CONCERNS ABOUT THE DANGERS OF GENETICALLY MODIFIED (GM) FOOD: Include the potential for new Allergens or Toxins to be created, unexpected Genetic Changes, and a decrease in Biodiversity.. Where some animal studies have suggested potential links to Health Problems like- Organ Damage * Immune Issues-.

SAFETY CONCERNS AND RSOME REVIEWS ‘ IT’S A MIXED BAG’ OF UNCERTAINITIES:  Some Reviews of GM Crops conclude they are generally safe. These concerns still remain and also other  concerns that  involve the Impact of Herbicide used on GM Crops and the possibility of less nutritious food and also Social Issues such as Corporate Control Over Seeds.

POTENTIAL HEALTH DANGERS:- Allergenicity and toxicity: There is a concern that introducing new genes could create new allergens or toxins in the food.  *Antibiotic resistance: Some GM crops use antibiotic resistance genes during the development process, raising concerns about contributing to antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

NUTRITIONAL CHANGES: Some studies suggest that GM foods may be less nutritious or have other undesirable nutritional changes.  *Animal study findings: Some animal studies have reported potential adverse health effects, such as organ abnormalities, immune system problems, and infertility.

POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL DANGERS: Biodiversity: The widespread use of a few GM crops could lead to a decrease in crop biodiversity.  *Herbicide use: GM crops are often engineered to be resistant to specific herbicides, which can lead to increased herbicide use. The health effects of these herbicides, such as glyphosate, are a separate area of concern.

CORPORATE CONTROL (CAPTURE)  A significant social concern is that a few large companies own the patents for GM seeds, which can lead to a monopoly on the food supply and impact family farmers who cannot save seeds for replanting.

NEW UNEXPECTED EFFECTS AND HEALTH RISKS POSED BY GENETIC ENGINEERING: -Toxicity. Genetically engineered foods are inherently unstable.  *Allergic Reactions. … *Antibiotic Resistance. …*Immuno-suppression. …*Cancer. …*Loss of Nutrition

CHANGES IN HUMAN DNA: Research in 2009. Some Food Scientists noted that food DNA can survive as far as the gut, there have been concerns that this could affect the immune system. Others have also raised fears that eating GMO Foods could lead to Genetic changes in Humans

OPPOSITION TO GMO IN OTHER COUNTRIES ARE DUE AN EXTREMELY BROAD FIELD OF NUMEROUS RISKS: Which includes food safety and quality, health, the environment, the economy, society, biodiversity, geopolitics, ethics, and so on.

CONSUMERS HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING WHAT FOODS ARE GENETICALLY ENGINEERED BECAUSE THE US FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION (FDA) Does not require the labelling of these products. They do not require any pre market Safety Testing of GE Foods. The Agency’s failure to Require Testing or Labeling of GE Foods has made millions of Consumers into Guinea Pigs…

THE FDA RESPONSE TO A LAWSUIT FILED BY THE CENTER FOR FOOD SAFETY: In 1998: Admitted in court that it had made  “no dispositive scientific findings,”  whatsoever about the Safety of Genetically Engineered Foods.

THE FDA HAVE GIVEN THE BIO-TECH INDUSTRY: Carte -blanche to Produce and Market any number of Genetically Engineered Foods they like without Mandatory Agency oversight or Safety Testing & without showing Scientific evidence these foods are safe to consume

SIX POTENTIAL HUMAN HEALTH CONCERNS:  G E Foods are different from other foods.  For the first time Foreign Genes  *Bacterial & Viral Vectors * Viral Promoters & Antibiotic Marker Systems  are engineered into Food.  These Genetic ‘cassettes’ are new to the Human Diet & should be subject to extensive safety testing.

