Canada – Page 94 of 130

December 11, 2020February 27, 2026

Reminder, Bill S-240 Didn’t Pass, Would Criminalize Leaving Canada For Trafficked Organs

Senate Bill S-240 would make it a crime to go abroad for the purposes of receiving trafficked organs. The rationale being, if it’s illegal here, leaving to do it should be treated the same way. In part, Bill S-240 has been in response to revelations that China has been involved in forced organ harvesting.

This is the 4th version of the idea to come forward. Yet again, it did not pass before the session ended.

1. From 2018 Senate Hearings

Bills don’t always have to originate in the House of Commons. Many come from the Senate as well, and Bill S-240 is just one of them. It would have amended the Criminal Code to make it a crime to go abroad to obtain an organ where there has been no informed consent. It’s already a crime to leave the country to participate in terrorism or child sex offences, so it’s not much of a stretch.

The Senate adopted it on June 14, 2018. However, it would be another year before the House of Commons would hold hearings on it.

2. Audio From Parliamentary Hearings

February 26, 2019 — House Committee

February 27, 2019 — House Committee

From the House of Commons hearings.

3. Most Recent Text Of Bill S-240

BILL S-240
An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (trafficking in human organs)
Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:
.
R.‍S.‍, c. C-46
Criminal Code
1 (1) Section 7 of the Criminal Code is amended by adding the following after subsection (4.‍11):
Offence outside Canada
.
(4.‍2) Despite anything in this Act or any other Act, a person who commits an act or omission outside Canada that, if committed in Canada, would be an offence under section 240.‍1 is deemed to commit that act or omission in Canada if the person is a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident within the meaning of subsection 2(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
.
(2) Subsection 7(4.‍3) of the Act is replaced by the following:
Consent of Attorney General
.
(4.‍3) Proceedings with respect to an act or omission deemed to have been committed in Canada under subsection (4.‍1) or (4.‍2) may only be instituted with the consent of the Attorney General.
.
2 The Act is amended by adding the following after section 240:
Trafficking in Human Organs
Removal without informed consent
.
240.‍1 (1) Everyone commits an offence who
(a) obtains an organ to be transplanted into their body or into the body of another person, knowing that the person from whom it was removed did not give informed consent to the removal, or being reckless as to whether or not that person gave informed consent;
.
(b) carries out, participates in or facilitates the removal of an organ from the body of another person, knowing that the person from whom it was removed did not give informed consent to the removal, or being reckless as to whether or not that person gave informed consent; or
.
(c) acts on behalf of, at the direction of or in association with a person who removes an organ from the body of another person, knowing that the person from whom it was removed did not give informed consent to the removal, or being reckless as to whether or not that person gave informed consent.

The Bill underwent some changes along the way, but that is the latest version. Not only would a person receiving a trafficked organ be exposed to prosecution for leaving Canada, but others involved in facilitating it would be as liable as well.

4. S-204 A Response To China’s Trafficking

The clock is ticking on Canada’s chance to enact important measures against organ trafficking.

For the past two decades, the Chinese regime has been killing prisoners of conscience for their organs. The purchase and sale of human lives has become an industry, and Canada, among other developed countries, has been supporting it.

Bill S-240 seeks to put a stop to Canadian complicity by criminalizing organ tourism. The bill has received unanimous consent from both the Senate and the House of Commons, and is awaiting final Senate approval before the end of the parliamentary session before it can be passed.

This is a critical moment of decision for Canada.

As a member of the Canadian Committee of the International Coalition To End Transplant Abuse In China, I have been among those advocating for Bill S-240, an act that brings important changes to the Criminal Code and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act in order to combat organ tourism.

Several articles available call this what is: fighting back largely against the forced organ harvesting that China is involved with.

This should be a pretty straightforward issue to get on board with. But like the other times this was introduced, it never quite made it through Parliament. Plenty of lesser and symbolic pieces of legislation have, but not this.

Senate Introduces Bill S-240, Criminal Code, Organ Trafficking
Bill S-240 Transcript Of Hearings
Senate Bill S-240: Going Abroad To Obtain Illegal Organs
Open Parliament On MP Speeches, Quotes
House Committee Hearings On Bill S-240
The Conversation: Canada Complicit In Chinese Organ Trafficking
EndTransplantAbuse.Org

December 10, 2020December 14, 2025

Review Of 2020 Annual Immigration Report To Parliament

The 2020 Annual Immigration Report to the Canadian Parliament is now available to the public. Underneath all the self-congratulations, there are some serious issues to address.

1. Mass LEGAL Immigration In Canada

Despite what many think, LEGAL immigration into Canada is actually a much larger threat than illegal aliens, given the true scale of the replacement that is happening. What was founded as a European (British) colony is becoming unrecognizable due to forced demographic changes. There are also social, economic, environmental and voting changes to consider. See this Canadian series, and the UN programs for more detail. Politicians, the media, and so-called “experts” have no interest in coming clean on this.

CLICK HERE, for UN Genocide Prevention/Punishment Convention.
CLICK HERE, for Barcelona Declaration & Kalergi Plan.
CLICK HERE, for UN Kalergi Plan (population replacement).
CLICK HERE, for UN replacement efforts since 1974.
CLICK HERE, for tracing steps of UN replacement agenda.

Note: If there are errors in calculating the totals, please speak up. Information is of no use to the public if it isn’t accurate.

2. Annual Immigration Reports To Parliament

3. Total Number Of People Coming To Canada

341,180 permanent residence cards issued (page 34) in 2019. Broken down by category, we get the following totals.

