Category: Health

Posted on

Newsflash: CPC Motion Doesn’t Actually Call For Ending Any Measures On February 28

Vladimir Lenin is famously quoted as saying that the best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves. While there have been many who fit the description in the last 2 years, Interim CPC Leader Candice Bergen has become the latest iteration of it.

Despite pretending to stand with the truckers protesting against the medical martial law measures, Bergen tells them to “go home”. This comes despite this so-called opposition party essentially doing nothing for the last 2 years. It’s an attempt to neutralize real resistance.

Over the last few weeks, the trucking “convoys” in Canada have made international news. That said, Bergen wants to shut it down and gives vague words about fighting for them.

And right now, no one in Canada embodies controlled opposition like Candice Bergen, or the “Conservative” Party of Canada. They object over nitpicky details of Trudeau’s tyranny, but not over ideology. And there’s been deafening silence over the lockdowns imposed by Provinces. Interestingly, there’s often feigned outrage over human rights abuses abroad, but never locally.

To make this clear: Candice Bergen and the CPC don’t actually call for the ending of all Federal martial law measures by February 28. Instead, it’s just a motion to generate some plan — any plan — by February 28. It could be a plan that lasts for 10 or 20 years, but as long as it’s submitted by February 28, it would comply with the demands of this motion.

Moreover, even if a “plan” were submitted by February 28, there is no guarantee whatsoever that it would be meaningful, or not subject to changes.

This comes from the playbook of “Operation Trust“, a 1920s plan to protect the Bolsheviks. The idea was to placate Russians into doing nothing to take back their country, but convincing them that a military operation was already underway. The same principle was used for Q-Anon.

Bergen never addresses fundamental problems like Health Canada or PHAC had been implemented for population control measures. She never addresses that Bill C-12, the 2005 Quarantine Act, was written by WHO, or that the International Health Regulations are legally binding. She discusses nothing of substance, which sums up what her party is.

It really shouldn’t surprise anyone at this point. After all, Bergen was the Deputy Leader of the CPC when Erin O’Toole was in charge. Presumably, she didn’t find his actions that abhorrent.

Also, a quick look at some of the organizations Bergen has been in touch with suggest she might have been influenced by other groups. These includes big pharma, who don’t have the best interests of Canadians at heart.

Unfortunately, the hoopla over tossing out Erin O’Toole seems to be for nothing. Bergen was Deputy Leader at that time, and even now, doesn’t really oppose anything. Both O’Toole and Bergen are globalist shills. However, he was far more overt about it, and she may get a pass as a result.

While this article may come across as being negative and a buzzkill, it’s important for Canadians to know what’s actually being proposed. Words matter, and these are meaningless.

Trusting her in any way is a serious mistake.

(1) https://twitter.com/CandiceBergenMP/status/1492608106295177219
(2) https://twitter.com/BlakeRichardsMP/status/1492922192937500673
(3) https://twitter.com/CPAC_TV/status/1493372451639726093
(4) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/cmmLgPblcVw?comlogId=516500
(5) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/cmmLgPblcVw?comlogId=520273
(6) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/cmmLgPblcVw?comlogId=510769
(7) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/cmmLgPblcVw?comlogId=510795
(8) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/cmmLgPblcVw?comlogId=507207
(9) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/cmmLgPblcVw?comlogId=487699
(10) https://canucklaw.ca/health-canada-initially-created-for-population-control-measures/
(11) https://canucklaw.ca/cv-62g-public-health-agency-of-canada-created-as-branch-of-who-bill
(12) https://canucklaw.ca/cv-62c-the-2005-quarantine-act-bill-c-12-was-actually-written-by-who/
(13) https://canucklaw.ca/cv-62-who-legally-binding-international-health-regulations-ihr/

Posted on

Canadian Paediatric Society Shrugs Off Myocarditis And Pericarditis In Children

The Canadian Paediatric Society, or CPS, is a group that claims to be concerned with the health and well-being of young children. However, after looking at their website, there are grounds to be concerned. There is also a section on convincing children to wear masks, which is disturbing.

The CPS also pushes the racial justice narrative heavily, implying that tolerance and diversity will solve just about everything. Their Twitter account is full of this nonsense.

Particularly troubling is the “guidance” they gave out in September 2021, regarding myocarditis and pericarditis. These are serious side effects that can result — even in children — from taking the injections that the Government calls vaccines.

