Category: Drugs/Alcohol

Posted on

CV #58: Vaxx Or Mask Rulings (2015, 2016 & 2018); Bonnie Henry Testifies; BC Ombudsman Report

There were 2 rulings in Ontario (2015 and 2018), which concerned the “vaccinate or mask” policy for health care workers. BCPHO Bonnie Henry testified in the 2015 case that there was very limited evidence to support masks. Also, the June 2020 BC Ombudsman report is interesting in terms of government overreach.

Keep in mind that Bonnie Henry also says there’s no science behind limiting groups to 50 people. (See 1:00 in above video). But she imposed that restriction anyway.

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

The rest of the series is here. There are many: lies, lobbying, conflicts of interest, and various globalist agendas operating behind the scenes, and much more than most people realize. For examples: The Gates Foundation finances many things, including, the World Health Organization, the Center for Disease Control, GAVI, ID2020, John Hopkins University, Imperial College London, the Pirbright Institute, and individual pharmaceutical companies. It’s also worth mentioning that there is little to no science behind what our officials are doing, though they promote all kinds of degenerate behaviour. Also, the Australian Department of Health admits the PCR tests don’t work, and the US CDC admits testing is heavily flawed.

2. Important Decisions

Sault Area Hospital and Ontario Nurses’ Association, 2015 CanLII 55643 (ON LA)
https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onla/doc/2015/2015canlii62106/2015canlii62106.pdf
2015.ontario.nurses.association.mask.ruling

William Osler Health System, 2016 CanLII 76496 (ON LA)
https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onla/doc/2016/2016canlii76496/2016canlii76496.pdf
2016.william.osler.health.system.ruling

St. Michael’s Hospital v Ontario Nurses’ Association, 2018 CanLII 82519 (ON LA)
https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onla/doc/2018/2018canlii82519/2018canlii82519.pdf
2018.ontario.nurses.association.mask.ruling

BC Ombudsman’s June 2020 Report
https://bcombudsperson.ca/assets/media/ExtraordinaryTimesMeasures_Final-Report.pdf
2020.BC.ombudsman.report.2.orders.overreach

3. Sault Area Hospital (2015)

2015.ontario.nurses.association.mask.ruling

322. The assertion that a mask requirement serves a valuable or essential purpose, albeit that there is only “some” evidence, is also weakened by actual employer practice. If the mask evidence were as supportive as claimed, it would suggest that vaccinated HCWs should also wear masks given the limited efficacy of the vaccine even in relatively ‘good’ years. The SAH Chief of Medical Staff raised this question at the outset. The Hospital’s failure to consider re-evaluating the Policy’s application when the extent of the 2014-2015 vaccine mismatch became known raises the same issue. The OHA/SAH expert responses to these questions set out in full above[425] were short of satisfying.

323. Wearing a mask for an entire working shift, virtually everywhere, no matter the patient presenting circumstances, is most unpleasant. While I readily accept that the wearing of a mask for good reason may reasonably be expected of HCWs, an Irving “balancing of interests” is required. The Policy makes a significant ‘ask’ of unvaccinated employees; that is to wear an unpleasant mask for up to six months at a time. As noted, the evidence said to support the reason for the ‘ask’—evidence concerning asymptomatic transmission and mask effectiveness–may be described at best as “some” and more accurately as “scant”. I conclude that many of the articles footnoted in support of the strong opinions set out in the OHA/SAH expert Reports provide very limited or no assistance to those views. The required balancing does not favour the Policy.

Decision
.
342. On the evidence before me, I find the VOM provisions of the SAH Policy to be unreasonable. Accordingly, for all of the foregoing reasons, I declare SAH to be in breach of Article B-1 (e) of the ONA/SAH Local Agreement and Article 18.07 (c) of the ONA Central Agreement.
.
343. Any question concerning the need, if any, for additional relief is remitted to the parties for their consideration. I remain seized of remedial issues.
.
Dated at Toronto, this 8th day of September, 2015

It was found that there wasn’t strong evidence that masking health care workers for months at a time actually had a proven effect. It was further undermined by inconsistent practices at the Sault Area Hospital.

4. Bonnie Henry Testifies In 2015 Case

https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onla/doc/2015/2015canlii62106/2015canlii62106.pdf
2015.ontario.nurses.association.mask.ruling

134. Dr. Henry agreed with this observation by Dr. Skowronski and Dr. Patrick who are her colleagues at the British Columbia Centre for Disease Control:
.
I do agree, as we’ve discussed earlier, influenza is mostly transmitted in the community and we don’t have data on the difference between vaccinated and unvaccinated healthcare workers and individual transmission events…in healthcare settings.
.
135. Dr. Henry agreed that no VOM policy would influence influenza in the community. Dr. McGeer denied that she had used or recommended the use of community burden in the assessment of development of such a policy.

So there is no data on any differences between vaccinated and unvaccinated health care workers. Yet these people are still arguing for VOM (vaccine or mask).

145. In her Report Dr. Henry also referred to observational studies as supporting the data she said was derived from the RCTs but acknowledged that these studies related to long term care and not acute care settings. She was cross-examined at length concerning the studies referenced in this section of her Report, some that dealt with other closed community settings, and agreed that they were “clearly not referring to a healthcare setting”.
.
146. Witness commentary concerning the observational/experimental studies relied upon in the McGeer/Henry Reports is set out in Appendix A to this Award. I conclude from a review of these studies, and the expert witness commentary, that they do not disclose a consistent position. They address a wide range of issues in a wide range of settings. Some are not supportive of the OHA/SAH experts’ claim. Some provide weak support at best. Some have nothing to do with the issue in question. Some have acknowledged study design limitations.

Evidence introduced by Bonnie Henry was for long term care centers, not health care settings, so this apples and oranges. There is also weak or irrelevant evidence argued.

160. In direct examination Dr. Henry stated that the pre-symptomatic period was “clearly not the most infectious period but we do know that it happens”.[203] She also agreed in cross-examination that transmission required an element of proximity and a sufficient amount of live replicating virus.
.
161. At another point, the following series of questions and answers ensued during Dr. Henry’s cross-examination:
.
Q. With respect to transmission while asymptomatic, and I want to deal with your authorities with respect to that, would you agree with me that there is scant evidence to support that virus shedding of influenza actually leads to effective transmission of the disease before somebody becomes symptomatic?
.
A. I think we talked about that yesterday, that there is some evidence that people shed prior to being symptomatic, and there is some evidence of transmission, that leading to transmission, but I absolutely agree that that is not the highest time when shedding and transmission can occur.
.
Q. So were you—I put it to you that there’s scant evidence, and that was Dr. De Serres’ evidence, so—but that there’s very little evidence about that, do you agree?
.
A. There is—as we talked about yesterday, there is not a lot of evidence around these pieces, I agree.
.
Q. And clearly transmission risk is greatest when you’re symptomatic, when you’re able to cough or sneeze?
.
A. Transmission risk is greatest, as we’ve said, when you’re symptomatic, especially in the first day or two of symptom onset

Not a lot of evidence regarding risks of transmission. Yes, this is 2015, but it coming straight from BCPHO Bonnie Henry.

177. Dr. McGeer and Dr. Henry presented the position of the OHA and the Hospital based upon their understanding of the relevant literature. Neither of them asserted that they had particular expertise with respect to masks or had conducted studies testing masks.

So, no actual expertise of research. Bonnie Henry just read what was available. And this is the Provincial Health Officer of British Columbia.

184. In her pre-hearing Report Dr. Henry responded to a request that she discuss the evidence that masks protect patients from influenza this way:
.
There is good evidence that surgical masks reduce the concentration of influenza virus expelled into the ambient air (a 3.4 fold overall reduction in a recent study) when they are worn by someone shedding influenza virus. There is also evidence that surgical masks reduce exposure to influenza in experimental conditions.
.
Clinical studies have also suggested that masks, in association with hand hygiene, may have some impact on decreasing transmission of influenza infection. These studies are not definitive as they all had limitations. The household studies are limited by the fact that mask wearing did not start until influenza had been diagnosed and the patient/household was enrolled in the study, such that influenza may have been transmitted prior to enrollment. A study in student residences is limited by the fact that participants wore their mask for only approximately 5 hours per day. Two systematic reviews of the cumulative studies conclude that there is evidence to support that wearing of masks or respirators during illness protects others, and a very limited amount of data to support the use of masks or respirators to prevent becoming infected
.
In summary, there is evidence supporting the use of wearing of masks to reduce transmission of influenza from health care workers to patients. It is not conclusive, and not of the quality of evidence that supports influenza vaccination. Based on current evidence, patient safety would be best ensured by requiring healthcare providers to be vaccinated if they provide care during periods of influenza activity. However, if healthcare workers are unvaccinated, wearing masks almost certainly provides some degree of protection to their patients.

Bonnie Henry keeps hedging her answers. Yes, there is protection, but there are issues with the studies, and the evidence isn’t conclusive. She also takes the position that vaccinating everyone in health care settings would be prefereable.

