Admission by Health New Zealand that they recommend the COVID vaccines and flatly refuse to look at their own data or make their own data public for researchers to review.
They admit they don’t look at the evidence of harm and in the same document assure the public there is no evidence of harm.
“We assure people there is no evidence whatsoever that vaccination is responsible for excess mortality in New Zealand and that they can continue to have confidence in vaccines.”
So how can they reassure people that there is no evidence of harm if they haven’t looked at the evidence? They even admit they haven’t looked at the data in the same document:
Health NZ has never engaged in an analysis of the data … publicly released by Mr Young with a view to testing the accuracy of his misinformed claims.
I’ve asked them for their analysis of their own data showing I’m wrong, and they did not reply.
“We will not accept Kirsch’s invitation for a public discussion on the NZ data”
I’ve asked them if I can have a public conversation with their epidemiologists to show me how I got it wrong so they can publicly expose me as a “misinformation spreader” and they refused to do so. Why would they do that? Doesn’t misinformation cause harm? They could easily stop it by accepting my offer.
We will not autopsy anyone who relatives believe were killed by the COVID shots
AI analysis: “Health NZ isn’t practicing science, they are practicing public relations.”
Some of our readers will have seen this post. I’m re-sharing it, and others on topic going forward, as many will not be up to speed on this toxin that our conservation ‘experts’ (DoC) swear is harmless once dissolved in water (hence why they can now dump it in our waterways). They spread it all over NZ like veritable lolly scrambles :
For over 50 years the New Zealand Government has been systematically dropping massive amounts of food, laced with a cruel and universally toxic poison into its forest ecosystems. Enough poison every year to kill the entire population of NZ four times over. No other country is doing, or ever has done, anything remotely similar on such a scale.
1080 is an alias for Monofluoroacetate, a chemical. Monofluoroacetate was originally developed and marketed as an insecticide. It functions primarily by interfering with the citrate step in the Krebs cycle [5]. The Krebs cycle is the major and an essential mechanism by which all air breathing creatures utilize food to produce energy. It is therefore universally toxic to all animals, essentially every living thing except plants and some micro-organisms. The degree of toxicity of 1080 is extreme, but varies somewhat among species. It is categorised by the World Health Organization (WHO) as 1A, their highest rating, “extremely toxic” [1,2]. The PAN pesticide database classifies 1080 as one of the few “PAN Bad Actor Chemicals”, by which it means “highly acutely toxic” [2]. It can kill every air-breathing animal. One hundred milligrams is sufficient to kill an adult human [1]. In theory, one could kill at least 20 million people with the amount being dropped into New Zealand Forests every year. Dr Q Whiting-OKeefe (BA Chemistry, Math), MD, FACMI
“It is common practice to dump excess 1080 pellets after 1080 drops have finished (Re Stewart Island dump, see article).When 1080 toxin was first discovered in ground water the source of the toxin was traced to a landfill site above. Un-spread 1080 baits had been buried in the landfill and the toxin had leached out of the baits and seeped down into the ground water where it remained as toxic as the day it was dumped. No breakdown of the poison had taken place over all that time” … these are only DoC’s figures … “OSPRI has traditionally dropped more 1080 poison than DoC. Regional Councils account for around 12% of 1080 use too.”
Travelling about the NZ countryside recently I noticed the familiar yellow fields I used to think were attractive. Until I discovered they’d been sprayed with Roundup, the herbicide that farmers tell me, is so harmless you could drink it.
Manawatu field sprayed with Herbicide
Sounds a bit like the ‘safe and effective’ mantra. Well it turns out Roundup is far from either of those terms. Why will farmers not read the independent research? Or follow the precautionary principle. Any doubt whatsoever about safety? wait until it is proven safe.
Roundup is manufactured by Bayer (formerly Monsanto… read their history … who have morphed into oblivion) and one of its ingredients so harmful to us all is glyphosate. There is a ton of independent research now (including law suits) that should make you avoid it at all costs. US Legal firm Wisner Baum helped negotiate over $11 billion in settlements against Bayer, securing multi-billion dollar jury verdicts for its clients. They state at their website:
Roundup is a widely used herbicide whose active ingredient is glyphosate. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) — part of the World Health Organization — classifies glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen. Thousands of people across the U.S. have alleged that long‑term exposure to glyphosate (in Roundup and similar products) caused them to develop non‑Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) and other serious illnesses.
A NZ tertiary agricultural textbook has long instructed farmers to spray Roundup on their fields then plow it under. The text book is called Pasture Doctor and can be found on Amazon here. (Small wonder farmers still think it’s safe. Why would the University lie to them? ) There used to be a preview option of that book from which I screenshot the pages recommending spraying, however that option has now disappeared. (I lost the screenshots some time ago unfortunately). Of note, it was a University lecturer who told me in the 1980s that corporations would one day control governments. Predictive programming at its finest.
The Seralini Rats
Professor Seralini (from France) conducted a two year experiment (2011) examining glyphosate and GMO food, his team fed transgenic corn to lab rats that produced in them multiple tumours. But of course Monsanto produced ‘evidence’ claiming the rats they used were the wrong kind, casting aspersions on the whole study. (Refuted here). Wiki predictably called it the Seralini ‘affair’. I would prefer to believe the Professor any day. You can watch the 12 minute Seralini video below. There is a transcript at the source on YouTube.
A French court ruled in 2009 that Monsanto has lied about the safety of Roundup (ie it is not biodegradable as claimed, a bit like the claims made about deadly 1080).
US Tertiary level lecturer of 55 years experience in agriculture, Professor Emeritus of Plant Pathology (Dr Don Hubert) calls Glyphosate one of the most toxic substances on the planet.
The Physicians & Scientists for Global Responsibility (PSGR) supply a long list of research citing concerns about glyphosate here.
“We don’t want to wait until we have exposed enough people to a chemical in order to prove that it’s carcinogenic. When we hit that point, we have hit a failure in the regulatory process.” – Dr. Lynn Goldman, National Research Council Report Review Committee Member
Many Councils in NZ spray the roadsides with glyphosate. (Photo credit: Marian Sutherland)
For some time I and other interested folk appealed to the local Rangitikei District Council asking them to drop the use of glyphosate/Roundup on Council lands, streets, parks and so on. There were some concessions made about signage warning the public of spraying and so on but as to ceasing altogether they declined. There was evidence cited of the use of steam in Auckland to combat weeds which was only minimally dearer than Roundup. No go. I approached a person spraying for Council one time and asked why he didn’t wear protective clothing as recommended by the manufacturer. He told me he didn’t want to scare the public.
To educate yourself on the long list of studies and the experts who have spoken out against glyphosate and Roundup check out these pages (glyphosate is in other herbicides as well, check the labels, and consider organic alternatives if you must spray) :
Links between Glyphosate and a Multitude of Cancers that are “Reaching Epidemic Proportions” from GlobalResearch.ca
Search in ‘categories’ for ‘glyphosate’ (categories is found at the top left hand side of the news page). Alternatively type glyphosate into the search box (top right hand side).
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:
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.
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 thosecarbon 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?
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)
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
“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.
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
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.
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”
“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
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
Scientists, Quinn and Patricia Whiting-O’Keefe: “Poison facts belie the claims”
NZ drops into its forests about 4,000 KG of pure 1080 per year, enough to kill 20 million people [Photo: Clyde Graf, from a 1080 drop at Makarora]There is now a familiar litany of scientifically insupportable claims about what great things aerial 1080, a universal poison, is doing for our forest ecosystems. The people of New Zealand have a right to know the truth about what the scientific evidence shows.
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.
The oxymoron that DOC’s signage is
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.
1080 is killing large numbers of native species
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.
For the info of international readers… today is Waitangi Day in NZ, the anniversary of the signing in 1840 of the Treaty of Waitangi, now a public holiday here. There’s much controversy currently going on nation wide regarding the absence of PM Luxon at Waitangi this week (hmmm)… although denying it, it’s likely due to the Treaty Principles Bill currently before Parliament. Says he won’t approve it but allowed its introduction? And we have David Seymour present who is currently trying to change the said Treaty with his Bill, without any input from or consultation with the Crown’s signatories/partners … Māori. Smell a rat? I personally am with the deductions made by Australia’s Dr Jeremy Walker regarding Seymour’s connections to the Atlas Network.
And his proposed bill, it’s all having the desired effect, inciting racial division which, after all, has always been the ace card of empires.
He’s not being well received and IMHO rightly so. Plenty of coverage of the day on Youtube anyway if you’re curious to learn more, here’s one … and Claudia Orange here in her book excerpt explains the Treaty versions in both languages. EWNZ
Governor William Hobson was caught by surprise. Summoned ashore late in the morning of February 6, he arrived in plain clothes but having snatched up his plumed hat. Several hundred Māori were waiting for him in the marquee, and several hundred others stood around outside. Many had arrived since the meeting the previous day, including some high-ranking women. Only James Busby and about a dozen Europeans had turned up, among them the Catholic Bishop Pompallier. Hobson, nervous and uneasy, more than once expressed concern that the meeting could not be considered a “regular public meeting” since the proper notice had not been given. He would not allow discussion, but would be prepared to take signatures.
