Drugs/Alcohol Archives

April 10, 2023April 10, 2023

Association of Doctors of B.C. Wants All Drugs Decriminalized, Previously Backed Vaccine Passport

Doctors of BC (British Columbia) describes itself as “a voluntary association of 14,000 physicians, residents and medical students in British Columbia.” It’s interesting that they refer to it as voluntary, as the group promotes policies that are anything but.

As an aside, lobbying efforts also include having obesity declared a chronic disease. This is because… reasons. There’s also calls for “health equity”, whatever that means.

Advocacy regarding decriminalization and safe supply of opioids with policy paper was published in June 2021. The policy paper contains a statement that calls on the provincial government to dedicate resources to health and social interventions that will have a positive impact on the life trajectories of people who use drugs, including reducing drug toxicity injuries and deaths.

This organization calls for: improving access to substance use prevention, harm reduction, and treatment programs and services, all while making it easier to access those same drugs.

Yes, an association which claims to speak for 14,000 physicians, residents and medical students wants to see all hard drugs in the Province decriminalized. Absurd as it sounds, it gets even worse when looking at other policies they recently advocated for.

The lobbying records also listed: “Advocacy regarding secondary use of EMR data with the outcome of a creation of a governance structure for secondary use of data generated from physician EMRs”, as one of the purposes meeting with M.L.A.s. While this is vague, it’s plausible that this could mean selling patient data (possibly with identifying markers removed) for research.

Another topic was: “Advocacy regarding the development of the legislative framework to expand the Public Interest Disclosure Act (PIDA) with the goal of ensuring physicians are covered by the protections of PIDA.” This would make it easier and less risky to divulge confidential information, although the specifics are not clear.

This was less than 2 years ago, so it’s not ancient. It’s also very revealing into the ideologies of how such institutions are really run.

Doctors of BC applauds the provincial government for its announcement of progressive measures to reduce the transmission of COVID-19 in the province, including the reinstatement of the indoor mask mandate, and the introduction of the BC Vaccine Card requiring mandatory vaccinations in order to access discretionary indoor events. In taking these steps, government is recognizing the threat posed by highly transmissible COVID-19 variants and the mounting pressure on our health care system and to those who work in it.

The Association of Doctors of BC supported (in Summer 2021) the vaccine passport being introduced, as well as mask mandates being reinstated. Matthew Chow, President of the group, wrote glowingly about it.

The Association of Doctors of B.C. says it takes people’s health (including mental health) seriously, but openly supported excluding them from society in order to coerce them into taking mRNA shots.

This also helps explain why no doctors were willing to hand out mask or vaccine exemption letters in this Province. They were all controlled.

For an organization that claims to want to create a healthier Province, it ignores the obvious cause of drug use and overdoses in the last few years: medical lockdown measures. In other words, they supposedly want to fix a problem, but support actions that lead to it getting worse.

Even today, they’re still hyping the vaccines.

Just the previous month, the group released a paper calling for the decriminalization of all illicit drugs in B.C. in the name of health and safety. Specifically, there were goals to:

Decriminalization of simple possession of all controlled substances for personal use.
Enhanced coordination of and improved access to a range of community-based, culturally appropriate, evidence-informed substance use prevention, harm reduction, and treatment programs and services.
Increased access to health and social programs and services to address the social determinants of health.
Efforts to separate people from the toxic, illicit drug supply, and prevent unintentional toxic drug poisoning or overdose, including improved access to safer pharmaceutical alternatives.

This isn’t really designed to get people to stop doing drugs altogether, but to have them doing it “safely”. And yes, this is a doctor’s group.

The state of health care in B.C….

(1) https://www.lobbyistsregistrar.bc.ca/app/secure/orl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=193&regId=56567406
(2) https://www.doctorsofbc.ca/about-us
(3) https://www.doctorsofbc.ca/news/doctors-bc-supports-provincial-government-actions-calls-mandatory-vaccination-health-care
(4) https://archive.is/YrAle
(5) https://www.doctorsofbc.ca/presidents-blog/government-makes-good-moves-we-need-more-curb-covid-19
(6) https://archive.is/FguBF
(7) https://www.doctorsofbc.ca/presidents-blog/government-makes-good-moves-we-need-more-curb-covid-19
(8) https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/18022
(9) https://twitter.com/VCHhealthcare/status/1643026387425714176

October 29, 2022

Nova Scotia FOI: Pfizer Docs; AEFI; Deaths; Weather Modification

In the last piece, it was shown how the Nova Scotia Premier’s Office apparently had no records whatsoever concerning the “document dumping” that Pfizer was forced to undertake. Now, it seems like NS Health has no records to disclose either. One would think that the revelations in that paperwork would be cause for concern.