1992 FDA RULES FOR GENETIC ENGINEERING WAS  WITHOUT ANY  SCIENTIFIC BASES: Stated that Genetically Engineered Foods present no different risks than Traditional Foods FDAs own scientists ridicules this unscientific agency view of genetic engineering. Where were the Scientific elements in FDA’s document? There were none. However FDA Scientists consistently state that “there is a profound difference between the  types of foods”. No difference between the types of unexpected affects from  Traditional Breeding & Genetic Breeding. (The Difference was never addressed)

What are the new “Unexpected Effects” and Health Risks posed by Genetic Engineering?  Toxicity  *. Allergic Reactions * Antibiotic Resistance  *Immuno-suppression  *. Cancer . Loss of Nutrition (LINK https://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/issues/311/ge-foods/ge-food-and-your-health)

WakeUpNZ.. RESEARCHER: Cassie

Doctor John Campbell’s interview with Dr Panageis December 5^th 2025.  Exposing Dr Panageis Study and ‘The  All Cause Of Mortality’ in the Italian Region of Emilia-Romagna.  As to the cases of hospitalizations, infections, deaths occurring within a certain  ‘Window’ after the 1^st Dose of the jab were often allocated to the ‘Unvaccinated Group’ Therefore artificially increased the mortality rate in the vaxed group (reducing this in the vaxed group). Leading to an overestimation of vax effectiveness. (Of  course this will be called misinformation/ disinformation of Anti vaxers)

This article referred to was received 26/6/2025 (Art 2562972) Accepted 7/9/2025 and Published Online 3^rd November 2025 – Includes Real World Studies

References are made to the COVID 19 Vaccine effectiveness and the  ‘Suffering from Biases’- the ‘Distorting’ of  Results and the correcting of ‘Immortal Time Bias’s  as to All Deaths of the Vaccinated compared to the Unvaccinated. Thus  highlighting the  so called ‘Case Counting Window Bias’ of the Vaccinated  and  the Non-Vaccinated Recipients. And the  distorting  of the validity of results. Dr Panageis called the Statistical Trick. Technically speaking this is a case of the  ‘Counting Window Bias’

Where collected Data concerns as to the entire population of the Italian region in question (Both sexes and All Ages) and  ‘Daily All Cause Deaths’  for each age class from 27^th December 2020 (Launch of the COVID 19 Jab) in Italy to the 31^st December 2021. (Data was publicly available, updated monthly on the ISTAT Website, released under Creative Commons – 4.0 License). This consisted of a database with the Date of Birth *Date of All Causes of Death * Dates of each Vaccine  Event of those receiving at least their 1^st Jab ( Then calculating the daily number of deaths of vaxed people for each Age Class, and then the Unvaccinated  for each Age Class of the Population in question (The Italian Region)

Dr Panegeis explained that In the first 14days in this ‘Time Window’ all ‘Vaccinated People’ were considered as ‘Unvaccinated’ . Thus it was considered ‘Unvaccinated’ people were effected by adverse reactions. Those individuals (Groups) with infections and hospitalizations were moved to that group of the ‘Unvaccinated’ Group.. this then created an artificial increase in death rate of the unvaccinated that had actually been ‘Vaccinated’.

Individuals were counted as Unvaccinated (not as being vaccinated) . The Vaccinated individuals would be counted as Unvaccinated  hence the  death rate of the (artificial) Unvaccinated individuals (group) would be much higher… And the death rate in the (artificial)  Vaccinated group  would look much lower.                                       Therefore making the COVID 19 Jab look more effective and safe. It is also seen as if the Death Rates goes down in the (artificial) Vaccinated group and in the (artificial) Unvaccinated group increases.(goes up)

Data was obtained on December 2023 by Lawyer Lorenzo Melacarne, whom submitted a request for access to public documents for the Emilia-Romagna Region in Italy. Which allowed the following information to be disclosed publicly (The Data of Covid 19 Vaccinated mortality data containing the dates of the 1^st  and 2^nd Vaccination and further vaccine doses received by recipients.

This  Data was used to identify the Vaccinated and Unvaccinated  people that were considered Vaccinated. Those that did and did not receive vaccines                                         The only age groups  studied were the 50 to 59 yr aged group  *60-69  aged group and the  70 to 79 age group  were analyzed.

Time windows were as follows:-   70–79 age group, the start of the time window was set for March 15, 2021 and the end for May 24, 2021;

* 60–69 age group, the start of the time window was set for April 19, 2021 and the end for June 23, 2021;

*50–59 age group, the start of the time window was set for May 7, 2021 and the end for July 12^th 2021.