196,658 Economic
91,311 Family
48,530 Protected Person & Refugee
4,681 Humanitarian

That is the total number of people awarded a PR designation. However, a significant portion of them were already in Canada, typically work or student visas. So that must be taken into account.

341,180 permanent residence cards issued
-74,586 (temporaries who transitioned to PR)
= 266,594 new PR brought into Canada

Temporaries Brought Into Canada
402,427 new student visas
+98,310 temporary foreign workers
+306,797 international mobility visa holders
= 807,534 temporaries with path to transition

6,080 “inadmissibles” allowed under Rule 24(1) of IRPA
527 “inadmissibles” allowed under Rule 25.2(1) of IRPA

4,125,909 eTAs (electronic travel authorizations)
1,696,871 TRV (temporary resident visas)

And who knows how many people have slipped into Canada where there is no documentation?

Disclaimer: it’s impossible to know how many people have actually left (v.s. stayed in Canada), since the Government doesn’t provide such information. Certainly many people have left once their visa or authorization expires, but there’s no way of determining the exact amount. Fair to assume it’s close to a million, or perhaps over that.

One has to wonder if all of this is left vague on purpose, in order to make the true scale of replacement migration unknown.

4. Continued Population Replacement

This graph is from page 33 of the 2020 Annual Report. Note: this is by no means everyone who is coming into Canada. However, it gives an idea of WHERE people are coming from. Each report lists the top 10 source countries, and it doesn’t vary much by year.

(Page 18 of the 2004 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 24 of the 2005 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 18, 19 of the 2006 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 19, 20 of the 2007 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 21, 22 of the 2008 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 16 of the 2009 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 14 of the 2010 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 18 of the 2011 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 15 of the 2012 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 19 of the 2013 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 16 of the 2014 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 16 of the 2015 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 10 of the 2016 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 14 of the 2017 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 28 of the 2018 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 36 of the 2019 Annual Report to Parliament)

This year, the top 5 source countries are:

India 25%
China 9%
Philippines 8%
Nigeria 4%
Pakistan 3%

Once again, these PR numbers (assuming they are even accurate), so not reflect the total number of people coming into Canada with some option to stay. So these totals are quite misleading.

Early in Canada’s history, the major source of immigration was British, as well other other Western European countries. Now, it’s primarily Asian, Middle Eastern and African. France and the UK are no longer even in the top 10. The result is very visible balkanization in places like the GTA, Vancouver, Edmonton, Winnipeg and elsewhere.

5. Temporary Visitors To Canada

TRV = Temporary Resident Visa
eTA = Electronic Travel Authorization

YEAR	TRV Issued	eTA Issued	Totals
2016	1,347,898	2,605,077	3,952,975
2017	1,617,222	4,109,918	5,570,197
2018	1,898,324	4,125,909	6,024,233
2019	1,696,871	4,077,471	5,774,342

There were 4,125,909 eTAs (electronic travel authorizations), and 1,696,871 TRV (temporary resident visas) issued in 2019. See page 15. In fairness, the overwhelming majority of those people probably left without any sort of issue. But even when there are serious problems, getting into Canada LEGALLY isn’t all that difficult.

6. More “Inadmissibles” Let Into Canada

Table 1, Page 32 of the report.

Broadly speaking, there are two provisions within IRPA, the Immigrant and Refugee Protection Act, that allow people who were previously deemed inadmissible to Canada to be given Temporary Resident Permits anyway. Here are the totals from the Annual Reports to Parliament on Immigration. Note: the first one listed only started in 2010.

Those allowed in under Rule 25.2(1) of IRPA

YEAR	TRP Issued	Cumulative
2010	17	17
2011	53	70
2012	53	123
2013	280	403
2014	385	788
2015	1,063	1,851
2016	596	2,447
2017	555	3002
2018	669	3,671
2019	527	4,198

From 2010 to 2019, a total of 4,198 people who were otherwise inadmissible to Canada were allowed in anyway under Rule 25.2(1) of IRPA. This is the category that Global News previously reported on. As for the other one, under Rule 24(1) of IRPA, Global News leaves that out:

Year	Permits	Cumulative
2002	12,630	12,630
2003	12,069	24,699
2004	13,598	38,297
2005	13,970	52,267
2006	13,412	65,679
2007	13,244	78,923
2008	12,821	91,744
2009	15,640	107,384
2010	12,452	119,836
2011	11,526	131,362
2012	13,564	144,926
2013	13,115	158,041
2014	10,624	168,665
2015	10,333	178,998
2016	10,568	189,566
2017	9,221	198,787
2018	7,132	205,919
2019	6,080	211,999

From 2002 to 2019 (inclusive), a total of 211,999 people previously deemed inadmissible to Canada were given Temporary Resident Permits anyway. This has almost certainly been going on for a lot longer, but is as far back as the reports go. Now let’s consider the reasons these people are initially refused entry.

SEC = Security (espionage, subversion, terrorism)
HRV = Human or International Rights Violations
CRIM = Criminal
S.CRIM = Serious Criminal
NC = Non Compliance
MR = Misrepresentation

YEAR	Total	SEC	HRV	Crim	S.Crim	NC	MR
2002	12,630	?	?	?	?	?	?
2003	12,069	17	25	5,530	869	4,855	39
2004	13,598	12	12	7,096	953	4,981	20
2005	13,970	27	15	7,917	981	4,635	21
2006	13,412	29	20	7,421	982	4,387	18
2007	13,244	25	8	7,539	977	4,109	14
2008	12,821	73	18	7,108	898	4,170	17
2009	15,640	32	23	6,619	880	7,512	10
2010	12,452	86	24	6,451	907	4,423	36
2011	11,526	37	14	6,227	899	3,932	11
2012	13,564	20	15	7,014	888	5,206	18
2013	13,115	17	10	6,816	843	5,135	8
2014	10,624	12	2	5,807	716	3,895	14
2015	10,333	3	3	5,305	578	4,315	28
2016	10,568	8	4	4,509	534	2,788	20
2017	9,221	10	5	5,035	591	3,412	121
2018	7,132	5	3	4,132	559	2,299	131
2019	6,080	2	0	3,202	546	2,139	175

Even if people are excluded from Canada — for a variety of valid reasons — often they will still be given temporary entrance into Canada. Will they ever leave? Who knows?

