CONNECTING THHE DOTS TO THE ‘GLOBAL RESPONSE’

Governments have given billions of taxpayer money to Gates and the World Economic Forum. In 2019 before COVID19 was introduced to the world the UN and WEF officially committed to a partnership arrangement.

On May 4, the EU and several European governments held a Covid 19 donor conference and pledged 7.4 billion euros of tax money. The money will be given to organizations funded by Bill Gates and the World Economic Forum in a non-transparent way. For a long time, Gates had to give money to the UN and governments to be allowed to co-govern the world. Now he is given money by governments for his global governance work.
Only two days earlier the G20 group of the most important industrial nations let the World Economic Forum, i.e. ultimately by Silicon Valley companies, draw up their digital strategy for “the pandemic and beyond”. How the future will be determined as to compliance to a One Global Public-Private Corporate Governance.
The German government explained information as to the ‘Global Response’ initiative to combat the corona virus, through a press release.
24 April 2020, the Gates Foundation launched an initiative less than 2 weeks later that the EU and Governments are holding a Donar Conference to contribute 7.4 billion Eros.

On 24 April, the Gates Foundation launched an initiative and less than two weeks later the EU and governments are holding a donor conference to contribute 7.4 billion euros. This response time is extraordinarily short.
In 2018, GPMB was founded by the World Health Organization (WHO), which has the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation as one of its largest funders, and the World Bank, which is cooperating closely with the Gates Foundation in various bodies including the ‘Better Than Cash Alliance’. Chris Elais the president of the Gates foundation is a member of the GPMB Board of directors.

Taxpayers’ money, ordered indirectly by the Gates Foundation is to be distributed to various Gates-funded organizations to be passed on to big pharmaceutical companies that comply with the philosophy of Bill Gates and the World Economic Forum.
Much of the money raised will be given to the World Health Organization (WHO), the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization (GAVI) and the Coalition for Epidemic Prevention Innovation (CEPI) to invigorate their capabilities.

GAVI provides immunisation in developing countries. Main financiers are the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the World Bank and the WHO.
CEPI is an offspring of the 2017 Davos meeting ot the World Economic Forum, the club of the largest multinational corporations.
Gates Foundation, founding members are the WHO, significantly financed by Gates, and the EU Commission, delegating one member to the Board of Directors.
Apart from CEPI, Unitaid and the Global Fund are reported as recipients in various media. Unitaid is a WHO-based fund, co-funded by the Gates Foundation.
The purchasing of large quantities of drugs at discount prices for people in poor countries, then forwarding those drugs to partner organizations to ensure they are only used in the target countries. Implementation partners include Gates Foundation, Clinton Foundation and GAVI
Unitaid supports pharmaceutical companies’ profit maximizing strategy.

Under the aegis of WHO, The Global Fund was established by money from the Gates Foundation, however now its manly financed by UN Nation Governments.
What do all these Gates-funded and co-run institutions do? Among other things, they write reports that are most interesting by what they leave out.
WHO, Gates Foundation happen to be part of organizing or taking part in the Corona Pandemic Simulation Exercise Event 201 in October 2019.

The Global Preparedness Monitoring Board (GPMB) is an independent group of global leaders that have recently called for a renewed global social contract laying out six solutions for what they call a ‘safer world’, in their annual report which are in the Strategic Plan 2021-2023. Other publications are ‘A World without Disorder, A world prepared and the latest being ‘The window of opportunity for ending this pandemic and preventing the next is closing rapidly’ and other reports.

TAKE NOTE: The co-chairs of GPMB, El hadj As Sy and Gro Brundtland. El hadj AS Sy is the Chair of George Soros’ Open Society Initiative for West Africa. Gro Brundtland is former Director General of WHO, who also has connections to Soros. She was also Vice President of the World Socialist Party. Co-convened by the Director-General of the World Health Organization and the President of the World Bank , the GPMB is comprised of political leaders, agency principals and world-class experts.
Dr. Anthony Fauci is listed on the Board of Directors of the Global Preparedness Monitoring Board (GPMB)

...

UN World Health Org (WHO) Blog Posts View all Categories

FACE YOUR FEARS – OTHERWISE THEY STOP YOU FROM LIVING YOUR DREAMS

Fyodor Dostoyevsky once wrote, “avoid fear, though fear is simply the consequence of every lie.” You must face your fears, otherwise they will hold you back from reaching your dreams.

