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.

In our Official Information Act (OIA) request we asked the following question:
“Could a patient who is severely hospitalised with Covid-19 potential
ly be eligible for assisted suicide or euthanasia under the Act if a health practitioner viewed their prognosis as less than 6 months?”
There were several reasons why The Defender wanted to seek clarity from the MOH about this issue. One of those being the vague interpretation of what determines , qualifies as a ‘terminal illness’

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 hospitalisations could result in pressure to utilise euthanasia and assisted suicide as tools to resolve such a serious crisis.

Overseas commentators have raised the prospect of these kind of unethical motivations since early in this pandemic.

The Defender News Media have created a petition to Parliament calling to have David Seymour’s Euthanasia Act to be amended urgently (End Of Life Choice)
Ever since Seymour’s Bill (End Of Life Choice) was introduced to parliament I have had serious concerns about the dangerous concepts that exist within it. I view the word ‘Choice’ used within the title of the Act as being a psychological drawcard. Everyone’s loves a choice.

When members of Parliament voted as to this euthanasia Bill last year, under the veil of COVID19 it was not a party political vote, it was an individual vote. One of heart, emotions etc., I believe the facts as to the serious risks that could eventuate were not taken into consideration. And how many people would unnecessarily seek to prematurely end their lives due to serious circumstances that no health professional could ever know about. That no political act could regulate.

In my rumble video I explain in greater depth what I deem to be the dangerous concepts of Seymour’s Euthanasia, Assisted Suicide Act that became law last month (November 2021).

I also express my concern as to whether we the citizens of New Zealand under residing under an institutionalized state death cult, that has been introduced under the veil of COVID19.

PLEASE CLICK ON THE ARROW WITHIN THE IMAGE WHICH WILL TAKE YOU TO MY RUMBLE VIDEO WHERE I AIR MY SERIOUS CONCERNS AND THAT OF OTHERS.

IF YOU HAVE NOT SIGNED UP TO MY WEBSITE YET PLEASE DO SO NOW, THANK YOU.

INTERIM UPDATE JULY 2024- PAGE 125

SPECIAL POWERS TO USE FORCE ON LAW ABIDING CITIZENS OF NEW ZEALAND

SPECIAL POWERS: Special powers are authorized by the Minister of Health or by an Epidemic Notice – these apply where an emergency has been declared under the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act

THE POWER TO DETAIN: The power to detain, isolate, quarantined – allows a medical officer of health to ‘require persons’, places, buildings, ships, vehicles, aircraft, animals or things to be isolated, quarantined or disinfected (Section 70 (1)(f) Can enter your property without a Warrant.

THE POWER TO PRESCRIBE PREVENTIVE TREATMENT: Allows a Medical Officer of Health, in respect of any person who has been isolated or quarantined, to require people to remain where they are isolated, quarantined until they have been medically examined and found to be free from infectious disease, and until they have undergone such preventive treatment as the Medical Officer of Health as prescribed.

THE USE OF FORCE: Section 71A states that a member of the Police may do anything reasonable necessary (including the use of force) to help a Medical Officer of Health or any person authorized by the Medical Officer of Health in the exercise or performance of powers or functions under Sections 70 or 71

THE ONE HEALTH APPROACH: Has already been implemented, this is described as :- Humans, Animals- Wild and Domestic, Oceans, River waterways, soil, plants, tree’s, the whole world’s Eco-System is inter-connected. This is namely an ‘Earth System Governance’. A Global Environmental governance in times of turbulence to  create vast complex societies- globalized economies..corporate capture. (Earth systems are deeply connected)

THE MOBILIZING OF AN EARTH GOVERNANCE ALLIANCE: . This is at the forefront of moving towards the sustainable (Socialist Blueprint) global strategy the global transformation to leave no-one behind. Everyone, everywhere – at every age.

RESPONDING TO FUTURE PANDEMICS: The New Zealand Pandemic Plan sets out the health system strategy and framework for actions for preparing for and responding to future pandemics. It can be adopted and applied (with adaptations as necessary) to any pandemic event. It sets out the health system strategy and framework for actions in preparing for and responding to future pandemics. While the plan is focused on respiratory pathogens, such as influenza and COVID-19, it can be adopted and applied (with adaptations as necessary) to any pandemic, regardless of the nature of the pathogen and its severity. NOTE: REGARDLESS OF THE NATURE OF THE PATHOGEN AND ITS SEVERITY

A DEMOCRACY WITHOUT BORDERS: A Mega new campaign aims at strengthening the ‘Global Environmental Governance’ (The Global Order)  A meeting was held in Geneva on the March 26^th 2024 as to  Mobilizing an Earth Governance Alliance (MEGA) will serve as a platform to build a coalition of civil society organizations and like-minded states, along with legislators, experts, business actors and other stakeholders, who intend to work together in this field and amplify relevant initiatives. Climate Governance. MEGA Platforms. UN Member States at the Decision making table

Researcher Cassie

WakeUpNZ

WHERE ARE THE REPORTS ABOUT HEALTH AND SAFETY AS TO THE PUBLIC WEARING FACIAL MASKS DURING COVID AS A MANDATORY RESTRICTION??  ARE THEY SAFE????  WakeUpNZ..Carol Sakey

