Angelina C

To make a difference in someone’s life you don’t have to be rich, brilliant or perfect. You just have to care 💜💜

[Angelina C @Angel_in_a_Cave]

@TRobinsonNewEra That’s devastating news? Aww my heart breaks for the family

[Angelina C @Angel_in_a_Cave]

@RWMaloneMD Love this. So nice to see a couple celebrating each other and standing strong together

[Angelina C @Angel_in_a_Cave]

@ThePosieParker All I can say on behalf of decent NZers, I’m so deeply sorry this happened to you in our beautiful country. You deserve so much more respect than you were given that day.

[Holyhekatuiteka @2ETEKA]

🚩This is damning for Luxon, National, Act & Labour. The FTA is as bad as they are denying it is.

Footage most people haven’t seen from the India FTA select committee,reveals that FTA has duplicitous clauses that determines the NZ $ 33 Billion of direct investment into India IS an obligation. Hats off to National MP & Chair of the committee Tim van de Molen for identifying the sub clause and its implications, and for pushing back on the bureaucrats & a Labour MP.

First time i’ve ever commended a Greens MP, however Lawerence Xu Nan correctly states that the FTA will only add 0.1% ($500m) of GDP by 2046, which is 1/40th of the NZ $33 billion of investment from NZ we are expected to ‘promote’ into India.

Vangelous Vitalis (dep. Sec Trade & economic) replies that treasury traditionally understates the GDP growth in the modelling, but they expect it to be much larger than 0.1% “just like it was with china”

The problem with Vitalis reply, is that 15 years after signing the China FTA, exports to China while larger than forecast, they were just 2.5 times larger than the original forecast.

So for NZ to break even on the NZ $33 billion committed to India, Treasury’s forecasted exports would need to be 66 times bigger.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​ We need to beat the forecast by SIXTY SIX TIMES. Mind blowing.

This brings us to the $33 billion dollar question - highlighted by Tim Van de Molen. In article 9.10. It allows India to take remedial measures (reapply tarrifs) until NZ meets its obligations to promote $33 BN into India.

Vitalis points to clause 9.2, which frames this as only an “aim” — a point Van de Molen accepts. However, he remains very concerned by 9.10(3), which states that if India believes insufficient progress has been made on one-way investment, all concessions can be withdrawn until NZ (specifically) delivers $20 billion US ($33 Billion) in investment.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

Three times van de Molen (a farmer) circles back t sub clause 3, Vitalis brings in his legal representative, and then Labours Vanushi Walters (a NGO Lawyer) infers Tim is reading it wrong, before concerning he is right and then says “oh it’s just poor drafting” - the whole issue is left unresolved, after Nationals Tim Costley (edited out) interrupts like a dumbo to bring up student numbers and Winston Peters - side tracking the discussion before van de Molen once again circled back to the issue before Walters again changes topic to some frivolous issue.

Tim van de Molen has his head on his shoulders and is in the wrong party.

Luxon has been conned by India - and it’s us who will pay the price.

[Angelina C @Angel_in_a_Cave]

@DrAseemMalhotra Well he made a big deal about pushing the jabs in NZ so 🤔 it is sad tho, enjoyed his acting.

[Angelina C @Angel_in_a_Cave]

@ThePosieParker Awww I’m so sorry to hear this. Big hugs

[NZ and the MRNA @HopeRising19]

NEW ZEALAND TODAY WE FOUND A JOURNALIST AS RARE AS A DODO....ONE WILLING TO SPEAK OUT ABOUT COVID VACCINE HARM....

Thank you Duncan Garner for being willing to speak on this subject

@KiwiAly what a powerhouse you are.

Extraordinary work piecing together the #mrna truth one OIA at a time!

[WildandFree17 @Wildnfree1984]

The plot thickens 😳😳

Hands up who think this is massive payments from big pharma?

🙋‍♀️ 🙋‍♀️ 🙋‍♀️

[Angelina C @Angel_in_a_Cave]

Digital ID is coming but we must resist!!

[Angelina C @Angel_in_a_Cave]

@OpinionistNZ Because it’s all about protecting them and not the victim. Have something similar going on at our local social. The victim still has to be around her offender while the school decides what to do about it 🤬 it’s bullshit!

[UFO mania @maniaUFO]

For a few minutes each year, sunlight makes this Yosemite waterfall look like a river of fire.😍

[Angelina C @Angel_in_a_Cave]

@AliaVFF 😂😂 they’ve been saying all this nonsense for decades! DECADES! Not just 10 years. And look, we’re still here.

[Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH® @P_McCulloughMD]

Virus in the Dust: Exposing the Fabricated Contagion of Andes Hantavirus

Why the "human-to-human" panic ignores the simple reality of common environmental exposure @McCulloughFund https://t.co/BcDskPPAbg

[The Dr. Margaret Show @DrMargaretShow]

😱 I AM ABSOLUTELY SHOCKED — JAW ON THE FLOOR after watching this video dropped TODAY (May 9, 2026).

How is this not front-page news everywhere?!

DNA scientist Dr. David J. Speicher drops bombshells on Joe Rogan re: clear FRAUD in the mRNA shots that could blow up their liability protection.

They safety-tested one version made WITHOUT DNA plasmids… then injected millions with a completely different product loaded with massive untested DNA contamination, including the SV40 promoter (known carcinogen).

Kevin McKernan’s sequencing of real injected vials confirmed plasmids everywhere. This explains the turbo cancer explosion.

They lied saying genome integration was “impossible.”

Criminal!

Full video transcript:
“Because of the fact that it’s classified as a vaccine, they don’t have to worry about being sued?”

“Well, they do. They do. The immunity from liability is dependent on there having been no fraud and there clearly was fraud.”

[continuing with the rest of the transcript as before…]

This is the smoking gun — Process 1 vs Process 2, residual DNA with SV40, turbo cancers. They KNEW. When does accountability hit?! Repost if you’re furious. We demand the truth! 🤯💉🔥

Posted May 9, 2026 — Video via @thehealthb0t — Watch & share the full clip

[Angelina C @Angel_in_a_Cave]

https://t.co/8HImD59A6a

[Sama Hoole @SamaHoole]

The year is 1950. Your doctor lights a cigarette and tells you smoking is fine. He read it in a study. He is telling the truth about having read it. He does not know, or is not saying, that the study was funded by the tobacco industry.

The year is 1958. Your doctor tells you to eat less fat. The evidence is contested. The contestation is not in the public messaging. The food industry has been helpful in clarifying which findings deserve attention. Some researchers who published contradictory data have been quietly defunded. Ancel Keys is on the cover of Time magazine.

The year is 1962. Your doctor prescribes thalidomide to your pregnant wife for morning sickness. It has been approved. The FDA gave it the green light in Europe. Twelve thousand children will be born with severe limb malformations before anyone in an official capacity acknowledges the problem. The families are told the drug was safe. The drug was approved. Both of these things remain true.

The year is 1972. Your doctor prescribes Valium. Britain is in the grip of a benzodiazepine wave that will last two decades. The dependency risk is known internally. It is not shared. Your doctor is not lying to you. He was not told either.

The year is 1999. Your doctor prescribes Vioxx for your arthritis. It is newer than ibuprofen, well-tolerated, and Merck has a study showing it works. Merck also has internal data suggesting it roughly doubles the risk of heart attack. This data will not reach your doctor for four more years. Fifty thousand people are estimated to have died in the interim. Merck eventually settles for 4.85 billion dollars. No criminal charges are brought.

The year is 2002. Your doctor prescribes OxyContin. Purdue Pharma trained its sales representatives to tell doctors the addiction risk was less than one percent. That figure came from a letter, not a study. The letter was about patients with terminal cancer on short-term doses in hospital settings. Your doctor is a GP with a patient who has a bad back. Nobody draws a distinction. Nobody is required to.

The year is 2008. Your doctor checks your cholesterol. Your LDL is elevated. You are prescribed a statin. Nobody mentions that the number needed to treat for primary prevention is approximately 250. Nobody mentions that the muscle deterioration you'll notice over the next two years is listed as a rare side effect rather than a documented pattern affecting a meaningful percentage of patients. The trial that informed the prescription was funded by the manufacturer.

Now it is today.

Your doctor has new guidelines. New studies. New consensus.

He is confident.

He has always been confident.

The confidence has never been the problem.

The confidence is, in fact, precisely the problem.

[Angelina C @Angel_in_a_Cave]

@HopeRising19 @MurfittTauranga Just watched this the other day. So heartbreaking! I can’t wait for justice and acknowledgement for these people.

[Angelina C @Angel_in_a_Cave]

@saltyreigns I knew there would be some significance about it being his 66th birthday.

[Red Pill Dispenser @redpilldispensr]

Pastor asks ChatGPT: "If you were the devil, what would you do?"

"The answer that came back shook me."