Abstract
This practice point aims to provide clinical guidance on myocarditis and pericarditis following mRNA COVID-19 vaccination (Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna). The benefits of COVID-19 vaccination outweigh the risks, and the vaccine is recommended for all eligible individuals, including children and youth in their 12th year and over. A small increased risk of myocarditis and pericarditis (< 1 case per 10,000) has been reported following vaccination with COVID-19 mRNA vaccines in Canada and internationally, most often among adolescents and young adults < 30 years of age, males, and after the second dose. Although this safety signal is occurring at higher-than-expected background rates, most cases are mild. This document reflects expert opinion and available evidence, which is limited. It will be updated as further information becomes available and as younger individuals are immunized against COVID-19.

Myocarditis. In general, most reported cases of myocarditis following COVID-19 mRNA vaccination have been mild and have shown response to NSAIDs. However, admission or close ambulatory monitoring should be considered until the clinical course of the illness is established. Severe cases with heart failure, arrhythmia or other complications of myocarditis require hospitalization, critical care support with appropriate management and monitoring.

Conclusions
(1) There is a temporal association between receiving mRNA COVID-19 vaccination and myocarditis and pericarditis among youth. These events are very rare. The risk-benefit decision for mRNA vaccination is favourable, and the vaccine is recommended for all eligible populations.
(2) Clinical evaluation should be in person and include a history, physical examination, and investigations (ECG, serum troponin and inflammatory markers).
(3) Most cases are benign, respond rapidly to NSAIDs alone, and can be safely managed in the ambulatory setting.
(4) All suspected and confirmed cases should be reported to local/provincial or territorial public health authorities as Adverse Events Following Immunization (AEFI)

Do you have any concerns over reports of myocarditis and pericarditis from people who’ve take the so-called vaccine? Don’t worry, it’s apparently nothing to be worried about.

In fairness, it’s a bit unclear whether this is the CPS’ official position, or just the work of contributors they published. Either way, it’s disturbing.

In their (now removed or relocated) policy position, the CPS references to myocarditis and pericarditis issues and seems to recommend the vaccines to children anyway. They do recommend these diagnoses be reported, however.

The CPS acknowledges that these “vaccines” could be causing heart problems, including in children. This group STILL recommends that kids get them. One has to wonder if there is more to this than meets the eye. Readers of this site will immediately suspect that some money has changed hands.

And yes, the answer is always the same. This “independent” group has been getting funds from entities that have an interest in pushing certain narratives.

According to their profile with the Federal Government, the CPS is looking at: “Expanding access to paediatric medications and therapeutics through federal legislation, regulatory and policy change”. In practical terms, this means pushing for ever greater influence of big pharma, even onto young children.

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT YEAR MONEY
Health Canada (HC) 2019 $114,388.00
Health Canada (HC) 2020 $150,681.00
Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) 2017 $687,500.00
Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) 2018 $121,142.00
Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) 2019 $633,191.50
Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) 2020 $664,891.00
Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) 2021 $120,824.00
Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) 2021 $1,802,583.00
Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) 2019 $2,411,120.76
Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) 2020 $2,689,025.00

What a shocker. The Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC), and Health Canada, are both major contributors to the Canadian Paediatric Society. Interestingly, those are dwarfed in size by Public Services and Procurement Canada.

One of the lobbyists, Samantha Grill, used to work for the Aga Khan Foundation, but that probably has no connection with anything. Most likely it’s just a coincidence.

The recent grants from Procurement Canada appear to come as part of contracts to engage in tracking and surveillance of health issues in Canada. In other words, The CPS is effectively hired to collect research data on young children as part of Canada’s policy formations.

The above information is available from the Lobbying Registry, and Open Search, two Government-run databases which track grants to various organizations.

To address the elephant in the room: does the CPS take private money? Yes it does, in the form of sponsorships. For the low price of $50,000 or $75,000 one can receive the following additional benefits:

  • Co-develop an accredited, 1-hour education symposium (includes coverage of all expenses: accreditation fees, speaker costs, meeting room rental, audio-visual service, catering and event promotion). Verbal recognition by session moderator and logo recognition as part of session
  • Opportunity to co-develop an accredited online education module at a discounted rate. The module will be hosted on. Pedagogy for 1 year
  • One-on-one meeting with CPS leadership and CPS staff

This was outlined in a paper promoting the conference in May 2022. Now, who would want to develop education modules, or education symposiums? Why, drug companies of course. That way, paediatricians can be “educated” in the latest wonder drug that big pharma has to offer.