7. Canada Scraps “Designated Country Of Origin”

Canada removes all countries from the designated country of origin list
May 17, 2019—Ottawa, ON—The Government of Canada is committed to a well-managed asylum system that’s fair, fast and final. Effective today, Canada is removing all countries from the designated country of origin (DCO) list, which effectively suspends the DCO policy, introduced in 2012, until it can be repealed through future legislative changes.
.
Claimants from the 42 countries on the DCO list were previously subject to a 6-month bar on work permits, a bar on appeals at the Refugee Appeals Division, limited access to the Interim Federal Health Program and a 36-month bar on the Pre-Removal Risk Assessment.
.
The DCO policy did not fulfil its objective of discouraging misuse of the asylum system and of processing refugee claims from these countries faster. Additionally, several Federal Court decisions struck down certain provisions of the DCO policy, ruling that they did not comply with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
.
Removing all countries from the DCO list is a Canadian policy change, not a reflection of a change in country conditions in any of the countries previously on the list.
.
De-designating countries of origin has no impact on the Canada-U.S. Safe Third Country Agreement.

On May 17, 2019, the Canadian Government announced it would no longer have the 42 so-called designated countries of origin. This was a list of nations — mainly in Europe — who were considered safe countries. This was done without debate in Parliament.

It’s a pretty convoluted justification, that this policy did little to prevent fraud and abuse. This comes while fake refugees from the U.S. are allowed to illegally stroll into Canada.

The change left the Safe 3rd Country Agreement intact — for the time being — but even that wouldn’t be safe.

8. “Refugees” From U.S. Warzone

Let’s be clear about one thing: illegal crossings from the U.S. could be stopped instantly, it politicians actually had any interest in doing so. Instead, they feign helplessness in order for the public to stop expecting results.

Asylum Claims
The in-Canada asylum system provides protection to foreign nationals when it is determined that they have a
well-founded fear of persecution.
.
Canada received over 64,000 in-Canada asylum claims in 2019, the highest annual number received on record.
Of these, approximately 26% were made by asylum claimants who crossed the Canada-U.S. border between
designated ports of entry. The Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada finalized 43,004 claims in 2019. Further, Budget 2020 earmarked $795 million over five years to support continued processing of 50,000 asylum
claims per year until 2023–2024. This investment builds on those made in Budgets 2019 and 2018 to effectively
manage Canada’s border and asylum system.

(From page 21), Canada still allowed bogus refugees from the warzone that is the United States. By exploiting a loophole written into the Safe 3rd Country Agreement, economic migrants are able to get to the U.S., then come further north and engage in asylum shopping.

Worth noting, in 2020 a Federal Court Judge struck down the Safe 3rd Country Agreement, claiming it violates the Charter Rights of people illegally in the country trying to claim asylum.

9. Students & Temporary Workers

In 2019, Canada issued 402,427 new study permits, (see page 15). Overall, there were 827,586 international students with visas. Note: this doesn’t include minor children exempt from the visa requirement.

The Report claims that there was $21.6 billion in tuition fees paid from international students. This is the devil’s bargain here: schools get the money, and students get a pathway to stay in Canada.

Temporary Foreign Workers (TFW), and the International Mobility Program (IMP) are listed on page 16. Both programs have seen considerable increases this year. In 2019, there were 98,310 TFW, and 306,797 IMP.

Year	Stu	TFWP	IMP	Total
2003	61,293	82,151	–	143,444
2004	56,536	90,668	–	147,204
2005	57,476	99,146	–	156,622
2006	61,703	112,658	–	174,361
2007	64,636	165,198	–	229,834
2008	79,509	192,519	–	272,028
2009	85,140	178,478	–	263,618
2010	96,157	182,276	–	278,433
2011	98,383	190,842	–	289,225
2012	104,810	213,573	–	318,383
2013	111,865	221,310	–	333,175
2014	127,698	95,086	197,924	420,078
2015	219,143	73,016	175,967	468,126
2016	265,111	78,402	207,829	551,342
2017	317,328	78,788	224,033	620,149
2018	356,876	84,229	255,034	696,139
2019	402,427	98,310	306,797	807,534

Let’s not pretend that all (or even the bulk) of people on these various visas will leave Canada afterwards.

Looking ahead
COVID-19 has had a tremendous impact on Canada’s prosperity, including our economy. Despite these current challenges, immigration will continue to be a source of long-term economic growth in Canada. IRCC will continue to work with provinces and territories, and other partners and stakeholders, to ensure that our approach to immigration supports Canada’s ongoing prosperity.

Despite the record high unemployment rate, and supposedly being in the middle of a “pandemic”, the Government is committed to continued high levels of population replacement.

10. Tracking People Leaving Canada

Strangely, it is Trudeau who brought in a full entry/exit system to track people leaving Canada, regardless of destination. Sure it took until the Summer of 2020 to be implemented, but still, an improvement. When Harper was in office, he only implemented a limited entry/exit system with the U.S. It didn’t apply to other countries.

However, it’s quite harmful that the CBSA apparently cancels outstanding warrants for people wanted for deportation. Clearly, there is bipartisan indifference towards real border security.

