Category: Health

Posted on

WHO Paper On Vaccine Passport Implementation & Specifications Funded By Gates, Rockefeller

Despite the claim of “VACCINE PASSPORTS” being dismissed as a lunatic conspiracy theory in 2020, the World Health Organization has put out its own guidelines for establishing such a system. This issue isn’t just being discussed, but has been studied and written about. Here is the paper they just released. It covers technical specifications and implementation guidance.

Then again, WHO published a paper on MANDATORY VACCINATION back in April 2021, despite repeatedly saying that such predictions were conspiracy theories. Absurdly, WHO admits these so-called vaccines only have emergency use authorization, but were still open to the idea of making them compulsory.

Reading through this paper, disturbing, yet unsurprising things emerge.

Page v: Contributors to this paper are named. These include: Beth Newcombe (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada); Maxwell J Smith (University of Toronto); Stephen Wilson (Lockstep Group); Beverly Knight (ISO TC215 Health Informatics Canadian Mirror Committee); all members and observers of the Smart Vaccination Certificate
Working Group.

Lockstep Group is an interesting name, considering that this “pandemic” is heavily based on the Lockstep Narrative that was laid out a decade ago. Of course, that document came from none other than the Rockefeller Foundation.

And a WHO operative working at the University of Toronto? Who would ever have seen that one coming? It’s not like Rockefeller was a major donor to that school, or was heavily involved in starting up the public health industry.

Page vi: For starters, the funders of this project are listed very briefly. “This work was funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Government of Estonia, Fondation Botnar, the State of Kuwait, and the Rockefeller Foundation. The views of the funding bodies have not influenced the content of this document.”

This work was funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Government of Estonia, Fondation Botnar, the State of Kuwait, and the Rockefeller Foundation. The views of the funding bodies have not influenced the content of this document.

Then again, GAVI (which Gates finances), Microsoft (which Gates used to run), and the Rockefeller Foundation all contributed to the launch of ID2020, a global digital identification initiative. This was started back in 2016. But connecting the obvious dots is probably a conspiracy theory.

Microsoft is also a partner (along with the Ontario Ministry of Health), of the Vaccine Credential Initiative. But again, nothing to see here.

As for Fondation Botnar: it claims to: “champion the use of AI and digital technology to improve the health and wellbeing of children and young people in growing urban environments around the world. We do this by supporting research, catalysing diverse partners, and investing in scalable solutions.” Not that there would be a business angle here, or anything.

Page xiv: Not too long ago, there was heavy criticism when it was predicted that vaccination would become a requirement for work, education, or international travel? Instead, those uses, are explicitly suggested by WHO as places to implement them.

The primary target audience of this document is national authorities tasked with creating or overseeing the development of a digital vaccination certificate solution for COVID-19. The document may also be useful to government partners such as local businesses, international organizations, non-governmental organizations and trade associations, that may be required to support Member States in developing or deploying a DDCC:VS solution.

Page 2, Section 1.2: This isn’t just some academic piece or philosophical musings. The authors of this paper fully intend for this to be used by Governments. Furthermore, businesses and trade organizations will be expected to help out in the support of this. We would have a few of those, right? See here and here for some examples.

Page 5, Section 1.5: Remember those International Health Regulations, which Governments insist are not legally binding? Turns out they actually are, and formed part of the basis for this guidance document. Also, the 2005 Quarantine Act was in fact based on anticipated rules of the 3rd Edition WHO-IHR, which came out that year.

Also, those papers which comes as a result of those emergency meetings (8 so far) are binding on countries as well. They are instructions — or at least guidelines — for how to run internal affairs.

As with any digital solution, there are ethical considerations, such as potential impacts on equity and on equitable access, and data protection principles that need to inform the design of the technical specifications, as well as provide guidance on how resulting solutions can be ethically implemented. The following sections discuss some key ethical considerations and data protection principles that Member States are encouraged to – and, where they have legal obligations, must – include in their respective deployments of any DDCC:VS. These ethical considerations and data protection principles have also informed the design criteria for a DDCC:VS outlined in the following section

Page 6, Chapter 2: We start getting into the ethical issues at this point. Strangely, there doesn’t seem to be any mention that these “vaccines” are only authorized by a continued emergency status. Also, there is apparently no moral dilemma over policies that amount to coercion.

While COVID-19 vaccines may eventually be widely accessible, current global distribution is inequitable and there are populations that vaccination programmes may struggle to reach due to, for example, geography, terrain, transient or nomadic movement, war and conflict, or illegal or insecure residency status. These hard-to-reach populations (e.g. refugees, asylum seekers, internally displaced persons) are disproportionately less likely to have an opportunity to be vaccinated and obtain a DDCC:VS.