On the table lay a tidily written treaty in te reo Māori – Te Tiriti o Waitangi – copied overnight on parchment by one of the missionaries, Richard Taylor. Rangatira were invited to come forward and sign. Just as Hone Heke was about to do so, William Colenso asked Hobson if he thought that the chiefs really understood what they were signing. “If the Native chiefs do not know the contents of this treaty it is no fault of mine,” replied Hobson. “I have done all that I could . . . They have heard the treaty read by Mr. Williams.”
Colenso agreed, but pointed out that it had not been explained adequately; he was afraid that they had not been made fully aware of the situation in which they would by their so signing be placed. Later the chiefs would hold the missionaries accountable, whereas their agreement needed to be “their very own act and deed”. Impatiently, Hobson brushed the protest aside, saying, “I think that the people under your care will be peaceable enough: I’m sure you will endeavour to make them so.”
The signing went ahead, while two rangatira kept up a running challenge in the traditional manner. Busby called each rangatira by name, probably from a list of those who had signed the 1835 Declaration of Independence. When each had signed, Hobson shook his hand, saying “He iwi tahi tātou.” According to Colenso this meant “We are [now] one people”, but Felton Mathew thought it meant “We are brethren and countrymen.” The expression greatly pleased the rangatira, who also shook hands with each of the official party; it was probably either Williams or Busby who told Hobson to express himself in this way. Both men must have known that the words would have a special meaning, especially for those who were Christian: Māori and British would be linked, under the guardianship of the Queen and as followers of Christ.
That afternoon, over 40 rangatira put their names or their moko on the parchment, affirming the agreement known as the Treaty of Waitangi/Te Tiriti o Waitangi. As the signing was drawing to an end, someone gave a signal for three thundering cheers for the Governor and Queen Wikitoria (Victoria). Patuone presented Hobson with a greenstone mere “expressly” for the Queen, and the meeting closed with Hobson retiring to the Herald, taking Patuone with him to dine. Colenso was left to distribute gifts – two blankets and some tobacco – to each person who had signed.
Several hundred New Zealand Company settlers had arrived in the Cook Strait region in January and February 1840. In March they had set up a form of government at Port Nicholson (Wellington) which, they claimed, derived its legality from authority granted by the local “sovereign chiefs”. The flag of an independent New Zealand, made on the company’s ship Tory, flew above the settlement, and a provisional constitution had been drawn up.
The chiefs at the left of this lithograph from the 1840s are Mananui Te Heuheu and his brother Iwikau. Mananui objected to Iwikau’s signing the Treaty. To the right is Apihai Te Kawau, who invited Hobson to set up his capital in Auckland. The image is taken from the Illustrated History by Claudia Orange.
Hearing of these moves, Hobson reasoned that the settlers were assuming powers of government that were the prerogative of the Crown. On May 21, he proclaimed sovereignty over the whole of the country: over the North Island on the basis of cession by chiefs who had signed the Treaty of Waitangi, and over the South Island and Stewart Island on the basis that Cook had “discovered” them. At this stage, Hobson held only the copy of Te Tiriti signed in the north, and one signed at Waikato Heads and Manukau Harbour. As for the South Island, he doubted that its “uncivilised” Māori were capable of signing any treaty. He had taken measures he deemed necessary under the circumstances, using Cook’s “discovery”, which his instructions had allowed him to use, if necessary.
Unaware of Hobson’s actions, Bunbury also proclaimed sovereignty: on June 5 at Stewart Island, by right of Cook’s discovery; and on June 17 at Cloudy Bay, by right of cession of the South Island by several ‘independent’ chiefs. The Colonial Office approved Hobson’s proclamations, which were published in the London Gazette on October 2, 1840. This was the only requirement at the time to validate sovereignty being acquired. Treaty meetings had continued after the proclamations; on September 3, the last signature was put on a copy of Te Tiriti, somewhere near Kāwhia, the copy not arriving back to Hobson until April 1841. 542 rangatira, among them 12 or more women of rank, had signed at about 50 meetings.
The differences between the two texts were crucial to a full Māori understanding – or the lack of it
Hobson had kept British officials informed throughout the signing process and had sent them copies of the Treaty. In October, he dispatched a final report, together with ‘certified’ copies of Te Tiriti and one English Treaty copy which was headed ‘translation’. He said nothing about any variations between the two texts, although it had already become apparent in April that there were differences in meaning, and therefore in Māori understanding of what they had agreed to. Hobson was aware of this.
The differences that affected the meaning were important:
ARTICLE 1 By the Treaty in English, Māori leaders gave the Queen “absolutely and without reservation all the rights and powers of Sovereignty which the said Confederation or Individual Chiefs respectively exercise or possess . . . over their respective Territories as the sole sovereigns thereof.”
By Te Tiriti in te reo, they gave the Queen “te Kawanatanga katoa o ratou wenua” – the governance or government of their land.
ARTICLE 2 By the Treaty in English, Māori leaders and people, collectively and individually, were confirmed in and guaranteed “the full exclusive and undisturbed possession of their Lands and Estates, Forests, Fisheries, and other properties . . . so long as it is their wish and desire to retain the same in their possession.”
By Te Tiriti in te reo, they were confirmed and guaranteed “te tino Rangatiratanga o o ratou wenua o ratou kainga me o ratou taonga katoa” – the unqualified exercise of their chieftainship – over their lands, settlements, and all their valued possessions.
ARTICLE 3 The Treaty in English extended to Māori the Queen’s “royal protection and imparts to them all the Rights and Privileges of British Subjects.”
By Te Tiriti in te reo, in consideration of the agreement to the government of the Queen, the rights and privileges of British subjects – “nga tikanga katoa rite tahi ki ana mea ki nga tangata o Ingarani” – were extended to all the Māori of New Zealand.
The differences between the two texts were crucial to a full Māori understanding – or the lack of it. Only 39 chiefs signed a copy of the Treaty in English, which almost certainly had a copy of the printed Tiriti in te reo with it to enable the missionary at Waikato Heads to read it to Māori. Apart from that, all Māori leaders signed a copy of the Māori language Tiriti, which did not convey the full meaning of the English text, especially the extent of sovereign powers. Only some would have been able to read Te Tiriti, even if they had been given the chance. Explanations at meetings with potential signatories might have helped, given that discussion was essential to Māori in the customary building of relationships; but the records that exist show negotiators did not comment on differences in meaning. Their aim was to secure rangatira agreement. The complexities of sovereignty, as they were increasingly being recognised under international law, were not brought up.
Thus the differences between the Māori and English texts laid the basis for different British (and later colonial) and Māori understandings of the agreement, and for the debate over interpretation that was to continue.
Still, they’re baffled? Those ‘educated’ professionals who for years we’ve all been seduced into trusting implicitly? They simply can’t fathom it. Or don’t want to look would be more to the point.
Any truly educated person would reflect of course on when this spike in deaths began and what changed right then. To make such an investigation seems to be beyond their skill set. And big pharma has had no liability for damage since the law suits against them began in the ’80s.
So here, a world-renowned data expert has just issued a red alert after uncovering evidence revealing that excess deaths are continuing to skyrocket in children who received the ‘safe and effective’. (Video link at the end). Kiwis, remember (or did you know?) what happened to our government data analyst Barry Young. He also raised the alarm on the rising number of deaths of our young.
If you doubt what I am saying, sub to Prof Mark Crispin Miller’s substack. (The deaths section is free). He has been documenting the mysterious death stats since they all began. There are posts on the deaths of celebrities, both sporting and Hollywood, and of civilians. Recently each report contains long lists of infant deaths. Heartbreaking. EWNZ
Deaths Among Young Americans Skyrocket, ‘Experts’ Baffled
Deaths among young adult Americans have surged to historic highs, with so-called “experts” supposedly baffled by the root cause of skyrocketing mortality rates.
Deaths among young adult Americans have surged to historic highs, with so-called “experts” supposedly baffled by the root cause of skyrocketing mortality rates.
According to an alarming new study, deaths of Americans aged 25-44 spiked to 70 percent above the expected rate in 2023.
The researchers behind the study suggest that deaths caused by drug overdoses, suicides, and alcohol-related issues may be responsible for the rise.
However, the researchers, led by Elizabeth Wrigley-Field, associate professor of sociology and associate director at Minnesota Population Center, are apparently stumped by what other mysterious causes could be killing so many healthy young people.
The peer-reviewed study, published in JAMA Network Open, examined over 3.3 million deaths of Americans aged 25–44 between 1999 and 2023.
There were two distinct trends in rise in mortality.
Deaths increased steadily from 2011 to 2019 and then skyrocketed between 2020 and 2023.
Deaths of young adults in 2023 were 70% higher than they would have been if trends from 2011 to 2019 had continued.
Unnatural causes of death, like drug poisoning, were the leading cause of death in young adults, constituting a third of all deaths in 2023.
Drug poisoning has been the leading cause of death among young adults since 2014, with a sharp rise in 2020 and a stable excess death rate since.
The researchers did not offer an explanation of how drug poisoning contributed to these deaths.
Except for COVID-19, most of the leading causes of death in young adults were not health-related.
“One surprising thing about the increases in these causes of death is that these are causes of death that primarily kill people at much older ages,” Professor Wrigley-Field, the study author.
The contribution of cardio-metabolic conditions, including conditions related to heart and hormone function, as well as nutrition, was also substantial.
Compared to trends before 2011, deaths from most causes were significantly higher in 2023 than would be expected.
Excess mortality was 35% greater in 2019, in the years following the pandemic.
Despite the pandemic being long over, deaths have still not returned to pre-Covid levels, the researchers note.
“The fact that we saw a real growth in mortality at these relatively young ages is very worrying because it suggests that many more deaths may come in the future as these cohorts age into midlife and beyond, if these trends aren’t reversed before then,” Wrigley-Field added.
The pandemic is suggested as one reason for the spike in excess mortality.
However, longer-term causes, such as the dislocations caused by the economic crash of 2008, are also suggested.
So-called “deaths from despair”—deaths resulting, directly or indirectly, from feelings of hopelessness and despair, brought on by hardship, isolation, and lack of opportunities—are identified as a possible key factor in explaining the alarming rise in mortality among young adults.
“As a group, [young adults] have experienced expensive housing markets and a work context in which work hours have grown in many occupations, both of which can make it more difficult to lead healthy lifestyles,” Wrigley-Field said.
Because young people increasingly find themselves forced to work long hours to afford housing, they have less time, money, or resources to look after themselves.
As a result, they fall victim to physical and mental conditions that worsen their health and make it more likely they’ll die an early death.
Although the researchers note that the study does not explain the increase in excess mortality—they plan to look at explanation in detail next—the presence of so many different causes suggests the need to look at “big, systemic factors” in order to understand what’s happening.
However, the results of the study have provoked a backlash among many in the scientific community.
Some experts argue that the researchers have ignored the elephant in the room regarding excess deaths.
Dr. Pierre Kory slammed the study’s paper for not mentioning the likely impact of Covid mRNA “vaccines.”
“To read papers like this where the possible impact of the vaccines are not (and cannot) be mentioned makes it anti-science and essentially uninterpretable because one of the likely major variables can never be examined or discussed,” he said.
“To wit, in the conclusion there is no mention of the mRNA campaign’s potential influence,” he said.
All-cause mortality researcher Denis Rancourt, Ph.D. said research like this also fails to even question the fundamental causes of death.
Rancourt has extensively analyzed the links between pandemic countermeasures and all-cause mortality
Articles like these, Rancourt said, are “purposefully not saying the important things.”
“It’s horrendously dishonest that these are the kinds of articles that get published in the opinion-leading journals,” Rancourt added.
“It’s just completely dishonest that we’re going to be polite and diplomatic and just not really talk about what’s going on here.”
Kory highlights other data such as the deaths reported to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).
He also noted “the inexplicable and unprecedented rises in group term life insurance claims among young people 25-44, which occurred suddenly in the 3rd quarter of 2021 when mandates were all the rage.”
Kory argues that these datasets raise important questions about the temporal relationship between “vaccine” rollouts and excess mortality that weren’t addressed in the paper.
Rancourt said the paper’s methodology was deeply flawed and “the article would not have passed my peer review in its present state.”
“Their method of obtaining excess deaths by cause using trends from the baseline years 1999-2010, extrapolated to 2023, is dubious and unjustified,” he said.
“They also fail to examine and report the degree to which the age structure within their age 25-44 year cohort changes throughout the baseline (1999-2010) and extrapolation (2011-2023) periods, which is a pivotal determinant of mortality trends.”
Rancourt said the authors covered the fact that they used different methods for all causes of death other than COVID-19.
Unlike the other causes, where they extrapolated excess death from an estimated baseline, for COVID-19 they simply used the number of reported COVID-19 assigned deaths.
They are essentially “comparing apples and oranges,” he said.
Rancourt also said it was egregious that the authors didn’t investigate questions about the fundamental causes driving the excess deaths.
He added that by looking at a younger population, rather than an older population that is even more vulnerable to deaths from things like medical error and vaccine toxicity, the authors could more easily sidestep addressing those key pandemic-related issues.
Meanwhile, experts are warning that deaths are still surging among those who received the Covid mRNA injections.
In December, a world-renowned data expert has just issued a red alert after uncovering evidence that reveals excess deaths are continuing to skyrocket in children who received Covid mRNA “vaccines.”
According to an alarming warning from leading Wall Street data analyst Ed Dowd, excess child deaths are still accelerating and show no sign of slowing down.
Dowd is a former executive at the world’s largest investment firm BlackRock and is considered one of America’s leading data experts.
Through his expert analysis of insurance industry data, Dowd has become a prominent figure in investigations into the impact of the global Covid vaccination campaign.
Dowd made the discovery while analyzing the official data from the UK government’s Office for National Statistics (ONS).
“The UK has a problem,” Down warned during an interview on “The Jimmy Dore Show.”
However, while the deaths were identified in UK data, the trend is most likely reflected in other nations with a similar mass vaccination protocol, including the United States, Canada, Australia, and much of Europe.
Dowd’s data shows that excess deaths for children aged one to fourteen have surged higher each year since the Covid mRNA “vaccines” were rolled out in 2021.
According to Dowd, excess deaths for children in this age group spiked by a staggering 22% in 2023 – the last full year of data.
Dowd notes that this trend didn’t start until “the magic juice started to be issued to children later in 2021.”
The data shows that deaths were actually lower than expected in 2020 but started surging in 2021.
According to Dowd’s findings, each year’s data shows:
2020: 9 percent fewer deaths than expected
2021: 7 percent fewer deaths than expected
2022: 16 percent MORE deaths than expected
2023: 22 percent MORE deaths than expected
As Down notes, while the “vaccines” were rolled out for public use in early 2021, they were authorized for children later in the year.
Although the data for 2024 isn’t yet complete, Dowd reveals that, so far, the official figures show that the surging death trend has continued through this year.
“Figures from the Office for National Statistics show about 10% more deaths (across all age groups) than expected since April this year,” Down adds.
Yet, despite the clear correlation with the mass vaccination campaign, UK health officials insist that “circulatory diseases and diabetes are … behind the increase.”
A timely repost looking back on the plandemic of 2020 onwards … who could forget that? And straight from the horse’s mouth here. Lest you still believe in the safe & effective & all those empty pHarma promises … EWNZ
To listen to the Newshub interview go to this link..and hear the following:
Interviewer:How bad is this. I mean, how evil is this one?
Dr Petousis-Harris:It’s not the most evil that we’ve had … SAARS and MERS coronaviruses (?) were much more severe, they killed, ah were set up to kill a lot more people.
Guy Hatchard PhD talks with Liz Gunn & Andrew Bridgen during the Freedom Train International Live broadcast about the Gene Technology Bill being introduced in New Zealand and the negative impacts it will have on our health, wellbeing and freedom.
More than two years after all covid19 policies were dropped… qualified, experienced Kiwis remain excluded from jobs they love
I’ve written before – extensively – about the totalitarian policies of the Ardern Government that imposed coercive ‘vaccine’ mandates on most public sector workers, and commercial entities too. For instance, here, here, here and here. But what is happening today, three years on. And what the hell can we do about it?
Many people are sceptical of the forthcoming NZ Gov Covid Inquiry, including the conflicts of interest of the Commissioners involved and the recent expansion of its Terms of Reference, to include the ‘vaccination’. Those of us who sat through some of the harrowing but censored scenes from witnesses to the Scottish Covid Inquiry, may also be wondering how on earth the essential evidence from these hearings, gets ‘out there’. And with our continued effort and support, it will. Eventually.
Meanwhile, here in NZ, there remains numerous examples of the >3 years old policies rigidly still in place. This is despite the High Court judgment against the NZ Defence Force confirming jab mandates an unreasonable imposition on our Human Rights.
Protests about the jab mandates (image from 2022)
Why we can’t ‘move on’.
To highlight the extent of the problem, I’m providing a ‘snapshot’ – eight job vacancies – advertised with covid ‘vaccination’ requirements (screenshots included):
Support Worker for ‘Nurse Maude’
This job involves caring for people with disabilities in the community. That means intimate care and overseeing meals and medications, including weekend work. This company claims:
“Our reputation for delivering consistently high-quality home support and nursing care is due in no small measure to the experience, professionalism, commitment, and sheer drive of our people. We are seeking experienced support workers to join our Homecare team across Christchurch.”
They are paying the minimal wage (or just above) for these ‘experienced, professional’ carers. That’s NZ$23.38 p/h. Oh, and only those who have had ‘ at least’ two doses of a ‘vaccine’ for a ‘flu’ that is now five years old. The mind boggles…
This entity is a ‘charitable trust’ and subsidiary of Te Rūnanganui o Ngāti Porou. They claim to be “an integrated Hauora, Housing and Whānau Oranga (support services) provider…” and this role involves working with offenders and their families. It is full-time, and looks extremely demanding. This is from the job description:
To be successful in this role, you will have:
Great people skills and ability to build rapport/ Previous experience working in a community work type role
TPO accreditation, social work registration, and/or restorative justice accreditation an advantage
A positive attitude and a passion for working with people
Excellent time management and organisational skills/ Excellent planning, report writing, and documentation skills
Ability to work calm under pressure/ Maintain confidentiality at all times
Operating Competencies:
Full, clean NZ Driver License/Excellent oral and written communication skills.
A proven leader with self-motivation and initiative.
High level of organisational skills/Able to establish a good rapport with people.
Proficient computing skills/ Trustworthy and confidential. But don’t forget, if you want to apply:
Readers familiar with the story by now won’t be surprised to read Ngāti Porou Oranga’s Annual Report in Charities Services confirms last year, their income was nearly $30million, with most of that funding sourced from, you guessed it, the NZ Ministry of Health for ‘services rendered’.
Next? While paradoxical images of Trump flipping burgers whilst promoting MAHA are fresh on our minds, and we’re on the subject of wealthy tax-exempt commercial giants, let’s look at a job at McDonalds:
Housekeeper: shift-worker at a Ronald McDonald’s House for families with sick kids.
The role includes cleaning, stock management and liaising sensitively with guests. And states explicitly:
“COVID-19 Vaccination: In order to maintain a safe and healthy work and accommodation environment and minimise the risk of Covid-19 transmission, RMHC New Zealand recommends that all employees and volunteers are fully vaccinated against Covid-19.”
Again, this is a demanding, full-time job, requiring high level expertise and qualifications in nursing. The pay is only $70,000 – $89,999 per year. Requirements:
Be eligible to work in New Zealand
Be registered with the Nursing Council of New Zealand
Have a current practicing certificate with the Nursing Council of New Zealand
Be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 (!!!)
Have previous experience in Primary Healthcare setting or Community Health
Be interested in nursing in a Primary Health team who have a focus on working with and improving the health outcomes for Maori and Pasifika clients
Have an understanding of the importance of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, Te Ao Maori and other cultural competencies
Desirable attributes are Independent Vaccinator, Smear taker, with experience in B4S’s, phlebotomy and managing chronic conditions. (my emphasis)
In addition: “The successful candidate will demonstrate the ability to work in a variable workflow environment, build strong report with team members, have good communication and interpersonal skills, and a positive “can do” attitude.” Sound like you? The advert asks. (are they taking the piss?)
The problem for many (mandated-out) healthcare professionals looking at this job, is not only are they not ‘vaccinated’ but they no longer hold an Annual Practising Certificate (APC). Nurses have been unfairly blacklisted and discriminated against for over three years; without an APC they are at risk of a Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal and cancellation of Nursing Council registration. Again, Tui Medical is a PPP – taking large sums from taxpayers’ funds to pay for interventions like covid jabs and ‘worried well’ tests that no-one wants. I’ve written about that topic previously, eg here and here.
Photo from a meeting of mandated healthcare workers. Credit: NFFNZ
The purpose of the position is to offer a screening, surveillance, education and support service to all New Zealand children/ Pacific and their family from birth to five years old. The position provides a child-centered comprehensive service that focuses on improving child health, social and educational outcomes.
This is a nursing role focused on Islander [Pasifika] families: “Purpose: To contribute to the overall management of Child Development by providing expert nursing care, as necessary. To provide expert nursing care ensuring excellent health and improved child growth and development.” The role demands high level quals and experience, oh and at least THREE doses:
For those unfamiliar with the word Kirikiriroa it’s the Maori name for Hamilton (apparently). Incidentally, in an attack of wokeness by Council similar to that seen overseas, Hamilton’s statue was removed from the centre of the city ‘for safety reasons’. Anyway, that’s another Kiwi rabbit hole! Pathways is a nationwide provider of mental health support organisations providing a wide-range of services:
The requirement for this office-based role states at least three doses of the experimental jab are required for all employees:
Other discriminating organisations
Meanwhile Student Nurses are still subject to jab mandates at Waikato University.Student Midwives are still subject to covid injection mandates at Auckland University of Technology (AUT). Defence Force recruits are also subject to ‘vaccination’ mandates. The madness seems endless.
And this isn’t limited to healthcare vacancies, a factory job in a commercial bakery also insists on jabbed applicants only:
The purpose of this post about NZ job advert snapshots is to point out that:
a) staff shortages continue in healthcare and other sectors
b) these shortages could be lessened, if discriminatory (and quite frankly, ludicrous) ‘vaccine’ mandate requirements were removed.
c) Our New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (BORA), Anti-Discriminatory laws, the Privacy Act and most Employment legislation aimed at fair equality have all apparently been abolished, without a single word from the Human Rights Commission, professional bodies or the judiciary (to name a few).
Solutions!
Back in July 2022 the shortage of healthcare staff was causing tension when mandates were still in place. In response to the current, ongoing and unacceptable situation, Nurses For Freedom NZ (NFFNZ) Founder Deborah Cunliffe, explains how:
“The MOH and Health NZ implicated unvaccinated nurses as being unprofessional and unfit to work putting our communities at risk due to vaccine refusal. The MOH and Health NZ now need to bring healing to our nursing community by righting the wrongs and correcting the information. Strong leadership is needed. The messages that were given need to be rescinded otherwise we will continue to see mandates by proxy.” (my emphasis)
Helpfully, NFFNZ suggest two ‘Actionable Solutions’ :
1. A Governmental apology clearing all nurses, carers, midwives (students) of any wrongdoing in refusing the ‘vaccine’ – hence limiting the ongoing prejudice against us not only by employers but also by our professional communities and colleagues i.e. nursing council & nursing unions.
2. A clear consistent message from Government and Health New Zealand that any action by employers or professional associations discriminating against unvaccinated workers will be looked on unfavourably and subject to BORA/ law. This information needs to be disseminated to training institutions (ie AUT, Waikato University), contractors, those who are paid by Te Whatu Ora to provide services (ie private hospitals, GP Clinics) etc and include lower management in Health NZ ie Charge Nurses who still think unvaccinated nurses cannot be employed despite policy.
I remain an optimistic informed heart. But my patience is paper thin: when will our coalition Government acknowledge the elephant in the room and stop this illegal discrimination? How can our healthcare systems and patients recover from this?
Informed Heart is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
This article is also available as a PDF to download, print, and share.
Alarming Developments in Australia Following Their Gene Deregulation
To win the debate about the Gene Technology Bill, we have to expose the unscientific and misleading claims being parroted by politicians to gain public acceptance of an egregious takeover of our food choices and medical rights.
To do so, we have to not only make clear submissions to the Health Select Committee. But more importantly, persuade our friends, colleagues and contacts of the potential impact and the need for action.
Our task is made clear by a comment from David Farrar, prolific National supporter and Kiwiblogger-in-chief, that needs deconstructing and examination for misinformation. He quotes Judith Collins speaking at the first reading of the Bill as follows:
“Our current regulations for genetically modified organisms are some of the most backward looking in the world. New Zealand has lagged behind other countries, such as Australia, Canada, and England, which have safely embraced these technologies for the benefit of their people and their economies.
“Despite gene technologies having been in use in New Zealand since the 1970s, the restrictive rules and time-consuming processes we have imposed on researchers have made testing and embracing innovation outside the lab all but impossible. But no more. This Government has listened to our research, primary industry, and medical communities and the frustrations that they have felt over many years. Today, New Zealand moves into the present with a safe enabling regulatory regime. The legislation will enable the sorts of innovation that will benefit New Zealand while effectively managing risks to the health and safety of people and the environment.”
Farrar then adds his 25c “After 25 years of dithering, we finally have a Government that is not letting hysteria trump science. Amazing that this legislation has been introduced in the first year of office – rather than just another working group.”
Misinformation:‘other countries have safely embraced these technologies for the benefit of their people and their economies’
The Gene Technology Bill is the New Zealand version of an international push by commercial interests to free up genetic experimentation from any last fetters of regulation. The massive profits made during the pandemic under emergency deregulation and government mandated participation have set a new benchmark for industry greed. Our Bill is far ahead of the rest of the world in terms of permissiveness. In a world of corporate giants from the food and pharmaceutical sectors seeking to push the envelope, New Zealand’s proposed out-on-a-limb laissez faire stance is a welcome development and something they have actually had a hand in creating.
We have seldom seen a more brazen claim than the use of the word ‘safely’ after 30 million excess deaths have been attributed to the pandemic during the last five years. Whether they come from a gene altered pathogen or a genetic vaccine is largely irrelevant here. As to citing England as a country accepting Gene Technology, a few days ago we pointed to the growing tide of public protest in the UK about the first use of anti-methane medicine Bovaer for cows and the sale of their milk and butter in supermarkets.
In the EU, proposed gene technology legislation has stalled due to disquiet among member states and in any case includes the precautionary principle which says that new technology must be proved safe before use, something that our Gene Technology Bill rejects. Nor does it liberalise research on microbes or animals as our Bill does.
Misinformation: ‘safe enabling regulatory regime’ that mostly classifies gene editing as safe, but supposedly can identify and mitigate any level of risk
A key plank of the government’s contention is the idea that gene editing has become more exact and therefore the need for testing, regulation, labelling, etc is reduced and in many if not most cases eliminated. This is not based on any valid scientific principle. Accuracy does not equate with safety. Just because you can achieve something more accurately does not guarantee its safety. A sniper trains every day to hit the target, but this does not make assassination a safer prospect.
As a result of serious adverse effects, the prospects for gene therapy dimmed in the 90s and early 2000s, but in 2008 new supposedly more exact gene editing techniques using CRISPR/cas gene scissors were developed. Research efforts stepped up and PR went back into overdrive—gene technology and medicine, according to this new narrative, now being promoted by our government, was going to be safe and effective. Today we know this to be false, as a paper published in November 2022 by the Karolinska Institute shows. CRISPR/cas techniques lead to unpredictable on-target genetic rearrangement which can interfere with vital cellular gene repair mechanisms.
During the pandemic, the supposed action of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines was outlined in great detail for the public and indeed, novel genetic instructions were ported into billions of an injected individual’s cells successfully by mRNA vaccines, but the outcome itself was not as predicted. The vaccines did not stop first infections, transmission or repeated infections. In theory the injected vaccine agents would be cleared up within days after having elicited the required protective immune memory. This didn’t happen.
More worrying: investigative journalist Alex Berenson formerly of the NY Times reports scientists at prestigious Yale University have announced the imminent publication of a study that has found concentrations of COVID-19 spike protein in the blood of individuals two years after mRNA vaccination, suggesting the genetic sequences in the vaccine may have integrated into the DNA of recipients to the detriment of their health.
These and many many other studies published during the last year in learned journals which we have reported reveal there are unexpected and unpredictable classes of serious risk to health with gene technology that can only be detected years after the event with careful research. Genetic material can reproduce and perpetuate itself in a way that chemicals cannot.
The misery of gene technology safety has been greatly simplified and altered for public consumption by corporations, scientists and politicians with vested interests. In reality the interior of the cell contains great complexity with trillions of elements involved. In this situation accuracy is not possible, always there are off target effects.
Moreover there are the ever present risks of lab accidents. A 2022 study of the Prevalence of Accident Occurrence Among Scientific Laboratory Workers found: “Among 220 participants recruited in the study, 99 participants (45.0%) have had accidents during their lab works. 59.6% have been exposed once, 32.3% between two and four times, only 1.0% between four and six times, and 7.1% more than six times.”
What sort of gene technology projects might be approved?
The Gene Technology Bill owes much of its content to Australian legislation so we decided to look over the ditch and see just how it all works or rather doesn’t work. The Australian Office of the Gene Technology Regulator has just issued an Invitation to comment on Clinical trials of controlled infection with seasonal influenza viruses (DIR 210). The project has been submitted for approval by the Doherty Institute, a subsidiary of the University of Melbourne. Its principal purpose is described as follows:
“The initial aim is to evaluate the safety and infectivity of recombinant seasonal human influenza viruses in healthy volunteers. These GM viruses will then be used to assess the effectiveness of therapeutic drugs or vaccine candidates to prevent and control influenza infection.”
In other words the lab is to make gene altered versions of the flu and then test out various genetic drugs and/or vaccines on human volunteers over a five year period. It does sound eerily similar to what went on at Wuhan Virology Lab for the five years prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, but then the Gene Regulator is there to put us right. They have already rated the project as posing ‘negligible to moderate risks to human health or safety’. In other words, whatever the public submits to the regulator, the project, which creates new viruses, is likely to be a shoo in for a rubber stamp. You might like to reflect that there is a big difference between the words ‘negligible’ and ‘moderate’. This points to the highly arbitrary and misleading risk classification process being used in Australia which is akin to pinning the tail on a donkey. You can dive into the details here.
The project at the Doherty Institute has at least reached the desk of the gene regulator. If you have enough money, it needn’t actually ever come near the regulator or his desk. An article in the UK Guardian on Dec 10 2024 is entitled “Moderna’s mRNA vaccines to be exempt from advisory committee scrutiny under $2bn Morrison-era deal“. It reports Australians will be offered respiratory mRNA vaccines from next year under a confidential $2bn onshore manufacturing deal struck with Moderna. The agreement exempts Moderna’s mRNA vaccines from assessment by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC), a government memorandum has revealed. The contract signed with the American pharmaceutical company commits successive Australian governments to buying locally produced Moderna vaccines for at least a decade. They will be manufactured at a specially built plant at Melbourne’s Monash University. The memorandum which is raising alarmed red flags even among researchers says the Moderna vaccines “will not go through the PBAC process and therefore will not be listed as designated vaccines on the National Immunisation Program”.
Our Minister of Science, Innovation and Technology Judith Collins no doubt realises what is going on in Australia and approves. She has cited Australian legislation as the lead we are following. The Gene Technology Bill sets the stage for our newly appointed government regulator to dust off his rubber stamp in a similar fashion and expose us all to unquantifiable risk.
Protection from civil and criminal liability
Despite the bogus claims of safety, the Gene Technology Bill seems to anticipate that there might be a few problems so they have included Clause 187—Protection from civil and criminal liability to remove any responsibility as follows:
This protects most persons from civil and criminal liability for any act that the person does or omits to do in the performance of their functions or duties under this Bill. It applies to the following persons:
the Regulator
an employee or agent of the Regulator
an enforcement officer
a member of the Technical Advisory Committee or the Māori Advisory Committee
a member of any subcommittee of those committees.
The person is protected from civil and criminal liability, however it may arise, for any act that the person does or omits to do under a requirement of this Act or simply if they are believed to be acting in good faith in the course of their duties under the Act.
Short version: the government is washing its hands of any liability.
Just reflect for a moment that the Consumer Guarantees Act (CGA) in New Zealand is part of the everyday fabric of our lives. We rely upon it. The CGA guarantees that products must be:
Safe
Of acceptable quality
Fit for their intended purpose
Match the description given
Match the sample or demonstration model
In acceptable condition when received
If a product doesn’t meet these guarantees, consumers can claim a refund, repair, or replacement. The Gene Technology Bill completely bypasses these provisions. Of course those damaged by gene technology will not be able to be refunded or repaired, perhaps the government envisions they will be replaced as happened with vaccine mandates.
So will we know what we are eating or being subjected to?
The Gene Technology Bill includes clauses which repeal and replace all provisions of previous legislation relating to gene technology. A global search of the Bill reveals that the word ‘labelling’ appears zero times. Any previous legal requirement that the presence of genetically modified content be identified on food labels is thereby rescinded. We won’t know what we are eating. This bypasses the need for traceability in the food chain which has formed a protective envelope over public health for a hundred years. No more.
I am sure many of you, like all of us at the Hatchard Report, are becoming more alarmed at the content of the Gene Technology Bill, but our hope lies with the vast majority of Kiwis who care about their food choices. This Bill has been rushed into Parliament without any clear understanding of its clauses. A sober look at the Bill reveals its glaring flaws and misconceptions. Our hope is that clear simple facts will create public pressure and sink the bill. We have until midnight on February 17th to make ;submissions to the Health Select Committee. More importantly, discussing the implications with friends and lobbying MPs directly can create a stir.
This will require steady hands, clear heads and a willingness to discuss the issues with our peers. The key points needing emphasis in submissions and discussions are as follows:
Gene technology content in foods will no longer be identified in labels. We will not know what we are eating.
Without labelling and traceability through the food chain any adverse effects cannot be identified or assessed overturning the lessons of food safety learned during the last 100 years. People with allergies are especially at risk.
Gene technology is imprecise and subject to off target effects affecting health.
Gene tech manufacturing processes are plagued by rogue genetic contamination.
Genetically modified organisms can spread without limit and cannot be recalled or remediated as we found out during the pandemic.
Claims of safety and effectiveness are totally misleading, gene technology is known to produce both short and long term adverse off-target effects.
The Bill provides provision for the government to reimpose vaccine mandates whenever it decides to do so.
The Bill abandons the precautionary principle and allows for the implementation, release and consumption of experimental gene technology products before they are proven safe.
The Bill does not specify how the regulator will assess any risk. The pandemic shows how far off such assessments can be.
Claims of economic and health benefits from gene technology have been wildly exaggerated. Most projects fail. Projects will be mostly funded by the government and be a drain on the public purse. NZ’s economy will be better served by fostering our traditional strengths in farming. Overseas farmers have found patented gene technologies to be costly and no more productive than prior methods. Widespread implementation of gene technology in New Zealand is likely to face consumer backlashes and close our overseas markets.
In his comment, David Farrar believes that the existing HSNO legislation and the precautionary principle it enshrines have allowed ‘hysteria to trump science’. Nothing could be further from the truth, five COVID-19 pandemic years should have taught us the dangers of funding gene research while abandoning precaution.
Good luck with your submissions. This is winnable if we all stand together and speak out. People don’t just care about their food, they rely on it for health and well being.
More detailed information and extra scientific references are available in our articles here , here, here, here and here
A very familiar modus operandi that became more glaringly obvious during and after 2020. EWNZ
Giving an apology on behalf of the state is tricky business. Here’s Connie Buchanan with a summary of how to do the bare minimum.
Stay in your own house. Be where you make the rules and feel most at ease. Where there’s plenty of room for you, but limited space for others.
Invite a mere handful of the thousands of survivors who are owed the apology. Put these few in another room of your house. Give them time to respond to the apology that you haven’t yet delivered. Five minutes each. Do not, yourself, go and sit in that room. It was bad enough having to read their horrible stories in the very long report.
While they are responding to the things you haven’t said yet, get ready to deliver the apology. Wear your normal suit like it’s a normal work day. Stand in your normal spot, surrounded by your normal crew. When you’re ready, bring them in from the other room. Make them be quiet. Make them listen. Make them obey the rules of your house. Keep the rest of the thousands at bay on a one-way live stream.
Richard Vobes Whistleblower, Irene Chain joins me to explain how the important role of the midwife is being manipulated in New Zealand, as well as the rest of the world.
It is tempting to think of evil in apocalyptic imagery: vast and sudden demolition, a searing propulsive darkness or a blinding conflagration, the work of engineered catastrophic mayhem, in whose wake is utter smouldering demise. Yet the work of evil is often piecemeal, steady, methodical, and the accomplishment of a great wrong may well be the result of the gradual accumulative weight of small decisions, whose progress is all the surer for its studied implacability. I think of a large battalion of infantry moving painstakingly across a terrain and claiming it inch by inch until they have vanquished all. Yet, in truth, evil is varied, its manifestations as many as there are living human entities who, faced with seemingly slight or casual choices, often land on the side of self-interest, self-aggrandizement and deception. And evil, however disguised, appears in language.
NewZealandDoc’s Newsletter is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
You will forgive me this preface as I alight on a matter that demonstrates with simple clarity a facet of the evil that has been visited upon us during the Corona War by an institution purporting to have as its charge the protection of the public weal in its regulation of medical practitioners: the infamous Medical Council of New Zealand.
On 5 December 2019, while in the employ as a psychiatrist of one of New Zealand’s District Health Boards (since amalgamated into an overarching bureaucratic entity now known as Te Whatu Ora), I received an email communication about informed consent. The document can be perused in its entirety here:
The “Updated statement on informed consent,” signed by Chief Executive Officer Joan Simeon –now, coincidentally enough, the Chair of the Federation of State Medical Board’s international arm, the International Association of Medical Regulatory Agencies – states the following:
“The key points about informed consent are:
•Every time treatment is provided, a doctor must have permission to provide that treatment. The process of obtaining that permission is called ‘informed consent’. Without informed consent, the treatment may be unlawful. To help the patient decide whether they want a treatment, they first need to be given information, such as the risks and benefits of their treatment options.
•Obtaining consent is a process of shared decision-making where a doctor helps the patient understand their medical condition and the options for treating (or not treating) that condition. It is more than signing forms and completing paperwork. As a doctor, you need to take the time to ask questions so that you understand what matters to your patient, and what their concerns, wishes, goals and values are.”
Bear in mind that this statement, meant to be a standard of good medical practice and to be used as a measure of professional conduct, appeared just as covid had been unleashed upon the world.
Then, on 28 April 2021, this very same Medical Council, in conjunction with the Dental Council, issued a guidance statement on professional responsibility and the Covid-19 vaccine (so-called), which can be found here. It was withdrawn without fanfare on 13 September 2023. It is a masterpiece of obfuscation and an inversion of true informed consent. As such, it represents one of those unheralded but highly effective acts of evil.
Guidance Statement Covid 19 Vaccine And Your Professional Responsibility
Not only are health practitioners themselves expected to get the jab, but the regulators write that “it is our view that there is no place for anti-vaccination messages in professional health practice, nor any promotion of antivaccination claims including on social media and advertising by health practitioners,” while simultaneously advising that “As a health practitioner, you have a role in providing evidence-based advice and information about the COVID-19 vaccination to others. You should be prepared to discuss evidence-based information about vaccination and its benefits to assist informed decision making.”
Yet when one of my colleagues undertook to provide advice to a pregnant woman about medical issues connected with the use of the Pfizer inoculation, his licence was suspended. Furthermore, given the provisional approval of the inoculation at the time and the absence of long-term safety data, the much-vaunted informed consent process and the collaborative partnership with patients implied necessitated a frank discussion of serious risk – risk that has, sadly enough, been borne out not only in New Zealand but world-wide, with an extraordinary panoply of adverse events, including death, amounting to a genocide.
With every day each of us is confronted by choice, on matters small or large. However mauled we may or may not be by spike proteins, jabs, hippocampal lesions, or the weight of the massive psychological operation played against us with covid, we retain the freedom to choose. During the Holocaust perpetrated by Nazi Germany – in an era far before viral or vaccine-mediated bioweapons were in play – ordinary people made choices, bureaucrats made choices, neighbors made choices, and a tremendous evil was allowed to grow to a horrific immensity.
Undermining a real, a true, a genuine foundational principle of Medicine – informed consent – in the service of … of following an agenda that has oppressed and is still oppressing us and destroying viable and decent Medicine in the process, is but another one of those examples of how evil wins its way in our world. The Medical Council of New Zealand, ostensible protector of public health, has in its serpentine and devious manner, shown us that it is as destructive as it is hypocritical, and as corrupt as it is authoritarian.
And those many doctors out there who knew then and now know even better about their profession need to come out of hiding, no matter how uneasy or fearful of the “authorities” they may feel.
Unless they do so a medical profession worth keeping won’t be left.
With the whistleblower vaccination data leak reverberating around the world, the NZ Ministry of Health appears to be in damage control mode and trying to hide the data.
Dr Shane Reti, new Minister of Health has been quoted as saying:
“There are many conspiracy theorists out there who unfortunately disseminate harmful disinformation, however, as Minister and as a physician, the public can and should continue to have confidence in vaccines. I am reassured by experts confirming that there is no evidence supporting the allegations that have been made.”
We are curious which unnamed ‘experts’ are reassuring him and what evidence they are using to provide that reassurance. After a career in general practice, where almost all are usually given, Reti should be already his own expert on vaccines, So why is he now ok jabbing pregnant women, and children for an infection that doesn’t harm them?
Surely the best way to reassure all New Zealanders and people of the world is to release the data and let us all see just how many people who have been vaccinated in New Zealand are now dead nearly 3 years since the rollout began. It would be easy enough to compare vaccinated with unvaccinated since every New Zealander and their vaccination status is on the Covid Immunisation Register (CIR).
[We note that the CIR and NIR (National Immunisation Register) were being merged over the weekend of 2-3 Dec to form the AIR (Aotearoa Immunisation Register). Let’s hope there wasn’t a ‘convenient’ loss of data during that time.]
Mainstream media’s articles continue to repeat that ‘only’ four New Zealanders have died post-covid-vaccination. Never mind that those four were young people who were not at significant risk from covid infection. The death of one healthy not-at-risk person should have been sufficient to halt the rollout.
A curious fact is that all four official deaths have been from myocarditis which, along with anaphylaxis, are the only potentially fatal adverse effects from the vaccine that the MoH appears to recognise in NZ.
This is despite it being increasingly documented that there are many harmful mechanisms at play with this new gene technology/lipid nanoparticle/contamination cocktail.
Official Covid Vaccination Deaths:
The four official deaths are as follows:
The first was a 57 year old lady who died of ‘fulminant necrotising eosinophilic myocarditis’. Our understanding is that she had a medical relative which is perhaps why her case got investigated and counted.
The family even agreed to her history being written up because they wanted other people to be aware of the possibility of this serious event. It was submitted to the NEJM in Aug 2021 but was eventually published in J Clinical Immunology in Apr 2022.
“The authors would like to thank the Coroner and family of the deceased in approving and consenting for this manuscript to be submitted. The family wish to increase awareness of fulminant necrotizing eosinophilic myocarditis as a very rare hypersensitivity disorder requiring urgent assessment and treatment.”
The second case was Rory Nairn, age 26, plumber from Dunedin. His family and some health professionals had to push hard to get his death from myocarditis recognised and investigated.
Following his death, health professionals were provided with extra advice and information about myocarditis and reminded to consider and report it. The coroner, Sue Johnson, has still not released her findings about the circumstances of his death, though has confirmed the cause of death was vaccine-induced myocarditis (the risk of which he was not informed about).
The third official death was a teenager and few details are known. This young person’s death was reported in April 2022.
The fourth official vaccine death in NZ was a person whose situation was discussed by the ISMB in Mar and April 2022 and it was decided it was not related to the covid vaccine.
However, the case was discussed again in Nov 2022 after the board ‘received further information which revealed that the person had myocarditis at the time of their death’ which was probably due to the vaccine. We understand that the family of this person had threatened to go public just before the ISMB reconvened.
Despite the minutes of most of the ISMB meetings being publicly available we note the minutes of the meetings of 2 Mar 2022 and 2 Nov 2022 are not, and are being actively kept out of the public domain.
“ In regards to your request for the meeting minutes for 2 March 2022 and 2 November 2022, your request is also refused under section 9(2)(a) of the Act, to protect the privacy of natural persons.
The need to protect the privacy of these individuals is not outweighed by the public interest in the release of this information.”
What about the others?
We do not believe these are the only deaths attributable to covid vaccination in New Zealand. We believe there are likely hundreds, if not thousands, of deaths in NZ that have been fully or partially caused by the Pfizer injection which have been fobbed off. We have provided evidence to government repeatedly.
We have written on several of hundreds of New Zealanders whose deaths have not been adequately investigated nor assessed according to long established principles of pharmacovigilance.
Divya Simon, a healthcare worker age 31, died 5 days after her third covid vaccine in Jan 2022. She died of a coronary artery dissection which is a rare condition, particularly in a young woman with no underlying conditions. The vaccine has been shown to cause weakening of blood vessel walls and could easily lead to dissection (splitting) of an artery. We wrote to coroner Louella Dunn about our concerns in May 2023 and have yet to receive a substantive reply.
Garrett Utting, age 30 died 3.5 weeks after his first injection in Dec 2021. His stated cause of death was ‘unascertained’ or SUDY (Sudden Unexplained Death in the Young) and the coroner was satisfied that his death was due to ‘natural causes’ despite the postmortem not confirming a definitive cause of death.
Isabella Alexander and Georgia O’Neill both died of blood clots within two weeks of their first covid injections but cause of death was put down to a common genetic variation in combination with a contraceptive pill.
The mother of Louis Amos has described what happened to her son’s well-controlled epilepsy after his Pfizer vaccination: increasingly poor control of seizures leading to a fatal seizure.
In addition to the cases we have written about, we have been told numerous stories of, and been shown documents relating to, other people who have died suddenly and/or unexpectedly. Many of these were people in the prime of their lives – previously fit, active, employed and healthy, then suddenly gone.
Pathologists’ reports (if postmortems have even been done) have either not mentioned or discounted vaccination and now, as Coroner’s Reports are finally coming through 2+ years after the fact, it is obvious coroners are discounting the vaccine as well. Apart from appearing to look for myocarditis, it is not clear that anything else has been done to consider the multitude of other harms covid vaccination can cause.
Trust
It is a question of trust. Officials from the Ministry of Health are imploring us to trust their pronouncements and their experts.
We ask, WHY should we trust them when they have not shown themselves to be worthy of this. They have cast aside medical ethics, gagged doctors, refused to engage in discussion, delayed and obfuscated OIA responses, not adequately investigated deaths and are now shooting the messenger.
Trust is earned and should no longer be taken for granted. If this government and Ministry of Health want the trust of the people, then earn it! Start with dropping charges against the messenger Barry Young (and all dissenting health workers), showing the full data he was concerned about, answering questions and fronting up for discussions.
The Detailed Case of Garrett Utting: New Zealanders Have No Protections, Are Being Lied To, and Our Systems are Not Fit For Purpose
The following is the story of Garrett Utting.
He was 30 years old when he died in December 2021. He was young and healthy with only a history of galactosaemia which required a strict dairy free diet. He was on no medication.
He did not want to be vaccinated as he was well and at minimal risk from a serious outcome. He had no co-morbidities and was fit and active in a physical job outdoors.
His father initially supported his decision not to get the jab as he was healthy and the long-term effects were unknown, but he was also concerned that Garrett might lose his newfound employment and cadetship in horticulture and didn’t want him to put his career in jeopardy. He had already lost one job due to lockdowns. He suggested Garrett wait and see what his employer wanted and go from there. Unfortunately, his employer followed the government advice and required employees to be vaccinated even though the bulk of his work was outside by himself in the orchards and vineyards.
Garrett reluctantly got vaccinated on 13 Nov 2021. He did not complain to anyone of symptoms but would not have been likely to do so. He did call in to work to say he needed a day or two off on 3 Dec 2021 due to feeling tired, fatigued and needing to rest.
“Before the recently held elections, Gunn was contacted by a whistle-blower and given documentation showing that tens of thousands of New Zealanders’ deaths are linked to the injections”
Former TV presenter Liz Gunn published a video update yesterday describing an instance of one clinic in New Zealand where 30 people received a covid injection and all 30 of them have died, within the same time frame.
Liz Gunn (Elizabeth Cooney) became internationally renowned for her support for the family in the Baby W case, where two parents objected to the use of covid-vaccinated blood in transfusions. The parents were unsuccessful in their court action to oppose health authorities seeking guardianship to allow surgery to go ahead. At the end of June 2023, Gunn launched a political party called the New Zealand Loyal Party.
Before the recently held elections, Gunn was contacted by a whistle-blower and given documentation showing that tens of thousands of New Zealanders’ deaths are linked to the injections. “This is just one of the sites recording this type of information in New Zealand,” she said. “We don’t know how many further databases like this are in the country,” she added.
She explained that because the number of deaths is usually less than the number of those suffering from ill effects of the injections, then the extrapolation of the numbers that have been injured and killed “starts to become, frankly, eye-watering.”
Curious how frequently somebody or other happen to be training nearby during these incidents ….
Two male construction workers aged in their 40s have been confirmed as the pair killed in yesterday’s Auckland CBD shootings. Police say formally identifying the victims is today’s priority, with autopsies to be completed in the coming days.
Originally posted here in 2020 … note the role of forestry going forwards. The Gabrielle floods & the devastation they caused. The poisoning of the land. The sucking up of our water resources. Barry Smith (NZ evangelist, investigative journalist) cited long ago, ’80s and earlier, that NZ was marked out for pine trees. Each country in the planned Old World Order, would have one product only… hence enforcing the global village concept … each country requires the other for its product … NO self sufficiency... thinly disguised lockdown basically. Remember the Arnold Toynbee quote – International Affairs, p.809, November 1931 … EWNZ
“We are at present working discreetly, with all our might, to wrest this mysterious force called sovereignty out of the clutches of the local nation states of the world. And all the time we are denying with our lips what we are doing with our hands.” …
A foreign-owned forestry company has bought up more than 77,000 hectares of forests in just four years to become the third largest landowner in New Zealand.
Australia-based New Forests Asset Management runs several investment funds here through several subsidiaries.
RNZ journalist Kate Newton has been investigating who owns New Zealand for several months.
She says the speed at which New Forests amassed the land is astonishing.
“They have gone from owning nothing in 2015, as far as we can tell, to now owning 77 and a half thousand hectares. they had an Overseas Investment Office approval just go through last month to buy another piece of land,” Newton says.
New Forests calls itself a “sustainable real assets investment manager offering leading-edge strategies in forestry, land management, and conservation”.
It has more than $5 billion Australian in assets under management globally with investments in Australia, New Zealand, US and Southeast Asia.
Turns out Hamilton DC was touting 20 minute cities back in 2020… interesting timing. Right when folk were locked down (for two weeks+) to flatten the curve. They looked at it back then, assisted by Waikato University (their 2021 report and video at the link). The video is all the way from the UK, host for the Oxford 15 minute city there that folk are pushing back against (check out the videos in that link, looks more like a military check point there than an eco friendly paradise… they detain a woman trying to drive to work). See here also.
Hamilton Council hosted a meeting on topic this week apparently and a large crowd turned up. Was that because it’s such a great idea or because they smell a rat? The Twitter comment from DemocracyNZ notes concern about lack of consultation (nothing new note for District Councils NZ wide):
Then there is the proposed Sunfield suburb in Auckland. (Be sure to watch the videos there). It does look so very benign, solar powered, an electric shuttle and all those lovely gardens (that they’ve been pushing on small towns anyway for years. Witness Foxton and the big 1.5 mill spend there when folk said they weren’t consulted & they only wanted clean water). Gardens are nice but all those dollars for developers and Councils now knee deep in debt? How sustainable is that? It really doesn’t all add up does it?
If you’ve not come across NZ MD, Dr Sam Bailey yet, check out her website & video channels (link above). In short, true health is not found in a bottle of pharmaceutical pills as most of us have been trained to believe. Featured here is Dr Bailey’s book by the above name, actually originally by Dr Urlic Williams a former Whanganui MD and Surgeon who latterly trained in Naturopathy, eventually forsaking the former for the latter. Dr Bailey has brought his valuable guide to good health to us in a slightly modernized form. A must read. EWR
Excerpt below from her description … the book titled ‘Terrain Therapy: How To Achieve Perfect Health Through Diet, Living Habits & Divine Thinking‘:
“You don’t have to do anything to get better; all you need is to stop doing what’s wrong and making yourself sick.”
If you are looking for perfect health while avoiding doctors, drugs and surgery, then this book unlocks the secrets for success. It contains the distilled health wisdom of the visionary 20th century physician, Dr. Ulric Williams. His principles of achieving good health are timeless and remarkably simple. Physical health stems from correct dietary practices as well as healthy thoughts and a spiritual connection. The body’s symptoms should not be mistaken for disease ‘entities’ – rather they are attempts to heal itself. These healing crises provide the opportunity for complete cure through natural methods. There is no need to consult “experts” or buy expensive health products. Learn effective fasting techniques and establish your best diet with easy suggestions, including nearly 400 recipes.
“I didn’t cure you, only God can heal. Actually what I did was to teach you how to cure yourself, and that will be useful to you all your life.” – Dr. Ulric Williams
Reality Check Radio is a new platform that will welcome open discussion without the censorship we’ve been experiencing in recent years. Hosted by Paul Brennan, Chantelle Baker, Rodney Hide and Peter Williams. To learn more go here. EWR
“Tune in today from 7am when we kick off with Breakfast with Paul Brennan.
P.S. Remember to share Reality Check Radio with likeminded (or not so likeminded but potentially curious) friends, family and colleagues. “
“…if you talk to the community in general the picture’s a lot different…. we’re speaking to communities that say there’s still hundreds missing”
We’re visiting this subject again with a recently released video at YT by The Felon Show that takes you into the flood affected area of the Esk Valley showing you close up, the complete devastation.
There is a crew of volunteers there on the ground who receive no public funding, assisting locals with the clean up. They are from the group called Man Up (all info & links in video notes).
To briefly summarize (and you can listen to the finer detail for yourself) those who have officially been accounted for as passed are those who have been identified by family and friends. However, as the presenter in the video states … “if you talk to the community in general the picture’s a lot different…. we’re speaking to communities that say there’s still hundreds missing”.
As reported in our recent article citing other eye witness testimonies, the mainstream narrative is totally at odds with this. Whose testimony do you think would be the most reliable? In the above link a helicopter pilot reported seeing hundreds in the flood waters.
House swept off its foundations and relocated: Photo credit: screenshot
We now have a ‘system’ that persecutes those who do what normal humans do … run to the rescue, without hesitation … witness the helicopter pilot now being threatened by Civil Aviation for doing so! (See here also, it’s not the first time in NZ).
Please watch this important video and share it far and wide.
A repost and update of this old article from 2017. The video was censored from NZ television.
“Also disturbing are the birth defects documented by a local midwife, and the fact that Ivon Watkins Dow continued to manufacture 2-4-5-T in New Zealand until 1987, making us the last country in the world to manufacture the dangerous substance.” The Green Party NZ
“Outbreaks of rare diseases and tumours are appearing in clusters around New Zealand, close to chemical factories. Why doesn’t the Government want to investigate? Simon Jones discovers what the authorities don’t want you to know…“
Dioxin is featuring right now with the train spill in the US and the town of Palestine in Ohio. It has all the appearances of cover up of course. Listen to this young woman speaking out on that. (Isn’t it curious that these folks were supplied with a free digital health tracking device a week prior to the spill?)
In preparing this I spent some considerable hours finding a copy of the doco and one that would allow me to upload to an alternative platform. Also to locate the original info as most of the links were either faulty (wrong info) or dead. It’s advisable now to keep entire copies of material rather than just links. If you have related info now missing from the article do please let me know in comments or via the contact form. Be sure to read to the end, there’s interesting NZ info now also deleted from the net. EWR
Additional Historical Info: This piece copied from disarmsecure.org back in 2013 is now absent from the net. The new website (if you follow the source link at the end) does not appear to have the original pdf I’ve quoted from. Hopefully it can still be located …. somewhere. Let me know if you have a link. There are some unfinished sentences unfortunately but you will get the gist of the information which concerns the alleged production of Agent Orange at the New Plymouth plant …. EWR ….
“In November 1990 NZ undertook a ‘national trial inspection’ to determine the feasibility of a small country inspecting a chemical plant to verify non-production of CW agents and compliance with a CWC. The mock inspection was carried out at the Ivon Watkins-Dow (now Dow-Elanco) herbicide plant suspected of producing defoliant for the Vietnam war in 1967. The ‘inspection’ was said to be successful in that the ‘inspectors’ were able to satisfy themselves that no CWE agents were being produced.
252 Ironically this inspection took place within a few months of the Select Committee announcing that it was unable to determine whether military defoliant production had taken place at that very same plant in the ’60s. The trial inspection report was presented to the Committee on Disarmament in Geneva in February 1991 by the NZ permanent representative to the CD. In the course of his speech the representative, a professional diplomat, made the following astonishing Statement New Zealand does not have, and has never had chemical weapons. We do not allow chemical weapons to be stationed on our territory.
253
More untruths could hardly be squeezed into two such small sentences. New Zealand does have chemical weapons – on board RNZN ships, if nowhere else. New Zealand has had chemical weapons – in both World Wars. New Zealand has taken no steps to prevent stationing of CW agents, and the NZ Nuclear Free Zone, disarmament and Arms Control Act makes no reference to CW at all. There is no agreement with the US to prevent it bringing chemical weapons into its Deepfreeze base at Christchurch airport, and New Zealand has relinquished any inspection rights over those facilities
New Zealand and the CWC
New Zealand is now a signatory to the CWC, one of several arms control agreements which New Zealand is realistically capable of violating. New Zealand has both owned and used chemical weapons of the sort soon to be banned by the CWC, as summarized below, and for all we know could still ageing stocks of such weapons in the future. The facts about the history of New Zealand’s ownership and use of chemical weapons are still not clear. However research undertaken in the NZ National Archives over the past 12 months `and already summarized in this report
discloses the following CWC-relevant activities as a minimum:
1 New Zealand forces used chemical weapons in Belgium and France during World War I on about the same scale, relatively speaking, as did British forces, and about as indiscriminately. Toxic phosgene and non-toxic tear gas seem to have been the main agents used. In at least one instance NZ artillery seems to have bombarded a town containing civilians.
2 New Zealand apparently first became interested in acquiring its own reserve stocks of gas shell about the time the Geneva Protocol on gas warfare was signed in 1925. Whether such stocks were then actually acquired I
3 New Zealand actively supported retention of the ‘right’ of chemical retaliation when the question of banning CW entirely was raised at the 1932 Disarmament Conference.
4 During World War 2 New Zealand was involved in research, development and production of CW weaponry.
5 During World War II New Zealand acquired a considerable quantity of chemical weapons. Some may have accompanied the 3rd Division to the Pacific. The main stockpile was stored at Belmont between 1942 and 1946, and included l 12770 rounds of 25-pounder mustard shell 15 300 gas bombs for’4.2-inch mortar.
6 The ultimate fate of this CW arsenal is not clear. Some may have been transferred to US forces, in the Pacific. In 1946 some 1500 tons of 25 pounder shells and 20 tons of mortar bombs were dumped off Cape Palliser. This would be equal to about 135 000 shells and 2200 gas bombs. A further 200 tons were dumped in Hauraki Gulf. Other gas munitions may have been dumped as late as 1957.
7 RNZN ships apparently continue to carry tear gas munitions for riot control operations ‘in aid of the civil power’. A cursory examination of the text of the CWC indicates that the following obligations are possibly pertinent with respect to New Zealand, given that New Zealand has been involved in CW and preparations for CW to at least the extent described above.
Note: Lamestream media is now in damage control mode warning about ‘conspiracy’ theories… as truth comes out. This article cites many links to eye witness evidence. Particularly listen to the young man on TikTok who speaks about the dam release causing a tsunami in Wairoa, not before the storm which they knew was coming, but during it. Pays to save all of this info before it gets wiped of the net by the censors. EWR
From seemorerocks.is
The following gut-wrenching report came to me in a voice message.
I believe strongly that the information should be made available to everyone while the identity of the person kept private.
I have therefore made a transcript and edited out bits that are at all personal
The reality on the ground in Hawkes Bay
Hey, how are you? Sorry, I haven’t really been in content. I’ve been trying to lay low.
From what I know there’s hundreds, hundreds dead the morgue – the morgue at the hospitals full.
There’s a morgue at the port that is reported to have about 100 bodies and I have spoken to someone I know that works at the port and he confirmed that.
But he also said it’s under army control and it’s classified.
So then I got a hold of a friend who’s in the army.
He’s actually been up in Gisborne. He’s due back here in Hawke’s Bay tonight, so I’m going to go and see him because he’s really cagey about what he says.
He said, ” I’ve been up in Gisborne and what I’ve seen there is worse than Afghanistan”.
So he’s been in the army 20 years, and he’s been to war and he said, this is worse.
My daughter’s boyfriend’s brother was working clearing a bridge yesterday. They were getting the slash up in he found a body. He recognized the hand, but the rest of the body is unrecognizable.
So I think that issue – and this is through talking with people I trust in Hawke’s Bay, not hearsay.
The issue was these bodies have been smashed by the slash. They have had downpours of water gushing past them. They’ve been beaten up and they’ve also been decomposing for six days in water and heat.
You can’t get a dental appointment in Hawke’s Bay because all the dentists are trying to use dental records to identify the bodies.
There is a group of 50 RSE workers (Recognised Seasonal Employer Limited Visa – ed) that were working in the Esk valley that have all been taken out.
The forestry boys on recovery mission – so the forestry boys, the navy, obviously the police, Search and Rescue – everyone are picking up bodies off the beaches and off the forestry blocks because I can get to more remote areas.
Apparently, the 50 RSE workers, no one can identify them.
You must be logged in to post a comment.