There’s also no effort, at any level of Government, to abolish the practice of “Sanctuary Cities“. These are municipalities that openly defy and circumvent Federal law in order to allow illegal aliens to remain and to access public services.

11. Other Noteworthy Developments

Open Work Permit for Vulnerable Workers
In June 2019, IRCC introduced a new measure to enable migrant workers who have an employer-specific work permit and are in an abusive job situation to apply for an open work permit. This measure helps to ensure that migrant workers who need to leave their employer can maintain their status, and find
another job.

Measures to support newcomers against family violence
In 2019, IRCC launched measures to ensure that newcomers experiencing family violence are able to apply for a fee-exempt temporary resident permit for newcomers in Canada. This gives them: (a) Legal status; (b) Work permit; (c) Health-care coverage

Home Child Care Provider Pilot and Home Support Worker Pilot
The Home Child Care Provider and Home Support Worker pilots opened for applications on June 18, 2019 and will run for five years. They replaced the expiring Caring for Children and Caring for People with High Medical Needs pilots.
.
Through these pilots, caregivers benefit from a clear transition from temporary to permanent status to ensure that once caregivers have met the work experience requirement, they can become permanent residents quickly. They also benefit from occupation-specific work permits, rather than employer-specific ones, to allow for a fast change of employers when needed. The immediate family of the caregiver may also receive open work permits and study permits to help families come to Canada together.
.
Features of the new pilots reflect lessons learned from previous caregiver programs and test innovative
approaches to addressing unique vulnerabilities and isolation associated with work in private households.

Rainbow Refugees Assistance Partnership
In June 2019, the Government of Canada announced the launch of the Rainbow Refugee Assistance Partnership. Starting in 2020, the five-year partnership will assist private sponsors with the sponsorship of 50 LGBTI refugees per year. The partnership will also strengthen collaboration between LGBTI organizations and the refugee settlement community in Canada.

From page 28 of the report. Some of the changes made in the last year. Most people have no idea the full extent of what’s really going on.

12. Conservatives Support Status Quo

Think that putting Conservatives back into power means that there will be a halt (or even a reduction) in the open borders policies currently going on? Items such as CANZUK, and the temp-to-PR pipeline, are cpc.policy.declaration party policy. O’Toole is on record saying he supports expanding CANZUK further.

13. Political Solution Not Possible

The courts have found that entering Canada (even illegally), is a human right. Politicians (of all parties), have no interest in doing anything about open borders.

All parties support genocidal levels of population replacement. They cloak it in terms like “diversity”, “compassion”, “serving labour needs”, family reunification”, “funding pensions and health care”, and other such lies. Simply ensuring that it happens LEGALLY does nothing to prevent the ultimate outcome.

December 7, 2020December 7, 2020

CV #35(C): Health Canada Refuses To Answer Questions About Indemnification For Vaccines

The public is understandably anxious about whether vaccine manufacturers will be indemnified (legally immune), for the products they sell. It’s a valid question, from a patient perspective, and as a taxpayer.

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

The rest of the series is here. Many lies, lobbying, conflicts of interest, and various globalist agendas operating behind the scenes, obscuring the vile agenda called the “Great Reset“. The Gates Foundation finances: the WHO, the US CDC, GAVI, ID2020, John Hopkins University, Imperial College London, the Pirbright Institute, the BBC, and individual pharmaceutical companies. Also: there is little to no science behind what our officials are doing; they promote degenerate behaviour; and the International Health Regulations are legally binding. See here, here, and here. The media is paid off, and our democracy compromised, shown: here, here, here, and here.

2. Email Exchange With Health Canada

Health Canada was contact specifically about the indemnification of vaccine manufacturers. Above are the responses. However, it’s a bit misleading to say that they can’t release information due to ongoing negotiating. Health Canada wouldn’t even discuss indemnification for Eli Lilly Canada and Gilead Sciences Canada. Both had been settled long ago.

3. Health Canada And Vaccine Regulation

Vaccination is one of the world’s greatest public health achievements. For over 50 years, vaccines have helped prevent and control the spread of deadly diseases and saved the lives of millions of infants, children and adults. For example, there are vaccines for:

-epidemics, such as Ebola
-childhood diseases and debilitating diseases, such as polio
-diseases, such as Yellow Fever, that are common in some travel destinations
-influenza strains that change every year
-preventing or treating cancer
Many vaccines are recommended as part of Canadian public health programs to prevent people from getting diseases. This means that they are given to large numbers of healthy people.

This is why regulating the safety, efficacy and quality of vaccines is of particular importance. There are also reporting systems in place to monitor vaccine safety.

https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-health-products/biologics-radiopharmaceuticals-genetic-therapies/activities/fact-sheets/regulation-vaccines-human-canada.html

Emergency access to vaccines
In some cases, such as public health emergencies like flu pandemics, special authorizations are used to give emergency access to a vaccine. For example, Health Canada issued an Interim Order in 2009 for the H1N1 pandemic vaccine. The vaccine was developed to protect against the H1N1 pandemic virus. The vaccine contained an inactivated (non-live) version of the H1N1 virus strain recommended by WHO for the manufacture of vaccines during the 2009 flu pandemic.

Worth addressing: in that 2009 Interim Order to approve vaccines for H1N1, Health Canada allowed drugs made by GlaxoSmithKline, (GSK), onto the market that hadn’t been fully tested. GSK was indemnified by the Government. Would it happen here?

Why is it so hard to get a straight answer with this case? Will they be indemnified or not?

