WEF Great Reset: Banking Cartel; Climate Change; End Of Private Property; Privacy; Guns

At 5:10 in this video, Trudeau says that Canada will be giving 50% of the doses of vaccine it pays for to the 3rd World. Motion M-132 really was about financing drugs for the entire world.

1. Canadian Politicians Connected To WEF

Bachelor’s and Master’s degree in Economics, University of Calgary. 2002, Leader of the Opposition; co-founded Conservative Party and won party leadership; 2006, Prime Minister of Canada. Recipient of awards: Woodrow Wilson Award for Public Service; first Canadian to be awarded B’nai Brith Presidential Gold Medallion for Humanitarianism (2008).

Andrew Sheer is a Canadian politician serving as the Member of Parliament for Regina-Qu’Appelle since 2004 and as the leader of the conservative party and leader of the official opposition since 2017. He was one of the youngest MPs when he was first elected and his vision and leadership have earned him the continued confidence to be re-elected.

Build Back Stronger
The Liberals want to “build back better.” Conservatives will “build back stronger.”
We are facing the greatest economic crisis of our lifetime.
Canada’s Conservatives led by Erin O’Toole will bring back certainty and stability.
The Liberal agenda is to launch a risky experiment with Canada’s economy.
Justin Trudeau says, “We are all in this together.” But, under the Liberals, Canada is more divided than ever before.
With the Liberals, it’s the haves over the have-nots.
It’s Bay Street over Main Street.
It’s those with a salary, benefits, and a pension over those without.
It’s those with Liberal connections over the outsiders who have to play by the rules.
Instead, Erin O’Toole’s Conservatives will fight for you and your family, and the countless Canadians left behind by the Trudeau Liberal government.
.
Sign below if you want to build back stronger!

Canadian Member of Parliament. Has served in Cabinet as a Minister of State in the government of Stephen Harper. Has also managed the sponsored research portfolio for one of Canada’s top research intensive universities. Has over a decade of experience in managing and commercializing intellectual property, and in management consulting. Named one of Canada’s Top 100 Most Powerful Women, Women’s Executive Network. Twice named as Parliamentarian of the Year – Rising Star, Maclean’s Magazine.

Journalist and author. Began career as a Ukraine-based stringer; went on to hold senior positions at the Globe and Mail, the Financial Times and Thomson Reuters. First elected as a Member of Parliament in November 2013, was appointed International Trade Minister in November 2015, Minister of Foreign Affairs in January 2017 and Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Intergovernmental Affairs in November 2019. Has written two books: “Sale of the Century” (2000) and “Plutocrats” (2012).‎ In 2018, recognised as Foreign Policy’s Diplomat of the Year and awarded the Eric M. Warburg Award by Atlantik-Brücke. Speaks Russian, Ukrainian, Italian, French and English. Member of the Board of Trustees of the World Economic Forum.

Bachelor’s in Administrative Studies, York University, MBA, University of Windsor. Certified Management Accountant. Formerly: several years with the Ford Motor Company of Canada; Privy Councillor and Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister Paul Martin; Critic for Public Works and Government Services, the Treasury Board, International Trade, Natural Resources, and Small Business and Tourism. Member of Parliament for Mississauga-Malton; November 2015, appointed Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development. Former: Adjunct Lecturer, Master of Public Service programme, University of Waterloo; Distinguished Visiting Professor, Ted Rogers School of Management, Ryerson University. Former director of social and cultural organizations within the non-profit sector. Recipient of numerous awards recognizing work in promoting diversity in communities.

1988, Bachelor’s in Economics, Harvard University; 1993, Master’s in Economics and 1995, Doctorate in Economics, Oxford University. Thirteen years with Goldman Sachs in London, Tokyo, New York, Toronto. 2003-04, Deputy Governor, Bank of Canada. 2004-08, Senior Associate Deputy Minister of Finance. 2008-13, Governor of the Bank of Canada. Since July 2013, Governor of the Bank of England. Chairman, Financial Stability Board (FSB); Member: Board, Bank for International Settlements and Chairman; Group of Thirty; Board of Trustees, World Economic Forum.

Carney isn’t officially a politician, but he may as well be, considering the many roles he plays.

https://www.weforum.org/people/stephen-harper
https://www.weforum.org/people/andrew-scheer
https://www.conservative.ca/cpc/build-back-stronger/
https://www.weforum.org/people/michelle-rempel
https://www.weforum.org/people/chrystia-freeland
https://weforum.org/people/navdeep-bains
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/authors/mark-carney
https://www.weforum.org/people/jagmeet-singh

2. More On The International Banking Cartel

For more on the banking cartel, check this page. The Canadian Government, like so many others, has sold out the independence and sovereignty of its monetary system to foreign interests. BIS, like its central banks, exceed their agenda and try to influence other social agendas. See who is really controlling things, and the common lies that politicians and media figures tell. Now, the bankers work with the climate mafia and pandemic pushers to promote their mutual goals of control and debt slavery.

3. Debunking The Climate Change Scam

The entire climate change industry, (and yes, it is an industry) is a hoax perpetrated by the people in power, run by international bankers. Plenty has also been covered on the climate scam, the propaganda machine in action, and some of the court documents in Canada. Carbon taxes are just a small part of the picture, and conservatives are intentionally sabotaging their court cases.

4. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

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

5. Great Reset To Abolish Private Property

A large part of the Great Reset is abolishing real private property rights, at least for the average person. The Reset has been openly discussed for a long time, and they aren’t even bothering to hide their agenda anymore.

Beyond physical property, this refers to money as well. Overhauling the monetary system, and removing physical cash means much less (or none), control for people over their own wealth.

The World Economic Forum (and its participants), want people to view property not as theirs, but as the community’s. This is Marxism.

6. “Stakeholder Capitalism” Being Pushed

The concept of stakeholder capitalism has been gaining traction against the prevailing shareholder-primacy model of profit maximization. As the World Economic Forum’s founder, Klaus Schwab, asked in a recent editorial: “What kind of capitalism do we want”?

Profits are not the sole purpose of a business. Let us remind ourselves that corporations exist to solve problems and provide services. If they are successful at doing this, shareholder long-term returns can increase, as society in general is better served.

The debate regarding the role of stakeholders within a firm is, primarily, a governance debate. As in most challenges that require robust leadership to change the way we live, work and interact, transformation starts from the top. Corporate governance sits at the heart of this – and for this reason, the World Economic Forum has recently published a framework structured around seven pillars:

These people are communists, but want to make it less obvious. Consequently, they refer to property owners as “shareholders”, and the public at large as “stakeholders”. The focus is on converting from a shareholder economy to a stakeholder one.