219. Dr. Henry answered the ‘why not mask everyone’ question this way:
.
It is [influenza vaccination] by far, not perfect and it needs to be improved, but it reduces our risk from a hundred percent where we have no protection to somewhat lower. And there’s nothing that I’ve found that shows there’s an incremental benefit of adding a mask to that reduced risk…..there’s no data that shows me that if we do our best to reduce that incremental risk, the risk of influenza, that adding a mask to that will provide any benefit. But if we don’t have any protection then there might be some benefit when we know our risk is greater.
.
When we look at individual strains circulating and what’s happening, I think we need it to be consistent with the fact that there was nothing that gave us support that providing a mask to everybody all the time was going to give us any additional benefit over putting in place the other measures that we have for the policy. It’s a tough one. You know, it varies by season.[320]
.
It is a challenging issue and we’ve wrestled with it. I’m not a huge fan of the masking piece. I think it was felt to be a reasonable alternative where there was a need to do—to feel that we were doing the best we can to try and reduce risk.
.
I tried to be quite clear in my report that the evidence to support masking is not as great and it is certainly not as good a measure

Bonnie Henry admits no strong evidence to support maskings.

5. William Osler Health System (2016)

2016.william.osler.health.system.ruling

2. The primary issue dividing ONA and the hospitals was the controversial ‘vaccination or mask’ policy (“VOM policy”) adopted by many hospitals. The question proceeded to arbitration by test case leading to the decision in Sault Area Hospital, 2015 CanLII 55643 (ON LA). Following an exhaustive review of the available medical scientific literature and having heard from a number of expert witnesses, I determined that:
.
Absent adequate support for the freestanding patient safety purpose alleged, I conclude that the Policy operates to coerce influenza immunization and, thereby, undermines the collective agreement right of employees to refuse vaccination. On all of the evidence, and for the reasons canvassed at length in this Award, I conclude that the VOM Policy is unreasonable. (at para. 13)

12. Insofar as the First Issue is concerned, I do not agree that the recommendation to wear a mask for the duration of the influenza season in any patient area of the Hospital is sustainable. I found at para. 319 of Sault Area Hospital that there was “scant scientific evidence of the use of masks in reducing the transmission of influenza virus to patients”. In the absence of further evidence to the contrary, I conclude that there is no reasonable basis for the recommendation and that it should be deleted from the Policy.

13. Insofar as the Second Issue is concerned, I am satisfied that a blend of the Hospital and Union proposals is preferable to either of them standing alone.

14. The Union accurately summarizes the evidence heard in Sault Area Hospital about the typical length of the influenza incubation period before the onset of symptoms. Nevertheless, I am reluctant to designate a specific number of hours; the length of time will almost certainly vary with individual circumstances. The Hospital’s written submission states that: “We have chosen with our proposed language to have individual assessments made by Infection Control Practitioners at the Hospital.” On the assumption that those assessments will be made available and conducted very close to the 72-hour mark, I find the Hospital’s approach to be acceptable. I also find that the Union’s alternative suggestion to the ‘patient care area’ question to be appropriate.

Just as with the Sault Area Hospital case, this “vaccinate or mask” policy was found to be unreasonable, an unsupported by hard evidence.

6. St. Michael’s Hospital (2018)

2018.ontario.nurses.association.mask.ruling

Introduction
.
Summarily stated, this case concerns the reasonableness of the Vaccinate or Mask Policy (hereafter “VOM policy”) that was introduced at St. Michael’s Hospital (hereafter “St. Michael’s”) in 2014 for the 2014-2015 flu season and which has been in place ever since. Under the VOM policy, Health Care Workers and that group, of course, includes nurses (hereafter “HCWs”), who have not received the annual influenza vaccine, must, during all or most of the flu season, wear a surgical or procedural mask in areas where patients are present and/or patient care is delivered.

St. Michael’s is one of a very small number of Ontario hospitals with a VOM policy: less than 10% of approximately 165 hospitals. The Ontario Nurses’ Association (hereafter “the Association”) immediately grieved the VOM policy in every hospital where it was introduced. It should be noted at the outset that the VOM policy has nothing to do with influenza outbreaks that are governed by an entirely different protocol, and one that is not at issue in this case.

This is not the first Ontario grievance taking issue with the VOM policy. The parties appropriately recognized that the matters in dispute were best decided through a lead case rather than through multiple proceedings at the minority of hospitals where the policy was in place. Accordingly, the Association grievance at the Sault Area Hospital was designated as that lead case and proceeded to a lengthy hearing before arbitrator James K.A. Hayes beginning in October 2014 and ending in July 2015. Arbitrator Hayes heard multiple days of evidence (replicated to some extent in this proceeding) and issued his decision, discussed further below, on September 8, 2015 (hereafter “the Hayes Award”). Arbitrator Hayes found that the Sault Area Hospital’s VOM policy was inconsistent with the collective agreement and unreasonable. The grievance was, accordingly, upheld.

Conclusion
.
It was noted at the outset that this case was, in large measure, a repeat of the one put before Arbitrator Hayes. It is not, therefore, surprising that there is an identical outcome. Ultimately, I agree with Arbitrator Hayes: “There is scant scientific evidence concerning asymptomatic transmission, and, also, scant scientific evidence of the use of masks in reducing the transmission of the virus to patients” (at para. 329). To be sure, there is another authority on point, and the decision in that case deserves respect. But it was a different case with a completely different evidentiary focus. It is not a result that can be followed.

One day, an influenza vaccine like MMR may be developed, one that is close to 100% effective. To paraphrase Dr. Gardam, if a better vaccine and more robust literature about influenza-specific patient outcomes were available, the entire matter might be appropriately revisited. For the time being, however, the case for the VOM policy fails and the grievances allowed. I find St. Michael’s VOM policy contrary to the collective agreement and unreasonable. St. Michael’s is required, immediately, to rescind its VOM policy. I remain seized with respect to the implementation of this award.

The Sault Area Hospital case had largely set the precedent, and the issues were were virtually identical. Another hospital was forced to scrap its “vaccinate or mask” policy.

7. BC Ombudsman’s June 2020 Report

2020.BC.ombudsman.report.2.orders.overreach

Conclusion: The Ministerial Orders Are Contrary to Law Based on the above analysis of the orders and the Emergency Program Act, I have concluded that to the extent that they purport to suspend or amend the provisions of statutes, Ministerial Orders M098 and M139 are contrary to law because they are not authorized by the governing legislation, the Emergency Program Act. Many of the orders made by the minister have been in place for more than two months. In my view, it is incumbent on government to seek an appropriate solution to this problem of invalidity that minimizes any negative impacts to the public. In this respect, I note that Ministerial Order M192, the order replacing M139, continues to purport to suspend and amend statutory requirements that apply to local governments.

The Exercise of Ministerial Discretion The Supreme Court of Canada has made clear that just as there are limits on what statutory powers can be exercised under a statute, there are also limits on how those powers can be exercised: . . . there is no such thing as absolute and untrammeled “discretion,” that is that action can be taken on any ground or for any reason that can be suggested to the mind of the administrator; no legislative Act can, without express language, be taken to contemplate an unlimited arbitrary power exercisable for any purpose . . . regardless of the nature or purpose of the statute

The BC Ombudsman found that 2 Ministerial Orders were actually illegal, and far exceeeded the discretion which they were allowed to use.

8. These Rulings Are Very Encouraging

The 2015 and 2018 rulings are important, as they are 2 precedents in a quasi-judicial body, that found mask wearing to be of very limited value. It’s even better (from a B.C. perspective), that Bonnie Henry is on record saying that there is little evidence that masks work.

The B.C. Ombudsman’s Report is also helpful. Although not binding on a court, those opinions do carry some weight. And 2 orders have already been found to be illegal.

Posted on

More On Vaccine Hesitancy Research, Convincing People It’s Safe

Go onto Health Canada’s site and search the term “vaccine hesitancy”. You will find over 200 papers, studies, and listings — some very in depth work. Keep in mind, this is ONLY Health Canada. See #6 for mandatory CV-19 vaccines.

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

The rest of the series is here. See the lies, lobbying, conflicts of interest, and various globalist agendas operating behind the scenes. There is a lot more than most people realize. For background, check this and this article. The Gates Foundation finances many things, including: the World Health Organization, the Center for Disease Control, GAVI, ID2020, John Hopkins University, Imperial College London, the Pirbright Institute, and individual pharmaceutical companies.

2. Motivational Interviewing

Abstract
According to the World Health Organization, vaccine hesitancy is among the top threats to global health and few effective strategies address this growing problem. In Canada, approximatively 20% of parents/caregivers are concerned about their children receiving vaccines. Trying to convince them by simply providing the facts about vaccination may backfire and make parents/caregivers even more hesitant. In this context, how can health care providers overcome the challenge of parental decision-making needs regarding vaccination of their children?

Motivational interviewing aims to support decision making by eliciting and strengthening a person’s motivation to change their behaviour based on their own arguments for change. This approach is based on three main components: the spirit to cultivate a culture of partnership and compassion; the processes to foster engagement in the relationship and focus the discussion on the target of change; and the skills that enable health care providers to understand and address the parent/caregiver’s real concerns.

With regard to immunization, the motivational interviewing approach aims to inform parents/caregivers about vaccinations, according to their specific needs and their individual level of knowledge, with respectful acceptance of their beliefs. The use of motivational interviewing calls for a respectful and empathetic discussion of vaccination and helps to build a strong relationship.

Numerous studies in Canada, including multicentre randomized controlled trials, have proven the effectiveness of the motivational interviewing approach. Since 2018, the PromoVac strategy, an educational intervention based on the motivational interviewing approach, has been implemented as a new practice of care in maternity wards across the province of Quebec through the Entretien Motivationnel en Maternité pour l’Immunisation des Enfants (EMMIE) program.

vaccine.hesitancy.motivational.interviewing

To be absolutely clear, the above research, and what follows has nothing to do with research into CREATING safe vaccines. Instead, the goal is to CONVINCE you that they already are.

