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

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


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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

9. Shut Up And Take Your Vaccine

CV #4(B): Zakery Blais, (AG Lametti’s Former Assistant) Renews Registration As GAVI/Crestview Lobbyist

Crestview Strategy lobbyist (and former assistant to the now Attorney General David Lametti), Zakery Blais, renewed his official registration as a lobbyist on behalf of the Gates funded GAVI. Effective August 1st. To clarify, Lametti was only a Parliamentary Secretary when Blais worked for him, but that hardly excuses the behaviour.

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

The extended series on the coronavirus hoax continues. Know the lobbying, lies, corruption, conflicts of interest, and other sordid details that are rampant. Information that you won’t find in any mainstream outlet. In particular, read Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, Part 9, Part 10, Part 11, Part 14, Part 21, and Part 30. Those links delve into the backstory of this saga, and pharma lobbying in general.

2. Zakery Blais Worked For David Lametti

Zakery Blais is a Consultant with Crestview Strategy. With a focus on Canada-U.S. relations and international development, Zakery services clients globally.

His experience spans both the public and private sectors. He previously worked as a Legislative Assistant to a Canadian Member of Parliament, providing strategic political and communications advice. Prior to joining Crestview Strategy, Zakery also worked in various capacities in public affairs, including as an analyst focused on the energy and natural resources sectors.

Zakery holds an Honours BSocSc in Political Science from the University of Ottawa, and a Master of Public Administration (MPA) from Queen’s University

Although the Member of Parliament is not identified in Blais’ Crestview profile, looking at his LinkedIn, we can tell it is David Lametti. Lametti was a Parliamentary Secretary at the time, but is now the sitting Attorney General of Canada.

Bit of a side note: Blais’ profile also has him spending almost a year working for the Liberal Research Bureau.

3. Lack Of Transparency In PO Holding

Blais claims to have never been a public office holder. While true in a technical sense, it is very misleading. Blais WORKED FOR Lametti, who was a public officer holder, and now sits as the Attorney General of Canada. But you wouldn’t get that information from looking at the Lobbying Commissioner’s website.

Crestview lobbies on behalf of GAVI, trying to get government grants to vaccinate the planet. So far, Ottawa has shelled out some $800 million. And it needs to be emphasized, there is no arms-length relationship here at all.

Most readers will know this, but for those who don’t: GAVI is the Global Vaccine Alliance, which is heavily funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

4. New Conflict Of Interest For Lametti/Blais

On July 6, 2020, Vaccine Choice Canada sued various Toronto, Ontario and Canadian public officials. This includes the Attorney General, who is required to be named. And who is the Attorney General? David Lametti. Among other things, VCC’s Statement of Claims specifically lists the relationship between GAVI/Crestview, and the Canadian Government.

While Zakery Blais is renewing his registration as a Crestview lobbyist for the GAVI client, his former boss is being sued for (among other things) that inappropriate business relationship.

The GAVI/Crestview story was first reported on Canuck Law 4 months ago. It seems that people never learn.

5. Crestview’s M-132 Conflict Of Interest

M-132 was introduced in November 2017 by Liberal MP Raj Saini. It was covered here and here. One might wonder why GAVI is interested in lobbying on a motion to finance drugs and drug research for Canada and the entire world.

6. CS Co-Founded By Katie Telford’s Husband

Liberal strategist and former pundit Rob Silver said Monday he has left the government relations firm he helped create, citing his wife’s position as Justin Trudeau’s chief of staff.

“Effective Dec. 31, 2015 I am no longer a shareholder or employee of Crestview Strategy,” Silver said in an email Monday afternoon.

Silver was a partner in the Toronto- and Ottawa-based public affairs agency that, among other things, lobbies the federal government on behalf of clients.

Rob Silver, husband of Katie Telford, Trudeau’s Chief-of-Staff, helped start up Crestview Strategy, the lobbying firm that GAVI hired to push the vaccine agenda.

7. Rob Silver’s New Conflict Of Interest

OTTAWA – The Trudeau government is paying up to $84 million to a company that employs Chief of Staff Katie Telford’s husband as a senior executive to administer its COVID-19 emergency commercial rent assistance program for small businesses.

Due to the ties between Telford and her husband, Robert Silver, the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) assures that their chief of staff has recused herself from any decisions that may involve MCAP, Silver’s employer.

