1^st JUNE 2024 THE WORLD HEALTH ASSEMBLY AN AGREEMENT WAS REACHED ON WIDE RANGING, DECISIVE PACKAGE OF AMENDMENTS TO IMPROVE THE IHR 2005.. INTERNATIONAL HEALTH REGULATIONS 2005 (Source of Information WHA -News release: Geneva, Switzerland). And the setting of a date for the finalizing negotiations on a Proposed WHO International Pandemic Treaty (Accord)

The annual meeting of its 194 countries on the 1^st June 2024 agreed to a package of critical amendments to the International Health Regulation (IHR 2005), making concrete commitments to completing negotiations on a global International WHO Pandemic Treaty (Accord) agreement within a year at the very latest. They report this is “in order to ensure comprehensive, robust systems are in place in ALL countries to protect the health & safety of ALL people everywhere- from the risk of future outbreaks and pandemics. (Outbreaks can in climate mandates etc.,)  As embedded in this decision making in the One Health Approach.

The interdependency od Humans-Animals Wild and Domestic, Tree’s Plants Soil., Insects, Air Oceans etc., the whole Ecosystem. Therefore a cockroach is of the same value as a Human Being. In other words your individual freedom, Human Rights mean Diddly Squat.  And 194 countries agreed to this package of critical robust amendments. In an historic development, the World Health Assembly, the annual meeting of its 194 member countries, today agreed a package of critical amendments to the International

These decisions represent two important steps by countries, taken in tandem with one another on the final day of the Seventy-seventh World Health Assembly, to build on lessons learned from several global health emergencies, including the COVID-19 pandemic. The package of amendments to the Regulations will strengthen global preparedness, surveillance and responses to public health emergencies, including pandemics.

The historic decisions taken today demonstrate a common desire by Member States to protect their own people, and the world’s, from the shared risk of public health emergencies and future pandemics,” said Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, WHO Director-General. “The amendments to the International Health Regulations will bolster countries’ ability to detect and respond to future outbreaks and pandemics by strengthening their own national capacities, and coordination between fellow States, on disease surveillance, information sharing and response. This is built on commitment to equity, an understanding that health threats do not recognize national borders, and that preparedness is a collective endeavor.”

Dr Tedros added: The decision to conclude the Pandemic Agreement within the next year demonstrates how strongly and urgently countries want it, because the next pandemic is a matter of when, not if. Today’s strengthening of the IHR provides powerful momentum to complete the Pandemic Agreement, which, once finalized, can help to prevent a repeat of the devastation to health, societies and economies caused by COVID-19.                                   The new amendments to the IHR include:

• introducing a definition of a pandemic emergency to trigger more effective international collaboration in response to events that are at risk of becoming, or have become, a pandemic. The pandemic emergency definition represents a higher level of alarm that builds on the existing mechanisms of the IHR, including the determination of  public health emergency of international concern. According to the definition, a pandemic emergency is a communicable disease that has, or is at high risk of having, wide geographical spread to and within multiple States, exceeds or is at high risk of exceeding the capacity of health systems to respond in those States; causes, or is at high risk of causing, substantial social and/or economic disruption, including disruption to international traffic and trade; and requires rapid, equitable and enhanced coordinated international action, with whole-of-government and whole-of-society approaches;
•  
• a commitment to solidarity and equity on strengthening access to medical products and financing. This includes establishing a Coordinating Financial Mechanism to support identification of, and access to, financing required to “equitably address the needs and priorities of developing countries, including for developing, strengthening and maintaining core capacities,” and other pandemic emergency prevention, preparedness and response-related capacities;
• establishment of the States Parties Committee to facilitate the effective implementation of the amended Regulations. The Committee will promote and support cooperation among States Parties for the effective implementation of the IHR; and
• creation of National IHR Authorities to improve coordination of implementation of the Regulations within and among countries.

