 If Reality Check Radio enriches your day in life, support us to keep bringing you the content, voices, perspectives and the dose of reality you won't get anywhere else. Visit www.realitycheck.radio forward slash donate. We've had Kirsten Murphitt on the crunch before. Back then we talked about her New Zealand First candidacy. This week though, we're going to talk about the who's pandemic treaties and what she's been working on and what you can do to help. Now don't forget, we can provide you with some templates on this by visiting voicesforfreedom.co.nz forward slash feedback dash who dash treaties for some handy templates that will assist you in giving that feedback. Meanwhile, Kirsten Murphitt joins me now. Welcome back to the crunch, Kirsten. Good to have you back. I can. How are you? Happy New Year. Happy New Year to you. Things are a little different now. Obviously you didn't make it into Parliament, but you've been busy, haven't you? I've been very, very busy. So tell us what you've been up to and then we'll discuss all of that. So basically, well, as soon as the election ended and it was clear that I wasn't getting into Parliament via the list, even though I was number two in the top 15, which was very proud of my first time running, I decided to get stuck into the international health regulations. So I started a petition and within, I think, just under three weeks, there were 26,000 signatures. Wow. So that was amazing timing and I sent it to the team, but I didn't realise that Winston was actually going to take it to the negotiation table, which he did, and we managed to get the first. I was going to ask that. I was going to ask how closely are you working still with Winston and the team at New Zealand First? I've been sending them a lot of information, but I know they're incredibly busy. So I'm here for when they're ready to reach out to me, but we're not in drink daily conversations. All right. That's cool. I mean, I've always found them very approachable. They'll take information. They might not do anything with it immediately, but it's all information and data points that they can feed into the system. So Winston put this into the negotiations and squeezed Bucksons nuts, so to speak. Well, I'm not quite sure what went on, but that's an image I can't get out of my head. So, yes, we managed to get the first of December amendment. It was actually rejected. There was a whole lot of debate about whether it was reserved or rejected under the short information act. The government's come back to me and said it was rejected. Right. So that's a good clarification, because there was a lot of people saying, oh, that doesn't, that's weasel words that that hasn't done anything. But what you're saying is that New Zealand actually rejected in total those health regulations. No, the first of December amendment, which is the reduced time frame. The time frame is 24 months and it's been reduced to 12 months. But in New Zealand's case, because we've rejected it, it's 18. Yeah, it's 18 months. Right. So so that's that's a little more time. Yeah. So what Winston has done is actually bought us more time to consider this and given it's such a significant treaty and the implications every single month we've got to get this out is a good thing. OK, just wanted to give us a recap on what all these regulations involve and why it's important that we do submit on this and we do do some of the things that you're going to suggest to listeners. So the international health regulations have been around since, I think the 1960s and there's been various amendments during the time. There were some significant amendments in 2005. And so the ones that we're dealing with at the moment, we actually referred to as the International Health Regulations 2005. Within that, they've got Article 18, which is a very important article. And that is where the COVID-19 response from around the world stem from, which had the ability to do mandating, the ability to quarantine, the ability to vaccinate. So that's already in that that's existing right now. Yeah, for some reason, they decided that the response to COVID-19 wasn't as strong as they wanted. So they decided to review. And so that was back in 2002. And all the countries that wanted to put in their submissions and two thousand and twenty two. Oh, sorry, two thousand and twenty two. You're quite right. Sorry, I was a bit confused. Maybe I need a TARDIS to get together. No, I haven't had my coffee today. Oh, no, two thousand and twenty two. I do apologize. OK. So then they compiled that. And that's what we're looking at at the moment. There's a public document which has compiled all the various amendments and that's been put out publicly. So that's what we've looked at. And there's over 300 amendments. There's some new and next years. And there's some really concerning things in there. And the way that I explain it in layman's language is that we've already had a response under Article 18. So if they're going to strengthen Article 18 and bring in more, it's going to be like COVID on steroids for the next pandemic and the hinting that there is going to be another pandemic. How they know there's going to be another pandemic, I'm not quite sure, given that they are very rare things in history. About every once every hundred years. Yeah. So I would hope not to see another one in my lifetime, although they're hinting that they probably will. So the things I'm really concerned about is under international law, you've got to have an intention, we're just like with the contract law, as you know, there's got to be an intention to create a legally binding document. Yeah. So quite often with treaties, they will actually say that they're not