This is an open letter as it involves all living in New Zealand.
I am writing to you because of your current position as Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, a second term; your earlier position at the OECD responsible for the chemicals program, and prior to that, your former position as a New Zealand politician. You should have considerable knowledge on the subject of 1080.
I believe you should also have considerable influence in wielding authority if and where needed.
Since your early days in the 90’s of being a minister of health or the environment, a great deal of data has become available which contradicts the virtues of 1080. This is a major concern and something I am sure you should be interested in.
I have read some of your presentations and speeches to different organisations and letters to various MP’s on environmental concerns. Also the lack of regulatory infrastructure in place needed to oversee, decide or make recommendations related to the many thousands of chemicals in use today in NZ. That is disturbing and makes me wonder how on earth did 1080 ever get to be accepted to be used in NZ in the first place? It appears NZ has Authorities, NGO’s, government departments such as the EPA or MPI but not one to make immediate approval or refusal decisions on these chemicals – thousands of them in fact.
New Zealand uses 90% of the world supply – tons as opposed to tablespoons by other countries, of a poison with the classification by the World Health Organisation of 1A extremely hazardous, and then drops poison baits out of helicopters over vast areas of land and into water which we drink, to supposedly save our native wildlife. This is the official DOC narrative and is truly astonishing and extraordinary. People wear hazmat suits when around it.
Because no other country uses such quantities or drops huge amounts of 1080 or brodifacoum into the environment and ecosystem there is no scientific evidence available of the sub-lethal and chronic effects on humans, wildlife, insect life, birds, all life except plants and some micro-organisms. How about long-term ecological damage? 1080 is an eco-system poison.
Because of your experience and knowledge, I have questions which I hope you can answer:
Why are reports, books, testimonies by anyone who challenges the DOC narrative ignored? I will mention some below.
Quinn and Pat Whiting-O’Keefe, independent scientists who reviewed more than 100 DOC Scientific Papers say
“There is no credible scientific evidence showing any species of native bird benefits from 1080 drops.” These two have impeccable credentials that cannot be ignored when it comes to evaluating this whole subject. They say a lot more which conflicts with what we are told to believe by our government and related agencies. One of their two reports is immediately below.
There is another report – 89 pages with a great deal more detail as well by these two.
Independent Scientist Dr. Jo Pollard and her website 1080 Science.
Professor Fiona McQueen, a rheumatologist and environmentalist who wrote The Quiet Forest.
Dr. Koen Margodt’s report which was written as a result of the late Dame Jane Goodall being so concerned about the ethics of 1080, she asked that this be written.
At War With Nature – Corporate Conservation and the Industry of Extinction by the late Bill Benfield as well as The Third Wave.
The Killing Nation, aptly called, by Reihana Robinson; as well as other books.
New Zealand’s Changing Diversity by Jim Hilton and Roger Childs; there are more I have not listed here.
Articles by Marc Bekoff, Ph.D., who worked closely with the late Dame Jane Goodall as co-chair of the ethics committee of the Jane Goodall Institute. Marc has written over 30 books and is known for his work on animal research, animal behaviour and emotions and compassionate conservation. He raises the alarm and questions animal cruelty in NZ with our treatment of wildlife. Marc has many awards to his name.
I must also mention the excellent award winning documentary Poisoning Paradise by the Graf Boys – not allowed to be played on our airwaves. Disturbing detail of wildlife dying; hormone/endocrine disruption concerns stated by Dr Sean Weaver, and human health concerns as well, mentioned by the late Dr. Peter Scanlon. Their website TV Wild has excellent information and videos on it.
As NZ has five times the world statistic of motor neuron disease and various cancers through the roof why have no human health studies been carried out?
Anything that challenges the “inhouse science” of DOC is ignored and never acknowledged. Why?
The WHO stated there is NO acceptable amount of 1080 in water, why did NZ govt ignore and change that?
How have NZ Government and users of 1080 been allowed to ignore data on the original Safety Data Sheet in favour of their own? These are Safety Data Sheet violations. Major violations – 1080 found dumped and exposed on Stewart Island in 2018 (covered by Patrick Gower).
1080 found in ground water and traced to a landfill where the toxin had leached out of the baits. Is this not a serious health and safety issue? (Environmental Health Watch April 6 2019 – Is there 1080 in your landfill …) – this website has a great deal of information on this subject. There are other violations as well.
Are these above not State Sanctioned crimes? Acts of Omission by the State?
Peter Notman, an entomologist, Mike Meads, an invertebrate ecologist, and Dr. Valerie Orchard, a microbiologist were all made redundant when they all raised concerns which did not align with what DOC wanted. “Safe science” is preferred by DOC. Chapter 11 of At War With Nature, is called “Conservation Science – Its How We Get The Message Right” – the late Bill Benfield describes in great detail how this “safe science” came to be and not allowed to be challenged.
Why have there not been prosecutions of individuals? Of Companies/agencies concerned?
There are many more questions which need answering. Is the careless and indiscriminate use of a 1A extremely hazardous toxin which is dropped in huge quantities across our land and waters not environmental terrorism?
Is it not ecocide? Where dying carcasses are left which then creates secondary poisoning on a massive scale? Horrific carnage. Where cruelty of a heinous nature is suffered by all which come into contact with and ingest 1080? Deer right now are having their babies – these babies will watch their mothers thrashing around in agony dying and then starve to death themselves. Other young, starving watching their mothers screaming in pain as they die – what sort of country is this where the Department of Conservation which holds responsibility for the welfare of our wildlife is killing it and rare native species are or have become extinct? Killing the basic on the chain, the insect life – which then kills the birds as their food is gone and they starve to death or die poisoned. Vilifying non-natives and calling them pests? In particular, the possum.
Because NZ does not appear to have the technical ability to test for 1080 correctly, or will not, how many humans have been affected in some way as well?
President Nixon banned it in 1972, in the U.S., the country of origin, because of high toxicity, lethal effects, environmental and safety concerns, cruelty and harm suffered by wildlife, targeted and non-targeted. It was approved in very limited amounts later by President Reagan.
The second reason for banning was the terrorism risk. With huge amounts of 1080 being brought into this country, and held in built-up areas in NZ, surely these are major causes for concern? According to Predator Defense in the U.S. “both the FBI and Canadian Security Intelligence Service list Compound 1080 as a substance that may be sought for use as a possible chemical warfare agent in public water supplies”. This threat cannot be underestimated with daily events happening somewhere. If the U.S. has concerns of terrorism potential, with their guns and weapons, is it not absurd that we here in NZ blindly keep using it, dropping it out of helicopters like confetti year after year? Dangerous? Is not the terrorism threat very real? Should this deadly toxin not be locked up with the equivalent of something such as Fort Knox?
1080 is being dropped in our waters which we drink, by our own government. The hoppers have been filmed spilling the baits carelessly; accidentally, killing farm animals, pets, birds, insects, poisoning the landscape – how can the birds be saved if the insects they rely on for food are poisoned or dead?
The fact that these deadly drops are repeated year after year means a huge failure; on the other hand, if it succeeded then the money supply would dry up and cease as well as the employment of those involved in this cruel activity which is not needed. Is this one reason why after 70 years this practise is still continuing?
Tons of 1080 are being dumped in landfills in and around NZ. Why is it being stockpiled here and then after four years which is the shelf life, it has to be disposed of? How? Where?
With so much government information contradicting testimonies, videos, reports by highly qualified scientists, books written by specialists in their field all following a similar pattern and disagreeing with DOC and related agencies, why have they at the very least not been investigated or shut down? DOC are perpetually being economical with the truth. They even contradict their own data. Do not follow their own policies. What is it going to take to stop this dangerous and failing experiment year after year?
There are alternatives – why are they not being used? Traps, hunters, which are sources of employment – also a possum fur industry.
The possum excuse is that – an excuse; the Tb was from cattle and then possums – thousands were found when tested to have no Tb – (the late Richard Prosser and Nathan Guy – Hansard). Possums made out to be villains by DOC when we are virtually Tb free and children encouraged to kill them? Unconscionable behavior – was that sanctioned? Why not?
Why has a major source of food been taken away from the people? A HIKOI the length and breadth of the country ignored? Thousands of people speaking out against 1080 not listened to. Where is government representation of the people of NZ?
These are some of the many questions that need to be answered as the consequences are unknown and could be deadly.
With daily articles of the threat of war looming in various parts of the world, the public unease at immigrants not embracing NZ values or even an individual living here with a personal grudge, the lack of security and safety involved in storage of this deadly toxin, the large amounts lying around in the open and not buried in NZ, silence by people who should be speaking up and not for fear of consequences like losing their employment, accidents just waiting to happen such as a loaded helicopter crashing into a dam or a truck carrying it falling into a major water supply – millions could die. There is no antidote.
The evidence against the use of sodium monofluoroacetate/1080 and how it is used here in NZ is damning. Why has it not been banned?
How is this not a NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUE?
I would really appreciate a response from you, and also responses from anyone copied directly into this Open Letter.
Sincerely,
Rowena Kaleopa
Copied to Rt Hons Christopher Luxon Winston Peters David Seymour Shane Jones Mark Mitchell Tama Potaka Andre Hoggart Penny Nelson Penny Simmonds Police: Richard Chambers Mike Pannett
Copied also to –
Brooks Fahy, Predator Defense Mark Bekoff, Psychology Today Dr Jo Pollard Clyde Graf The Whiting-O’Keefes Professor Fiona McQueen Reihana Robinson Jim Hilton Environmental Health Watch NZ
The AI-Powered Kill Chain TIME Magazine just named “The Architects of AI” as their “2025 Person of the Year” — your billionaire tech titans in Jensen Huang, Sam Altman, Mark Zuckerberg, Elon Musk, and others are being celebrated as visionaries that are transforming our world. But what are the higher-level architects really building while the masses are distracted by AI chatbots and image generators? Let’s take a closer look…
UN/G20/WEF-aligned National Digital ID in Canada being Developed & Implemented, Quebec is the Testbed: Bill 82 passed Of course, most governments will initially sell the idea as an improved means to provide government services in a more inclusive, convenient, and accessible manner. But when one looks beneath the surface, one finds an ambitiously widespread network of control that is being built.So let us have a broad look at the origins, key players, and multi-country interoperable infrastructure being devised and developed to bring about this technocratic network of control
EWNZ comment: do review our glyphosate pages at the main menu. I looked at this topic in the Rangitikei during 2013-2016, attempting to switch the council’s weed control to steam. At the end of the day, it appears that councils NZ wide prefer to use poison … surprised?Comfortably in bed with Agrichem.
“Millions of pounds of glyphosate were approved, defended, and sprayed worldwide on the basis of a paper we now know was fundamentally compromised and scientifically invalid.“
In a long-overdue move, Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology has formally retracted the landmark 2000 glyphosate “safety” review by Williams, Kroes, and Munro — a paper Monsanto and global regulators have relied on for decades to assert that Roundup poses no carcinogenic risk to humans.
Crucially, the Editor-in-Chief confirms that Monsanto employees likely secretly wrote substantial portions of the paper, despite never being listed as authors or acknowledged — a revelation uncovered through U.S. litigation.
The retraction states that the article’s integrity has collapsed entirely, citing undisclosed corporate authorship, omitted carcinogenicity data, financial conflicts of interest, and a complete failure by the surviving author to respond to the journal’s investigation.
THE RETRACTION
1. Based almost entirely on Monsanto’s unpublished studies The review’s “no cancer risk” conclusion relied solely on Monsanto-generated data. Even worse, the authors ignored multiple long-term mouse and rat carcinogenicity studies that already existed at the time — including multi-year toxicity studies showing tumor signals. None were incorporated.
2. Evidence of ghostwriting by Monsanto Litigation records revealed that Monsanto employees secretly co-wrote portions of the paper, despite never being listed as authors or acknowledged. This alone violates the most basic principles of scientific integrity.
3. Undisclosed financial ties The authors appear to have received direct compensation from Monsanto for producing the paper — again undisclosed, again violating journal standards.
4. Misrepresentation of authorship and contributions By hiding Monsanto’s role, the paper created the illusion of independent scientific evaluation — even as corporate employees shaped the conclusions.
5. Regulatory capture revealed This paper heavily influenced global risk assessments — including U.S. EPA, WHO/FAO, and Health Canada evaluations — setting the tone for “glyphosate is safe” messaging for more than two decades.
While I am strongly opposed to politically motivated retractions and scientific censorship, this retraction was unquestionably warranted. The integrity failures were not ideological — they were structural, factual, and undeniable.
And the independent evidence that has emerged since 2000 only underscores how dangerous that original “all clear” truly was.
A recent controlled animal study demonstrated that glyphosate and Roundup can induce rare, aggressive, and fatal cancers across multiple organs — even at doses considered “safe” by U.S. and EU regulatory thresholds. These findings directly contradict the original review’s core conclusions.
Zhang et al found a statistically significant association between glyphosate exposure and increased risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma in humans. Their 2019 meta-analysis pooled data from over 65,000 participants across six studies—including more than 7,000 NHL cases—and reported a 41% increased risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma among those with the highest glyphosate exposure:
In other words, independent science was pointing to serious cancer risks while Monsanto’s fraudulent ghostwritten review was actively minimizing them.
Millions of pounds of glyphosate were approved, defended, and sprayed across the world on the basis of a review that we now know was fundamentally compromised and scientifically invalid.
The collapse of this paper is not just a correction, it is an indictment of an entire regulatory era built on deception.
Gavin De Becker just linked the Kissinger Report, the WHO, Bill Gates, tetanus vaccines and the global birth-rate collapse — in FIVE minutes.
What he claims is staggering:
According to De Becker, the 1975 Kissinger Report made population reduction — not “control” — official U.S. foreign policy in 12 targeted nations.
He says it pushed medicalised birth control, covert fertility-regulating injections, and even paid sterilisation programmes.
He points out that:
• The WHO spent the 1970s developing tetanus/HCG fertility-regulating vaccines
• Forced sterilisation campaigns were carried out in India and Peru
• “Wellness injections” were allegedly used to reduce pregnancy
• And the Kissinger framework openly tied population reduction to access to foreign natural resources
Then he draws a modern parallel:
• The Kissinger Report mentions injections that temporarily reduce male fertility
• Fauci admitted the COVID vaccine reduces male sperm count for 3 months
• And people were told to take it every 3 months
De Becker warns:
The same ideology that drove 1970s population-reduction policy has now merged with global health power — Gates, WHO, and the new vaccine infrastructure.
He calls it “dark as hell” — and insists almost nobody realises it’s written in official documents.
Gavin de Beckeris an American security specialist and author. He has worked for governments, large corporations, and public figures.[2] Reportedly a billionaire,[3][4][5] he runs Gavin de Becker and Associates, which he founded in 1978. The firm protects and advises many of the world’s most prominent public figures. He is the author of several books, most notably The Gift of Fear (1997)
The Origins of the NZ Government’s Covid Elimination Strategy, Lockdown Laws and Mass Vaccination Drive
The origins of the New Zealand Government’s elimination strategy is traced, as well as its aspiration for high vaccination uptake and the nation’s embroilment in the World Health Organization’s pandemic trigger mechanisms — back to a 2002 Ministry of Health discussion paper published, as the SARS-Cov-1 outbreak began.
As far back as 2005, the United Nations’ World Health Organisation gained the power to construct trigger mechanisms to declare pandemics, that would eventually lead to the health departments across the 196 members nations being reoriented for an over-hyped health crisis.
Former news and current affairs editorSteve Snoopman finds that New Zealand’s Government gained for itself invasive powers to lockdown, search, seize and detain with amendments to the Public Health in 2006. Yet, the Government has exploited the over-hyped Covid-19 hysteria to expand its Medical Martial Law powers.
New Zealand’s Stealthy Pivot to Police State Status — Part 2
Lying by Numbers, Hyped Fear-Porn News and the U.N.’s 2nd Global Pandemic Exercise, starring ❛Covid-19❜
New Zealand’s response to the Covid-19 pandemic was (and remains) disproportionate to the threat because the Government failed to model for the United Nation’s Second Global Pandemic Exercise being taken ‘live’ — amid a planned media hype strategy. This failure was ‘too stupid to be stupid’.
The latest Covid-19 lockdown of the entire nation — which was announced on August 17 and was initially justified on the basis of just one suspected Delta variant case — actually followed a government commissioned report released the previous week that warned of the impacts of the Delta variant spreading from other countries, including Australia.
However, this investigation finds that despite the media hype of the Delta variant mortality, the figures from overseas do not wear the fear.
As we navigate the complexities of the Therapeutic Products Act and its potential impact on New Zealand’s natural health industry, there is another critical issue that demands immediate attention. New Zealand First has pledged to withdraw from the World Health Organization (WHO) Treaty, a decision that has far-reaching implications. However, the pressing question remains: have we run out of time?
So following up, this is the WHO’s own info with Dr. Bloomfields name peppered throughout.
“COVID-19 showed us that having a good, strong set of International Health Regulations is essential, and showed where the current Regulations need to be improved,” said Dr Bloomfield, former Director-General of Health, New Zealand. “The ongoing pandemic has underscored the importance of countries working together collaboratively, and supporting WHO in its vital work, to make the world safer. The tone of the discussions and progress made during this week’s meeting clearly show that countries understand the responsibility they have to ensure this process is successful.”Governments hold first detailed discussions on proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005) (who.int)
There’s that theme again; “for your safety” along with the old Globalist pipe dream of planetary harmony (presumably under tight fascist control). There is plenty of additional info to follow at the WHO site, but the video highlights the relevant points.
Of particular concern in the video presented on FB is the removal of the words “non binding” and rather alarmingly, references to dignity, human rights and freedoms being deleted from the draft.
The World Health Organization’s pandemic treaty, the amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHRs) and the global One Health agenda are all part of a soft coup, a global power grab
The globalists’ plan for our future can be summarized as “global dominion by the few and total control of the masses”
The technocratic cabal has control over most if not all Western governments, as well as the bureaucratic structure of the WHO; 85% of its funding comes from private entities, so it’s owned by private interests
Based on the current treaty draft and proposed IHR amendments, it’s clear that mRNA-based vaccinations will be mandatory under the WHO’s power structure, and these vaccines will be made in 100 days by skipping human trials and shaving safety and efficacy testing down to the bare bones
Under the treaty, as currently written, nations will be required to surveil and censor social media. The WHO’s narrative will be the only one allowed
In this September 1, 2023, Highwire interview,1 Dr. Meryl Nass, a biowarfare and epidemics expert, exposes the threat posed by the World Health Organization’s pandemic treaty and the amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHRs), which add to and further strengthen the WHO’s powers under the treaty. The WHO’s One Health agenda is also part of this power grab.
