THE UNDERLYING REASON FOR TE PATI MAORI’S AGGRESSION

Since Anthropology emerged as a scientific discipline in the 19th Century the coined phrase Indigenous and Tribal Peoples have been a major focus. According to the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues there is reported to be 370 Million so called Indigenous people in 90 countries globally (Reported By the UN). Approx 70% live in Asia. There is reported to be 5,000 ethnic Cultures of Indigenous People

The Rights & Interests of so called Indigenous Peoples are recognized through various International Declarations Eg; 1989 Internation Labor Org., Convention (No 169) * 1992 UN Convention on Biological Diversity * 2007 UN Declaration On The Rights Of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) The UNDRIP covers Civil, * Political * Economic *Social * Cultural *Environmental Rights & Interests under International Law (Also Human Rights Laws)

The UNDRIP imposes Obligations , Commitments on UN Member States, Organizations & Inter-governmental bodies. Included is the International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs http://www.iwgia.org/culture-and-identity/ identification-of-indigenous-people)  Also a growing body of Human Rights Entities

The Diversity of Indigenous peoples was adopted by the UN System, where a modern understanding of this was utilized worldwide. The modern understanding of the coined phrase Indigenous Peoples met the following criteria by the UN as ‘Self-Identification ‘ *Historical continuity with Pre-colonial History and / or Pre-Settler Societies * Accepted by their Tribal Community  *Ancestral environment.  Indigenous Peoples were historically referred to as Tribal or Native Peoples

There is Official Universal definition of the coined phrase Indigenous Peoples in International Law. (UN). Although various UN Agencies and International NGOs- Corporations etc., with self interests also Central/Local Govts of UN Nations States have utilized the coined phrase Indigenous Peoples as to Regulations- Policies- Political and Monetary self -interests.

In the 1970’s the coined phrase was used as a way of linking experiences, issues, struggles of groups- ( De-Colonization). The first meeting of the UN Working Group of Indigenous Populations (WGP) took place 9/8/1982. Is now celebrated as the International Day of the Worlds Indigenous People. Again – No definition of Indigenous People was adopted by the UN Agency. The Secretariat of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous issues stated.

In the “concept of Indigenous Peoples the prevailing view today, is that there is No Formal Universal Definition on the term ‘Indigenous Peoples – given that a single definition will inevitably be with or with (over or under) inclusiveness- thus making sense in some societies but not in others”. However a number of UN Agencies have used the term Indigenous Peoples on Statements, coverages for certain International Agreements (But these are definitions used for particular reports)

Another example is that the Inter-American Commission On Human Rights doesn’t provide a definition of Indigenous Peoples, but have stated that ‘Self-identification’ as being a fundamental criteria’.  Manvir Singh an  Anthropologist states there’s a lack of coherence, inconsistencies  in which ethnic groups are called Indigenous or not. People argue the term. Have pressure put on them to self identify themselves as Indigenous People’. Thus erasing Identification. This varies from one country to another. Adding – There is no accepted Universal Definition of  the coined phrase Indigenous Peoples

The UN ILO International Labour Org., twice adopted definitions of Indigenous Peoples at their Conventions in 1957 & 1989. Only a few countries acknowledged it therefore could not be used in International Law. Only by the countries that adopted the definition. The World Bank  definition of Indigenous People is not Binding by International law as it is determined within Banks Operational Policies * Policy Guidelines. Documents and Agreements of ‘Good Faith’

UN Agenda 21 (1992) recognized the potential contribution in using the coined phrase Indigenous Peoples referring to Sustainable Development. The 2024 UN Biodiversity Conference (COP 16) UN Nation States agreed to a new permanent body for Indigenous Peoples. Which allows them to advise COP members on Biodiversity (An Indigenous worldview) on Sustainability.

From the UN 1993 World Conference on Human Rights- the  (UN Vienna Declaration ) was adopted- recognizing the culture of Indigenous Peoples. Described as a ‘Strong Commitment to – Economic *Social*Cultural Wellbeing. (The enjoyment of the Fruits of Sustainable Development)  9th August 1994 UN proclaimed as International Day of the Worlds Indigenous People (Their Rights & Interests) 1995 UN launched the Decade of the Worlds Indigenous Peoples. (UN Resolution 49/214) Furthering-Advancing the Global Agenda

The UN in 2021 referenced the UN Human Rights & Fundamental Freedoms of Indigenous Peoples. To be documented into International laws Namely ‘Under the Umbrella of Social Justice. Dystopia ‘ Some Animals have more rights than others.

Te Pati Maori’s strong connection to the UNDRIP (Universal Declaration on the Rights of Indifenous Peoples). First adopted on  13th September 2007  at the New York UN Assembly. It had taken 20 + years to draft. There was much debate and discussion during this time on the UNDRIP by the working group at the UN

. Te Pati Maori actively engage in the Principles of the UNDRIP (Seld Governance). With Te Tiriti o Waitangi committed to the UNDRIP. Several Kerero Constitutional Conventions held at Auckland University. Preplanning the embedding of the UNDRIP into NZs Constitutional Arrangements. The UNDRIP being a crucial tool for Iwi/Maori Self-Governance

Although NZ Rejected the UNDRIP in 2007 – John Key and Pita Sharples Deputy leader of the Maori Party made a deal. Under a veil of secrecy Pita Sharples attended the UN and adopted the UNDRIP for NZ. When John Key was asked by the secrecy his response was “I did not want to spoil Pita Sharples Thunder’. New Zealand’s have no say when it comes to the State adopting International Laws. NZ is a party to some 1900 International Agreements.

Although the UNDRIP is Non-Binding there is also a commitment, obligation to pursue it, implement it. Its not legally Legislative. Sit outside Hard Law  as a Soft Law, can be used– called upon- referenced by the Judicial. Unless it is embedded in NZ Domestic Laws its Non Binding. (But there are  serious implications when it comes to implementing the UNDRIP in NZ.

It all lies in the 2007 UNDRIP adoption in the New York UN Assembly where Rosemary Banks Representative of NZ shared with the assembly why NZ would not adopt it. Its extremely important to know why because this is the real reason for the Hikoi. For David Seymour being attacked. Spoiling Te Pati Maori and their activist collaborators thunder for their self interested preplanning for their future self  interests. (The reasons for the insame aggressive behavior in Parliament)

Lets get to the root of the course.. Firstly the UNDRIP adoption into legislation is crucial for the Self Governance of Iwi/Maori. UNDRIP is a crucial tool- a weapon of aggression… NZ * US * Canada * Australia did not ratify the Declaration at this time…Rosemary Banks was NZs Representative at the UN New York Assembly at the time.

She explained to the gathering why NZ would not sign the UNDRIP. (1) It gives Indigenous Peoples Control- ownership of Entire Lands of NZ (2) Did not take into account that people already legally-lawfully owned land (Had Property Rights)  (3)Redress- Compensation for Entire Lands of NZ (Ownership- Control of All NZs Natural Resources (4) Veto Rights Over Legislation  (5) Two Classes of Citizenship).

Winston Peters states NZ First will dump the UNDRIP (That’s not happened yet). David Seymour is skirting around the edges not talking about the UNDRIP. But targeting how Farmers are having to seek Cultural Rights on their lands by  Iwi Tribal Groups. And that Council.

Such as Auckland Council has an Iwi Advisory Independent Group where people , businesses, farmers have to seek their advice on Resource Management Consents. (Co-Governance – Veto Rights are already (still) being implemented. ACT PARTY now have a Petition online to Dump Te Mana Te Wai it appears regulations, rules are being made by those whom have Iwi/Maori ancestry

Race Based Politics. Critical Race Theory is rife in New Zealand right throughout the system. Education.. Politics.. Society..Environment.. Health. This is not a Healthy situation for NZ. If we remain quiet  about this then we enable it. We must speak up. Ignore being character assassinated as Racist. Don’t self censor and don’t be censored. This is Separatism- not unity- this is Apartheid

WakeUpNZ

Researcher: Cassie

...

Other Blog Posts

YOU DID NOT POST IT, BUT SOME-ONE DID

REFERENCE TO NEWS REPORT RNZ 10/11/2021……The police are using, titled ‘Consent to Assume Online Internet Identity’.
The form asks people to sign away their social media and email accounts, allowing the police to “take control of and use my internet online identities”. The Law Society and legal entities are awaiting a response from the Police Commissioner- Andrew Coster

New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, s 17
Your right to freedom of association includes the right to form any type of organisation, and to associate with any other individual or organisation. When combined with freedom of expression it also includes the right to advertise that you are doing these activities.

SURVEILLANCE AND MONITORING OF ACTIVISTS BY THE STATE
Being watched and monitored by the police and government

When is “surveillance” legal?
There are two different types of surveillance:
• surveillance that doesn’t require any special power to carry out because it is within the normal scope of a citizen’s rights and powers, and
• surveillance that requires special permission (like a court warrant) because otherwise it’s against the law.

Anyone can carry out the first kind of surveillance. We can follow someone to see where they go or find out where they live, we can observe who they visit or we can listen in when someone on the bus is talking on their phone. So long as we don’t interfere with someone’s rights (for example, their right to privacy) or otherwise break the law, those actions would be legal.

So what surveillance powers do police have generally?
Search and Surveillance Act 2012, s 46

Police do have some general surveillance powers that don’t require a court warrant.
They can:-
• watch and monitor you without a surveillance device so long as it doesn’t involve trespass (using a surveillance device would include things like watching you with a zoom lens, bugging your phone, or using a tracking device on your car)

• carry out visual surveillance of people and activity in public places (like streets and parks), even with a device used to improve vision, like a zoom lens.

Gathering and protesting with others: The right to freedom of peaceful assembly
(New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, s 16;)

Your right to freedom of peaceful assembly means you can gather in a group, so long as this isn’t for a violent purpose, like rioting, and you’re not disturbing the peace. It includes the right to plan and to invite people to the gathering.
Your right to peaceful assembly doesn’t include the right to infringe on other people’s freedom of movement by preventing them from using a road.

Here are some other potential limitations on the right to peaceful assembly:

Can the police spy on me while I’m at home, like using binoculars to look through my window?
(Search and Surveillance Act 2012, s 46)
If they don’t have a court warrant, they’re not allowed to use binoculars, a telescope, a camera with a zoom lens, or any other device that provides better than normal vision, to watch you when you’re inside your house or flat – so looking through your window would be outside their powers.
The law is different if the police are observing you while you’re outside in your back yard or anywhere else in your section – what the law calls the “curtilage” of your place, which means the immediate surroundings of the main building of your house or flat but within the boundaries of your property. If you’re anywhere in those immediate surroundings then the police can use binoculars or zoom lenses or other visual devices to watch you for up to three hours in any 24-hour period, or up to eight hours in total, for any single investigation or series of connected investigations.

Example: Surveillance of activists and the community
During 2006–2007, the police carried out a nationwide investigation of activists who were alleged to be involved in planning acts of political violence. While 20 people were arrested and charged with a range of offences, primarily firearms possession, many other people were raided

ALL REFERENCES ABOVE FROM COMMUNITY LAW NEW ZEALAND WEBSITE

...

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

...

WEALTH BEFORE HEALTH

Fonterra is investing in la-grown artificial meat. Fonterra is investing in Montif ingredients, a Boston biotech start-up that uses genetic engineering and cultured ingredients to ‘make foods that are more sustainable’. Once again be alerted to that word ‘sustainable’. UN Agenda 2030 and its 17 Sustainable Development Goals and also the Great Reset.
Beyond Meats CEO says fake meat is good for farmers, so who is behind ‘Beyond Meats? Non other than Bill Gates, he has invested in a number of start-up’s relating to fake foods, fake meats. Plant based food is all part of the tech revolution, the ‘Great Reset’ and ‘UN Agenda 2030’ (Climate Alarmism)
It has been reported that by 2040 the alternative to real meat could make $240 billion in revenue globally.

I personally believe that the global fake meat industry will have a big impact on farmers, causing a disruption in beef production, as if its not bad enough already with this targeting of farmers with stricter regulations and also targeting them to significantly reduce livestock numbers.

Global Multistakeholder Capitalist wealthy Corporations are jumping on the gravy train when it comes to climate alarmism. Philanthropists like Bill Gates has invested in several start-up in the fake meat, fake food industry.

COVID-19 has spiked the increase of fake meats in supermarket refrigerators. In US grocery stores sales of fake meat has increased 264%.

The farmers in New Zealand are about to have another ‘Groundswell’ protest nationwide, the second one this year. Thousands of farmers in New Zealand had descended on dozens of towns and cities across the nation. They were protesting, demanding the government loosen its environmental policies, regulations which they are finding very difficult to deal with.

Farmers are not climate villains. The IPCC methane measurements are questionable, biogenic methane has been stable or has reduced each year in New Zealand since 2001. One must surely question is this a global scamdemic aligning itself with the plandemic. WHo actually understands the wellbeing indicator modelling and every other modelling these so called scientists and researchers use, which is called evidence based. Predictabilities, assumptions, data in and data out?? After all the government fund the researchers in these universities to provide them with the evidence to introduce policies and regulations that effect New Zealanders.

So, when it comes to fake meat, should we question is it a healthy replacement for real meat, or can it cause disease?

NOTE” PLEASE GO TO THE LINK ABOVE TO VIEW MY RMBLE VIDEO FOR MORE INFORMATION ON THIS TOPIC.

...