binding if they're not meant to be binding. So the current regulations actually have the word non binding in there for the standing recommendations and the temporary recommendations. Yeah. And under the current draft that we've seen, they've removed the word non binding. They've also put a whole lot of other stuff in there as well, which we can go through. But my biggest concern was I wrote to the ministry and said, I want to see the latest copy of the draft because the last one was released in February, two thousand and twenty twenty three, so just over a year ago. And they've been working behind closed doors since that time, having secret meetings. There's been no transparency, no due process. So I asked for a copy and I got the OIA response back on the eighth of February. And it said a copy of the latest who regulations, just shorten that, is withheld in full under section six B two of the act as its release would prejudice information and trusted to the government of New Zealand on a basis of confidentiality by international organization. But you can have the latest publicly available one, which is the old one. So how can I even do a submission if I don't know what I'm submitting on? It's fast, cool. There are ways around that. You can get questions of ministers, which are outside of the Official Information Act. Yeah. And that's one way to do it. And then I've found successful. But yeah, it sounds a bit sneaky and furtive, doesn't it? Especially when in the blurb on the website, they say it's a once in a generation, global health security reform. That's just think about that for a second. A once in a generation, global health security reform for a significant global health agreement. But I'm not allowed to see it. You're not allowed to see it. You know, in order to discuss it, you've got to work off that one. That's the old one. Yeah, but we're doing the public consultation tick. Well, I mean, I'm incredibly cynical about public consultation. You know, I've seen, especially what the last government did and in particular around firearms laws, where they had basically a week for submissions. And then if you said I want to submit in person, it was a very limited number of people who could do that. The overwhelming submissions that they had was against the regulations that they wanted to bring in, but they did it anyway. And so, you know, it can this whole process of submitting can be disheartening in many respects. But I think it's very important that people do submit because if you don't, then they turn around and say, well, we had no submissions on this. And so we've implemented what we think is good. I agree 100 percent with you on submissions, and it is very disheartening. But we need to send a very strong message to the government that we see them and we see what's going on. Yeah, hopefully with with New Zealand first in there pushing on this, we may get some actual reform around this process, seeing that submissions actually and submitters do get listened to. But we do have to do it and people have to take some time out. It might be 30 seconds. It might be 10 minutes, but people need to take time out and actually submit. Absolutely. So I've done a cheat sheet, which I've put up on my Twitter and Facebook. And I'm pretty sure voices have done something similar as well. Yes, they've got something similar where they've got some templates and some suggested responses and all of that. So as of as, you know, my grandmother used to say, many hands make light work, you're doing some work. Voices are doing some work and reality check radio amplifies that on both sides. Exactly. So so what do you what do you want our listeners to do? I want them, first of all, to submit a submission between now and Sunday. The submission was basically a survey that they have up. It's a little bit different to normal submissions. So I think we've got to admit night on Sunday night. Yeah, just get that message out there. Ask other people to do it as well. Then I want people to actually be making meetings to go and see the local politicians spreading the word amongst their friends, because lots of people don't understand what is happening. And on the 27th of May, through to the 31st of May, is the World Health Assembly annual meeting where this will be voted on. If it's voted in, it doesn't mean it's all over. We will still have another 12 months to consider. Sorry, it's 12 months, 18 months. Sorry, I always get confused because New Zealand is different. So the rest of the world has 10 and we've got 18 months to consider. So we've got the ability to opt out. And that's where we really, really need to put the pressure on. So I'm working with quite a lot of the well-known international players in this area. Yeah, they do believe that the 51% will be achieved in May. So there's over 300 amendments to the international health regulations, isn't there? That's correct. And so this is quite a complex thing for people to get their head around. But the key points would be a continuation of or an entrenching almost of the draconian regulations that were implemented worldwide for various different regimes, including the Arden regime that involve mandates and involve various different things like lockdowns and all of those sorts of things. That's all part of these amendments to strengthen that up. So there'll be no arguments. This is what you'll be doing. We know best because we are the who. Well, the strengthening whose powers and the basically transferring our ability in New Zealand to decide our public health response across to Geneva. So when they issue their recommendations, which now with non binding have been taken out, which would imply that they are now binding. Yeah, we