Bloomfield denied injection exemptions to countless people who were at known risk from the jab. Now he’s heading up a global decision making body that is attempting to take control of national public health responses to future pandemics. What could go wrong?
Credit: Bob Moran
Until today, it was unknown who this group was comprised of.
Turns out that Dr Ashley Bloomfield, New Zealand’s former director general of health is co-chair of the International Health Regulations Working Group.
Keri Molloy has previously reported that the Ministry of Health’s Andrew Forsyth was a member of the review committee, which held meetings last month in Switzerland to finalise a report regarding proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations.
Based on the review committee’s report, the working group was then tasked with proposing a package of targeted amendments for adoption by the World Health Assembly, the decision-making body of the WHO. It is this group that Bloomfield is co-chairing, and they have since met twice.
A press release from the WHO on 25 February said governments held their first detailed discussions on 307 amendments, and agreed on “a way forward”.
“The IHR set out agreed approaches and obligations for countries to prepare for, and respond to, disease outbreaks and other acute public health risks. The proposed amendments come in response to the challenges posed by the covid-19 pandemic,” the statement said (emphasis mine).
Next steps are to tackle more in-depth negotiations on the proposed amendments at its next meeting planned for 17-20 April.
The press release quoted Bloomfield:
“Covid-19 showed us that having a good, strong set of International Health Regulations is essential, and showed where the current regulations need to be improved. The ongoing pandemic has underscored the importance of countries working together collaboratively, and supporting WHO in its vital work, to make the world safer. The tone of the discussions and progress made during this week’s meeting clearly show that countries understand the responsibility they have to ensure this process is successful.”
As Molloy pointed out in her article on 1 February, “analysts identify a number of reasons why [the amendments] should be rejected. These reasons include:
- Loss of dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms
- Dictatorial power given to the WHO’s Director General
- Dictatorial powers given to unelected regional directors of the WHO
- National sovereignty handed over to the WHO.
- The introduction of health certificates affecting freedom of movement and travel
- Violation of privacy
- Censorship – the WHO proposes to strengthen capacities to counter misinformation and disinformation.”
The fact that it’s co-chaired by Bloomfield is significant for New Zealanders and should set off alarm bells. He led one of the most draconian responses to the covid situation globally – and was knighted for it.
He was personally responsible for denying exemptions for the covid injection to many people, including people who had been badly injured by it and were seeking an exemption for further injections.
For example, one nurse who spoke to The Looking Glass last year, experienced severe heart problems after her second jab. She was diagnosed with pericarditis and heart dysrhythmia, and later she was also diagnosed with chronic fatigue. Had she not had an ECG and full medical before her first jab, she believes she would have been told it was due to a pre-existing condition.
She returned to work after six weeks to do a few shifts, but was still suffering extreme fatigue. So, when the boosters were mandated, she decided to go for an exemption. A long wait ensued for an echocardiogram, and when she finally had it, because there was no visual indication of permanent damage, her application for an exemption was denied.
The nurse, Chloe, said she was deeply traumatised by the decision.
“As a medical professional, when somebody has a risk, an allergy to a medication, you do not give them that medication. I had a serious problem with my heart and they are telling me it’s safe to have [the booster]. It defies all medical reasoning. They declined my exemption and I was terminated.”
The person who denied Chloe an exemption was Dr Ashley Bloomfield, who removed this privilege from GPs.
This story is far from uncommon. It’s thought he approved exemptions for less than a handful of people – including people who were allergic to certain ingredients found in the mRNA injection.
Instead, they were told the crash cart would be prepared for them in case of severe anaphylaxis. This is inhumane and goes against all medical ethics. Please look at Lynda Wharton’s twitter thread above for more information.
In September 2021, the official view was that there were fewer than 100 people in the country who would be eligible for an exemption, but adverse reactions to the covid jab have been off the charts from early on, as VAERS data shows.
Today, the Hatchard Report published an open letter to the Prime Minister stating the following:
“Two publications by the Ministry of Health itself present evidence that within the government there is knowledge that the Pfizer mRNA Covid vaccine cannot be regarded as safe and effective. Therefore from this point in time forward, there is no credible legal defense that the government can advance to cover its failure to openly inform individuals and the public at large of the inherent health risks of covid vaccines.”
The WHO is also negotiating the drafting of a pandemic accord (formerly known as the ‘pandemic treaty’). Governments are meeting from 27 February to 3 March to discuss the accord.
Bloomfield said in the statement that the processes were complimentary and guided by the imperative of making the world safer from communicable diseases and ensuring equitable responses to public health threats.
“It is important that there is consistency and alignment across the two processes as they are both guided by the imperative of making the world safer from communicable diseases and ensuring equitable responses to public health threats. The efforts to update the International Health Regulations and draft a pandemic accord share a number of common themes, including the importance of equity in access to health, collaboration and capacity building. It is important that there is consistency and alignment across the two processes,” he said.
If you want to find out more between the differences, you can check out James Roguski’s Substack. But he suggests people pay more attention to the IHR amendments. When the time comes to vote, adoption of the amendments only requires a majority – no signature or vote by country leaders.
Conflicts of interest at the WHO
In a recent submission to on Therapuetic Products Bill, Physicians and Scientists for Global Responsibility note that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation contributes 88% of the income to the World Health Organisation from the non-government sector, with other large contributors including the Bloomberg Family Foundation, The Wellcome Trust and the Rockerfeller Foundation.
“The WHO is reliant on non-government income with only a quarter of the WHO’s income
available to the WHO for discretionary purposes. Less than 20% of the WHO’s operational budget
comes from member countries. Voluntary contributions (80%) are typically earmarked for specific
projects,” the submission notes.
Chapter 10 of the submission lays out the astonishing interwoven relationships and conflicts of interests evident in the activities of two of the largest charitable foundations in the world – The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Welcome Trust, and the WHO. It’s a must read.
So, New Zealanders ought to pay careful attention to developments at the WHO – after all, our former director general of health is co-chairing a high level committee that is seeking extraordinary and legally binding powers over member states; while at home, our government knows there are problems with the covid injection.
And after what happened to Chloe and so many others, I wouldn’t trust Bloomfield as far as I could throw him, or the WHO, to protect my health or provide anything like a reasonable or proportionate response to any purported public health threat.