According to his LinkedIn profile, Silver became Senior Vice-President, Strategy, Policy, Risk at MCAP in January 2020. MCAP bills itself as one of Canada’s largest private mortgage companies, with over 300,000 customers and $105 billion in assets under management.

According to LinkedIn, this is Silver’s first job in the private sector since leaving Crestview — the government relations firm he helped create — following the October 2015 elections. At the time, he cited his wife’s job as new chief of staff to the prime minister as the reason for his departure.

Silver may have left Crestview Strategy, but it appears his old ways haven’t changed. Yet another conflict of interest that should never have happened.

8. Trudeau & Premiers Are Parroting Gates

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

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

9. Crestview Strategy’s many Political Ties

This was addressed in Part 5, but Crestview Strategy has many political connections, and they extend across party lines. In some sense, it really doesn’t matter who is actually in power. Crestview has connections. And Zakery Blais is still at it.

CV #46: Dominic LeBlanc Proposes Law To Ban “Misinformation” About Virus

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

For other articles in the coronavirus series, check here. There is an awful lot that you are not being told my the mainstream media, including the lies, lobbying, money changing hands, and one world agenda. Nothing is what it appears to be. Also, check out related topics, such as the media, and free speech.

2. Recent Proposal To Require Licensing

Keep in mind, if was only back in February that the Federal Government had proposed making it mandatory for media personalities to be licensed. Heritage Minister Steven Guilbeault admits that the panel proposing it was formed in 2018 by the Liberals.

So the Liberals are no stranger to attacking free speech. In fairness though, the groups pushing for media licensing may be different than those pushing to ban research into coronavirus.

3. Quotes From CBC Article

The federal government is considering introducing legislation to make it an offence to knowingly spread misinformation that could harm people, says Privy Council President Dominic LeBlanc.

LeBlanc told CBC News he is interested in British MP Damian Collins’s call for laws to punish those responsible for spreading dangerous misinformation online about the COVID-19 pandemic.

LeBlanc said he has discussed the matter already with other cabinet ministers, including Justice Minister David Lametti. If the government decides to follow through, he said, it could take a while to draft legislation.

“Legislatures and Parliaments are meeting scarcely because of the current context of the pandemic, so it’s not a quick solution, but it’s certainly something that we would be open [to] as a government,” said LeBlanc.

NDP MP Charlie Angus said he would support legislation to fight online misinformation.

Yes, this came out in April, but is worth revisiting. The Canadian Government is seriously open to the idea of cracking down on what it calls “misinformation” harmful to the public. Also disturbing is an NDP MP who is open to joining the Liberals in this. This is after calls in the UK for similar laws.

More recently, said Collins, the misinformation has shifted to conspiracy theories about what triggered the pandemic — claims that it was cooked up in a lab, for example. A conspiracy theory claiming the disease is caused by 5G wireless signals prompted attacks on wireless towers in the U.K.

The British government has set up a rapid response team to correct false information circulating online. Collins has launched a fact-checking site called Infotagion, along with Angus and Liberal MP Nate Erskine-Smith, among others.

No this is not just a Canadian problem. It’s a problem for people (globally) who want to expose and write about what is really happening.

4. LeBlanc & Microsoft President Smith

There’s been an online surge in disinformation and misinformation linked to the COVID-19 pandemic in recent weeks, along with cyber attacks on hospitals, says the head of one of the world’s tech giants.

Speaking at an event with Canadian Privy Council President Dominic LeBlanc this morning, Microsoft president Brad Smith said his company has seen a recent shift in the pattern of online attacks and efforts to spread false rumours and lies about the pandemic.

Microsoft President met with Dominic LeBlanc in May to talk about the wave of misinformation that was all over the internet. Never mind the obvious fact that Microsoft was headed by Bill gates until very recently, who is pushing the vaccine agenda.

5. Social Media Collusion Already Exists

If we are going to have a law to ban “misinformation”, why don’t we start here? Social media companies like Twitter, Google and Facebook already work to promote the vaccine agenda. They already work together to dismiss critics. Wouldn’t that be a textbook case of what should be included in this proposed ban?

6. So What Exactly Is “Misinformation”?

Is it “misinformation” to point out that Chief Public Health Officer Theresa Tam works for the World Health Organization?