December 6, 2020October 23, 2023

Psychological Manipulation And Techniques To Overcome “Vaccine Hesitancy”

One way to “persuade” people to get vaccinated is to simply strip them of their rights. Sure, the Government won’t tie you down to get it, but good luck enjoying your life otherwise. This is David Williams, the Chief Medical Officer of Ontario.

A point of clarification: the research into “vaccine hesitancy” isn’t about CREATING safe vaccines. Instead, it’s about CONVINCING people that they already are. Big difference.

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

2. Important Links

Ontario Medical Officer David Williams: Boot To Neck
Health Canada On Addressing Vaccine Hesitancy
Canada On Improving Vaccination Rates
Canadian Family Physician Publication
Vaccine Hesitancy Clinic
CBC Smearing Skeptics Of Masks/Vaccines
May 2019 Statement On Canada And Vaccine Hesitancy

Vaccine Hesitancy: Part A; Part B; Part C

3. Be Vague, Avoid Giving Specifics

This infographic uses autism as an example. The trick is to be conclusive (but vague), in stating that there are no harmful effects. It recommends not saying anything meaningful or specific, in order to make it harder to pin down.

4. Only Be “Honest” With Vaccine Accepters

This chart gives different techniques depending how willing to the person is to accept vaccines at all. It suggests being somewhat open about the risks, but emphasizing that they are rare. For the reluctant people, the guidelines say to focus on “building rapport” to get them to take it, but doesn’t specify to list what’s actually in the vaccines. As for the “refusers”, the recommendation is a mild form of gaslighting. Avoid giving direct answers, and focus on the risks of not being vaccinated.

5. Have A Script/Technique Already Prepared

Start early:
Take advantage of prenatal appointments and the first few postnatal appointments. A mixed-methods study showed that parents who delayed or refused vaccines were twice as likely to start thinking about vaccines before their children’s births. A randomized controlled trial showed that adherence to the immunization schedule improved with a single prenatal education session, and another showed benefit from stepwise education interventions prenatally, postnatally, and 1 month after birth. At these appointments, parents can be provided with opportunities to ask questions and with credible take-home materials, websites, or tools.

Present vaccination as the default approach:
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends a presumptive approach to discussions about vaccinations and restating the recommendation after addressing parents’ concerns. A cross-sectional study found that parents were significantly more likely to resist vaccine recommendations if the provider used a participatory rather than a presumptive initiation format (odds ratio of 17.5, 95% CI 1.2 to 253.5) and that when providers pursued the original recommendations, almost half of initially resistant parents subsequently accepted the recommendations. While a follow-up cross-sectional study showed that the presumptive initiation format had a lower-rated visit experience, it was still associated with higher parental vaccine acceptance at the end of the visit.

Be honest about side effects when asked, and reassure parents of a robust vaccine safety system:
A 2014 systematic review showed that serious adverse events associated with vaccines are extremely rare. Perceived risk might be lowered by acknowledging that vaccines might result in mild side effects and very rarely serious adverse events. The Canadian vaccine safety system has 8 components, including an evidence-based approval process, manufacturer regulations, independent recommendations for vaccine use, and ongoing monitoring of adverse events. It has been shown in a randomized controlled trial that providing general information on the adverse event reporting system might increase trust and vaccine acceptance among adults. However, no similar study was found for childhood immunization.

Tell stories in addition to providing scientific facts:
According to a survey of primary care physicians in the United States, the most common communication practices deemed very effective for convincing skeptical parents were personal statements by physicians about what they would do for their own children and about their personal experiences with vaccine safety among their patients. Stories and images highlighting the effects of VPDs improved attitudes toward vaccination according to a randomized controlled trial, especially for individuals who had lower confidence in vaccines. However, another randomized controlled trial showed that dramatic narratives and images resulted in no significant change in intention to vaccinate and even decreased intention among those who had the least favourable perception. However, this study tested Web-based messages only. Although more evidence is needed on the topic, storytelling, which has commonly been used by the antivaccine movement, has been proposed as a possible messaging technique to supplement evidence-based information.

Build trust with parents:
A recent review found that parental trust in a provider helps ensure vaccine compliance. A qualitative study reported that a mother’s trust is obtained when a provider spends time discussing vaccines, does not deride her concerns, is knowledgeable, and provides satisfactory answers. Other qualitative studies identified respect, empathy, and tailored information as aspects of communication competence.

Address pain:
Pain associated with vaccination is a concern for many parents and children. Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines have been developed to reduce vaccination-associated.

Focus on protection for the child and community:
Necessity of vaccines is the top concern from Canadian parents, and a study conducted in Quebec found that one of the strongest factors associated with parental vaccine hesitancy was the belief that VPDs were not serious. A study conducted in the United States had similar findings. To highlight the importance of individual protection, the use of motivational interviewing could be considered. A recent Canadian randomized controlled trial showed that motivational interviewing on maternity wards increased the intention to vaccinate by 20% and the likelihood of complete vaccination status by 9%. A systematic review concluded that there might be some parental willingness to vaccinate children for the benefit of others; however, its relative importance as a motivating tool is uncertain.

Note that throughout this, there is no suggestion that the doctor have a frank and open discussion about what is actually in vaccines, the gaps in knowledge, or the long term effects. The recommendation is to build trust, so that the patient will not ask difficult questions and just take it. The entire approach can be described as “shut up and trust me”. Again, doctors are guided to be vague when answering questions.

6. Set Up Actual Vaccine Hesitancy Clinic

Again, the focus is on “building trust” and “forming a relationship”, but never a focus on educating the patient on what is in the vaccines, and the long term effects. Also, guilt trip the people by implying that it’s necessary in order for life to return to normal.