3. Challenges And Approaches

Because causes of vaccine hesitancy and determinants of vaccine acceptance are complex and multidimensional, there is no “magic bullet” that can address vaccine hesitancy and enhance vaccine acceptance. A summary of the findings from 15 published literature reviews or meta-analysis of the effectiveness of different interventions to reduce vaccine hesitancy and/or to enhance vaccine acceptance reveals that simply communicating evidence about vaccine safety and efficacy to those who are vaccine hesitant has done little to stem the growth of hesitancy related beliefs and fears (41). Furthermore, failure to properly and systematically evaluate the relevance and effectiveness of these interventions across the spectrum of vaccine hesitant individuals and specific vaccines makes it difficult to know whether the results can be transferable or suitable for widespread implementation.

Should the public health community respond to anti-vaccination activists (48)? Leask suggests that adversarial approaches against such activists can in fact enliven the battle and contribute to a false sense that vaccination is a highly contested topic (49). Most of the time, pro-vaccine advocates should “play the issue, not the opponent” (49). Efforts should be made to stop them only when anti-vaccination activists’ advice could lead to direct harm.

Future public health vaccine promotion efforts need to embrace Internet and social media possibilities and proactively promote the importance and safety of vaccines rather than adopt a reactive approach to anti-vaccination activists’ arguments (47,50,51). The role of social media in vaccine hesitancy creates a need to develop appropriate strategies for online communication. Such strategies should aim to provide vaccine supportive information, address misinformation published online and correspond to parents’ needs and interests (29).

vaccine.hesitancy.challenges.and.approaches

In a parallel with the climate change scam, a technique suggested is to be dismissive of the idea that there is any debate. If you can’t win with facts, then avoid the discussion altogether.

It’s interesting that the recommendation is to avoid engaging with people “vaccine deniers” who bring well researched and well thought out arguments.

4.Best Practices For Addressing Hesitancy

1. Identify target audience and establish trust
“Understanding the perspectives of the people for whom immunization services are intended, and their engagement with the issue”, wrote Goldstein and colleagues, “is as important as the information that experts want to communicate” (8). The amount, content and type of information that is needed to move a vaccine-hesitant individual toward vaccine acceptance differs greatly from the basic information needed by a person who is already favourable to vaccination and intends to vaccinate. Research has shown that vaccine-hesitant individuals are “active information-seekers” that are looking for “balanced” information presenting both pros and cons of vaccination in order to make an informed decision about vaccines (9,10). Their information needs are usually not fulfilled with typical information from public health authorities, as this information generally does not usually provide references to scientific studies and is often perceived as focusing on the benefits of vaccines and not discussing the potential risks of vaccines (11). Addressing those who are strongly anti-vaccines merit specific strategies. This is not the subject of the current paper but will be addressed in a future CANVax Brief.

5. Test communication prior to launching
It is important to test a communication material prior to launching to make sure it is working as intended for the target audience. The results might be surprising: a study showed that information given in frequency formats (e.g. one out of 10 infants will have a fever after a vaccination) were perceived as more risky than the same information conveyed in probabilistic terms (e.g. 10% of infants will have a fever after a vaccination) (27). Studies have also shown that as many as one out of two adults do not have the necessary skills to interpret probabilities and other mathematical concepts

vaccine.hesitancy.promotional.material

This works just like commercial marketing. Target your audience, and avoid getting into “factual” arguments with people who have actually done their homework.

5. Progress Against Vaccine Hesitancy

Fortunately, researchers like Dr. Ève Dubé, with Université Laval are looking into this important issue. Dr. Dubé is an anthropologist, a researcher, and a professor, who works on vaccine hesitancy. Her research aims at understanding the social, cultural, and political contexts that influence individuals’ and groups’ beliefs and practices around vaccination.

She works with various health organizations to transfer research into practice.

One of the aims of her research program is to address vaccine hesitancy by supporting parents to make informed vaccination decisions and by ensuring that healthcare providers are prepared to communicate effectively with vaccine-hesitant parents.

She is currently leading different projects on vaccine hesitancy such as a study based on interviews with vaccine-hesitant parents to look at information sources on vaccination and information needs and preferences of parents to make an informed decision about vaccination. She is also leading a project to develop and pilot-test interventions to address vaccine hesitancy around the HPV vaccine in the context of school-based programs in Canada.

Vaccine hesitancy is a very, VERY widely researched field. A lot of money is tied up in ensuring that people don’t start asking the wrong questions and putting the pieces together.

Ève Dubé also co-authors the next piece, which includes entertaining the idea of making this coronavirus vaccine mandatory.

6. Legislating Vaccine Compliance

Given that queries have also been raised in the press about whether coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine(s), when available, should be made mandatory for some or all in Canada, this Canadian Vaccination Evidence Resource and Exchange Centre (CANVax) Brief provides an overview and brief discussion of what mandatory childhood vaccination means followed by discussions of scope and framework factors to consider. Also discussed are the reported outcomes, including reports of unintended consequences.

COVID-19 vaccines and consideration for a mandatory approach
While a poll in Canada in late April 2020 reported strong support amongst the general public for making COVID-19 vaccination mandatory (21), this strategy can only be considered when these vaccines become widely available in Canada. Given that a mandatory program has costs both in terms of implementation and monitoring (5), decisions need to rest on what additional benefit is hoped to be achieved. If vaccine uptake is already expected to be high amongst groups deemed necessary for the control of the spread of COVID-19, then the added costs of a mandatory program are likely not justified. In contrast, if the rates of uptake are low and the ease of access and other strategies known to improve uptake have been addressed, then a mandatory approach may be worth pursuing. Careful attention must be paid to whether this will be an incentive or penalty program, how it will be monitored and by whom (5).

vaccine.hesitancy.forced.by.legislation

At least some honesty here. It is acknowledged in writing that the public is wondering if CV-19 vaccines will ever become mandatory. Interestingly, it doesn’t address that concern. Instead, it just defers the issue until later.

7. How Rampant Is This Research?

vaccine.hesitancy.motivational.interviewing
vaccine.hesitancy.challenges.and.approaches
vaccine.hesitancy.promotional.material
vaccine.hesitancy.forced.by.legislation

These are only a few of course. Much more available here.

8. Immunization Partnership Fund

This was addressed in Part 8, but worth another look.

9. Gates Finances Vaccine Hesitancy Research

Although small by its standards, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has made some contributions to vaccine hesitancy work. It’s just good business.

10. WHO Researches Vaccine Hesitancy

A search on the World Health Organization’s site under “vaccine hesitancy” results in 117 possible matches.

The World Health Organization has released several other papers and research findings into vaccine hesitancy. Either they are moronic, or they truly think that what they are doing is for the best of humanity.
hesitancy.research
hesitancy.research.02
hesitancy.research.strategies.for.addressing
hesitancy.conclusions.for.addressing

11. WHO Establishes National Standards


WHO.establishment.national.standards.vaccines

This is a 2011 publication, but the World Health Organization sets national standards for what vaccinations countries need apparently.

12. WHO’s July 9, 2020 Guidance

How to prevent transmission
The overarching aim of the Strategic Preparedness and Response Plan for COVID-19(1) is to control COVID-19 by suppressing transmission of the virus and preventing associated illness and death. To the best of our understanding, the virus is primarily spread through contact and respiratory droplets. Under some circumstances airborne transmission may occur (such as when aerosol generating procedures are conducted in health care settings or potentially, in indoor crowded poorly ventilated settings elsewhere). More studies are urgently needed to investigate such instances and assess their actual significance for transmission of COVID-19.

WHO.july9.new.science.supposedly.uncovered

In this latest version, the World Health Organization has removed earlier comments about there being no evidence to support wearing masks. Now, the deadliest virus in history can be stopped by a simple piece of cloth.

13. WHO: May 22 Guidance On Mass Vaccination

who.mass.vaccination.strategy

Note: the World Health Organization doesn’t have an issue with mass vaccination of an entire population during this “pandemic”. They just want people to be safe, apparently.

14. “Vaccine Hesitancy” Is Just Marketing

They refer to it as overcoming vaccine hesitancy. However these are marketing techniques to convince people that these vaccines are safe, and only crazies are questioning it.

Some of the techniques include pretending to care about people’s concerns, and feigning a legitimate relationship. Also, strong critics should be treated dismissively, and questions evaded. It should not be even entertained that there might be serious questions about these drugs.

There is a strong parallel with the climate change hoax. Both use psychological manipulation to ward off valid questions about what is going on.

This is just a small sample of the work deployed to convince people that these are safe. There is much more to look into.

Posted on

CV #49: WHO’s July 31 List On Vaccine Research Projects, Disclaims Any Liability

https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/diseases/coronavirus-disease-covid-19.html

This newest coronavirus is deadly and has no cure, hence the global push for a vaccine. This comes despite Health Canada consistently saying the vast majority of people in Canada who contracted it have already recovered.

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

For more on the fake “pandemic” that is taking over our lives, check out this series. Information on the: lies, lobbying, conflicts of interest, simulations, globalist interests are available. This is news that the mainstream media will never share.

