13th September 2007 under the labour Government they were totally opposed to the UNDRIP for the following reasons. But  for all these reasons that all these reasons why they rejected it, they are now supporting it, and promoting it.

In 2010 John Keys under a veil of secrecy arranged for Pita Sharples co leader of the Maori party to go to New York UN Assembly to be a representative of NZ where he adopted the UNDRIP.  The following is what he agreed upon on behalf of the peoples of New Zealand, which of course they did not even know about until after the dirty deed was done.

Iwi/Maori to have  Veto Rights over others. Control of NZ’s Natural Resources. Veto rights over the laws of Parliament. Two classes of citizenship. The UNDRIP was not compliant with the Treaty. Iwi/Maori  would have own  the entire lands of NZ, that others already legally own. The rights to redress lands (compensation) for the entire lands of New Zealand.

It was said by Rosemary Banks that represented New Zealand at the UN in 2007 that the UNDRIP is seen by others attending the UN Assembly as a document of Aspiration not a legal document to be acted upon.

He Puapua report that was commissioned by Ardern’s Cabinet in 2019. This is the action plan which includes the UNDRIP which is the hugely controversial undemocratic  Co-governance of New Zealand.

Researched By Carol Sakey

...

‘The Te Tiriti o Waitangi did not create Partnerships nor Principles’

Nothing in this ACT shall permit the Crown to act in a manner that is inconsistent with the Principles of the Treaty. First tie the Principles of the Treaty had been documented) There are NO Principles in the Treaty Of Waitangi 1840.

1985 Treaty of Waitangi Amendment Act. While the 1975 Treaty of Waitangi Act was about the settlement of historical grievances, the 1985 Amendment Act was a very different matter. The recognition of iwi-Māori rather than pan-Māori as the inheritors of Treaty settlements established the reviving tribe as both political player and economic corporation.

1985 Amendment Act, Deputy Prime Minister Geoffrey Palmer agreed to Sir Hepi Te Heuheu’s request to insert the clause “Nothing in this Act shall permit the Crown to act in a manner that is inconsistent with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi” into Section 9 of the State-owned Enterprises Act 1986. This is the first reference in legislation or policy to the principles of the Treaty – indeed, the first indication that the Treaty has principles. Parliament did not define the principles — an unconscionable failure which opened the way for the courts and government officials to determine what is probably one of the most important political events of the 20th century. Treaty principles, including that of partnership, now appear in almost all legislation.

1987 Court of Appeal decision stating that the Treaty established a relationship “akin to a partnership”. Although the judges likened it to the obligation partners in a partnership had they did not say that the Treaty actually created a partnership. Nor did it. However, “partnership” was quickly picked up by the Waitangi Tribunal and by the 1987 Iwi Leaders’ Forum. From that time this powerful interest group has achieved enormous success in claiming constitutional change and ownership rights. “Partnership” is the justification. The possibility that the He Puapua Report will be implemented either in full or modified form demonstrates the group’s success to date.

https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/m%C3%A2ori-party%E2%80%99s-head-clouds-over-non-binding-un-declaration Horomia speech

https://www.landcareresearch.co.nz/assets/Publications/Ecosystem-services-in-New-Zealand/2_3_Christie.pdf

. https://www.treasury.govt.nz/sites/default/files/2013-07/ltfs-13-bg-nrs.pdf  37 pages pdf

https://www.beehive.govt.nz/sites/default/files/2017-12/Natural%20Resources.pdf

https://www.tearawhiti.govt.nz/assets/Tools-and-Resources/Providing-for-the-Treaty-of-Waitangi-in-legislation.pdf

 

...

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 12^th 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 4^th doses. The 4^th 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 4^th Pfizer dose before winter 2022.  NO public consultation was undertaken as to the governments proposal, however the 4^th dose was consistently promoted by mainstream media.

Ministry of Health reported that Pfizer have not yet applied for approval of 4^th 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 4^th 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 7^th June 2022, passed in mid June- recommended by Andrew Little that the Ministry Of Health would be responsible for the implementation of the 4^th 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 4^th 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

 

...

Conflicts Of Interest In Clinical Trial: 

References Clinical Trial 30^th December 2020. Efficacy and Safety of the mRNA Sars Cov-2 Vaccine.  Vaccines are needed to prevent coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) and to protect persons who are at high risk for complications. The mRNA-1273 vaccine is a lipid nanoparticle-encapsulated mRNA-based vaccine that encodes the prefusion stabilized full-length spike protein of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus that causes Covid-19.

The Conflict Of Interest Statement Kicks In: However the researchers then stated serious adverse events were rare as to the conclusion of their study. However it is important to note that there was a conflict of interest statement the researched study was funded by the NHI to conduct clinical trials in collaboration with Janssen and Moderna. Receiving grant support from Pfizer, Merck, Pasteur, Eli Lilly. Consulting fees were funded by Horizon Pharma and GSK for fees on data monitoring,. Dr Bennet who was involved in the study owning stock and stock options in Moderna, Dr, Pajor another person involved in research owing stocked and being employed by Moderna, other doctors working in the research study too owned stock in Moderna and employed by Moderna.

Research finds COVID-19 Spike Protein binds to cells in the heart and couls help explain some effects of severe infection (28/08/2021). The Spike Protein found on the surface of COVID 19 virus cells causes damage to cells in the small blood vessels of the heart, according to early findings presented at the European Society of Cardiology Congress.

Researchers from the University of Bristol have found that, in cells in a dish in the lab, the spike protein binds to cells called pericytes which line the small vessels of the heart. This binding triggers a cascade of changes which disrupt normal cell function, and can lead to the release of chemicals that cause inflammation. This happened even when the protein was no longer attached to the virus. There is some previous evidence to suggest that following Covid-19 illness, the spike protein can remain in the bloodstream after the virus has gone and travel far from the site of infection. This research could help explain and ultimately treat some of the effects of severe Covid-19 infection, where levels of the virus are particularly high.

Research has shown that vaccination is a safe and effective way of reducing your risk of severe Covid infection, so is the best thing you can do to reduce your risk of Covid-19 complications, including heart damage. Researchers took small vessel cells from the heart and exposed them to the spike protein. They found that the spike protein alone was enough to disrupt normal cell function, and lead to the release of chemicals that cause inflammation.

They then blocked the CD147 receptor and found that this prevented the spike protein from causing some of the changes to the cells. However, the inflammation continued. Now the researchers hope to find out if a drug blocking CD147 in humans can help to protect people from some of the complications arising from Covid-19. Professor James Leiper, Associate Medical Director at British Heart Foundation, which funded the research, said: “Covid-19 has presented an unprecedented challenge for the cardiovascular research community. There is still a lot that is unknown relating to how the virus can impact our health in the long term

PLEASE  CLICK ON THE LINK PROVIDED WITHIN THE IMAGE ABOVE TO VIEW MY RUMBLE VIDEO ‘ NZ GOVERNMENT WAS PUT ON NOTICE ‘HOMICIDE’ AND IGNORES THE CRIMES ACT 158′

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33378609/

https://www.bhf.org.uk/what-we-do/news-from-the-bhf/news-archive/2021/august/covid-19-spike-protein-binds-to-and-changes-cells-in-the-heart

 

 

...