Nova Scotia doesn’t have statistics available on the compensation of adverse reactions from the vaccine. However, there a small package for the AEFI reported thus far. There’s also an attached link to the Federal program that is being administered through a 3rd party, RCGT Consulting Inc.

As of June 2022, there were:

615 non serious and 315 serious AEFI
57 cases of myocarditis/pericarditis
5 cases of Guillain-Barre Syndrome
2 cases of Vaccine-Induced Immune Thrombotic Thrombocytopenia

Keep in mind, this is just what has been reported. It’s possible that there are far more side effects that have thus far gone under the radar.

As of the time of writing this:

774 claims have been submitted
7 claims have been approved
71 claims were deemed inadmissible for ineligibility and/or missing information
654 claims were deemed admissible
553 claims are in the process of collecting medical records
23 claims are being reviewed

From the FAQ section on their website:

A serious and permanent injury is defined as a severe, life-threatening or life-altering injury that may require in-person hospitalization, or a prolongation of existing hospitalization, and results in persistent or significant disability or incapacity, or where the outcome is a congenital malformation or death

The Vaccine Injury Support Program (VISP) is premised on the notion of no-fault. This means that financial support to eligible claimants is provided regardless of responsibility or possible fault (e.g., of the claimant, manufacturer or health professional administering the vaccine). A no-fault program ensures timely access to financial support.

The amount of financial support an individual will receive will be determined on a case by case basis. Amounts will be based on a pre-determined financial support payment framework. The framework will align with compensation provided under the Québec Vaccine Injury Compensation Program and informed by other public and private sector injury compensation practices.

It’s interesting that all of this is premised as “no-fault” when there was outright coercion to get people to take the shots in the first place. There doesn’t seem to be any posted rates of compensation.

One other point: accepting money from this program almost certainly means waiving any rights to take other actions (such as suing). True, there were indemnification agreements in place, but this would protect everyone from liability, and can’t really be challenged later. Expect non-disclosure agreements to be put in place as condition of getting any funds.

Also released is data on the total numbers of deaths in Nova Scotia, going back to 2017. In fairness, a small increase annually isn’t farfetched, given the growing population. That said, the data shows small decreases from time to time, while 2021/2022 lists increases across the board. Look at it for yourself, and draw your own conclusions.

Remember: WHO defines a “Covid death” as: A probable or confirmed COVID-19 case whose death resulted from a clinically compatible illness, unless there is a clear alternative cause of death identified (e.g., trauma, poisoning, drug overdose). Sounds legitimate, right?

Now, this is unrelated to the above, but worth a browse. Here is the decision letter, and the results, of an FOIA request into weather modification. Remember when all of this was written off as conspiracy theories?

If you haven’t checked out the work of Fluoride Free Peel, go do that. No proper isolation has ever been done, anywhere in the world. Arguing about “mitigation” or protective measures seems pointless if there’s nothing to protect against.

DOCUMENTS/LINKS
(1) 2022-182 no responsive records NSH Pfizer
(2) 2022-181 no responsive records AEFI Statistics
(3) https://novascotia.ca/coronavirus/docs/adverse-events-following-immunization-with-COVID-19-vaccines-2022-06-30.pdf
(4) https://vaccineinjurysupport.ca/en/program-statistics
(5) https://vaccineinjurysupport.ca/en/faq
(6) FOI 2022-01565-SNSIS deaths by month since 2017 Book2 (1)
(7) A-2022-01018 – Response Letter Weather Modification
(8) A-2022-01018 – Release Weather Modification

August 20, 2022August 20, 2022

British Columbia’s Convoluted Stance On Drugs And Safety

This article is going to be a little disjointed, but the purpose is to show how convoluted and illogical drugs policies are becoming in the Province of British Columbia.

Decriminalization
B.C. is the first province in Canada to receive a three-year exemption from the federal government to remove criminal penalties for people who possess small amounts of illicit drugs for personal use. Decriminalization of people who use drugs will reduce the fear and shame that keeps people silent and leads so many to hide their drug use and avoid treatment and support. Reducing the stigma of drug use is a vital part of B.C.’s work to build a comprehensive system of mental health and substance use care. Decriminalization will become effective Jan. 31, 2023, and the Province will work with a broad cross-section of partners to make sure police are trained and health authorities are prepared for this change.

The B.C Government got a 3 year exemption from Ottawa for possession of narcotics — any narcotics — that are in small enough quantities, and for personal use.

The (outgoing) Premier sent his condolences for deaths that resulted from a poisoned supply. Of course, it’s a bit rich considering that these drugs are poison to begin with. Perhaps they were just killing off the customers too quickly.

Just 2 years ago, Horgan actually recommended staying home and smoking pot as a way to stay safe during the so-called pandemic. There was even a “Good Times” website up in the Summer of 2020. It’s since been removed, but the archived version is still available.