2. WHO’s July 31 Vaccine Research List

july.31.vaccine.research.list

PLATFORM TYPE DEVELOPER
DNA DNA Vaccine Ege University
DNA DNA plasmid vaccine RBD&N Scancell/University of Nottingham/ Nottingham Trent University
DNA DNA plasmid vaccine S,S1,S2,RBD &N National Research Centre, Egypt
DNA DNA with electroporation Karolinska Institute / Cobra Biologics (OPENCORONA Project)
DNA DNA with electroporation Chula Vaccine Research Center
DNA DNA Takis/Applied DNA Sciences/Evvivax
DNA Plasmid DNA, Needle-Free Delivery Immunomic Therapeutics, Inc./EpiVax, Inc./PharmaJet
DNA DNA vaccine BioNet Asia
DNA msDNA vaccine Mediphage Bioceuticals/University of Waterloo
DNA DNA vaccine Entos Pharmaceuticals
DNA bacTRL-Spike Symvivo
RNA Self-amplifying RNA Gennova
RNA mRNA Selcuk University
RNA LNP-mRNA Translate Bio/Sanofi Pasteur
RNA LNP-mRNA CanSino Biologics/Precision NanoSystems
RNA LNP-encapsulated mRNA cocktail encoding VLP Fudan University/ Shanghai JiaoTong University/RNACure Biopharma
RNA LNP-encapsulated mRNA encoding RBD Fudan University/ Shanghai JiaoTong University/RNACure Biopharma
RNA Replicating Defective SARS-CoV-2 derived RNAs Centro Nacional Biotecnología (CNB-CSIC), Spain
RNA LNP-encapsulated mRNA University of Tokyo/ Daiichi-Sankyo
RNA Liposome-encapsulated mRNA BIOCAD
RNA Several mRNA candidates RNAimmune, Inc.
RNA mRNA FBRI SRC VB VECTOR, Rospotrebnadzor, Koltsovo
RNA mRNA China CDC/Tongji University/Stermina
RNA LNP-mRNA Chula Vaccine Research Center/University of Pennsylvania
RNA mRNA in an intranasal delivery system eTheRNA
RNA mRNA Greenlight Biosciences
RNA mRNA IDIBAPS-Hospital Clinic, Spain

This is by no means everyone on the list. Still, it should give people a cause for concern, just how widespread this vaccine research is.

DISCLAIMER:
These landscape documents have been prepared by the World Health Organization (WHO) for information purposes only concerning the 2019-2020 pandemic of the novel coronavirus. Inclusion of any particular product or entity in any of these landscape documents does not constitute, and shall not be deemed or construed as, any approval or endorsement by WHO of such product or entity (or any of its businesses or activities). While WHO takes reasonable steps to verify the accuracy of the information presented in these landscape documents, WHO does not make any (and hereby disclaims all) representations and warranties regarding the accuracy, completeness, fitness for a particular purpose (including any of the aforementioned purposes), quality, safety, efficacy, merchantability and/or non-infringement of any information provided in these landscape documents and/or of any of the products referenced therein. WHO also disclaims any and all liability or responsibility whatsoever for any death, disability, injury, suffering, loss, damage or other prejudice of any kind that may arise from or in connection with the procurement, distribution or use of any product included in any of these landscape documents.

Just so you know, the World Health Organization makes absolutely no guarantees that any of these products are safe, let alone that they work. Take at your own risk.

But don’t worry. Why should we have any reason to doubt the experts at the World Health Organization? After all, our local experts are reliable and trustworthy. And our politicians certainly have our best interests at heart, right?

3. Gates: “Super Painful” Is Not Serious

https://twitter.com/LegendaryEnergy/status/1287509508206391296

Gates told CBS in a rather indifferent way that reactions that are “super painful” are not serious. He doesn’t appear to give a damn how the Moderna trials have gone. This is from July 26.

4. Trudeau & Premiers Are Parroting Gates

(Bill Gates predicts no more mass gathering until vaccine developed.

(See 1:30 mark in this, or original video)

Okay, so it seems like they are all pushing the agenda for mass vaccination. But at least major decisions are being made based on solid medical and scientific research, right? At least we can have confidence in what our leaders are telling us about this pandemic. Granted these are earlier videos, but still, creepy to watch.

5. Barbara Yaffe Admits 50% Test Error Rate

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMT_AUAj_go

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jk7s6SRBOlI

Ontario’s Deputy Medical Officer Barbara Yaffe admits that there is up to a 50% error in the testing method that is being used. Obvious question: why are we using such a method when the results are so unreliable? Premier Doug Ford, even when called out, won’t give any sort of explanation.

6. Christine Elliott Admits Lying About C.O.D.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwwHBpIHEpM

Health Minister Christine Elliott admits that people who die for reasons unrelated to CV are still being written up as CV deaths. This is deceptive and manipulative. And it seems that Toronto Public Health is no better when it comes to being transparent.

7. WHO’s Mask Recommendation Is Political

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SwiwBMfotto

Also see this and this accompanying articles. The mask recommendations are completely political, and have no medical or scientific basis to them.

8. Bonnie Henry: No Science In What We Do

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QCM-Q_ZaUs

BC Provincial Health Officer Bonnie Henry repeatedly says there is no science in what they do. This video specifically referred to capping group sizes at 50 people, but the same sentiment can be applied more broadly. See the 1:00 mark in the video.

Posted on

CV #30: Plant Based Vaccine Being Developed By GSK & Medicago, And More

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

This series continues into the lies, distortions and manipulations of the coronavirus industry. In order to understand why it’s happening, it’s necessary to show the lobbying, influence peddling and money trail that is going on. This is a multi billion dollar industry, and a lot of people have a vested interest in prolonging it.

2. Important Links

(1) https://money.usnews.com/investing/news/articles/2020-07-07/gsk-philip-morris-venture-tie-up-for-potential-covid-19-shot
(2) https://us.gsk.com/en-us/media/press-releases/gsk-and-medicago-announce-collaboration-to-develop-a-novel-adjuvanted-covid-19-candidate-vaccine/
(3) https://twitter.com/medicagoinc
(4) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/who.proposed.vaccine.options-1.pdf
(5) http://lobbyist.oico.on.ca/
CLICK HERE, for the Federal Lobbying Registry.
(6) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=366144&regId=897841#regStart
(7) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=361856&regId=878369&blnk=1
(8) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=362841&regId=888951
(9) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=362892&regId=885889&blnk=1
(10) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=363869&regId=886566
(11) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=363846&regId=886416.
(12) https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/clients/summary?cycle=2018&id=D000000133
(13) https://www.medicago.com/en/technologies/#production-platform
(14) https://marketrealist.com/2020/07/philip-morris-stock-rises-fda-approves-iqos/
(15) https://www.who.int/news-room/detail/13-04-2020-public-statement-for-collaboration-on-covid-19-vaccine-development

3. Piece On Big PMI Tobacco/Vaccine

An interesting article by Civilian Intelligence Network on big tobacco and its role in the development of a CV vaccine. Very detailed, go take a look. Philip Morris is involved in many surprising things.

4. Plant-Based Vaccine In The Works

(Reuters) – The world’s largest vaccine-maker GSK has put its vaccine booster technology to work in a potential new COVID-19 shot, to be developed with a Canadian biopharmaceutical company backed by tobacco company Philip Morris.

Rather than developing its own vaccine in the global race to combat the pandemic, GSK has instead focused on contributing its adjuvant technology to at least seven other global companies, including Sanofi and China’s Clover.

There are no approved vaccines for the respiratory illness caused by the new coronavirus, but 19 vaccines are being trialed in humans globally and some treatments, such as Gilead’s remdesivir, have been approved in certain regions.

GSK said on Tuesday the companies aimed to make their vaccine available in the first half of next year and produce about 100 million doses by the end of 2021. An early-stage human trial of three different dosage levels is expected to begin in mid-July.

Medicago, headquartered in Quebec City, Canada, is privately owned. PMI has a 33% stake, and Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma holds the remainder.

This seems to be for real, a plant-based vaccine to the alleged CV pandemic. However, there are a lot of things to consider, especially who is behind this vaccine. It’s also worth looking at the lobbying and influence peddling that goes on.

In its press release, GSK outlined the agreement and pointed out that Medicago is 2/3 owned by Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma (MTPC), and 1/3 by Philip Morris International (PMI). Apparently Philip Morris — yes the cigarette company — is reconsidering its ownership stake in Medicago.

So GlaxoSmithKline and Medicago are going to develop a plant-based vaccine. Let’s take a look into them.

5. Gates Foundation A Regular Donor To GSK

Year Amount Purpose
Nov 2011 $16,956,274 HIV research
Nov 2012 $2,098,761 HIV research
Nov 2013 $2,347,273 TB/Malaria
Oct 2014 $1,281,469 Ebola vaccine
Nov 2014 $6,000,000 Adjuvanted vaccines
Nov 2014 $14,060,000 RTS,S, Malaria
Nov 2014 $1,199,441 Malaria/TB/HIV
Jan 2015 $1,291,432 Malaria/TB
Dec 2015 $10,799,189 Shigella vaccine
Oct 2016 $1,511,994 Malaria testing
Apr 2017 $687,790 Pathogen research
Aug 2017 $1,801,900 TB drugs
Nov 2017 $320,265 Malaria control
Nov 2018 $4,992,331 Shigella serotypes

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has donated millions to GSK, (GlaxoSmithKline), in recent years. Gates seems to be 100% behind the vaxx agenda.

The Gates Foundation Trust, which is a separate entity from the Foundation, holds millions in stocks and bonds of various pharmaceutical companies. Part 21 of this series laid out some of the vast financial ties Bill Gates has to the pharmaceutical industry.