Or how about that Deputy Prime Minister Chystia Freeland also is on the Board of Trustees for the World Economic Forum? And to mention Mark Carney, former head of the Bank of Canada, is as well? Is it “misinformation” to point out that the WEF was behind getting CV declared a pandemic, and now pushes the GREAT RESET?

Is it “misinformation” to point out that on August 4, Theresa Tam parroted the World Health Organization’s line about a vaccine not being a silver bullet?

Is it “misinformation” to point out the rampant lobbying by the pharmaceutical industry here, here, here, and here?

Is it “misinformation” to point out the vast research done into vaccine hesitancy? This is research into psychological manipulation to convince people that vaccines are safe. Not research into MAKING safe vaccines, but research into CONVINCING you that they already are. See here and here.

Is it “misinformation” to point out M-132 was launched PRIOR to this pandemic, to finance drugs, and drug research for the entire world?

Is it “misinformation” to point out that the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is a major and regular contributor to Imperial College London, who does the CV modelling?

Is it “misinformation” to point out the vaccine bonds industry we send money to offers nothing of substance in return?

Is it “misinformation” to point out that the Provinces’ own data show the overwhelming majority of people recover on their own, with no vaccine?

Is it “misinformation” to point out that the BC Provincial Health Officer repeatedly admits there is no science behind limiting group sizes, but does it anyway?

Is it “misinformation” to point out that Ontario Associate Chief Medical Officer Of Health, Barbara Yaffe, admitted that 50% of tests give false positives?

Is it “misinformation” to point out that the World Health Organization doesn’t actually say to stay 2 metres apart?

Is it “misinformation” to point out the rampant lying and exaggerating by public officials of the virus death tolls?

Is it “misinformation” to point out that social media companies openly collude with governments in order to push the pro-vaccine agenda?

7. Still Just A Proposal (For Now)

While it seems to still just be an idea for consideration, it’s a chilling one. Such a law would effectively give the government the right to silence anyone who criticizes its agenda, REGARDLESS of how accurate or factual it may be.

On a personal note: could this site be shut down under the guise of “promoting misinformation”? Could all of this work cease to exist?

CV #45: Ottawa Lies, WHO “Doesn’t” Recommend 2m Distancing

WHO says 1 metre.
So where does the 2 metre guidelines come from?

Here, we are continuing to expose the lies. First, a recap of several examples of the “science” being distorted, then let’s jump into the lie that WHO recommends people be separated by 2 metres.

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

For more on the hoax, check out this series. Understand the lies, corruption, lobbying, conflicts of interest, and money changing hands. This rabbit hole is much deeper than what people realize.

2. No Science Behind Computer Modelling

Why would anyone listen to Imperial College London or Neil Ferguson after their lengthy track record of completely wrong predictions? Remember, models aren’t proof of anything, just predictions. When you realize that the Gates Foundation has been funding them for years, things start to make sense.

3. No Science Predicting Asymptomatic Transfer

The World Health Organization can’t give any sort of clear answer on the rate of asymptomatic people spreading. They also have no clue how many people are infected globally. Again, this is all based on computer modelling. Saying (in June) that 6% to 41% of the population is infected but asymptomatic is pretty useless. But it does raise the serious question how deadly this virus is.

4. No Science Behind Limiting Group Sizes

BC Provincial Health Officer Bonnie Henry repeatedly admits there is no science behind limiting public gatherings to 50 people, but does it anyway. On May 25, 2020, she said that “50 cars” was included in the guidelines for limiting groups of people who can get together.

5. No Science Masking Healthy People

WHO-2019-nCov-IPC_Masks-2020.4-eng (1)

Worth a reminder: the World Health Organization said in April 2020 that there was no evidence to support masks for healthy people, but that health care providers need access anyway. In June 2020, WHO said there was still no evidence, but recommended them anyway. See this post, or an admission from BBC that this is political, at 4:20 in the video.

6. Covid Test Gets 50% False Positives

People really think that testing is going to solve the entire problem, and it isn’t. It’s one component of a response. If you test someone today, you only know if they’re infected today. And in fact, of you’re testing in a population that doesn’t have very much covid, you’ll get false positives, almost half the time. That is, the person doesn’t actually have covid. They have something else. They may have nothing. So, it will just complicate the picture. On the other hand, if we have evidence of a case, even a suspect case in school, all the contacts, be it a child or a teacher, would be tested.