7. Social Media Manipulation, Censorship

There are many ways to “put one’s thumb on the scale” to ensure that the right, pro-vaccination messages are what is seen and heard online. Some techniques include:

(a) Flood social media with pro-vaxx content
(b) Automatically direct people to Government sites
(c) Take down sites which contradict the Government
(d) Get certain accounts demonetized
(e) Manipulate search algorithms

8. Deliberate Gaslighting Of Critics, Skeptics

There is the option of intentionally smearing people as emotional and bigoted for asking legitimate questions about masks and vaccines. While this CBC video explicitly claims to oppose shaming and humiliation, it’s tone seems to support exactly that.

9. Not Limited To Current “Pandemic”

No, this situation isn’t unique to 2020. Governments and NGOs have for many years been looking at ways to get more people vaccinated.

10. Patients Not Provided Real Information

Much of the research involves techniques of “building a relationship”, or of “building a rapport”, or of “being sympathetic”. This does nothing to address the litany of legitimate concerns and questions that many have about the chemicals being injected into their bodies.

Even more disturbingly, there aren’t recommendations that physicians and nurses take the time and effort to research and understand exactly what the chemicals are.

In fact, much of the published research explicitly recommends avoiding real discussion, especially with people who have done their homework — so called “vaccine refusers”. In effect, it encourages health care workers to betray their oath and obligations regarding informed consent.

If this is health care, then the entire system is broken beyond repair.

A telltale sign of deception is when a person is asked increasingly direct questions, but remains vague about the answers. That is exactly what is implied with these techniques to overcome “vaccine hesitancy”.

December 6, 2020

CV #24(C): Vaccine Impact Modelling Consortium, More Bogus Science

The Vaccine Impact Modelling Consortium: just another group involved in the junk science of computer modelling for epidemics. It in under the umbrella of Imperial College London, and is heavily funded by Gates and GAVI. Of course, GAVI is heavily funded by Gates.

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

The rest of the series is here. Many lies, lobbying, conflicts of interest, and various globalist agendas operating behind the scenes, obscuring the vile agenda called the “Great Reset“. The Gates Foundation finances: the WHO, the US CDC, GAVI, ID2020, John Hopkins University, Imperial College London, the Pirbright Institute, the BBC, and individual pharmaceutical companies. Also: there is little to no science behind what our officials are doing; they promote degenerate behaviour; the Australian Department of Health admits the PCR tests don’t work; the US CDC admits testing is heavily flawed; and The International Health Regulations are legally binding. See here, here, and here. The media is paid off, and our democracy compromised, shown: here, here, here, and here.

2. VIMC Key Partners

https://www.vaccineimpact.org/partners/

About us
The Vaccine Impact Modelling Consortium coordinates the work of several research groups modelling the impact of vaccination programmes worldwide.

The Consortium was established at the end of 2016 for a period of five years, and is currently coordinated by secretariat based at Imperial College London.

As its core objective, the Consortium aims to deliver more sustainable, efficient, and transparent approach to generating disease burden and vaccine impact estimates. Furthermore, the Consortium will work on aggregating the estimates across a portfolio of twelve vaccine-preventable diseases and further advancing the research agenda in the field of vaccine impact modelling.

The Consortium is funded by Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and the data generated by the Consortium will support the evaluation of the two organisations’ existing vaccination programmes, and inform potential future investments and vaccine scale-up opportunities.

https://www.vaccineimpact.org/aboutus/

Strange that the coronavirus isn’t listed. After all, this group is closely tied to Gates and GAVI. However, it seems to be involved in everything else under the sun.

3. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

In 2016, a donation of $5.6 million was awarded to Imperial College London to establish the Vaccine Impact Modelling Consortium. As the name implies, it would work on computer models to predict viruses and vaccine treatments. Of course, models are just predictions, and are not evidence of anything.

BILL & MELINDA GATES FOUNDATION
EIN: 56-2618866
gates.foundation.taxes.2016
gates.foundation.taxes.2017
gates.foundation.taxes.2018

BILL & MELINDA GATES FOUNDATION TRUST
EIN: 91-1663695
gates.foundation.trust.taxes.2018

The tax records are worth going through. The Gates Foundation donates to many universities across the globe. It’s difficult to comprehend without seeing the full list.

4. Know Who This Group Works For

The takeaway here is simple: when research is released, always know who is funding it, and where their allegiances lie. Vaccine Impact Modelling Consortium is no different.

December 5, 2020February 27, 2026

Pfizer Still Lobbying In Canada, Vaccine Approved In U.K.

Vaccines are coming into Canada from Pfizer and others. This was recently been announced on the CBC. For some context, remember that:
-The virus survival rate is over 99% (if it even exists)
-PCR tests are useless as diagnostic tools (again, if it even exists)
-People have to be tested to know they have it
-Vaccines were cooked up in the last few months, side effects unknown
-Things like masks will continue afterwards

1. Rempel Isn’t Who She Pretends To Be

In the video with Michelle Rempel-Garner (discussing Derek Sloan’s petition), it’s interesting that she shrugs off the very valid concerns of unproven drugs. She also doesn’t question the wisdom behind lockdowns themselves. Want your freedom? Shut up and get the vaccine. This is typical of “conservative” politicians in Canada.

Rempel isn’t who she appears to be. And why exactly does she keep looking to her right in the video? Is there someone else in the room?

2. Pfizer Lobbying Ottawa Regularly

Pfizer has lobbied the Federal Government 153 times since becoming a registered lobbyist in 2007. Of course, that doesn’t include any discussions that may be “off the books”. One of Pfizer’s lobbyists, Steven Hogue, used to work in the Prime Minister’s Office when Jean Chretien was in office.

3. Goldy Hyer Ex-Pfizer Lobbyist In Ottawa

Goldy Hyer was at a time the Chief-of-Staff for Joe Clark, then Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada. He is also involved with:
(a) The Century Initiative
(b) Asia Business Leaders Advisory Council
(c) Catalyst Inc. / Catalyst Canada
(d) 30% Club Canada

4. Pfizer Lobbied M-132 Committee Vice-Chairs

Motion Text
That the Standing Committee on Health be instructed to undertake a study on ways of increasing benefits to the public resulting from federally funded health research, with the goals of lowering drugs costs and increasing access to medicines, both in Canada and globally; and that the Committee report its findings and recommendations to the House no later than one year from the time this motion is adopted.

M-132 was filed in late 2017, by Raj Saini. It was a motion to finance pharmaceuticals, and pharmaceutical research, both in Canada and abroad. See here and here. Marilyn Gladue, and Don Davies, (both lobbied by Pfizer), were the Vice-Chairs on that Committee.

5. Pfizer Lobbying In Ontario

Pfizer has also been busy lobbying Ontario since 2002 over pharmaceutical interests. It’s worth noting, that both Kathleen Wynne and Doug Ford never fully implemented Bill 160. This Bill would have mandated disclosure, (rather than it being optional), of payments made to health care providers to sell certain drugs.

Since Bill 160 isn’t really the law, there’s no requirement hospitals or health care staff to disclose the financing they may get to push certain remedies.

8. Pfizer Lobbying In Manitoba

Manitoba has had lobbyists from Pfizer in the past, but none active since 2017. Perhaps they have moved on to Ottawa.

7. Pfizer Lobbying In Alberta

A search in the Alberta Lobbyist Registry shows 12 meetings since 2018 between Government officials, and Pfizer. The last one was just the other day. Jason Kenney isn’t doing quite the “hard sell” that Ford does, but he is still fully on board with the agenda.

Of course, there is other lobbying going on, and in other Provinces as well. These examples provided are hardly exhaustive of what’s going on, but should provide a decent sample.

8. Hajdu Order To Approve Untested Vaccines

Interim Orders
Marginal note:Interim orders
.
30.1 (1) The Minister may make an interim order that contains any provision that may be contained in a regulation made under this Act if the Minister believes that immediate action is required to deal with a significant risk, direct or indirect, to health, safety or the environment.
.
Marginal note: Cessation of effect
.
(2) An interim order has effect from the time that it is made but ceases to have effect on the earliest of
.
(a) 14 days after it is made, unless it is approved by the Governor in Council,
.
(b) the day on which it is repealed,
.
(c) the day on which a regulation made under this Act, that has the same effect as the interim order, comes into force, and
.
(d) one year after the interim order is made or any shorter period that may be specified in the interim order.

On September 16, 2020, Health Minister Patty Hajdu signed an Interim Order allowing for approval of vaccines in an expedited manner, even if they were fully tested. Section 30.1 of the Food and Drug Act allows that. It must be pointed out, however, that Hajdu is not a doctor, and has no medical background at all.

9. UK Approves Pfizer/BioNTech Vaccine, Dec. 2

Tens of thousands of people will receive an effective and high-quality COVID-19 vaccine from next week, as the UK becomes the first country in the western world to authorise a vaccine.

Following rigorous clinical trials involving thousands of people and extensive analysis of the vaccine’s safety, quality and effectiveness by experts from the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), Pfizer/BioNTech’s vaccine has been authorised for use in the UK.

Now authorisation has been granted, Pfizer will deliver the vaccine to the UK. In making the recommendation to authorise supply, the MHRA will decide what additional quality assurance checks may be required before a vaccine can be made available. Pfizer will then deliver the vaccines to the UK as soon as possible.

The NHS has decades of experience in rolling out successful widespread vaccination programmes and has put in place extensive deployment plans.

In line with the recommendations of the independent Joint Committee for Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI), the vaccine will be rolled out to the priority groups including care home residents and staff, people over 80 and health and care workers, then to the rest of the population in order of age and risk, including those who are clinically extremely vulnerable.

Isn’t this great? Pfizer/BioNTech got their approval to start distributing vaccines in the UK. Surely, with all these rigorous tests, they are certain that the product is safe, right?

10. UK: Vaccine Damage Payments Scheme

In advance of a rollout of an authorised COVID-19 vaccine and in line with other immunisation programmes, the government is taking the precautionary step to ensure that, in the very rare possibility where someone is severely disabled as a result of taking a COVID-19 vaccine, they can access financial assistance through the Vaccine Damage Payments Scheme (VDPS).

No safety concerns have been reported in vaccines authorised for use following rigorous clinical trials involving tens of thousands of people and extensive analysis of the vaccine’s safety, quality and effectiveness by experts from the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).

Pfizer/BioNTech’s vaccine is now the first COVID-19 vaccine to be authorised for use in the UK, and the MHRA will keep safety under continual review.

Adding diseases to the VDPS is not new and numerous diseases have been added as successive governments have rolled out more immunisation programmes, such as HPV and Meningitis B. In response to the H1N1 (swine flu) pandemic, the previous government added swine flu to the VDPS on 10 October 2009.

Generally, only those who were administered vaccines as part of a childhood immunisation programme are covered under the VDPS. However, because COVID-19 vaccines will be rolled out to a large proportion of the adult population, the government will amend the eligibility requirements, ensuring adults who are administered a COVID-19 vaccine in the UK or Isle of Man, or as part of an armed forces medical treatment, will be covered by the scheme too.