Page 8, Section 2.1.1: Although there seems to be no concern with coercion of unproven injections onto the general public, they are concerned about people being in the country illegally. Now, this is not because this is morally wrong, but since it will make such people harder to reach.

Chapter 2 goes on and on about privacy of information, but intentionally omits mentioning how wrong it is to pressure people into taking these concoctions in the first place. WHO seems to be very partial and selective about what issues are worth considering. And no, this topic hasn’t been “settled” or anything of the sort.

Chapters 3 through 6 go into considerable detail about technical requirements for how to implement such a system, and how to ensure everyone getting injected has a record of it. The particulars are beyond the scope of this review, but yes, they are building national (and most likely international) databases of vaccinations.

Chapter 7 goes into national considerations, and how countries can implement systems that each other can trust. Apparently, a central authority is to be trusted to maintain and update these records. It also addresses the revocation of vaccination status, not that it will ever be abused.

Chapter 8 gets into short and long term goals. Score another one for the conspiracy nuts, but WHO talks about how this system, once fully implemented, could be used for OTHER health records and databases. It’s almost as if this was meant as some sort of bait-and-switch.

  • SHORT-TERM DDCC:VS SOLUTION: Deploy a short-term DDCC:VS solution to address the immediate need of the pandemic that includes a clearly established end date and a roadmap towards discontinuing the DDCC:VS solution once COVID-19 is no longer considered a Public Health Emergency of International Concern under the IHR.
  • LONG-TERM DDCC:VS SOLUTION: Deploy a DDCC:VS solution to address the immediate needs of the pandemic but also to build digital health infrastructure that can be a foundation for digital vaccination certificates beyond COVID-19 (e.g. digital home-based records for childhood immunizations) and support other digital health initiatives.

Page 60: The references used are listed. It’s worth mentioning that the first few have to do with people making counterfeit records. This seems designed to push the narrative that such things are unreliable, and that only a digital system can be run.

Page 60: Reference #13 stands out. It is actually a paper published in 2015, concerning home-based vaccination records as a way to advance immunizations, particularly for children. Now, this was mainly manual (not digital) at the time, but now we are in the next generation.

Page 63: the paper outlines an example of what a digital pass would look like. A QR code would be visible, but inside, there would be the personal information about what shots the person had. Interesting that it’s referred to as a National Vaccine Card. That was something else previously dismissed as a tin-foil hat ranting.

Back in December 2020, the WHO put out a call for nominations for “experts” for the Smart Vaccination Certificate technical specifications and standards of an incoming vaccine passport system. In an Orwellian twist, these passports (or digital passes, or whatever name one wants) are framed as a sort of human rights issue. Even as the WHO and their puppets are reassuring people that these “movement licenses” are a fantasy, they are recruiting people to look at the feasibility.

At what point can it no longer be denied that all of this is very well planned and coordinated?

(1) https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/343361
(2) WHO Vaccine Passport Specifications Guidelines
(3) https://www.who.int/news-room/articles-detail/world-health-organization-open-call-for-nomination-of-experts-to-contribute-to-the-smart-vaccination-certificate-technical-specifications-and-standards-application-deadline-14-december-2020
(4) https://id2020.org/
(5) https://www.who.int/about/ethics/declarations-of-interest
(6) https://www.who.int/news/item/04-06-2021-revised-scope-and-direction-for-the-smart-vaccination-certificate-and-who-s-role-in-the-global-health-trust-framework
(7) WHO Paper On MANDATORY Vaccination April 13, 2021 (Original)
(8) WHO Paper On MANDATORY Vaccination April 13, 2021 (Copy)
(9) https://www.who.int/news/item/23-01-2020-statement-on-the-meeting-of-the-international-health-regulations-(2005)-emergency-committee-regarding-the-outbreak-of-novel-coronavirus-(2019-ncov)
(10) https://www.who.int/news/item/30-01-2020-statement-on-the-second-meeting-of-the-international-health-regulations-(2005)-emergency-committee-regarding-the-outbreak-of-novel-coronavirus-(2019-ncov)
(11) https://www.who.int/news/item/01-05-2020-statement-on-the-third-meeting-of-the-international-health-regulations-(2005)-emergency-committee-regarding-the-outbreak-of-coronavirus-disease-(covid-19)
(12) https://www.who.int/news/item/01-08-2020-statement-on-the-fourth-meeting-of-the-international-health-regulations-(2005)-emergency-committee-regarding-the-outbreak-of-coronavirus-disease-(covid-19)
(13) https://www.who.int/news/item/30-10-2020-statement-on-the-fifth-meeting-of-the-international-health-regulations-(2005)-emergency-committee-regarding-the-coronavirus-disease-(covid-19)-pandemic
(14) https://www.who.int/news/item/15-01-2021-statement-on-the-sixth-meeting-of-the-international-health-regulations-(2005)-emergency-committee-regarding-the-coronavirus-disease-(covid-19)-pandemic
(15) https://www.who.int/news/item/19-04-2021-statement-on-the-seventh-meeting-of-the-international-health-regulations-(2005)-emergency-committee-regarding-the-coronavirus-disease-(covid-19)-pandemic
(16) https://www.who.int/news/item/15-07-2021-statement-on-the-eighth-meeting-of-the-international-health-regulations-(2005)-emergency-committee-regarding-the-coronavirus-disease-(covid-19)-pandemic

