1st JUNE 2024 THE WORLD HEALTH ASSEMBLY AN AGREEMENT WAS REACHED ON WIDE RANGING, DECISIVE PACKAGE OF AMENDMENTS TO IMPROVE THE IHR 2005..

1st 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 1st 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

...

HEALTH IN NEW ZEALAND Blog Posts View all Categories

LINKS TO THE HISTORY OF SEXUALIZING CHILDREN IN THE NZ SCHOOL CLASSROM

These links are reference to my last two video’s on this subject. 2020-2030 Global Sexualization of children (UN). UN Agenda 2030 Global Development Goals (SDGs). Documented in the UN Technical Brief of Anti School Bullying in Schools globally Studies and Surveys of schools students

LINK Several approaches were used for questioning students about themselves, in these UN Surveys, studies  March 2019 https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Issues/SexualOrientation/Data/UNESCO.pdf

Several approaches were used for questioning students about themselves, in these UN Surveys, studies  March 2019 https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Issues/SexualOrientation/Data/UNESCO.pdf

A first example is provided by the 2015 Youth Risk Behaviour Surveillance System (YRBS), conducted by the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in the USA.  Statistically analysed together with a sub-group of bisexual respondents, another subgroup identified ‘Not Sure: of gender.

Youth2000 survey in New Zealand. This is conducted among 9-13 year olds and, since 2012, has included a question about whether students self-identify as transgender. The sample for the most recent survey (2012) involved students being randomly selected from 91 schools that, in turn, were randomly selected from all eligible schools (those with at least 50 students) from across the country.

The resulting sample – of 8,500 respondents – proved large and representative enough for the implementers to find that 1.2% of students identify as transgender – a figure that is significant enough to enable statistical comparisons (Clark, et al., 2013).

UNESCO-supported study in four countries in Southern Africa, questionnaires used in schools referred to gender non-conforming students as ‘people who are seen as different in terms of gender (boys who look or act like girls; girls who look like or act like boys)’.

Auckland University Sample size 28,000. Conducted 2001, 2008, 2012  9-13 yr olds   www.fmhs.auckland.ac.nz/en/faculty/adolescent-health-research-group/youth2000-national-youth-health-survey-series.html

Source. http://cdc.gov/HealthyYouth/yrbs Global school-based student health survey Type: School-based survey. Country: Global. Population: Adolescents. Age: 13-17 year olds. Sample size: Unknown. Frequency: From 2018. Further information: https://www.cdc.gov/GSHS/

Source: Growing up today study 2 Type: Population-based survey. Country: USA. Population: Children of Nurses’ Health Study participants. Age: 10-17 year olds (2004). Sample size: 10,900. Frequency: Annually since 2004. Further information: www.gutsweb.org

https://www.samhsa.gov/data/data-we-collect/nsduh-national-survey-drug-use-and-health

From 2018. Further information: https://www.cdc.gov/GSHS/

http://www23.statcan.gc.ca/imdb/p2SV.pl?Function=getSurvey&SDDS=3226

Transgender Age: 14-18 year olds (Grades 9-12). Sample size: Varies. Further information: http://cdc.gov/HealthyYouth/yrbs

Age: 12-18 year olds (Grades 7-12). Sample size: 14,400. Frequency: 1994–2008 (longitudinal). Further information: http://cpc.unc.edu/projects/addhealth

School-based survey. Country: Global. Population: Adolescents. Age: 13-17 year olds. Sample size: Unknown. Frequency: 2018. Further information:https://www.cdc.gov/GSHS/

Respondents  were given a  range of gender identity options. EG., whether or not they self-identify as transgender. The following are two examples of best practice questions about gender identity.

Example 2: Question: Do you think you are transgender? This is a girl who feels like she should have been a boy, or a boy who feels like he should have been a girl. (e.g. Trans, Queen, Fa’faffine, Whakawahine, Tangata ira Tane, Genderqueer. New Zealand  www.fmhs.auckland.ac.nz/en/faculty/adolescent-health-research-group/youth2000-national-youth-health-survey-series.html

Intersex Human Rights Australia. (2012). Including intersex in research studies and surveys. Retrieved from https://ihra/org.au/20042/ on-requests-for-research/

Kann, L., Olsen, E. O., McManus, T., Harris, V. A., Shanklin, S. L., Flint, K. H., . . . al, e. (2016). Sexual identity, sex of sexual contacts and health-related behaviors among students in Grades 9-12 – United States and Selected Sites, 2015. MMWR Surveill Summ.

Patterson, J. G., Jabson, J. M., & Bowen, D. J. (2017, April 1). Measuring sexual and gender minority populations in health surveillance. LGBT Health, 82-105.

UNESCO. (2015). From insult to inclusion: Asia-Pacific report on school bullying, violence and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. Paris and Bangkok: UNESCO.

UNESCO. (2016). Out in the open: Education sector responses to violence based on sexual orientation and gender identity/expression. Paris: UNESCO.

UNESCO. (2019). Behind the numbers: Ending school violence and bullying. Paris: UNESCO.

REFERENCE MADE TO UN AGENDA 2030 SDG 4.

https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Issues/SexualOrientation/Data/UNESCO.pdf

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/world-health-organization-removes-gender-dysphoria-from-list-of-mental-illnesses/

: Adolescents. Age: 13-17 year olds. Sample size: Unknown. Frequency: From 2018. Further information: https://www.cdc.gov/GSHS/

. Age: 14-18 year olds (Grades 9-12). Sample size: Varies. Further information: http://cdc.gov/HealthyYouth/yrbs

: School-based survey. Country: Global. Population: Adolescents. Age: 13-17 year olds. Sample size: Unknown. Frequency: 2018. Further information:https://www.cdc.gov/GSHS/

 

BIOGRAPHY: INCLUDED:-

Australian Government. (2013). Guidelines on the recognition of sex and gender. Barton: Commonwealth of Australia.

Clark, T. F., T., B. P., Crengle, S., Denny, S., Dyson, B., Fortune, S., . . . Rossen, F. (2013). Youth’12 Prevalence Tables: The health and wellbeing of New Zealand secondary school students in 2012. Auckland, New Zealand: The University of Auckland

Intersex Human Rights Australia. (2012). Including intersex in research studies and surveys. Retrieved from https://ihra/org.au/20042/ on-requests-for-research/

Kann, L., Olsen, E. O., McManus, T., Harris, V. A., Shanklin, S. L., Flint, K. H., . . . al, e. (2016). Sexual identity, sex of sexual contacts and health-related behaviors among students in Grades 9-12 – United States and Selected Sites, 2015. MMWR Surveill Summ.

Patterson, J. G., Jabson, J. M., & Bowen, D. J. (2017, April 1). Measuring sexual and gender minority populations in health surveillance. LGBT Health, 82-105.

UNESCO. (2015). From insult to inclusion: Asia-Pacific report on school bullying, violence and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. Paris and Bangkok: UNESCO.

UNESCO. (2016). Out in the open: Education sector responses to violence based on sexual orientation and gender identity/expression. Paris: UNESCO.

UNESCO. (2019). Behind the numbers: Ending school violence and bullying. Paris: UNESCO.

REFERENCE MADE TO UN AGENDA 2030 SDG 4.

https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Issues/SexualOrientation/Data/UNESCO.pdf

.https://www.cbsnews.com/news/world-health-organization-removes-gender-dysphoria-from-list-of-mental-illnesses/

29TH May 2019.. video World Health Assembly updated 25th May 2019 ICD-11 updated for 21st Century reflects critical advances in science and medicine. Is reframed as Gender Incongruence NOT Gender Identity Disorder as previous. Is described by a marked incongruence between an individuals experienced/ expressed gender and the assigned sex in pre-pubertal children.

https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Issues/SexualOrientation/Data/UNESCO.pdf 20 PAGES

 

 

...

WHAT IS THE GOVERNMENT HIDING THIS TIME ‘THERAPEUTICS PRODUCTS BILL’?

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 4th 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 4th 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 4th 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 4th 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 4th 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.

27th May 2022 -Currently a fourth dose is considered “off-label” Pfizer’s 4th 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.

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

...

THE GOVERNMENTS ZILCH TRANSPARENCY AS TO THE THERAPEUTIC PRODUCT BILL

FIRSTLY-TO MAKE MY CASE I WILL EXPLAIN WHAT AN ‘OFF LABEL MEDICINE ‘is, later you will find out why I am explaining this ‘An Off Label Medicine is an unapproved drug can be used under certain regulations, legislations.

Under Sect 23 of the Medicine Act 1981 this provides the Minister of Health to grant provisional consent when considered desirable for the medicines to be sold, supplied or used on a restricted basis (LIMITED BASIS) for the treatment of a LIMITED number of patients (People)

June 12th 2015 The National Library Of Medicine published an article ‘Off-Label drug use as a consent and health regulation issue in New Zealand. ‘Off Label’ described as not yet approved or the status of drugs that have been approved

The NZ Medicines Act 1981 specifically allows for off-label drug use, however this authority is limited-Code of Health & Disability Services Consumers Rights Regulations and Common Law state:- It is required that ‘off-label’ drug use is of an acceptable standard, the patient should be fully informed, the patient must give informed consent.

Off Label drug use is an extremely important issue, the current law provides medical practitioner very wide discretionary power without providing classification for what is required of the practitioner in exercising this discretion ’off label’.

SO WHAT HAS THE NZ GOVTS THEREPEUTIC PRODUCTS BILL  GOT TO DO WITH THE REPLACING OF THE MEDICINES ACT WITH ‘OFF LABEL’ MEDICINE?

The Government had unsuccessfully introduced policy proposals for the Therapeutic Content proposals  back in 2011 and 2016. In 2019 the Therapeutic Product proposal was back on the governments table. “Iwi/Maori natural medicines would be exempted from the Therapeutic Product proposal”

A Med-Safe Report in May 2022 refers to the Medicine Act being replaced with the Therapeutic Products Bill to allow for ‘Off Label’ Medicines Chris Hipkins the COVID19 Response Minister and Andrew Little Minister Of Health where the Director General has the ability to make decisions regarding the administration of the COVID19 jabs, the dose and the frequency as the pandemic developed whilst being outside of the established Medsafe Regulations- medicine process.

A legal base for the provision of the medicines process of any further doses of COVID19 Vaccines (Jabs) including Pfizer’s 4th doses. The 4th dose had not yet been approved by Med-Safe. The government had recommended that Maori and Pacifika peoples over the age of 50 who are immune-compromised can receive the 4th Pfizer dose before winter 2022.  NO public consultation was undertaken as to the governments proposal, however the 4th dose was consistently promoted by mainstream media.

Ministry of Health reported that Pfizer have not yet applied for approval of 4th dose in NZ, that local jurisdictions have to find their own approval strategies.

2.The Ministry of Health reported as to Maori, Pacific peoples health- cannot be overstated as to the impact of COVID19 that there is a time pressure to maximize immunity when winter illnesses are at their peak. (Specific targeting of Maori and Pacific Island peoples for COVID19 jabs -guineapigs) saying “It would be ideal to enable the broader doses of4th Pfizer doses. Opportunities to administer flu and COVID 19 jabs at the same time.

 To provide their populations with 4th doses, but they had to find their own legal route.. However Standing Orders cannot be made for an unconsented medicine (A new medicine), this undermines the purpose and consents process under the 1981 Medicines Act

NOTE: Under the Medicines Act 1981 ‘Off Label’ – number of people receiving doses of ‘unapproved Med-Safe medicines are limited. Pfizer COVID19 dose 4 was unapproved and therefore limited as to how many New Zealanders could receive it.

The government ‘WITH URGENCY’ introduced new arrangements, they  were implemented to amend the Medicine Act introduced 7th June 2022, passed in mid June- recommended by Andrew Little that the Ministry Of Health would be responsible for the implementation of the 4th dose of Pfizer, utilizing all existing delivery settings, processes & technology that has been used previously for the COVID19 rollout.

Ministry Of Health to monitors new data collection. Andrew Little Minister Of Health will administer the application of the Medicines Act 1981 to ensure ‘off-label’ medicines eg COVID19 Pfizer 4th Dose practices.( Ria-moh-amat-may.22.pdf)

In a Court hearing-Judge Rebecca Ellis stated when referring of ‘off label’ medicine, “a limited number of people  specified for in Section 23 Medicines Act 1981. This could NOT be stretched to the whole population over 16years old” Andrew Littles response to Judge Ellis was “I will fix the snag” (Intro to the Therapeutic Product Bill)

RNZ reported 18/5/2021 ‘Technical Anomaly Spurs Urgent Law Change for COVID 19 Vaccine. Government URGENTLY’ seek a change of law to ensure COVID19 Vax rollout is LEGAL following the High Court decision of Judge Rebecca Ellis. Judge Ellis ruled it was ‘reasonably argued, that the governments approval of Pfizer vaccine rollout went beyond the Medicines Act 1981 allowed” . This gave  Andrew Little the right to approve medicines for a limited number of patients. However the COVID 19 Vaccine rollout would cover all New Zealanders over the age of 16years. THUS NOT LIMITED AS IN MEDICINE ACT 1981

Chris Hipkins response to Judge Ellis was “this raises no safety issues, it just highlighted a technical anomaly as to the law. NOTE THE GOVERNMENT WAS TECHNICALLY BREAKING THE LAW. AND THEY NEEDED TO COVER THEIR ARSES.

Andrew Little again responded to Judge Ellis “The government will pass legislation under URGENCY to rectify the problems ( THERAPEUTICS PRODUCTS BILL- This will most definitely be passed to save Governments arses)

Six products are potentially affected by Judge Ellis court decision these include Pfizer Vaccines, 2 Flu Vaccines and 2 types of contraceptives and an electrolyte solution

3.On the 30November 2022 the Therapeutic Product Bill was officially introduced by Andrew Little to the House (Parliament). He describes this in his speech in the Beehive “To modernize the way medicines, medical devices (includes COVID Test Kits) and Natural Health products are regulated. Strict rigorous regulations on natural health products eg. Vit C, Vit D etc., etc., you can buy at the supermarket.

The Therapeutic Product Bill if passed replaces the Medicines Act 1981 and the Dietary Supplement Regulation 1985 with one comprehensive  regulatory regime. Andrew Little stated “FIT FOR THE FUTURE’. Enables NZ to take advantages of advances in medicine -gene therapies, AI and machine learning software also vaccines for pandemics. The Therapeutic Product Bill legislation will work alongside, contribute to ‘Pae Ora Health Futures Act’

David Seymour said “Medsafe tended to approve drugs that were approved elsewhere in the world saying “Well, has Medsafe ever declines to approve a drug that the rest of the world is safe”. David Seymour was supporting replacing the Medicine Act 1981 with the Therapeutic Product legislation. He also stated  “the Court were right to uphold the law, however he backs the law change to replace the Medicine Act with the Therapeutic Product Legislation.

As to Judge Rebecca Ellis court outcome David Seymour said “the Court were right to uphold the law, however he backs the law change to replace the Medicine Act with the Therapeutic Product Legislation. National Party COVID19 Minister Chris Bishop said to reporters that National Party support the law change.  .

RNZ Reported 18/5/2021. Technical Anomaly spurs Urgent Law Change. Government urgently seek a change in law to ensure COVID19 Vaccine rollout is LEGAL following a High Court decision. Judge Rebecca Ellis ruled “it was reasonably argued that the government approval of Pfizer Vaccine rollout went beyond the Medicine Act 1981.

NOTE: The Medicine Act 1981 only gave the government the right to approve a limited number of patients, whereas the COVID19 Vaccine Rollout covered everyone in NZ over 16years of age. There are be legal enforcement includes, huge fines, court hearings etc., for those who do not comply to the Therapeutics Legislation (announced Beehive)

SO BASICALLY—THE THERAPEUTICS PRODUCT BILL IS TO SEVERELY RESTRICT  NEW ZEALANDERS ABILITY TO PURCHASE NATURAL HEALTH REMEDIES. FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO COVER ITS ARSE FOR CRIMINALLY BREAKING THE MEDICINES ACT 1981 BY REPLACING THE MEDICINES ACT WITH THE THEREUPEUTIC PRODUCT BILL TO PROMOTE JABS FOR PANDEMICS, MORE HUMAN TRIAL GUINEAPIGS. THE ADVANCEMENT USE OF AI AND GENETIC CELL ADVANCEMENT TRIALS AND DRUGS.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25096169/

https://i.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300310925/government-to-introduce-a-new-law-for-vaccine-after-legal-challenge

https://www.medsafe.govt.nz/COVID-19/status-of-applications-asp-ria-moh/amat-may22.pdf

 

...

A ONE HEALTH GLOBAL HEALTH GOVERNANCE

The World Health Assembly (UN) Review Committee on the International Health Regulations 2005 have  been busy putting together proposals for an International  Pandemic Treaty. Helen Clark is a co chair of the Review Committee.  The WHO (UN) International Health Regulations 2005 are binding and lawful in 196 countries includes 194 UN Nation States.  If the proposals as to amendments to the WHO International Health Regulations are introduced they will come into effect immediately and be lawfully binding.  Such provisions shall become effective from the date of receipt of the notification by the Secretary General of the United Nations.

The WHO International Pandemic Treaty  violates the normal process for ratifications of Treaties under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

Please click on the link within the above image which will take you to my rumble video on this huge concern which will effect all of us.

...