have to follow these and then really badly drafted. So for one example, where they're talking about health products, they just put in gene therapy, but there's no definition of what gene therapy is. And I'm sure you've probably looked at the translation before as you started a high level and it drills down and you keep going down definition after definition after definition. So what does this gene therapy mean? And why are they being so vague about it? They've got probably some of the best lawyers in the world working on it. But it looks like it's been written by a person that's done one on one legal practice. It's a junior somewhere along the line. Well, they seem to be very good at other technicalities, because with section three article 55, where they were meant to release the latest draft on the 27th of January to give the state members four months to consider. That appears not to have happened. But given the OIA is saying that they're holding information from me, maybe they did actually give that information out to the state parties, but they've just haven't made it public. There's sovereignty issues at stake here, isn't there? If this all gets passed in its binding, then the who can declare a health emergency? Well, and it might not even be real. They might say there might be a public health emergency. And so we're going to do these things to try and mitigate that so that we don't end up with a public health emergency. And they can have the power then to order countries, including New Zealand, to have lockdowns, travel restrictions, forced medical examinations, mandatory vaccinations. And all the individual human rights and the rights of a country seem to be thrown out the window. And we've got this bunch of globalists led by a communist who's the head of who telling us what we can and can't do. Yes. Am I wrong in that? Essentially, you are right. It's just there is a process behind it. So it's not that we just automatically give up our sovereignty, but it's Article 59 that says we've got to integrate them into our domestic law. Just like we integrated the 2005 amendments into our domestic law. And if we don't do that, then we've actually got to report back to who within 12 months saying why we haven't. And also it's told off. Yeah, there isn't any actual financial implications or penalties at the moment, but they have been talking about that in recent years of bringing in financial penalties. So who knows what's in this latest round of amendments? Because we know who knows who who knows who who trusts to. Yeah. Right. Yeah, that's I mean, that's kind of alarming if you're a freedom type person and it's bad enough that we live in a society where we've got, you know, governments that can lock us down when we're perfectly healthy, restrict where we can go, breach the Bill of Rights, make illegal acts and there's no penalties anywhere in all of that. But if you break their illegal lockdowns and things like that, well, we'll drag you through the courts and we'll prosecute you and we'll sack you and we'll get you out of your job. Well, this is a bit I'm really, really concerned about. So if who becomes the global architecture of health responses, which under the Pandemic Treaty will also include climate change, they basically own the science narrative. So that will be trickled down into the international courts and also trickled down into our domestic courts, just like it did over the mandates. We all knew that they were breaching human rights, but they were saying the science. This is the science and there is the one podium of truth. It had to, I mean, if we lived in a different environment, I don't think any of those court decisions would have come through. And this is what concerns me because if you've got a global organisation like the Who making these sorts of decisions and then you've got these little busy bodies out there like the WEF, who are advocating for digital currencies and control and all of those sorts of things. If you move those two things together, digital currencies, the ability to freeze your funds to control what you can spend money on, do all of those things. And who could say, well, you know, we're really worried about climate change here and we don't want people to fill up their car more than once every three weeks. So with a digital currency, we're just going to block you from using your card to pay for fuel. And you can only do it once every three week. They could do that, couldn't they? There's a real risk of that because one in the draft that I've seen, they talk about the vaccine passports and they want them to be digital and to be on a specific platform. And if you research further, they've actually already got a contract out with a provider. So when do we get to say that? Where is this provider? Where is our information going to be held? What are the privacy implications of that? Also, as we know, if you've got a platform, you can just tack on little bits over time. So what you're saying is actually a real possibility. So when I say things like that to people, they go, OK, I'm your batch of crazy. Don't ever do that. That's not what it's about. It's just about convenience. And you've got private companies out there now that won't accept cash anymore. There's plenty of cafe chains. They say they cash only take the full as ferry in Auckland, for example. You can't go and buy a Coke for five bucks with cash. You have to use a card. This is the real problem with treaties like this and regulations like this. If they then link digital IDs with digital currency and digital accounts and have them all linked together, they can actually literally at the press of a button shut you down. Absolutely. And I think