Posted on

Canadian Biosafety Handbook: Information On Masks And Respiratory Protection (May 2016)

Ever wonder what the Federal guidelines say on employees having to wear masks or respirators? Take a look at the Canadian Biosafety Handbook, Second Edition, from May 2016. Section 9.1.6 has some pretty interesting information on that subject.

Incidently, thank you to this man, David Dickson, who mentioned the CBH in his speech, even in passing. See 23:10 for him addressing the issue. The original was posted by Angry Albertan. Yes, this brief statement warranted an investigation, and his reference turned out to be accurate.

Note: this is not to make any guarantee that the information in this handbook. Nonetheless, there is some interesting information available here.

2.2 Viruses
Viruses are the smallest of replicating organisms. Their small size (20-300 nm) allows them to pass through filters that typically capture the smallest bacteria. Viruses have no metabolism of their own and redirect existing host machinery and metabolic functions to replicate. Structurally, the simplest viruses consist of nucleic acids enclosed in a protein capsid (nucleocapsid). Enveloped viruses have a more complex structure in which the nucleocapsid is enclosed inside a lipid bilayer membrane; this membrane facilitates the virus’s interaction with the host cell.

Let’s look at this for a moment. Setting aside the issue that epidemiology is a pseudo-science at best, the Canadian Government claims viruses are between 20-300 nm, or nanometers. However, the mask guidelines listed below fall far, far below that standard.

If viruses actually were airborne, then these masks would provide no protection whatsoever. Then again, does this “virus” even exist?

9.1.6 Masks and Respiratory Protection
Safe operational practices and the use of primary containment devices can limit the creation of, and exposure to, infectious aerosols or aerosolized toxins. Surgical masks and many types of dust masks offer little protection from airborne pathogens, infectious aerosols, or aerosolized toxin, but will protect mucous membranes of the nose and mouth from spills and splashes. Masks are not intended to be used more than once. Respirators are used when there is a risk of exposure to aerosolized toxins or infectious aerosols that can be transmitted through the inhalation route. Respirators are divided into two classes: air purifying respirators and atmosphere-supplying respirators. The type of respirator selected will depend on the hazard associated with the particular activity being carried out. Personnel education on airborne hazards and training on respirator selection, fit, inspection, and maintenance are some examples of elements of a workplace respiratory protection program, which is required for any workplace where respirators are used. Where applicable, respiratory protection should conform to standard CSA Z94.4, Selection, Use and Care of Respirators.

9.1.6.1 Respirator Fit
All respirators need to fit properly in order to function as intended. Some types of respirators require a seal between the apparatus and the wearer’s face in order to provide adequate protection. Using the wrong respirator or misusing one can be as dangerous as not wearing one at all. The respirator should be individually selected and fitted to the operator’s face, and fit tested for its seal. Facial hair, imperfections of the skin, cosmetics, and changes in a person’s weight can affect respirator fit. Most jurisdictions within Canada currently require qualitative or quantitative fit-testing to be conducted to demonstrate proper fit for the selected respirator(s) before an individual carries out any activities that require respiratory protection. In addition, standard CSA Z94.4, Selection, Use, and Care of Respirators, requires that an employer take reasonable precautions to verify that an individual is medically cleared to wear a respirator. Proper use and care of respiratory protection equipment is a core component of the training program in workplaces where respirators are used.

9.1.6.2 Air Purifying Respirators
Air purifying respirators help reduce the concentration of microorganisms and particulates in the air inhaled by the user to an acceptable exposure level by passing the air through a particulate filter or chemical cartridge. Half-mask air purifying respirators cover the nose and mouth but not the eyes, while full-face air purifying respirators cover the entire face. Disposable half-mask air purifying respirators, including the N95 and N100 type respirators, are designed for single use. Non-powered half-mask and full-face respirators can also use disposable filter cartridges to provide a similar level of protection. Non-powered respirators work through the creation of negative-pressure inside the respirator during inhalation. There are nine classifications of particulate filters used with non-powered respirators approved by the United States National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). These are the N-Series (N95, N99, N100; not resistant to oil), R-Series (R95, R99, R100; oil-resistant), and P-Series (P95, P99, P100; oil-proof). The associated numbers identify the efficiency in removing contaminants. Respirators rated at N95 or higher are adequate to protect personnel carrying out most activities with microorganisms.

9.1.6.3 Powered Air Purifying Respirators
Powered air purifying respirators (PAPRs) create a positive-pressure around the wearer’s head. PAPRs are designed to be decontaminated and reused, and the disposable filter cartridges are replaced on a regular basis, as determined by an LRA. Particulate filters for PAPR units are all high efficiency (HE), which are certified to be 99.97% efficient at filtering the most penetrating particle size (0.3 µm). Due to the effects of impaction, diffusion, and interception, high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters are even more efficient for particles that are either smaller or larger than 0.3 µm. Most PAPR filters are suitable for use against oil-based aerosols; however, this is not always the case and users should check the manufacturer instructions before use in oil environments.

9.1.6.4 Atmosphere-Supplying Respirators
Atmosphere-supplying respirators deliver clean, breathable air from a source such as a compressed air cylinder or tank. These are generally supplied-air respirators, but could be a self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA). Supplied-air respirators deliver air through a small hose connected to an air compressor or a cylinder of compressed air, whereas SCBAs supply breathable air from a portable cylinder worn on the back.

Now, remember that viruses are (allegedly) 20-300 nanometers, according to Section 2.2. That is quite the range, and we are taking what they say at face value.

Section 9.1.6 starts by stating: “Surgical masks and many types of dust masks offer little protection from airborne pathogens, infectious aerosols, or aerosolized toxin, but will protect mucous membranes of the nose and mouth from spills and splashes”. So your bandana or teflon coated dental mask will achieve nothing.

Turning to 9.1.6.3, Powered air purifying respirators (or PAPRs) claim to be 99.97% effective at filtering particles of 0.3 µm, or 0.3 micrometers. However, do a little conversion: 0.3 µm = 300 nm. Considering that viruses are (supposedly) between 20-300 nm, even pressurized protection will only be effective at the upper range of this.

Funny how the experts never seem to address this.

(1) https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/canadian-biosafety-standards-guidelines/handbook-second-edition.html
(2) https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/phac-aspc/migration/cbsg-nldcb/cbh-gcb/assets/pdf/cbh-gcb-eng.pdf
(3) Canada Biosafety Handbook May 2016
(4) https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=878784959416690
(5) https://www.facebook.com/watch/live/?v=901642553914115
(6) https://www.bitchute.com/video/eBATI8iMdNM2/

Posted on

Canadian Public Health Association Is A Charity, Funded By Drug Companies

The Canadian Public Health Association, or CPHA, is an organization that tries to influence health policy within Canada and abroad. Also, check out the British Fertility Society, the U.S. Council on Patient Safety, the American College Health Foundation (ACHF), the Canadian Immunization Research Network (CIRN), or the Canadian Pharmaceutical Sciences Foundation (CPSF). All have similar ties.

But that seems harmless enough, right? Surely, these are all well meaning people. However, when one looks up who their major sponsors are, certain names stand out. This certainly is cause for concern, given how much money is known to influence the law and politics.

It’s a shame that this group doesn’t specify the amount that these “platinum” sponsors (or donors) contribute. Although the page has since been edited, the archive is still available, as is a pdf version. That being said, this prominent list includes:

  • AstraZeneca
  • Medicago
  • Merck
  • Moderna
  • Sanofi Pasteur
  • Seqirus

Yes, this organization’s biggest private donors are drug companies, including AstraZeneca, Merck and Moderna, who have a significant financial interest in ensuring the Canadian Government keeps purchasing their vaccines. Things get even more interesting, since the CPHA is actually a charity, registered with the Canada Revenue Agency. Not only is big pharma financing the CPHA, but those grants are subsidized by the public in terms of tax rebates.

CPHA was incorporated in 1912, and it became a charity in 1975. Its CRA registration is 106865744 RR 0001. How the CPHA describes its activities is also very interesting. Corporate documents can also be ordered on the Federal site.

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 Canada Revenue Agency also provides a snapshot of the finances of all charities over the last 5 years. Looking through some of the data, we get this information:

2016 Financials Summary
Receipted donations $17,952.00 (0.61%)
Non-receipted donations $693,500.00 (23.43%)
Gifts from other registered charities $45,561.00 (1.54%)
Government funding $759,823.00 (25.67%)
All other revenue $1,443,165.00 (48.76%)
Total revenue: $2,960,001.00

Charitable programs $2,217,691.00 (75.52%)
Management and administration $478,049.00 (16.28%)
Fundraising $17,565.00 (0.60%)
Political activities $96,389.00 (3.28%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $0.00 (0.00%)
Other $126,791.00 (4.32%)
Total expenses: $2,936,485.00

2017 Financials Summary
Receipted donations $6,562.00 (0.23%)
Non-receipted donations $334,000.00 (11.74%)
Gifts from other registered charities $65,979.00 (2.32%)
Government funding $1,485,693.00 (52.21%)
All other revenue $953,575.00 (33.51%)
Total revenue: $2,845,809.00

Charitable programs $2,275,825.00 (75.97%)
Management and administration $489,917.00 (16.35%)
Fundraising $9,128.00 (0.30%)
Political activities $98,965.00 (3.30%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $0.00 (0.00%)
Other $121,957.00 (4.07%)
Total expenses: $2,995,792.00

2018 Financials Summary
Receipted donations $100.00 (0.00%)
Non-receipted donations $565,702.00 (13.15%)
Gifts from other registered charities $77,135.00 (1.79%)
Government funding $1,933,773.00 (44.94%)
All other revenue $1,726,656.00 (40.12%)
Total revenue: $4,303,366.00

Charitable programs $3,404,797.00 (82.24%)
Management and administration $498,188.00 (12.03%)
Fundraising $9,405.00 (0.23%)
Political activities $101,965.00 (2.46%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $0.00 (0.00%)
Other $125,710.00 (3.04%)
Total expenses: $4,140,065.00

2019 Financials Summary
Receipted donations $100.00 (0.00%)
Non-receipted donations $565,702.00 (13.15%)
Gifts from other registered charities $77,135.00 (1.79%)
Government funding $1,933,773.00 (44.94%)
All other revenue $1,726,656.00 (40.12%)
Total revenue: $4,303,366.00

Charitable programs $2,609,623.00 (80.85%)
Management and administration $487,201.00 (15.09%)
Fundraising $9,554.00 (0.30%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $0.00 (0.00%)
Other $121,370.00 (3.76%)
Total expenses: $3,227,748.00

2020 Financials Summary
Receipted donations $2,736.00 (0.07%)
Non-receipted donations $397,000.00 (9.57%)
Gifts from other registered charities $8,734.00 (0.21%)
Government funding $2,500,250.00 (60.29%)
All other revenue $1,238,324.00 (29.86%)
Total revenue: $4,147,044.00

Charitable programs $2,877,407.00 (82.79%)
Management and administration $552,487.00 (15.90%)
Fundraising $9,548.00 (0.27%)
Political activities $0.00 (0.00%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $0.00 (0.00%)
Total expenses: $3,475,665.00

It would be nice to know what “other revenue” means, considering it represents between a third and half of the money that this organization takes in.

Because of its status as a charity, donations to the CPHA only cost about half the amount given. Approximately 40% to 50% comes back in the form of tax rebates. That’s not the only subsidy this group gets. Oh, there are others indeed.

The CPHA is also receiving CEWS, the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy. This means that taxpayers are subsidizing this organization for “pandemic relief”. That could be part of why this group never seems to oppose any measures that are brought in.

Considering that CEWS is intended for private businesses to cover their employees’ salaries, this would seem to imply that CPHA isn’t part of the Government.

CPHA is (surprisingly) not currently registered with the Lobbying Commissioner’s Office. It hasn’t been for a while, and the last time they received money (according to their postings) is 2015.

CPHA has a number of projects on the go, and the climate change ones stand out. Of course, it’s not surprising that it would be intertwined with everything these days. Given this group’s connection to the pharmaceutical industry, it’s quite expected that they also promote the mass vaccination agenda. This from 2017:

Immunization is one of the most successful and cost effective public health interventions, saving countless number of lives through the reduction of morbidity and mortality caused by disease. Despite this, vaccine preventable diseases still persist in Canada, requiring high levels of immunization coverage for continued protection. To better understand the underlying causes and strategies to achieving optimal vaccine coverage and acceptance, a significant body of multifaceted and interdisciplinary research is being developed within the Canadian and international research community. The growing interest in identifying and addressing the challenges faced in improving vaccine acceptance and uptake has resulted in the development of relevant research data, tools, practices, procedures and strategies. However, not all evidence is made easily available and accessible to support health care professionals growing needs.

Following a report commissioned by the Communicable and Infectious Disease Steering Committee of the Pan-Canadian Public Health Network Opens in a new window from the Vaccine Acceptance and Uptake Task Group, a number of recommendations to improving vaccine coverage were made. One of which included the establishment of an up-to-date inventory of relevant peer reviewed research and studies underlying the causes and potential solutions to vaccine acceptance and uptake in Canada.