This is Ontario Associate Chief Medical Officer Of Health, Barbara Yaffe. She says that tests can have up to a 50% false positive rate. The test is garbage, as the article explains. See this clip, and this full video (at 36:20).

7. People Recovering Without Any Vaccine

BC 2,898 3,392 85% 190 3
AB 8,506 9,975 85% 176 21
SK 838 1,072 78% 16 13
MB 319 375 86% 7 1
ON 33,963 38,210 89% 2,755 35
QC ? 58,080 ? 5,662 14
NB 165 170 97% 2 0
NS 1,003 1,067 94% 63 0
NFLD 259 264 98% 3 0
PEI 34 36 94% 0 0

The table represents the compiled data as of July 23, 2020. Each Province (except Quebec, who wasn’t listed) says that their infected people are overwhelmingly recovering on their own.

8. Lobbying, Not Science, In Vaccine Drive

This has been covered in Part 4, Part 5, Part 21, and elsewhere in the series. The pharmaceutical industry is heavily invested in making sure that a vaccine is “necessary” regardless of whether or not it’s needed for public health. An awful lot of money tied up in this.

9. Politics, Not Science Inflating Death Toll

This list has been added to several times. It is a compilation of lies and inconsistencies when public officials distort the truth in order to make the “pandemic” seem much worse than it really is.

10. Global Reset Is Agenda, Not Science

Globalist players have been planning to use this “pandemic” as an opportunity to seek broader changes. See this review, or this video.

Now that we’ve set the stage for the lies and dishonesty being perpetrated, let’s get to the specific topic of that 2 metre separation between people.

11. What WHO Says On People Distancing

To prevent infection and to slow transmission of COVID-19, do the following:
-Wash your hands regularly with soap and water, or clean them with alcohol-based hand rub.
-Maintain at least 1 metre distance between you and people coughing or sneezing.
-Avoid touching your face.
-Cover your mouth and nose when coughing or sneezing.
-Stay home if you feel unwell.
-Refrain from smoking and other activities that weaken the lungs.
-Practice physical distancing by avoiding unnecessary travel and staying away from large groups of people.

So not only does it say 1 metre (not 2), but it says to stay away from them coughing of sneezing. This is still up on WHO’s site. Not only that, it doesn’t list masks as a recommendation for prevention.

12. WHO Guidelines From May 10

Also see the original here.

Physical distancing
• Introduce measures to keep a distance of at least 1 metre between people and avoid direct physical contact with other persons (i.e. hugging, touching, shaking hands), strict control over external access, queue management (marking on the floor, barriers)
• Reduce density of people in the building (no more than 1 person per every 10 square metres), ivphysical spacing at least 1 metre apart for work stations and common spaces, such as entrances/exits, lifts, pantries/canteens, stairs, wherecongregation or queuing of employees or visitors/clients might occur.
• Minimize the need for physical meetings, e.g. by using teleconferencing facilities
• Avoid crowding by staggering working hours to reduce congregation of employees at common spaces such as entrances
or exits
• Implement or enhance shift or split-team arrangements, or teleworking
Defer or suspend workplace events that involve close and prolonged contact among participants, including social gatherings.

I don’t see any reference to 2 metres anywhere in the document.

13. WHO On “Safe” Ritualistic Slaughter

Also see the original here.

Overarching considerations
Advice on physical distancing
• Practice physical distancing by strictly maintaining a distance of at least 1 metre between people at all times.
• If physical distancing cannot be achieved, wearing a fabric mask is recommended. It is critical to follow best practices on how to wear, remove and dispose of masks, and performing hand hygiene after removal.7
• Use culturally and religiously sanctioned greetings that avoid physical contact, such as waving, nodding, or placing the hand over the heart.
• Prohibit large numbers of people gathering in public places associated with Eid activities, such as markets, shops and mosques. If allowed, a mechanism should be in place to regulate such activities and avoid gathering of people.
• Restrict social gatherings, both public and private, and encourage the use of technology for meeting and greeting people to mitigate transmission.
• Consider closing of entertainment venues, particularly indoor venues, during Eid to avoid the mass gathering of people.

Again, where is this 2 metres that Canadian officials are always going on about? It doesn’t appear anywhere in the document.

Animal-Human Interface and Sacrificial Slaughter
The source of the SARS-CoV-2 virus has not yet been identified. Understanding which animal species are most susceptible to the virus is important in discovering potential animal reservoirs to mitigate transmission and future outbreaks. According to common safe practices when handling meat, countries should take strict measures around the selling and slaughtering of animals and the distribution of meat while ensuring that national food safety and hygiene regulations are enforced.

