Costello is trying to balance harm reduction with protections for kids, but Verrall and her Otago mates are too busy protecting Big Tobacco’s pet projects. New Zealand deserves better than this compromised claptrap.
When we are dealing with treatments that affect developing brains and bodies, the adults in the room must actually be functioning, sane adults.
The war on drugs wasn’t a real war until President Trump made it one.
Co-organiser Karen Tonks says New Zealand First has the power to have the legislation thrown out. “It needs to be chucked out. It’s not fit for purpose. And so email all of the eight New Zealand first MPs. Send them an email and put the pressure on them.”
This is the trial the NZ Government was referencing it would follow when it announced an end to use of puberty blockers on gender dysphoric children. Hopefully, the outcry in the United Kingdom will see the end of this flawed and dangerous trial.
Re: Concerns regarding Human Rights Commission intervention on puberty blocker policy.
New Zealanders deserve better than policies cooked up in academic silos, especially when they reek of hypocrisy and hidden agendas. Time for a proper probe before more smoke obscures the truth.
This leak exposes a rotten core in New Zealand’s tobacco control scene, where hypocrisy reigns and public health takes a back seat to agendas.
We have a government and a food regulation regime that is determined to reduce transparency and consumer information, allowing newly introduced, highly processed and possibly genetically modified ingredients to escape identification throughout the food chain and on labels.
While the minister touts “stronger cybersecurity”, no details were offered about how the system will avoid the failures seen in recent high-profile public-sector breaches.
Is taxpayer money funding advocacy to create a monopoly for a foreign tobacco firm? Why the selective promotion of one company’s tech? And has the MOH stitched up their minister again?
The inquiry should have been a reckoning. Instead, it became a shield – protecting institutions rather than illuminating truth.
The story was not entirely unanimous. Out of almost 10 minutes, about a minute was granted to dissent.
It is long past time for a public discussion of the limits of what is actually known about DNA and the risks to human life that are being recklessly hazarded.