MAY 9TH 2023 A NEW STUDY SUGGESTS THAT EXCESS CARBON DIOXIDE BREATHED UIN BY MASK WEARERS CAN HAVE A MAJOR HEALTH CONSEQUENCES. Evidence continues to supports that mandating face mask wearing was one of those worst mandatory health restrictions made in modern history worldwide. The Cochrane Report referring to “probably makes little to no difference in prevention of the spread of viruses”. The report quantifying the harms caused by mask wearing. A new study in Germany referring to ‘excess carbon dioxide breathed in by mask wearers can have substantial ill effects on health, also referencing  pregnant women and their unborn children

It is reported that mask wearers breathe in greater amounts of air, without a mask on this would have been expelled out through the body, that ‘fresh air has around 0.04% CO@ whilst chronic exposure of CO2 levels of 0.3 percent is toxic’. So how much CO2 levels do face mask wearers breathe in is the question? The authors of the report state that ‘“masks bear a possible chronic exposure to low level carbon dioxide of 1.41–3.2% CO2 of the inhaled air in reliable human experiments’

This relates to 8 times the normal level of the CO2 is toxic, the research suggests that mask wearers, specifically those that wear masks longer than 5 minutes at a time are breathing in 35 to 80 times normal levels. The German study aimed to investigate the toxicological effects of face masks in terms of CO2 rebreathing on developing life, specifically for pregnant women and unborn children, children and adolescents. Despite low levels of risks of severe COVID effects on children they have also been subject to mandates, and there is evidence that masks do not work.

The authors of the Cochrane Report writes that  “at levels between 0.05% and 0.5% CO2,” one might experience an “increased heart rate, increased blood pressure and overall increased circulation with the symptoms of headache, fatigue, difficulty concentrating, dizziness, rhinitis, and dry cough.”

Rates above 0.5 percent can lead to “reduced cognitive performance, impaired decision-making and reduced speed of cognitive solutions.” Beyond 1 percent, “the harmful effects include respiratory acidosis, metabolic stress, increased blood flow and decreased exercise tolerance.” Again, mask-wearers are likely breathing in CO2 levels between 1.4 percent and 3.2 percent—well above any of these thresholds. What’s more, “Testes metabolism and cell respiration have been shown to be inhibited increasingly by rising levels of CO2.”

High blood pressure, reduced thinking ability, respiratory problems, and reproductive concerns are among the many possible results of effectively poisoning oneself by breathing in too much carbon dioxide. It is reported that “it is clear that carbon dioxide rebreathing, especially when using N95 masks, is above the 0.8% CO2 limit set by the US Navy to reduce the risk of stillbirths and birth defects on submarines with female personnel who may be pregnant.” In other words, mandates have forced pregnant women to wear masks resulting in levels of CO2 inhalation that would be prohibited if they were serving on a Navy submarine.

There exists “circumstantial evidence that popular mask use  may be related to the significant rise of 28% to 33% stillbirths worldwide. Also that of reduced verbal, motor, and overall cognitive performance of two full standard deviations in scores in children born during the pandemic.” Citing recent data from Australia which shows  that ‘lockdown restrictions and other measures (including masks that have been mandatory in Australia), in the absence of high rates of COVID-19 disease, were associated with a significant increase in stillborn births.” Meantime, “no increased risk of stillbirths was observed in Sweden,” which famously defied the public-health cabal and went its own way in setting Covid policies.

As for countries where mask-wearing has long been common, the authors write, “Even before the pandemic, in Asia the stillbirth rates have been significantly higher” than in Eurasia, Oceania, or North Africa. It has been also pointed out that this data has been known for 6o years. This is why the authors of this report write for the ‘Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)’, which is part of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), has CO2 threshold limits of 3 percent for 15 minutes and 0.5 percent for eight hours in workplace ambient air. Yet the CDC has been perhaps the primary pusher of masks in the United States.

The study focused only on CO2, but the authors note that “other noxious agents in the masks contribute to toxicological long-term effects like the inhalation of synthetic microfibers, carcinogenic compounds and volatile organic compounds.” They add that “the increased carbon dioxide content of the breathing air behind the mask may also lead to a displacement of oxygen.” Masks are also uncomfortable and unhygienic, and they profoundly compromise human social interaction.

Lets not forget how people catch viruses though their eyes and that’s a fact.

In light of all this, it seems indefensible to mandate—or even to advise—the wearing of masks, especially among the young. The authors write, “Keeping in mind the weak antiviral mask efficacy, the general trend of forcing mask mandates even for the vulnerable subgroups is not based on sound scientific evidence and not in line with the obligation in particular to protect born or unborn children from potential harmful influences.”

Public-health officials—and the executive-branch leaders who credulously listened to them—ignored centuries of Western norms, the best medical evidence, and common sense, deciding that their own novel and evidence-free course was the one that all of society should be forced to follow. We should never again indulge such an obvious and destructive misstep.

This Report was published by Jeffrey H. Anderson is president of the American Main Street Initiative, a think tank for everyday Americans. He served as director of the Bureau of Justice Statistics at the U.S. Department of Justice from 2017 to 2021.

Researched By Carol Sakey

WakeUpNZ

https://www.city-journal.org/article/the-harm-caused-by-masks