It should also be noted that the Gates Foundation has heavily financed Imperial College London, and Neil Ferguson’s bogus computer models. It also owns virus patents, and is heavily involved in ID2020.

6. Gates/GSK Partnered In AbCellera Grant

This a bit of a side track, but worth mentioning briefly. It was covered in Part 14 of the series that the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and GlaxoSmithKline, were 2 of the partners in the May 2020 grant of $175.6 from the Canadian taxpayers to the company AbCellera.

7. Crestview Lobbyists Hired By GSK

At one time GlaxoSmithKline has 2 registered lobbyists from Crestview Strategy: Chad Rogers and Kate Moseley-Williams. However, there are no filed communications reports. A bit strange to recruit but not use them. However, looking at the other GSK records, there are over 200 reports filed from other people going back to 1996.

Why care about Crestview Strategy? Because they are the same firm that GAVI (funded by Gates), was using to lobby the Trudeau Government over the last few years.

However, Kate Moseley-William did lobby the Ontario Government in 2019 on behalf of GSK. And bit of information: on June 29, 2020, 8 lobbyists from GSK met with ON officials.

8. GSK’s Heavy Lobbying In U.S.

According to Open Secrets, GlaxoSmithKline spends a few million every year lobbying in the U.S., and has anywhere from 10 to 60 lobbyists on the payroll. But that probably has no influence on its ability to get FDA approval on its products.

9. Medicago ON VLP/Plant Technology

In very broad strokes, Medicago would be using plants to generate VLP (virus-like particles) which replicate CV and can be given to people to develop immunity. Replicating a previous technique for CV is essentially the partnership that GSK and Medicago would be involved in.

10. Crestview’s Jason Clark Now With Medicago

An interesting fact: Crestview Strategy lobbyist Jason Clark, previously lobbied both the Prime Minister’s Office, and the Office of the Official Opposition. Addressed in Part 4, this was done on behalf of GAVI, whom he proudly represented. Now, Clark is registered as a lobbyist with Medicago.

11. Ex-Crestview Lobbyist Jennifer Babcock

Jennifer Babcock has been a registered lobbyist both for GAVI, and for Medicago. Incidently, she has also been a lobbyist for Merck, and for the Alliance for Safe Online Pharmacies.

In fact many lobbyists for the firm Crestview Strategy have had Medicago as a client. Another firm, Magnet Strategy Group, has also worked with Medicago. As the information should make clear, the goal of the lobbying is getting funding from the various Governments.

12. Medicago Co-Owner PMI, Heated Cigs

On Tuesday, the FDA authorized Philip Morris’s IQOS, an electrically heated tobacco unit, to be marketed as an MRTP (modified risk tobacco product). IQOS is the first and only electronic nicotine product to get authorization from the FDA to be marketed as an MRTP. The company claims that the product is fundamentally different from other tobacco products and also a better choice for smokers.

The FDA stated that IQOS heats tobacco and doesn’t burn it. The process significantly reduces the production of harmful chemicals. Smokers will be less exposed to harmful chemicals by switching completely to IQOS. The FDA concluded that IQOS could benefit tobacco users and non-tobacco smokers based on the current evidence.

Philip Morris International (which owns 1/3 of Medicago) just received FDA approval to sell electronically heated tobacco, which they market as a healthier choice for smokers. Rather than get people off cigarettes, a new model is pitched.

There seems to be some cognitive dissonance here. This group helping to develop a vaccine to save lives is also developing a new form of smoking to help kill people. But business is business I guess.

Interestingly, Philip Morris has suggested selling its 1/3 share of Medicago.

13. WHO Statement On Vaccine Collaboration

Declaration
We are scientists, physicians, funders and manufacturers who have come together as part of an international collaboration, coordinated by the World Health Organization (WHO), to help speed the availability of a vaccine against COVID-19. While a vaccine for general use takes time to develop, a vaccine may ultimately be instrumental in controlling this worldwide pandemic. In the interim, we applaud the implementation of community intervention measures that reduce spread of the virus and protect people, including vulnerable populations, and pledge to use the time gained by the widespread adoption of such measures to develop a vaccine as rapidly as possible. We will continue efforts to strengthen the unprecedented worldwide collaboration, cooperation and sharing of data already underway. We believe these efforts will help reduce inefficiencies and duplication of effort, and we will work tenaciously to increase the likelihood that one or more safe and effective vaccines will soon be made available to all.

To anyone who thinks that this is only a passing phase, it’s not. There are many players who are vested in seeing some sort of vaccine(s) come out, regardless of whether it’s needed.

14. WHO Considering Many Vaccines


who.proposed.vaccine.options

For some context, it must be noted that there are many companies working to develop a vaccine using different approaches. This was from the World Health Organization in April. There aren’t any plant based vaccines listed, but perhaps the revised list will change that.

Non-Replicating Viral Vector
Adenovirus Type 5 Vector
CanSino Biological Inc./Beijing Institute of Biotechnology

DNA DNA plasmid vaccine
Electroporation device
Inovio Pharmaceuticals

RNA
LNPencapsulated mRNA
Moderna/NIAID

DNA
DNA with electroporation
Karolinska Institute / Cobra Biologics (OPENCORONA Project)

DNA
DNA plasmid vaccine
Osaka University/ AnGes/ Takara Bio

DNA
DNA
Takis/Applied DNA Sciences/Evvivax

DNA
Plasmid DNA, Needle-Free Delivery
Immunomic Therapeutics, Inc./EpiVax, Inc./PharmaJet, Inc.

On second thought, considering what the World Health Organization is allowing to go forward, maybe a plant based virus isn’t as bad as some other options.

15. Saini’s M-132 Ensures Canada’s Participation

It was outlined in Part 7 and Part 9 of the series how Motion M-132 was introduced in the fall of 2017. Hearings were held with lobbyists in 2018, and the findings were formally adopted in March 2019. This motion ensures Canada will be continuously funding vaccine research for Canada and the world. What convenient timing to clear legislative hurdles.

Of course the murders of Barry and Honey Sherman in late 2017 were convenient as well. We wouldn’t want any possible virus cure being readily available. Where’s the profit in that?

16. Nothing Stops This (Vaccine) Train

It’s obvious that there are many, MANY players pushing the vaccine agenda. There’s surely billions of dollars at stake for whoever comes up with a vaccine first.

Sure, people like Bill Gates are eugenicists obsessed with world depopulation. Sure, WHO modelling, predictions, and case counts are repeatedly wrong. And sure, some Western politicians like their newfound sense of absolute power. But the business interests cannot be overlooked.

This plant-based vaccine is just the tip of the iceberg.

Posted on

CV #21: Pharma Lobbying In Canada Flooded With Gates’ Proxies/Allies

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

The rest of the series is here. See the lies, lobbying, conflicts of interest, and various globalist agendas operating behind the scenes. There is a lot more than most people realize. For background, check this and this article. The Gates Foundation finances many things, including: the World Health Organization, the Center for Disease Control, GAVI, ID2020, John Hopkins University, Imperial College London, the Pirbright Institute, and individual pharmaceutical companies.

2. Important Links

(1) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/advSrch
(2) https://www.gatesfoundation.org
(3) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=366216&regId=898133#regStart
(4) http://archive.is/7w15g
(5) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=12241&regId=880634#regStart
(6) http://archive.is/MljjW
(7) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=365218&regId=892723
(8) http://archive.is/zE7UT
(9) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/advSrch?keywords=gilead+sciences&keywordsOp=AND&documentType=both&adv_1001_level1common=&adv_2002_level1reg=&adv_3003_level1comlog=&srch=
(10) http://archive.is/t9ZUY
(11) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=15599&regId=896896#regStart
(12) http://archive.is/zNBIw
(13) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=15283&regId=898856#regStart
(14) http://archive.is/fdk5U
(15) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=5088&regId=891566
(16) http://archive.is/Pfv86
(17) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=4887&regId=875507
(18) http://archive.is/szVu6
(19) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/advSrch?keywords=teva+canada&keywordsOp=PHRASE&documentType=both&adv_1001_level1common=&adv_2002_level1reg=&adv_3003_level1comlog=&srch=
(20) http://archive.is/dBTxv
(21) https://sif.gatesfoundation.org/news-and-updates/press-release-inactivated-polio-vaccines-broadly-available-worlds-children-drive-toward-polio-eradication/
(22) http://archive.is/TXd3c
(23) https://www.gatesfoundation.org/Media-Center/Press-Releases/2020/03/Life-Science-Companies-Commit-to-the-Fight-Against-COVID-19-Pandemic-alongside-Gates-Foundation
(24) http://archive.is/OZ8qr
(25) https://apps.irs.gov/app/eos/

3. Context For This Piece

The topic of lobbying has been addressed in earlier pieces in the series, but let’s show just how big it is. The truth is, one can’t honestly discuss the vaccine push in Canada (or elsewhere), without getting into the influence peddling behind the scenes.

This is by no means everything. This is just the tip of iceberg. Still, it’s necessary for the public to see, in order to understand what’s going on.

Bill Gates Jr., is the face behind the vaccine industry today. He is a well known proponent for population reduction. He is also the son of Bill Gates Sr., former head of Planned Parenthood.

The companies listed below are lobbying the Federal Government (and Provinces too), to push the for vaccine research. Why? In part because The Gates Foundation Trust owns stock in several of these organizations. The Gates Foundation — a separate entity, but not really — spends money on these groups as well. In short, pharma bucks help push the agenda.

And what is the result of this?

(Bill Gates predicts no more mass gathering until vaccine developed.

(See 1:30 mark in this, or original video). Trudeau claims that “normalcy will not return without a vaccine that is widely available, and that could be a very long way off”.

(From March 30, 2020 public announcement). The Government of Alberta is stating is may very well be a year to develop a vaccine.

(Ontario Premier Doug Ford pushes Vaxx agenda)

Does anyone notice that they all seem to be pushing the same talking points? It’s all about pushing a vaccine, and keeping some form of restriction or lockdown until that happens. Why are these people all talking the exact same way? It’s all about the pharma money.

Follow the money.

4. Gates Foundation Tax Returns

Link to search IRS charity tax records:
https://apps.irs.gov/app/eos/

Let’s clarify here: there are actually 2 separate entities. The Foundation is the group that distributes money to various organizations and institutions. The Foundation Trust, however, is concerned primarily about asset management.

BILL & MELINDA GATES FOUNDATION
EIN: 56-2618866
gates.foundation.taxes.2016
gates.foundation.taxes.2017
gates.foundation.taxes.2018
gates.foundation.taxes.2019

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

What does the Gates Foundation Trust Own?

Company Type Of Stock Shares Total Value
Eli Lilly Corp Bonds – $952,265
Gilead Sciences Common 21,250 $1,329,188
Gilead Sciences Corp Bonds – $3,297,777
Laobaixing Pharma Common 831,829 $5,719,831
Merck Common 27,200 $2,078,352
Novartis Common 70,330 $5,995,662
Pfizer Common 39,500 $1,724,175
Roche Common 37,881 $9,353,059
Sichuan Kelun Common 2,818,448 8,480,098
Sinopharm Common 394,080 $1,655,978
Tasly Pharma Common 8,114,941 $22,693,515
Teva Fin BV Corp Bonds – $819,555
Teva Fin IV Corp Bonds – $9,465
Teva Pharma NE Corp Bonds – $1,106,435

Why does Bill Gates promote the health and well being of these companies? It could (and probably does) have to do with that fact that he is a stockholder in them. Plainly put, he is part owner of these pharmaceutical companies.

Of course, this is only a tiny portion of the total assets within the trust. There are stocks and bonds in a wide array of industries and companies.

Interesting side note: There is almost $11 million of stock in SNC Lavalin owned by the Trust, $1.25M in Goldman Sachs, and about $14M in Blackrock’s various groups.

5. Lobbying And Pharmaceutical Money

  • Ablynx (a Sanofi company)
  • Autolus
  • Denali Therapeutics
  • Eli Lilly and Company
  • Gilead Sciences
  • GlaxoSmithKline
  • Global Health Foundation (Gates Foundation)
  • Kodiak Sciences
  • Lyell
  • Merck (MSD)
  • Novartis Pharmaceuticals
  • Pfizer Inc.
  • Sanofi Pasteur
  • Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd.

It was addressed in Part 14, the AbCellera grant, how many of the firm’s partners have been involved with the Gates Foundation, and some of the lobbying behind the scenes.

In addition to those partners in the above list, consider the following, as they also have direct or indirect ties to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation:

  • AbCellera itself
  • Apotex Pharmaceuticals
  • Bayer
  • GAVI, the Global Vaccine Alliance
  • VIDO-InterVac

6. AbCellera Biologics

As of March 2020, AbCellera is registered with the Lobbying Commissioner’s Office. There are no communication reports — yet — but AbCellera is set up and ready to go and start lobbying. Also worth noting is that AbCellera received $289,116.00 from Western Economic Diversification Canada last year, and expects to receive more this year.

In November 2016, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation gave AbCellera $645,000 to help develop antibodies to treat the tuberculosis infection. So when AbCellera is getting the current grant from the Canadian Government, is it really the Gates Foundation that is getting the money?

7. Apotex Pharmaceuticals

Apotex was involved in a scandal in 2017, where it’s alleged that there was illegal lobbying in 2015 of then-Candidate Justin Trudeau. Apotex owners Barry and Honey Sherman were murdered in 2017, around the time that M-132 was introduced in the Federal Parliament. While Apotex lobbying on the Federal sphere may have stopped, it is a very different story Provincially.

Apotex has a manufacturing base in Ontario, so it’s no surprise that they would try to influence the Government there. This will be the topic of a separate article, but the Apotex owners (Honey and Barry Sherman), were murdered in 2017. This was while there was an ethics investigation for illegal lobbying, and around the time that M-132 started up. M-132 was a motion for Canada to fund pharma research and distribute cheap drugs to Canadians — AND THE WORLD.

8. Bayer

Bayer has lobbied the Ontario Government several times in the last few years. Bayer is one of the partners that the Gates Foundation announced would help with CV vaccine research.

9. GAVI, The Vaccine Alliance

This has been addressed in earlier parts of the series, but the Gates funded GAVI (Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunizations) has been lobbying the Federal Government since 2018. There are 20 communications reports on file.

This is probably the most well known link in the chain. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation helped found GAVI, the Global Vaccine Alliance in 1999. There was an initial grant of $750 million, and the Gates Foundation made regular contributions to GAVI, about $4 billion in total. The foundation essentially runs the show.

The Global Vaccine Alliance, as the name suggests, is an organization devoted to pushing vaccinations on the public all across the world. Bill Gates has long been a proponent of mass vaccinations.

Just 3 weeks ago, May 4, 2020, the Gates foundation released a press report for another $50 million worth of funding going to GAVI.

10. Gilead Sciences Canada

According to records from the Lobbying Commissioner’s Office, Gilead had 42 various registrations over the years, but has only lobbied the Federal Government 10 times. Seems a bit odd.

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Trust owns stocks and bonds in Gilead. And the Foundation has contributed to Gilead’s research in recent years.

11. GlaxoSmithKline (GSK)

There are 187 communications reports on file with the Office of the Lobbying Commissioner. Also noteworthy is that GlaxoSmithKline lobbies Provincially as well.

Year Company Amount
2011 GSK Biologicals $16,956,274
2012 GSK Biologicals $2,890,159
2013 GlaxoSmithKline $2,347,273
2014 GSK Biologicals $1,199,441
2014 GSK Biologicals $6,000,000
2014 GSK Biologicals $14,060,000
2014 GSK Biologicals $1,281,469
2015 GSK Biologicals $1,281,432
2016 GlaxoSmithKline $1,511,994
2016 GSK Biologicals $15,100,417
2017 GlaxoSmithKline $322,663
2017 GlaxoSmithKline $1,801,901
2017 GlaxoSmithKline $320,265

12. Merck Canada Inc.

Merck has been lobbying the Federal Government since 2001, on a variety of pharmaceutical related issues. There are 103 listed communications reports. And they are a major partner for AbCellera Biologics.

SEATTLE — The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation today announced that Richard Henriques has been appointed chief financial officer, effective April 19, 2010. He will be based in Seattle, Washington at the foundation’s headquarters.

Henriques will join the foundation from Merck, where he has served as senior vice president of finance and corporate controller since 2006. In this position, he focused on operations, governance, strategic planning, performance measurement, and cost management within the pharmaceutical and pharmacy benefit management industries.

Interesting side note: in 2010, the Gates Foundation scooped Richard Henriques from Merck, where he was a Senior VP.

Year Company Amount
2013 Merck KGAA $1,142,794

According to the most recent tax return, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Trust owns over $2 million worth of common stock in Merck. Presumably they’d like it to do well.

13. Novartis Pharmaceuticals

Novartis has been lobbying the Federal Government since 2007, and is one of AbCellera’s partners. There are 13 communications reports filed with the registry.

Year Company Amount
2016 Novartis Vaxx Diag. $1,537,375
2016 Novartis Pharma $659,154
2017 Novartis Biomed $1,541,000

According to the most recently available tax return, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Trust owns about $6 million worth of common stock in Novartis. Novartis lobbies the Canadian Government for causes that benefit Gates.

14. Pfizer Canada

Since 2007, Pfizer, one of AbCellera’s partners, has 143 communications reports filed with the Lobbying Commissioner’s Office. It has operated under a few different corporate titles though.

Year Company Amount
2016 Pfizer $1,813,282

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Trust owns about $1.7 million worth of common stock in Pfizer. Pfizer lobbies the Canadian Government for pharma related issues.

15. Sanofi Pasteur Ltd.

Sanofi is yet another one of AbCellera’s partners that has long been lobbying the Federal Government. Could have contributed to why AbCellera was able to get that $175.6 million contract from Ottawa.

Press Release: Inactivated Polio Vaccines Broadly Available for the World’s Children in the Drive toward Polio Eradication
.
Sanofi Pasteur
.
February 28, 2014
Sanofi Pasteur, the vaccines division of Sanofi (EURONEXT: SAN and NYSE: SNY), announced today its further commitment to the international community’s efforts to complete polio eradication. UNICEF, the organization that procures the vaccine to meet global needs, announced it will purchase significant quantities of Inactivated Polio Vaccine (IPV) from Sanofi Pasteur and make it available based on country needs and vaccination plans. To achieve the goal of polio eradication by 2018, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommends that by end 2015, all children receive routinely at least one dose of IPV in over 120 countries that solely use Oral Polio Vaccine.
.
In order to support rapid and widespread adoption of IPV, Sanofi Pasteur – the world’s largest producer of IPV – and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation have developed a joint price support mechanism, including a financial contribution from both organizations.

In 2014, a partnership was announced between Sanofi Pasteur and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. This was to promote more widespread polio vaccines, and work out a pricing scheme.

Year Company Amount
2015 Sanofi Pasteur $1,663,388
2016 Sanofi Pasteur $722,071

16. TEVA Canada Ltd.

Since becoming a registered lobbyist, there have been 94 communications made with various officials of the Federal Government, according to records in the Registry.

Year Company Amount
2015 Teva Pharmaceuticals $11,418,031

Friendly reminder: the Gates Foundation Trust owns at least a few million dollars worth of corporate bonds in various Teva branches.

17. VIDO-InterVac, Vaccine Center

The International Vaccine Institute (IVI) is a not-for-profit International Organization established in 1997 as an initiative by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). It is among the few organizations in the world dedicated to vaccines and vaccination for global health.

IVI is involved in all aspects of bringing a vaccine to reality: discover new technologies to make new vaccines or improve existing ones; develop promising vaccine candidates for licensure and World Health Organization (WHO) prequalification by transferring the technology to manufacturers and partnering with them on clinical development; deliver licensed vaccines in low-income countries by generating scientific data on the need for vaccines and the impact of vaccination for decision makers; building capacity in vaccinology in developing countries through technical assistance and training to promote self-sufficiency and sustainability in vaccines and vaccination; and building partnerships in Asia and globally for vaccines and global health.

This has long been a partner with InterVac (University of Saskatchewan). It is funded by the United Nations. However, it does get some hefty grants, from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

18. World Health Organization

This was addressed in Part 0, Part 3, and Part 13. Theresa Tam (who has no real biographical information available), is both a high ranking official with the World Health Organization, and Canada’s Chief Public Health Officer.

Canada is a member of the World Health Organization, and a regular contributor. As such, it seems to dictate Canadian health policies.

19. Major Gates Partnership Announced

SEATTLE, March 25, 2020 – Today, a consortium of life sciences companies announced an important collaboration to accelerate the development, manufacture, and delivery of vaccines, diagnostics, and treatments for COVID-19. The life sciences industry brings a range of assets, resources, and expertise needed to identify effective and scalable solutions to the pandemic, which is affecting billions worldwide. The impact on health systems, economies, and livelihoods is profound, and an effective response requires an unprecedented collaboration across governments, academia, the private sector, and the philanthropic community.

“This is an encouraging start in a critical area, because if any of these compounds are shown to be effective against COVID-19, it dramatically accelerates the path to product approval and scale up,” said Suzman. “While each of the consortium’s partners will also be pursuing independent efforts with national governments and others, we are optimistic that this unprecedented collaboration will provide a platform for a fundamentally different kind of partnership to help address this global health emergency.”

Companies participating in the collaboration include Bayer, BD, bioMérieux, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Gilead, GSK, Johnson & Johnson, Merck (known as MSD outside the U.S. and Canada), Merck KGaA, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sanofi.

About the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
Guided by the belief that every life has equal value, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation works to help all people lead healthy, productive lives. In developing countries, it focuses on improving people’s health and giving them the chance to lift themselves out of hunger and extreme poverty. In the United States, it seeks to ensure that all people—especially those with the fewest resources—have access to the opportunities they need to succeed in school and life. Based in Seattle, Washington, the foundation is led by CEO Mark Suzman and Co-chair William H. Gates Sr., under the direction of Bill and Melinda Gates and Warren Buffett.

Announced in March 2020, this is a press release unveiling a major collaboration between the Gates Foundation, and a number of major pharmaceutical companies. Who’s on the list?

  • Bayer
  • BD
  • bioMérieux
  • Boehringer Ingelheim
  • Bristol-Myers Squibb
  • Eisai
  • Eli Lilly
  • Gilead Sciences
  • GlaxoSmithKline (GSK)
  • Johnson & Johnson
  • Merck
  • Novartis
  • Pfizer
  • Sanofi Pasteur

An astute person will recognize several of these names as partners from the $175.6 million AbCellera grant awarded just a month ago. From the previous sections on lobbying the Federal Government, these same parties are trying to influence government policy. It’s clear that it really is Gates’ partners who are doing a lot of the legwork.

Also, several of these names are companies that the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Trust owns stock in, and that the Foundation (again, 2 separate entities) spends money on.

20. Other Honourable Mentions

Yes, Gates donates to the Aga Khan Foundation.

Year Company Amount
2016 Pirbright Inst. $44,598
2016 Pirbright Inst. $385,144
2016 Pirbright Inst. $525,826
2017 Pirbright Inst. $100,000
2018 Pirbright Inst. $311,878

For a walk down memory lane: Pirbright became infamous a while back when it was learned they had patented a new group of coronaviruses and were funded by Gates.

Year Company Amount
2014 Microchip Biotech $7,717,271

There are other firms whose work could conceivably be used to advance the ID2020 agenda. This is just one of them.

21. Gates Is Behind Pharma Lobbying

While it obviously isn’t exclusively the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, they do play a very prominent role in pushing the vaccine agenda across the world. It should come as no surprise, given the amount of money they have tied up in this industry.

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Trust owns stocks and bonds in many pharmaceutical companies. The Gates Foundation (yes, the Foundation and trust are separate), gives/spends money on those same pharma businesses — and others. There’s no altruism behind it, but rather a business decision.

It also would surprise no one, given the Gates Family has long had a love of eugenics, or population reduction. So one has to wonder what else will be slipped into these vaccines, when they are finally available.

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 sections are only a tiny piece of what is really going on. There are many, MANY companies and grants that are in the tax returns, but not listed in the article. For practical purposes, it can’t be done in a single article, or even a few. The returns run to hundreds of pages each.

Posted on

Infanticide #11: Gates Foundation Funding Abortion Worldwide (CV #20)

The mainpage of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation webpage. The context of the quote can be seen in a whole other light, with the following information listed here.

1. Other Articles on Abortion/Infanticide

CLICK HERE, for #1: universities fighting against pro-life groups.
CLICK HERE, for #2: citing abortion stats now considered violence.
CLICK HERE, for #3: up to birth abortion now legal in VA/NY.
CLICK HERE, for #4: letting babies who survive abortion die.
CLICK HERE, for #5: UN supports abortion rights, even for kids.
CLICK HERE, for #6: fallout and some pushback on abortion.
CLICK HERE, for #7: ONCA rules docs must provide service or referral.
CLICK HERE, for #8: hypocrisy in summer jobs grant, purity tests.
CLICK HERE, for #9: partial funding lost for planned parenthood.
CLICK HERE, for #10: China engaging in organ harvesting/trafficking.

2. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

For more insight and background on the coronavirus planned-emic, please check out this series. The official narratives don’t at all resemble the ugly truth. Know what is really going on, and how to combat lies and deception.

3. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for Planned Parenthood in Hawaii
http://archive.is/YTZcT
CLICK HERE, for Planned Parenthood on abortion.
http://archive.is/ENpKT
CLICK HERE, for Planned Parenthood on elections.
http://archive.is/eNPkZ
CLICK HERE, for CDN Gov’t on abortion during CV pandemic.
http://archive.is/dBZqX

CLICK HERE, for Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
CLICK HERE, for IRS tax-exempt group search

EIN 13-1644147 Planned Parenthood Fed. of America
planned.parenthood.america.2017.tax.filings
planned.parenthood.america.2016.tax.filings

EIN 47-5312115 Planned Parenthood Global Inc.
planned.parenthood.global.2016.tax.filings
planned.parenthood.global.2017.tax.filings

4. Context For This Article

While Bill Gates and his foundation are working on various vaccines to help sterilize and depopulate the planet, there is still another angle to look at: abortion. It’s not surprise that The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is heavily involved in financing that as well.

Gates’ father is the former head of planned parenthood. Planned Parenthood, among other things, pushes for more access to abortion globally. Now his son funds research into vaccines that can cripple or sterilize people. This suggests a morbid fascination with eugenics. Anything to get the global population reduced it seems.

Aside from depopulation, there are a few other “benefits” to abortion: (a) a supply of body parts for transplanting; and (b) a supply of fetal tissue for vaccines.

Several of the articles in the CV series have focused on the lobbying that goes on behind the scenes. This is necessary to understand who is pushing the agenda, and why. It’s not random, but rather the result of public officials who can be influenced for the right price.

Politicians like Justin Trudeau seem to be completely on board. This applies both to the abortion push across the world, and the claims that mass vaccination is needed.

5. Gates Sr. Was Head Of Planned Parenthood

This is pretty well known at this point, but let’s just get the man himself to say it. Bill Gates’ father (Bill Gates Sr.), used to be the head of the pro-abortion group, Planned Parenthood.

6. Gates Jr. Helps Fund Planned Parenthood

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is a big supporter of abortion worldwide. In fact, the group regularly donates to various branches of Planned Parenthood. Also see here.

Date Recipient Amount Donated
2020 Int’l PP Worldwide $500,000
2019 Int’l PP Europe $599,221
2019 Int’l PP Worldwide $500,000
2018 Shanghai Inst PP $1,628,290
2018 Int’l PP Worldwide $250,000
2018 Int’l PP Worldwide $99,000
2018 Int’l PP Worldwide $490,000
2016 Int’l PP Europe $8,025,807
2014 Int’l PP Worldwide $431,947
2013 Int’l PP Europe $6,973,371
2011 Int’l PP Worlwide $250,000
2010 Int’l PP Europe $7,298,377
Pre-2010 Int’l PP Europe $23,000
Pre-2010 Int’l PP Worldwide $14,990,698
Pre-2010 Int’l PP Europe $7,023,160
Pre-2010 Int’l PP West Wash $200,000
Pre-2010 Int’l PP Worldwide $10,000
Pre-2010 Int’l PP West Washi $1,000,000
Pre-2010 Int’l PP Europe $3,024,011
Pre-2010 Int’l PP America $1,700,000
Pre-2010 Int’l PP Worldwide $800,000
Pre-2010 Int’l PP Worldwide $8,865,000
Pre-2010 Int’l PP America $3,000,000
Pre-2010 Int’l PP Central Wash $75,000
Pre-2010 Int’l PP Canada $569,000
Pre-2010 Int’l PP Worldwide $2,845,268
Pre-2010 Int’l PP America $5,000,000
Pre-2010 Int’l PP Foundation $1,492,400
Pre-2010 Int’l PP Foundation $1,732,400
Pre-2010 Int’l PP Foundation $2,600,000
Pre-2010 Int’l PP West Wash $500,000
Pre-2010 Int’l PP America $115,000

These 32 records were found just on a quick search of “Planned Parenthood” while looking on the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation website. There may be more donations that are not listed.

7. Planned Parenthood Spending


planned.parenthood.2017.tax.filings

Consultant Fees Paid
McKinsey and Company $10,700,000
O’Brien Garrett $9,295,200
Grassroots Campaigns Inc. $5,087,535
MR Strategic Services Inc. $4,466,037
ATOS IT Outsourcing $3,327,475

(Section B: independent contractors)

Fun fact: if you look up non-cash contributions in the 2017 filings, it seems there were 1086 contributions of publicly traded securities. This totaled $28,321,324. Yes, Planned Parenthood USA received over $28 million worth of securities.

From the last page of the returns, it shows millions of dollars being shuffled around to related organizations.

Clearly, the Gates Foundation is not the only contributor to Planned Parenthood. However, it is something that it ideologically aligns with, and large sums of money are regularly donated. Much of the money goes to electing, and re-electing, politicians who support the abortion agenda.

8. PP Hawaii/Northwest Goes Global

Our Story
Since 2001, Planned Parenthood of the Great Northwest and the Hawaiian Islands (PPGNHI) has collaborated with eight global health nonprofits in seven countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America to improve the sexual and reproductive health of local communities. We believe that sexual and reproductive health is a human right, and that all people–regardless of where they live–should be able to exercise their sexual and reproductive rights. We also recognize that family planning and sexual and reproductive health care plays a critical, lifesaving role in global health.

Suzanne Cluett Fund
In 2005, we received a generous gift from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation in honor of Suzanne Cluett, a long-time Planned Parenthood supporter and advocate for reproductive health and rights. With this grant, we established a permanent endowment, “Suzanne’s Fund”, which has enabled long-term stability and committed engagement of our Global Programs.

Suzanne’s commitment to international sexual and reproductive health started in Nepal in the 1960s and led to her serving in leadership positions at PATH and at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. A Washington state local, Suzanne was an enthusiastic believer in Planned Parenthood, serving as both board member and Chair of the PPGNHI Board, as well as a member of the national Planned Parenthood Federation of America Board.

One such portion of Planned Parenthood is this one, which is PP of the Great Northwest and the Hawaiian Islands. Much of its current status is due to the 2005 gift from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

9. Planned Parenthood Action Fund

Focusing on the United States for this section, let’s focus on the political arm of Planned Parenthood. This is the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, which focuses on getting pro-abortion candidates into office.

EIN 13-1644147 Planned Parenthood Fed. of America
EIN 47-5312115 Planned Parenthood Global Inc.

The courts have protected safe, legal abortion throughout the United States since 1973, when the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed access to abortion as a constitutional right in its Roe v. Wade decision.

Yet for years, abortion opponents have fought to turn back the clock: stacking federal courts with anti-abortion judges; passing unconstitutional legislation; spreading deceptions; imposing arbitrary restrictions; and waging one legal battle after another. Their ultimate goal? Reverse Roe v. Wade and make safe, legal abortion impossible to obtain.

Attacks on Roe began to ramp up in 2011, when anti-abortion politicians made massive gains in federal and state elections. Since then challenges to safe, legal abortion have mounted at a rapid clip. In some places, abortion restrictions have in fact made abortion harder to access. These restrictions fall especially hard on people with low incomes, for whom the cost of transportation, childcare, and taking time off work often combine to put abortion access out of reach.

A large part of what Planned Parenthood does involves political work to install pro-abortion politicians into office, and to try to defeat pro-lifers. Yes, it’s big, and crosses States, and even has global connections.

We Decide — and the Stakes Have Never Been Higher
More than three-fourths of voters say abortion should remain safe and legal. There is no state in which banning abortion is popular.

But anti-abortion politicians continue to try to undermine our rights and our access to reproductive health care, putting the ability of many people to obtain birth control, safe and legal abortion, and accurate sexual education in question — yet again.

We decide who our leaders are. We decide our future. At the ballot box this year, we — not out-of-touch politicians — decide what we do with our own bodies.

Interesting. All this talk about “my” body, but there seems to be little to no concern for the body that gets eliminated during an abortion. Aren’t leftists supposed to be concerned about the weak and vulnerable? Unborn children are as helpless as they come.

Money from Planned Parenthood is extremely effective at getting pro-abortion politicians into office. In the U.S., this typically means getting Democrats into office.

10. Fetuses Used For Body Parts

It took an undercover sting by David Daleiden to expose, but the truth about Planned Parenthood’s side business is finally out. It isn’t the “health care services” which make them rich, it’s the body part industry from murdered babies.

There’s nothing compassionate about this industry. The “clumps of cells” are being reused and recycled either for transplanting into other bodies, or further processed for medical research. See next section.

11. Fetal Tissue Used In Vaccines

Rather than go into a long spiel about this, let’s just consider the above video. This is from a 2018 Court deposition from Stanley Plotkin.

Now, could this be (part of) the reason that the Gates Family is so pro-abortion? Is a part of it to create an abundant supply of fetal tissue to use for his vaccine developments?

12. Protect Abortion During Pandemic

COVID-19 affects women and men differently. The pandemic makes existing inequalities for women and girls, as well as discrimination of other marginalized groups such as persons with disabilities and those in extreme poverty worse and risk impeding the realization of human rights for women and girls. Participation, protection and potential of all women and girls must be at the center of response efforts. These efforts must be gender-responsive and consider different impacts surrounding detection, diagnosis and access to treatment for all women and men.

The restrictive measures designed to limit the spread of the virus around the world, increase the risk of domestic violence, including intimate partner violence. As health and social protection as well as legal systems that protect all women and girls under normal circumstances are weakened or under pressure by the COVID-19, specific measures should be implemented to prevent violence against women and girls. The emergency responses should ensure that all women and girls who are refugees, migrants or internally displaced are protected. Sexual and reproductive health needs, including psychosocial support services, and protection from gender-based violence, must be prioritized to ensure continuity. We must also assume responsibility for social protection and ensure adolescent health, rights and wellbeing during schools close-down. Any restrictions to the enjoyment of human rights should be prescribed by law, and in accordance with international law and rigorously assessed.

We support the active participation and leadership of women and girls at all levels of decision-making, including at community level, through their networks and organizations, to ensure efforts and response are gender-responsive and will not further discriminate and exclude those most at risk.

It is crucial that leaders recognize the central role of Universal Health Coverage (UHC) in health emergencies and the need for robust health systems to save lives. In this context, sexual health services are essential. We recommit to the immediate implementation of the UHC political declaration by all. Funding sexual and reproductive health and rights should remain a priority to avoid a rise in maternal and newborn mortality, increased unmet need for contraception, and an increased number of unsafe abortions and sexually transmitted infections.

Around the world, midwives, nurses and community health workers are essential to contain COVID-19 and they require personal protective equipment. Safe pregnancy and childbirth depend on all these health workers, adequate health facilities, and strict adherence to infection prevention. Respiratory illnesses in pregnant women, particularly COVID-19 infections, must be priority due to increased risk of adverse outcomes. As our national and international supply chains are impacted by this pandemic, we recommit to providing all women and girls of reproductive age with reproductive health commodities. And we call on governments around the world to ensure full and unimpeded access to all sexual and reproductive health services for all women and girls.

Just when you think you have seen it all, there is a global coalition to keep access to abortion going during the “planned-emic”. Really, of all the things to focus on, abortion just has to be up there. It’s almost as if there was some other reason for doing so. This was caught previously by LifeSite, and is a stunning show of priorities.

A point of clarification, these parties “do” consider access to abortion to be a human right. They also regard it as a form of health care — although its intended purpose is to kill a person.

13. Eugenics And Greed Join Forces

Bill Gates Sr. was formerly the head of Planned Parenthood, which widely promoted abortion. This was done as a population control measure.

Bill Gates Jr., is heavily financing the vaccine industry. He also heavily funds groups like Planned Parenthood, resulting in a high supply of fetal tissue for his research. He also is on record saying he would prefer to have a less populated world, and cites problems like climate change in doing so.

Of course, a nationalist will point out that the abortion push leads to a declining birth rate at home. This will be used by globalist politicians to import a replacement population. Less local births and more incoming foreigners leads to the extinction of one’s people.

*Disclaimers, Ethics* Proudly powered by WordPress