“The experience of epidemics and pandemics, from Ebola and Zika to COVID-19 and mpox, showed us where we needed better public health surveillance, response and preparedness mechanisms around the world,” said Dr Ashley Bloomfield of New Zealand, Co-Chair of the Working Group on Amendments to the IHR (WGIHR), and of the Drafting Group that guided the negotiations of the package of amendments during the WHA. “Countries knew what had to be done and we did it. I am so proud to be a part of this.”

Fellow WGIHR Co-Chair Dr Abdullah Assiri, of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, added: “The amendments to the International Health Regulations strengthen mechanisms for our collective protections and preparedness against outbreak and pandemic emergency risks. Today’s powerful show of global support for stronger Regulations also provide a great boost for the process to negotiate a much-needed international Pandemic Agreement.”

Countries agreed to continue negotiating the proposed Pandemic Agreement to improve international coordination, collaboration and equity to prevent, prepare for and respond to future pandemics.  WHO’s Member States decided to extend the mandate of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body, established in December 2021, to finish its work to negotiate a Pandemic Agreement within a year, by the World Health Assembly in 2025, or earlier if possible at a special session of the Health Assembly in 2024.

“There was a clear consensus amongst all Member States on the need for a further instrument to help the world better fight a full-blown pandemic,” said Ms Precious Matsoso of South Africa, Co-Chair of both the Pandemic Accord Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) and the Drafting Group on the INB and IHR agenda items at the WHA.  Fellow INB Co-Chair Roland Driece, from the Netherlands, said: “Today’s great result in approving amendments to the International Health Regulations will provide the momentum we need to finalize the Pandemic Agreement. We clearly have the will, the purpose and now the time needed to complete this generational agreement.”

Notes to editors: The IHR (2005), the successors of the 1951 International Sanitary Regulations, were conceived to maximize collective efforts to manage public health events while at the same time minimizing their disruption to travel and trade. They have 196 States Parties, comprising all 194 WHO Member States plus Liechtenstein and the Holy See.

WHO Member States launched the process to develop the world’s first pandemic accord, to prevent a repeat of the global health, economic and social impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, at a Special Session of the World Health Assembly in December 2021.

https://www.who.int/news/item/01-06-2024-world-health-assembly-agreement-reached-on-wide-ranging–decisive-package-of-amendments-to-improve-the-international-health-regulations–and-sets-date-for-finalizing-negotiations-on-a-proposed-pandemic-agreement?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTAAAR1lslyBpqAQ110GLKHEqUDrnT4xs5NOtS_RPkC6YD8XLrF9Es2xfXLXm3M_aem_AWhvUOejT_KTzGYDR0VBd5AZhKAwh_8–qKDVIqzNxB4KHIPhzF_wREwknpfbeftAKHZYg6UNk8FACEBfOHktSDg

EXCLUSIVE: MOH says Kiwis with COVID-19 can now be eligible for euthanasia. New Zealand euthanasia expansion.. By The Defender.

OIA REQUEST: An Official Information Act reply to The Defender, from the Ministry of Health, which says that patients with COVID-19 could be eligible for euthanasia, has left National MP Simon O’Connor disappointed but not surprised.

HEALTHCARE PROFESSIONALS RAISE CONCERNS:  In November The Defender wrote to the New Zealand Ministry of Health (MOH) to ask some important questions about the practice of euthanasia and assisted suicide in New Zealand. In light of the serious deficiencies in the End of Life Choice Act (EOLCA), and concerns that have been raised by healthcare professionals, we felt it was crucial to put some urgent questions to the MOH.

COVID-19 AND ASSISTED DYING: In our Official Information Act (OIA) request we asked the following question: “Could a patient who is severely hospitalised with Covid-19 potentially be eligible for assisted suicide or euthanasia under the Act if a health practitioner viewed their prognosis as less than 6 months?”

TOOLS  TO RESOLVE SERIOUS CRISIS: There were several reasons why The Defender wanted to seek clarity from the MOH about this issue.  Firstly, New Zealand is currently described as being in a precarious position when it comes to COVID-19 and hospital resources. In light of this, it would not be hard to envisage a situation in which a speedy and sizeable rise in COVID-19 hospitalizations could result in pressure to utilize euthanasia and assisted suicide as tools to resolve such a serious crisis.

WARNING OF CAUTION: Overseas commentators have raised the prospect of these kind of unethical motivations since early in this pandemic.  Last year’s tragic case of the elderly Canadian woman who had an assisted suicide to avoid another COVID-19 lockdown highlights exactly why caution is warranted in relation to COVID-19 and euthanasia.  “The lack of stringent safeguards in the EOLCA raised red flags with us. Could a patient with COVID-19 find their way into the eligibility criteria? And, if so, what serious risks would this pose to the already often-vulnerable elderly members of our communities?” says The Defender editor Henoch Kloosterboer.

CRITERIA FOR ASSISTED DYING: The MOH responded to our OIA request on Tuesday (7th of December, 2021). Their reply to The Defender started on a more promising note: “There are clear eligibility criteria for assisted dying. These include that a person must have a terminal illness that is likely to end their life within six months.” But then their response becomes more disturbing (emphasis added):

THE ATTENDING PRACTITIONER:   “A terminal illness is most often a prolonged disease where treatment is not effective. The EOLC Act states eligibility is determined by the attending medical practitioner (AMP), and the independent medical practitioner.”

SERIOUS CONCERNS: This raises serious concerns. Firstly, there is nothing concrete about the phrase “most often”, in fact, its inclusion in this specific context clearly seems to suggest that the MOH considers the definition of terminal illness to be subjective and open to interpretation.

DETERMINATION OF QUALIFIED TERMINAL ILLNESS: The very next sentence seems to back this up. It clarifies that the MOH considers the attending medical practitioner (AMP) and the independent medical practitioner to be empowered by the EOLCA to make the determination about what does and doesn’t qualify as a terminal illness.  “In light of this vague interpretation, it is reasonable to suggest that COVID-19 could be classified as a ‘terminal illness’ depending on the prognosis of the patient and the subjective judgments of the AMP and independent medical practitioner. This feels like we’ve been sold one thing, and been delivered another.” says Kloosterboer.

ELIGIBILITY:  the final paragraph the MOH put this issue beyond doubt when they state (emphasis added): “Eligibility is determined on a case-by-case basis; therefore, the Ministry cannot make definitive statements about who is eligible. In some circumstances a person with COVID-19 may be eligible for assisted dying.”

INFORMED DECISION: Detail from the Ministry of Health’s response to the OIA request, 7 December 2021. If you examine the eligibility criteria for assisted suicide and euthanasia, as stated on the MOH website, it becomes easier to see how, given the right circumstances, a COVID-19 diagnosis could qualify:  aged 18 years or over a citizen or permanent resident of New Zealand  suffering from a terminal illness that is likely to end their life within six months in an advanced state of irreversible decline in physical capability experiencing unbearable suffering that cannot be relieved in a manner that the person considers tolerable competent to make an informed decision about assisted dying

PROLONGED ILLNESS: It seems to us that the only possible protective factor here, and it’s an extremely flimsy one, is that all of this hinges on the tenuous grounds of how the phrase ‘terminal illness’ is interpreted. In particular, whether or not the AMP and independent medical practitioner are willing to hold firm to the MOH’s suggestion to us that a terminal illness is a “prolonged disease”. Even then, the term ‘prolonged disease’ is still extremely fraught due to its highly subjective nature. Who is to say that a medical practitioner who considers an illness which lasts longer than a fortnight to be a ‘prolonged disease’ isn’t actually correct in making such a determination?

RAISING OF SERIOUS QUESTIONS: The End of Life Choice Act offers no clarity or robust safeguards that would put this matter beyond doubt, in fact it does just the opposite, leaves the door wide open for abuse. MP Simon O’Connor expressed s as to the expansion of the new law less than a month after it came into force.  “New Zealanders who voted in the referendum in 2020 did not anticipate this law could be used for COVID19 patients”.