The BCCDC, or B.C. Centre for Disease Control, has guidelines surrounding illicit drug use. Note: it doesn’t appear that stopping is a major objective. Here’s an archived version of it.

Some initiatives to combat drug abuse include:

Decriminalization
Access to prescribed safer supply, a Canadian first
Overdose prevention and supervised consumption services
Lifeguard App
Take-home naloxone kits
New beds for addictions and recovery care
Expanded scope of nursing practice, a Canadian first (RN prescriptions)
Expanded opioid agonist treatment

Now, there are also programs at various stages for emergency responses and expanded treatment options. However, considering the efforts untaken to expand drug use in this Province, efforts to stop the problem seem insincere.

Of course, the BC Centre for Disease Control is compromised, to put it mildly. The BCCDC Foundation is a registered charity, and gets major tax breaks. Its donors include drug companies, creating a serious conflict of interest. (Archive here). Should the organizations impacting public policy be getting donations from the same companies who profit from — vaccine mandates?

Champions
Our $75,000 – $250,000 Donors

GlaxoSmithKline
Julie Glover
Pfizer Canada Inc.
Unbounded Canada Foundation
Vancouver Foundation

Ambassadors
$25,000 – $74,999.99 Donors

British Columbia Association for Sexual Health
Merck Canada Inc.
Pacific Blue Cross
Teradici Corp

Allies
$5,000 – $24,999.99 Donors

AbbVie Canada Corp.
Associated Canadian Theological Schools Society
BC Teachers’ Federation
Ben and Lilac Milne
BlueSky Properties
Chef Ann Kirsebom’s Gourmet Sauces / BBQ Ltd.
Connor, Clark & Lunn Foundation
Gilead Sciences Canada Inc.
Imperial Medical Group Inc.
Leith Wheeler Investment Counsel Ltd.
LifeLabs
London Drugs Limited
Orbis Investments Canada Ltd.
Sanofi
Vancouver Dispensary Society
Vard Electro Canada Inc.

Just a thought: but perhaps the pharma money that the BCCDC Foundation receives contributes to the fact that it’s so pro-pharma. This cannot be ignored. Nor can the charity status of the B.C. Provincial Health Services Authority.

In 2018, B.C. began a class-action lawsuit on behalf of all federal, provincial and territorial governments in Canada and enacted the Opioid Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act. The aim of the class action and legislation is to recover health-care costs that resulted from wrongful conduct of opioid manufacturers, distributors and their consultants.

B.C. alleges that opioid manufacturers, distributors and their consultants engaged in deceptive marketing practices with a view to increase sales, resulting in increased rates of addiction and overdose. Purdue Canada is one among over 40 manufacturers and distributors named in the class action commenced in 2018 and scheduled for a certification hearing in the next year.

The proposed settlement with Purdue Canada has been agreed to by all federal, provincial and territorial governments and totals $150 million in monetary benefits, plus additional benefits including access to information and documents relevant to the lawsuit. This settlement was reached very early in the litigation process, before the allegations against Purdue Canada have been proven in court. This is the largest settlement of a governmental health claim in Canadian history. The proposed agreement is still subject to final approval by the courts, expected in the next few months.

At the end of June 2022, the B.C. announced a proposed $150 million settlement with Purdue Canada over its business practices.

Taxpayers are on the hook for the extra health care costs, and it seems unlikely that court rulings will come close to compensating the public. Of course, this only speaks to the financial burdens, not the societal and personal losses.

This is pretty convoluted to think that drug laws are getting watered down, resulting in easier access to drugs. Meanwhile, society is plagued by the results of legal drugs (opioids). It’s not just deaths, but ruined lives and families that are the collateral damages.

Will this settlement result in these pharmaceuticals being taken off the market, at least for the most part? Or will these court actions simply be viewed as the cost of doing business?

It’s difficult to see that the Government here is serious about ending drug problems in this Province. Then again, maybe the goal is not to stop it, but just to control it.

(1) https://twitter.com/jjhorgan/status/1559588217208184832
(2) https://twitter.com/jjhorgan/status/1294762295348715520
(3) https://goodtimes.gov.bc.ca/
(4) https://archive.ph/naVsZ
(5) http://www.bccdc.ca/health-info/diseases-conditions/covid-19/priority-populations/people-who-use-substances
(6) https://archive.ph/AVbNY
(7) https://news.gov.bc.ca/factsheets/escalated-drug-poisoning-response-actions-1
(8) http://www.bccdc.ca/health-professionals/data-reports/substance-use-harm-reduction-dashboard
(9) https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/life-events/death/coroners-service/statistical-reports
(10) https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/birth-adoption-death-marriage-and-divorce/deaths/coroners-service/statistical/illicit-drug-type.pdf
(11) https://canucklaw.ca/bc-centre-for-disease-control-foundation-is-registered-charity-with-pharma-funding/
(12) https://bccdcfoundation.org/our-donors/
(13) https://archive.ph/bg8cd
(14) https://news.gov.bc.ca/releases/2022AG0044-001031

August 18, 2022

ONSC Rules Child Cannot Be Forced To Take Injections

An Ontario Superior Court Judge dismissed an application to essentially force a minor to get a shot against her will.

