Otago University Prof David Murdoch spoke about the concept of the One Health Approach, saying this is going to be sooner than you think, this One Health  Approach to Disease surveillance. Describing this as an integrated, unifying approach for people, animals and eco-systems.

An ecosystem is a geographic area where plants, animals, and other organisms, as well as weather and landscape, work together to form a bubble of life. This is how the academics, government explain eco-systems to a child “An ecosystem is made up of the interaction of all living organisms (like animals, plants, and bugs) in an area with all of the non-living organisms (like water, dirt, rocks, and the sun).

Academics, Governments, NGO and corporate ventures etc., are using a ‘One Health Approach to ward of any future threats (ANY). So, academics are saying ““Increased urbanization, overcrowded living conditions, increased global migration, and the increasing push of humans into animal habitat has created an environment that promotes the transmission of infections and made the COVID-19 pandemic possible.”. BUT  this is what they are promoting the future slums of called Smart Cities. C40 Cities with mass migration entrenched into urbanization. (Reference Mayor Migration Declarations- Mayors Migration Council- Mayors Mitigation with C40 Cities).  Auckland has won a C40 Award for their acceleration and promotion of the 100 city C40 City Network under Phil Goff which was resigned before the new mayor took over. (Wayne Brown).

C40 Cities network Dietary Plan-Plant Based Foods targeting farmers within highly populated areas. No Farmers No Food.. ah well eat tree’s and beetle bugs this is barking up the wrong tree so to speak.

Professor David Murdoch says “COVID-19 has thrust into focus the impact of humanity’s changing relationship with the environment”. In other words the ‘One Health Approach’. NO SURPRISES HERE:- Prof David Murdoch Otago University Flagship Research Council of New Zealand  funded by ..Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance- Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation – Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment

The Lancet One Health Commission called for transdisciplinary collaboration promoting and generating solutions to complex health challenges. COVID19 Pandemic recognizes the fundamental connectedness of humans, animals and the whole eco system.   CRISIS  CRISIS   CRISIS   CONTROL EVERYTHING

Of course, if you do not oppose the concept of a One Health Approach this equates to ‘Silence is Consent’

RESEARCHED BY Carol Sakey

https://www.otago.ac.nz/hekitenga/2020/otago742802.html

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