Its easy to take liberty for granted when you have never had it taken away from you

My IRISH blood of my father runs through my veins as I quote – Patrick Pearse “You cannot conquer Ireland. You cannot extinguish the Irish passion for freedom. If our deed has not been sufficient to win freedom, then our children will win by a better deed.” May I add, you cannot conquer New Zealand, you cannot extinguish New Zealanders passion for freedom. The number 8 fence wire kicks in.

Groundswell NZs requested a meeting with Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern but it had been declined. The group held its ‘Howl of A Protest’ in July, and it estimated 60,000 people drove tractors, trucks and utes down main streets in more than 50 locations throughout the country. On Sunday November 21st 2021 farmers nationwide are again protesting. I pray that millions of people country-wide support them.

The World Economic Forum and the United Nations signed an official partnersip on June 13th 2019 prior to COVID19. This is a global public / private one world corporate governance. A preplanned action to accelerated UN Agenda 2030’s 17 sustainable global development goals, to leave no-one behind.
17 out of 17 goals relate to Climate Alarmism. Replacing livestock with crops, lab manufactured meat, foods and even the talk of cricket farms..the lunacy continues, consequently te farmers are suffering as this insanity insist and persists.

14 of the UN/WEF global development goals relate to vaccines (UN global strategy of vaccines 2011-2010) Leave no-one behhind.. everyone, everywhere at every age. 2020- 2030 The Decade Of Vaccines, leave no-one beind, everyone, everywhere at every age.

Climate Alarmism and the global strateggy of vaccines to leave no-one behind are tools of fear to take total control of every being, human or not on this planet.

WEF – The World Economic Forum represents Big Pharma, Big Tech, Bayer-Monsanto etc., and multistakerholder greedy capitalist corporations. NZ Goverment has welcomed this and promoted it. This is the destruction not only of small businesses and traditional farming in New Zealand but \it amount to slavery and tyranny on a ggrand scale that affects everyones life. Ardern in hher VPN to the UN in September 2019 has boasted shhe as entered UN Agenda 2030 into NZ Policies. That she indeed will lead the world, be the first, show other UN Nations the way. New Zealanders are livin in very dangerous times.

The government keep on lying, suicides are increasing especially amongst the farming community and the construction industry.

Whoever conrols the land, controls the people, controls the country and controls the planet.. we the people are but just human capital, like lambs are you prepared to go to the slaughter.

NZ Farmers are the backbone of New Zealand. I urge you to get out, protest cupport the farmers on sunday November 21st 2021. The Mother of ALL Protests Nationwide.

Please find a list of support links for those who feel they are not coping with this mental, emotional stress:-
Need help now? Call 0800 111 315 MATES in Construction

Home

Rural Support Trust Helpline: 0800 787 254 –

Farmstrong https://farmstrong.co.nz/

Rural Support Network 0800 787 254

24/7 Helpline |0800 LIFELINE (0800 54 33 54) or free text HELP (4357)
Suicide Crisis Helpline | 0508 TAUTOKO (0508 82 88 65)

Brendon Smith
Phone:(09) 525 1690 Mobile: 021892980
Email:[email protected]

24/7 Helpline |0800 LIFELINE (0800 54 33 54) or free text HELP
(4357)

Suicide Crisis Helpline | 0508 TAUTOKO (0508 82 88 65)

Life Matters [email protected]

Youth Line 0800 376 633. Free Text 234

MAN ALIVE 0800 826 367

NOTE: PLEASE CLICK ON THE ARROW ABOVE TO TAKE YOU TO FURTHER INFORMATION ON MY RUMBLE VIDEO
(If you have not signed up to my website please sign up now and share my website link with your friends, family..thank you )

...

SUPPORT OUR NEW ZEALAND MIDWIVES

REFERENCE TO:- https://voicesforfreedom.co.nz/blog/post/midwives-challenge-legality-vaccination-order

New Zealand Midwives are challenging the government legality of the vax order.
Voices for Freedom are doing are wonderful job. Tahnk you.
A big thank you to those wonderful midwives too for having the courage to make NZ Government accountable for their insanity, demands on immunizations. (Human Experiments) T

27 October 2021, media release…..Midwives Challenging Legality of Vaccination Order…
Late on Friday 22 October 2021, the Minister of COVID-19 Response issued an order which amended the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Vaccinations) Order 2021. That order was purportedly made under the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020. It now specifies that, unless midwives submit to receiving a COVID-19 vaccination by 15 November 2021, they will lose their livelihoods and their vocation.

The order now applies to most workers in the health and disability sector, as well as prisons, schools and early childhood services.

The New Zealand Midwives’ Collective is a group of midwives from around New Zealand who have come together to oppose mandatory vaccination and uphold the right to informed choice and consent. On Monday a small group of midwives filed an application on behalf of the Collective, asking the High Court to declare the vaccination order invalid.

The basis for this challenge is that midwives, like all New Zealanders, have a right guaranteed under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 to refuse medical treatment that they do not want, whether or not anyone else agrees with their reasons for doing so. It is about the personal autonomy that we all enjoy over our bodies. If the Government wants to limit that right, it cannot do that in a regulation made under the authority of a general provision in a statute. On at least two occasions this year alone, the Supreme Court has held that “Parliament cannot abridge fundamental rights and freedoms by general or ambiguous words”. That is what has been done here and it is an affront to New Zealand’s constitutional norms.

The New Zealand Midwives Collective strongly opposes any restrictions being placed upon informed consent – a fundamental principle of midwifery in our country. They believe this is detrimental to the profession and a dangerous precedent that will adversely impact the rights of birthing families. Since the Cartwright Inquiry, it is a line that has not been crossed in health care and has been enshrined in law by the Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers’ Rights.

Informed consent, by definition, must acknowledge not only the benefits, but also any risks or alternatives. By definition, it also must be free from the threat of being denied the right to work as a midwife. The Collective says that there is an opportunity to open a solution-based paradigm, investigating legitimate alternatives and controls that have

been used successfully internationally. They do not agree that vaccination is the only answer.

The Collective understands that between 200 and 300 New Zealand midwives will decline the COVID-19 vaccination. That accounts for between 8 and 10% of all practicing midwives. If the order is not struck down, these midwives will be required to stop work on 15 November 2021. The Collective says:

“Our maternity system is already desperately short of midwives but the Government has continued to ignore our pleas to make urgent changes. There are already significant midwifery roster gaps within the DHBs. The decision to mandate this COVID-19 vaccine and the subsequent reduction in hospital midwife numbers will further increase the current workforce pressure for employed midwives and make it unsafe for the mothers and families for whom they care.”

It has been suggested that, if midwives who are Lead Maternity Carers (LMC) are unable to practice, the DHBs as the providers of last resort will have to ensure that maternity services continue to be provided safely to expectant mothers who can no longer access an LMC. The Collective questions whether there is a realistic contingency plan to cope with this shortfall. The irony is that the healthcare outcomes for mothers and babies which result from the Vaccination Order may be worse than those from which it is intended to shield New Zealanders.

The Collective says:-
“We are standing up to protect the rights of women. Our profession will always draw a line when it comes to informed consent and bodily autonomy. This is a not just a midwifery issue, this is a human issue, a feminist issue and a civil rights issue. All birthing women have the right to have bodily autonomy respected and midwives are the safeguards of that. It is a grossly hypocritical demand from our government, and our professional and statutory bodies, to expect us to surrender this right. Midwives are the guardians of this right for women around pregnancy, birth and postpartum. We are midwives, supporting midwives to have the same rights as the women for whom we care.”

This statement has been authorised for release by the New Zealand Midwives’ Collective, represented by the applicants in CIV 2021-485-584 F v Minister for COVID-19 Response.

For further details, please contact Christopher Griggs on (04) 914 1053

...

DECLARATION OF HELSINKI (The World Medical Association)

These are the primary principles of the Helsinki Declaration:-
The basic principles include respect for individuals, the right to make informed decisions, recognition of vulnerable groups, and more. The Declaration of Helsinki has been revised six times, in 1975, 1983, 1989, 1996, 2000, and 2008.

The four basic principles of research are classified as autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice.

THE PREAMBLE: The World Medical Association (WMA) has developed the Declaration of Helsinki as a statement of ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects, including research on identifiable human material and data.

The Declaration of Helsinki is consistent with the mandate of the WMA, the Declaration is addressed primarily to physicians. The WMA encourages others who are involved in medical research involving human subjects to adopt these principles.

GENERAL PRINCIPLES: -The Declaration of Geneva of the WMA binds the physician with the words, “The health of my patient will be my first consideration,” and the International Code of Medical Ethics declares that, “A physician shall act in the patient’s best interest when providing medical care.”
It is the duty of the physician to promote and safeguard the health, well-being and rights of patients, including those who are involved in medical research. The physician’s knowledge and conscience are dedicated to the fulfilment of this duty.

Medical progress is based on research that ultimately must include studies involving human subjects.
The primary purpose of medical research involving human subjects is to understand the causes, development and effects of diseases and improve preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic interventions (methods, procedures and treatments). Even the best proven interventions must be evaluated continually through research for their safety, effectiveness, efficiency, accessibility and quality.

Medical research is subject to ethical standards that promote and ensure respect for all human subjects and protect their health and rights. While the primary purpose of medical research is to generate new knowledge, this goal can never take precedence over the rights and interests of individual research subjects.
It is the duty of physicians who are involved in medical research to protect the life, health, dignity, integrity, right to self-determination, privacy, and confidentiality of personal information of research subjects. The responsibility for the protection of research subjects must always rest with the physician or other health care professionals and never with the research subjects, even though they have given consent.

Physicians must consider the ethical, legal and regulatory norms and standards for research involving human subjects in their own countries as well as applicable international norms and standards. No national or international ethical, legal or regulatory requirement should reduce or eliminate any of the protections for research subjects set forth in this Declaration.
Medical research should be conducted in a manner that minimises possible harm to the environment.

Medical research involving human subjects must be conducted only by individuals with the appropriate ethics and scientific education, training and qualifications. Research on patients or healthy volunteers requires the supervision of a competent and appropriately qualified physician or other health care professional.
Groups that are underrepresented in medical research should be provided appropriate access to participation in research.

Physicians who combine medical research with medical care should involve their patients in research only to the extent that this is justified by its potential preventive, diagnostic or therapeutic value and if the physician has good reason to believe that participation in the research study will not adversely affect the health of the patients who serve as research subjects
Appropriate compensation and treatment for subjects who are harmed as a result of participating in research must be ensured.

RISKS, BENEFITS AND BURDENS:- In medical practice and in medical research, most interventions involve risks and burdens. Medical research involving human subjects may only be conducted if the importance of the objective outweighs the risks and burdens to the research subjects.
All medical research involving human subjects must be preceded by careful assessment of predictable risks and burdens to the individuals and groups involved in the research in comparison with foreseeable benefits to them and to other individuals or groups affected by the condition under investigation.

Measures to minimise the risks must be implemented. The risks must be continuously monitored, assessed and documented by the researcher.
Physicians may not be involved in a research study involving human subjects unless they are confident that the risks have been adequately assessed and can be satisfactorily managed.
When the risks are found to outweigh the potential benefits or when there is conclusive proof of definitive outcomes, physicians must assess whether to continue, modify or immediately stop the study.

VUNERABLE GROUPS AND INDIVIDUALS:- Some groups and individuals are particularly vulnerable and may have an increased likelihood of being wronged or of incurring additional harm. All vulnerable groups and individuals should receive specifically considered protection.
Medical research with a vulnerable group is only justified if the research is responsive to the health needs or priorities of this group and the research cannot be carried out in a non-vulnerable group. In addition, this group should stand to benefit from the knowledge, practices or interventions that result from the research.

SCIENTIFIC REQUIREMENTS AND RESEARCH PROTOCOLS: – Medical research involving human subjects must conform to generally accepted scientific principles, be based on a thorough knowledge of the scientific literature, other relevant sources of information, and adequate laboratory and, as appropriate, animal experimentation. The welfare of animals used for research must be respected.
The design and performance of each research study involving human subjects must be clearly described and justified in a research protocol.
The protocol should contain a statement of the ethical considerations involved and should indicate how the principles in this Declaration have been addressed. The protocol should include information regarding funding, sponsors, institutional affiliations, potential conflicts of interest, incentives for subjects and information regarding provisions for treating and/or compensating subjects who are harmed as a consequence of participation in the research study.

In clinical trials, the protocol must also describe appropriate arrangements for post-trial provisions.
RESEARCH ETHIC COMMITTEE’S:- The research protocol must be submitted for consideration, comment, guidance and approval to the concerned research ethics committee before the study begins. This committee must be transparent in its functioning, must be independent of the researcher, the sponsor and any other undue influence and must be duly qualified. It must take into consideration the laws and regulations of the country or countries in which the research is to be performed as well as applicable international norms and standards but these must not be allowed to reduce or eliminate any of the protections for research subjects set forth in this Declaration.

The committee must have the right to monitor ongoing studies. The researcher must provide monitoring information to the committee, especially information about any serious adverse events. No amendment to the protocol may be made without consideration and approval by the committee. After the end of the study, the researchers must submit a final report to the committee containing a summary of the study’s findings and conclusions.

PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTIALITY:- Every precaution must be taken to protect the privacy of research subjects and the confidentiality of their personal information.
INFORMED CONSENT: Participation by individuals capable of giving informed consent as subjects in medical research must be voluntary. Although it may be appropriate to consult family members or community leaders, no individual capable of giving informed consent may be enrolled in a research study unless he or she freely agrees.

In medical research involving human subjects capable of giving informed consent, each potential subject must be adequately informed of the aims, methods, sources of funding, any possible conflicts of interest, institutional affiliations of the researcher, the anticipated benefits and potential risks of the study and the discomfort it may entail, post-study provisions and any other relevant aspects of the study. The potential subject must be informed of the right to refuse to participate in the study or to withdraw consent to participate at any time without reprisal. Special attention should be given to the specific information needs of individual potential subjects as well as to the methods used to deliver the information.

After ensuring that the potential subject has understood the information, the physician or another appropriately qualified individual must then seek the potential subject’s freely-given informed consent, preferably in writing. If the consent cannot be expressed in writing, the non-written consent must be formally documented and witnessed.

All medical research subjects should be given the option of being informed about the general outcome and results of the study.

When seeking informed consent for participation in a research study the physician must be particularly cautious if the potential subject is in a dependent relationship with the physician or may consent under duress. In such situations the informed consent must be sought by an appropriately qualified individual who is completely independent of this relationship.
For a potential research subject who is incapable of giving informed consent, the physician must seek informed consent from the legally authorised representative. These individuals must not be included in a research study that has no likelihood of benefit for them unless it is intended to promote the health of the group represented by the potential subject, the research cannot instead be performed with persons capable of providing informed consent, and the research entails only minimal risk and minimal burden.

When a potential research subject who is deemed incapable of giving informed consent is able to give assent to decisions about participation in research, the physician must seek that assent in addition to the consent of the legally authorised representative. The potential subject’s dissent should be respected.

Research involving subjects who are physically or mentally incapable of giving consent, for example, unconscious patients, may be done only if the physical or mental condition that prevents giving informed consent is a necessary characteristic of the research group. In such circumstances the physician must seek informed consent from the legally authorised representative. If no such representative is available and if the research cannot be delayed, the study may proceed without informed consent provided that the specific reasons for involving subjects with a condition that renders them unable to give informed consent have been stated in the research protocol and the study has been approved by a research ethics committee. Consent to remain in the research must be obtained as soon as possible from the subject or a legally authorised representative.

The physician must fully inform the patient which aspects of their care are related to the research. The refusal of a patient to participate in a study or the patient’s decision to withdraw from the study must never adversely affect the patient-physician relationship.

For medical research using identifiable human material or data, such as research on material or data contained in biobanks or similar repositories, physicians must seek informed consent for its collection, storage and/or reuse. There may be exceptional situations where consent would be impossible or impracticable to obtain for such research. In such situations the research may be done only after consideration and approval of a research ethics committee.

USE OF PLACEBO:- The benefits, risks, burdens and effectiveness of a new intervention must be tested against those of the best proven intervention(s), except in the following circumstances:
Where no proven intervention exists, the use of placebo, or no intervention, is acceptable; or
Where for compelling and scientifically sound methodological reasons the use of any intervention less effective than the best proven one, the use of placebo, or no intervention is necessary to determine the efficacy or safety of an intervention and the patients who receive any intervention less effective than the best proven one, placebo, or no intervention will not be subject to additional risks of serious or irreversible harm as a result of not receiving the best proven intervention. Extreme care must be taken to avoid abuse of this option

POST TRIAL PROVISIONS:- In advance of a clinical trial, sponsors, researchers and host country governments should make provisions for post-trial access for all participants who still need an intervention identified as beneficial in the trial. This information must also be disclosed to participants during the informed consent process.