Parents were in the midst of divorce and custody issues, and the topic of the “vaccines” came up. The father was insistent that the daughter get it, while the mother said she would respect the girl’s own choices. The girl, who is 12 years old, has outright refused to get it.

Throughout the decision, the term “taken judicial notice” comes up again and again. What this means is that a court will not look into an issue, simply because some other court or adjudication body has already done so. While there is a certain logic to it, garbage rulings can also simply be accepted on this basis.

[1] The respondent father brings this motion seeking an order directing that the applicant mother ensure that their daughter is vaccinated against COVID-19 and that she receives any further and additional scheduled vaccinations in accordance with provincial recommendations, failing which the father shall be permitted to return this matter to seek sole decision-making authority over all aspects of the child’s medical care.

[11] Unfortunately, Mr. Tonge was not able to provide the opinion requested. By letter to the parties dated February 22, 2022, Mr. Tonge stated that he understood he was requested and agreed to assist S. in reconnecting with her father and not to undertake an assessment of parental influence. He was unaware of the vaccination issue until it was raised by S.. Mr. Tonge could not comment on the “presence or absence of parental influence and the understanding, capacity and maturity of this child to make a decision” as he was not asked to, nor did he agree to conduct such an assessment.

[15] The respondent father’s position is that it is presumptively in S.’s best interest that she be vaccinated against the COVID-19 virus and mother has provided no evidence to rebut this presumption. The apparent objections of S. do not stem from any sound medical evidence or opinion. Mother has improperly left the decision up to S. who is not old enough, mature enough, or knowledgeable enough to make such a major health decision. Thus, it falls on this court to step in and protect the child’s best interests, to make sure that she receives her COVID-19 vaccination to protect her and to protect her classmates, her friends, her neighbours, and family.

[37] The issue before the court in taking judicial notice of scientific facts is not assessing whether the science is “fake science”, but whether scientific facts that would normally require expert opinion to be admitted, may be judicially noticed without proof. This issue was recently addressed by Breithaupt Smith J. in R.S.P. v. H.L.C. 2021 ONSC 8362 in which she provided what has been described as a timely warning (J.N. v. C.G., 2022 ONSC 1198 at para 65):

[42] I am not prepared to take judicial notice of any government information with respect to COVID-19 or the COVID-19 vaccines.

[43] Even if I were to take judicial notice of the “safety” and “efficacy” of the vaccine, I still have no basis for assessing what that means for this child. I must still determine how safe, how efficacious the vaccine is for this child. Does safe mean there are no side effects? Is the vaccine effective in protecting her from contracting COVID-19, from spreading it, from dying from it, from severity of symptoms? As with informed consent, there are many factors that must be carefully considered in weighing risks and benefits.

[58] I am mindful in considering S’s best interests that an order that mother ensure she is vaccinated would have irreversible consequences, if S. was vaccinated as a result. One cannot be unvaccinated. In that respect, it is a final order.

[59] Finally, I am satisfied that S. is a “mature minor” as explained by Abella J. in A.C. v. Manitoba (Director of Child and Family Services), 2009 SCC 30 at para 47. S. is capable with respect to treatment pursuant to s. 4 of the Health Care Consent Act, 1996, SO 1996, c 2, Sch A. She is mature enough to accept or refuse treatment.

There is a certain logic to it. If young children are “mature” enough to get the shot, then they should be mature enough to make the decision to refuse it.

The court also makes the observation that a person cannot ever be “unvaccinated”. That alone should be enough to give pause before pushing these injections. It was also noted that the “evidence” seems to keep changing, which is another reason to not take the matter as settled.

This adolescent girl seems to have more sense than either of her parents, but at least the mother was willing to respect her personal choices.

(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2022/2022onsc4580/2022onsc4580.html
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2022/2022onsc4580/2022onsc4580.pdf

M.M. v. W.A.K., 2022 ONSC 4580

March 22, 2022June 21, 2022

Following The Bailout Money (Video Compilation)

Ever wonder why so many groups working the “levers of power” all seem to ideologically aligned with the same martial law measures? Think it’s strange that there is so little criticism or skepticism among prominent people and organizations? There is a simple explanation: FOLLOW THE MONEY!

