technology Bill by the deadline of 17 January 2025.”
The proposals in the Coalition government’s plans to remove the rights of councils to prohibit GMO activities are in clauses 248 to 253 of the Bill* (1).
“This is a political fight any government would be foolhardy to pick, given the huge backing from the Northland and Auckland communities, the significant biosecurity risks, the concerns of Kiwi farmers, and the importance of our existing valuable GE free status, says GE Free Northland spokesman Martin Robinson.
Councils’ concerns about GE relate mainly to uncertainties over the economic, environmental, biosecurity, and socio-cultural risks, including risks to farmers and other primary producers.*(2)
Without a strict liability regime, unsuspecting third parties and local authorities are at risk of GE contamination. This would result in them being unable to sell their produce on the export market. The issue of liability for any adverse effects of GMOs grown in the area needs to be resolved before any outdoor experiments are permitted in Auckland/Northland Peninsula.
Instead of there being provisions in this Bill to compensate farmers for GE contamination, the opposite is proposed. Farmers and growers whose crops or stock are adversely affected must pay the clean up costs and suffer the losses of cancelled export orders. This would mean the loss of access to key markets and the current non-GMO market premiums they earn.
There has been no economic cost-benefit analysis carried out in the Bill on the effects of GE contamination on our primary sector exports.
“Farmers cannot afford to experiment with their income and livelihood. There’s no hardcore evidence to suggest anything is practical or feasible with this technology. Co-existence between GE and other crops is impossible without significant contamination threshold levels, as documented in North America and other countries.”
“Agriculture in New Zealand is worth around $56 billion in exports. Why would anyone in their right mind want to gamble all of that on something that might not even work and is highly likely to cause irreversible harm,” said horticulturist Zelka Grammer, GE Free Northland chair.
Analysis of the Bill has been carried out by a team of researchers from the University of Canterbury headed by Professor Jack Heinemann. Their area of expertise includes the biosafety of GMOs and risk assessment protocols. *(3) This analysis indicates that a robust scientific case has not been made for the proposed reforms to gene technology law and that we would be much better off sticking with the current laws under the HSNO Act (1996).
The right of communities to decide was confirmed by a landmark Environment Court decision in 2015. This decision gave councils the power, under the RMA, to control the outdoor use of GMOs in their regions.
The National Party’s previous attempt to take away communities’ ability to ban or control GM releases in their territories was strongly opposed by farmers and all councils from South Auckland to Cape Reinga as well as Hastings District Council and its ratepayers.*(4)
GE Free Northland urges NZ First to no longer support the unscientific, unsafe, and economically risky proposals in this Bill, and to respect the right of councils to choose sustainable integrated planning. *(5)
“NZ’s reputation in the global marketplace must be protected. GE crops have failed to perform overseas, with lower yields, higher herbicide use, and the creation of herbicide resistant invasive “super weeds”.
“This combined with ongoing consumer and market aversion to GE food means that this is not the path NZ should go down. We must continue to protect our valuable “Northland, Naturally brand” and high value agricultural economy against GMO contamination,” said Grammer.
The operative Northland “Regional Policy Statement”, Regional Plan, the Auckland Unitary Plan, and the Whangarei and Far North District Plans all have strong precautionary and prohibitive GE/GMO provisions, policies, and rules in place in keeping with the wishes of local farmers and other ratepayers. *(6)
Northland Regional Council is holding a workshop today at Whangārei council chambers in response to widespread concerns about the proposed legislative changes. *(7)
ENDS
Contact: Martin Robinson 09 409 8650
Mobile: 027 347 8048
Zelka Linda Grammer
email: linda.grammer@gmail.com
*(1)
The explanatory notes in the Gene Technology Bill state:
“Subpart 9—Amendments to Resource Management Act 1991 Clauses 246 to 254 amend the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA). In particular, these clauses— • define genetically modified and Regulator (clause 247): • prohibit a regional council or territorial authority from performing its functions under sections 30 and 31 of the RMA in a manner that treats genetically modified organisms differently from other organisms, including in regional plans, district plans and regional rules (clauses 248 to 253).”
All councils from south Auckland to Cape Reinga in Far North/ Te Tai Tokerau have precautionary and prohibitive GE/GMO provisions, policies, and rules- set up in keeping with the wishes of local farmers and other ratepayers, in order to protect our regions biosecurity, wider environment, economy, and existing GM free farmers/ primary producers, including conventional, IPM, regenerative,and organic.
Hastings District Council has achieved outright prohibition of all outdoor GE/GMO experiments, field trials, and releases for the duration of the District Plan.
*(2)
Whangarei District Council “Genetic Engineering Review” webpage, detailing the good work of the Northland/ Auckland INTER COUNCIL WORKING PARTY ON GMO RISK EVALUATION & MANAGEMENT OPTIONS
https://www.wdc.govt.nz/Council/Council-documents/Reports/Genetic-Engineering-Review
“Three major reports commissioned by the working party have identified a range of risks involved with the trialing and release of GMOs. They also include approaches to managing those risks.
GMO Reports [link to documents]
Environmental risks
- GMOs becoming invasive and affecting other species including native flora and fauna
- the development of herbicide or pesticide resistance creating ‘super-weeds’ or ‘super-pests’
- long term effects on ecosystem functioning.
Socio-cultural risks
- effects on Maori cultural beliefs of whakapapa, mauri, tikanga
- ethical concerns about mixing genes from different species including human genes
- concerns about the long term safety of genetically engineered food.
Economic risks
- loss of income through contamination (or perceived contamination) of non-GMO food products
- negative effects on marketing and branding opportunities such as ‘clean and green’ or ‘naturally Northland’
- costs associated with environmental damage such as clean-up costs for invasive weeds or pests.
Associated with these risks are limited liability provisions under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (HSNO) Act 1996. “
*(3)
A comprehensive analysis of the Bill by Professor Jack Heinemann, an international expert in the biosafety of organisms created by gene technology, and his colleagues indicates that a robust scientific case has not been made for the proposed “reforms” to gene technology law.
See
Centre for Integrated Research in Biosafety submission to the Parliament Health Select Committee on the Gene Technology Bill 2024.
*(4)
Hastings District Council
1 August 2018 Media Release
“Council and Iwi welcome GMO decision”
*(5) NZ First
Despite their reservations about a number of extreme proposals, NZ First supported the first reading of the Bill. Their support of the Bill is at odds with what they signed up to in the Coalition agreement, that is to “Liberalise genetic engineering laws, while ensuring strong protections for human health and the environment”.*
“Coalition Agreement between the National Party and the New Zealand First Party”
Primary Sector
• Liberalise genetic engineering laws while ensuring strong protections for human health and the
environment
The Gene Technology Bill in its current form removes strong protections for human health and the environment, as well as undermining our biosecurity and proposing the removal of ethical considerations and the Precautionary approach. NZ First has previously had a strong precautionary GE/GMO policy.
*(6)
- Northland operative Regional Plan and RPS provisions
- 6.1.2 Policy – Precautionary approach -p112
- 2.6 Issues of significance to tangata whenua – natural and physical resources -p26
- Rule C.1.9.1 Genetically modified organisms in the coastal marine area – permitted activities – p 107
- Rule C.1.9.2 Genetically modified organism field trials – discretionary activity– p 107
- Rule C.1.9.3 Viable genetically modified veterinary vaccines – discretionary activity – p 107
- Rule C.1.9.4 Genetically modified organism releases – prohibited activity– p 108
- Policy D.1.1 When an analysis of effects on tāngata whenua and their taonga is required – p 235
- Policy D.5.32 Precautionary approach to assessing and managing genetically modified organisms -p 275
- Policy D.5.33 Adaptive approach to the management of genetically modified organisms -p 275
- Policy D.5.34 Avoiding adverse effects of genetically modified organism field trials -p 275
- Policy D.5.35 Liability for adverse effects from genetically modified organism activities -p 275
- Policy D.5.36 Bonds for genetically modified organism activities -p 276
- Policy D.5.37 Risk management plan for genetically modified organism field trials -p 276
- Objective F.1.15 Use of genetic engineering and the release of genetically modified organisms – p 294
The Northland RPS includes Precautionary policy 6.1.2 and Method 6.1.5, as well as the GE/GMO issue correctly identified as an Issue of Significance to Northland tangata whenua/ issue of concern to Northland communities…and the specific concerns of Maori regarding the risks of outdoor use of GE/GMOs to indigenous biodiversity
(as directed by Judge Newhook on 12 April 2018, the wording of Policy 6.1.2 and Method 6.1.5 has the following wording
“Policy 6.1.2 – Precautionary approach
Adopt a precautionary approach towards the effects of climate change and introducing genetically modified organisms to the environment where they are scientifically uncertain, unknown or little understood, but potentially significantly adverse.
This is confirmed by method 6.1.5 in the Northland RPS which states that:
“6.1.5 Method- Statutory Plans and Strategies
The regional and district councils should apply 6.1.2 when reviewing their plans or considering options for plan changes and assessing resource consent applications.
Explanation:
Method 6.1.5 implements Policy 6.1.2″
(ENDS excerpt from Judge Newhook’s 12 April 2018 decision)
see also
Policy D.1.1 of the Proposed Regional Plan includes a reference to genetic engineering. The policy requires effects on tāngata whenua to be addressed in resource consent applications where specified effects or activities are likely, including release of GMO’s to the environment.
*(7)
Northland Regional Council Workshop Wednesday, 12 February 2025 Council Chambers, Rust Avenue,
“12.45 – 1.45pm 3.0 Recent Central Government Legislative Changes
Reporting Officers: GM Environmental Services, Ruben Wylie, and Policy
and Planning Manager, Tami Woods”
Further information:
According to an independent study by the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research (NZIER), New Zealand’s primary sector exports could be reduced by $10 – $20 billion annually, if GMOs were to be released into the environment. The report was commissioned by Organics Aotearoa New Zealand (OANZ) to evaluate the cost of proposed regulatory changes governing gene technology. OANZ says that the costs, as well as supposed benefits of deregulating gene technology, need to be carefully considered.
The NZIER study authors note that the proposed changes to the regulations as outlined by Wellington bureaucrats at the Ministry of Business, Innovation & Employment (MBIE), do not include a Regulatory Impact Statement, economic assessment, cost-benefit analysis or address the practicality of “co-existence” of GE and non GE crops..given the known vectors for GMO contamination (seeds, pollen, vegetative material, soils, waterways, machinery, animals, insects, extreme weather events).
The report was commissioned by Organics Aotearoa New Zealand (OANZ) to evaluate the cost of proposed regulatory changes governing gene technology. OANZ says that the costs, as well as supposed benefits of deregulating gene technology, need to be carefully considered.
26 November 2024 OANZ media release
Media Statement: “NZ exports risk multi-billion dollar hit if GMO rules deregulated”
“OANZ’s commissioned NZIER Economic Report that clearly highlights the economic risks to the country” (26 November 2024)
https://www.oanz.org/new-blog/NZ%20exports%20risk%20multi-billion%20dollar%20hit%20if%20GMO%20rules%20deregulated?rq=nzier
26 November 2024 NZ Farmers Weekly
“Gene shift could cost exporters billions: report “
“Researchers flag lack of research from MBIE on financial impact of opening doors to gene editing.”
29 August 2024
“Let’s cut the crap on gene technology”
by Professor Jack Heinemann
https://www.concernedfarmersnz.org/news/get-out-there-n9t2h-2c3pz-4tsby-ek7wx-e3res-nnleb
Summary recommendations for the Gene Technology Bill- by Physicians & Scientists for Global Responsibility (NZ) .
https://psgr.org.nz/component/jdownloads/send/1-root/166-gtbill-3pager
11 Feb 2025 • Ashburton Guardian
Gene tech bill “a slap in the face to farmers, experts”
https://www.guardianonline.co.nz/news/gene-tech-bill-a-slap-in-the-face-to-farmers-experts/
Concerned Farmers NZ
30 January 2025
“The Risks of GMO Deregulation to NZ Farmers”
“There is no ban on gene technology in NZ. This misleading hyperbole is used to obscure a failure to engineer products that will have a market or social value that exceeds the cost of compliance with reasonable regulations.”
– Professor Jack Heinemann, Genetics/ Molecular Biology, Canterbury University, and director- Centre for Integrated Research in Biosafety
National Party previous attempts to strip local councils of their authority and jurisdiction, falsely claiming that council plans (Northland, Auckland, Hawke’s Bay, etc) prohibited ethical and humane medical research in the laboratory
Radio NZ 2 September 2016
“Environment Minister accused of GMO beat-up”
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/312414/environment-minister-accused-of-gmo-beat-up
“Minister eyes law change to end councils’ control over GMOs”
Northern Advocate
5 September 2016
In memory of the many surfers who “died suddenly” worldwide in 2024
From The Surfer’s Journal @ Youtube
via Mark Crispin Miller @ substack
Counting, 67 in fact. Read the comments at Youtube.
Another of those weird ‘anomalies’ that is mystifying the white coats. Definitely not the ‘safe & effective’.
Two scientists who reviewed more than 100 of DoC’s scientific papers say: “There’s no credible scientific evidence showing any species of native bird benefits from 1080 drops”
Time for a repost of this article from 2007, as the drops continue, in spite of the clear scientific evidence it is not beneficial to our ecosystem.
“We have audited Department of Conservation scientific research and produced an 88-page monograph reviewing more than 100 scientific papers.
The results are startling and belie most of the department’s claims.
- First, there is no credible scientific evidence showing that any species of native bird benefits from the dropping of tonnes of 1080 into our forest ecosystems
- Second, considerable evidence exists that DoC’s aerial 1080 operations are doing serious harm“Quinn and Patricia Whiting-O’Keefe
Read the Whiting-O’Keefe report HERE
Scientists, Quinn and Patricia Whiting-O’Keefe: “Poison facts belie the claims”
We have audited Department of Conservation scientific research and produced an 88-page monograph reviewing more than 100 scientific papers.
The results are startling and belie most of the department’s claims.
First, there is no credible scientific evidence showing that any species of native bird benefits from the dropping of tonnes of 1080 into our forest ecosystems, as claimed by the department and Kevin Hackwell. There is certainly no evidence of net ecosystem benefit.
We have repeatedly challenged DoC and Mr Hackwell, a representative of the Forest and Bird Society, to come forward with the hard scientific evidence for their “dead forest” claims. They have not.
Second, considerable evidence exists that DoC’s aerial 1080 operations are doing serious harm, as one would expect, given that 1080 is toxic to all animals. It kills large numbers of native species of birds, invertebrates and bats.
Moreover, most native species are completely unstudied. In addition considerable evidence shows there are chronic and sublethal effects to vertebrate endocrine and reproductive systems, possibly including those of humans.
Considerable evidence demonstrates that DoC’s aerial 1080 operations are doing serious harm. Photos: Upper (Tomtit in hand) by Clyde Graf
Lower (multiple dead birds) by Jim Hilton:
Dead birds found over a few acres, after 270,000 hectare aerial 1080 poison drop, Kahurangi National Park, 2014. This was the first year of DoC’s “Battle for our Birds” drops.
Third, DoC claims that one can drop food laced with 1080, a universal poison (World Health Organisation classification “1A extremely hazardous”) indiscriminately into a semi-tropical forest ecosystem and only negatively affect one or two target “pest” species. That is counterintuitive and scientifically improbable.
Fourth, as far as we can determine no other country in the world is doing (or has ever done) anything remotely similar – mass poisoning of a semi-tropical ecosystem on the scale that the department is now doing to ours.
Fifth, and perhaps most disturbing, is that what the department-sponsored research shows has been habitually misrepresented – entirely unjustifiable assertions regarding 1080’s benefits and lack of harm.
Statements like those of Mr Hackwell that the forests will be “dead” without poisoning them with 1080, and from John McLennan (Landcare Research) and Al Morrison (then Director General of DoC) that 1080 is existentially necessary to Kiwis is pure demagoguery and scientific nonsense.
What is at risk by continuation of this extraordinary practice – and it is unique in the world – is the ecological integrity of our forest ecosystems, our reputation as an environmentally sane and responsible country, and our existence as a society in which reason and rationality can triumph over bureaucratic prerogative and budgetary gain.
Since Galileo Galilee first discovered the moons of Jupiter in the 17th century, the way to resolve this kind of disagreement has been to do the experiment and examine the evidence, and that is precisely what we urge everyone to do.
Don’t believe DoC. Don’t believe Mr Hackwell. Don’t believe us – believe the evidence. To that end we will provide a copy of our report and the source scientific research papers to all who would like to read them.
* Quinn and Patricia Whiting-O’Keefe are retired scientists.
Header Photo: Robin, TV-Wild
ARTICLE SOURCE:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10448063
Read the Whiting-O’Keefe report HERE
If you have difficulty with the link to the report go to our Resources page & see it there.
RELATED:
See the TheGrafBoys YT channel and website for more videos. Educate yourself on 1080 poisoning. See also http://1080science.co.nz/
And our 1080 pages for info & links, &/or search ‘categories’ drop down box for further related articles (at left of any page).
EnviroWatchNZ
Rentokil Initial Takes Over the Aerial Poisoning of New Zealand
From Ursula Edgington PhD @ substack
I was only talking to Ben Rubin the other day about the international successful brand awareness of Initial. We see that logo in every public loo in the world. I’m not sure when Rentokil and Initial become one and the same (?) But perhaps the covid era theatre of extreme-hygiene was made specially for/by this chemical marriage.
Pests and viruses – same thing. Both presented by the media as ugly, hated and needing to be endlessly ‘eradicated’.
Surely everyone needs Rentokil Initial’s innovative ‘virus-killing-automatic-air-sanitiser’ for example. Wow! Profits have soared. So much so, expansion to New Zealand has meant Rentokil’s acquisition of that special ‘boys-club’ that forms the 1080 aerial-poisoning NZ Government sub/contractors. But do Kiwis know about Rentokil’s dark secret in its home country of England, involving a very similar toxin from over sixty years ago?
I’ve written before about what we can now confidently term “The Military Industrial Conservation Complex”. This War on Nature is a complex story of NZ Gov psyops and corruption, which for over 70 years has proven to be too much for many activists to bear. Academics like me who have dared questioned this type of ‘Turtles all the Way Down’ propaganda become victims of the Corporate Playbook, as I have published about on
here. Like the hideous Agent Orange, toxic 1080 (sodium monofluoroacetate) keeps raining down on us, apparently to kill the ‘pests’, in a physical and psychological attack. In a blatant contradiction to the Manufacturers Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) the colourful, glossy propaganda still (unbelievably) insists this lethal, indiscriminate poison, with no antidote, is ‘natural’, ‘biodegrades’ and of course, is totally ‘safe and effective’.
In case anyone is still doubtful about the lies evident in the above example of NZ Dept of Conservation propaganda, let’s look briefly at how synthetic 1080 is manufactured, before it’s added to the green-coloured, sugar-laden, cereal food-baits and then distributed in tonnes by helicopters over our land and water. Ethyl fluoroacetate, sodium hydroxide and ethanol are mixed together. These chemicals are so lethal, with sub-lethal consequences completely untested and unknown and the process so specialized, that up until now, there appears only one company in the world using it – Tull Chemical Co, Oxford, Alabama (conveniently, it recently burned down, but more on that rabbit hole another day). By examining the Manufacturer’s Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) of ethyl fluoroacetate alone, this provides an insight into the known unknowns of the impact of being in contact with this chemical:
“Material is extremely destructive to tissue of the mucous membranes and upper respiratory tract, eyes, and skin., Cough, Shortness of breath, Headache, Nausea, To the best of our knowledge, the chemical, physical, and toxicological properties have not been thoroughly investigated.”
[Ref Merck SDS from which those are quoted from]
Here’s an extract from the toxicity section of the MSDS for the 1080 poisoned-food cereal baits, confirming the unknown risks:
There is no antidote. This poison should never be released from the sky and spread indiscriminately. The CDC webpage on 1080 poisoning symptoms seems to have been removed recently, but here is the WayBack Machine’s capture from a few months ago which clearly states the dangers from the ‘unlikely’ inhalation. Apart from it’s not ‘unlikely’ if, against the manufacturer’s instructions, it’s dropped from the sky! As Aly Cook sang a few years back (in another unsuccessful attempt to halt an operation): “Stop the drop of the poison rain; how can mankind be so insane?”:
Toxic historical context
For everyday Kiwi’s stories of the harms caused by aerial 1080 and brodifacoum operations over the 70+ years of Government-sponsored poisoning, please see the Peoples Inquiry 2020 that recorded hundreds of public submissions from personal lived experiences. Details are found in my post here:
Impacts of Toxic Chemicals & Poisons Across New Zealand are Overwhelming and Disturbing
·
The volunteer committee of the citizen-led New Zealand People’s Inquiry (of which I’m a member) have this week publicly released the collection of written submissions into the impacts and effects of toxic chemicals and poisons on the people, wildlife and environment of Aotearoa, New Zealand.
Read full story
Government contractors were understandably labelled ‘cowboys’ by a Chief Medical Officer of Health in a past meeting I attended. That’s because evidence from EPA annual reports and other outcomes shows these companies often have no regard for valid risk assessments, health and safety policies or public consultation processes. For a shocking example of the latter, you can see this evidence from Dr Wendy Pond during the Peoples Inquiry 2020 where a ‘sign off’ approving an aerial poisoning operation was forged, because the tribal elder named, had already passed away. Where is the accountability?
But where was the accountability for Rentokil after the Smarden Affair? Back in 1963, a poison closely related to 1080, fluoroacetamide, was deliberately dumped into a ditch serving a farming community in Kent, UK. This BBC archive summarises the tragic story (2.5 mins). Decades pass. Regardless, the propaganda of BigChem continues. That UK poisoning led to pyres that burned the contaminated herds. Sound familiar?
These memories resurfaced when in 1985 farmers at Smarden discovered the first case of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in Kent and a number of further cases followed. Twelve years later, a perceived cluster of cases of new variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (vCJD) in the Smarden area led to speculation that this human form of BSE was caused by excessive exposure to pesticides. Reports in the press suggested that the residents of Smarden suspected the incident had been some sort of government-controlled experiment and subsequent cover-up which had produced BSE.
Wrote John Clark, Senior Lecturer in History, University of St Andrews back in 2017. [Must be a conspiracy theorist, eh?].
In this latest Annual Report, Rentokil Initial boast about the ‘respectful engagement with communities’ (communities that they are about to poison?) by ‘building strong local knowledge’ and ‘lasting relationships’. (maybe with NDAs?) The report goes on to list the four NZ contractors swallowed-up by BigChem Rentokil:
It is EcoFX listed above which repeatedly undertook the aerial poisoning of Pirongia mountain. The drinking-water catchment is located there, serving the local communities, including the schools and the in-bed-with-Government milk-processing plant, Fonterra. Evidence shows that the aerial poisoning with 1080 over Mt Pirongia (like similar operations) includes distributing the poison over the water at the same rate as the land (this saves the ‘cowboys’ money in helicopter fuel and labour hours and therefore maximises profits). Here’s an example of that crime from ten years ago (10 mins):
The latest 1080 poison operation has been announced for nearby Mt Moehau for July this year. The last operation was only three years ago (usually it is every 4-7 years). The frequency and intensity and toxicity of these 1080 aerial poisonings are increasing nationwide. On the residents’ communication for Mt Moehau, no mention of Rentokil Initial, only of EcoFX in the pseudo-consultation invitation:
On EcoFX website, they claim to be ‘part of the Rentokil Initial Group’, as if that is something to be proud of:
It’s interesting to note that EcoFX isn’t a registered NZ Company. The ceased Director is listed as Director/Shareholder of One Degree Ltd and One Foot Investments (unknown entities). Rentokil Initial NZ (strangely, 100% shareholders are Rentokil Spain, not UK) are using the old contractors as ‘trading names’. This could be confusing for anyone trying to engage with the Government or contractor about the consultation process or the inevitable lethal consequences that come with indiscriminate aerial poisoning. And believe me, they are inevitable.
“Safe and effective?” Yeah, nah.
We’ve learnt from the last five years that nothing is quite what it seems. That media mantra ‘Clean, Green, 100% Pure New Zealand’ is another myth. It’s time people woke up to the BigChem capture of our so-called Environmental Protection Authority alongside our healthcare systems. These entities only seek to perpetuate our sickness.
Note: envirowatchnz has a trove of info on 1080 if you check out the main menu & subtabs. Also search 1080 in the categories drop down box. The 1080 industry is huge & rife with corruption and lies. Hopefully folk will believe that now after the ‘safe and effective’ scam fed us by Big Pharma & Co for the past 5 years.
Get Rid Of Your LEDs
Two videos on light bulbs. The LEDs as some will know are seriously bad for the eyes. Info in the first video.
Also read The Light Bulb Mafia, and the update here.
The second video speaks of Trump’s Exec Order and the return of the incandescent. These have never been completely discontinued in NZ, however for the past 10 years I’ve noticed their price escalate and choices have diminished. Plus, frequently they blow. More hypocrisy & lies from the ‘sustainable’ hoaxters.
First mention of the Atlas Network in NZ Parliament (think Seymour)
From The Daily Blog
Remember Seymour in an interview denied any connection to Atlas which is not true. He called it conspiracy … EWNZ
The Article 2/2/25:
By Martyn Bradbury
Last night [1 Feb] during the reading of ACTs Bill to dump the Productivity Commission, Labour mentioned the Atlas Network for the first time in Parliament…
Whose interests are ACT actually serving here by silencing the Productivity Commission?
The Atlas Network is an international far right think tank whose extreme policy platform seeks to attack public servants, push for radical privatization, dismantle regulation protecting workers and the environment and champions Landlords over renters.
That sounds remarkably similar to this Government. Who is behind the ACT Party and their policy? The Atlas Network sounds exactly like the policy platform of this new Government and the ACT Party, the Taxpayers’ Union and The NZ Initiative all have links to the Atlas Network so I ask , who is really pulling the strings here?
…the Atlas Network are an international far right think tank and George Monbiot has done an expose on how the Atlas Network influences UK politics and TDB has highlighted the links between them and NZ politics.
Look at the Atlas International play book and ask yourself if it sounds familiar…
A crash programme of massive cuts; demolishing public services; privatising public assets; centralising political power; sacking civil servants; sweeping away constraints on corporations and oligarchs; destroying regulations that protect workers, vulnerable people and the living world; supporting landlords against tenants; criminalising peaceful protest; restricting the right to strike.
…watch how each of these extremist free market agendas are being slowly and quietly implemented. The new draconian gang powers
Atlas Network also gets mentioned by the Public Health Communication Centre who note the connections between Tobacco Lobbyists and the Atlas Network…
| Tobacco Company | Political connections | Evidence of industry links |
| British American Tobacco | Casey Costello (NZ First Party) formerly Chair and member of Tax Payers’ Union Board. Now Minister with responsibility for the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Act 1990; vaping; smokeless tobacco; oral nicotine.1 | Guardian investigation reported TPU received funding from British American Tobacco
TPU has links with the Atlas Network, which has received tobacco industry funding.
|
…it also notes that Nicola Willis is a former Nazgul at the NZ Initiative…
| British American Tobacco
Imperial Brands Australasia |
Nicola Willis, Deputy leader National Party, formerly Board Director New Zealand Initiative | NZI list tobacco companies British American Tobacco and Imperial Brands Australasia as members. |
…at some point the mainstream media are going to have two investigate the influence of the Atlas Network over the Political Right in NZ.
It’s good that Labour has started that questioning.
Where are the Greens and the Māori Party?
Photo credits: The Daily Blog
What if your body knows how to heal, but the system doesn’t want you to trust it? (The White Coat deception)
From Dr Mercola
Story at-a-glance
- In my interview with Dr. Patrick Gentempo, we discussed how true health care involves developing self-trust and personal judgment rather than blindly following medical authorities. Understanding your body’s natural healing abilities helps make informed decisions about treatments and interventions
- While emergency medical care is vital for acute conditions, the current health care system often emphasizes crisis management and quick fixes rather than promoting everyday wellness and prevention
- Fear disrupts self-trust and decision-making in health care choices. Developing a personal health philosophy helps you evaluate treatments based on evidence and individual experience rather than external pressure
- Your body’s cellular energy production, particularly through mitochondrial health, plays a key role in overall wellness. Avoiding toxins and making lifestyle changes significantly improves natural healing capacity
- Making health decisions should combine logical analysis of scientific evidence with intuitive understanding of your body. Small, consistent changes in daily habits often lead to significant health improvements
Download interview transcript | Download my FREE podcast
In my recent interview with Dr. Patrick Gentempo, a longtime friend and respected chiropractor, we discussed the importance of knowing your own health philosophy. We explored topics such as self-trust, fear and the role of curiosity in guiding you toward good decisions. Our conversation highlighted how easy it is to get swept up in a system that emphasizes quick fixes instead of true healing.
You might think a prescribed drug or an invasive procedure is the only answer because that is the message coming from some powerful voices. Yet, genuine “health care” is not just a set of steps or pills. It involves your choices, your beliefs and your willingness to understand what your body truly needs. Gentempo described his early days in chiropractic care, where he frequently encountered patients who assumed that a doctor always knew best.
Those same individuals often had no real sense of their own ability to heal. In many cases, they simply replaced their inner wisdom with a blind trust in practitioners wearing white coats. Gentempo’s point is one I have voiced time and again — each of you should take a more active role in your own health. Part of that means understanding that most so-called “health care” is actually designed to handle crises and emergencies, rather than promote day-to-day well-being.
There is certainly a place for emergency interventions. If you experience a broken bone or life-threatening infection, going to a hospital is clearly the right move. But as you will see, making wise decisions in everyday life often prevents these problems or at least lessens their severity.
Throughout my professional journey, I have found that the best outcomes happen when you trust your own judgment enough to consider alternative approaches. Gentempo agrees. He shared a story of being nearly pushed into knee surgery, only to pause and remember his core belief that the body is self-healing and self-regulating. This pause gave him room to explore a natural path — one that ultimately led to a full recovery without surgery.
Embracing Self-Trust and Personal Choice
During our conversation, we also focused on how fear disrupts your ability to trust yourself. I have often seen people become so caught up in what they are told by experts that they lose sight of their own experiences and gut feelings. Gentempo explained that, without a personal philosophy, you naturally adopt someone else’s. That point deserves your attention. It means your choices come not from a place of conviction but from pressure or habit.
When you decide to live by your own philosophy, you begin to ask questions. You might wonder: Does a proposed treatment align with how you view health, or does it only address a symptom? Have you looked for credible data and then checked how it resonates with your experiences?
This shift might involve saying “no” to a recommendation or stepping away from a risky drug. It often feels unusual, especially if you are used to following directions without challenging them. Yet, in the long run, this approach could save you from unneeded therapies and help you find better solutions.
During our discussion, Gentempo recalled times in his practice when he saw the direct power of self-healing. He watched patients who tried conservative, noninvasive options before resorting to surgery. Many of them improved. This reminded me of a key study in the New England Journal of Medicine showing that certain knee surgeries were no better than sham procedures.1
It underscores how assumptions about standard care don’t always hold up. You deserve to know such information to avoid getting swept into fear-based decisions. The moment you break free from that cycle of dread, you become much better equipped to evaluate the merits of any treatment. You move from being told what to do to deciding what to do. That is the essence of real self-trust.
Questioning the ‘Health Care’ Label
A large part of my conversation with Gentempo centered on the way our society approaches health. We both find it troubling that so much money and energy goes into a system better described as “sick care.” Despite massive health care spending, many people remain unwell or become sicker as they age.
You look around and see countless advertisements for drugs, along with stories from neighbors and friends who juggle multiple prescriptions. That seems perfectly normal in our current age, but it does not reflect what true health looks like. In a genuine health care system, the priority would be to help you stay healthy in the first place. Rather than constantly placing you in a reactive stance, it would center on prevention and healthy lifestyle habits.
Gentempo pointed out that medication-based care does not automatically become “bad.” If you encounter an acute crisis, pharmaceutical or surgical interventions are often lifesaving. The issue arises when prescriptions and procedures are used for mild or chronic conditions without considering simpler, safer solutions. This over-reliance on medicine leads to a cycle where people keep adding more drugs to handle side effects, and no one ever addresses the root cause.
I have spent many years showing readers how to handle common health concerns through smart, natural methods. Whether it is taking steps to optimize your vitamin D levels or learning how to manage stress before it spirals, you have options beyond the standard sick-care path. I urge you to remain curious and look for ways to maintain vitality. Do not wait for permission to try something as basic as healthy eating, proper sleep or a thoughtful supplement routine.
Save This Article for Later – Get the PDF Now
Download PDFCrafting a Health Philosophy That Fits You
As Gentempo explains, forming a personal health philosophy means taking the time to decide what you believe about the nature of your body and how it heals. Some of you likely feel quite certain that the human body, given proper support, is incredibly resilient. You believe your energy and overall function improves with simple steps like removing toxins, eating real foods and staying active.
Others still cling to the assumption that a doctor’s prescription or a scalpel is always required to correct any health issue. Gentempo and I suggest you consider how your current beliefs were formed. Did you develop them through your own experience and valid research, or have you absorbed them from the environment around you? If you learn to “audit” your beliefs, you keep the good ones and discard those that do not serve you anymore.
In our interview, we also discussed how people feel lost when they have no guiding philosophy at all. That leaves you vulnerable to picking up any passing idea or commercial message that seems official.
When you have a clear sense of what health means to you — when you know how you think your body should be cared for — other people’s claims become easier to evaluate. You may say, “That lines up with my philosophy,” or “This goes against how I understand health,” and proceed from there.
Deciding on your own philosophy does not mean you go it alone and never accept outside help. Rather, you become the ultimate judge. You gather insights from various sources, verify the evidence, then see if it resonates with your view of reality. If it does, you might adopt it. If not, you discard it without feeling guilty. A personal philosophy is not a set of unchanging rules; it shifts as new knowledge emerges.
Old Assumptions and New Insights
We talked about how easy it is to repeat old assumptions without checking if they are still correct. Maybe you have believed something like “saturated fats are harmful” or “any government-approved drug must be 100% safe.” As Gentempo and I noted, you then look back and find that many modern ideas turned out to be mistaken. Studies challenging long-held beliefs pop up regularly, yet people keep following the same paths out of habit or fear.
An example is the use of seed oils, which contain linoleic acid. You’ve likely seen repeated claims that these are “heart-healthy” alternatives, when in reality they’re mitochondrial poisons. You might have grown up with the notion that vegetable oils in processed foods were better for you, only to learn now that butter, ghee and coconut oil are healthier options.
In my conversation with Gentempo, I pointed out that changing your perspective does not make you weak or indecisive. It means you are growing and staying open to the idea that new information should replace outdated ideas. Science itself evolves, and so do you. The important thing is to stay active in the process, so you are not letting others make choices for you while you remain on the sidelines.
Mitochondria and the Role of Energy
One of the standout parts of our interview was discussing how health is tied to energy production within your cells. I have written extensively about mitochondria, the tiny power plants that convert nutrients into usable fuel, including in my book “Your Guide to Cellular Health: Unlocking the Science of Longevity and Joy.” As Gentempo and I both noted, many everyday toxins weaken this energy process, leaving you feeling drained or vulnerable to illness.
We also discussed the importance of removing known mitochondrial toxins. It is not enough to merely add good things, such as better foods and more movement, if you are still bombarding your cells with harmful substances.
That is like trying to sail a boat with an anchor dragging along the ocean floor. By freeing yourself from that anchor — say, by cutting out seed oils and reducing your exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals — you allow your body to generate energy more efficiently.
Gentempo’s philosophy rests on the idea that your body has an innate capacity for self-healing. I share that view. Through the years, many of the successes I have witnessed happened when patients embraced their responsibility to nurture their body’s innate wisdom. That meant exercising, eating foods free of damaging additives and learning how to lower stress. It also meant staying curious instead of simply following the loudest or most “official” voice.
We recognize that tension often arises when you decide to break from the crowd. For example, during COVID-19 mandates, many people were torn between what made sense to them and what was required by policy. It was not our role in that discussion to dictate what is right for you. Rather, we suggest making decisions that are consistent with your core beliefs and the data you have gathered. That way, you avoid letting outside pressures force you into unwise or harmful choices.
Carrying the Lessons Forward
For me, interviewing Gentempo served as a reminder that the pursuit of health is not just about strict rules or scientific papers. It is about learning how to align what you know logically with what you feel intuitively. Studies and data hold great value, and I often cite them to support various points. Yet, you are the only one living in your body, experiencing your daily routine and coping with your unique challenges.
Gentempo explained that your mindset, emotions and choices build your energetic field. And that, in turn, influences your physical reality. I support this view, especially after working with tens of thousands of individuals over the years who drastically improved their health by shifting daily habits — often starting with small, seemingly simple changes. They began by choosing to think differently about what health really means.
Our conversation finished on a hopeful note. Both of us see a massive need for a more authentic view of health, one driven by self-trust and curiosity rather than fear. This is your opportunity to make decisions that line up with what works for your body and your circumstances. As you do, you might spark curiosity in friends, family or even strangers who see you living with more freedom and vitality.
Expanding Your Creative, Joyful Self
At the heart of everything we discussed is the idea that your life is meant to be creative, joyful and free from unnecessary fear. I shared how your energy levels affect not only your physical strength but also your spirit. When you connect to that source of energy — whether you call it your spirit, soul or simply your vital spark — you find that making the right health choices becomes easier.
Gentempo and I agree that real joy comes from living in alignment with your deepest truths. If you ever doubt whether your life can improve, I encourage you to consider the rapid transformations I have seen. Some people overcame serious health problems simply by questioning old assumptions and trusting themselves enough to try a different path. They created a ripple effect — changing not just their own health story, but also influencing others who noticed their results.
My hope is that you recognize how important it is to keep learning and growing. Stay curious about new findings in health, but always run them through your personal filter. Rely on your philosophy of wellness, continue refining your choices and remain open to future discoveries. Let that process fill you with the energy and clarity needed to embrace a life of true health and joy.
Moving Forward with Confidence and Vitality
As we wrapped up our interview, Gentempo shared the importance of embracing your own judgment and not being afraid to refine it as you learn. You are not stuck with a single belief system forever; you are free to change it when new evidence or personal experiences point you toward a better route.
You have a chance, right now, to take your health into your own hands by reflecting on the discussion I had with Gentempo. We covered everything from the power of your personal philosophy to the practical considerations of living in a system that often treats medicine as a universal cure-all. The message is not that you should reject every medical intervention, but that you need to see yourself as the central figure in your health journey.
I am thankful for the time I got to spend with Gentempo, as it reinforced the core principles I have championed for decades: Focus on prevention, respect your body’s natural intelligence and do not let fear drive you. Instead, examine studies, seek expert opinions and, if you come to a different conclusion than the mainstream, realize that might be the best choice you ever make.
Elevating Your Health with Purpose
As my conversation with Gentempo explains, your health is best served by your own wisdom, guided by solid facts and a willingness to adapt. Neither of us suggests living in a bubble or ignoring doctors. Instead, we want to encourage you to become a partner in your own care — one who weighs information carefully and doesn’t forget the power you hold over your daily habits.
Through this collaboration between your knowledge and your intuition, you tap into a higher level of healing and growth. Recognize that “health care” should not be limited to an endless series of prescriptions. Rather, it is a dynamic, ongoing practice of fueling your body well, giving it enough rest and choosing safe, evidence-based interventions when necessary.
I invite you to read more about the ideas we touched on. Explore Gentempo’s website, gentempo.com.2 Look up peer-reviewed studies on subjects that interest you. Pay attention to experts you trust, but always match their advice to your own situation. If something feels off or leads to negative outcomes for people you care about, dig deeper. Ask questions. Adjust your approach. That is how true learning happens.
I hope you use these insights to push past fear or confusion and step boldly into a life driven by your own inner compass. Like Gentempo, I believe you will find that once you tune in to your body’s capabilities — you unlock not just a healthier version of yourself but also a more joyful and meaningful life overall.
– Sources and References
Pfizer knew there’s an 80% miscarriage rate
From Exposing the Darkness @ substack
“There’s a section in the Pfizer documents where there’s an 80% miscarriage rate…”
“…Pfizer knew that babies in utero were being exposed to the vaccine. In their words the babies were dying through “transplacental exposure.”
“…They knew that they were poisoning breast milk, and that the lipid nanoparticles, the mRNA, and presumably the spike was getting onto the breast milk, and causing convulsions, and deaths.”
“ They knew that newborns would have (some of them) air sacs between their tiny lungs and their tiny chest walls. And this would cause respiratory distress. They knew it. It’s in the Pfizer documents.”
SHORT (or longer) VIDEO AT THE LINK
You must be logged in to post a comment.