Understand that halal slaughter involves inflicting deliberate cruelty, and causing intentional suffering. The World Health Organization doesn’t actually say stop, just follow some rules.

Meanwhile, church goers who aren’t maiming or disfiguring animals are limited to gathering in groups of 50, at least in BC. This is from July 25, 2020.

14. WHO Guidelines From May 20

the importance of source control such as providing medical masks if available to travellers with respiratory symptoms, performing frequent hand hygiene and maintaining at least 1 meter physical distance from others before, during and after the interview process


On May 20, 2020 guidelines, WHO said that 1 metre difference between people was sufficient, (see original). Again, where is 2 metres coming from?

15. Gov’t Distorts WHO Recommendations

There are many more “technical guidance publications” that the World Health Organization has freely available. One thing they have in common: they never mention 2 metres (at least the ones seen so far). So what is the real reason for implementing this? To make surveillance easier?

July: BBC Reports WHO Mask Reversal Politically Motivated

The BBC covered Atlantic Storm in 2005. Did no one connect the dots between that fake pandemic, and this one in 2020?

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

For more on the coronavirus hoax, take a dive into the rest of the series. Information that you will never hear about from the mainstream media.

2. BBC Video Publicly Released

CLICK HERE, for the original video. Also see a backup copy of the video mirrored onto Bitchute.

3. WHO Says In June No Real Evidence

(Download the pdf at the bottom)
WHO-2019-nCov-IPC_Masks-2020.4-eng (1)

(from page 4)

There are currently no studies that have evaluated the effectiveness and potential adverse effects of universal or targeted continuous mask use by health workers in preventing transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Despite the lack of evidence the great majority of the WHO COVID-19 IPC GDG members supports the practice of health workers and caregivers in clinical areas (irrespective of whether there are COVID-19 or other patients in the clinical areas) in geographic settings where there is known or suspected community transmission of COVID-19, to continuously wear a medical mask throughout their shift, apart from when eating and drinking or changing the mask after caring for a patient requiring droplet/contact precautions for other reasons (e.g., influenza), to avoid any possibility of cross-transmission

So there are no actual studies to test or research the effectiveness of masks in health care settings. However, it’s common practice to expect them to be worn.

(from page 6)

Available evidence
Studies of influenza, influenza-like illness, and human coronaviruses (not including COVID-19) provide evidence that the use of a medical mask can prevent the spread of infectious droplets from a symptomatic infected person (source control) to someone else and potential contamination of the environment by these droplets.(54, 55) There is limited evidence that wearing a medical mask by healthy individuals in households, in particular those who share a house with a sick person, or among attendees of mass gatherings may be beneficial as a measure preventing transmission.(41, 56-61) A recent meta-analysis of these observational studies, with the intrinsic biases of observational data, showed that either disposable surgical masks or reusable 12–16-layer cotton masks were associated with protection of healthy individuals within households and among contacts of cases.(42)

This could be considered to be indirect evidence for the use of masks (medical or other) by healthy individuals in the wider community; however, these studies suggest that such individuals would need to be in close proximity to an infected person in a household or at a mass gathering where physical distancing cannot be achieved, to become infected with the virus.

Results from cluster randomized controlled trials on the use of masks among young adults living in university residences in the United States of America indicate that face masks may reduce the rate of influenza-like illness, but showed no impact on risk of laboratory-confirmed influenza.(62, 63) At present, there is no direct evidence (from studies on COVID19 and in healthy people in the community) on the effectiveness of universal masking of healthy people in the community to prevent infection with respiratory viruses, including COVID-19

The World Health Organization admits there is no direct evidence that widespread masking of healthy people actually prevents any sort of sickness. They speak on in terms of “indirect evidence” or being “possible”.

(from page 6)

2) Advice to decision makers on the use of masks for the
general public
Many countries have recommended the use of fabric masks/face coverings for the general public. At the present time, the widespread use of masks by healthy people in the community setting is not yet supported by high quality or direct scientific evidence and there are potential benefits and harms to consider (see below).

However, taking into account the available studies evaluating pre- and asymptomatic transmission, a growing compendium of observational evidence on the use of masks by the general public in several countries, individual values and preferences, as well as the difficulty of physical distancing in many contexts, WHO has updated its guidance to advise that to prevent COVID-19 transmission effectively in areas of community transmission, governments should encourage the general public to wear masks in specific situations and settings as part of a comprehensive approach to suppress SARS-CoV-2 transmission (Table 2).

So no direct scientific evidence to support masking healthy people, but governments should encourage it anyway. Rather than focusing exclusively on science, it takes “values and preferences” into account. Perhaps this is why BCPHO Bonnie Henry says “there’s no science behind it”. It gets even better.

(from end of page 8/early 9)

A non-medical mask is neither a medical device nor personal protective equipment. However, a non-medical mask standard has been developed by the French Standardization Association (AFNOR Group) to define minimum performance in terms of filtration (minimum 70% solid particle filtration or droplet filtration) and breathability (maximum pressure difference of 0.6 mbar/cm2 or maximum Advice on the use of masks in the context of COVID-19: Interim guidance inhalation resistance of 2.4 mbar and maximum exhalation resistance of 3 mbar).

The lower filtration and breathability standardized requirements, and overall expected performance, indicate that the use of non-medical masks, made of woven fabrics such as cloth, and/or non-woven fabrics, should only be considered for source control (used by infected persons) in community settings and not for prevention. They can be used ad-hoc for specific activities (e.g., while on public transport when physical distancing cannot be maintained), and their use should always be accompanied by frequent hand hygiene and physical distancing.

So a non-medical mask isn’t actually considered PPE. But it’s nice to know that 70% is the new standard for being an acceptable filter. And despite them not being beneficial to healthy people, the World Health Organization recommends them anyway.

(from page 10)

WHO is collaborating with research and development partners and the scientific community engaged in textile
engineering and fabric design to facilitate a better understanding of the effectiveness and efficiency of nonmedical masks. WHO urges countries that have issued recommendations on the use of both medical and non-medical masks by healthy people in community settings to conduct research on this important topic. Such research needs to look at whether SARS-CoV-2 particles can be expelled through non-medical masks of poor quality worn by a person with symptoms of COVID-19 while that person is coughing, sneezing or speaking. Research is also needed on nonmedical mask use by children and other medically
challenging persons
and settings as mentioned above.

World Health Organization recommends the use of masks, but admits that research needs to be done, and there’s no hard evidence that they work on healthy people.

4. WHO Says In April No Real Evidence

In April 2020, the World Health Organization said there was no evidence to support putting masks on healthy people. In June, they reiterated that there was no evidence, but recommended them anyway. However, that “no evidence” portion gets lost in public discussions.

Wake up people. It’s all been a lie.

5. Gates Foundation Major BBC Donor

Link to search IRS charity tax records:

EIN: 56-2618866

EIN: 91-1663695

CV #43: Ontario Associate Chief Medical Officer Of Health, Barbara Yaffe, Admits Test Is Completely Bogus

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

For more on the coronavirus hoax, take a dive into the rest of the series. Information that you will never hear about from the mainstream media.

2. Text Of The Quote

People really think that testing is going to solve the entire problem, and it isn’t. It’s one component of a response. If you test someone today, you only know if they’re infected today. And in fact, of you’re testing in a population that doesn’t have very much covid, you’ll get false positives, almost half the time. That is, the person doesn’t actually have covid. They have something else. They may have nothing. So, it will just complicate the picture. On the other hand, if we have evidence of a case, even a suspect case in school, all the contacts, be it a child or a teacher, would be tested.

3. Short Clip Of Confession

Admittedly, the audio isn’t great. It was taken from the clip recently posted on Twitter. Check the full press conference below for the entire video.

Ontario Premier Doug Ford was asked days later about this. He attempted to talk in circles to avoid giving a direct answer. He pretends to not get what is being asked.

4. Full Press Conference

Check around 36:20 for the relevant part in the video

5. These Tests Don’t Even Work

These tests don’t work. Getting false positives half the time (or anywhere close to that), is an indication that the tests are completely flawed. Remember, a “positive” test will lead to you being isolated for at least 14 days. This is malpractice at best.

6. Ontario Lying About CV Deaths

Ontario Health Minister Christine Elliott admits that the they have been screwing around with the numbers. The Government has been intentionally conflating those who died from, and those who die “with” this virus. Great way to make this seem worse than it is.

%d bloggers like this: