Whistleblowers Act, Informed Consent, Human Rights: all based on lies and deception.

The more you know, the worse it gets.

I’ve read all kinds of books over the past year. The authors often confirm for me what I’ve sensed since the beginning of this covid era - maybe well before then: the more you know, the worse it gets. And also, there is more, much more, to investigate. The Whistleblowers Act, informed consent and Human Rights are all illusionary. We have been lied to and deliberately deceived for a very long time.

Public Domain 2008 William J. Donovan’s Whistle Flickr CIA

Here’s three examples.

1: Whistleblowers Act

Internationally, there are various iterations of this legislation. I admit, like many, I wasn’t really aware of it, until I wanted to use it! Back then, in NZ, it was called the Protected Disclosures Act (2000). It has since been repealed and replaced with the Protected Disclosures (Protection of Whistleblowers) Act (2022). When I uncovered some corruption and fraud at an institution in New Zealand I went through the ‘formal’ processes required. I was naïve. I expected someone to listen. I expected something to BE DONE about it - for accountability to be served. That was back in those heady days when I believed in justice.

I didn’t know then, that people like Prof Brian Martin has donated his whole career to trying to expose fraud, corruption and the Corporate Playbook. He was even Chair of a group I hadn’t even heard of back then: Whistleblowers Australia. It won’t be any surprise to learn that his excellent work (and those of his colleagues in this fight) had been deplatformed, censored and defamed. For decades. I’ve written about academia controls the narrative here.

If you haven’t yet seen the doco about Julian Assange’s horrendous experiences fighting for justice, then do make time over this holiday. It probably won’t be of any surprise to learn there continues to be individuals trying to use the Whistleblowers Act, who are denied protection. Like David Mcbride’s case for example.

In a recent communication, someone commented “the claim that Whistleblowers are protected under the law, is akin to a scam, promising but not delivering any help.” From a New Zealand perspective, I would have agreed to that conclusion a decade ago. But little did I realise this scam was so widespread, well-established and long-running.

In fact, I’d go one step further and say the enactment of the Whistleblowers Act was likely a Five Eyes mechanism that enabled dissident voices to be identified, defamed, blacklisted and maybe even targetted - if they don’t ‘wind their neck in’. Is that one reason why New Zealand has such a toxic workplace bullying problem?

2: Informed Consent

If nothing else, the covid era has highlighted how those who were victims of the intense propaganda and took the jab(s), were not provided with valid informed consent. For excellent evidence of this, please see

Elizabeth Hart

’s amazing commitment to this cause. But now, after reading the history of BigPharma and books like Edwin Black’s War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America's Campaign to Create a Master Race (Expanded Edition), I’m not convinced valid informed consent EVER existed at all? Was it an illusion, sold to doctors like a façade, a cloak of fake professionalism?

Photo by Wesley Sanchez on Unsplash

I invite my readers, who have undoubtedly explored many medical rabbit holes over recent months/years, to consider this question:

Have you ever given full and valid informed consent for any medical intervention you (or your kids, or pets) have received in the past?

Just like the definitions of words like ‘vaccine’ or ‘herd immunity’ or ‘brain dead’ the concept of ‘informed consent’ has been unfairly hijacked, twisted and redefined in a way that suits GloboCap. Patients tend to accept it in good faith, but healthcare does not always operate in good faith. The crimes of failing to provide informed consent continue, unabated. As Black explains in his book, even though the 1930’s saw some horrendous abuses of human rights, including exposing the sterilisation of innocent children who were labelled by authorities as ‘feebleminded’, the evidence did not bring accountability. The abuse of power continued, grew…. became powerful beyond anything we could have imagined. Black’s work has been criticised for interpreting history with the benefit of hindsight - but isn’t that what gives us the right to judge, to demand change? As

Margaret Anna Alice

states so eloquently, mistakes were not made - then or now.

If you think the covid jabs were evil because there was no ‘informed consent’ - I have news for you: informed consent rarely, if ever existed in the first place.

3: Human Rights

Finally, let’s turn to the underlying foundation of the above two pieces of international legislation: Human Rights. Did the NZ Human Rights Commission for example, stand up against the obvious discrimination during the covid era? I wrote a bit about that topic here:

And have these entities ever really protected our Human Rights? Let’s consider the Boiling Frog scenario: how many of our Human Rights have been eroded over recent years? As the Councils have charged us more rates, Government more taxes, commerce larger profit margins…have we received better value, more respect, improved quality of life?

Reading Douglas Brunt’s book The Mysterious Case of Rudolph Diesel, I was reminded of the D-Notice: the ‘Defense Advisory Notice’. Using this formal system of censorship, Government can often dictate to the media what can and cannot be published. I hadn’t realised how long-running this system had been in place - eg more than hundred years in the UK. And how challenging it is to get information from our Governments about where and why these exist. This is especially relevant in cases of ‘terrorist attacks’ in the now familiar context that

eugyppius

has today explained. Every level of our legacy media is broken, as I described in a post earlier this year about our local newspaper (which is now closing down):

I’ve written recently about the $millions of our taxpayers dollars paid out to ‘Large Law Firms’ by entities that are supposed to be working FOR us, not against us. And there’s lots more to write about that in 2025. My own suspicions are, that if lawyers continue to act like AI, the AI will eventually be programmed to take over their unethical roles entirely, saving time, effort and lots of money in our court systems. That will be, in

Bob Moran

’s words, So Convenient! Who needs juries, humanity and ethics after all, right?

‘Newgenics’ as Edwin Black refers to it as, towards the end of his book, is a disturbing element of the erosion of our Human Rights over the last few decades. Capturing our genetic identity to use against us provides lots of opportunities for GloboCap. And these measures are already well-underway in New Zealand, as I’ve explained before, in the form of the MyHealth App for example. The change in GMO laws, that

Guy’s Newsletter

has warned about extensively is another piece of that jigsaw. This unethical legislation is to be rushed through our Parliament, without informed consent. Fluoridation of our drinking water supply (see

GeoffPainPhD

’s excellent work on this), is another current example. The list continues. This only stops when we say NO!

In conclusion, reflecting on the end of 2024 confirms how the covid era has served to highlight for me some very deep, very disturbing truths that have been haunting me for years. What is even more scary is how these facts are literally just below the surface of every aspect of our daily lives.

Will next year be the beginning of a real awakening? Will there be some genuine accountability at last? As the sun sets over 2024, that’s my prayer for 2025 and beyond.

Thank you for your continued support for my research writing in the challenging days ahead. You can Buy Me a Coffee Here! Thanks!