Dr Panageis had already partaken in a study on ‘Systemic Absorption of the Lipid Nano Particles’ that would take RNA all around the body. Stating that the Spike Protein could be expressed on cells all around the body hence damaging cells throughout the body. Dr Panageis said that this was always predictable that the lipid nano particles would do as he had predicted himself some time ago

This Study by Dr Panageis certainly makes you wonder if all ages etc. have been part of this – across All Nations worldwide were part of this what would be the true (factual) deaths in reality of the Vaccinated Recipients?  .. Using this Italian Study of  ‘Suffering from Biases’- the ‘Distorting’ of  Results and the  ‘Immortal Time Bias’s  as to ‘All Deaths of the (artificial) Vaccinated’ compared to the (artificial) ‘Unvaccinated’… The highlighted  ‘Case Counting Window Bias’ of the Vaccinated  and  the Non-Vaccinated Recipients. The Distortions and Invalidity of Results (The Statistical Trick). I have shared the links below:-

WakeUpNZ

RESEARCHER: Cassie

LINKS  (https://youtu.be/3bWJEFZEsko?si=EKCMN-dS10Omj2Pr)

(https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08916934.2025.2562972#d1e716)

Classification bias and impact of COVID-19 vaccination on all-cause mortality: the case of the Italian region Emilia-Romagna *Marco Alessandria *,  *Giovanni Trambusti  * Giovanni Maria Malatesta  *Panagis Polykretis

(https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08916934.2025.2562972).

The UNDRIP adopted under a Veil Of Secrecy at the UN in 2010. However in 2007 NZ Govt objected to the UNDRIP for very good reasons namely it gave Iwi/Maori Veto Rights other NZrs do not have. Control – Management of all Natural Resources * Incompatible with NZ’s Constitutional Arrangements – 2 Classes of Citizenship.,

There is no Single Universal Agreed Upon Definition of the coined phrase ‘Indigenous People’ The Core Principles of the UNDRIP (UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples) Focuses on – Indigenous Peoples being that of ‘Self Identification’. An affirming Right to Self Identification. The UNDRIP is a Declaration of Aspiration (Non Legally Binding officially classified as Soft Law).. An International ‘Cooperative’ framework  (Soft Law) for Managing  International Migration whilst fostering global cooperation.

The UN Global Compact Of Migration (Non-Legally Binding) Classified officially as Soft Law. The UNGCM was Winston Peters Portfolio. It was adopted in December 2018. Crown Law made a point of stating that the UNGCM is Non-Binding (Did not make the public of NZ aware that there would be ongoing Reviews at a Global and Regional Level.  (Don’t Worry Be Happy its Non Legally Binding)

BUT. ACT Party David Seymour and Mark Cameron publicly reported they had some real concerns about the Govt adopting the UNGCM. Namely- (The Compromising of NZs Sovereignty * NZs ability to determine its own Immigration Policy * That this should be a matter for Sovereign States themselves                                    *The UNGCM could Impact on Freedom Of Speech and National Values.

Foreign Affairs Spokesman Todd McClay’s article in the Spinoff 11/12/2018 states “The UN Compact is riddles with Problems *Is Ill-suited for NZs shaping sensible Policy * Signing the UN GCM whether a Declaration * Agreement or a Compact- this is a serious decision that affects our Country. We should not take this lightly.. We do not thinks we should sign this at all”

He added “Countries should only sign the UNGCM if they are committed to putting it in place (the terms of the document that they are signing). Those governments that don’t sign the document – won’t lose face internationally. (Such as the 3 Party Coalition more recently will not rid itself of the UNDRIP because of losing Face on the International Stage)

Todd McClay stating that NZ’s own Courts maybe more willing to uphold the commitments to the UNGCM than National Party is. Saying that National does not believe Migration Policy should be governed by a UN Migration Governance, but solely by Sovereign States themselves. As the highly circumstantial nature of Migration makes it a difficult Poly area to apply a ‘Global Framework to’- Outside the basic Tenants of Human Rights. Therefore National stated they oppose the UNGCM. Having even more specific concerns about it.

. Each country must respond dynamically to the circumstances it finds itself in. The highly circumstantial nature of migration makes it a difficult policy area to apply a global framework to, outside of the basic tenants of human rights. For that reason alone we felt justified in our position to oppose this agreement, though as I will outline here, we have more specific concerns with this agreement as well.