It seems unlikely that individuals would be interested in dropping this kind of money, regardless of the prestige. However, a drug company would just see this as the cost of doing business.

This comes across as a pay-to-play system where a large enough cheque means determining what gets addressed with other members.

Of course, this issue isn’t limited to the Canadian group. The Provinces also have similar organizations, and they also appear to be compromised. Take the time to do your own research.

(1) https://cps.ca/
(2) https://caringforkids.cps.ca/handouts/healthy-living/masks-and-children-during-covid
(3) https://cps.ca/en/about-apropos
(4) https://cps.ca/documents/position/clinical-guidance-for-youth-with-myocarditis-and-pericarditis
(5) Canadian Paediatric Society Pericarditis Myocarditis
(6) http://web.archive.org/web/20211220062530/https://cps.ca/en/documents/position/vaccine-for-children-5-to-11
(7) https://apps.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/hacc/srch/pub/dsplyRprtngPrd?q.srchNmFltr=paediatric&q.stts=0007&selectedCharityBn=118920412RR0001&dsrdPg=1
(8) Canadian Paediatric Foundation Charity
(9) https://search.open.canada.ca/en/gc/
(10) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=258842&regId=918505
(11) https://buyandsell.gc.ca/procurement-data/tender-notice/PW-SS-041-34649
(12) https://twitter.com/CanPaedSociety
(13) https://cps.ca/uploads/about/Final_-_2022_CPS_Sponsorship_Opportunities_Document_-_August_20_-_2021.pdf
(14) Final_-2022_CPS_Sponsorship_Opportunities_Document–August_20-_2021
(15) https://www.linkedin.com/in/samantha-grills-ba240742/details/experience/
(16) Experience _ Samantha Grills _ LinkedIn

(A) https://canucklaw.ca/health-canada-initially-created-for-population-control-measures/
(B) https://canucklaw.ca/cv-62g-public-health-agency-of-canada-created-as-branch-of-who
(C) https://canucklaw.ca/canadian-pharmaceutical-sciences-foundation-a-registered-charity-funded-by-drug-companies/
(D) https://canucklaw.ca/canadian-pharmacists-association-campaigning-at-taxpayer-expense-to-grow-big-drug-industry/
(E) https://canucklaw.ca/canadian-immunization-research-network-is-funded-by-big-pharma/
(F) https://canucklaw.ca/society-of-obstetricians-and-gynaecologists-funded-by-pfizer-recommends-vaccines-boosters/
(G) https://canucklaw.ca/canimmunize-working-with-big-pharma-on-national-vaccination-certification-medical-research/

Posted on

“A Death Resulting From A Clinically Compatible Illness, In A Probable Or Confirmed COVID-19 Case”

The work that real truthers do is invaluable. As an example, there are many, like Fluoride Free Peel, proving this “deadly virus” doesn’t really exist. Another one to look up is Andrew Kaufman.

Under the quack definition of “isolation”, alleged viruses are supposedly isolated by mixing them with bovine, pig or monkey cells and cultured. An obvious question would be: why aren’t samples taken directly from the patient? It would be comical if not for the fact that a lot of people take this seriously.

For those not wishing to get involved in a scientific debate, let’s do something simpler. What exactly is a Covid death, according to the World Health Organization? What strict scientific and medical standards are applied in making such diagnoses?

We are always told to trust the science. But what do the official guidelines say about what a “Covid death” really is?

2. DEFINITION FOR DEATHS DUE TO COVID-19
A death due to COVID-19 is defined for surveillance purposes as a death resulting from a clinically compatible illness, in a probable or confirmed COVID-19 case, unless there is a clear alternative cause of death that cannot be related to COVID disease (e.g. trauma). There should be no period of complete recovery from COVID-19 between illness and death.
.
A death due to COVID-19 may not be attributed to another disease (e.g. cancer) and should be counted independently of preexisting conditions that are suspected of triggering a severe course of COVID-19.

Unfortunately, this isn’t satire. The WHO actually provides this incredibly vague and meaningless definition. (See archive here). It’s been covered elsewhere on this site, but so far, hasn’t had an article devoted to it.

Not only is there the issue of no isolation, WHO recommends in its March 2020 (see page 3), and September 2020 (see page 8), guidance NOT to isolate for routine testing.