THE WORDING OF THE LEGISLATION: The wording of the law The wording of the law was always deliberately broad and interpretable, placing far too much into the judgement of the doctor.” He also said that this development raises serious questions about the problems in the EOLCA.

VERY TIMELY: “The  timely demonstration of how badly drafted the law is. When you consider the lack of key safeguards, and the risky shroud of secrecy that the EOLCA has thrown over the practice of euthanasia and assisted suicide, you can see that those of us warning about this Act shouldn’t have been dismissed so flippantly,” says Simon  O’Connor.  The implications of this are extremely serious. Not simply because of the potential threat COVID-19 poses to our ill-equipped NZ healthcare system, or the fact that vulnerable elderly people are the most affected by the ravages of this illness.

LACK OF TRANSPARENCY: There is also the fact that an unacceptable lack of transparency has been built into the EOLCA which will cloak all of this in a dangerous veil of secrecy that prevents robust public scrutiny. In a nutshell, the poorly considered structure of the EOLCA has now made the COVID-19 pandemic potentially even more dangerous for the people of Aotearoa New Zealand.

#DefendNZ,  were calling on the Ministry Of Health to take urgent action to  ensure that the End Of Life Choice Act cannot be used to provide assisted suicide or euthanasia to patients in New Zealand. Defend NZ had created a petition to send to Parliament calling for urgent amendments to the law including required detailed reporting and required independent witnesses, among other things, and were asking concerned citizens to sign and share it.

LINK   https://www.defendnz.co.nz/news-media/2021/12/19/exclusive-euthanasia-expansion-moh-says-kiwis-with-covid-19-can-now-be-eligible

Researched by Carol Sakey

What are you not being told as to why the government reintroduced the Therapeutics Products Bill. The message they give NZrs is that they are just making sure of the quality and the efficacy on therapeutics. Balancing the risks and benefits. Making sure they are a different product category to medicines and medical devices. That are they hiding, not telling the public of New Zealand.  The Govt sought an urgent law change to the Medicines Act which related to the Pfizer COVID19 rollout legality. The govt needed to urgently fix the Medicines Act so that they could roll out the 4^th COVID19 jab legally. After a High Court ruling on the decision to grant provisional approval to rollout Pfizer COVID19 jabs.  The Court concluded it was ‘reasonably arguable that the limited use provision (Off Label Medicine) under sect.23 of the Medicine Act was problematic as it encompassed a limited number of people that could receive the dose 4 of Pfizer jab, not the whole population. The Judge said “While I doubt that this is a much ‘limited’ class of persons than ‘ALL New Zealanders’ a class of that size seems well beyond what is contemplated by a straight forward purpose” referring to Sect 23 of the Medicines Act. Health Minister Andrew Little acknowledged the Judges ruling saying ‘The Medicines Act’ was due for a change. He said The Medicines Amendment Bill will be passed with urgency tomorrow”. Six products were currently used as an off-label medicine under sect 23 of the Medicines Act. 2 types of contraceptives, 2 pandemic flu vaxes, and a Pfizer Jab, also an electrolyte solution used in hospitals.

25/5/2022 Chris Hipkins Minister for COVID19 Response and Andrew Little Minister of Health made a ‘Regulatory Impact Statement to amend the Medicines Act 1981 allowing for Off-Label Medicines (Mass COVID19 Jabs-unlimited). The 4^th dose of COVID19 jab was an off label medicine classification, it had not been approved in large cohorts, thus a mechanism had to be implemented to allow for use. This would also allow the dosage timing between jabs to be shortened from 6 months to 3 months. The COVID Technical Advisory Groups had recommended that people over 65 and Maori and Pasifika over the age of 50 years old. Thousands of people. This giving the Director General of Health the ability to make decisions regarding the admin, supply and the implementation of the 4^th Pfizer Jab and other jabs that may be introduced that had not been approved, could only be used as off-label- limited use. Whilst being outside Medsafe regulations of the medicines process this would provide an enduring sound legal basis for the provision of any further dosed of COVI19 jabs, the 4^th dose and future ones. Thus future-proofing off label medicines even if there is no epidemic notice in place.

This was just one of the options the other was the Therapeutic Products Bill which became the preferential option rather than amending the Medicine Act, as it would provide regulatory mechanisms to ensure the future proofing of the 4^th dose of Pfizer jab and any other off label jabs that will follow. What does it mean when a medication is off-label? It is used for a disease or medical condition that it is not approved to treat. Can only be cause for a limited amount of patients not the whole population of NZ. You must be prescribed an off-label medicine by a doctor by doctors prescription. Out of several options discussed the government stated they found it necessary to introduce the Therapeutic Products Bill to pass it into legislation so they could deploy an unlimited jabbing of people across NZ. So the real reason for the Therapeutic Products Bill is the jab unlimited people with an off-label unapproved medicine where off label medicines are usually for a limited number of the population. As with all medicines, vaccines can be used outside of Medsafe approval (this is called ‘off label’) if they are prescribed by an authorised prescriber.

27^th May 2022 -Currently a fourth dose is considered “off-label” Pfizer’s 4^th jab had not been approved by Medsafe, due to the absence of an application from Pfizer. The only way for the approximately 834,000 at-risk people to access the fourth dose is on prescription via a General Practitioner (GP) on an individualised basis.  Thus raising concerns over the ability to maximise uptake of the vaccine in these groups, due to equity of access, cost and timeliness of implementation. Documented by Caroline Flora Associate Deputy Director-General System Strategy and Policy Ministry of Health. When publicly  explaining the reasons for the introduction to the Therapeutic Products Bill they deliberately left some very important information out, that being the real reason for introducing the Bill, however the government told  the people of New Zealand “they were  just making sure of the quality and the efficacy on therapeutics. Balancing the risks and benefits. Making sure they are a different product category to medicines and medical devices.”

That are they hiding, not telling the public of New Zealand.  The Government did not tell the public about why they really introduced the Therapeutic Product Bill, it was so they could legally jab more arms with an off-label unapproved Pfizer jab- more guineapig for another Pfizer jab, which has little to zilch results as yet.

LINKS

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2021/05/covid-19-government-to-urgently-change-law-after-high-court-ruling-on-pfizer-vaccine-rollout-legality.html

https://www.health.govt.nz/system/files/documents/information-release/ris-fourth-dose-final.pdf

https://wakeupnz.org    Carol Sakey

Please find below  my opposition to the LEGALLY BINDING  WHO CA+ International Pandemic Treaty.

I have found that the World Health Organization’s (WHO’s) “Zero Draft” the new agreement on pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response, called WHO CA+, is significantly flawed.  Due to the evidence and information provided below I oppose the WHO CA+ Treaty.

(1)WHO failed miserably in preventing the spread of COVID-19, the WHO CA+ draft would dramatically expand WHO authority to declare a pandemic and, thereby, trigger provisions in the treaty that would re-allocate resources and encourage governments to waive intellectual property rights

(2)New Zealand is already playing an active part in planning the WHO CA+ without consultation of the public of New Zealand’s input. The Government have been deliberately non-transparent as to the WHO CA+ and its purposes, aims, goals as to its intention as to the WHO Pandemic Treaty (Accord)

(3)The proposed Treaty is due to be introduced at the 77^th World Health Assembly in May 2024.  If New Zealand agrees and are compliant to the WHO CA+ this will risk  further increased significant tax payer payments  as to the allocation  to the added expenditure it will cost our country

(4)The World Health Organization has already miserably failed since the pandemic first evolved on many accounts, yet it appears that members of the New Zealand Government are supporting and even promoting the WHO CA+ International Pandemic Treaty (Accord)

(5)The draft of the WHO CA+ clearly focuses on significantly strengthening, expanding the powers of the World Health Organization which I note signed a ‘Partnership Memorandum with the World Economic Forum on 13^th June 2019.

(6)The WHO/ WEF is now  a Public-Private Partnership. The UN was never originally declared as such when it was created.  Obviously through the extraordinary super powers awarded to the WHO would also reward the Multi-stakeholder Corporations that WEF represents., therefore there is a massive conflict of interest that would effectively bring multistakeholder corporations, and those represented by the WEF huge wealth and power in the realms of  global politics and economies. The WEF is the whisperer in the ears of the WHO.

(7)The ZERO draft of the International Pandemic Treaty focuses on hugely expanding the authority, powers of World Health Organization, which give WHO the super powers to trample on ‘intellectual property rights’ and the redistribution of knowledge and technology. The WHO will become the only one, so called source of ‘Truth’, therefore having the ability to shut down the ‘True’ source of Truth., this is very dangerous.

 (8)WHO International Health Regulations 2005 failed miserably when it came to accessing China’s part in the origins of the COVID19 pandemic instead of holding them to account and responsible for their failings under the IHR2005 the WHO now parrots the CCP and even praises the Chinese regime. Therefore cannot be trusted to be such a superior force of authority over all UN Nation States.

 (9)In accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of International Laws the people of New Zealand have the right to self-determine and manage their own autonomous approach to public health. This is a ‘sovereign’ right, the people of New Zealand are the ‘sovereignty who have that right. The global superior authoritative right does not lay with the WHO to control, cause damage to society, business, infrastructure or medical, technical determinations of the people of New Zealand. The people rights in New Zealand are that of ‘self determination’

(10)The people of New Zealand have in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the Principles of International Law the sovereign right to determine, manage their own approach to public health, this notably also means ‘pandemic prevention, preparedness, response and recovery of health systems pursuant to the autonomy of domestic policies, legislations. That is provided that within this domestic jurisdiction the control awarded to the state through the vote of the people in New Zealand ‘causes no harm, damage to the peoples of New Zealand’.

‘(11)Sadly I say there has been much damage done to the peoples of New Zealand through the governments misinformation as to the COVID19 immunizations and the mandating of these. The closures of businesses throughout New Zealand and the loss of work and income.  Also the closure of schools where many children have not returned back to school.

(12)The members of  New Zealand House of Representatives have shown themselves to be  non-transparency upon publicly  exposing the serious harms and deaths of post COVID 19 immunizations. The many law abiding decent people of New Zealand have been deliberately abused by members of the New Zealand mainstream news media that has been paid for by the Governments Journalist Fund.

 (13) A member of Parliament namely Michael Wood character assassinating, labelling people those who are grieved through loss of work and income, loss of businesses as a so called ‘River of Filth’. Amongst those people he called a ‘River of Filth’ and ‘Anti -Vaxers’ were those that had been vaxed and were suffering serious harms post immunization.  As noted, not one member of Parliament has apologised for this cruel emotional harm caused to people of New Zealand by members of the House of Representatives. 

(14)The mandating of COVID19 Immunization. The following  term has often been quoted by members of WHO and WEF,  and even members of NZ House of Representatives ‘No-one is safe until everyone is Safe’. Pfizer Chief Executive has publicly admitted that they did not test their COVID19 immunization for transmission prior to entering the global market place.  Evidence has shown us that those that have been injected with the Pfizer mRNA  Injection have still been infected by the virus.. . Obviously the people of New Zealand have been misled when it has come to mandating of COVID19 immunizations and mandates

(15)It is a huge concern that large Pharmaceutical companies such as Pfizer have and continue to advise the Intergovernmental working group on the WHO CA+ International Pandemic Treaty as to the Zero Draft which is a huge conflict of interest.

(16)It is a deep concern that if the New Zealand Government continues to pursue, support the WHO CA+ International Pandemic Treaty (Accord) it would give the WHO superior authority over NZ Domestic policies. WHO would have the power to declare a pandemic globally whether New Zealand is affected or not and could have the power to reallocate resources.

(17)The Zero Draft of the WHO CA + Pandemic Treaty makes transparency and cooperation mandatory (legally Binding). Uses the word ‘shall’ when referencing facilitating accessing, sharing of research and genomic data, however there are no repercussions for ‘non-compliance’. It is evidently clear that the WHO and those drafting this treaty , and those that support, promote it have learned nothing. There is no reason to believe that China would be compliant with the obligations set out in the WHO CA+ International Pandemic Treaty (Accord)  I also note that the  World Health Organizations failure to quietly abandon investigations into China’s incompetence to comply to the legally binding WHO Health Regulations (IHR 2005)

(18)The WHO CA+ Draft lets China off the hook. Despite China having the largest economy in the world the United Nations considers China as a developing country. Developed countries financially support developing countries when it comes to ‘common but differentiated responsibilities’ among nations. Developed countries would share the greater costs therefore  China will likely be the beneficiary of the WHO CA+ obligation for developed nation parties, among other provisions.

(19)The WHO CA+ Pandemic Treaty Zero Draft calls on the parties to tackle misleading, misinformation or disinformation. Yet the WHO  themselves have been the source of disinformation when they tweeted  “preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of COVID 19.

I refer to the ‘World Health Organization ‘Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no evidence of human to human transmission of the novel coronavirus (2019-n CoV) identified in Wuhan Vina. Twitter January 14^th 2020 ¹⁸

^{https://twitter.com/WHO/status​/1217043229427761152} 

(20)As for the CDC on the efficacy of facial mask wearing that shifted over time, when Anthony Fauci defended flip flop accusations after shifting mask guidance, this has reported changed time and time again. There is much controversy about mask wearing. It is clearly evident that many people wear masks as chin straps. Masks do risk emotional, psychological damage to some extent. Mask wearing is not normalised behaviour so will affect people in different ways.  ^{LINK: Independent, July 29, 2021, https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/fauci-cdc-mask-flip-flop-b1892600.html}

(21)A recent study found that natural immunity acquired by a COVID-19 infection was “associated with lower incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection, regardless of the variant, than mRNA primary-series vaccination. Yet WHO superior authorities under a legally binding Pandemic Treaty could mandate all populations to be vaccinated, immunized without accountability. This is very dangerous.

LINK:” ^{Hiam Chemaitelly et al., “Protection from Previous Natural Infection Compared with mRNA Vaccination Against SARS-CoV-2 Infection and Severe COVID-19 in Qatar: A Retrospective Cohort Study,” The Lancet, November 11, 202, https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanmic/article/PIIS2666-5247(​22)00287-7/fulltext (accessed February 24, 2023).}

(22)The WHO and UN Member Nation Governments and their  so called experts have been proven wrong far too often, yet the WHO Pandemic Treaty gives WHO the global super power authority to police “disinformation. This seriously infringes on the internationally accepted right to freedom of expression. (UN International  Human Rights and NZ Domestic Human Rights Legislations)

(23)The WHO CA+ Treaty Draft emphasizes ‘Equity’. It is guided by ‘Equity’, which is defined by the absence of unfair, unavoidable or remediable differences among and within countries, including between different groups of people, whether these groups are defined socially, economically, demographically, geographically or references ‘Inequality’. The term ‘Equity’ and ‘Equitable’ appear more that thirty times in the ZERO Draft of the Treaty, however there is no clear definition what this means.

(24)The people of New Zealand have the right to have clear, concise information. (ibid., Art 3,4 (3) ). It is evidential by the ZERO Draft of the WHO CA+ Treaty that it is guided by ‘Equity’, a term that is deeply rooted in ‘Marxist’ ideology and should never be embedded in the guiding principles of any international legally binding commitment of any State, including that of New Zealand.

(25)The ZERO Draft of the CA+ International Pandemic Treaty (Accord- Convention) commits to the term ‘Universal Health Coverage’, this is not clearly defined. I stand to be corrected, but does that mean that the Government provides the peoples of New Zealand health care, is that with or without costs to the peoples of New Zealand, and at what costs must the people of New Zealand pay?. How will this indeed affect tax payers pockets?

(26)Its obvious that if the NZ House of Representatives agree, comply to the WHO CA+ International Pandemic Treaty domestic legislations will have to be amended.  The people of New Zealand are not awarded end decision making rights when it comes to domestic policy making.    I refer to the (Non-Legally Binding Citizens Initiated Referenda), and even if this did become ‘Legally Binding’ the people of New Zealand would have no end decision rights when it comes to Domestic Policies due to the legally binding nature of the WHO CA+ Treaty.. Therefore upon voting for political parties at election time, this means that promises made to the voting public can be over- ridden by the WHO Pandemic Treaty

(27)The WHO CA+ Pandemic Treaty (Accord) incorporates a ‘One Health’ approach framework. This includes ‘Humans, Animals-wild and domestic and all Eco-systems’. This means that the WHO under the WHO CA+ International Pandemic Treaty has massive super superior control over every aspect of life on this planet.

(28)WHO CA+ Treaty under the classification  of ‘Climate Change’ will have the authority to restrict, control food systems, trade and travel, infrastructure, land use and property rights. This is scandalous and extremely dangerous when it comes to the health and wellbeing of New Zealanders.

(29)Those that reside in the NZ House of Representatives are accountable to the people of New Zealand who voted them in to the political positions they hold in the New Zealand House of Representatives. To be responsible and accountable to ALL peoples of New Zealand.  Through researched evidence of viewing speeches in the House and other UN Information that New Zealand Members of Parliament are supporting, promoting and are in agreeance with the WHO ZERO Draft of the CA +.

(30) I also note that at the 77^th gathering of the World Health Assembly the final draft of the CA+ WHO International Pandemic Treaty will be produced, introduced to all UN Member Nation States to determine whether, and which UN Member States agree on the WHO International Pandemic Treaty (Accord)

(31) I therefore request that the NZ House of Representatives transparently accords the peoples of New Zealand open public debate, discussion without political intrusion as to all knowledge, information that is pertained in every ZERO draft of the WHO CA+ Pandemic Treaty as it is produced, introduced.

The draft states that the WHO CA+ “shall be subject to ratification, acceptance, approval or accession by UN Member Nation States, therefore clearly requires advice and consent under the process outlined.^{, “Circular 175 Procedure,” https://2009-2017.state.gov/s/l/treaty/c175/index.htm (accessed February 24, 2023).}

(32)I conclude that the  WHO CA+ International Pandemic Treaty (Accord) is highly problematic and deeply flawed and would allow the global superior powers of the World Health Organization (UN) to have authority over New Zealand’s domestic policies. One size does not fit ALL and there is no evidence of ‘trustworthiness’ as to why the people of New Zealand should support this WHO Treaty proposal.

(33)The ‘Public-Private’ partnership of the World Economic Forum with the UN is a huge conflict of interest as they are  the ‘whisperers in the ear’ of the UN, therefore also  rewarded global superiority political, economical control through the  WHO CA+ International Pandemic Treaty (Accord) agreeance.

Therefore, for all the above reasons , information provided I totally oppose the WHO CA+ International Pandemic Treaty (Accord). I find it to be highly dangerous to the health and wellbeing of ALL peoples of New Zealand. I have cc’d other groups, individuals, organizations, members of parliament the above information-communication t as outlined to the NZ House of Representatives as to opposition of the WHO CA+ International Pandemic Treaty.

I request a response at your earliest. Thank you.

Carol Sakey