Todd McClay stated “Kiwi’s have a good basis to consider ourselves Good Global Citizens when it comes to Immigration. Encouraging talent to move to our country, welcoming those who come here to call NZ ‘Our Home’. National remains committed to that principle” He said. Adding that National will not be a party that goes to Election calling for a dramatic reduction of migrants, or calling for discriminatory policies or banning people from Housing Market based on the sound of their name”

He added that the UNGCM does not make us better Global Citizens or create migration policies. It’s a Non-binding – non entity that will have no effect, therefore should not be signed. At the worst it will move NZ towards a Global Standard For Migration that does not Reflect the True Circumstances countries find themselves in, therefore the UNGCM should not be signed

THE UNGCM outlines 23 Principles of Action * Calling on Countries to Commit to Policies that Uphold these Principles. McClay stated that National believe that Migration is not well suited to a UN Framework. *As each country has individual contexts – circumstances * its impossible to form Principles to suit all of them * This would increase * Unintended consequence Eg:- “we do not want to face the pressures that we are seeing in countries like Australia & the US or Europe”

Remember -This is an International UN  Non Legally Binding Document but Todd McLay reports that there are emerging issues in this UN Migration Compact *The Failure to Distinguish between Legal & Illegal Migration *Specifics around what looks likely to amount to ‘Free Expression Limitations’ * The lack of Awareness of the ‘finely tuned Immigration settings of Individual countries

UN GCM Objective 17 – Calls for a Commitment to Eliminate Discrimination towards Migrants (Whan could be possibly wrong with that?). The document explains types of Policies that could be used to do this which includes ‘Sensitizing & Educating Media Professionals on Migration Related Issues & Terminology * Stopping allocation of Public Funding or Material Support to Media Outlets that systematically promote Intolerance’ (Eeem  at the same time the documents states ‘we must respect the Freedom of the Media’ (Double Speak)

Restricting speech * Refusing to support Media based reporting – that’s limitations of Basic Rights.  The commitments of the UNGCM do not match the specific Policy Settings and Values of Individual countries. (The State calling for defunding of the Media as being intolerant-Freedom Of Press (Freedom Of Speech Violation) Winston Peters pointed out after seeking advice from Crown Law – ‘The text is Non-binding and affirms National Sovereignty’

But if the UNGCM is simply worth nothing in terms of legal force- why would you be bothered to even engage with it? Because the Non-Legally Binding UNGCM Classified as Soft Law) is designed to have an effect. Other Non-Legally Binding UN Documents have already been imported into NZ Domestic Legislation (Legally Binding) -Waiting in a place called Soft Law ready to be embedded into Hard Law (Legislation-Legally Binding-Hard Law)

Into the Courts as the Govt is committed to acting consistently with these Non Legally Binding -Soft Law  Documents). The UN DRIP (UN Declaration on the Rights For Indigenous People. Adopted by Peta Sharples collaborated with John Key under a veil of secrecy went to the UN and signed it). This was meant to be simple  ‘affirming a set of Principles” But “Has crept into the way we actually now ‘Interpret Law In NZ”

Don’t Worry Be Happy- Its OK- Its Non-Legally Binding. (Its sits in a place called ‘Soft Law’. That can easily be embedded into Hard Law Legislation (Domestic Laws without the public knowing it). Soft Law ‘ A Toolkit of Policy Options for UN Member States to choose from. Works alongside existing Legally Binding Treaties (Like Human Rights Conventions) Provides a comprehensive framework for filling gaps where Legislations are weak or unratified. Depends on the reliance of Political Will

Aims to establish common principles, strengthen Existing International Norms (Even without Direct Legal Force) * Has the Potential to Influence International Migration Policies in UN Member Nation States. Peters did not tell the public of NZ that there would be Sub-Regional Regional and International Reviews of the UNGCM by the UN with UN Member State leaders. High Level International Meetings at the UN Assembly. with Heads of States. (The next global review is in 2026)..Last year NZ Government introduced the Mass Migration Management Act. To expand the time for Courts and Immigration Services for a Mass Migration Entry into NZ.