RESEARCH REGISTRATION AND PUBLICATION AND DISSEMINATION OF RESULTS:- Every research study involving human subjects must be registered in a publicly accessible database before recruitment of the first subject.
Researchers, authors, sponsors, editors and publishers all have ethical obligations with regard to the publication and dissemination of the results of research. Researchers have a duty to make publicly available the results of their research on human subjects and are accountable for the completeness and accuracy of their reports. All parties should adhere to accepted guidelines for ethical reporting. Negative and inconclusive as well as positive results must be published or otherwise made publicly available. Sources of funding, institutional affiliations and conflicts of interest must be declared in the publication. Reports of research not in accordance with the principles of this Declaration should not be accepted for publication.

UNPROVEN INTERVENTIONS IN CLINICAL PRACTICE:- In the treatment of an individual patient, where proven interventions do not exist or other known interventions have been ineffective, the physician, after seeking expert advice, with informed consent from the patient or a legally authorised representative, may use an unproven intervention if in the physician’s judgement it offers hope of saving life, re-establishing health or alleviating suffering. This intervention should subsequently be made the object of research, designed to evaluate its safety and efficacy. In all cases, new information must be recorded and, where appropriate, made publicly available.

PRIVACY & CONFIDENTILITY: Every precaution must be taken to protect the privacy of research subjects and the confidentiality of their personal information.
INFORMED CONSENT: Participation by individuals capable of giving informed consent as subjects in medical research must be voluntary. Although it may be appropriate to consult family members or community leaders, no individual capable of giving informed consent may be enrolled in a research study unless he or she freely agrees.

In medical research involving human subjects capable of giving informed consent, each potential subject must be adequately informed of the aims, methods, sources of funding, any possible conflicts of interest, institutional affiliations of the researcher, the anticipated benefits and potential risks of the study and the discomfort it may entail, post-study provisions and any other relevant aspects of the study. The potential subject must be informed of the right to refuse to participate in the study or to withdraw consent to participate at any time without reprisal. Special attention should be given to the specific information needs of individual potential subjects as well as to the methods used to deliver the information.
After ensuring that the potential subject has understood the information, the physician or another appropriately qualified individual must then seek the potential subject’s freely-given informed consent, preferably in writing. If the consent cannot be expressed in writing, the non-written consent must be formally documented and witnessed.
All medical research subjects should be given the option of being informed about the general outcome and results of the study.

When seeking informed consent for participation in a research study the physician must be particularly cautious if the potential subject is in a dependent relationship with the physician or may consent under duress. In such situations the informed consent must be sought by an appropriately qualified individual who is completely independent of this relationship.
For a potential research subject who is incapable of giving informed consent, the physician must seek informed consent from the legally authorised representative. These individuals must not be included in a research study that has no likelihood of benefit for them unless it is intended to promote the health of the group represented by the potential subject, the research cannot instead be performed with persons capable of providing informed consent, and the research entails only minimal risk and minimal burden. When a potential research subject who is deemed incapable of giving informed consent is able to give assent to decisions about participation in research, the physician must seek that assent in addition to the consent of the legally authorised representative. The potential subject’s dissent should be respected.

Research involving subjects who are physically or mentally incapable of giving consent, for example, unconscious patients, may be done only if the physical or mental condition that prevents giving informed consent is a necessary characteristic of the research group. In such circumstances the physician must seek informed consent from the legally authorised representative. If no such representative is available and if the research cannot be delayed, the study may proceed without informed consent provided that the specific reasons for involving subjects with a condition that renders them unable to give informed consent have been stated in the research protocol and the study has been approved by a research ethics committee. Consent to remain in the research must be obtained as soon as possible from the subject or a legally authorised representative.

The physician must fully inform the patient which aspects of their care are related to the research. The refusal of a patient to participate in a study or the patient’s decision to withdraw from the study must never adversely affect the patient-physician relationship.
For medical research using identifiable human material or data, such as research on material or data contained in biobanks or similar repositories, physicians must seek informed consent for its collection, storage and/or reuse. There may be exceptional situations where consent would be impossible or impracticable to obtain for such research. In such situations the research may be done only after consideration and approval of a research ethics committee.

(9TH July 2018)
Clinical Study, Ethics, Ethics Committee, Helsinki, Human Subjects, Medical Research, Patient Autonomy, Placebo, Post-Trial Access, Principle, Publication, Register, Review Committee, Risk Assessment, Subject Protection, Vulnerable Populations..WMA Declaration of Cordoba on Patient-Physician Relationship
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24141714/

WMA Declaration of Helsinki – Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects

...

A BRIEF HISTORY ON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY -UNDER COVID19, GOVERNMENTS HAVE MADE HUMAN CAPITAL A PROPERTY RIGHT OF UN NATION STATES.

Vaccines have a pitiful grubby history of how they become Intellectual Property. The World Trade Org., (UN) trade related Intellectual Property Rights agreement, this is an extremely undemocratic, an expression of ‘private- public global corporate power’.

Intellectual Property Rights are quite simply explained. If you possess a cow and some-one steals it, you have lost your cow, however if you discover a process to make that cows milk safer to drink, the possession of that knowledge does not reduce your store of it. Jefferson’s famous formulation: he who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me”.

The concept of Intellectual Property was resisted in Europe right into the 20th century as late as 1912. Rejecting Patents that they called a “free trade in inventions”. This was consistent with the liberal doctrine as they were suspicious of patents. The Economist advocated for the abolishment of the English patent system, that was before inventors established a right of property in their inventions. It was viewed that inventors ought to give up all the knowledge and assistance of their inventions, this was suggested in a magazine dated 1850….”That is impossible, and the impossibility shows that their minds and their inventions are, in fact, parts of the great mental whole of society, and that they had no right of property in their inventions”

The first patent system arrived in Elizabethan England not to ’drive innovation’ nut to limited Crown-dispensed monopolies. Actually, the hatred of these monopolies played a starring role in the American Revolution, where the leaders were opposed to patents. Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin thought patents as being impediments to progress. In fact the phrase Intellectual Property was coined in post revolutionary France to obscure the royal origins of monopoly, markets and theories did not fit into rights and property.

The word ‘Property’ itself had an unpleasant ring of ‘Privilege’. Patent was just an unaccepted theory and was very insincere, was viewed with suspicion. Then medicines started to be added to debates. Switzerland first became a pharmaceutical powerhouse, but did not add patents until 1977. Prior to the World Trade Org., (UN) in 1995 there was little power to enforce patents outside a country’s own borders.
Estes Kefauver was a Arkansas Democrat who oversaw an investigation into the post war pharmaceutical industry. He became focused on the industry’s business model, patents, cartel and monopoly pricing. Americans and other around the world then started making markups as high as 7000% on patented drugs, that were created using natural processed discovered in publicly funded labs.

Kefauver revealed that there was corruption and scandals related to the highest markups by Merck and Pfizer as they targeted middle class India and the Nehru Government responded with further investments in the country’s generics industry. In New Delhi they began drafting a new patent law to replace the British colonial regime that was still on their books.

The concept of intellectual property was resisted in Europe into the twentieth century. As late as 1912, Holland rejected patents and maintained what it called a “free trade in inventions.”. Merck CEO John O’Connor announced the patent law “A victory for Global Communism” From thence on, as time proceeded patents become increasing politicization of technology that the US Drug Industry took the lead in formulating the plan that culminated a quarter of a century later in the founding of the world Trade Organization of the United Nations.

In May 1974 a declaration was passed in the UN General Assembly calling for a ‘New International Economic Order’, a more equal distribution of global financial, natural knowledge resources that relates to human health. The UN Vision included a rejection of Intellectual Property as an illegitimate tool of the strongest against the week, a neo-colonial straw designed to continue siphoning wealth from the South to North.

In September 1978 Halfden Mahler a WHO (UN) Director General unveiled an agency program to help poor countries reduce their drug spending by building up their domestic drug industries this came about with the ‘Declaration of Alma-Ata’, to provide health for all by the year 2000. It was affirmed once again by the WHO (UN) that ‘health as being based on equity and social justice’

It is documented that the Alma Ata conference remained unfulfilled because of an obsessive revenge drive of a CEO of Pfizer in 1972, the year that India’s Patents Act entered into force. Developments threatened Pfizers ambitious plans for dominating global markets and agricultural products especially in Asia, however Pfizer lead an industry counter-attack against what is known as the G77. Pfizer’s patent lawyer launched infringement suits globally. In 1962 Pfizer sued the British Government after the National Health Service purchased an Italian generic version of Pfizer patented antibiotic, tetracycline.

Editorials documented that Pfizer owed its power to wartime contracts to produce penicillin which had been discovered and developed in Oxford that had left the public domain. British authorities have been in several legal conflicts with Pfizer. Over quite some time the N World Intellectual Property Org, (WIPO) oversaw the 1883 Paris convention for the protection of industry property.

Of course the Big Tech companies later became all part of the information economy with very powerful interests. In entertainment, software, biotech, agriculture and of course the pharmaceutical industry. Wealthy clubs and Regimes, groups were built around these big techs and big pharma industries.

Nations that refused to recognise the authority of the U S Patents Office were known as rogue nations. There was a tense worldwide struggle for technology supremacy. It was said “all freedom loving nations to get in line behind the proper enforcement and honourable treatment of intellectual property that singled out ‘computers, pharmaceuticals and telecommunication’ as area’s of knowledge being stolen by the denial of patent rights” It was also said that the their was a grab for high technology inventions for underdeveloped countries. Of course the UN and world Economic Forum now obsessively promote Pfizer patents and other Pharmaceutical Companies

Going back to the UN Marrakesh Conference on 15th April 1994, when 124 UN Member States signed the bringing of the World Trade Org., (UN) into existence. A treaty was signed “ a new era of global economic cooperation reflecting the widespread desire to operate in a fairer and more open multilateral trading system for the benefit and welfare of their peoples.” In return for enforcing Western patents on medicines and other technologies, G77 nations were promised access to northern rich markets, and a conditional “freedom from fear”

And hear we are today people ravaged with fear as a global experiment knocks on everyone’s door, as governments demand us all to be human guinea pigs to the pharmaceutical companies, for in New Zealand Pfizer.

BELOW ARE JUST A FEW OF THE LAWSUITS AGAINST PFIZER:-
CNBC report on 16/12/2020 that Pfizer or Moderns under the PREP Act are devoid of being sued if any person has adverse reactions from COVID19 Injections. The Government is not likely to compensate you for damages.

25/06/2019 — Pfizer and its subsidiary Pharmacia & Upjohn Company paid $2.3bn to settle criminal and civil liabilities for illegal promotion of their …

Pfizer lawsuit (re administration of experimental drug in …https://www.business-humanrights.org › latest-news › p…
In a separate action, the Nigerian federal government filed suit against Pfizer and several of its employees in June 2007 seeking nearly $7 billion in …

Pfizer recalls all lots of anti-smoking drug over … – Reuters
https://www.reuters.com › healthcare-pharmaceuticals › pf…16/09/2021 — Pfizer Inc said on Thursday it was recalling all lots of its anti-smoking treatment, Chantix, due to high levels of cancer-causing agents …

Laws suits refer to Pfizer’s Chantix having effects on peoples mental health, suicidal thoughts, depression and also causing suicides have been reported for many years. Chantix was approved by the FDA on the 5th October 2006 to help people quit smoking. There was a voluntary callback of Chantix by Pfizer in September 2021. It has taken 15 years to announce a voluntary call back of Chantix.

BENEFITS AND RISKS: Currently, the FDA tells patients that the benefit of using the voluntary recalled Chantix “is to keep on using it, the benfits outweigh the risks” The World Health Organization takes the same stance as FDA on the benefits and risks as FDA.

COVID19 Injections the same stance applies to the global human experiment of injections..The benefits verses the Risks. The benefits surely belong to the power and money hungry of this world.

PATENTS- INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS DO NOT PROTECT THE HUMAN LIVES OF BILLIONS OF PEOPLE WORLWIDE WHOSE GOVERNMENTS DEMAND THEY ARE HUMAN GUINEA -PIGS. THE DESENSITIZING AND DEHUMANIZATION OF HUMAN LIFE ITSELF.

...