(1) https://apps.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/hacc/cews/srch/pub/bscSrch
(2) https://apps.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/hacc/srch/pub/dsplyBscSrch?request_locale=en
(3) https://search.open.canada.ca/en/gc/
(4) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/advSrch

(A.1) Hotel, Restaurant Groups Getting Wage/Rental Subsidies
(A.2) Liberals, Conservatives, NDP All Getting Bailout Money
(A.3) Lawyers, Bar Associations Receiving CEWS Money
(A.4) Conflicting Out? Lawyers Getting More Than Just CEWS
(A.5) Churches Are Charities, Getting CEWS, Subsidies & Promoting Vaccines
(A.6) Trucking Alliance Grants Raising many Eyebrows
(A.7) Chambers Of Commerce Subsidized By Canadians, Want Open Borders
(A.8) Banks, Credit Unions, Media Outlets All Getting CEWS

(B.1) Unifor, Media, In Bed With Gov’t, $595M
(B.2) Government Subsidizes Media To Ensure Positive Coverage
(B.3) Postmedia Subsidies/Connections, Lack Of Real Journalism
(B.4) Latest “Pandemic Bucks” Grants In 2021, Lorrie Goldstein
(B.5) Nordstar; Torstar; Metroland Media; Subsidies & Monopoly
(B.6) Aberdeen Publishing Takes Handouts, Ignores Real Issues
(B.7) More Periodicals Taking Grants, Parroting Gov’t Narrative
(B.8) Tri-City News, LMP Pulls Bonnie Henry Article; Pandemic Bucks
(B.9) Black Press Group; Media Outlet Doxing Of Convoy Donors
(B.10) Subsidized Fact-Check Outlets Run By Political Operatives
(B.11) Digital Citizen Contribution Program: Funds To Combat “Misinformation”
(B.12) Counter Intelligence “Disinformation Prevention” Groups Are Charities
(B.13) CIVIX, More Grants To Combat “Disinformation” In 2021, Domestic, Foreign
(B.14) PHAC Supporting #ScienceUpFirst Counter Intel Effort
(B.15) Rockefeller Spends $13.5 To Combat Misinformation
(B.16) Media, Banks, CU, Getting CDA Emergency Wage Subsidies (CEWS)
(B.17) John Tory’s Sister Board Member At Bell; CEWS; Subsidies

(C.1) Media, Facebook, Google, Tech Collusion To Create “Trust” Networks
(C.2) CommonTrust, Commons Project, WEF, Rockefeller, Health Passes
(C.3) C2PA; Project Origin; Content Authenticity Initiative; CBC-BBC-Microsoft
(C.4) Public Media Alliance, Global Task Force, Brussels Declaration
(C.5) Institute For Strategic Dialogue: Govt/NGO Funded Counter-Intelligence
(C.6) Institute For Strategic Dialogue: Open Source Intelligence Gathering

(a) https://canucklaw.ca
(b) https://gab.com/canucklaw1
(c) https://twitter.com/Babylon_Beaver
(d) https://odysee.com/@CanuckLaw:8
(e) https://bitchute.com/channel/canuck_law
(f) https://rumble.com/user/CanuckLaw
(g) https://www.youtube.com/c/CanuckLawVids

February 3, 2022

Health Canada Initially Created For Population Control Measures

Health Canada has had several names since its inception in 1919. Despite how innocuous its name and mandate sounds, this organization had an initial purpose: population control. It’s been previously covered how PHAC was an artificial creation from the World Health Organization to serve a global order.

Few people know this, but the Department of Health was formed with the same goal in mind.

In January 2004, the WHO put out an edict that all Member States were to create an “outpost” for public health. Consequently, the Government of Paul Martin created PHAC, the Public Health Agency of Canada, out of nothing in that year. In late 2004 and into 2005, hearings went on for Bill C-12, the Quarantine Act. This was really just domestic implementation of the 3rd Edition of the International Health Regulations. The Provinces have their own laws which are based on this. The PHAC Act was introduced in 2006 by Stephen Harper shortly after taking power.

(a) International Health Regulations are legally binding on Member States.
(b) 2005 Quarantine Act was, in reality, written by WHO
(c) Public Health Agency Of Canada is a branch of WHO, and not Canadian

Again, this should be a review for most readers, but it’s still worth bringing up. The bigger picture is quite scary when it’s all laid out.

PHAC’s purpose is to use the pretense of public health as a means to control the local populations. Thing is: Health Canada (in its previous iterations) was formed for the same purpose.