Nass also recently published an article, “The WHO’s Proposed Treaty Will Increase Manmade Pandemics,”2,3 in which she reviews the history of biological warfare and the role of gain-of-function research, where we are right now, and what the globalists’ plan for our future is. It’s imperative everyone understand what the plan is, because we can only stop it by rejecting it en masse.
Nass Persecuted by Lawless State Medical Board
But first, Nass provides an update on her personal situation. In January 2022, the Maine medical board suspended Nass’ medical license for spreading “COVID misinformation” and prescribing ivermectin. They also ordered her to undergo a psychological evaluation by a board-selected psychologist.4 Nass refused.
As she points out in the interview, “misinformation” refers to information that may be mistaken or inaccurate, but being wrong is not a crime — no matter how badly government wants you to think it is.
We have the First Amendment — freedom of speech — for a reason. Government does not have the legal right to suppress our speech, and the medical board is a state government agency. So, by censoring doctors like Nass and punishing them for speaking their minds and sharing medical and scientific data, they are actually the ones breaking the law.
Nass didn’t, because there’s no law against sharing information, even if it is suspected of being incorrect, or can be proven to be wrong. And, in this case, the board is actually punishing her for sharing truths.
So, in mid-August 2023, Nass sued the Maine medical board, and every board member in their personal capacity, for violating her free speech rights.5
“Telling me that I can’t talk about the vaccine or I can’t talk about the treatment of COVID or masks or distancing, even when the things that I was saying were based on published medical literature, that is a First Amendment violation,” Nass said in a statement.
“The state government and the federal government are not allowed to restrict the speech of people. So we are looking for a jury trial to see whether the Board of Licensure in Medicine is guilty of a malicious, political prosecution and targeting of me.”
The Plan in Broad Strokes
So, what is the globalists plan for our future? Summarized into as few words as possible: global dominion by the few and total control of the masses.
As explained by Nass, the COVID pandemic showed us that the technocratic cabal has control over most if not all Western governments. World Economic Forum (WEF) founder Klaus Schwab has even bragged about how his Young Global Leaders have “penetrated” governments of the world.6
The technocratic cabal also has control over the bureaucratic structure of the WHO. Eighty-five percent of the WHO’s funding comes from private entities, most of which is earmarked for specific programs. “So, the WHO is already owned by private interests,” Nass says.
According to the WHO, the reason the COVID pandemic got so bad is because nations failed to cooperate. Hence, the reasoning goes, we need an international treaty that centralizes pandemic response powers to the WHO. The problem, of course, is that most nations did follow the WHO’s irrational and unscientific recommendations. Its ineptitude — whether intentional or not — is what destroyed economies and resulted in needless deaths.
Based on the current treaty draft and proposed IHR amendments, it’s clear that mRNA-based vaccinations will be mandatory under the WHO’s power structure, and these vaccines will be made in 100 days rather than 10 years by skipping human trials and shaving safety and efficacy testing down to the bare bones.
The WHO will also decide which medications can be used in medical emergencies, and which you cannot have. In other words, the WHO director-general will decide the health care for every person in every member state, and your local doctor will be required to follow his edicts. You’ll have no medical freedom or bodily autonomy anymore.
Nations will also be forced to implement massive nationwide biosurveillance programs to identify potential pathogens with pandemic potential. This will include swabbing and testing humans, domesticated animals, farm animals, wildlife, farms, factories, wastewater and more, and the chances of finding a pathogen with pandemic potential if searching for it in every nook and cranny of the world are 100%.
The WHO director-general will then have the sole authority to declare a pandemic, or even potential pandemic, at which point all decision-making powers fall under the WHO. However, there are no standards that must be met before a public health emergency can be declared.
The way these documents are written, the director-general can even act on what amounts to hearsay. He doesn’t have to have proof that a pandemic is imminent or in progress. He can act on suspicion. Even more disturbing, the treaty will be in force all the time, so the director-general doesn’t even need to declare an emergency. He will have the authority to dictate public health even when there’s no pandemic. That’s how far-reaching this treaty is.
Nations will also be required to surveil and censor social media. The WHO’s narrative will be the only one allowed. YouTube has already implemented this policy, even though the treaty is not even in place yet.
The History of Biological Warfare and How We Got Here
Nass also reviews the history of biological weapons and why we’re in a situation now where most of the pandemics that have occurred are basically the result of biological weapons development.
In 1969, President Nixon announced the U.S. would end its offensive biowarfare program. This was a strategic rather than altruistic move, because the U.S. was far ahead of other nations when it came to chemical and nuclear weapons. By banning biological weapons, which are relatively simple and inexpensive to create, the U.S. would gain a strategic advantage on the global stage.
Nixon initiated the first global treaty to prevent the creation and use of biological weapons in 1972. The Biological Weapons Convention took effect three years later, in 1975. However, in 1973, genetic engineering was discovered, which suddenly allowed the U.S. to gain a technological advantage that would allow us to make better and more precise biological weapons.
The problem with the Biological Weapons Convention is that there’s no enforcement. To be effective and verifiable, a nation needs to be able to challenge another nation and have the right to carry out inspections, and add sanctions in cases of noncompliance. But this enforcement method was not included, and the U.S. has blocked all efforts to add enforcement articles to the treaty since 1991. So, as explained by Nass:7
“Under the guise of preparing their defenses against biowarfare and pandemics, nations have conducted ‘dual-use’ (both offensive and defensive) research and development, which has led to the creation of more deadly and more transmissible microorganisms. And employing new verbiage to shield this effort from scrutiny, biological warfare research was named ‘gain-of-function’ research.”
SARS-CoV-2, for example, appears to be the direct result of gain-of-function research. As noted by Nass, it has “unusual homologies (identical short segments of nucleotides) to human tissues and the HIV virus, which may have caused or contributed to the late autoimmune stage of illness, an impaired immune response and ‘long COVID.’”
As such, SARS-CoV-2 is a biological weapon. David Martin, Ph.D., has also done many interviews, speeches and lectures exposing COVID-19 as a biological warfare crime. https://rumble.com/embed/v2oem0q/?pub=4Video Link
Are We Funding Public Health or Bioweapons Development?
As noted in Nass’ article, funding for natural epidemics, such as seasonal influenza, has been lumped together with biodefense funding, which hides the cost of our nation’s bioweapons development, because in reality, “biodefense” is “bioweapons development.”
And, while bioweapons development is dangerous and violates the international treaty, biodefense is useless and a complete waste of money, so it’s a lose-lose proposition for taxpayers.
In March 2023, former CDC director Dr. Robert Redfield testified before Congress stating that gain-of-function research had never, to his knowledge, resulted in a single beneficial drug, vaccine or therapeutic.8
In other words, while they conduct this research under the guise of “defense,” all gain-of-function research is biological weapons research and has no beneficial public health applications.
The pandemic treaty promotes the proliferation of biological weapons, and opens the door wide to biological weapons research and testing. It will take us in the opposite direction of where we need to go to prevent future pandemics.
The WHO treaty makes matters even worse by requiring member nations to look for pathogens with pandemic potential, and when they find them, to share them, and any research done on them, with everyone else.
So, the WHO treaty quite literally promotes the proliferation of biological weapons, and opens the door wide to biological weapons research and testing. This will also remove the ability to cast blame on any particular nation for starting a pandemic (read unleash a biological weapon), as everyone is working with the same pathogens.
The treaty also requires nations to eliminate administrative hurdles to gain-of-function research on pathogens with pandemic potential, when we really need far more stringent regulations on this type of work, if we’re going to engage in it at all.
So, the WHO treaty will move us in the complete opposite direction of where we actually need to go if we want to prevent future pandemics. To prevent them, we need to stop gain-of-function research, because that’s the greatest pandemic threat out there.
Pandemic Preparedness Is a Smokescreen
Similarly, the idea that the world can prepare ahead of time for a global pandemic is “a smokescreen behind which lies a fascist approach to social management,” Nass writes. She adds:9
“There’s no known way to prevent pandemics, and the methods that governments are spending money on are actually going to make this problem a great deal worse.
The concept of a ‘response’: withholding cheap, available generic drugs in favor of the warp speed development of patentable drugs and vaccines, which will undergo minimal testing and have no liability, is another disaster in the making.”
Our Health Agencies Are Selling Us Out
Importantly, the U.S. government — including our health agencies — have been central in developing and writing these documents, which strips us of our sovereignty as a nation, bodily autonomy as a people, along with freedom, human rights and democracy in general.
Indeed, the IHR amendments specifically remove the need to respect “human rights, dignity and freedom of persons” during public health emergencies. This deletion did not go unnoticed, however, and after severe criticism, language “guaranteeing” human rights was inserted into the latest draft (the Bureau draft) of the pandemic treaty.
The bottom line is, our health agencies are not protecting us. They’re controlled by private, globalist interests, and they’re selling us out.
We also see this in the way the U.S. health agencies like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Food and Drug Administration refused to course correct once it became clear that the COVID shots were not preventing infection or transmission, and were causing historically high rates of injuries.
Instead, they doubled down and imposed mandates, and started fiddling with database algorithms to hide the extent of injuries and deaths. Likewise, the WHO is working on an international vaccine passport, even though the entire premise for it has been eliminated. If the shots don’t prevent infection or transmission, then what good does proof of “vaccination” do?
Same with the masks. No matter how much scientific evidence was thrown at them, health authorities refused to admit that masks don’t work and pushed for wearing two or three masks instead. And what can we say about the worldwide recommendation to treat only advanced-stage infection? It’s medicine 101 to treat a condition as early as possible, especially when it comes to infections.
As noted by Nass, “There can be no question about it: Our health agencies are guilty of malfeasance, misrepresentation and deliberate infliction of harm on their own populations.”
All the basic rules of medicine were tossed out during COVID, and under the pandemic treaty, common sense and basic medical facts will be ousted forever. Nass goes through much more in her article, so I urge you to read it10 in its entirety.
The Timeline
The IHR amendments will only require a 50% vote of whoever is in the room at the time of the vote, which will take place at the World Health Assembly’s annual meeting, May 22 through 24, 2024.11 The amendments will take effect 10 months later for any nation that does not opt out.
Nations that have not officially opted out will then be bound by the new terms laid out in the amendments. The pandemic treaty will also be voted on during that meeting. It will require two-thirds vote in favor by the members that are in the room and will go into effect as soon as 30 nations have ratified it.
Thirty days after that, the treaty will go into effect for all the nations that have signed on. Any nation that has not signed the treaty will be excluded from its terms. Those who sign the treaty must wait three years before they can get out.
Door To Freedom
To prevent this nightmare, Nass has founded a new organization called Door To Freedom (doortofreedom.org), which seeks to educate people around the world about what the pandemic treaty and IHR amendments will change life as we know it, and strip us of every vestige of freedom.
Door To Freedom has created a poster to explain the impacts the pandemic treaty and IHR amendments will have. Please download this poster and share it with everyone you know. Also put it up on public billboards and places where communities share information.
Other Action Items
While the situation seems incredibly bleak, Nass insists there are many things we can do to prevent the WHO’s power grab, including the following:
• Call your congressman or congresswoman and urge them to sponsor H.R.79 — The WHO Withdrawal Act,12 introduced by Rep. Andy Biggs, which calls for defunding and exiting the WHO. At the time of this writing, it has 51 cosponsors, all of them Republicans. We cannot get this bill passed without Democrats, so we need to get them to understand what’s at stake.
The Sovereignty Coalition is making it easier for everyone to make their voices heard. Its Help the House Defund the WHO page will allow you to contact all of your elected representatives with just a few clicks. Simply fill out the required field, click submit, and your contact information will be used to match you with your elected representatives.
• Also urge your congressman or congresswoman to sponsor H.R.1425,13 which would require the pandemic treaty to be approved by the Senate. It currently has 27 cosponsors.
• Share Door To Freedom’s educational poster15 everywhere you can, and direct them to doortofreedom.org for more information. Also share, share, share information about the IHR amendments and how they will destroy national sovereignty, and increase surveillance and censorship. You can find a quick summary here.
This is an excellent must watch doco. It is produced in NZ so is NZ relevant (although the plan is global as all countries are signed up). All NZ city Councils are signed up to the UN plan for resilient cities… however we are not being told about what these really mean. The climate argument is a thinly veiled method of sweeping you into a Smart 15 minute city from which you will not be able to venture in your own automobile without a permit … only a specified number of trips per vehicle per year basically. There’s more. It’s not a long watch but essential viewing for every Kiwi… EWNZ
Learn what you are not being told about Smart cities including the anything between 20 and 5 minute variety. Observe the ‘wonders’ of the Chinese plandemic response that the WEF is crowing about. That gives you a realistic glimpse of your planned future.
The World Health Organisation has announced an agreement with the European Union to develop a digital health certificate. WHO has stated that they will use the “EU Digital COVID Certificate” as a model to establish a global digital health certificate otherwise known as a vaccine passport (you can follow the reaction on Twitter here).
This brings to mind the conditions imposed on daily life during pandemic lockdowns which were enforced using vaccine passports. Restrictions on movement and participation which are now known to have had an overwhelmingly damaging effect on society. An article in the authoritative UK Daily Telegraph on 4th June headlines “Painful lockdowns a global policy failure that must never be repeated“. According to new research, we will be suffering drastic effects on the economy, educational outcomes, and mental and physical health for years to come as a result.
The digital system ‘will help facilitate global mobility and protect citizens across the world from on-going and future health threats, including pandemics,’ according to the WHO.
GENEVA (LifeSiteNews) — The World Health Organization and the European Union announced their collaboration on global digital vaccine passports at a joint press conference in Geneva on June 5.
“In June 2023, WHO will take up the European Union (EU) system of digital COVID-19 certification to establish a global system that will help facilitate global mobility and protect citizens across the world from on-going and future health threats, including pandemics,” the WHO press release states.
“This is the first building block of the WHO Global Digital Health Certification Network (GDHCN) that will develop a wide range of digital products to deliver better health for all.”
‘The first building block of the global WHO system becomes operational in June 2023 and aims to be progressively developed in the coming months,’ the WHO press release states.
“The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the value of digital health solutions in facilitating access to health services,” WHO director-general Dr. Tedros Ghebreyesus said during the press conference. “While the emergency phase of the COVID-19 pandemic is now over, investment in digital infrastructure remains an important resource for health systems and for economies and societies at large.”
The WHO has stated that they will use the “EU Digital COVID Certificate” as a model to establish a global digital health certificate.
“One of the key elements in the European Union’s work against the COVID-19 pandemic has been digital COVID-19 certificates. To facilitate free movement within its borders, the EU swiftly established interoperable COVID-19 certificates (entitled ‘EU Digital COVID-19 Certificate’ or ‘EU DCC’),” the WHO press release reads.
“With this collaboration, WHO will facilitate this process globally under its own structure with the aim to allow the world to benefit from convergence of digital certificates.”
During the height of the Covid crisis, the EU Digital COVID Certificate made it so that EU citizens could only travel to other member states if they provide proof of vaccination, recovery, or a recent negative COVID test. In some EU countries like Austria, citizens were essentially segregated from society if they refused to take to COVID injections.
A new study has found that some commonly consumed beverages such as fruit juice and artificial soda contain levels of toxic metals including arsenic, cadmium, and lead that exceed federal drinking water standards.
Researchers from Tulane University, Louisiana, measured 25 different toxic metals and trace elements in 60 soft beverages, including single fruit juice, mixed fruit juice, plant-based milk, artificial soda, and tea.
The drinks were purchased in New Orleans and are commercially available in supermarkets across the United States.
Researchers found that five of the 60 beverages tested contained levels of a toxic metal above federal drinking water standards.
Two mixed juices had levels of arsenic above the 10 microgram/liter standard. Meanwhile, a cranberry juice, a mixed carrot and fruit juice, and an oat milk each had levels of cadmium exceeding the three parts per billion standard.
What Are Arsenic and Cadmium?
Arsenic is a naturally occurring tasteless, colorless, and odorless, chemical element that can be found in the environment, including in food and water, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The element persists in the environment and does not deteriorate.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) adopted a 10 parts per billion (ppb), or 10 microgram/liter standard for arsenic in public drinking water in 2001, replacing the old standard of 50 microgram/liter.
However, long-term exposure to high levels of arsenic can result in skin disorders, an increased risk for diabetes, high blood pressure, and several types of cancer, according to the CDC.
Cadmium, meanwhile, is another naturally occurring element used in products such as batteries, pigments, metal coatings, and plastics but also found in plant and animal foods, according to the CDC.
When consumed in large amounts, cadmium can cause stomach issues and when inhaled at high levels, it can lead to lung damage or death. Cadmium is considered a cancer-causing agent.
“Exposure to low levels of cadmium in air, food, water, and particularly in tobacco smoke over time may build up cadmium in the kidneys and cause kidney disease and fragile bones,” the CDC notes.
Fruit Juices, Plant-Based Milks Contain Higher Levels
In total, 7 of the 25 elements measured by researchers in their study exceeded drinking water standards in some of the drinks, including nickel, manganese, boron, cadmium, strontium, arsenic, and selenium, while lead was detected in more than 93 percent of the 60 samples, although the majority contained levels below one part per billion.
The highest level (6.3 micrograms/kg) was found in a lime sports drink, though that is still below standards for drinking water set by the EPA and the World Health Organization.
Overall, mixed fruit juices and plant-based milks, including oat and almond milk, contained higher levels of toxic metals than other drinks analyzed in the study, researchers said.
Researchers did not identify the specific brands they studied but noted that they can be purchased at local supermarkets and retail stores.
The findings of the study, titled, “Toxic metals and essential elements contents in commercially available fruit juices and other non-alcoholic beverages from the United States,” were published in the Journal of Food Composition and Analysis.
Important info has recently come to light about staff training and related health plans for your children at school. It certainly is info that has been alluded to in recent posts about school lockdowns and possible mandating of health treatments that authorities may deem ‘necessary’ during that time.A must read.
From James Roguski @ substack via Dr Ana Maria Mihalcea
They are meeting again shortly in secret to discuss a further thinning down of your basic human rights …this is very important info to share as widely as possible … as indicated below with this short opening excerpt… EWR
Science and opinion have become increasingly conflated, in large part because of corporate influence. As we explain in “Science for Sale,” an investigative series by the Center for Public Integrity and co-published with Vice.com, industry-backed research has exploded — often with the aim of obscuring the truth — as government-funded science dwindles. Read more.
The lawyer, Darrell Grams, explained that Ford had been losing lawsuits filed by former auto mechanics alleging asbestos in brakes had given them mesothelioma, an aggressive cancer virtually always tied to asbestos exposure. Grams asked Paustenbach, then a vice president with the consulting firm Exponent, if he had any interest in studying the disease’s possible association with brake work. A meeting cemented the deal.
Paustenbach, a prolific author of scientific papers who’d worked with Grams on Dow Corning’s defense against silicone breast-implant illness claims, had barely looked at asbestos to that point. “I really started to get serious about studying asbestos after I met Mr. Grams, that’s for sure,” Paustenbach testified in a sworn deposition in June 2015. Before that, he said, the topic “wasn’t that interesting to me.”
Thus began a relationship that, according to recent depositions, has enriched Exponent by $18.2 million and brought another $21 million to Cardno ChemRisk, a similar firm Paustenbach founded in 1985, left and restarted in 2003. All told, testimony shows, Ford has spent nearly $40 million funding journal articles and expert testimony concluding there is no evidence brake mechanics are at increased risk of developing mesothelioma. This finding, repeated countless times in courtrooms and law offices over the past 15 years, is an attempt at scientific misdirection aimed at extricating Ford from lawsuits, critics say.
“They’ve published a lot, but they’ve really produced no new science,” said John Dement, a professor in Duke University’s Division of Occupational and Environmental Medicine and an asbestos researcher for more than four decades. “Fifteen years ago, I thought the issue of asbestos risk assessment was pretty much defined. All they’ve accomplished is to try to generate doubt where, really, little doubt existed.”
The glut of corporate-financed science has yielded mixed results. Exponent had a role in jury trials won by Ford in St. Louis and Pittsburgh last year, for example, and in a trial Ford lost in Tennessee. Judges have noted the infusion of controversy into a subject that for many years was not controversial in the least. A veteran asbestos judge in Wayne County, Michigan, wrote in an opinion that he’d never encountered the argument that “the science was not there” on mesothelioma and brakes until he heard a case involving an Exponent witness.
The discord over brakes bankrolled by Ford “has, in certain cases, tipped the scales for the defendants with juries,” said plaintiffs’ lawyer Jon Ruckdeschel. “More frequently, it has been used by industry lawyers to increase the costs and burdens on the courts and sick mechanics by creating a tidal wave of pre-trial litigation regarding the ‘science.’ ”
A troubling history
Over the past decade 109 physicians, scientists and academics from 17 countries have signed legal briefs affirming that asbestos in brakes can cause mesothelioma. The World Health Organization and other research and regulatory bodies maintain that there is no safe exposure level for asbestos and that all forms of the mineral — including the most common one, chrysotile, found in brakes — can produce mesothelioma.
Worries about brakes as a source of disease go back decades. A 1971 Ford memo shows that while the company didn’t believe brake dust unleashed by mechanics contained significant amounts of asbestos, it already was exploring alternatives to asbestos brake linings. One of them, made of metal and carbon, performed well, the memo says, “but the cost penalty is severe ($1.25/car just for front-end brakes).”
A Ford spokeswoman declined to comment for this article. In its 2014 annual report, the company said, “Most of the asbestos litigation we face involves individuals who claim to have worked on the brakes of our vehicles over the years. We are prepared to defend these cases, and believe that the scientific evidence confirms our long-standing position that there is no increased risk of asbestos-related disease as a result of exposure to the type of asbestos formerly used in the brakes on our vehicles.” Ford announced recently that it earned a record pretax profit of $10.5 billion in 2015.
Dennis Paustenbach (ICIJ.org)
A written statement to the Center for Public Integrity delivered on behalf of Paustenbach by a public-relations firm says, “Dennis was viewed as one of the leading risk assessment experts in the country, and was contacted by Ford because of his experience and expertise in this field. … As Dennis and others learned more about brake dust, it was clear that while there was considerable data on the subject, the scientific information had never been synthesized and analyzed.”
His conclusion after reviewing the scientific literature, according to the statement: “There is no credible study that has shown an increased risk of disease in auto mechanics.”
An Exponent vice president declined to comment. On its website, the 49-year-old firm, originally known as Failure Analysis Associates, says, “We evaluate complex human health and environmental issues to find cost-effective solutions. … By introducing a new way of thinking about an existing situation, we assist clients to overcome seemingly insurmountable obstacles.”
A Center review of abstracts on the National Institutes of Health’s PubMed website turned up 10 articles on asbestos brakes co-authored by scientists affiliated with Exponent or Cardno ChemRisk since 2003. (The latter was known simply as ChemRisk until it was acquired by Brisbane, Australia-based Cardno in 2012). None of the articles reported an elevated risk of mesothelioma among vehicle mechanics.
Many physicians and scientists say, however, that these papers muddy the waters by drawing overly broad conclusions from earlier studies of workers who might have had no contact with asbestos brakes. “In the asbestos area the whole literature has been so warped by publications just supporting litigation,” said Dement, of Duke. “It has a real negative impact on pushing the science forward.” Dement said he has, on rare occasions, consulted for plaintiffs in the past 10 or 15 years, earmarking nearly all fees for the university.
In a 2007 article, two researchers at George Washington University — one of whom, David Michaels, now heads the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration — reported finding six “litigation-generated” papers on asbestos and auto mechanics published from 1997 through 2001. In the ensuing five years, 20 such papers were published. All told, 18 of the 26 papers published from 1997 through 2006 were “written by experts primarily associated with defendants, while eight were written by experts who work primarily for plaintiffs … Sponsorship by parties involved in litigation leads to an imbalance in the literature … whoever is willing to fund more studies will have more studies published.”
Craig Biegel, a retired corporate defense lawyer in Oregon who represented plaintiffs later in his career, did an update of the Michaels paper as part of his doctoral dissertation. Biegel searched the National Library of Medicine’s PubMed website using the words “asbestos” and “brake.” He found 27 articles written from 1998 to 2015 by experts known to work for industry; all, he said, showed either no elevated risk of mesothelioma among mechanics or minimal asbestos exposures.
He found 10 articles written by plaintiffs’ experts; all showed an association between the disease and brake work. And he found 11 articles written by foreign scientists, who, as far as he knew, were not involved in litigation. All but one showed an association or documented high asbestos exposures.
“As far as I’m concerned, both sides in a lawsuit do the same thing: They both fund research to obtain evidence for trial, not to advance science,” said Biegel, who once defended asbestos property-damage claims for a Fortune 500 company he declined to identify. “The only difference is that defense counsel have almost unlimited industry money and plaintiffs’ counsel do not want to spend their own money.”
Ford’s knowledge of asbestos
There are several ways microscopic asbestos fibers can be sent airborne and enter the human body during brake work. Over time, friction wears down brake linings and pads — many of which contained asbestos prior to the mid-1990s and some of which still do — and they need to be replaced. A mechanic who opened a brake drum would find it filled with fine dust from the decayed lining. The easiest and most common way to clean it out was to use compressed air, a technique that generates grayish, fiber-bearing clouds that can trigger disease years later if the worker is not properly protected. Many weren’t.
Other opportunities for exposure: filing, grinding or sanding brakes, or cleaning up work areas.
Ford wasn’t the only U.S. automaker to use asbestos brakes. General Motors and Chrysler did as well and found themselves in court as a result. Of the so-called Big Three, however, only Ford continues to get hit with mesothelioma lawsuits; GM and Chrysler are immune by virtue of their 2009 bankruptcies. “The extent of our financial exposure to asbestos litigation remains very difficult to estimate,” Ford said in its 2014 annual report. “Annual payout and defense costs may become significant in the future.”
Documents show Ford was mindful of concerns about asbestos brakes by the late 1960s. An unpublished report by an industrial hygienist with Ford of Britain in 1968 said that while brake linings at the time contained between 40 and 60 percent asbestos, field tests indicated dust that collected in brake drums had a low asbestos content because much of the material decomposed after repeated braking. Consequently, he wrote, there was no evidence that blowing out the drums presented a “significant hazard to health.”
The hygienist added, “It would be helpful, however, for clinical examinations to be made of some repair mechanics with long experience of brake cleaning to confirm this view. It would also be desirable to include in Service manuals a general instruction that inhalation of dust during brake cleaning should be minimised.”
A 1970 Ford memo titled “Asbestos Emissions from Brake Lining Wear” included a bibliography of 40 articles on the cancer-causing effects of asbestos, dating to 1954. And the same 1971 memo bemoaning the $1.25 cost of asbestos-free brakes noted that the state of Illinois was considering banning the use of asbestos in brake linings, beginning with the 1975 model year.
Labor Secretary Elizabeth Dole holds up a photo during a news conference in Washington, Thursday, July 27, 1989, showing alleged asbestos violations at the Friction Division Products Inc. plant in Trenton, New Jersey. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration had proposed fining the brake-shoe manufacturing company $2.7 million for exposing workers to potentially deadly levels of asbestos. Bob Daugherty/AP
In 1973, Ford began telling its own employees to use “an industrial type vacuum cleaner” to remove dust from brake drums. “Under no circumstances shall compressed air blowoff be used to clean brakes and brake drums,” the company said. It first told its dealers about what it called “a potential health hazard” in 1975.
In a court filing, Ford said it began putting “caution” labels on packages of asbestos-containing brakes and clutches in 1980; many mesothelioma victims who have sued the company say they never saw such labels. In the same document Ford said it began a “complete phase-out of asbestos-containing brake products” in the 1983 model year, starting with its Ranger pickup truck. A decade later, only Ford Mustangs and certain limousines were equipped with asbestos brakes; some asbestos-containing parts for older model-year vehicles were available until 2001through dealerships and authorized distributors.
That was the year lawyer Grams reached out to toxicologist Paustenbach to gauge his interest in studying mesothelioma in ex-mechanics. “I contacted Dr. Paustenbach because he is one of the leading professional experts in the world,” Grams, who no longer represents Ford, said in a brief phone interview. Grams said he had read none of the recent deposition testimony about the relationship between Ford and its two brake consultants, Cardno ChemRisk and Exponent.
In his curriculum vitae, Paustenbach, president of Cardno ChemRisk, says he is “a board-certified toxicologist and industrial hygienist with nearly 30 years of experience in risk assessment, environmental engineering, ecotoxicology and occupational health.” The 181-page CV shows he has worked on topics ranging from arsenic in wine to heavy metals in hip implants; authored or co-authored 271 peer-reviewed articles; and given 440 presentations at conferences. He is regularly retained as a defense expert in asbestos litigation and other toxic-tort cases.
Paustenbach offered a window into his thinking in a 2009 article written by a University of Virginia business professor.
“Without a doubt, a large percentage of environmental and occupational claims are simply bogus, intended only to extract money from those who society believes can afford to ‘share the wealth,’” Paustenbach told his interviewer. He said, “The vast majority of cases that I’ve seen were fraudulent with respect to the scientific merit and billions upon billions of dollars are redistributed annually inappropriately — at least from a scientific standpoint.
“… Nonetheless,” Paustenbach said, “I am a firm believer in the wisdom of juries and support giving generous awards to those that have been truly harmed by bad corporate behavior.”
In a 2010 letter to Dolores Nuñez Studier, a lawyer in the Ford general counsel’s office, Paustenbach claimed his firm’s papers had “changed the scientific playing field in the courtroom. You know this better than anyone as you have seen the number of plaintiff verdicts [in asbestos cases] decrease and the cost of settlement go down over time.”
In the letter, which surfaced in the discovery phase of a lawsuit, Paustenbach complained that the fee structure in place between Ford and Chemrisk was “out of date” and too low.
“Dolores, currently, you are among our largest clients,” he wrote. “And, Ford has certainly been a loyal supporter. The Big 3 [automakers] were the foundation of the firm during our formative years, and for this reason, I have tried to go the extra mile to satisfy your needs.”
Asked to explain the letter during a 2014 deposition, Paustenbach said he was merely emphasizing to Studier that “we invested in scientific research to answer questions that remained unanswered in the courtroom for many, many years …. And I was pretty proud of that.” He said he didn’t feel it was fair for his firm to lose money “when, in fact, I was so committed to getting the science straight.”
Creating doubt
The World Health Organization estimates that 107,000 people die each year from asbestos-related diseases. “Exposure to asbestos, including chrysotile, causes cancer of the lung, larynx and ovaries, and also mesothelioma (a cancer of the pleural and peritoneal linings) [and] asbestosis (fibrosis of the lungs),” the WHO says. “No threshold has been identified for the carcinogenic risk of asbestos, including chrysotile.”
OSHA says, “There is no ‘safe’ level of asbestos exposure for any type of asbestos fiber. Asbestos exposures as short in duration as a few days have caused mesothelioma in humans.”
Taking the WHO and OSHA statements at face value, the case against asbestos would seem to be closed: Even someone with very low exposure to the mineral should worry.
In papers published over the past 15 years, however, scientists with Exponent, Cardno ChemRisk and other consulting firms have questioned whether brake mechanics truly are at heightened risk of developing mesothelioma, the disease that has fueled litigation against Ford and others.
A 2004 Exponent paper funded by Ford, GM and Chrysler, for example, concluded that “employment as a motor vehicle mechanic does not increase the risk of developing mesothelioma.” An update of that paper in 2015 found the same result. Each paper was a meta-analysis — an agglomeration of the results of multiple studies that, taken individually, may be too weak to indicate an effect.
In a deposition last October, Exponent’s Mary Jane Teta, a co-author of both meta-analyses, defended her firm’s findings. “I disagree when they say there is no safe level [of asbestos],” she testified. “I know the level of chrysotile … experienced by vehicle mechanics is safe.”
In his statement to the Center, Paustenbach wrote, “It is implausible that nearly 20 epidemiology studies” – on which he bases his legal opinions – “would conclude that there is no increased risk of mesothelioma for the time period during which brakes contained chrysotile asbestos if that were not the appropriate conclusion.”
The studies Paustenbach cites, however, are fraught with limitations, such as small sample sizes, vague job classifications and lack of exposure data. And not all of them found, as he put it, “no increased risk of mesothelioma” among mechanics. In a 1989 paper, for example, a Danish researcher who studied causes of death among auto mechanics reported finding a single case of mesothelioma among her subjects, where none would have been expected in the general population. As with other cancers, she wrote, this number was “too small to state or rule out a potentially increased risk.”
A co-author of another paper, Kay Teschke of the University of British Columbia, testified in a 2012 deposition that her research was being mischaracterized.
“Vehicle mechanics do many different things in their day; some might work on engines, some might only work on wheel alignment,” Teschke testified. “And when you dilute the [asbestos] exposure in that way, you can’t find the relationship with the job … It doesn’t mean that people in that job are somehow immune to the effects of the exposure … “
Christian Hartley, a lawyer in Mount Pleasant, South Carolina, who has represented about 100 mesothelioma victims in brake cases, said the papers used in the defense of such lawsuits “push all this data together that’s totally incomparable. That’s what gets reported in the literature and is used to persuade judges and some experts. It’s very misleading to think we have any kind of real handle on what a typical mechanic has for exposure.”
Dr. David Egilman, a clinical professor of family medicine at Brown University and editor of the International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health, argues that the papers are deceptive by design. Many reanalyze previously published studies of workers described as mechanics who may have had no contact with asbestos brakes, he said. The effect, Egilman said, is to dilute the cancer data so the overall risk appears low.
Egilman, who consults for asbestos plaintiffs, spends much of his time rebutting Paustenbach and other industry-funded researchers. “They can throw a lot of things at the wall and hope something sticks with the jury,” he said. “It forces people like me or other scientists to try to clean up each thing that was thrown at the wall, one at a time. And by the end of the day, that could be confusing to a jury or judge.”
Egilman said the body of work underwritten by Ford and other asbestos defendants is being used to try to deprive sick workers, or their families, of compensation. “Some courts have adopted it as a standard,” he said.
More broadly, the industry-funded papers can confuse the public – and even government experts.
In 2009, the National Cancer Institute published a fact sheet on its website stating there was no evidence brake work was associated with an increased risk of mesothelioma or lung cancer. The 2004 meta-analysis funded by the automakers was cited as a reference.
Dr. Arthur Frank, chair of the Department of Environmental and Occupational Health at Drexel University, was incredulous.
“What is truly ironic about such a statement is that it is incontrovertible that asbestos, including chrysotile, the type of asbestos found in brakes, does, in fact, cause lung cancer and mesothelioma,” Frank wrote in a letter to the institute’s director obtained by the Center for Public Integrity through a Freedom of Information Act request. “Since we have not banned asbestos in this country, those who might read this statement could well think asbestos brakes are safe, putting at risk both professional and ‘shade tree’ mechanics, and their family members.”
Frank said the meta-analysis cited by the institute was “unreliable and should not serve as the basis for any statement by the NCI.”
Then-NCI Director Dr. John Neiderhuber replied that he had discussed Frank’s critique with an in-house expert who agreed that the language on the website should be amended. The new statement, posted less than two weeks after Frank sent his letter, read that while studies of cancer risks among auto mechanics were limited, “the overall evidence suggests that there is no safe level for asbestos exposure.” The citation of the 2004 paper was deleted.
The brake studies have had global reach. The “chrysotile-is-safe” argument has been used to stave off asbestos bans and preserve markets in developing nations such as India and China, where building materials and other products containing asbestos are widely used.
“The real nefarious part of this research … is that a lot of people who live in those countries are continuing to be exposed under uncontrolled conditions to asbestos,” Egilman said. “That’s the real horror story here.”
Ronnie Stockton’s auto repair shop in Jackson, Tenn. (Courtesy of the Stockton family)
Ronnie and Joyce Stockton. Courtesy of the Stockton family
A Ford loss in Tennessee
While the brake papers and the experts who write them have contributed to defense verdicts in mesothelioma cases, things occasionally go the other way.
Ronnie Stockton operated an auto repair shop 100 feet from his home in Jackson, Tennessee, for 30 years and specialized in brake jobs, often on Ford vehicles. He’d attended training classes in which instructors recommended that paper masks be worn around brake dust but never heard a “full description of what asbestos did,” he said in a recent interview. “We wasn’t warned it could kill you when you swept it up and didn’t wear the mask.”
As it turned out, Stockton’s wife, Joyce, was the one who got sick. She used to help her husband sweep out the shop. She kept the books and washed Ronnie’s dusty clothes. One night in December 2010 she lay down in bed and felt her chest tighten. “I thought I was having a heart attack,” she said. A biopsy confirmed that she had mesothelioma, to that point merely a strange word she’d heard in lawyers’ TV commercials. “I would sit in front of the television trying to learn how to pronounce it, not ever knowing I had the disease,” she said.
The Stocktons sued Ford and went to trial in August. Two Exponent scientists were among the defense experts.
In his closing argument after nearly two weeks of testimony, Ruckdeschel, the Stocktons’ lawyer, said Ford’s experts had “spun the literature” on asbestos. “They’re not taking what the studies say; they’re putting a spin on it.”
If independent research had shown no connection between brake work and mesothelioma, Ruckdeschel said, “they wouldn’t have had to go and pay Exponent to write all the papers to say, ‘Well, we’ve reanalyzed the data, and there really isn’t any evidence.’ ”
Defense lawyer Samuel Tarry urged jurors not to be swayed by the millions of dollars Ford had invested in the papers. It “shouldn’t come as any surprise that over time it costs a lot of money to defend these cases and to publish research where it can be critiqued and criticized and start discussions,” he said. Tarry recounted the testimony of Exponent’s Mark Roberts, who “told you that the majority of mesotheliomas in women are unrelated to asbestos. … He explained that all of us have a background risk, not just for mesothelioma but for any type of cancer …. They can happen naturally. They can happen with an environmental insult.”
After deliberating about two days, the jury returned a $4.65 million verdict in the Stocktons’ favor. It assigned 71 percent of the liability to Ford and 29 percent to brake manufacturer Honeywell, which had been brought into the case on Ford’s motion. Ford has asked for a new trial.
Latisha Strickland was the jury foreman. She’d wanted to assign 100 percent of the blame to Ford but agreed to the 71-29 split to avoid a hung jury.
“I felt ashamed — I had compromised what I thought it should be,” Strickland, a home-school teacher, said in a telephone interview. “You couldn’t give me the Powerball lottery to go through the amount of surgeries this woman [Joyce Stockton] has gone through.”
Strickland said she was especially put off by the 1971 memo showing Ford decided not to spend $1.25 per vehicle to replace front-end asbestos brakes.
Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, Japan, India, Indonesia, Italy, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States, and European Union. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/pr…
Part 22 We recognize that the extensive COVID-19 immunization is a global public good Section 23 We recognize the need for strengthening local and regional health product manufacturing capacities We support the WHO mRNA Vaccine Technology Transfer hub We acknowledge the importance of shared technical standards and verification methods, to facilitate seamless international travel, interoperability, and recognizing digital solutions and non-digital solutions, including proof of vaccinations. Establishment of trusted global digital health networks, that should capitalize and build on the success of the existing standards and digital COVID-19 certificates.
Part 24 The COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated the transformation of the digital ecosystem and digital economy. We recognize the importance of digital transformation in reaching the SDGs. We also reaffirm the role of data for development, economic growth and social well-being. G20 update
“Endeavour to move towards interoperability of systems including mechanisms that validate proof of vaccination, whilst respecting the sovereignty of national health policies, and relevant national regulations such as personal data protection and data-sharing.” Indonesia’s Minister of Health Budi Gunadi Sadikin
G20 countries should adopt digital health certificate using WHO standards Let’s have a digital health certificate acknowledged by WHO — if you have been vaccinated or tested properly — then you can move around (next World Health Assembly in Geneva) WHO seem to be on it already
Digital documentation of COVID-19 certificates: vaccination status: technical specifications and implementation guidance, 27 August 2021 Use of scan codes Klaus Schwab, World Economic Forum (WEF) Chair Attended From a doctor in Austria It is currently a very emotional situation in my hospital (and in general in hospitals in Austria) because many of us in the health care sector are more or less forced to get a fourth vaccine dose. Even in my case as a physician who has received three doses and one infection just 6 months ago. The rule is that if the last vaccination is more than one year and/or the last infection is more than 6 months ago you either have to test all 72 hours or to get an additional vaccine dose; if not you are at risk of having to pay 500 to 3600 Euros and may even get fired.
“The Food Bill” resurfaces again (also here) … some things are introduced ‘gradually’ a hallmark of Fabian Socialism… gradualism. So the Bill looked fairly benign to the folk who 100% trust & don’t bother to look deeper. However you need to examine it within the context of our diminishing rights and freedoms that began around the end of last century with those several notorious plane crashes into buildings. More links to info (historically) in this article … https://envirowatchrangitikei.wordpress.com/food-bill-nz/
Important to know about Codex Alimentarius. Codex Alimentarius is United Nations (UN), WHO (World Health Organization) and FAO (Food and Agriculture Organisation) way of making sure the industry get more protected and that you the consumer get food with more toxins and less nutrients. It has everything to do with international trade and nothing to do with food safety.
– Codex Alimentarius is not about consumer protection. – Codex is designed to protect the industry (read: Pharmaceutical, Chemotherapy, Biotech, Agrobusiness, etc.) by eliminating natural health products and treatments, and by allowing insanely high residuelevels of toxins. – Codex is unscientific because it classifies nutrients as toxins.
[On March 9th] the World Health Organisation issued an Interim Statement on COVID-19 vaccines in the context of the circulation of the Omicron SARS-CoV-2 Variant from the WHO Technical Advisory Group on COVID-19 Vaccine Composition (TAG-CO-VAC), 08 March 2022
The document contains an extraordinary juxtaposition of contradictory information which points to disagreements and confusion at the World Health Organisation:
“….current COVID-19 vaccines continue to provide high levels of protection against severe disease and death, even in the context of the circulation of Omicron”, (even though severe disease and death rates from Omicron are significantly lower than flu and almost exclusively involve people already seriously ill from other conditions).
Immediately followed by:
“….to ensure COVID-19 vaccines provide optimal protection into the future, they may need to be updated.…particularly for groups at risk of developing severe disease….but the timeframe for their development and production is uncertain.”
Then:
“The TAG-CO-VAC continues to encourage COVID-19 vaccine manufacturers to generate and provide data to WHO on performance of current and variant-specific COVID-19 vaccines…but robust data on the global immunologic landscape is limited.”
Followed by:
“The TAG-CO-VAC recognizes the independent role and procedures of relevant regulatory authorities in establishing the necessary requirements for evaluation under the currently established regulatory pathways…”
Translation
The double speak needs interpretation, perhaps WHO meant to say that the current Covid-19 vaccines do not work and we have no idea when if ever effective ones will be developed, but they refrained from doing so because a canon of WHO religion requires that nothing can be said if it might lead to vaccine hesitancy.
Perhaps they then meant to say that Covid-19 vaccine manufacturers have been giving us incomplete data, so we want to warn regulators to be more careful in future, and make up their own minds sensibly after independent research, but WHO can’t say that because a lot of health funding comes from vaccine manufacturers.
I can’t really tell you what is going on at WHO, but it clearly requires copywriters who can convey mixed messages with great skill. No doubt the wise pandits at WHO with their global perspective are pondering the fact that published comparisons between different countries and areas do not show that higher levels of Covid-19 vaccination lead to lower infection and death rates. What they actually admit is:
“There are heterogeneous levels of population immunity between countries…”
I am rather hoping that plain speaking will come back into fashion, but I am not sure that will happen anytime soon at WHO. In the meantime, governments like ours still relying on WHO bulletins to inform their policies will need to employ skilled translators.
Guy Hatchard PhD was formerly a senior manager at Genetic ID a global food safety testing and certification company (now known as FoodChain ID)
I saw the analogy drawn recently to the boa constrictor and how with each relax of its grip it then tightens even more. Knowing what we do about the agenda of the globalists this makes perfect sense. It was right there from the start, the promises by JA there would be no mandates. A year later? Mandates. Two weeks to flatten the curve. Two years later? Less freedoms. One thing is certain, you cannot trust a globalist. They lie with impunity. EWR
An easier read from thebuzz.nz: The WHO wants countries to sign a new Covid-19 treaty in only about 2 months. This treaty would have the “WHO Constitution” take precedence over a country’s constitution during natural disasters or pandemics. This would allow them to make their “guidelines” mandatory to the public of all countries who sign. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is the second highest donor to the WHO, after the US government. We know how this would end. Dr. Astrid Stuckelberge worked for the WHO for 20 years. She says that every country should send a public letter of protest to the WHO, saying that their people DO NOT accept a signature of their Minister of Health. WHO wants all countries to sign this letter before May 2022.
BREAKING – EMERGENCY: Dr. Astrid Stukelberger, PhD: World Health Dictatorship by Treaty to replace the Constitutions of the Nations (20 February 2022)
TRANSCRIPT
The following is a transcript made on Wednesday, 23 February 2022, between 5h56 am and 3h31 pm of Dr. Astrid Stukelberger giving her main presentation of about 24 minutes’ length. The video panel discussion continues but has not been transcribed. Some of Dr. Stukelberger’s comments may need clarification.
An international treaty on pandemic prevention and preparedness
World Health Assembly agrees to launch negotiations for an agreement to fight pandemics
On 1 December 2021, the 194 members of the World Health Organization (WHO) reached consensus to kickstart the process to draft and negotiate a convention, agreement or other international instrument under the Constitution of the World Health Organization to strengthen pandemic prevention, preparedness and response.
An intergovernmental negotiating body will now be constituted and hold its first meeting by 1 March 2022 (to agree on ways of working and timelines) and its second by 1 August 2022 (to discuss progress on a working draft). It will then deliver a progress report to the 76th World Health Assembly in 2023, with the aim to adopt the instrument by 2024.
Join Claire Deeks from Voices For Freedom when she catches up with Ivor Cummins talking about the global response to Covid19.
Ivor Cummins BE(Chem) CEng MIEI PMP is a Biochemical Engineer who has spent over 25 years in corporate technical leadership and management positions. His career specialty has been leading large worldwide teams in complex problem-solving activity. Since 2012 Ivor has been intensively researching the root causes of modern chronic disease. A particular focus has been on cardiovascular disease, diabetes and obesity. Since March 2020, Ivor has dedicated his analytical and biochemical expertise to deep and revealing analysis of the Covid19 pandemic situation.
In this podcast Ivor and Claire discuss the following:
[02:52] Ivor’s background in low-carb and how this investigation of the corruption in the food industry.
[06:58] How his corporate problem-solving background informs his views on the COVID-19 response.
[08:31] The corruption of the WHO and the changing definition of “pandemic” and the real severity of the virus.
[10:19] The New Zealand situation – why its been a failed experiment, a look at QALYs and the average age of death versus average age of COVID-19 death.
[14:50] Lockdowns and all the science and real word experience and now published papers that show they don’t work.
An article by a UN World Health Organization (WHO) employee suggests that lockdowns will be reused and rebranded when globalists move away from their pandemic narrative and focus on climate change as part of the Great Reset. Author Mariana Mazzucato, a professor of economics at University College London, argued that “In the near future, the world may need to resort to lockdowns again – this time to tackle a climate emergency […] To avoid such a scenario, we must overhaul our economic structures and do capitalism differently.” Her statements assume the false narrative that lockdowns are necessary and effective. She stated that under a “climate lockdown,” governments would limit private-vehicle use, ban consumption of red meat, and impose extreme energy-saving measures, while fossil-fuel companies would have to stop drilling.
If and when the powers-that-be decide to move on from their pandemic narrative, lockdowns won’t be going anywhere. Instead it looks like they’ll be rebranded as “climate lockdowns”, and either enforced or simply held threateningly over the public’s head.
At least, according to an article written by an employee of the WHO, and published by a mega-coporate think-tank.
NEW DELHI — India has received the baton for title of COVID Capitol of the World after China, Italy and the United States held it for much of last year.
The world second-most populace country after China had fewer than 138,000 total active COVID cases in early February 2021. That’s the lowest figure since January 2020. India active COVID cases sit around 3.6 million today, according to the India Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. Mainstream media are blaming the massive spike on a “scary, mutant variant” called B.1.617.
Said media are also speculating whether or not the “vaccines” will work against the variant. Only about 2.8% of India is vaccinated. Have no fear. Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine are here.
The India health ministry updated its guidelines on April 28 for quarantines, treating the asymptomatic and those with mild symptoms of COVID-19. The agency now says that asymptomatic patients should “consider Tab Ivermectin (200 mcg/kg once a day, to be taken empty stomach) for 3 to 5 days.” Caregivers of patients in quarantine are instructed to “take Hydroxychloroquine prophylaxis as per protocol and as prescribed by the treating medical officer.” See the full document here.
World Health Organization, big pharma freak out
There are 292 studies (219 are peer-reviewed) proving the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine as both a treatment and prophylaxis against COVID-19. Ivermectin has 93 studies (54 peer-reviewed) showing its effectiveness as treatment and prophylaxis against COVID-19. Despite the now-indisputable fact that these drugs essentially kill COVID-19 within hours or days, the Bill Gates-funded World Health Organization (WHO) and big pharma are having fits over India’s new guidelines and the results.
WHO Chief Scientist Soumya Swaminathan tweeted on May 10 that the WHO recommends against the use of Ivermectin for COVID-19. She deleted the tweet shortly thereafter. Swaminathan, who happens to be Indian, cited a February press release from Merck, the company that discovered and once owned the long-expired patents on Stromectol (aka Ivermectin). The company wrote that there is “no meaningful evidence” and “no scientific basis” for using Ivermectin to treat and prevent COVID-19. Merck is one of the top donors to the CDC Foundation, as is the now-merged Pfizer/GlaxoSmithKline corporation.
The Canadian Global Television Network called Ivermectin and hydrochloroquine “two drugs that conspiracy theorists say cure COVID-19 and that scientists say are useless at treating the disease.” The Middle East North Africa Financial Network said there is “little evidence” of Ivermectin’s effectiveness. Times of India called both drugs “dangerous.”
COVID cases plummeting in India last two weeks
Dr. Pierre Kory is the chief medical officer of the Front Line Covid-19 Critical Care Alliance. Mainstream media label the good doctor as “misinformation.” He is best known for his Congressional testimony about Ivermectin. Dr. Kory did a live Zoom conference this week showing just how effective Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine have been since India implemented the changes in its policies.
Here are the data from the state of Maharashtra in the two weeks since Ivermectin.
This comes right after a challenge in the High Court by NZ Lawyer Sue Grey highlighting the fact that approval for the experimental CV VX was only ever for a limited number of people. That ‘limited number’, the government has claimed in their own defense, was NZ’s entire population excluding children and teens. Note, the NZ Govt has already purchased enough of Pfizer’s product to jab the entire population of NZ.
With this announcement there are some things parents need to be aware of (aside from familiarizing themselves with all of the possible side effects). (Visit these two NZ websites for further info on those, here and here).
The plan is for late in Term 3. The official NZ term dates are as follows: Term 3 begins Monday 26 July, ends Friday 1 October.
Note also it’s been said that numbers of adverse reactions on CARM, NZ’s site for documenting those, won’t be available until July. (Unlike the US’s VAERS which presents figures as they unfold).
RNZ reports on Bloomfield’s plans for your children:
“The Ministry of Health is looking at launching a school-based programme for teenagers to get their Covid-19 vaccinations from the end of term 3.
Director-General of Health Dr Ashley Bloomfield said once the Pfizer vaccine was approved for 12 to 15-year-olds, that group would be added to the programme and would be vaccinated by the end of the year.”
Should you decide, no you do not consent for your child to have the medical treatment offered (it is not mandatory) consider the following two posts that detail for one that historically in NZ young people have been known to experience coercion from health workers at their schools to take vaccines, and two, WHO now considers your child’s presence at school as informed consent to vaccinate them: it’s called ‘implied consent. See links below. Never before has it been so crucial that parents study the literature carefully about risks versus benefits of vaccines in general, and in particular this experimental injection.
3,544 deaths and 12,619 serious injuries reported between Dec. 14, 2020 and April 23, 2021
One of the world’s most prominent medical doctors with expertise in treating COVID-19 has gone on the record with a scathing rebuke of the U.S. government’s approach to fighting the virus. He says the government’s strategy, carried out in cooperation with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the United Nations World Health Organization, has resulted in tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths and is now being followed up with thousands more deaths caused by a mass-injection program.
Dr. Peter McCullough, in a 32-minute interview with journalist Alex Newman, said if this were any other vaccine it would have been pulled from the market by now for safety reasons.
McCullough holds the honor of being the most cited medical doctor on COVID-19 treatments at the National Library of Medicine, with more than 600 citations. He has testified before Congress and won numerous awards during his distinguished medical career.
HeadlineExcerpts: “Just 2 1/2 weeks before his death Friday at age 86, Aaron joined civil rights icons to receive the COVID-19 vaccine. He wanted to spread the word to the Black community that the shots were safe in the midst of a devastating pandemic … The Atlanta Braves, Aaron’s longtime team, said he died in his sleep. No cause was given.”
“The World Health Organization added that since there was “no certain connection” of the vaccines to Norway’s deaths, there is no reason to discontinue giving it to senior citizens.”
COME ON! YOU REALLY EXPECT US TO BELIEVE THERE IS NO CONNECTION BETWEEN THE EXPERIMENTAL TREATMENT AND THE DEATHS FOLLOWING? !! ___________________________________________________________________
Additionally, to add insult to injury. baseball legend Hank Aaron, 86, died January 22, 2021. News reports said he died “peacefully in his sleep” and no cause of death had been announced. Aaron was famous for being the home-run king of baseball, and broke Babe Ruth’s record when he hit homerun No. 715; he had hit 755 by the time he retired from the sport.
Aaron made the news January 5, 2021 — 16 days ago — when he was vaccinated for COVID-19. He said at the time that he hoped other Blacks would follow his lead and get their vaccines too.
In other news, Norway recorded 23 deaths of senior citizens after they started vaccinating older citizens there. Health officials downplayed any connection with the vaccine to their deaths. Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, commented that the deaths have to be “put into context with the population they occurred in.”
The World Health Organization added that since there was “no certain connection” of the vaccines to Norway’s deaths, there is no reason to discontinue giving it to senior citizens.
It was highly publicized when the slugger took the vaccine. It was supposed to be used to inspire African-Americans to take the vaccine. Two weeks after taking it, he has died.
You must be logged in to post a comment.