people, even though they might say it's a conspiracy theory, look at what's happened in the last four years when I did my first open letter to government, which I think was the 25th of August 2001. I spoke about the vaccine passports and I was told I was an absolute conspiracy theorist. Oh, no, we're not going to do that. Nuts. What happened a couple of months later? Well, I mean, you know, I published on my site on the BFD. You know, Ardern, when she said there's been lots of rumors out there about lockdowns and they're not true unless you hear it from from us, you know, at the podium, it's not true. You know, we need to be very mindful of things that unless you hear it from us, then it's disinformation. It's a conspiracy theory and it's not happening. And literally within 48 hours, there was old flappy arms behind her desk in her office at the Beehive, telling us all that what we heard two days ago was actually all bullshit. And she was about to lock us all down because we had one case in the whole country out of five million people. We had one case. And so for that reason, you all need to stay at home. It was insane. And they all did it. And it was just a couple of days after Ted Ross is actually written personally to Ardern. And we received that under the official information at quite early on. But it was a conspiracy theory. So that's the thing is all these things that we were saying out loud. And they were saying, no, you're not as your cook is, you know, your conspiracy theorists. And I got to the point where I pointed a bit of a phrase on my site saying, you know, what's the difference between a conspiracy theory and reality? And the answer I had was three months. Well, I got a bit cheekier a couple of weeks ago with the hot weather. Someone was calling me a cooker. So I just put a photo of myself and Mamberkina looking quite good going. Yeah, I'm a cooker. Yeah. Roasting nicely. Yeah. Roasting nicely. And then we had me were saying, oh, it's a very hot day today. And I'm looking at the temperature and it's 25 degrees. Like what? It's summer. Oh, no, stay inside, keep your kids inside. What? Oh, I used to, I lived in Auckland as little, but we used to always go down to my nanas and nap here at Christmas and spend like the whole Christmas holidays here and be easily 30 degrees. Like the asphalt used to melt, be so hot. Yeah, 51 years old, so I can remember my teenage years. And, you know, summer would come along and we knew that someone was here when all of the volcanic cones in Auckland turned brown and there wasn't a cloud in the sky for weeks on end. And that was what summer was like. You know, now we're told all new climate change. Exactly. But who could use these regulations to, you know, under the pretense that there's a climate emergency? Yeah, under the pandemic treaty, they've got the climate change within that. What we expect might happen because it seems strange. There's two international instruments on the table is they might have put one instrument out to be sort of a bit of a distraction. And then the instrument that's been working behind the closed doors, which is the International Health Regulations, they might be bringing that froze. They might be meshing the two documents together. So this is just really happy because it can get confusing, right? There's the pandemic agreement. Yeah, which has been called a number of different names, which confuses people. The more it's had about five different names at the moment. It's called the pandemic accord. Yeah, but you'll hear the pandemic treaty, the pandemic agreement, et cetera. And that is just the one document. Yeah. And that's. So that's when they talk about one health. Where one health who will aim to sustainably balance and optimize the health of people, animals and ecosystems. Yeah, there's a climate change controls right there, isn't it? Exactly. And then the International Health Regulations are existing International Health Regulations. And even though the called regulations are actually technically a treaty and they are the ones that are being amended at the moment. And we've got to be very careful because behind I mean, who when you look at the history, it probably started out as quite a good idea. And the state parties contributed, but over the years. And there's a really good documentary from 2017 that I have in my Facebook page and also on Twitter, where they look at the history of who and they look at the tobacco. So even though we knew from about 1950s, tobacco wasn't good. The who wouldn't come out because of the vested interests. Yeah. And we also look at the spine flu and also focus. Oh, what's that? So I've just lost the place in Japan, but they had the earthquake. Fukushima. Yeah, Fukushima. Sorry, I'm just so tired today. So there are so many vested interests because it's not just the state parties. State parties were through their assessed voluntary or, sorry, the assessed contribution only gives 16 percent of whose budget. And the rest of that is made up with voluntary contributions and also vested interests, such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and also Garvey, which Bill and Melinda Gates also contribute to. So there's a lot of control and people that are giving the money. It doesn't just go into a pool and then there's a vote about how it's used. Whoever gives the money can say where the money is going to be used. And this is very concerning, giving that now CEPI, which is also if you just follow the money and all the links and all the people is now looking at developing a hundred day vaccines. So what we're looking at here is handing control, essentially, to the oligarchs. Pretty much in my view. And so for a small investment within who, if they can direct the money to be used in the way that they want to, it can actually be a very good investment for them. See, I can see in the future we end up with another thalidomide. And we've already got that. I believe that's where we're heading with, you know, the so-called COVID vaccines. Eventually, the weight of evidence is going to crush the ability to silence people. But in the process, billions of people have poisoned themselves at the behest of politicians who know nothing. And vested interests via the who? Well, this documentary is so interesting because it goes into politics as well and how the politicians are lobbied for want of a nicer word. Yeah. So I would recommend everyone watch that and share it with people because it shows that we're actually not nutcases. How can you find that? How can they find that document? It's on my Twitter page. I can pin it to the top and also my Facebook page. So it's called Trust Who, and it is the second one down the page. It's actually very, very difficult to find. It was available strangely on TVNZ, but they took it off then just before the pandemic. Maybe it reached its shelf life. Right. So that was a documentary is made in 2016. Yes, that's correct. So it's Trust Who as one word. Yeah. And so if they just Google Trust Who with one word, you should be able to get information about where to watch that. Yeah, it is on YouTube. But as I said, it's difficult to find. So it looks like it's on Vimeo as well. OK, great. Yeah. So it does come up when you search. Oh, great. Yeah. So Trust Who one word and put the word documentary after it. And you'll be able to find it. So yeah, people should watch that. Now, what else do you want them to do? Kirsten, you are one by one man band. So to speak, one woman band pushing this. Actually, I'm not now. Yeah. So apart, you know, there are people in New Zealand that are helping voices for freedom, obviously. But, you know, you're out there very vocal on this. So, you know, that's why we're talking to you. Yeah, I have been quite vocal. I'm talking to a well-known New Zealander at the moment and we're planning a little project. So that's been worked on background. So hopefully the next couple of weeks, there will be an announcement. I'm also looking about whether we do a referendum. There's pros and cons of doing a referendum. Lots of people would love me to do a referendum of Exit the Who. The pros are, well, it would be amazing if we achieved it. But I think it's going to be hard to get a lot of New Zealanders on board with that, because most New Zealanders don't understand the issues. Yeah, I need to get 10 percent of the voting population to sign. It's hard. So we've got just over 3.6 registered of million, obviously, and voters sort of have to get over 360,000 signatures. Yeah, 380 or so to to weed out any fake ones or anything like that. Yeah, it's easy to do. No, it's not. And then even if we got that, government doesn't have to do anything about it. So I actually think it'll be better for me to focus on the international health regulations, which seem to be going through, because we can show people without any conspiracy theories, lack of transparency or lack of rule of law, there's been no forecasting about how much this is going to cost. And one overseas study has said that it's going to cost one hundred and twenty four billion dollars per nation to implement. I think the average Joe blog on the streets can understand that. So I think it's probably going to be more successful to go on that avenue and via doing that avenue. They will learn other information about who is well. So this is put this into perspective, right? One hundred and twenty four billion dollars, most people's eyes glaze over when they hear numbers like that. But let's say we have a pallet and we have a million dollars cash on that pallet. That's one hundred and twenty four thousand pallets of cash. It's huge. All right, that's one hundred and twenty four pallets of a million dollars lined up to get one hundred and twenty four billion. For a pandemic that may or may not happen. And in my lifetime, I've been very rare. Well, in my lifetime, there's only been one. And there's not many people who were around and in 1918 for the flu pandemic. No. And again, you know, we were told there was, you know, all of these things was going to be terrible. All these people are going to die. And, you know, we needed to save 80,000 people and we didn't even get close. Exactly. I was reading something from Helen Clark yesterday, because I've been doing a bit of a retro thing on my Twitter. Better you than me. Yeah. And she was saying 20 people a day would die. And this is in 2022. Twenty people a day die anyway. I know. This is the joke of it, right? During the pandemic, we had no deaths from influenza. And when in any given year, there's normally about five hundred. Well, how did that happen? How did we go from five hundred a year to none? Would did the flu cease to exist? Of course not. Of course not. You know, it was it was farcical. But they've just brainwashed so many people and indoctrinated, like when my husband, as you know, he's been sick and another emergency trip last August to the hospital. It was clear he could not breathe. As he'd been diagnosed with heart failure, I knew it was his heart. The triage nurse wanted to put a mask on him. And I went, why would you put a mask on a man that can't breathe? That's got heart failure. And then they wanted to do a COVID test. And I was like, no, you take this man through to emergency now. And as soon as I saw him, they tried to bring us. I had a similar experience, not as drastic, obviously. I stood up in the middle of the night and blacked out. And on the way down, I hit the sink and covered him blood and everything. I went into the hospital and while I was in the hospital in the emergency area, you know, they said, oh, you need to put a mask on. I said, oh, I'm doing that, you know, I keeled over. You know, I've got a problem with that. I'm pretty dehydrated, all of that. They couldn't put a line in me. So I knew that I was dehydrated because they couldn't see any veins or anything like that to stick a needle in me. And then I passed out again there and they chucked me on to a bed. And I'm told this by somebody who was with me. And at the same time they did that while I was unconscious. They jammed a PCR thing up my nose and. Oh, guys. Right. And then, you know, six hours later after an X-ray and a CT scan, all of this was going on, then they declare to me that now you've got covid. And then they locked me in a room by myself at the hospital. Well, I checked myself out in the next day because I felt better. They came to me and said, oh, you know, we'll give you packs of it. I said, that's all right. I've got my own stuff. Well, what's that? And I said, oh, I have a mekton and next morning I was a box of birds and I checked myself out of the hotel and out of the hospital. And walked out. Yeah, I was glad you got out there. You know, it's crazy just how indoctrinated they are. But just coming back to the IHRs, one thing that does consume me as well is I wrote to Crown Law and said, I want to see all the legal advice that you've given government about whether it affects our sovereignty or not. And how does it affect our treaty obligations? So all the Maori and people that are concerned about treaty at the moment, you might be quite interested to say they with how the information from me, they said client privilege and free and frank advice. And then they said they hadn't even considered the treaty obligations. But here's the thing, though. We know from the regulations that they're talking about gene therapy, right? It states it in. Well, that has huge implications for the concept of whakapapa, doesn't it? Wouldn't the Maori like to ask what actually gene therapy, what it's going to be defined as? And why hasn't the Crown considered the treaty obligations in relation to this once in a generation, global health, security reform? Their words not mine. Well, it's a bit of a concern. We need people to submit on your Twitter and on your Facebook. You've got some links for some templates. Voices for freedom have similar templates. We need people between now and midnight Sunday. Was that correct? Midnight Sunday? Great, yes. To take some time out, fill out those submissions, get them in there, because if we don't, if we don't speak up, then we could end up in a worse position than we've already experienced under the COVID tyranny of Ardern. Exactly. And I think just talking to your neighbours. Well, we're not allowed to do that. I know, that's why I was laughing, because I did that post. But just talking, but just not making it as detailed as you may know, just making it very simple for people that are newbies, like just keeping it 101 and saying, look, do you think it's right for the government to ask submissions, but they won't give us the document on the basis to submit? And I think the average Kiwi is going to say, no, that's crazy. And then you can go, well, that's actually what's happening with these international health regulations. Or do you know how much it's going to cost to implement them? And we might be signing up to something and we don't even know how much it's going to cost after the government spent all this money on COVID. Do you think that's right? Just getting it real simple. Just get people interested and engaged. Yeah. I mean, that's the thing. I'm suspicious of governments at the best of times. I've spent a lifetime being in and around politicians. And so my mother taught me to have a healthy distrust of them. Yeah. I can see a scenario here where they get all these submissions and then they turn around and say, well, people have submitted on the wrong document. And so we'll just ignore all of those. But I can honestly see some bureaucrat having that brilliant idea. I mean, there's been documentaries written about how they... But it's not so brilliant when they've actually given it to me in writing. That's what they're doing. Yeah. Well, you know. Yeah. So I will send that to Winston tonight. There's a famous documentary, Yes, Minister, which showed everybody how these guys work. They're like conjurers. They're like, you know, people who run shell games. You know, they get you watching the pee and then all of a sudden the pee's gone and you find I was never there anyway. Exactly. They're just moving these shells around and tricking you into thinking you're engaging with them. And actually, you're not. But we have to engage because that's the process. So I'm thinking if anyone's going to need brilliant marketing, I'm just a mere lawyer. I'm not a marketer. I don't have that creative side. Just get in touch with me because I'm going to need... We've got time, even if it does get past in May. We've still got time. We don't need to panic completely. But we need to raise public awareness very quickly. Yep. So some person might better help me do a website. Some person might have some great slogan. Some one might want to make t-shirts. So I don't care. Like I'm not doing this for money at all. I don't want anything out of it. I just want to raise public awareness. Right. Well, there's plenty of listeners to this show that will be appreciative of your efforts. Thank you. And I'm sure we can... There will be people out there that will offer their time and skills. There's plenty of people that I know who listen to the show that have got the ability to build websites and do that sort of thing. Graphic artists come up with snappy designs, even little handouts with bullet points that people can use to talk to their neighbours or talk to people. That would be amazing. Like I can help with the wording and then they can turn it into Lehmann's wording. Yeah, that's the important thing. This can get really bogged down in technical details, legalese, health jargon, all of that sort of thing. We actually need to keep it real and keep it simple so people can understand. Exactly. The bottom line is that this appears to be a power grab by the who and vested interests who fund the who to rest control away from ordinary citizens and their governments. Exactly. And what I always say is if we don't transfer our decision-making across there, we can still follow their recommendations, but we get to choose whether we follow them or not. Or whether we want a different approach. We're an island. Like we're not dangerous to anyone. We can stop, close our borders in a real pandemic if we needed to. Very easily. Yeah. One can land their planes and no one can land their boats. Yeah. We've got our boats. There's no leads and no James Cameron. See, this is the thing that I sit here thinking, do we need to do something about this? You know, because I look at the United States, for example, and people think, oh, the United States will agree to this. Well, they actually can't agree to it. They might agree to it at a federal level, but they can't actually force the individual states. And this is what people don't understand about the United States. Each one of those states, whether it's California or Idaho or Texas or New Mexico, actually individual countries by law who have created a federal level above their country to say, well, we're going to work together as a team. And we're going to have a federal government over the top of that. But you can't tell us what to do. We'll pass our own laws. Thank you very much, which is why you saw Florida having no lockdowns, why you saw Texas having no lockdowns. And ironically, having the lowest incidences of COVID, it's the same time. That's why you see these different states getting different results. You've got the complete mess in California, where they went completely over the top. Draconian rules and regulations didn't didn't help them at all. Opposed to states that are more freedom-loving. And so I have this hope. And hopeium is a really bad thing to be addicted to. But I have this hope that it'll be the United States that says to the who we're not having a bar of that. And if we get an election this year in the United States, we could we could see a change of resonant. I can't see Donald Trump signing up to the who I can see. Given that he tried to get out of the hope. Yeah, exactly. So I have this hope. And it might be a forlorn hope, but it's hoping nonetheless that it'll be the United States that puts the handbrake on a lot of this stuff. Yeah, we've got a couple of MPs in Britain, some in Ireland, some in Australia speaking out. Come on, New Zealand. We've had a change of government. We don't want this draconian control. We rejected that comprehensively at the election. So so we should be rejecting this as well. Exactly. So yeah, just get the word out if you've got any skills that can help me get in contact. But please don't contact me just because you've got a video to send me. You've probably already seen it. Yeah, and I've probably already received it about 20 or 30 times. So what you've like I understand that it is great people to do that. But yeah, just I am working for free on this and also have a life and have a business to run as well. So I do need to use my time wisely. Well, it's been a pleasure having you on the crunch again, Kirsten. We'll have to touch base again on the progress on this because it's an issue that interests me from a freedom perspective. Cool. I'll be I'll let you know when we've got a big announcement to make soon. All right. Well, you're welcome on my show any time. Great. Thanks, Cam. Thanks. Yeah. Bye. Kirsten is working very hard on this and her work is complementary to the work voices for freedom are doing on this issue as well. Many hands make light work and we can all do our part. Tell me your thoughts on what Kirsten had to say by emailing inbox at realitycheck.radio or text to 2057. This is an RCR public service announcement brought to you by Paul Brennan. We reminded you about feedback that you can make to the Royal Commission of Inquiry into COVID-19. I also need to remind you that feedback to the government on the World Health Organization's treaties is due this Sunday, the 18th of Feb. Have your say on the 300 plus amendments to the international health regulations and negotiating text for a new pandemic agreement. Under these two treaties, the WHO will be able to order measures including significant financial contributions from individual member states. New Zealand is a member state. Control the science, censor scientific debate, order lockdowns, restrict travel, enforce medical examinations and mandatory vaccinations, all in the name of health. The WHO is in scramble mode, facing serious pushback on these treaties worldwide. Add your voice to the resistance and stop these measures from being adopted here in New Zealand. Having your say is easy with VFF's templates. Choose from the detailed list of points to create your feedback in about five minutes. Where to go? www.buhu.co.nz That's www.bwo.co.nz www.buhu.co.nz and create your feedback today. Committed to fair debate and honest information, the Reality Check has arrived. RCR, Reality Check Radio.