1. Timeline Of Major Events In Public Health

1837: William White publishes book — Evils Of Quarantine Laws
1851: First International Sanitary Conference, Paris
1859: Second International Sanitary Conference, Paris
1866: Third International Sanitary Conference, Constantinople
1874: Fourth International Sanitary Conference, Vienna
1881: Fifth International Sanitary Conference, Washington
1885: Sixth International Sanitary Conference, Rome
1892: Seventh International Sanitary Conference, Venice
1983: Eighth International Sanitary Conference, Dresden
1894: Ninth International Sanitary Conference, Paris
1897: Tenth International Sanitary Conference, Venice
1903: Eleventh International Sanitary Conference : Paris, 1903
1906: Revised Statutes Of Canada In 1906 Publication
1907: Founding of the Office international d’Hygiene publique
1911-1912: Twelfth International Sanitary Conference, Paris
1912: Canadian Public Health Association Incorporated
1919: Bill 37, Canada forms the Department of Health
1926: Thirteenth International Sanitary Conference, Paris
1928: Bill 205, Canada’s DOH becomes Department of Pensions and National Health
1938: Fourteenth International Sanitary Conference, Paris
1944: Bill C-149, Canada’s DPNH becomes Department of National Health and Welfare
1946: Canada joins World Health Organization, agrees to Constitution
1951: International Sanitation Regulations take effect from WHO
1959: “Privileges And Immunities” granted to all WHO Officials
1969: International Health Regulations (1st Ed.) replace Sanitation Regulations
1984: Bill C-3, Health Canada Act passed
1993: Department of National Health and Welfare becomes Health Canada
1995: 2nd Edition of WHO International Health Regulations
2001: DARK WINTER pandemic simulation plays out
2004: WHO issues edict all Members to have “public health outpost”
2004: PHAC, Public Health Agency of Canada, created by Order In Council
2004: Bill C-12, hearings on Quarantine Act in Parliament
2005: 3rd Edition of WHO International Health Regulations
2005: ATLANTIC STORM pandemic simulation plays out
2006: PHAC Act introduced by Harper Government
2010: Rockefeller paper released, includes infamous LOCKSTEP SCENARIO
2010: Theresa Tam stars in movie about fictional outbreak
2017: SPARS Pandemic Scenario plays out
2018: CLADE X pandemic simulation plays out
2019: EVENT 201 pandemic simulation plays out

A book by William White titled “The Evils of Quarantine Laws” is still available today. In fact, it can be purchased on Amazon. In that book, White pushed his case that contagions did not actually exist, and that these quarantine laws were pushed for other purposes.

The pdf version is nearly 200 pages, but it’s well worth a read. It goes into considerable depth about how a pseudo-science is pushed on the public under the guises of protection.

2. International Sanitary Conferences: 1851 to 1938

Going back to 1851, there were over a dozen International Sanitary Conferences held in the West. Canada (then a British Colony) would have been subjected to whatever measures the U.K. wanted. The measures sounded innocuous enough, and claimed the purpose of trying to prevent international spread of disease. The archive is also available.

The stated reasons including establishing global standards of health in order to prevent the transmission and spreading of cholera, among other diseases. Sounds pretty familiar with what’s going on now, doesn’t it?

3. Revised Statutes Of Canada In 1906

Even back in 1906, Canada had a Quarantine Act on the books. Although heavily promoted as a way to manage international trade and immigration, those same principles can be used to restrict people domestically.

What’s going on today globally isn’t anything new, at least conceptually. Instead, it’s the scale of which that is novel.

The Medical Officer of Health isn’t a new concept either. Ages ago, there were still “experts” who had almost dictatorial powers to implement laws and regulations. After all, if Kings didn’t know what was going on, they would have to trust the thinking to other people.

4. Founding of the Office International d’Hygiene Publique In 1907

The Welcome Collection in the U.K. published the document for the creation of an International Office of Public Health. As a Colony at the time, Canada would presumably have been subjected to the same laws and regulations.

That said, the information is still available on the Canadian Government’s site. Over a century ago, our “leaders” signed us up to be regulated and controlled by public health experts.

5. Canadian Public Health Association Created In 1910

Ongoing programs:
.
Providing an effective liaison and network both nationally and internationally in collaboration with various disciplines, agencies and organizations; Encouraging and facilitating measures for disease prevention, health promotion and protection and healthy public policy; Initiating, encouraging and participating in research directed at the fields of disease prevention, health promotion and healthy public policy; Providing an effective liaison and partnership with CPHA’s Provincial and Territorial Public Health Associations; Acting in partnership with a range of disciplines including health, environment, agriculture, transportation, other health-oriented groups and individuals in developing and expressing a public health viewpoint on personal and community health issues; Designing, developing and implementing public health policies, programs and activities; Facilitating the development of public health goals for Canada; Identifying public health issues and advocating for policy change; Identifying literacy as a major factor in achieving equitable access to health services.

The Canadian Public Health Association was created in 1910, and incorporated in 1912. It became a charity in 1975. In its most recent C.R.A. filings, approximately 60% of the CPHA’s financing came from the Government.

Although the page has since been altered, the main financial support of the CPHA comes from drug companies like Pfizer, Moderna and AstraZeneca. That shouldn’t be the least bit surprising to anyone at this point.

CPHA is involved in advocating for national and international health policies, including the restriction of people’s movements. It presumably is quite influential regarding Health Canada. At the time of writing this, there are several Provincial counterparts, all advocating for much the same thing. More on that in later pieces.

6. Department Of Health Created In 1919, Bill 37

[Section 4a]
Cooperation with the provincial, territorial and other health authorities with a view towards to coordination of the efforts proposed or being made for preserving and improving public health

Section 4f referred to enforcement of rules made by the International Joint Committee.

Bill 37 came into effect in 1919, after the First World War. Supposedly, the driving force behind this was the Spanish influenza, and the need to protect global public health.

Interestingly, it references the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1906, Volume 2. Even back then, there were Quarantine Acts on the books in order to restrict the movement of people. Of course, these were “supposed” to only apply to sick people.

Worth noting is that the League of Nations, the predecessor to the United Nations, also placed a heavy focus on public health. Many associate it with attempts to prevent wars between countries. In reality, there was a lot more to it.

7. Department of Pensions and National Health, 1928, Bill 205

In 1928, there was a change in name to the Department of Pensions and National Health. This came with the introduction of Bill 205. However, the purposes regarding public health remained much the same.

8. Department of National Health and Welfare Created In 1944, Bill 149

There was another change of name in 1994, courtesy of Bill 149. This time it became the Department of National Health and Welfare. Keep in mind, this was in the latter stages of the Second World War, and the beginnings of the new world order forming. The groundwork for the United Nations and World Health Organization had already been laid out.

9. WHO Membership Means Submitting To THEIR Constitution

After the defeat of the Axis powers, the World was supposed to embrace freedom and human rights, but then this happened.

Article 21
The Health Assembly shall have authority to adopt regulations concerning:
(a) sanitary and quarantine requirements and other procedures designed to prevent the international spread of disease;
(b) nomenclatures with respect to diseases, causes of death and public health practices;
(c) standards with respect to diagnostic procedures for international use;
(d) standards with respect to the safety, purity and potency of biological, pharmaceutical and similar products moving in international commerce;
(e) advertising and labelling of biological, pharmaceutical and similar products moving in international commerce.

Article 22
Regulations adopted pursuant to Article 21 shall come into force for all Members after due notice has been given of their adoption by the Health Assembly except for such Members as may notify the Director-General of rejection or reservations within the period stated in the notice.

In 1946, Canada signed a Treaty endorsing the Constitution of the World Health Organization, and agreeing to be bound by it.

Article 21(a) of the WHO’s Constitution explicitly gives it authority over Member States over issues such as quarantine, or medical martial law. WHO also (largely) gets to decide what diagnostic standards and equipment are considered suitable.

Since Canada never opted out, Article 22 means that we must live with this.

In 1951, the International Sanitation Regulations came into effect, which was really the first agreement which gave the World Health Organization power to dictate Member actions under the guise of “public health”. But at least people would be held responsible if something happened, right?

10. World Health Organization Gives Itself/Officials Immunity

WHA12.41 Convention on the Privileges and immunities of the Specialized Agencies: Specification of Categories of Officials under Section 18 of Article VI of the Convention
The Twelfth World Health Assembly,
.
Considering Section 18 of Article VI of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the Specialized Agencies which requires that each specialized agency will specify the categories of officials to which the provisions of that Article and Article VIII shall apply; and Considering the practice hitherto followed by the World Health Organization under which, in implementing the terms of Section 18 of the Convention, due account has been taken of the provisions of resolution 76 (I) of the General Assembly of the United Nations,
.
1. CONFIRMS this practice; and
2. APPROVES the granting of the privileges and immunities referred to in Articles VI and VIII of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the Specialized Agencies to all officials of the World Health Organization, with the exception of those who are recruited locally and are assigned to hourly rates.
Eleventh plenary meeting, 28 May 1959 (section 3 of the fourth report of the Committee)

https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/88834
ihr.convention.on.immunities.privileges

Even back in 1959, the World Health Organization saw that its members should enjoy full legal immunity for itself, and its agents. Of course, member states seemed happy to go along with it. Looking through the records though, it seems unclear if Canada has specifically signed on.

The International Sanitation Regulations were replaced by the International Health Regulations (first edition) in 1969. Canada signed on and it became binding in 1971. The second version of WHO-IHR came out in 1995, and the third was released in 2005.

The information from this point on has been extensively covered on this site.

Most people are aware that the scope of Health Canada has grown considerably in recent decades. It has encompassed more and more things, resulting in less of a focus on public health measures. PHAC would soon pick up the slack.

11. Public Health Groups Are Registered “Charities” In Canada

Think the problem of drug money is limited to Health Canada, or the Public Health Agency of Canada? It’s not, and we will get more into the finances later. The list of “charities” includes groups that have the power to impose medical tyranny.

Alberta Health Services (AB)
Central Regional Integrated Health Authority (NL)
Eastern Regional Integrated Health Authority (NL)
Fraser Health Authority (BC)
Hay River Health & Social Services Authority (NT)
Interlake-Eastern Regional Health Authority (MB)
Interior Health Authority (BC)
Labrador-Grenfell Regional Integrated Health Authority (NL)
Nisga’a Valley Health Authority (BC)
Northern Regional Health Authority (MB)
Northern Regional Health Authority (BC)
Nova Scotia Health Authority (NS)
Provincial Health Services Authority (BC)
Regional Health Authority A (NB)
Regional Health Authority B (NB)
Saskatchewan Health Authority (SK)
Souris Health Auxiliary of Assinibione Regional Health Authority Inc. (MB)
Vancouver Coastal Health Authority (BC)
Vancouver Island Health Authority (BC)
Weeneebayko Area Health Authority (ON)
Winnipeg Regional Health Authority (MB)

However, there are also a number of other suspicious groups that need to be looked at. Although they may not have the power to mandate martial law, they do influence policies. Now, who would donate to such groups, unless it’s done for the purposes of writing the laws? Or to ensure that solutions involve pharmaceuticals?

Alberta Public Health Association
BCCDC Foundation For Population And Public Health
Canadian Foundation For Pharmacy
Canadian Pharmaceutical Sciences Foundation
Canadian Public Health Association
Ontario Public Health Association
Pharmacists Without Borders Canada
Public Health Association of British Columbia
Seenso Institute for Public Health
Shoppers Drug Mart Life Foundation

This is just some of the groups that are registered as charities. Why be structured this way? Probably since it means that private donations are subsidized by the public via tax refunds.

A serious question: given all of the “health organizations” (and this is just a partial list), accepting private donations, does this likely impact how Health Canada does business?

12. Binding Global “Pandemic Management” Treaty Proposed

This was addressed in March 2021. Countries across the world are world are apparently open to the idea of a legally binding globally authority to manage alleged crises. Essentially, national sovereignty would be secondary to the International Health Regulations.

13. Final Thoughts On This Subject

The Department of Health (1919) was founded under the guise of managing the Spanish flu through restrictive measures. It’s original creation isn’t at all what many believe. But over time, the organization came to encompass many more functions.

The reality is that countries don’t have sovereignty over their own affairs. Using the cloak of “infection control”, people have their rights and freedoms stripped away all the time. Many so-called Health Authorities are actually structured as charities and receive private donations.

What companies would donate to health authorities which are implementing mandatory vaccination policies? Wild idea, but perhaps businesses that would profit from these dicatates are contributing.

The Public Health Agency of Canada has essentially taken over that role since it came into existence in 2004. However, Health Canada does still advocate for much the same policies. The International Health Regulations (and prior Sanitation Regulations) are legally binding on Member States.

Now, the influence and money from the pharmaceutical industry cannot be ignored. The cash is rampant, and will be the subject of a Part II, coming later.

Category: Drugs/Alcohol

Association of Doctors of B.C. Wants All Drugs Decriminalized, Previously Backed Vaccine Passport

Like this:

Nova Scotia FOI: Pfizer Docs; AEFI; Deaths; Weather Modification

Like this:

British Columbia’s Convoluted Stance On Drugs And Safety

Like this:

ONSC Rules Child Cannot Be Forced To Take Injections

Like this:

Following The Bailout Money (Video Compilation)

Like this:

Health Canada Initially Created For Population Control Measures

1. Timeline Of Major Events In Public Health

2. International Sanitary Conferences: 1851 to 1938

3. Revised Statutes Of Canada In 1906

4. Founding of the Office International d’Hygiene Publique In 1907

5. Canadian Public Health Association Created In 1910

6. Department Of Health Created In 1919, Bill 37

7. Department of Pensions and National Health, 1928, Bill 205

8. Department of National Health and Welfare Created In 1944, Bill 149

9. WHO Membership Means Submitting To THEIR Constitution

10. World Health Organization Gives Itself/Officials Immunity

11. Public Health Groups Are Registered “Charities” In Canada

12. Binding Global “Pandemic Management” Treaty Proposed

13. Final Thoughts On This Subject

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

1. Timeline Of Major Events In Public Health

2. International Sanitary Conferences: 1851 to 1938

3. Revised Statutes Of Canada In 1906

4. Founding of the Office International d’Hygiene Publique In 1907

5. Canadian Public Health Association Created In 1910

6. Department Of Health Created In 1919, Bill 37

7. Department of Pensions and National Health, 1928, Bill 205

8. Department of National Health and Welfare Created In 1944, Bill 149

9. WHO Membership Means Submitting To THEIR Constitution

10. World Health Organization Gives Itself/Officials Immunity

11. Public Health Groups Are Registered “Charities” In Canada

12. Binding Global “Pandemic Management” Treaty Proposed

13. Final Thoughts On This Subject

Share this:

Like this: