THE WHO & NEW J*BS, NEW LOCKDOWNS

To comment please open your gmail account or use my email address, FB Messenger or X (Twitter).

 

Does New Zealand have a death wish?

The World Health Organisation has demonstrated that it couldn't organise its way out of a wet paper bag: the WHO stuffed up so badly in the Covid scamdemic (which would never have succeeded without the clamour of Pope Francis and the silence of the MSM), it should be an international laughing stock or better still, arraigned for crimes against humanity. 

But New Zealand is now poised to surrender sovereignty to this bunch of evil clowns. 

It's up to Christopher Luxon, David Seymour and Winston Peters. Once they've done with the horse-trading. What confidence does that not inspire! All they need do is nothing, and New Zealand is a gone coon: Big Pharma has plans for more 'pandemics',  for which the cure will be - t-dah! - more v*ccines! 

Tedros and friends (like our own dear Doctor Bloomfield) are intent on shoring up Agenda 2030 which will cut medical and health services, privatize the health industry and prevent disease by means of - encore - v*ccines. 

Ahem. Surrendering a nation's sovereignty is a crime too. Of high treason. https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/abp-vigano-world-health-organization-treaty-is-an-attack-on-national-sovereignty-part-of-a-global-coup/

Ratcheting up powers overseas while reducing our powers at home

Please take a few minutes to read Keri Molloy's article (below) on the World Health Organisation’s proposed amendments to International Health Regulations, then come back to this.

https://kerimolloy.substack.com/p/ratcheting-up-powers-overseas-while

 

NZ approval of the World Health Organisation’s proposed amendments to International Health Regulations looks like a done deal. It seems that NZ Ministry bureaucrats are prepped to bow down to WHO bureaucrats in Switzerland, while our politicians are idly standing by and letting it happen without a peep.

This is called ‘tacit acceptance’. The amendments are to Article 59 of the International Health Regulations (IHR), with consequential amendments to Articles 55, 61 , 62 and 63. WHO member states have until December 1 to ‘opt-out’. Those that do not are then automatically bound. That’s us.

These amendments reduce the timeframe within which a further 307 significant amendments will come into force from the current 24 months down to 12 months. A government paper released on October 19, on behalf of Minister of Health, Dr. Ayesha Verrall, recommends that New Zealand should be actively bound by what it describes as these ‘minor administrative amendments’.

Verrall, of course, is no longer Minister of Health. Let us be grateful for small mercies. 

The 307 other amendments are currently being negotiated by the Working Group on Amendments to the International Health Regulations (WGIHR), for approval at the World Health Assembly in May 2024. New Zealand’s Ashley Bloomfield co-chairs this working group.

Oh, that's okay then. With 'dear Doctor Bloomfield' on the job, what's there to worry about? 

self-explanatory

And, no, you probably won’t have much say about those either, before our delegates to the WHO give them the nod. You will, however, see the WHO’s proposed WHO CA+ pandemic treaty go through Parliament scrutiny but by this time it will be too late. The 307 amendments will be well and truly approved and the WHO’s power grab will have succeeded.

According to the Ministry of Health, it is in all of our interests if the regulations are strengthened to further enhance countries’ early detection, assessment, responses to and reporting of potentially significant health events. “By neither rejecting nor lodging reservations to the administrative amendments, New Zealand will signal support for enhancing internationally coordinated responses to declared public health threats.”

However, Te Aka Whai Ora (Maori Health Authority) has expressed concern that shorter time-frames for treaty action could mean future changes to the IHR might come into force without adequate recognition of the impact on Māori and without Māori consent or support.

New Zealand retains the option to opt-out of any future amendments, including where it is judged there has been inadequate time to consider domestic interests such as the principles of te Tiriti o Waitangi. If consultation is required, the Ministry plans to begin talks prior to the conclusion of international negotiations. The Ministry of Health says it would likely seek advice from Te Aka Whai Ora – Maori Health Authority, Te Puni Kokiri and MFAT.

Which likewise inspires us with confidence. 

The WHO’s track record

Keep in mind who we are dealing with. The WHO - which is still fixated on COVID deaths, while it shows no interest in excess deaths occurring around the world. It fails to even acknowledge harms done by the mRNA v*ccines that they pushed on the whole world population.

In the meantime, concern about harm from the v*ccines is such that NZDSOS (New Zealand Doctors Speaking Out with Science) is now calling for a halt to the mRNA injections. It has written an open letter to the Prime Minister, the Minister of Health, MedSAFE’s general manager, the director general of Health, the Police Commissioner, major party leaders, president of the Royal College of General Practitioners, the Human Rights Commissioner, the Ombudsman, the Chief Coroner, the chairman of the Medical Council of NZ, the chairman of the Dental Council of NZ and all members of Parliament.

The letter reads: “Our prior calls to your integrity, public duty, common sense and self-preservation have failed to stop both the continued hawking of dangerous genetic technologies onto our citizens, and the hiding of the resultant toll of deaths and severe injuries. Irrespective of any efficacy at all (only negative so far) these contaminated jabs contain a witch’s brew of known and unknown substances. T

There is enormous batch-to-batch variability with regard to incidence and types of adverse events as we have described previously. That they contain undisclosed ingredients ought to be enough to end this letter here, confident that action would follow. However, denial, wilful blindness or lazy deference to “government experts” continue to be writ large in Wellington.” 

Author John Leake puts it this way: “Epidemic of sudden and unexpected deaths matches epidemic of wilful blindness”. On October 9, nine international experts discussed their knowledge on the topic of DNA contamination of the covid injections, and potential genomic interference or integration of the mRNA technology.

Participants were:

• Kevin McKernan, chief scientific officer at Medicinal Genomics and lead geneticist of the first team to discover the DNA contamination in the v*ccine vials.

• Janci Lindsay has experience in toxicology, molecular biology and immunology. Dr Lindsay has researched the molecular pathways involved in reproductive harms, cancer, potential genomic integration and coagulopathies caused by the mRNA v*ccines and their excipients. 

• Alexandra Henrion-Caude, a Harvard-trained geneticist, specialising in RNA. 

•Professor Sucharit Bhakdi, a specialist in microbiology and infectious disease epidemiology.

• Associate Professor Byram Bridle, viral immunologist and vaccinologist. 

• Peter McCullough, US cardiologist and epidemiologist. 

• Professor Brigitte König has a background in medical microbiology and infectious immunology. 

• Jessica Rose has post-doctoral degrees in molecular biology and biochemistry, a PhD in computational biology and a Masters in Medicine (Immunology). She describes the discovery of DNA contamination in these pharmaceutical products as “one of the most important things that’s happened in our lifetimes“.

• Katie Ashby-Koppens, a lawyer with experience in civil litigation cases in New Zealand and Australia, Katie is legal head of Voices for Freedom.

• Mark Trozzi an Ontario doctor

•Christof Plothe,  osteopath.

Summary: “There are many takeaways from this powerful collection of experts, but the overarching one is the presence of harmful contamination (which in the case of SV40 appears deliberate) that was not flagged in the applications made to v*ccine regulators, including our own Medsafe. If ever there was an opportunity – as the proof of deaths and injuries gets harder and harder to deny – for them to say ‘we did not know’, surely this is it. Now they know.”

 

Harmful contamination?

Information supplied to Greg Rzesniowiecki under the Official Information Act deals with a new Cabinet paper. The paper released last week by the Ministry of Health seeks Cabinet’s agreement to ‘binding treaty action’ for what they call minor administrative amendments. The amendments will reduce the timeframe within which any subsequent amendments to the IHR will come into effect from the current 24 months to 12 months.

As part of this change, they also reduce the period provided for WHO member states to decide whether or not to reject, or reserve against, any future amendments. This period, effectively for deciding on binding treaty action, is currently 18 months and will reduce to 10 months. Acting Manager OIA Services Jan Torres confirms that the New Zealand government engages in several Working Groups.

• The Working group on strengthening WHO preparedness and response to health emergencies

• The Working Group on Sustainable Financing:

• The International Negotiating Body (INB) on the matter of developing of an international treaty on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response: Cabinet is asked for approval for Aotearoa New Zealand to neither reject nor reserve against the administrative amendments to shorten entry into force for any future amendments from 24 months to 12 months.

The Cabinet Social Wellbeing Committee agreed in August that, given the process of tacit acceptance, public consultation and referral to a select committee for a national interest analysis were not warranted for these amendments. For notes and references to this article, go to Keri Molloy’s Substack page.

Thanks.

Introduction:

In the ever-evolving landscape of global health regulations, New Zealand finds itself at a crucial crossroads. Proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR) by the World Health Organization (WHO) have ignited discussions with the potential to reshape our nation’s approach to health and sovereignty.

As I contemplate our stance on these amendments, there are both proponents and opponents, with concerns stemming from issues of public participation, sovereignty, the impact on indigenous communities, and the potential imposition of inadequately tested or potentially unsafe medications and public health practices. Furthermore, there are significant doubts regarding the safety and effectiveness of mRNA vaccines, and their future use in the containment of pandemics.

The WHO’s Proposals:

At the core of this discussion are the WHO’s proposed amendments to the IHR, with a particular emphasis on Article 59. These amendments aim to expedite the adoption of new health rules, reducing the approval period by states from two years to just one. The intention is to streamline decision-making processes in response to global health challenges.

The Concerns:

However, beneath these proposed changes lie a host of concerns that merit careful consideration.

1. Public Input and “Tacit Acceptance”:

A significant concern raised is the adequacy of public involvement in these critical decisions. I worry that our government might be embracing these changes without seeking the valuable opinions of those who will be directly impacted. This lack of transparency is commonly referred to as “tacit acceptance”, a practice that involves making decisions without soliciting public input. I fear that we may find ourselves excluded from shaping rules that have a profound impact on our well being and sovereignty.

2. Sovereignty in the Balance:

Sovereignty, our country’s ability to make its own decisions independently, is a core concern. New Zealand prides itself on its autonomy in determining its health policies and regulations. However, agreeing to these rapid global health rule changes without thorough public debate could potentially compromise this sovereignty. I worry that New Zealand might have to adhere to international health standards, set by an unelected global institution, even if these standards don’t align with our unique values and needs. This shift in power dynamics could limit the government’s ability to act in the best interests of its citizens.

3. Maori Perspectives:

Amid these concerns, there is a specific focus, by some concerned parties, on the Treaty of Waitangi, a fundamental agreement between the Maori people and the British Crown that outlines their rights and responsibilities. The Maori Health Authority, Te Aka Whai Ora, expresses worry that these rapid changes may not sufficiently consider the rights and interests of the Maori population. They fear that the amendments might be implemented without recognising the Treaty’s significance, potentially jeopardising Maori well being.

4. Health Decision Making and Public Safety:

The WHO’s proposed changes could bestow greater powers on the organisation to declare health emergencies and make critical decisions on diagnostics, medicines, vaccines, lockdowns, and more. While these changes aim to enhance global health coordination, concerns arise when these decisions are not subject to broad public scrutiny. New Zealand might be obligated to follow global health rules even if they contradict the nation’s unique needs, potentially compromising the government’s ability to protect its citizens effectively.

 

 

5. Imposition of Untested or Potentially Unsafe Medications:

A growing concern is the potential imposition of inadequately tested or potentially unsafe medications and public health practices on New Zealand. The speed at which these changes are being considered may not allow for thorough scrutiny and assessment of new regulations. History provides cautionary examples of Thalidomide and Vioxx, where inadequately tested medications caused significant harm. I worry that a similar scenario could unfold if due diligence is not exercised.

6. mRNA V*ccine Safety and Effectiveness:

In addition to these concerns, there are significant doubts about the safety and effectiveness of mRNA v*ccines, which are likely to be the drugs of choice for future pandemics. While they have been widely administered for Covid-19, there remains ongoing debate about their effectiveness and side effects. The urgency with which these v*ccines were developed and distributed has raised serious and, as yet, unanswered questions about whether proper safety measures were followed. 

 Sign here: https://petitions.parliament.nz/ba284b7f-84ca-4059-0743-08dbd732584b

And wouldn't you know it, Pope Francis is all in favour of the creation of “global mechanisms… in order to consolidate… the protection of our common home. It is a matter of establishing global and effective rules that can permit ‘providing for’ this global safeguarding.”manifesto-laudate-deum/

(L)ike his earlier encyclical, Laudato Si’, the Pope’s latest apocalyptic warning contains many errors of fact. But in this follow up exhortation he goes even further, proposing a new system of global governance. 

As we learned from the COVID vaccine debacle, if you have enough money to throw around, you can bribe or coerce the scientific establishment into endorsing whatever it is you are selling, even if it is harmful to the public at large.

But why would the Pope feel compelled to venture into areas in which he has absolutely no competence, and then make such strong statements?

Because Pope Francis is the Deep Church, the ugly maid-in-waiting to the Deep State - "a global conspiracy against God and humanity" (Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò).

"For many, of whom I have often told you and now tell you even with tears, live as enemies of the cross of Christ. Their end is destruction, their god is the belly, and they glory in their shame, with minds set on earthly things" 

- Epistle, 23rd Sunday after Pentecost