Non-Binding UN International Agreements (Sit in Soft Law). What should we be-aware of when it comes to Soft Law? (1) These are referred to as Non-binding by nature = Declarations * Codes of Conduct * Guidelines * Resolutions . These lack Direct Legal Force but Carry Political Weight and Influence… Includes Standards * Guides for Behaviors * Indicate Future Legal Development * Fostering Global (International )Cooperation

Soft Law Influences Domestic Laws, whilst Non-Binding can influence NZ Legislation & Policy requiring careful considerations by Policy Decision Making.                               Non Legally Binding (Namely Quasi Binding). NZ has used terms like Quasi Binding as to International Binding  Agreements. Suggesting a Blend of Legally Binding and Non-Legally Binding elements that require Legal interpretation

Soft Law is a Bridge to Hard Law (Non legally binding to Legally Binding Law-Legislation). NZ supporting Multilateralism therefore recognizes the Value of Soft Law in protecting shared Global Interests (Eg Environmentalist-Climate Actions etc.,). In essence Soft Law Instruments though not directly enforceable as is in International Treaties – Soft Law is seen by the State as crucial in ‘Shaping NZs International Commitments & Domestic Policies that demands care & legal political consideration.

The Govt downplays ‘Non-Binding’ Agreements to the public of NZ. Avoiding Accountability  *Non Transparency. * By-passing rigorous Domestic Scrutiny & Approval Processes. (Out of the Public Eye). Greater Executive dominance & Loss of Public Transparency. Soft Law Obligations are of significant importance to the State’s Practice in Policy making decisions. But Soft Law eludes public debate. * Can be ignored by Parliament thus managing Public Perception. What the Eye don’t See and Public Ears don’t Hear the Heart does Not Grieve Over. Soft Law offers greater flexibility without rigid Legal Constraints

Constructive Silence and downplaying the Publics significance and deviating from an Agreed Upon Path. Soft Law Non-Binding International Agreements are Pervasive in Modern International Relations. But Formal  International Binding Instruments  (Legally Binding) are more difficult to achieve. UN Member States are more likely to adopt Non-Binding International Agreements.(That do not need lengthy Domestic Ratification). Common Standards of Non-Binding agreement often eventually harden into Formal Domestic Laws.

Non-Binding (Soft Law)  Can by-pass Parliamentary approval. (Eg. the Secret adoption of the UNDRIP Key * Sharples 2010). Undermines Democratic Influences. Keeping important issues of concern out of the Public Eye.   This is the  Un-Masking of what the State does not make public about International UN  Non-Binding Agreements.

FOOD FOR THOUGHT: The Non-Legally Binding UNGCM. Submission to Select Committee opposing this . As a speaker several times in Aotea Square opposing the UNGCM. Brought Police Camera’s to my face. Police Officers shouting at me- To Go Home Now. Police at the door. With a Warning Letter ‘Do Not Speak” Do Not Attend A Protest opposing UNGCM’ To Not arrange A Protest. .

Would not accept the warning letter which they dropped at my feet. Went to the Protest the nest day  (Eeem – Why So worried- It’s a Non-Legally Binding Migration Compact) Parliamentary Office stopped adding names to my Parliamentary submission of those that signed it. Response ‘A Computer Glitch’

WakeUpNZ

RESEARCHER: Cassie

Created a dangerous separatists State of the Nation causing a deep divide in NZ Society. Tribal totalitarian oppression, a reinvested part of re-story telling’s and re-imaginings of tribes of long ago that were holier than thou. That only lived on the shored of harbours lake, fished and hunted wild pig., as they take the guts out of the real history of the sub-tribes, tribalism in New Zealand. Indigenous (COP 29 UN IPCC Climate Activism) Indigenous Peoples are at the center are leaders of Climate Activism. It’s a trade off that suits the Iwi Elite very well, as they support, promote the UN/WEF Global Agenda 2030 transformation goals of our world, with their VPN Report to the UN IPCCC.