Perhaps WHO just doesn’t want proper testing done normally to save money?! Well, not really, their own paperwork (see archive) indicates that they view testing for just a gene to be sufficient.

If the included video isn’t of high enough resolution (it was compressed), then it’s available on Odysee or Bitchute as well.

There are plenty of other examples of this. Please, do a little digging, using the definition provided above. The above video contains several cases of this fraudulent definition being used, but many more are available.

(1) https://www.who.int/classifications/icd/Guidelines_Cause_of_Death_COVID-19.pdf
(2) WHO Guidelines Classification Of Death
(3) https://www.bitchute.com/video/iKXqxr8RgNQz/
(4) https://odysee.com/@CanuckLaw:8/Definitions-Matter:d
(5) https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/fois-reveal-that-health-science-institutions-around-the-world-have-no-record-of-sars-cov-2-isolation-purification/
(6) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/WHO-COVID-19-laboratory-Testing-March-17-2020.pdf
(7) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/WHO-2019-nCoV-laboratory-September-11-2020-Guidelines.pdf

Posted on

Health Canada Initially Created For Population Control Measures

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Timeline Of Major Events In Public Health

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

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

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

2. International Sanitary Conferences: 1851 to 1938

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

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

3. Revised Statutes Of Canada In 1906

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

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

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

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

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

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

5. Canadian Public Health Association Created In 1910

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

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

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

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

6. Department Of Health Created In 1919, Bill 37

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

9. WHO Membership Means Submitting To THEIR Constitution

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

10. World Health Organization Gives Itself/Officials Immunity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

12. Binding Global “Pandemic Management” Treaty Proposed

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

13. Final Thoughts On This Subject

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

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

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

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

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

(1) https://www.pc.gc.ca/en/culture/clmhc-hsmbc/res/information-backgrounder/espagnole-spanish
(2) Evils Of Quarantine Laws
(3) https://www.amazon.com/-/es/William-White/dp/1231197994
(4) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-6/20021231/P1TT3xt3.html
(5) https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/health-canada
(6) https://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/index.aspx
(7) https://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/details.aspx?lang=eng&id=103984&t=637793587893732877
(8) https://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/details.aspx?lang=eng&id=103990&t=637793587893576566
(9) https://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/details.aspx?lang=eng&id=103997&t=637793622744842730
(10) https://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/details.aspx?lang=eng&id=105025&t=637793622744842730
(11) https://www.jstor.org/stable/41975722
(12) https://parl.canadiana.ca/browse/eng/c/bills/13-2
(13) https://parl.canadiana.ca/view/oop.bills_HOC_1302_1/554?r=0&s=1
(14) https://parl.canadiana.ca/browse/eng/c/bills/16-2
(15) https://parl.canadiana.ca/view/oop.bills_HOC_1602_1/778?r=0&s=1
(16) https://parl.canadiana.ca/view/oop.bills_HOC_1905_1/7?r=0&s=1
(17) https://parl.canadiana.ca/view/oop.bills_HOC_1905_1/542?r=0&s=1
(18) https://parl.canadiana.ca/view/oop.HOC_32_2_C2_C9/427?r=0&s=1
(19) https://parl.canadiana.ca/view/oop.bills_HOC_1602_1/778?r=0&s=1
(20) https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/62873/14549_eng.pdf
(21) The scientific background Of International Sanitary Conferences
(22) https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/128165/EB9_35_eng.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
(23) 1951 International Sanitation Regulations
(24) https://iiif.wellcomecollection.org/pdf/b22419743
(25) 1907 Creation Of International Public Health
(26) https://www.who.int/governance/eb/who_constitution_en.pdf
(27) https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/88834
(28) ihr.convention.on.immunities.privileges
(29) https://apps.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/hacc/srch/pub/bscSrch
(30) https://www.who.int/news-room/commentaries/detail/op-ed—covid-19-shows-why-united-action-is-needed-for-more-robust-international-health-architecture

Posted on

Compilation Video Of “Pandemic” Psychological Warfare Against Society (Extended Also Available)

A video of nearly 90 minutes has been put together for your viewing. Yes, it’s a bit glitchy in a few places, but this is the first attempt something this size. Nothing here should be all that surprising. A page will be going up soon with all of the supporting links for more information.

Given YouTube’s rather “questionable” (or non-existent) commitment to free speech, here it is posted on Odysee. Everyone who sees it is encouraged to save and/or mirror it. The censorship gods strike hard and fast.

The extended version is also posted, which contains material that was missing from the previous video. Here it is on Odysee.

Considering how easy most of this was to find, the only explanation for it not being reported in the mainstream press is that they have been bought off. This applies to “conservative” media and to the vast majority of self-described independents.

Thank you to a number of people who have helped out over the last year, and in particular, Fred and Andy. Christine and Shelly also deserve a shoutout for their work.

Happy New Year, everyone!

Take care of yourselves, and your families.

(1) https://odysee.com/@CanuckLaw:8/CV-Is-A-Real-Danger:f
(2) https://odysee.com/@CanuckLaw:8/CV-Hoax-Compilation-02:d
(3) https://www.bitchute.com/video/MmFDnULRHs1L/
(4) https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/fois-reveal-that-health-science-institutions-around-the-world-have-no-record-of-sars-cov-2-isolation-purification/
(5) https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCRBSHsj0RvI-IYO0qUmMbvA
(6) https://www.amazon.ca/dp/B095Y515XK
(7) https://www.amazon.ca/dp/B09BCNP48J

Posted on

Nova Scotia FOI Shows Province Has No Evidence “Asymptomatic Spreading” Even Exists

Freedom of information requests (or access to information) can often unearth a treasure trove of data. Alternatively, it can force the body in question to admit that it doesn’t have records that are being sought. After 2 years of this “pandemic” nonsense, one would think that a huge body of evidence had piled up.

Our friend in Nova Scotia is back at it again, digging up dirt and information about the tyranny of Robert Strang. Here are some of the latest finds. Previously, there was the hospitalization scam debunked, the lack of data for masks in schools, the screwy definition of “cases”, and Nova Scotia reduced (yes, reduced) ICU capacity.

Now, let’s see what a doozy the latest round of FOIs bring:

On November 22, 2021 Nova Scotia Health (NSH) received your request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIPOP Act).
.
We understand your application to be for a copy of the following:
Any record, proof, document, report that an asymptomatic positive COVID-19 case is contagious and spread to others in Nova Scotia.
.
We have conducted a thorough search of our records, but we were not able to find any records responsive to your request. We are now closing your file.
.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

So, Nova Scotia has had a mask mandate for well over a year, in order to stop healthy people from “spreading a virus”. However, the Government admits it has no evidence to support any of this.

For some wider context: despite all the fear-porn, there is no hospitalization wave in Nova Scotia. In fact, the Province has reduced ICU capacity in recent years. Although there’s no evidence this virus exists, let alone can spread in healthy people, they impose masks on children. And all of this came after forcing businesses to shut down (many for good), and all in some abstract sense of public health. Let’s not forget the attempts to ban public gatherings.

Pretty strange, after the tyrant Iain Rankin was voted out, Nova Scotians were expecting liberty. Instead, they got Tim Houston, who does pretty much the same thing. It’s almost as if they’re all in it together.

UPDATE TO ARTICLE: It appears that Nova Scotia doesn’t have its own records on this subject. It seems that it simply relies on PHAC (Public Health Agency of Canada) and WHO to tell it what to do. Interesting. For some background on PHAC’s real roots, check this out.

Also, if you haven’t looked at Fluoride Free Peel, Christine Massey and her group have done a stunning amount of work proving that this “virus” has never actually been isolated. What is shown on television is just a computer simulation of what people claim they believe it looks like.

It’s nice to see truthers hard at work, but we need more of them.

(1) 2021-185 No Responsive records, Asymptomatic Spreading
(2) https://canucklaw.ca/nova-scotia-foi-response-tacitly-admits-there-is-no-wave-of-hospitalizations/
(3) https://canucklaw.ca/nova-scotia-foi-result-province-refuses-to-turn-over-data-studies-justifying-masks-in-schools/
(4) https://canucklaw.ca/more-foi-requests-from-nova-scotia-trying-to-get-answers-on-this-pandemic/
(5) https://canucklaw.ca/nova-scotia-foi-request-shows-province-reduced-icu-capacity-in-recent-years/
(6) https://canucklaw.ca/cv-62g-public-health-agency-of-canada-created-as-branch-of-who-bill-c-12-phac-act/
(7) https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/fois-reveal-that-health-science-institutions-around-the-world-have-no-record-of-sars-cov-2-isolation-purification/