Tag Archives: exemptions

Covid-19 experimental injection

Lockstep Lawyers for the Phantom of the Five Eyes

3 Comments

From Ursula Edgington, PhD

Why did every company’s legal advisor, all the corporate lawyers including their professional bodies, go along with the covid era legislation? Where was the Human Rights Commission, social justice ‘experts’ and academics whose role and duty was to stand up for ethical, informed consent? Why, three years after the ‘no jab, no job’ mandates, is discrimination still enforced in so many workplaces, staff compensation missing? Here are some reasons why.

         Photo by Kyle Glenn on Unsplash

“… there’s no better way of exercising the imagination than the study of law. No poet ever interpreted nature as freely as a lawyer interprets the truth.” Jean Giraudoux (1882-1944)

  • At readers’ request – this is the first of a series of articles on lawfare during the covid era in New Zealand.

Browsing New Zealand lawyers’ websites, you may be forgiven for thinking that large law firms in New Zealand are genuinely Kiwi-run, independent from each other, but of course well-connected. They compete for business, right? But did you know that Large Law Firms Group Ltd is actually a registered company (2155281) incorporated in 2008? The shareholders of which are, you guessed it, the ten largest law firms in NZ. As usual, everything is Hidden in Plain Sight.

Investigating these websites, the directors, partnerships, memberships and ‘charitable’ arms of these law firms, it is clear they are often disingenuous – they are in reality funded by, and servants of ‘them lot’ or GloboCap, a branch of massive corporate entities.

The Large Law Firms Group Ltd consists of (in no particular order):

1.      Bell Gully Services Ltd

2.      Kensington Swan Holdings Ltd aka ‘Dentons’

3.      Chapman Tripp Holdings Ltd

4.      Budfin Nominees Ltd  aka ‘Buddle Findlay’

5.      Malcolm Ross Crotty (Partner at Russell McVeaugh)

6.      Consensus Nominees Ltd aka ‘Simpson Grierson’

7.      Minter Ellison Lawyers NZ Ltd

8.      Martin Thomson (DLA Piper Ltd)

9.      Duncan Cotterill

10.  Anderson Lloyd Shareholding Co Ltd

The Lawyers’ Regulator Enabler

 
 

The NZLS describes itself as a regulator with:

“…dedicated duties and powers focused on monitoring, regulating and enforcing the rules that apply to lawyers and the way they practise law. We regulate around 15,000 lawyers to ensure New Zealanders can have confidence in the provision of legal services.” (my emphasis)

15,000 is a lot of lawyers in a small population like ours. NZLS’s main regulatory services are:

·       Maintaining a public register of lawyers

·       Issuing practising certificates and certificates of standing

·       Managing the Lawyers Complaints Service

·       Managing a Financial Assurance Scheme, including trust account reviews

·       Managing the Lawyers’ Fidelity Fund

·       Law reform and advocacy activities including submissions on legislation

·       Making practice rules: processes for changes in modes of practice

·       Providing libraries for lawyers

Has NZLS become another victim of regulatory capture?

David Campbell is a director at Dentons, and conveniently, he is also a Director and Vice President Auckland at the New Zealand Law Society (NZLS). Frazer Barton is president of NZLS and also a partner at Anderson Lloyd. I know it’s perhaps inevitable that senior lawyers are in these roles, but does it really need to be this explicit? Couldn’t we at least have some independents, some retirees?

You see NZLS has a Council of Legal Education (CLE) and an online learning indoctrination platform for professional lawyers to obtain their required hours of continuing professional education. If you have time, its YouTube channel contains interesting communications to its members regarding the covid era tyrannical changes in our Human Rights laws.

The Council says its “…an independent statutory body. The general activities of the Council concern public interest and regulatory matters and centre on the Council’s responsibilities for the quality and provision of education and practical legal training that is required to be undertaken by any person either within New Zealand or from overseas wishing to be admitted as a barrister and solicitor of the High Court of New Zealand.”

But how CAN the CLE be independent and in the public interest, when it is staffed, funded and run by the lawyers it is supposed to audit? Sounds like the UKs MHRA! NZs revolving doors of power, that I have written about before, are flying around at full speed in this sector. For instance, Tiana Apati was until recently President of the NZLS CLE and has now moved to law firm Bankside. Previously she was at the NZ Government’s legal advisors: Crown Law.

Buddle Findlay will be the subject of a further article, but as expected their website looks remarkably similar to other ‘Large Law Firms’ partners, including Diversity, Equity & Inclusion (DEI) targets from the UN Agenda 2030. The latest report on progress provides the usual arbitrary data on gender and ethnicity, alongside stories of support for BigChem-sponsored Environmental Fascism I have written about before too.  

 
Extract from the DEI Report from Buddle Findlay with some interesting graphics

It is interesting to note this law firm’s Pro Bono arm, Buddle Findlay Child Health Foundation Trust (CC33151) which declares (unsurprisingly) a modest income/expenditure of approx. NZ$82k per annum (considering the $millions profit there must be for this firm’s activities?) Some funding goes towards paying for medical students’ ‘research’ projects at the University of Auckland. Another box ticked.

“Dentons is a global legal practice providing client services worldwide through its member firms and affiliates.” Here is a worldwide list from its website:

 
Screenshot from Denton’s website

There are international networks too, one firm states how:

“We work closely with legal specialists internationally through our membership of TerraLex. TerraLex is one of the largest legal networks in the world with 141 member firms, providing access to 201 jurisdictions and more than 19,000 legal professionals worldwide. Partners travel regularly across Australia, Asia, the US, the UK and Europe maintaining relationships with our key clients and referrer contacts.” (my emphasis)

Interesting to note that TerraLex Annual Report claims ‘the most productive year to date”. And is holding a Healthcare Conference in January 2025 for its members, sponsored by JP Morgan. In fact, there are many examples of interest in legal aspects of healthcare on these lawyers’ website, for instance this project about the implications of the NZ Privacy Act on data harvesting by eHealth platforms:

 

Like many of its partners, Minter Ellison published many international articles about the Five Eyes’ compliance with the ‘No Jab, No Job’ totalitarian covid era policies.