The self obsessed, self interested Iwi/Elite, striving for control, veto rights of all government legislations and local government natural resource regulations.  The striving for tribal control to serve one sector of those with Maori ancestry above other people with Maori and Non-Maori ancestry.. Bicultural strategies, tactics that exist in the public service, local and central government, mainstream media, the justice system (judicial), in academia and now in University Law Schools the mandatory teaching of Tikanga Maori. No wonder democracy is dead. No wonder Democratic Righjts do not exist for all people only a certain revolutionary few. Race based Law, Race based Education, Race Based Health, Race Based Language. New Zealand embedded with Race Based Ideologies and Race Based Politics. The Treaty Of Waitangi is now being majorly  called and publicized as Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Te Pati Maori are demanding their own government, the veto of all legislation and the control, management of all natural resources in New Zealand (UNDRIP- Vision 2040)

Replacing our Constitutional Arrangements embedding the UNDRIP and Agenda 2030 (UN) Global Goals. (Korero Constitution Convention-Auckland University). As Claire Charters an influential member of the Iwi National Chairs Forum partners the NZ Human Rights Commission. Claire Charters that meets with the United Nations requesting that they enact on this embedding of the UNDRIP into our Constitutional Arrangements. (Claire Charters Indigenous Studies Auckland University) The Treaty of Waitangi has been severely corrupted., with that corruption written into legislation. Biculturalism is the hand that fits the glove of a two tier society,  a two classes of citizenship, one having more superior rights than another.

Dr Robinson has set out a prescription to restore democracy and enable New Zealand to become a ‘decent society’: “All reference to Maori in law must go. There should be no Maori seats and wards; all should vote together on a common roll. The completely compromised Treaty of Waitangi must be removed from all legislation, and the Waitangi Tribunal closed down immediately by government, which has that power – and that responsibility.”. 13^th September 2007 The NZ Labour Led Government objected to the UNDRIP for very good reasons, but then they changed their mind and did an about turn about John Key made a deal with Pita Sharples Minister of the Maori Party where under a veil of secrecy he went to the UN and signed the UNDRIP.

In 2005 Labour Party changed the Law so tribal elite business corporations could register as charities, avoid paying tax, even though benefits went to hapu/ whanau instead of the wider community. 2023 (TDB Advisory Report) The Iwi Rich Elite shows that Ngai Tahu and Tainui are  valued at $2.2 billion each, Auckland’s Ngati Whatua is worth $1.6 billion, Ngati Toa $795 million, Tuhoe $406 million, Ngati Porou $298 million, Ruakawa $238 million, Ngati Awa $180 million, Ngati Pahauwera $101 million, and Ngapuhi, which is still to negotiate a treaty settlement, $88 million. It was the National Govt of 2011 that gave tribal leaders the ownership of the Foreshore and Seabed. Labour in 2020 adopted the blueprint for tribal control of New Zealand by 2030 (He Puapua and Vision 2040). He Puapua-Co-governance framework, a partnership with Iwi leaders which was set up bey Maori Crown Relations- Te Puni Kokiri Maori Development (Govt). Bicultural Two classes of Citizenship with Iwi Elite having superior rights over everyone else. (State  funded biculturalism). Race based privilege, tribal takeover Te Pati Maori ambition even radicalizing children to take time of school to join the Hikoi to Parliament. UNICEF submitting an objection to the Select Committee on The Treaty Principles Bill as this violates the rights of so called ‘Indigenous Children’.

Lets see how the Three Party Coalition handles this and the mandatory Tikanga Maori in every category of  Law Practice. After all its Parliament that established Laws, legislations not Judges, but one must wonder as it appears the judicial have much more power than ever before to determine what is Law and what is not law and the interpretation of that. As the Supreme Court has now got before it a case involving a representative of the Iwi National Chairs Forum taking several commercial businesses to court because their actions allowed man made climate change seriously affect Whanau/ Iwi/Hapu, therefore the highest court in the land had already predetermined that Tikanga Maori would  play a part within Common Law. (Certain Iwi/Maori must be in the Court to assist the interpretation of Tikanga Maori for the purpose of legal interpretation).

WakeUpNZ

RESEARCHER: Carol Sakey (Cassie)

REFERENCE: NZ Herald Elizabeth Rata  2013 https://www.nzherald.co.nz/kahu/elizabeth-rata-tribalism-democracy-incompatible/TBJE44I26HYNCV3O6VYFZ4UBC4/