The VDPS is a safety net to help ease the burden on individuals who have in extremely rare circumstances experienced harm due to receiving a government-recommended vaccine. It is not a compensation scheme. Rather, it provides a one-off, tax-free lump sum – currently £120,000 – for those suffering a severe disability as a result of a vaccine against a disease listed under the Vaccine Damage Payments Act.

Background information
Currently, in order to qualify for the payment, it must be accepted, on the balance of probability, that there is a causal link between the vaccine and the claimed disability and that the resulting disability amounts to severe (ie at least 60%) disablement.
.
Claims are assessed and paid where successful by the Department for Work and Pensions.

The UK Government only the day before announces approval for Pfizer/BioNTech’s vaccine. Almost immediately afterwards, the UK reveals that taxpayers will be on the hook for any injuries that result from these vaccines.

The amount is capped at £120,000, and even then, it’s only with very serious disability. Capitalized profits, socialized compensation. Of course, the implication of having a vaccine compensation scheme means that the companies themselves will be off the hook for whatever death and injury results.

11. Pfizer And Violation Tracker

Of course, Pfizer isn’t too willing to share some of it’s more troubling history, such as this provided by Violation Tracker. Well worth a long read. Everything from false claims, to bribery, to kickbacks are cited.

12. Gates A Recent Pfizer Donor

In addition to making contributions to Pfizer, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation owns over $1.7 million in stock from the pharmaceutical company.

BILL & MELINDA GATES FOUNDATION
EIN: 56-2618866
gates.foundation.taxes.2016
gates.foundation.taxes.2017
gates.foundation.taxes.2018

BILL & MELINDA GATES FOUNDATION TRUST
EIN: 91-1663695
gates.foundation.trust.taxes.2018

Take a look at the documents for yourself. The full list can be found here, just search for the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Those 2 organizations will pop up.

The above screenshots are donations the Gates Foundation made in 2016 and 2018.

13. Pfizer Vaccines Coming To Canada/U.S.

Pfizer has already applied for permission to begin distributing in Canada and the United States, and they very likely will get it. If it’s anything like what happened with GlaxoSmithKline, they’ll be indemnified as well. Even if Canada were to set up a compensation scheme, it will never fully make up for the harm done.

And this point is critical: the vaccines haven’t even been fully tested. They’ll be doing more long term studies as the years go on. This is not the same thing as having vaccines ready.

As Tam says: vaccines normally take a decade or more. But here, just a few months apparently. And all for something with a mortality rate approximately that of the flu.

What about long term problems like premature death? Sterilization? Paralysis? Pain? Disfiguration? Unfortunately, a lot of that won’t become clear for a few years at least. Consequently, people will have to hope and pray.

Pfizer’s Vaccine Promoted On CBC News
Lobbying Commissioner’s Office In Canada
Lobbying Registry Of Ontario
Manitoba Provincial Lobbying Registry
Alberta Lobbyist Registry
Pfizer Lobbying The Federal Government On Vaccines
Goldy Hyer Ex-Pfizer Lobbyist In Ottawa
Goldy Hyer’s LinkedIn Page
M-132, Parliamentary Study On International Vaccines
Section 30.1 Of Canada Food And Drug Act
Interim Order Allowing CV Vaccines To Be Sold In Canada

UK To Allow Certain Vaccines Deployed In Country
https://archive.is/wTXun
CV-19 To Be Added To UK Vaccine Compensation Scheme
https://archive.is/fHGKZ

GSK Indemnified Against Damages For H1N1 Vaccines In 2009
Pfizer Clinical Information
Pfizer And Violation Tracker Documentation

1. From 2018 Senate Hearings

2. Audio From Parliamentary Hearings

3. Most Recent Text Of Bill S-240

4. S-204 A Response To China’s Trafficking

Share this:

Like this:

1. Mass LEGAL Immigration In Canada

2. Annual Immigration Reports To Parliament

3. Total Number Of People Coming To Canada

4. Continued Population Replacement

5. Temporary Visitors To Canada

6. More “Inadmissibles” Let Into Canada

7. Canada Scraps “Designated Country Of Origin”

8. “Refugees” From U.S. Warzone

9. Students & Temporary Workers

10. Tracking People Leaving Canada

11. Other Noteworthy Developments

12. Conservatives Support Status Quo

13. Political Solution Not Possible

Share this:

Like this:

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

2. Email Exchange With Health Canada

3. Health Canada And Vaccine Regulation

Share this:

Like this:

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

2. Important Links

3. Be Vague, Avoid Giving Specifics

4. Only Be “Honest” With Vaccine Accepters

5. Have A Script/Technique Already Prepared

6. Set Up Actual Vaccine Hesitancy Clinic

7. Social Media Manipulation, Censorship

8. Deliberate Gaslighting Of Critics, Skeptics

9. Not Limited To Current “Pandemic”

10. Patients Not Provided Real Information

Share this:

Like this:

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

2. VIMC Key Partners

3. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

4. Know Who This Group Works For

Share this:

Like this:

1. Rempel Isn’t Who She Pretends To Be

2. Pfizer Lobbying Ottawa Regularly

3. Goldy Hyer Ex-Pfizer Lobbyist In Ottawa

4. Pfizer Lobbied M-132 Committee Vice-Chairs

5. Pfizer Lobbying In Ontario

8. Pfizer Lobbying In Manitoba

7. Pfizer Lobbying In Alberta

8. Hajdu Order To Approve Untested Vaccines

9. UK Approves Pfizer/BioNTech Vaccine, Dec. 2

10. UK: Vaccine Damage Payments Scheme

11. Pfizer And Violation Tracker

12. Gates A Recent Pfizer Donor

13. Pfizer Vaccines Coming To Canada/U.S.

Share this:

Like this: