Emergency Powers: [14] Will the courts decide?
Emergency Powers: [14] Will the courts decide?
From my April 2022 paper COVID-19 Emergency Powers: The New Zealand State, Medical Capture & the Role of Strategic Ignorance
Chapter 14.
Perhaps one of the most important questions that courts will decide, is whether state actors, including New Zealand’s Medsafe, caused harm and increased the rate of hospitalisation and death by deliberately preventing access to historically safe, preventative treatments?
Did this action constitute a form of regulatory capture, that disproportionately benefitted offshore financial interests? Was the suppression of knowledge concerning the potential for early treatments to prevent hospitalisation and death directly related to securing political and regulatory support granting provisional licences for never-prior-approved novel genetic vaccines.
Early treatments, utilising nutriceuticals and repurposed drugs with a long history of safe use, were demonstrated to lead to a reduction in hospitalisation and death as early as 2020.
McCullough, P.A. et al. (2020) Multifaceted highly targeted sequential multidrug treatment.
Association of American Physicians and Surgeons. Physician List & Guide to Home-Based COVID Treatment.
Canadian Covid Care Alliance. Early Treatment Protocols.
World Council for Health. Early Covid-19 treatment guidelines: A practical approach to home-based care for healthy families.
Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance. Prevention & Treatment Protocols for COVID-19.
Alexander P.E. et al. (2021). Early ambulatory outpatient sequenced antiviral multidrug COVID-19 treatment (including for Delta or similar variants) for high-risk children and adolescents
However, these have not been recommended in clinical guidelines in New Zealand:
Ministry of Health (2021, Jul 9). Science Update
Ministry of Health (2022, May 6). Clinical Management of COVID-19 in Hospitalised Adults (including in pregnancy).
Starship Hospital (2022). COVID-19 disease in children
where recommended treatments including tocilizumab (and here), dexamethasone, remdesivir (and here and here) and molnuprivar which have significantly less historic data supporting their safety; while also having limited data proving reduction of hospitalisation and death. Less expensive off-patent early treatments have a longer safety record. Links for data/research on early treatment, vitamin D, ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine.
The courts will also be interested in whether the signature provided by the New Zealand public on receipt of injection constitutes a waiver of criminal liability of the state, i.e., whether the signature can legally infer that the public were aware of the degree of risk from the medical intervention. This is closely related to the principle of informed consent, which has historically required that the public recognise the potential risk from the medication that they take into their body.
[Ed. court cases under way in the US regarding the suppression of ivermectin]
It is hoped that the courts will draw attention to the importance of well-established, recognised principles of infectious disease, that recognise autonomy and proportionality in health care that were disbanded from 2020-2022.
PCO. Health Act 1956. Part 3A Management of infectious diseases. 92A Principles to be taken into account
The result is that the richest generation, the baby boomers, have been disproportionately protected, while (on average) poorer, under 65’s have been coerced to accept a medical intervention, in order to participate in economic and social life.
[Ed. since writing this in April, increasing evidence in New Zealand demonstrates that the boosted are increasingly likely, of not more likely to be hospitalised than vaccinated. It seems however that the drafters of secondary legislation demand that Kiwis continue taking vaccines based on a spike protein based on a 2 year old virus, that cannot prevent transmission and infection. In addition, excess mortality is being observed. This demonstrates that not only those not at risk from COVID-19 (healthy populations, prior to compulsory spike-protein-based vaccination) - older groups such as baby boomers may also be at excess risk from repeat vaccinations.]
To what degree was the pandemic designed and overseen by individuals and institutions financially and politically incentivised to drive mass acceptance of genetic vaccines, and mass acceptance of track and trace digital identification systems to the detriment of human rights and individual privacy?
Addendum, June 2022.
The evidence that the WHO has pivotted to support the aims of primary funders is expanding.
David Bell, who worked in the World Health Organization (WHO), as Programme Head for malaria and febrile diseases at the Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics (FIND) in Geneva has stated:
The WHO and other health organizations predicted lockdown harms, and have documented them since early 2020, whilst working to ensure they will happen more often. In 2018, they reiterated support for a horizontal approach emphasizing community control and empowerment in the ‘Astana Declaration,’ whilst in 2022 they advocate for a vertical approach based around population control and mass coercive use of pharmaceuticals. Human rights seem no longer a thing to be seen supporting, but the contradictions involved here are nothing short of remarkable.
The courts will settle these questions in time.
Continue reading: Conclusion here
References are available on the original PDF at TalkingRisk.NZ