7. Great Reset & Digital Cooperation

A lot of what is talked about is access to the internet for more and more of the population. While this sounds fine, there are areas that are quite alarming. These include the ever ambiguous “trust and safety” provisions, laid out in the Digital Cooperation Roadmap.

Terrorist groups and violent extremists have exploited the Internet and social media to cause harm in both the digital and physical worlds. Cyberattacks and disinformation campaigns targeting election infrastructure, political parties and politicians are undermining political participation, as well as the legitimacy of essential institutions, while sowing discontent and mistrust. States and non-State actors are rapidly increasing their cyber capabilities and developing increasingly sophisticated cyber arsenals. Nevertheless, close to half of all countries in the world do not have a Computer Emergency Response Team, which would give them the organizational and technological capacity to respond to cyberthreats.

Over the past few years, important efforts have been under way to address the rising threats to the online world. Encouraging voluntary efforts have been seen, including the Paris Call for Trust and Security in Cyberspace, the Global Forum on Cyber Expertise, the Global Commission on the Stability of Cyberspace and the Contract for the Web, many of which are multi-stakeholder, as well as initiatives on specific issues, such as the Christchurch Call to Action to address terrorist and violent extremist narratives. The initiatives have helped to bring about important progress for multi-stakeholder engagement. However, these efforts are not yet universal, and their reach, though broad in some cases, does not yet cover large swathes of the world.

Of course, everyone supports free speech. However, there needs to be some global regulations, such as digital cooperation, to manage it all.

Along with the dilution of free speech, one can expect privacy to be eroded as well. After all, you can’t hunt down people to cut off their freedom if you don’t know who they are.

8. WEF Great Reset & Digital Identity

At the World Economic Forum’s Annual Meeting 2018 in Davos, a diverse group of public and private stakeholders committed to shared cooperation on advancing good, user-centric digital identities. The Platform for Good Digital Identity seeks to advance global activities towards digital identities that are collaborative and put the user interest at the center: e.g. they are fit for purpose, inclusive, useful, secure, and offers choice to individuals. It will do so by advancing the Identity Coalitions Network: the learning and action network of organizations that implement Good ID solutions that are human centric and collaborative, by:
.
– Mapping digital identity coalitions advancing digital identity
.
– Encouraging shared learnings and new coalitions through a global action network
.
– Focusing on practitioners implementing user-centric use cases collaboratively: e.g. e-KYC, payments, health credentials, safe work, safe mobility, etc.
.
– Creating a digital identity implementation guidance for current and future coalitions

Well, the digital ID system will make it easier to eliminate cash, since everyone will be hooked into the financial system electronically. No word on people being microchipped, but that will probably come up later.

The other benefit (from their perspective), is that it becomes much easier to erase and financially cripple dissidents if they are completely dependent on the electronic systems.

9. Central Bankers Support Great Reset

Taking place from 16-20 Nov, the Pioneers of Change Summit is happening as the news is full of optimistic reports about vaccines for COVID-19. If there is light at the end of the tunnel, what needs to happen next to get economies back on their feet and make the transformations needed to cope with future pandemics and climate change – and to make the benefits of scientific advances available to all?

Christine Lagarde, head of the ECB, (European Central Bank), appeared on the Pioneers of Change podcast.

10. Central Banks Pushing Digital Currency

The decline of cash use in western economies has accelerated due to COVID-19. Meanwhile, central bank digital currencies are emerging, potentially upending the existing global economic hierarchy.

Lockdowns limit physical interactions and naturally reduce physical cash use. But there also credible concerns that paper money can transmit the virus. Research has shown that the average European banknote plays host to around 26,000 colonies of bacteria. The human influenza virus can survive on a banknote for up to 17 days; with one-dollar and five-dollar bills changing hands more than 100 times per year on average, the risk during a global pandemic is considerable.

Who then can blame the People’s Bank of China (PBOC) when it announced in February that it would be destroying cash collected in high-risk environments, such as public transport, markets or in hospitals?

China is not alone. Deutsche Bank Research has tracked almost 20 digital currency projects led by central banks across all regions globally. Meanwhile, the private banking sector has also launched multiple initiatives, such as the R3 consortium, or in India, the Blockchain Infrastructure Company.

Using the “pandemic” to convert to cashless system had been decried for a long time as a conspiracy theory. Now, it is quite openly admitted, but advocates just put a different spin on it.

11. Central Banks Support Climate Hoax

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/02/fossil-fuel-monetary-policy-economics-reassessment/
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/01/financial-policymakers-climate-change/

In a 2015 speech, Mark Carney, the outgoing governor of the Bank of England, sparked a debate about whether monetary policymakers should look beyond the horizon of the business and credit cycles to ensure financial stability in light of the risks posed by climate change. More recently, European Central Bank President Christine Lagarde has said that she wants the ECB to tackle climate change, in addition to its traditional price-stability remit.

The climate threats to financial stability that central bankers worry about could arise not only from increasingly frequent and severe natural disasters, but also from the shift away from fossil fuels as a source of energy. That transition ultimately would turn reserves of oil, natural gas, and coal into stranded assets, jeopardizing the financial health of corporations, insurers, and other financial institutions that are exposed to fossil fuels.

The overall exposure of advanced economies such as the United Kingdom or those of the European Union to fossil fuels may appear to be relatively small. Nonetheless, we should not underestimate the systemic risk posed by stranded assets – after all, the 2008 global financial crisis was triggered by developments in the relatively small subprime mortgage market in the United States. And, for fossil-fuel exporters, stranded-asset risks are undeniably larger. The collapse in oil prices that started in June 2014 provided a recent stark reminder of the risks posed by excessive dependence on fossil fuels.

In addition, central banks’ response to the risk of stranded assets may influence how fossil-fuel exporters invest their wealth. Many oil exporters have accumulated vast financial assets. These countries’ strategic allocation of such assets is all the more important given the mounting risks to their main source of wealth. By looking beyond the business-cycle horizon, central banks can play a critical role in facilitating these countries’ investments in non-fossil-fuel assets.

In the face of the challenge posed by climate change, the focus of monetary policy often seems very short term. Central bankers must break this “curse of horizons” and take decisive steps to address fossil-fuel-related risks. They need to reflect on and communicate the existential threat of stranded reserves and capital, advocate the adoption of appropriate structural policies, pursue a suitable interest-rate policy, and provide supportive financial policies to encourage both economic diversification and changes in strategic asset allocation. Combating climate change while maintaining global financial stability requires nothing less.

A question has to be asked here: have the bankers simply infiltrated and hijacked the environment movement? Or have they always played a role, even if behind the scenes?

Instead of simply ripping off the public under the guise of fiscal policy, now it’s done under the pretense of stopping climate change.

12. WEF Interested In Gun Control

Canada’s Liberal government unveiled proposals on Tuesday to tighten already tough gun control laws to address a spike in crimes involving firearms, including a deadly attack on a mosque last year.

The measures include enhanced background checks on people seeking to buy firearms, especially those with a history of violence. They also would oblige retailers to maintain adequate records of inventories and sales.

The World Economic Forum took notice of Bill C-71, introduced in 2018 to create a backdoor long gun registry, and to make it harder to own guns. In fact, WEF publishes many articles on the topic of guns, and gun control.

13. WEF’s Predicted Dystopian Paradise

You’ll own nothing, and you’ll be happy.
Can’t really top that.

This has nothing to do with a virus. It is, and has always been, about implementing much larger social changes. Everything in the mainstream media is a lie.

Freedom Of Information Requests By Fluoride Free Peel On Virus Isolation

A site worth checking out is https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/. They have compiled considerable research on fluoridation, and have filed a small mountain of requests for documentation on the isolation of this “virus”.

1. Mass Filings Of FOI Requests

Beyond this single article, there is a larger issue to consider: filing freedom-of-information requests (also called access-to-information requests). These can be beneficial for research, or other reasons. True, Governments can, and often will, redact information, but they will often give something. Or in this case, it’s what they admit they don’t have that is of considerable interest.

2. Results Of Those FOI Requests

Of course, this nowhere near all of the responses or requests. Still, it’s pretty strange to have a test for such a virus. Even more absurd to be working on dozens of vaccines to cure it.

3. Comment By Christine Massey Of FFP

The public needs to understand that worldwide belief in “COVID-19” is based on fraudulent science, fraudulent tests and fraudulent diagnoses, not the scientific method.
.
Here is an excerpt from an email I sent to a Kingston Councillor recently:
.
Investigation is needed to determine whether a new virus is causing disease. Public health figures don’t simply “know” these things. There are well -established, logic-based steps (known as Koch’s Postulates) that have been taught in universities for decades as the accepted means of determining the existence of a new contagious pathogen. They were modified slightly years ago for use with a suspected virus.
.
Step 1 is isolation/purification – separate the thing from the host and everything else; then do experiments with it to see if it can replicate in healthy host cells, cause the disease question, etc. Instead, in practice, virologists have been doing the exact opposite – adulterating a patient sample with genetic material and toxic drugs and irrationally blaming observed effects to a cell line on “the virus” that no one even tried to find in the patient sample. They perform completely meaningless PCR tests that are utterly incapable of determining the presence of an intact virus (let alone disease caused by a virus), they make meaningless comparisons with fabricated (not discovered) “SARS-COV-2 genomes” and call that “isolation”.
.
That is not science, it’s wild speculation/fantasy and it’s blatantly fraudulent.

Here is their most recent publication, which compiles the results of some 34 requests for information. Quite the effort. A thank you is extended to everyone at Fluoride Free Peel for putting all of this together.

4. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

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

5. Previous Solutions Offered

For serious suggestions offered, on many different subjects, check here. Complaining and criticizing is one thing, but real answers have to be proposed as some point. These proposals, (such as FOI requests, taping and documenting), should be worth serious consideration.

Euthanasia #3: Bill C-7 To Expand Scope Of Assisted Suicide Beyond “Reasonably Foreseeable Death”

Bill C-7, the expanded version of the assisted suicide bill (or “euthanasia 2.0), is currently being discussed in the Canadian Parliament. It broadens the scope laid out in Bill C-14, from the previous Parliament. A Quebec Court ruled that Bill C-14’s requirement that a death be “reaso

1. Assisted Suicide (MAiD), Euthanasia

CLICK HERE, for #1: Court says referral or service must be provided.
CLICK HERE, for #2: Bill C-14, Medical Assistance in Dying (euthanasia).

2. Important Links

Bill C-14 Introduced In Parliament (2016)
Bill C-14 Committee Hearings

Truchon V AG Of Canada, 2019 QCCS 3792 (CanLII)
Truchon V. AG, Quebec Superior Court Ruling
Bill C-7 Introduced Into Parliament (Feb 2020)
Bill C-7 Re-Introduced Into Parliament (Oct 2020)
Bill C-7 Committee Hearings

C-7 Canadian Bar Association
C-7 Canadian Conference Of Catholic Bishops
C-7 Coelho Ramona
C-7 Commission On End Of Life Care
C-7 DawsTanja
C-7 Jointly1
C-7 Living With Dignity
C-7 Physicians Alliance Against Euthanasia
C-7 Protection Of Conscience Project
C-7 Wickenhesier Alizee

Bill C-7 Evidence November 3
Bill C-7 Evidence November 5

3. Quebec Court Says Changes Needed In MAiD

MEDICAL AID IN DYING
26. Only a patient who meets all of the following criteria may obtain medical aid in dying:
(1) be an insured person within the meaning of the Health Insurance Act (chapter A-29);
(2) be of full age and capable of giving consent to care;
(3) be at the end of life;
(4) suffer from a serious and incurable illness;
(5) be in an advanced state of irreversible decline in capability; and;
(6) experience constant and unbearable physical or psychological suffering which cannot be relieved in a manner the patient deems tolerable.
.
The patient must request medical aid in dying themselves, in a free and informed manner, by means of the form prescribed by the Minister. The form must be dated and signed by the patient.
.
The form must be signed in the presence of and countersigned by a health or social services professional; if the professional is not the attending physician, the signed form is to be given by the professional to the attending physician.

28. A patient may, at any time and by any means, withdraw their request for
medical aid in dying.
.
A patient may also, at any time and by any means, request that the
administration of medical aid in dying be put off.

31. A physician practising in a centre operated by an institution who refuses are quest for medical aid in dying for a reason not based on section 29 must, as soon as possible, notify the executive director of the institution or any other person designated by the executive director and forward the request form given to the physician, if that is the case, to the executive director or designated person. The executive director of the institution or designated person must then take the necessary steps to find, as soon as possible, another physician willing to deal with the request in accordance with section 29.
.
If the physician who receives the request practises in a private health facility and does not provide medical aid in dying, the physician must, as soon as possible, notify the executive director of the local authority referred to in section 99.4 of the Act respecting health services and social services (chapter S-4.2) that serves the territory in which the patient making the request resides, or notify the person designated by the executive director. The physician forwards the request form received, if that is the case, to the executive director or designated person and the steps mentioned in the first paragraph must be taken.
.
If no local authority serves the territory in which the patient resides, the notice referred to in the second paragraph is forwarded to the executive director of the institution operating a local community service centre in the territory or the person designated by the executive director.

In this case, the Applicant, Jean Truchon, had suffered from spastic cerebral palsy with triparesis since birth. In March 2012, he was diagnosed with severe spinal stenosis (narrowing of the spinal canal) as well as myelomalacia (spinal cord necrosis). This is a degenerative condition for which no surgical or pharmacological treatment exists that caused the gradual paralysis of his only working limb. As a result, in 2012, Mr. Truchon permanently lost the use of his left arm and became fully paralyzed, with no hope of improvement. This new condition was accompanied by significant physical pain in the arms and neck, with intense burning sensations and painful spasms.

While clearly not about to die soon, he seems fully aware of his condition, which has no reasonable prospect of improving. So can he request medically assisted suicide on this basis?

The Quebec Court said there is no reason to deny it.

[375] First, the Court is astounded by the fact that the experts for the Attorney General of Canada had not even a basic knowledge of the practice of medical assistance in dying in Canada, which has nonetheless been legal throughout the country since 2016. None of them has participated in the request process for medical assistance in dying, either by assessing a patient or by providing such medical assistance. None of them has done any research on the subject or even tried to consult the data available in Canada.

[376] Therefore, when they all state that there is no difference between suicide and medical assistance in dying, they are considering and presenting only one side of the story, one part of the equation. They compare the two issues without ever having analyzed, learned, or addressed the specifics of medical assistance in dying, its parameters, its eligibility criteria, or how it is practised in Canada.

As an aside, the Government presented “experts” who had no experience of knowledge whatsoever in medical assistance in dying. Either they couldn’t find better experts, or didn’t even try.

4. Bill C-7 Re-Introduced In Parliament

A point of clarification: Bill C-7 was actually introduced in February 2020, and only got as far as first reading. It died when Parliament was prorogued. It has been re-introduced (again, as Bill C-7), in the latest session.

SUMMARY
This enactment amends the Criminal Code to, among other things,
(a) repeal the provision that requires a person’s natural death be reasonably foreseeable in order for them to be eligible for medical assistance in dying;
(b) specify that persons whose sole underlying medical condition is a mental illness are not eligible for medical assistance in dying;
(c) create two sets of safeguards that must be respected before medical assistance in dying may be provided to a person, the application of which depends on whether the person’s natural death is reasonably foreseeable;
(d) permit medical assistance in dying to be provided to a person who has been found eligible to receive it, whose natural death is reasonably foreseeable and who has lost the capacity to consent before medical assistance in dying is provided, on the basis of a prior agreement they entered into with the medical practitioner or nurse practitioner; and
(e) permit medical assistance in dying to be provided to a person who has lost the capacity to consent to it as a result of the self-administration of a substance that was provided to them under the provisions governing medical assistance in dying in order to cause their own death.

Preamble
Whereas the Government of Canada has committed to responding to the Superior Court of Québec decision in Truchon v. Attorney General of Canada;
.
Whereas Parliament considers that it is appropriate to no longer limit eligibility for medical assistance in dying to persons whose natural death is reasonably foreseeable and to provide additional safeguards for those persons whose natural death is not reasonably foreseeable;
.
Whereas under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms every individual has the right to life, liberty and security of the person without being deprived of them except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination;
.
Whereas Canada is a State Party to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and recognizes its obligations under it, including in respect of the right to life;
.
Whereas Parliament affirms the inherent and equal value of every person’s life and the importance of taking a human rights-based approach to disability inclusion;
.
Whereas Parliament recognizes the need to balance several interests and societal values, including the autonomy of persons who are eligible to receive medical assistance in dying, the protection of vulnerable persons from being induced to end their lives and the important public health issue that suicide represents;
.
Whereas it is desirable to have a consistent approach to medical assistance in dying across Canada, while recognizing the provinces’ jurisdiction over various matters related to medical assistance in dying, including the delivery of health care services and the regulation of health care professionals, as well as insurance contracts and coroners and medical examiners;
.
Whereas the Government of Canada is committed to having a federal monitoring regime that provides a reliable national dataset and that promotes accountability under the law governing medical assistance in dying and improve the transparency of its implementation;
.
Whereas, while recognizing the inherent risks and complexity of permitting medical assistance in dying for persons who are unable to provide consent at the time of the procedure, Parliament considers it appropriate to permit dying persons who have been found eligible to receive medical assistance in dying and are awaiting its provision to obtain medical assistance in dying even if they lose the capacity to provide final consent, except if they demonstrate signs of resistance to or refusal of the procedure;
.
Whereas further consultation and deliberation are required to determine whether it is appropriate and, if so, how to provide medical assistance in dying to persons whose sole underlying medical condition is a mental illness in light of the inherent risks and complexity of the provision of medical assistance in dying in those circumstances;
.
And whereas the law provides that a committee of Parliament will begin a review of the legislative provisions relating to medical assistance in dying and the state of palliative care in Canada in June 2020, which review may include issues of advance requests and requests where mental illness is the sole underlying medical condition;
Now, therefore, Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:

One of the main takeaways in Bill C-7 is that is removes a requirement from Bill C-14 that a person receiving medical assistance in dying have a death that is “reasonably foreseeable”. Now, a person can get a doctor or nurse to help with euthanasia for a wide array of reasons.

A worthwhile note: it includes language which prevents assisted suicide if the only reason for doing so is a mental illness.

5. Clips From Bill C-7 Parliamentary Hearings

The hearings, of course, last much longer, but those are a few clips of it. An interesting claim (from Roger Foley), about the father of the Judge in the Truchon ruling gave evidence in the case. If true, a huge conflict of interest.

It’s rather strange to see Iqra Khalid, who presented M-103 (the Islamic blasphemy Motion), heading up the hearings on medically assisted suicide. Curious to know what her views are.

6. Roger Foley, Assisted Life Website

My name is Roger Foley. I am the patient who has been in Victoria Hospital for over 4-years being pressured into assisted dying by the hospital and Government while they prevent my access to care options I need to live 1, 2. I have important public interest updates.

The Hospital is currently billing me $1800 dollars per day and continuing to coerce me to Assisted Dying during the Covid-19 pandemic when they threatened me with that and offered me Assisted Dying. Instead of protecting the lives of the elderly, the disabled and the vulnerable, the Hospital and Government are taking advantage, by further exploiting and abusing persons who are vulnerable before and during Covid-19 and not protecting their lives across the Country. So many persons are dying unnecessary deaths, when robust self-directed home care would make all Canadians safer in their own homes.

The Government cannot be trusted and they admitted rather than preparing for the Covid-19 pandemic, they were selling their exploitation and abuse of vulnerable Canadians to Assisted Dying rather than calling China to learn about the threat, ordering ventilators, protecting those in Long-Term Care facilities and Group Homes, and ordering Personal Protecting Equipment for Health Care workers to make sure frontline Health Care workers were safe. They also during the Pandemic in March, when thousands of people were dying, released their bias propaganda assisted dying expansion survey to continue to abuse, exploit and end the lives of vulnerable disabled and elderly Canadians. I am continuing to be attacked through my care, being denied basic necessities of life, and being denied proper and dignified health care. I am very scared, and the Government and the Health Care systems want to end my life rather than help me to live with dignity and compassion.

Assisted Life is documenting and chronicling the problems and conflicts of interests in proceedings. This is too long to cover in a single article, but it’s worth a good read.

7. Protection Of Conscience Project

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying)
.
I.1 The Protection of Conscience Project does not take a position on the acceptability of euthanasia or physician assisted suicide. The Project supports legislation that ensures that health care workers who object to providing or participating in homicide and suicide for reasons of conscience or religion are not compelled to do so or punished or disadvantaged for refusal.

One of the valid topics that needs to be discussed is the conscience rights of health care professionals who believe that participating in assisted suicide (or legalized murder) is wrong, and goes against their oath.

8. Physicians Alliance Against Euthanasia

To the Committee,
The danger of universal euthanasia access is similar to the passive, everpresent danger of drowning. A few people will die voluntarily by jumping in the water. But others will simply stumble. And yet others may be pushed.
.
Similarly, while some people will truly die by choice, others may “choose” euthanasia on a whim born of passing despair. But worse still: all people eligible for euthanasia become automatically vulnerable to pressure from others who cannot bear to see them suffer, are exhausted by their care, or will in some way benefit from their death, be they health professionals, caregivers or heirs.

Clearly, the most egregious harm of Bill C-7 lies in the extension of euthanasia to those who are not dying. The Carter decision specified that any legalization of euthanasia must include effective safeguards, of which the reasonably foreseeable death criterion was one.

In addition, Bill C-7 only requires that patients be informed of real alternatives to death in order to relieve suffering. That is clearly insufficient, given the scarcity of medical, psychological, and social resources for the many groups of people who might contemplate death as a solution to their troubles. It is essential that such alternatives be actually available to all patients considering euthanasia.

“Bill C-7 does not just expand MAiD; it fundamentally redefines it. No longer limited to hastening death, Bill C-7 embraces MAiD as a means of terminating an otherwise viable life – but only the life of someone with an illness or disability (italics added).
.
Bill C-7 (therefore) undermines our constitutional commitment to the equal and inherent value of all lives”

Other issues mysteriously bundled in Bill C-7
.
Whereas the end-of-life provision is of greatest importance, certain other elements of Bill C-7 have nothing to do with the requirements of Truchon/Gladu and their effects go far beyond compliance with that judgment. Two of these involve weakening euthanasia safeguards in cases where natural death is reasonably foreseeable: It is proposed that the existing ten-day waiting period be eliminated for all patients; and that the number of witnesses to the request be lowered from two to only one (who may also be a health care professional involved in the patient’s care).

The Physicians Alliance Against Euthanasia raises a number of valid points about Bill C-14, including:
(a) people may choose death in a moment of despair
(b) death may be promoted be interested parties
(c) Bill C-7 redefines MAiD, not just expands it
(d) eliminating the 10 day waiting period
(e) reducing the 2 witness threshold to 1

9. Was Bill C-14 Just A Gateway?

This is a fair question to ask: was Bill C-14 just a stepping stone to more widespread euthanasia. By allowing medically assisted suicide for terminally ill people, Parliament unwittingly, (or perhaps wittingly), set a precedent to broader implementation. How do we determine that the right person — the one whose life would end — is actually making the decision, and in a fully informed way?

While the prospect of relatives hastening death in anticipation of an inheritance seems like a movie script, it is a realistic possibility. Greed makes some people do horrible things.

Standards also have to be set to ensure the person has fully thought out the consequences, and is not just suffering from a bad day (or series or days).

It’s also been mentioned by Roger Foley, and AssistedLife.ca, that these court decisions have been influenced by conflicts of interest. The research done is quite impressive. That will be addressed separately.

Of course, there are a lot of legitimate concerns and questions (such as being used to outright murder) that will likely never be fully addressed.

CV #35: Vaccine Indemnification Rulings In The Canadian Courts

If vaccines work as advertised, then why is it necessary to immunize (no pun intended), the manufacturers from potential legal action?

Bill Gates believes that Governments will have to be involved in the process of vaccine development and distribution, in order to indemnify (make immune), manufacturers for the harm their products will cause. However, Gates seems far less concerned about the potential harms from the vaccines. His worry appears to be potential lawsuits resulting from those harms. By the way, you don’t have a choice about being vaccinated.

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

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

2. Important Links

Quebec (Attorney-General) v. Lapierre, 1983 CanLII 2860 (QC CA)
QC Court Of Appeal Ruling
Lapierre v. A.G. (Que.), 1985 CanLII 66 (SCC), [1985] 1 SCR 241
Supreme Court Of Canada Ruling

Rothwell v. Raes (Ont. H.C.J.), 1988 CanLII 4636 (ON SC)
Rothwell 1988 Ruling
Rothwell Ruling 1988 Vaccine Injury

Frank v Alberta Health Services, 2019 ABCA 332 (CanLII)
Frank V. AHS Trial Court Ruling
Frank V. AHS Appellate Ruling

Interim Order For Temporary Vaccine Approval
Product Information For H1N1 Approved Vaccine
Adam, Abudu v. Ledesma-Cadhit et al, 2014 ONSC 5726 (CanLII)
2014 Ruling On Indemnification of Manufacturer
Adam v. GlaxoSmithKline Inc., 2019 ONSC 7066 (CanLII)
Adam V. GSK Ruling (ONSC)
ONSC 2014 Ruling
Adam V GlaxoSmithKline 2019

WHO On Vaccine Injury Compensation Programs

3. LaPierre V. Attorney General Of Quebec

Appellant’s daughter was vaccinated against measles as part of a vaccination program established by the Government of Quebec. A few days after receiving the vaccine, she was the victim of acute viral encephalitis which ultimately resulted in the permanent almost total disablement of the child. Appellant brought an action for damages against the Government. The Superior Court allowed the action and decided against the Government on the basis of no‑fault liability resulting from necessity and grounded on art. 1057 C.C. The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment on the ground that Quebec civil law does not recognize no‑fault liability. In this Court, the causal link between the vaccine and the encephalitis was no longer disputed and fault was no longer alleged against anyone. Appellant based his claim against the Government on no‑fault or “objective” liability. He relied on a legal principle derived from the theory of necessity, that damages suffered or costs incurred by an individual for the benefit of the community must be borne by the latter. The question was therefore whether the principle on which appellant’s entire case rested has any support in the law of Quebec.

Held: The appeal should be dismissed.
.
The Government of Quebec cannot be held liable for the harm caused to the child by administration of the vaccine. Although in the case at bar recognition of the existence of an obligation independent of any fault would be an excellent thing, no such obligation exists in Quebec civil law. Extrapolation of several provisions of the Civil Code and the ancient law provide no basis for a general principle of the civil law that damages suffered or costs incurred by an individual for the benefit of the community must be borne by the latter. Article 1057 C.C. also provides no legislative support for this principle. That article exists only to explain art. 983 C.C. by giving examples of obligations resulting solely from the operation of law. It does not have the effect of making fortuitous events ‑‑ the danger of an epidemic in the case at bar ‑‑ a sixth and new source of obligations.

The Supreme Court ultimately decided that just because someone may be harmed (by a vaccine), which was taken to protect the community, the community itself owes no obligation to the person. It seems no good deed goes unpunished.

Following this case, however, Quebec did end up introducing a plan to compensate victims of vaccine injury. It remains the only such program in Canada.

4. Rothwell V. Raes, Ontario, Et Al

Even the plaintiffs’ expert witnesses agreed that if a causal connection existed between pertussis vaccine and brain damage — encephalopathy — it was extremely rare. Thus the personal experience of such cases, even on the part of the most specialized consultants, was necessarily limited. The witnesses referred to many scientific publications in giving testimony and annexed them to their reports. The decision had to be based on the evidence of the witnesses including their reports, but articles and studies referred to could be used to assess the evidence where there was conflict. The question was difficult and complex.

The defendant physician was not negligent either in recommending the vaccination or in failing to warn of possible damaging effects. It was at the time the practice to recommend vaccination without reference to the rare possibility of harmful consequences. Three doses of the vaccine were administered, two of them by the locum, and no reaction which would have caused alarm occurred after either of the first two. Nor was the physician negligent in his choice of physicians to serve as locum tenens. No evidence of negligence on her part was offered.

Liability for the locum tenens
.
Even if the locum had been negligent, she was exercising her own professional skill and judgment and the family physician could not be vicariously liable.

Manufacturer’s liability
.
The manufacturer’s leading researchers were familiar with the literature postulating encephalopathy and grave brain damage as possible consequences of administration of the vaccine. Had the manufacturer warned the physician the court could not presume that he would have failed to discuss the possibilities or at least mention them. Therefore the manufacturer was negligent in this respect. It was not negligent in failing to manufacture the Japanese version of the vaccine since no tests had been done which would have led to its acceptance by the scientific community as superior to the product used.

The ministry’s liability
.
The province reasonably relied on the federal government to license and monitor vaccines. The province’s decision not to exercise the authority it had, and had at one time used, to regulate and monitor did not subject it to liability. No other province issued warnings at the time. Only one monitored drugs used. Hence no negligence could be found on the part of the ministry.

One of the reasons cited in the dismissal was failure to prove causation. However, the ruling makes it pretty clear that there would be no finding of negligence even if it were demonstrated. The only exception would have been the manufacturer (possibly), for failing to disclose risks.

5. Frank V. AB Health Services 2019

[1] Health Services, 2018 ABQB 541. The issue on this appeal is whether Alberta Health Services and the nurse who immunized her are immune from liability even if negligence was proven.

[2] The trial judge found that the respondents are protected by the immunity provisions in s. 66.1 of the Public Health Act, RSA 2000, c. P-37:
.
66.1(1) No action for damages may be commenced against
(a) the Crown or a Minister of the Crown,
(b) a regional health authority or a member, employee or agent of a regional health authority,
(c) an employee under the administration of the Minister,
(d) the Chief Medical Officer, the Deputy Chief Medical Officer, an executive officer or a medical officer of health,
(e) a health practitioner,
(f) a teacher, a person in charge of an institution or a medical director of a facility, or
(g) repealed 2008 c. H-5.3 s. 24,
(h) a provincial health board established under the Regional Health Authorities Act
.
for anything done or not done by that person in good faith while carrying out duties or exercising powers under this or any other enactment.

(2) No action for damages may be commenced against any person or organization acting under the direction of the Crown, a Minister of the Crown, the Chief Medical Officer, the Deputy Chief Medical Officer or a medical officer of health for anything done or not done by that person or organization in good faith directly or indirectly related to a public health emergency while carrying out duties or exercising powers under this or any other enactment. [emphasis added]

[5] The trial judge wrote at para. 19 that Nurse Sykes was performing “a duty delegated to her”, which is no more than a synonym for “a duty assigned” to her. The appellant argues that immunity is not extended to those exercising “delegated duties”, but that would render the section largely redundant. It is difficult to conceive of a situation where an employee of the Health Authority (or a number of others in the protected categories, like “teachers”) would be “carrying out duties” (to use the words of s. 66.1) that are not in some sense “delegated” or “assigned” to them. The appellant also argues that the immunity does not extend to “negligence”, but that would also render the section ineffective. There is no civil liability for non-negligent health services, so the immunity clause must extend to the negligent provision of services to have any meaning.

[6] It is true that health care practitioners generally owe a private duty of care to their patients, and are liable in tort for negligent care that causes damage. But as the trial judge noted at para. 18, this statute is directed at “public” health concerns, not just “private” health concerns:

. . . The intent of the Act and the Communicable Diseases Regulation is in the protection of public health, including preventative care against communicable diseases which may affect large segments of the population. The liability immunity for health practitioners like Sykes is consistent with the purpose of the Act particularly when one considers the nature of mass vaccination clinics and the need for the Minister and regional health authorities to efficiently administer vaccinations.

There is a public benefit to having a significant level of vaccination against communicable diseases within the larger community. The Legislature has identified a public benefit in protecting professionals practicing in the public health field from liability for public health treatment administered in good faith.

[7] The appellant points to the rather complicated legislative history of this provision. The immunity clause, however, must be interpreted according to its plain words, in the context of the entire statute. On that basis there is no reviewable error in the decision under appeal.

[8] The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

In short, health practitioners (and bureaucrats), cannot be held liable in Alberta if they are acting in good faith, and are following the orders of Public Health Officials. While there may be some benefit to this, it allows practitioners to “pass the buck” in a sense, and just defer to someone else.

6. Interim Orders On H1N1 Vaccines

Adam, Abudu v. Ledesma-Cadhit et al, 2014 ONSC 5726 (CanLII)
Adam v. GlaxoSmithKline Inc., 2019 ONSC 7066 (CanLII)

There are actually 2 different rulings based on vaccine injury from GlaxoSmithKline. Here are quotes from the later ruling.

[15] In early 2009, the WHO became aware of the development of a new strain of influenza virus: H1N1, commonly known as swine flu. It had not been seen in human populations before, as a result of which humans had no built up immunity. The WHO declared H1N1 to be a pandemic.

[16] On June 11, 2009, the WHO declared a phase 6 pandemic. This is the final and most serious stage of a pandemic. It marks sustained human-to-human transmission of the virus in more than one region of the world. By early July there had been 94,512 reported cases and approximately 429 recorded deaths attributable to H1N1.

[17] In the summer of 2009, the WHO called for manufacturers to begin clinical trials for a vaccine to combat H1N1.

[18] GSK developed two vaccines to combat H1N1: Arepanrix and Pandemrix. Both are substantially similar. Pandemrix was manufactured and distributed in Europe. Arepanrix was manufactured and distributed in Canada. Clinical trials for Arepanrix began in 2008 but had not been completed when the pandemic was declared.

[19] The federal Minister of Health authorized the sale of the Arepanrix vaccine pursuant to an interim order dated October 13, 2009. Human trials of the vaccine were still underway. The Minister of Health is empowered to make interim orders if immediate action is required because of a danger to health, safety or the environment. In issuing the interim order, Health Canada deemed the risk profile of Arepanrix to be favourable for an interim order. The authorization was based on the risk caused by the current pandemic threat and its danger to human health. As part of the interim order process, Health Canada agreed to indemnify GSK for any claims brought against it in relation to the administration of the Arepanrix vaccine.

[20] Although human trials of Arepanrix were not finished by the time Health Canada authorized its use, the vaccine was not without clinical history.

[33] The fundamental challenge with the plaintiffs’ case in this regard is that they produced no expert to testify to this effect. While I agree with the plaintiffs’ submission that expert evidence is not necessarily required to demonstrate a breach of the standard of care, the absence of such evidence when faced with complex issues beyond the day-to-day experience of the trier creates additional challenges for the plaintiffs’ case.

[34] The plaintiffs’ principal allegation with respect to the standard of care is that GSK failed to make adequate disclosure of the risks involved with Arepanrix.

[35] The plaintiffs began their challenge about disclosure with the evidence of Ms. Hyacenth who testified that she was not told that: (i) the vaccine had not been tested through the usual route, (ii) the vaccine had been subject to a hastened approval process by Health Canada, (iii) adjuvants had never been used in children, (iv) the Government of Canada was indemnifying the vaccine manufacturer; and (v) some countries refused to make the vaccine available because of safety concerns. Ms. Hyacenth says that had she been told about these things she would not have risked having her children vaccinated.

[36] Part of the challenge of the plaintiffs’ inadequate disclosure case is that Ms. Hyacenth was not the direct purchaser of the vaccine. Vaccines are administered through a “learned intermediary,” in this case, her family physician. The issue is significant because any disclosures GSK makes are made in product monographs or inserts that accompany each vial of vaccine. The patient getting the vaccine does not receive the box containing the vaccine and whatever disclosure document it contains. It is the physician who receives this.

[37] GSK did disclose in its Product Information Leaflet for the Arepanrix vaccine and in its product monograph that Health Canada had authorized the sale of the vaccine based on only limited clinical testing and no clinical experience at all with children. Dr. Ledesma-Cadhit believes she knew this from the Health Canada website. She was also aware that Arepanrix was authorized through a special process because of the pandemic.

[38] The product monograph for Arepanrix disclosed that there was limited clinical experience with an investigational formulation of another adjuvanted vaccine but no clinical experience with children. In addition, the product information leaflet and product monograph disclosed a number of risks.

In short, Health Canada approved a vaccine that in which trials were still ongoing. The doctor, despite reading the lengthy disclaimer, injected it, and this comes in spite of there being no trials on children.

The Canadian Government had agreed to indemnify the manufacturer ahead of time. Moreover, the victims didn’t buy the product from the manufacturer, but from the doctor, a “learned intermediary”. In short, GlaxoSmithKline was legally off the hook for what it sold to the public.

7. Canada To Expedite Vaccines

This admission from Theresa Tam should concern people. She openly admits that vaccine development takes over a decade, but that this will be pushed ahead.

However, if this is such a “novel” virus, then how exactly can scientists rely on all this previous research? Either it’s a similar virus, or it’s very different. It can’t simultaneously be both.

And no, it wasn’t “Covid-19” that took away people’s livelihoods. It was the dictatorial actions of power hungry politicians and bureaucrats.

8. WHO On Vaccine Injury Compensation

Arguments for schemes
Arguments supporting vaccine-injury compensation include political and economic pressures, litigation threats, increasing confidence in population-based vaccine programmes and ensuring sustainability of vaccine supply. However, compensation schemes are also based on underlying principles of fairness and justice.

A vaccine-injury compensation scheme removes the uncertainty of tort liability for manufacturers and provides a more fair, efficient and stable approach for injured parties. Litigation is an expensive and restricted avenue that is inaccessible for many vaccine recipients. Furthermore, compensation schemes avoid the polarization of drug companies against vaccine recipients through litigation and the associated negative media coverage.

Standard of proof
No-fault vaccine-injury compensation programmes are based on the premise that the adverse outcome is not attributable to a specific individual or industry but due to an unavoidable risk associated with vaccines. A problem for all compensation schemes is determining whether there is a causal relationship between a vaccine and a specific injury. The method by which causation is proven in tort law can be quite different from the accepted method of establishing causation in science and epidemiology. The most commonly accepted criteria for establishing epidemiological causation are the Bradford Hill criteria. While they do not provide a definitive checklist for assessing causality, these criteria provide a framework for separating causal and non-causal explanations of observed associations. Despite its importance, there is no single, clear consensus on the definition of causation.

Conclusion
Vaccine-injury compensation programmes are increasingly regarded as an important component of successful vaccination programmes. They have been used for the past 50 years to ensure that individuals who are adversely affected in the interests of protecting the whole community are adequately compensated and cared for. There are a variety of schemes with different structures and approaches in use throughout the world. The schemes function most efficiently when they operate alongside well established, comprehensive national social welfare systems. In these countries, vaccine-injury compensation schemes have been found to have a relatively low administrative cost, especially compared to civil litigation cases.

In the first decade of the 21st century, acceptance of vaccine-injury compensation has grown. Schemes are being enacted beyond industrialized Europe and North America. The importance of these schemes, based on ethical principles, has been stressed by parent groups, and claimants have reported satisfaction in having received compensation through a streamlined process. Apart from the reluctance of governments to move away from the adversarial approach to providing compensation, we believe there is a strong argument for widespread implementation of these programmes in other developed countries.

This is a 2011 article from the World Health Organization. Despite the claimed benefits, there are certainly drawbacks. It’s worth pointing out that they don’t actually make vaccines any safer. They are just a way to placate the public and increase confidence by offering a (tax-payer funded), way for victims to get some money.

Drug companies will still get their profits, but the losses will be socialized. This is typical of the corporatist mindset.

From their perspective, there isn’t really any downside. Pharma companies can still push their drugs onto the public, and any serious harm will be paid back by the public. While the process for collecting is certainly easier than going to court, it ensures that the full truth will never come out.

Currently, a vaccine injury compensation program exists in Quebec, but no other Canadian Province.

CV #59(B): Corona Scanner Reports 35 Million People Have Already Recovered Globally

The site: corona-scanner.com has reported that over 35 million people worldwide have already recovered from the coronavirus. Remember, this is the “pandemic” that is sweeping the globe.

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

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

2. Disclaimer On Site’s Validity

This is a good time to add in a disclaimer. There’s no information about who runs the site, or where its information is coming from, so some skepticism is warranted. However, a valid point must be noted: of this is such a deadly virus — with no cure or vaccine — then how are people recovering en masse?

3. This Is Just A Fraction Of People Infected

These videos are from June 8 and 9, 2020. Both videos, here, and here, are of Maria Van Kerkhove, head of the World Health Organization’s emerging diseases and zoonosis unit. First, she claims that asymptomatic transfer of this virus is extremely rare. Obvious question, where are the numbers coming from if asymptomatic transfer is so rare? This statement would indicate that the lockdown and shutdown measures are unnecessary, and should be immediately ended. That is the logical conclusion. Then she claims that an estimated 6% to 41% of the global population may be infected but not have symptoms. Supposedly they think it’s around 16%, but refused to disclose how that estimate was arrived at. So nearly half the population could be infected already.

Again, that is back in June. So the 35 million people who have officially “recovered” is likely just a drop in the bucket.

4. Hard Questions Need To Be Asked

People need to realize what is really going on, and to start questioning the narratives that are thrown in our faces. It isn’t difficult to pick up on the lies, contradictions. and errors in logic.

[1] Public officials repeat the mantra that the PCR tests are accurate
[2] Public officials downplay the overwhelming recovery rate
[3] Only friendly or compliant media gets to ask questions
[4] Little reporting on the lack of science behind the measures
[5] Public officials avoid mentioning the big agenda
[6] Vaccines are pushed, but who’s financing this?

CV #51: Government Supports Hand Sanitizing, But Pulls Many Products For Being Toxic

The World Health Organization tells people to use an alcohol based sanitizer for cleaning their hands. However, that may not be the best advice here, given what is actually in these products.

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

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

2. Canada Pulls Dozens Of Hand Sanitizers

Health Canada is recalling more than 50 hand sanitizers that contain ingredients “not acceptable for use” that may pose health risks.

The organization says hand sanitizers with “unacceptable types” of ethanol or denaturants have not been approved for use in sanitizers in Canada, and their safety and efficacy have not been established.

Denaturants are ingredients added to ethanol to make it unfit for human consumption to avoid unintentional ingestion of hand sanitizers particularly by children.

Health Canada said possible reactions to the ingredients include skin irritation, eye irritation, upper respiratory system irritation and headaches.

Health Canada has an evolving list on its website of 51 hand sanitizers that are currently being recalled and says Canadians should consult the list regularly. The organization says to stop using products listed, and to consult a health-care professional “if you have used these products and have health concerns.”

From May 1 through June 30, 15 cases of methanol poisoning were reported in Arizona and New Mexico, associated with swallowing alcohol-based hand sanitizers. Four patients died, and three were discharged with visual impairment.

Health Canada says frequent use of hand sanitizer containing methanol may cause dermatitis, eye irritation, upper respiratory system irritation and headaches.

Keep in mind, this is only what is known about these alcohol based sanitizers, or at least what the government is willing to share about it. There are almost certainly more long term effects that aren’t public.

3. Health Canada Pulls Dozens Of Sanitizers

In fact, the Government of Canada literally has dozens of hand sanitizers that have been recalled in recent months. Yes, in the urgency to get more sanitizer available, safety standards apparently took a back seat.

What sorts of problems make the list?

  • Contains unacceptable ingredient, ethyl acetate
  • Missing risk statements; product not authorized to contain technical-grade ethanol
  • Not authorized for sale in Canada; Missing risk statements; product not authorized to contain technical-grade ethanol
  • Incorrect NPN; product not authorized to contain technical-grade ethanol; missing risk statements
  • Now, considering how many businesses push hand sanitizers to enter (along with masks), one has to ask how up to date they are with this list. Also, how long have they had these available for retail?

    It’s also worth asking if this half-baked approach will also be used when it comes to choosing a coronavirus vaccine, (for the virus with the 99% recovery rate).

    But whatever, it’s for your safety.