In July 2017, CPHA—funded by the Public Health Agency of Canada Opens in a new window through the Immunization Partnership Fund—launched the Creation of a Canadian Immunization Resource Centre project. The project aims to offer access to the latest evidence-based products, resources and tools via the Canadian Vaccination Evidence Resource and Exchange Centre (CANVax) Opens in a new window. CANVax is an online database of curated resources to support immunization program planning and promotional activities to improve vaccine acceptance and uptake in Canada.

PHAC, the Public Health Agency of Canada, has been helping fund the Canadian Immunization Resource Centre project. It stands to reason that companies like AstraZeneca and Moderna are as well. This is essentially market research, not much different than the Vaccine Confidence Project. Keep in mind, PHAC is actually a branch of the WHO, and not really Canadian.

DATE AMOUNT
Dec. 5, 2016 $136,782
Jul. 1, 2017 $15,795
Jul. 1, 2017 $180,418
Jul. 1, 2017 $3,582,970
Oct. 19, 2018 $896,893
Jan. 2, 2020 $3,122,867
May 25, 2020 $508,792

Through Open Search, we can see the donations PHAC has made to CPHA in recent years. That is quite a lot of money, considering that pushing drugs is one of its primary functions.

This is a group that advocates on behalf of certain health policies, including on widespread vaccination. It also receives taxpayer money (along with pharma money) to run its operations. But whose interests does it really serve?

(1) https://www.cpha.ca/
(2) https://www.cpha.ca/corporate-partners
(3) https://www.cpha.ca/projects
(4) https://www.cpha.ca/creation-canadian-immunization-resource-centre
(5) https://opengovca.com/corporation/959421
(6) Corporations Canada Search
(7) https://apps.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/hacc/srch/pub/bscSrch
(8) https://apps.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/hacc/cews/srch/pub/bscSrch
(9) https://www.lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=16210&regId=826615#regStart
(10) https://search.open.canada.ca/en/gc/
(11) CPHA 01 Continuance
(12) CPHA 02 Directors
(13) CPHA 03 Bylaws

Posted on

B.C. Health Care (Consent) And Care Facility (Admissions) Act Of 1996

With the looming vaccine passports in B.C. (and elsewhere), a good piece of legislation to know is the B.C. Health Care (Consent) And Care Facility (Admissions) Act Of 1996. It doesn’t really require much commentary, as the quoted passages are pretty self explanatory.

Part 2 — Consent to Health Care
.
Consent rights
4 Every adult who is capable of giving or refusing consent to health care has
(a) the right to give consent or to refuse consent on any grounds, including moral or religious grounds, even if the refusal will result in death,
(b) the right to select a particular form of available health care on any grounds, including moral or religious grounds,
(c) the right to revoke consent,
(d) the right to expect that a decision to give, refuse or revoke consent will be respected, and
(e) the right to be involved to the greatest degree possible in all case planning and decision making.

General rule — consent needed
5 (1) A health care provider must not provide any health care to an adult without the adult’s consent except under sections 11 to 15.
.
(2) A health care provider must not seek a decision about whether to give or refuse substitute consent to health care under section 11, 14 or 15 unless he or she has made every reasonable effort to obtain a decision from the adult.

Elements of consent
.
6 An adult consents to health care if
(a) the consent relates to the proposed health care,
(b) the consent is given voluntarily,
(c) the consent is not obtained by fraud or misrepresentation,
(d) the adult is capable of making a decision about whether to give or refuse consent to the proposed health care,
(e) the health care provider gives the adult the information a reasonable person would require to understand the proposed health care and to make a decision, including information about
(i) the condition for which the health care is proposed,
(ii) the nature of the proposed health care,
(iii) the risks and benefits of the proposed health care that a reasonable person would expect to be told about, and
(iv) alternative courses of health care, and
(f) the adult has an opportunity to ask questions and receive answers about the proposed health care.

How incapability is determined
7 When deciding whether an adult is incapable of giving, refusing or revoking consent to health care, a health care provider must base the decision on whether or not the adult demonstrates that he or she understands
(a) the information given by the health care provider under section 6 (e), and
(b) that the information applies to the situation of the adult for whom the health care is proposed.

No emergency health care contrary to wishes
12.1 A health care provider must not provide health care under section 12 if the health care provider has reasonable grounds to believe that the person, while capable and after attaining 19 years of age, expressed an instruction or wish applicable to the circumstances to refuse consent to the health care.

However, depending on how malicious the higher ups may be, there are sections that could be twisted and perverted to force certain types of health care. That being said, the whole issue of consent seems pretty clear cut.

Threatening someone’s livelihood, finances, or general freedoms in order to obtain consent amounts to coercion. And that is exactly what forced “vaccines” and tests do. And yes, this has been brought up many times, but these aren’t even approved by Health Canada. They have interim authorization. Considering the emergency declaration was cancelled in Ontario and B.C., this should actually be illegal.

Also check out the Ontario Health Care Consent Act of 1996. So-called medical professionals aren’t allowed to do anything to you if you don’t give voluntary and informed consent.

(1) https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/96181_01#part2
(2) https://canucklaw.ca/ontario-health-care-consent-act-of-1996-fyi-for-vaccines-or-tests/
(3) https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/astrazeneca-covid-19-vaccine-pm-en.pdf
(4) https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/janssen-covid-19-vaccine-pm-en.pdf
(5) https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/covid-19-vaccine-moderna-pm-en.pdf
(6) https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/pfizer-biontech-covid-19-vaccine-pm1-en.pdf
(7) https://www.laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/F-27/page-9.html#docCont
(8) https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-health-products/covid19-industry/drugs-vaccines-treatments/interim-order-import-sale-advertising-drugs.html#a2.3

Posted on

B.C. Mandates “Vaccine Passports”, No Emergency Order, No Approval, No Exemptions (AUDIO)

In a move that surprised no one, B.C. has announced its own vaccine passport, coming into effect on September 13, 2021. People who want to have some fun in their lives are about to have far fewer options.

There is the line near the end: “The measures will be time limited through to Jan. 31, 2022, subject to possible extension.” of course, subject to possible extension is a built-in loophole that will allow this to

A call to the Government, specifically, Patient & Client Relations, confirmed that this is exactly what they intended to do. There is no mistake or misunderstanding. The lack of qualifiers or exemptions in the directive were not the result or carelessness on someone’s part.

A few takeaways from this call:

  • No state of emergency needed to do it
  • No exemptions in order currently
  • No plans to put exemptions in later
  • No need to have approved vaccines (interim authorization is fine)
  • No guarantee this ends on January 31, 2022 (spoiler: it won’t)

The person on the other end of the call was pleasant enough, but clearly working from a script. It appeared that such inquiries were anticipated in advance. And where will this take effect?


(UPDATE) On Wednesday, August 25, I tried again. Someone different answered the phone, and she was much more hostile and testy than the previous one. It’s unclear whether she knew nothing about the vaccines themselves, or was coached on how to deceive and mislead. But it doesn’t really matter, as the result is the same.

A few takeaways from this 2nd call:

  • She doesn’t know (or lies) about vaccines not being approved
  • She doesn’t know (or lies) about risks to pregnant women
  • She doesn’t know (or lies) about risks to nursing mothers
  • She doesn’t know (or lies) about BCHRC having exemptions put in
  • She refused to specify where exactly in the law this was legal

Also, it was impossible to get through on the regular phone line, after that first call. Perhaps they are blocking numbers of people who ask difficult questions. Considering what they are trying to do, that isn’t too farfetched of an idea.

Another difference from the last call: this woman was very eager to get off the phone once it became clear that hard questions would be asked. She is little more than a mouthpiece and a gatekeeper.

As to where these “vaccine passports” will apply

-indoor ticketed sporting events
-indoor concerts
-indoor theatre/dance/symphony events
-restaurants (indoor and patio dining)
-night clubs
-casinos
-movie theatres
-fitness centres/gyms (excluding youth recreational sport)
-businesses offering indoor high-intensity group exercise activities
-organized indoor events (eg. weddings, parties, conferences, meetings, workshops)
-discretionary organized indoor group recreational classes and activities

And all of this comes despite M275, which cancelled the State of Emergency on June 30, 2021. Also, M273 cancelled the other measures. To reiterate, this isn’t being done under any emergency order, but is simply dictated by Bonnie Henry and her handlers.

To any university or college students, consider your options. This also applies to living in residence, and could very well be extended beyond that. In fact, more announcements are expected soon.

Other Provinces, like Quebec and Manitoba, are already implementing their own version.

Such moves will likely kill most of the rest of these industries. And that appears to be calculated. However, this seems even more insidious than at first glance.

As a few examples: BCRFA, the British Columbia Restaurant and Foodservices Association; BCHA, the B.C. Hotel Association; and ABLE BC, the Association for Beverage Licensees, openly promote the myriad of Government handouts that are available to their members. They do this at the same time they support vaccine passports and mask mandates, driving away both employees and customers. But, it doesn’t really matter to them, since the Government — or taxpayers — will just bail them out.

Not only are businesses in hospitality subsidized by CEWS, but so are the trade groups that represent them. These are just a few of the many examples.

BCRFA goes even further, actively trying to import a replacement workforce under “Express Entry”. This is no doubt because we don’t have enough people unemployed here already.

Collapsing the economies of B.C. other Provinces, and elsewhere, can only be explained as being deliberate. However, until that happens, taxpayers will be subsidizing organizations that are complicit in perpetuating this fraud and medical tyranny.

Where’s Action4Canada in all of this? They have been fundraising for a year, and “claim” to have retained Rocco Galati to sue the B.C. Government? Not holding out much hope for that. Even if a Statement of Claim is eventually filed, no guarantee it will ever go beyond that.

(1) https://news.gov.bc.ca/releases/2021HLTH0053-001659
(2) https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/health/about-bc-s-health-care-system/office-of-the-provincial-health-officer/current-health-topics/pandemic-influenza/contacts
(3) https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/mo/mo/m0275_2021?fbclid=IwAR309l-HdQCrEdBaF6q2dUMwr5CbevxjJ94CweOLK-VUSBx7bE-weX725KE
(4) https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/public-safety-and-emergency-services/emergency-preparedness-response-recovery/embc/reports/speaker/621140-letter_to_the_speaker-protective_measures-m273.pdf
(5) https://www.quebec.ca/en/health/health-issues/a-z/2019-coronavirus/progress-of-the-covid-19-vaccination/covid-19-vaccination-passport
(6) https://manitoba.ca/covid19/vaccine/immunizationrecord/index.html
(7) British Columbia Restaurant and Foodservices Association
(8) https://www.bcrfa.com/covid-19-enews
(9) https://archive.is/Vnjmg
(10) https://www.bcrfa.com/federal-support
(11) https://archive.is/uMgNE
(12) https://www.bcrfa.com/expressentry
(13) https://archive.is/1IehR
(14) https://www.bcha.com/covid-19-advocacy-efforts.html
(15) https://archive.is/mxG2D
(16) ABLE BC – AdvocacyReport v4
(17) https://apps.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/hacc/cews/srch/pub/bscSrch

Posted on

Nova Scotia FOI Response Tacitly Admits There Is No Wave Of Hospitalizations

The following information came as a result of a freedom of information request (FOI), that a concerned resident of Nova Scotia obtained. Also, this review from in-fact.ca is worth a look as well.

For privacy reasons, personal information has been scrubbed. However, the data obtained (in an Excel spreadsheet), is quite telling. This covers the range from January 2015, up to and including May 2021. There has been no death wave, despite the media hype.

Iain Rankin and Robert Strang are constantly leading the Nova Scotia public to believe that there is some wave of hospitalizations as a result of this so-called “pandemic”. However, going back to 2015, it seems that the ICU (intensive care unit), has always hovered about 100% capacity. If there is some capacity issue, and lack of beds, this is a problem that dates back many years.

The ICU incidents of hospitalization hasn’t shot up either. Aside from March/April 2020, when the hospitals were emptied, it has averaged around 700 to 800 per month.

Keep in mind, the data for the FOI only goes are as far as May 2021 (hence the apparent drop). Nonetheless, this doesn’t look like some wave that we all need to be scared about. The above tables show combined data from all Nova Scotia hospitals. But even separating the data out, there isn’t some big surge anywhere. Even using the Province’s own data — assuming it’s accurate — there is no cause to be alarmed about this “pandemic”.

Do any of these regional data charts show any “waves” of ICU hospitalization in 2020 or 2021? True, this isn’t all of them, but look at the raw data. There’s no surge in any of them.

Note: this isn’t about debating whether this “virus” exists, as there is no proof it does. Instead, this is about showing Nova Scotia’s own reported data. Even taking everything they say at face value, there is no pandemic. There is no wave of hospitals being overrun. Sure, they may be understaffed, but that’s a problem that goes back years.

One really has to wonder why the Province’s “Top Doctor”, who looks like an unhealthy slob, keeps pushing the narrative that there is a health crisis. Makes one ponder the true reason they wanted protests and gathering shut downs.

Thank you to the person who took the time to file this, and then share the FOI data. It’s been informative, although not surprising.

Since we’re on the topic of FOIs, do check out the work by Fluoride Free Peel. This group has been trying to prove (or disprove) the claims this “virus” has ever been isolated. The results are pretty shocking.

(1) Nova Scotia FOI Summer 2021 Data
(2) Copy of FOIPOP 82 Data
(3) Nova Scotia Hospitalization Data – Sorted
(4) https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/fois-reveal-that-health-science-institutions-around-the-world-have-no-record-of-sars-cov-2-isolation-purification/

*Disclaimers, Ethics* Proudly powered by WordPress