There are also numerous references to the Climate Change narrative, including legal guidance around obtaining Carbon Credits and similar.

DLA Piper is perhaps not a familiar NZ name, but is a partnership of global law firms:

“…separately constituted and regulated legal entities which provide legal and other client services in accordance with the relevant laws of the jurisdictions in which they respectively operate.” And their partnerships are extensive:

DLA Piper’s business in Europe, Africa, the Middle East and Asia Pacific is governed by DLA Piper International LLP. The members, partners or other principals of the various entities that provide client services in those regions are members of DLA Piper International LLP, unless they are prevented from doing so due to regulatory restrictions.

Investigations into the directors of these firms and their associated trustees of ‘charities’ reveal anticipated clues into lifestyles and potential conflicts of interest.

READ PART TWO:

Taxpayer-Funded Lawfare in New Zealand: How much is it costing us?
 
 
 

Informed Heart is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

 

https://informedheart.substack.com/p/lockstep-lawyers-for-the-phantom
 
Image by LEANDRO AGUILAR from Pixabay
Covid-19 experimental injection

Revolving Doors of Power: Commercial NZ Health Group obtains 30% of all Granted Applications for ‘Vaccine’ Mandate Exemptions – 2 months later a Senior Government Manager is Appointed their CEO

Leave a comment

From Ursula Edgington, PhD @ substack

NZ Health Group managed to continue profitable business during 2021-22 when all 2467 ‘vaccine’ mandate exemption applications for their staff were granted by the (anon) Gov Covid Exemption Panel.

I’ve written before about the NZ ‘vaccine’ mandates and exemptions. An overview is here, and here and more specifically I’ve looked at many of the impacted public sector workers, like the nurses, teachers, paramedics and also in our prisons. I’ve also written a lot about ways academia controls the narrative, which include the revolving doors of international Public Private Partnerships (PPPs). Here, I want to focus on an example of how all these topics – academia, PPPs and wealthy shareholders – fit together.

Re-Cap on ‘No Jab, No Job’

During the height of the covid era totalitarianism, it was virtually impossible for any public (or commercial) sector worker who was mandated, to obtain an official ‘exemption’. Like many stories around the globe, whether your application was based on health, cultural or religious grounds, ALL were dismissed in the unethical and illogical claim:

“It’s for the Greater Good”

Many of us already knew the mandates were anti-science, but it became more widely known in MEP Robert Roos’ great Tweet when Pfizer exec Janice Small sniggered as she confirmed the fact there was no testing for transmission (45 secs):

Health Forum NZ, the Nurses’ Professional Association of New Zealand, NZDSOS and NZTSOS and many other such national advocacy groups have pointed out, the gatekeepers of the schools, prisons, surgeries, universities, hospitals and so many other organisations, including the unions, prevented staff from even knowing what the procedures for applying for an exemption were, let alone submitting one on their behalf. As a direct result of this blanket policy and military-grade censorship and propaganda, many people understandably felt coerced or forced to get the jab, and were subsequently harmed, or even died as a result.

Exemptions were literally SO rare (even those who had taken one dose and suffered an adverse reaction, were tragically not exempted from having to get a second, or third), that many people assumed no-one managed to avoid the wrath of the BigPharma captured Ministry of Health diktat.

But then I discovered that at least 6,707 healthcare-related staff in NZ were granted an exemption to the mandate under the law. (This has now been revised to 5,216 – more on that soon). So I was intrigued to find out who these people were – and more importantly, how these exemptions were obtained.

It turns out, after complaining to the Government Ombudsman, in a long-awaited OIA response that I sent 11 October 2023 (Ref HNZ00030952), that 11,741 total applications for ‘vaccine’ mandate exemptions were received between 27 Oct 2021 and 5 Sept 2022.

Gold Dust Exemptions

Amongst the long spreadsheet of redacted items, one thing stands out: the repeated applications for multiple individuals (some will be duplicates for extensions) from the commercial entity ‘New Zealand Health Group’. The main shareholder, NZ-Rich Listed Doug Catley’s empire has accumulated many names (see the image below). All are involved in providing some type of community-level care for our diverse population, from mental health counselling, agency staffing or emergency alarms etc:

According to its website, New Zealand Health Group is the

“largest community health, disability and wellbeing group supporting over 30,000 people to get on with making the most of life in their own homes, communities and work places…”

And at the helm, CEO since last year is Jane Kelley. What was she doing prior to Jan 2023 you ask? Well, it won’t be any surprise to those familiar with the revolving doors of power, that she was at the NZ Ministry of Health as ‘Director, National Controller’ for the ‘Covid-19 National Health Coordination Centre’.

Jane Kelley in the revolving door.

In this recent Opinion Piece by Kelley from Dec 2023 she explains the benefits of PPPs in healthcare (it is, after all, a numbers game):

“Addressing the workforce shortage is an example of progressive collaboration. Working in partnership with MSD (Ministry of Social Development), we have successfully trained and employed more than 1000 new support workers, some who (sic) may not have considered the home and community sector a viable employment option. We’ve also set up programmes that enable people who are helping care for family and whānau at home, to use their skills to qualify as a support worker.” (my emphasis)

The ‘beauty’ of the PPPs (for people like Kelley) is that any detail about the funds collected by these ‘partnerships’ with MSD etc are outside the Official Information Act (OIA), and any questions to the Gov Dept concerned are often bounced back with the claim “commercially sensitive”. Hence the true extent of the exploitation and profits that Health Group NZ makes from tax-payers’ funds being syphoned into ambiguously defined ‘care’, is unknown. This is a global problem as PPPs and their leeches have grown in the impact investor financial sector.

Likewise, OIAs have failed to get any transparency about who exactly the people were at the top of the NZ Gov ‘Covid Response’ decision-making (apparently due to Privacy Act reasons). But it’s useful to investigate who this Panel MAY have included.

Looking at Kelley’s public career profile for a moment, we can see her Linkedin page lists her most recent appointment as beginning in Nov 2022, which supports this PR-firm’s announcement (stating she actually started her role in January 2023), which goes on to state:

With over 25 years in the health sector, Jane has held a variety of executive, operational, and project leadership roles. Most recently Jane was the Director – National Controller Covid19 – National Health Coordination Centre, responsible for facilitating the Ministry of Health’s initial crisis response to Covid19. This was a pivotal role that involved establishing and leading a team of 300 and developing strategic relationships with multiple stakeholders from the highest level in Government through to local communities.

I wonder who her ‘team of 300’ were? Any Whistleblowers amongst them perhaps? But this same article is bending the truth slightly, claiming that her ‘most recent’ role was at the Ministry of Health – or was it? Let’s look more closely at her Linkedin profile (screenshot below):

Fernhill Solutions is a consultancy firm which benefits from being a New Zealand Government ‘All of Government (AoG) Consultancy Panel’ (full explanation and directory here) in the following sub-categories:

“Business Change/Policy, Research and Development/Procurement and Logistics”

This status means it can effectively fast-track through any NZ Government tender process to obtain potentially lucrative funding/contracts. That doesn’t seem like a good idea to me as a NZ taxpayer, but it’s the ‘new normal’ of the PPP impact investment world.

Screenshot from the NZ Health Group website (as at 18/03/2024)

The Fernhill Solutions website is (conveniently) down at the time of writing this. But back in 30 January 2021 Kelley was indeed listed on the ‘Our People’ section of the archived version of their website along with David Crowley. But upon further investigation at NZ Companies Services, we can see the new shareholding company of Fernhill Solutions ‘Hapuna Holdings’, with Crowley and Kelley also as Directors. (They are also Directors of Hapuna Equine and Hapuna Developments). One of the last items posted on the Fernhill Solutions website is this poorly-written article (eg ‘Addition’ in the first line should read ‘Addiction’) about collating Public Submissions for a Report to Government…

Screenshot of the WayBack Machine capture from the Fernhill post (Jan 2020)

Up until Aug 2020, Kelley was apparently also a Director of Avid Support Ltd, a H&S consultancy business, based in Dunedin.

Edit to add an Addendum here 28/05/24. OIA responses have revealed that Kelley’s Fernhill Consultants were paid by NZ Government a total NZ$232,100 during the height of the covid era (mandate) insanity (Oct 2021-Sept 2022). Not for covid-related tests or jabs, though, but breast cancer ‘vision’ computer ‘modelling’ and surveillance (not the screening itself it seems). This opens up another whole can of worms:

So what?

To summarise, on 12 Nov 2021, the Ministry of Health established a Panel to be led by Sir Ashley Bloomfield who were to meet regularly, read and consider the applications for those Kiwis who applied for an exemption under the SSD Vaccination Order ‘emergency’ laws. Of the 11,741 individuals listed in the applications made, only 68% (8,051) were granted. And of those granted, most, 5,217(ish) were from District Health Boards (more on that soon). All 49 of the applications from Allied Health were declined. But a staggering 2,467 of those granted were not from other patient-serving, under-staffed, poorly-funded public sectors, but instead from corporate giant NZ Health Group.

Remember this was never about Public Health!

Jane Kelley was employed as a Senior Director for the NZ Government’s ‘Covid 19 Response’ by the Ministry of Health in or around Jan 2020. According to her Linkedin profile, she was undertaking ‘consultancy’ work (for Government) between Aug 2021 until Nov 2023 at which point she was appointed CEO of the NZ Health Group. This is the same company which inexplicably benefited from nearly a third of all ‘vaccine’ mandate exemptions, which allowed private healthcare provision to continue throughout the totalitarian era, inevitably pushing up profits for its wealthy shareholders with their private jets. I can’t help wondering what Kelley’s consultancy fees are, and her new salary (although there are some useful clues).

Worldwide, ethical lawyers are working hard to reclaim our Human Rights, that were lost during the covid era. There has been some wins like the NZ Police and Defence Force. But progress is slow.

Finally, it’s worth noting this excerpt from the Healthcare NZ Bio about the wealthy main NZ Health Group Shareholder, Catley:

In the past, Doug has been the Deputy plus Acting Chairman of the Wellington Area Health Board and Chairman of its Policy and Finance Committee. He has also been a member of the Council for the University of Otago’s Wellington School of Medicine, a member of the Medical Research Foundation, and Deputy Chairman of the Board for a major New Zealand bank (TrustBank), the latter being a Prime Ministerial appointment.

(It’s not what you know…)

Meanwhile, our qualified, loyal and experienced public sector workers, including desperately needed nurses, were unfairly discriminated against and declined access to even apply for an exemption, let alone be granted one. Like many of us, they are still being discriminated against today, as I explain here.

If you have further information about this topic, please comment or message me privately. The PDF of the OIA’s spreadsheet should appear below:

Appendix One

864KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Share

SOURCE

Photo by Zack Yeo on Unsplash

Covid-19 experimental injection

Another OI request reveals 160 ‘vaccine exemptions for mandated staff at Fire & Emergency NZ

Leave a comment

From Ursula Edgington, PhD @ substack

Response to another Official Info Act request about those Kiwis who managed to ‘dodge a bullet’….

Here is the latest info from the Fire & Emergency NZ, which is a service largely run by volunteers (80% of FTE staff). This is because of our sparse population in rural landscapes and other social issues. Fire & Emergency don’t just tackle fires, they are also frequently involved in all kinds of emergency situations, and are often trained paramedics. They are also involved in workplace training programmes, fire permits and surveys. This is a recent breakdown of their staffing and volunteers….

READ AT THE LINK

https://informedheart.substack.com/p/160-vaccine-exemptions-for-mandated?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=1317258&post_id=138821804&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=fh3zn&utm_medium=email

NZ Fire Station, Source: Wiki Commons

Corona virus, Covid-19 experimental injection

New Zealand’s Byzantine Jab Exemptions

Leave a comment

From NEWZEALANDDOC @ substack

In my most recent article on New Zealand’s Jab mandates and exemptions for healthcare workers (which can be read here and here, and which included source documents and links thereof), and following upon my discussion with lawyer Liz Lambert of the legal processes at issue, I formulated a series of questions.

  1. When the jab mandates for healthcare workers were lifted, were all those healthcare workers who had been terminated for not getting the jab offered their jobs back?Answer: Another Official Information Act request has been made to address this issue, and a response has been delayed. I know of one physician who, refusing to receive a third jab, was fired from her District Health Board job while on vacation, but rehired upon her return after the mandates had been lifted. I know of another physician in similar circumstances as well.
  2. Were any religious exemptions granted? If so, by whom? How many?Answer: No, there were none.
  3. Of the temporary medical exemptions (9B) granted, the vast majority were given for those who had an ‘active’ covid infection. Who made the decisions about the other exemptions for adverse events, for example?Answer: The Director General of Health Ashley Bloomfield made the ultimate decisions along with a Panel of Six up until late July 2022 (please see Appendices One and Two in Source Documents). At this juncture Ayesha Verrall took over that role, and also took over the position of Minister for Covid Response from Chris Hipkins in June of that year. She had control of both medical (9B) and Service Disruption (12A) exemptions.
  4. Were Significant Service Disruption (SSD) exemptions contingent upon medical exemptions having been granted for those who fell under this category?  Answer: No. SSD exemptions were granted to those who did not necessarily have medical exemptions. I know of one physician who remained unjabbed but continued to practice, albeit via telehealth (remotely, not face to face). He did not apply for a medical exemption but he assumes that his administrative chiefs applied for an SSD to cover him. Two of my psychiatric colleagues in Wellington were terminated without having been given the option of telehealth.

READ AT THE LINK

https://newzealanddoc.substack.com/p/new-zealands-byzantine-jab-exemptions?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=1144743&post_id=137793421&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=fh3zn&utm_medium=email

Photo: pixabay.com

Corona virus, Vaccines

More on the Secret Exemptions for Mandated Healthcare Workers in NZ

1 Comment
More on the Secret Exemptions for Mandated Healthcare Workers in NZ
Corporations, News, Pharmaceutical Industry

Welcome to Calipharma: Where Your Children are For Profit and Parental Freedoms are Nonexistent

3 Comments
How to push & achieve mandatory vaccination, pick a wealthy state, pay the politicians well & voila. EWR
Posted on:

Tuesday, September 10th 2019 at 3:45 pm

Don’t California my [Insert State Here]: The egregious injustice of SB276 and its trailer bill, which solidified sweeping vaccine legislation into law, was enacted under the false pretenses of fraudulent exemptions, targets medically fragile children, and will usher in an age of medical tyranny

“They came first for philosophical exemptions and I said nothing, because my kids are in private school. Then they came for religious exemptions and I said nothing, because I am not that kind of religious. Then they came for our medical freedom and I said nothing, because I could still home school. Then they came for me and took my children. And no one was left to speak up.” – Lavenda Memory

How a bill becomes a law: apparently, by enough good people who know better–doing nothing, saying nothing.

Yesterday, both SB276 and its trailer bill, SB714 passed through the California Assembly and Senate and were signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsom, catapulting the next civil rights movement into full swing, and setting the stage for a sweeping wave of medical tyranny and government overreach.

Medical freedom fighters came out in droves to decry the draconian bill SB276, peacefully occupying the assembly and the senate, until threatened with arrest and ordered to disperse from the latter.

Despite mainstream media portrayal, SB276 opponents are by and large not anti-vaxxers, but rather, ex-vaxxers and vaccine-hesitant mothers (and a few courageous fathers) with documented adverse reactions in themselves or their children that by the testimony of their own doctors has rendered them ineligible for further vaccinations.

Despite lack of coverage by every major media outlet, some of the California legislators who voted no and supported the protestors relayed to SB276 opponents that this was the largest outpouring of activism that they had ever witnessed for any bill during their political tenure.

In spite of the widespread opposition to the bill at the California Capitol, the viral #JUSTASKING and #SOS social media campaigns that lit up Governor Gavin Newsom’s Instagram page in yellow, and vocal outcries by parents across the nation, the bills were signed into law amongst pleas from medical freedom fighters, “No segregation–no discrimination–yes on education, for all!”.

Voting was divided squarely down party lines. These bills were passed thanks to unanimous yes votes by Democrats, revealing that their allegiance unequivocally lies with corporate interests over the constituents to which they are beholden on this issue.

Republicans voted no across the board, with some assembly members, such as Waldron, Mathis, and Melendez, cheering on the protestors as they chanted, “Moms know best!” from the rafters.


“It is quite stunning to watch liberals applauding censorship, particularly the muzzling of the bullied mothers of injured children in order to protect pharmaceutical products from criticism”. 

-Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

READ MORE
This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of GreenMedInfo LLC. Want to learn more from GreenMedInfo? Sign up for the newsletter here //www.greenmedinfo.com/greenmed/newsletter.”
News, Vaccines

The NZ govt has ‘no plans’ to make vaccination mandatory

5 Comments

Pre election I did see a snippet from Labour saying they hadn’t ruled it out. I suspect if you read this whole article here you’ll see they are quietly warming you to the idea as is the role of lamestream media. As was the purpose of the pre election article.

“As New Zealand grapples with a measles outbreak, is it time for New Zealand to do the same?” is the punch line so to speak. Asking you the public so as you not them will decide (sort of).

I heard recently that a certain NZ hospital was not admitting non vaccinated patients. Another admission I recently heard of was accompanied with three separate requests to vaccinate, in spite of the illness of the patient. I’m sure the inserts tell you not to vaccinate sick people.

Call for compulsory vaccinations as NZ grapples with measles outbreak? reads the article headline …. grapples with a condition we all had as kids & didn’t die from.  Now it’s hysterical hype from the folks who want you to line up & line their pockets. Nary a mention of weighing up the risks, possible injuries or even death. EWR

From stuff

“The Government has no plans to pass legislation to increase vaccination rates, despite a major study showing law changes have worked well overseas.

The proportion of children in California showing up to kindergarten unvaccinated more than halved after the US state passed two bills between 2014 and 2017 – one requiring parents to prove they had spoken to a doctor about the risks of not vaccinating and another which banned “personal belief exemptions”.

As New Zealand grapples with a measles outbreak, is it time for New Zealand to do the same?”

READ MORE:

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/113991173/call-for-compulsory-vaccinations-as-nz-grapples-with-measles-outbreak?%3Fcid=facebook.post&cid=facebook.post&fbclid=IwAR2p0kFgJ4luMoDPYhLJbaWk_70piwB1x01aheBr8OsZkEbThKi6VVF9pn8

News, vaccine injury, Vaccines

No Mercy for Mothers Or Their Vaccine Injured Children

1 Comment

From thevaccinereaction.org

Today, parents whose children have been injured by vaccines are being demonized and discriminated against for speaking publicly about what happened to their children after vaccination.1 There is no other minority in America being subjected to public humiliation and censorship for simply speaking the truth.2

Pediatricians are also cruelly bullying and coercing mothers into giving vaccines to sick children already struggling with vaccine injuries that have compromised their health.34 These mothers are desperately trying to protect their children from further harm by refusing to give them more vaccines. Yet, many pediatricians are showing no mercy and insisting on implementing one-size-fits-all government vaccine policy regardless of the risk to these vulnerable children’s lives.5 6

Legislators Ignoring the People and Voting to Violate Human Rights

Vaccines are pharmaceutical products that carry two risks: a risk of harm and a risk of failure and those risks can be greater for some people because we are not all the same.Even though there are vaccine science knowledge gaps and doctors cannot accurately predict who is more susceptible to being harmed by vaccination,7 some statelawmakers are also determined to force implementation of one-size-fits-all federal vaccine policies that recognize few contraindications to vaccination qualifying for a medical exemption.8 9

Despite historic public protests with thousands of parents and concerned health care professionals showing up at public hearings in state legislatures to oppose bills that strip religious and conscientious belief exemptions from public health laws, majority party legislators in Oregon, Colorado and Maine this week chose to ignore the people and voted to push forward bills that violate parental and informed consent rights.10 11 1213

The people are standing up against medical tyranny in numbers never seen before in state Capitols. Brave legislators are speaking out, too, in an effort to resist the push by zealous health officials and medical trade associations to force parents to give their children every dose of every federally recommended vaccine without exception. An Oregon legislator opposing a bill to eliminate the personal belief vaccine exemption in that state said, “I believe this bill, if it passes the House and the Senate ultimately, truly is the beginning of the death of freedom.”

Public health policies and laws that prevent parents from exercising freedom of conscience and informed consent to vaccination for their minor children violate human rights.14

If doctors deviate from government vaccine policy, they are being demonized and discriminated against, too. In California, where parents have been prohibited from exercising religious or conscientious beliefs when making vaccine decisions for their children, a bill is sailing through the legislature that will strip doctors of their legal right to exercise professional judgment and conscience when giving a child a medical vaccine exemption.15 16

Laws that prevent doctors from exercising judgment and conscience when caring for children are immoral and dangerous.

Mother Details Abuse by Doctor on NVIC’s Cry for Vaccine Freedom Wall

The Cry for Vaccine Freedom Wall, which was launched on the website of the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC.org) in 2009, contains first person testimonials of adult patients and parents of minor children who have been harassed, threatened, coerced and sanctioned for attempting to exercise freedom of thought, conscience and informed consent to vaccination. Following is a testimonial posted on Apr. 7, 2019 on the Cry for Vaccine Freedom Wall by a mother with vaccine injured children:

My sons were 2 and 4 when my daughter was born. She began having seizures at birth and was very ill. The boy’s pediatrician refused to see her so I began searching for another one that would.

I should first mention that both of my boys had severe reactions to their vaccinations. The oldest had seizure activity with his 6-month vaccinations. He was referred to a neurologist at 9 months old who told me he probably had autism. That didn’t make sense to me at all. I held off on any other vaccinations until he was 15 months old and again, it triggered seizure activity.

I decided to do delayed vaccination with my second son. His first vaccines were at 5 months old and soon after, he got his first double ear infection. From then until he had tubes put in his ears at 11 months old, he had non-stop double ear infections. The tubes fixed the issues he was having with his hearing as a result of fluid buildup and he started learning words left and right. I would consider his speech at that point to be advanced.

I took him in to receive a vaccination at 13 months of age and he lost every single word, even mama and dada. Today, at the age of 13, he has multiple learning disabilities and still receives speech therapy for delays.

I began interviewing different pediatricians and settled on one that agreed to let me go at my own pace with the vaccinations. Soon after the switch, I took my then 18-month-old and most recent vaccine-damaged son for a checkup. The doctor proceeded to ask me which vaccination he was receiving that day. I told him we wouldn’t be getting any that day and he began to argue with me, stating I had told him I would give him one every visit and stating the research that supported the safety of vaccines. He spent a good 20 minutes bullying me into giving my child a vaccination and when I wouldn’t give in, he kicked us out of his practice in front of staff and other patients.

After watching both of my boys slip away in one form or another as a result of vaccinations, I wasn’t about to let someone bully me into giving them something I firmly believe would have further harmed them. But I was scared. The doctor wanted to scare me, wanted to belittle me, and wanted to bully me into doing things his way.

If this same situation happened in regard to anything other than vaccines, it would be considered abuse. The doctor would have abused me, but I also would be abusing my children by knowingly causing them harm.

It seems very black and white to me and it’s time that it stopped!17

Yes, it is time that doctors and lawmakers to care about the children who are born healthy but cannot get through the process of vaccination without suffering severe reactions that permanently damage their health.18 It is time for doctors and lawmakers to have compassion and show mercy to mothers instead of demonizing, bullying and punishing them for trying to protect their children from harm.

SEE REFERENCES AT THE LINK

https://thevaccinereaction.org/2019/04/no-mercy-for-mothers-or-their-vaccine-injured-children/

News, Vaccines

Unvaccinated Children Pose ZERO Risk to Anyone: Harvard Immunologist to Legislators

10 Comments

From vaccineimpact.com

Dr-Tetyana-Obukhanych.jpg
Dr. Tetyana Obukhanych

An Open Letter to Legislators Currently Considering Vaccine Legislation from Tetyana Obukhanych, PhD

Dear Legislator:

My name is Tetyana Obukhanych. I hold a PhD in Immunology. I am writing this letter in the hope that it will correct several common misperceptions about vaccines in order to help you formulate a fair and balanced understanding that is supported by accepted vaccine theory and new scientific findings.

Do unvaccinated children pose a higher threat to the public than the vaccinated?

It is often stated that those who choose not to vaccinate their children for reasons of conscience endanger the rest of the public, and this is the rationale behind most of the legislation to end vaccine exemptions currently being considered by federal and state legislators country-wide.

You should be aware that the nature of protection afforded by many modern vaccines – and that includes most of the vaccines recommended by the CDC for children – is not consistent with such a statement.

I have outlined below the recommended vaccines that cannot prevent transmission of disease either because they are not designed to prevent the transmission of infection (rather, they are intended to prevent disease symptoms), or because they are for non-communicable diseases.

People who have not received the vaccines mentioned below pose no higher threat to the general public than those who have, implying that discrimination against non-immunized children in a public school setting may not be warranted.

1. IPV (inactivated poliovirus vaccine) cannot prevent transmission of poliovirus. (see appendix for the scientific study, Item #1). Wild poliovirus has been non-existent in the USA for at least two decades. Even if wild poliovirus were to be re-imported by travel, vaccinating for polio with IPV cannot affect the safety of public spaces. Please note that wild poliovirus eradication is attributed to the use of a different vaccine, OPV or oral poliovirus vaccine. Despite being capable of preventing wild poliovirus transmission, use of OPV was phased out long ago in the USA and replaced with IPV due to safety concerns.

2. Tetanus is not a contagious disease, but rather acquired from deep-puncture wounds contaminated with C. tetani spores. Vaccinating for tetanus (via the DTaP combination vaccine) cannot alter the safety of public spaces; it is intended to render personal protection only.

3. While intended to prevent the disease-causing effects of the diphtheria toxin, the diphtheria toxoid vaccine (also contained in the DTaP vaccine) is not designed to prevent colonization and transmission of C. diphtheriae. Vaccinating for diphtheria cannot alter the safety of public spaces; it is likewise intended for personal protection only.

4. The acellular pertussis (aP) vaccine (the final element of the DTaP combined vaccine), now in use in the USA, replaced the whole cell pertussis vaccine in the late 1990s, which was followed by an unprecedented resurgence of whooping cough. An experiment with deliberate pertussis infection in primates revealed that the aP vaccine is not capable of preventing colonization and transmission of B. pertussis. The FDA has issued a warning regarding this crucial finding. [1]

Furthermore, the 2013 meeting of the Board of Scientific Counselors at the CDC revealed additional alarming data that pertussis variants (PRN-negative strains) currently circulating in the USA acquired a selective advantage to infect those who are up-to-date for their DTaP boosters, meaning that people who are up-to-date are more likely to be infected, and thus contagious, than people who are not vaccinated.

5. Among numerous types of H. influenzae, the Hib vaccine covers only type b. Despite its sole intention to reduce symptomatic and asymptomatic (disease-less) Hib carriage, the introduction of the Hib vaccine has inadvertently shifted strain dominance towards other types of H. influenzae (types a through f). These types have been causing invasive disease of high severity and increasing incidence in adults in the era of Hib vaccination of children (see appendix for the scientific study, Item #4). The general population is more vulnerable to the invasive disease now than it was prior to the start of the Hib vaccination campaign. Discriminating against children who are not vaccinated for Hib does not make any scientific sense in the era of non-type b H. influenzae disease.

6. Hepatitis B is a blood-borne virus. It does not spread in a community setting, especially among children who are unlikely to engage in high-risk behaviors, such as needle sharing or sex. Vaccinating children for hepatitis B cannot significantly alter the safety of public spaces. Further, school admission is not prohibited for children who are chronic hepatitis B carriers. To prohibit school admission for those who are simply unvaccinated – and do not even carry hepatitis B – would constitute unreasonable and illogical discrimination.

In summary, a person who is not vaccinated with IPV, DTaP, HepB, and Hib vaccines due to reasons of conscience poses no extra danger to the public than a person who is. No discrimination is warranted.

How often do serious vaccine adverse events happen?

It is often stated that vaccination rarely leads to serious adverse events.

Unfortunately, this statement is not supported by science.

A recent study done in Ontario, Canada, established that vaccination actually leads to an emergency room visit for 1 in 168 children following their 12-month vaccination appointment and for 1 in 730 children following their 18-month vaccination appointment (see appendix for a scientific study, Item #5).

When the risk of an adverse event requiring an ER visit after well-baby vaccinations is demonstrably so high, vaccination must remain a choice for parents, who may understandably be unwilling to assume this immediate risk in order to protect their children from diseases that are generally considered mild or that their children may never be exposed to.

Can discrimination against families who oppose vaccines for reasons of conscience prevent future disease outbreaks of communicable viral diseases, such as measles?

Measles research scientists have for a long time been aware of the “measles paradox.” I quote from the article by Poland & Jacobson (1994) “Failure to Reach the Goal of Measles Elimination: Apparent Paradox of Measles Infections in Immunized Persons.” Arch Intern Med 154:1815-1820:

“The apparent paradox is that as measles immunization rates rise to high levels in a population, measles becomes a disease of immunized persons.” [2]

Further research determined that behind the “measles paradox” is a fraction of the population called LOW VACCINE RESPONDERS. Low-responders are those who respond poorly to the first dose of the measles vaccine. These individuals then mount a weak immune response to subsequent RE-vaccination and quickly return to the pool of “susceptibles’’ within 2-5 years, despite being fully vaccinated. [3]

Re-vaccination cannot correct low-responsiveness: it appears to be an immuno-genetic trait. [4] The proportion of low-responders among children was estimated to be 4.7% in the USA. [5]

Studies of measles outbreaks in Quebec, Canada, and China attest that outbreaks of measles still happen, even when vaccination compliance is in the highest bracket (95-97% or even 99%, see appendix for scientific studies, Items #6&7). This is because even in high vaccine responders, vaccine-induced antibodies wane over time. Vaccine immunity does not equal life-long immunity acquired after natural exposure.

It has been documented that vaccinated persons who develop breakthrough measles are contagious. In fact, two major measles outbreaks in 2011 (in Quebec, Canada, and in New York, NY) were re-imported by previously vaccinated individuals. [6] [7]

Taken together, these data make it apparent that elimination of vaccine exemptions, currently only utilized by a small percentage of families anyway, will neither solve the problem of disease resurgence nor prevent re-importation and outbreaks of previously eliminated diseases.

Is discrimination against conscientious vaccine objectors the only practical solution?

The majority of measles cases in recent US outbreaks (including the recent Disneyland outbreak) are adults and very young babies, whereas in the pre-vaccination era, measles occurred mainly between the ages 1 and 15.

Natural exposure to measles was followed by lifelong immunity from re-infection, whereas vaccine immunity wanes over time, leaving adults unprotected by their childhood shots. Measles is more dangerous for infants and for adults than for school-aged children.

Despite high chances of exposure in the pre-vaccination era, measles practically never happened in babies much younger than one year of age due to the robust maternal immunity transfer mechanism.

The vulnerability of very young babies to measles today is the direct outcome of the prolonged mass vaccination campaign of the past, during which their mothers, themselves vaccinated in their childhood, were not able to experience measles naturally at a safe school age and establish the lifelong immunity that would also be transferred to their babies and protect them from measles for the first year of life.

Luckily, a therapeutic backup exists to mimic now-eroded maternal immunity. Infants as well as other vulnerable or immunocompromised individuals, are eligible to receive immunoglobulin, a potentially life-saving measure that supplies antibodies directed against the virus to prevent or ameliorate disease upon exposure (see appendix, Item #8).

In summary:

1) due to the properties of modern vaccines, non-vaccinated individuals pose no greater risk of transmission of polio, diphtheria, pertussis, and numerous non-type b H. influenzae strains than vaccinated individuals do, non-vaccinated individuals pose virtually no danger of transmission of hepatitis B in a school setting, and tetanus is not transmissible at all;

2) there is a significantly elevated risk of emergency room visits after childhood vaccination appointments attesting that vaccination is not risk-free;

3) outbreaks of measles cannot be entirely prevented even if we had nearly perfect vaccination compliance; and

4) an effective method of preventing measles and other viral diseases in vaccine-ineligible infants and the immunocompromised, immunoglobulin, is available for those who may be exposed to these diseases.

Taken together, these four facts make it clear that discrimination in a public school setting against children who are not vaccinated for reasons of conscience is completely unwarranted as the vaccine status of conscientious objectors poses no undue risk to the public.

Sincerely Yours,

~ Tetyana Obukhanych, PhD

Tetyana Obukhanych earned her Ph.D. in Immunology at the Rockefeller University, New York, NY with her research dissertation focused on immunologic memory. She was subsequently involved in laboratory research as a postdoctoral research fellow at Harvard Medical School and Stanford University School of Medicine, before fully devoting herself to natural parenting.

(Original Source: legislature.vermont.gov – Testimony Senate Health & Welfare Committee Wednesday April 22, 2015 H.98 – public records)

Editor’s Note: This article has been slightly edited to reflect the language from the letter submitted to the Vermont General Assembly on April 22, 2015. As part of the Vermont Senate Health & Welfare Committee, it is a matter of public record and accessible here.)

UPDATE: The above links on the Vermont government website no longer work. Here is a copy.

 

For appendix also go to the SOURCE:

http://vaccineimpact.com/2017/harvard-immunologist-to-legislators-unvaccinated-children-pose-zero-risk-to-anyone/?fbclid=IwAR0wC_5o69DMo-Uwqhh0cFNkGKnNCPOdafNCrVhR9U66xKq2yLzLB9u0NJo

News, Vaccines

Bill Gates’ Former Doctor Says Billionaire ‘Refused to Vaccinate His Children’

7 Comments

No surprises here. A good while back Dr Oz featured in a similar vein. He didn’t vaccinate his kids. If vaccines were so good why aren’t they vaccinating? People should be joining dots. I learned a few years back that back in the 1970s, 80s one of our local small town NZ GPs didn’t vaccinate his kids either. One of those who actually read the inserts I suspect. Read this article for a Doctor & nurse who didn’t read them & got quite a shock when their pregnant patient referred them to one (having declined vaccination). This article is from transcend.org via yournewswire.com

 

The physician who served as Bill Gates’ private doctor in Seattle in the 1990s says the Microsoft founder and vaccine proponent “refused to vaccinate his own children” when they were young.

7 Feb 2018 – “I don’t know if he had them vaccinated as adults, but I can tell you he point blank refused to vaccinate them as children,” the physician said at a behind closed doors medical symposium in Seattle, adding “They were gorgeous kids, really smart and vivacious, and he said they would be OK as it was, they didn’t need any shots.”

The comments caused a stir among physicians at the symposium with claims he was breaking doctor-patient confidentiality, according to reports. However as he was speaking to other physicians, he was not breaking the industry code of conduct.

Gates has three children with his wife Melinda – Jennifer, Rory and Phoebe – born between 1996 and 2002, and according to his former doctor, they are all unvaccinated and healthy.

The news that Bill Gates does not vaccinate his own children, despite being the world’s most active campaigner for mandatory vaccinations, should come as no surprise. Studies prove that the elite do not vaccinate their children. But at the same time they expect the masses to have their children vaccinated.

The elite do not vaccinate 

In California, the children most likely to be unvaccinated are white and come from the wealthiest families in Los Angeles, according to a recent study.

The percentage of kindergartners with state-issued personal belief exemptions doubled from 2007 to 2013, from 1.54% to 3.06%. That’s about 17,000 of the wealthiest children, out of more than half a million, opting out of receiving vaccinations.

READ MORE (NOTE WITH THIS LINK NOW DEAD, A FURTHER ARTICLE IS ADDED BELOW)

https://www.transcend.org/tms/2018/02/bill-gates-former-doctor-says-billionaire-refused-to-vaccinate-his-children/?fbclid=IwAR0ltYBYtfk6wpkXTUa1NKaENx_Qm4hC17bXHrN4Kku3b8PmGsfZUzO80pI

 

Bill Gates and the World’s Elite DO NOT VACCINATE their own children… and for good reason

Image: Bill Gates and the World’s Elite DO NOT VACCINATE their own children… and for good reason

(Natural News) The absolute worst medical decision a parent of a newborn child can make is to allow doctors and nurses to severely compromise the immune system of their infant by injecting him or her with known neurotoxins, foreign proteins, and carcinogens like mercury, formaldehyde, monkey kidney cells, pig viruses, and genetically modified cells from human abortions. That’s why billionaire Bill Gates, the infamous and insidious population control freak and Microsoft mogul, refused to vaccinate his own children when they were growing up, even while he promotes toxic jabs all over the world, especially in third world countries.

It’s true. Gates’ former private doctor from Seattle back in the 1990s said, “I don’t know if he had them vaccinated as adults, but I can tell you he point blank refused to vaccinate them as children.” We know this because the quote was taken from Gates’ doctor during a side note conversation at a medical symposium, which caused a small uproar among the attending physicians, who blasphemed Gates’ doctor for breaking rank with doctor-patient confidentiality (even though it’s a “gray area” because he was speaking to other doctors privately). Still, it was too late – the cat got out of the bag, and now the world knows the ultimate hypocrisy of the elite who radically and religiously push vaccines as the “holy grail” of medicine, all while they keep the same poisons out of their own children’s blood and muscle tissue, knowing good and well the high risk of side effects and adverse events far outweighs any possible benefits.

Bill Gates’ three children, Jennifer, Phoebe, and Rory, NEVER got vaccines and are now healthy young adults

Born between 1996 and 2002, the Gates children never got mercury and formaldehyde shot into their muscle tissue as a form of “immunity,” even though their father is the most dogmatic campaigner and shill for the vaccine industry. Wait, you thought he just made his fortune off computer software? Think again. There’s huge profit in chemical medicine and population control schemes, and insidious Bill rides that cash cow every day.

According to TruthWiki, “Gates is widely criticized for being anti-competitive and for being a pro-vaccine zealot. He engages in many ‘philanthropic endeavors,’ such as donating large amounts of money to various scientific research programs through the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Gates has even gone so far as to fund technologies that are designed for mass sterilization in order to address what he refers to as the world’s population problem.”

Herd theory has always been a big hoax, and the world’s elite know it. Most vaccinated children are the actual risk to each other, because they often shed the viruses they were just injected with during the first few weeks after their toxic jabs. According to one study, the richest families in California (that are often white) do NOT vaccinate their children.

In fact, more than 16,000 kindergarten-aged children in California do not get any vaccines because their white, elitist parents opt them out using religious, personal belief, and doctor-authored exemptions. Get it? The elite know there’s something inherently wrong with immunizations, but they just don’t talk about it, and the MSM news certainly never covers it.

The richest Americans don’t want to risk their children getting autism from experimental vaccines, including Polio, Malaria, MMR, and the CDC’s “highly recommended” annual flu shot

According to Bill Gates’ former doctor, who was quoted behind closed doors at a medical seminar, Gates said his children didn’t need vaccines, but isn’t the whole world educated otherwise? Doesn’t the CDC inform us all that babies are born with weak, compromised immune systems and must have 50 vaccines before age 7, or they’ll most likely die from infectious diseases? Isn’t that the narrative?

Here’s more on Bill Gates’ opinion on vaccines, as shared by his own physician from the seminar: “They were beautiful kids, truly wise and lively, and he stated they would be fine as they were; they didn’t need any shots.”

Now, Bill Gates and his corrupt Foundation push experimental, untested malaria vaccines on innocent Africans in Kenya, Ghana, and Malawi. Critics are screaming that it’s all part of a depopulation scheme, and some vaccines, including the tetanus jab, have been found to contain chemicals that sterilize young girls – chemicals that have nothing at all to do with vaccine functionality.

Bill Gates’ “mission” to protect third world populations from disease via mass vaccination is contrary to his own personal actions with his own children, and auspiciously crosses lines with his deep financial collaboration with health agencies and vaccine manufacturers.

Tune in to Vaccines.news for more updates on how there is a plague of corruption surrounding vaccine safety, and exactly why the world’s elite know better than to have their children jabbed with experimental, untested, deadly neurotoxins and genetically modified bacteria strains.

Sources for this article include:

Transcend.org

YogEsoteric.net

NaturalNews.com

SmithsonianMag.com

Vaccines.news

NaturalNews.com

TruthWiki.org

News, Vaccines

A Harvard immunologist has written an open letter explaining why unvaccinated children pose no risk to their vaccinated counterparts

Leave a comment

Dear Legislator:

My name is Tetyana Obukhanych.  I hold a PhD in Immunology.  I am writing this letter in the hope that it will correct several common misperceptions about vaccines in order to help you formulate a fair and balanced understanding that is supported by accepted vaccine theory and new scientific findings.

Do unvaccinated children pose a higher threat to the public than the vaccinated?

It is often stated that those who choose not to vaccinate their children for reasons of conscience endanger the rest of the public, and this is the rationale behind most of the legislation to end vaccine exemptions currently being considered by federal and state legislators country-wide.  You should be aware that the nature of protection afforded by many modern vaccines – and that includes most of the vaccines recommended by the CDC for children – is not consistent with such a statement.  I have outlined below the recommended vaccines that cannot prevent transmission of disease either because they are not designed to prevent the transmission of infection (rather, they are intended to prevent disease symptoms), or because they are for non-communicable diseases.  People who have not received the vaccines mentioned below pose no higher threat to the general public than those who have, implying that discrimination against non-immunized children in a public school setting may not be warranted.

  1. IPV (inactivated poliovirus vaccine) cannot prevent transmission of poliovirus. Wild poliovirus has been non-existent in the USA for at least two decades. Even if wild poliovirus were to be re-imported by travel, vaccinating for polio with IPV cannot affect the safety of public spaces.  Please note that wild poliovirus eradication is attributed to the use of a different vaccine, OPV or oral poliovirus vaccine.  Despite being capable of preventing wild poliovirus transmission, use of OPV was phased out long ago in the USA and replaced with IPV due to safety concerns.

READ MORE

http://yournewswire.com/harvard-unvaccinated-children-risk/