Christine Massey On: FOI Requests; Virus Isolation; Fluoride’s Harmful Effects

The following is from an interview that was supposed to be published in a European health magazine. There were some translation issues which ultimately prevented its release. Permission has been granted for this printing. In any event, go check out the work by Fluoride Free Peel.

A bit odd how most of the heroes who claim to be fighting this medical tyranny rarely (if ever) mention the fact that this “virus” has never been isolated. This is all based on lies.

(1) Massey Interview Isolation Purification

Before we get into the “SARS-COV-2” discussion, would you like to describe the Freedom of Information responses you have collected in regards to fluoride exposure during pregnancy, and what prompted you to begin that project?

A few years ago I submitted a series of 9 freedom of information requests to find out if public health institutions that promote water fluoridation had any primary studies to show that fluoride exposure is safe during pregnancy with respect to IQ and ADHD symptoms in their offspring. Dentists and public health officials in Canada and the U.S. are always telling us that water fluoridation is “safe and effective for everyone” and they call it a “great public health achievement”. But it turned out that they had no studies whatsoever.

I had focused on those particular outcomes because I was aware, thanks to the efforts of the wider community, that a large body of evidence had accumulated suggesting that fluoride is neurotoxic at high enough doses, and some high quality government-funded studies had recently showed that common fluoride exposure levels during pregnancy are associated with lower IQs and increased ADHD symptoms in offspring.

Many people aren’t aware, but there is currently a lawsuit underway against the U.S. EPA over their failure to regulate drinking water fluoride levels in a manner protective of neurological health. And this is only one of many concerns.

It had also come to light that the chemical typically used to fluoridate water here is actually an industrial hazardous waste acid that is contaminated, for example with arsenic and lead, and had never been subjected to long-term toxicology studies. We also knew that, after many decades of the practice, fluoridated water had still never been tested for effectiveness in humans via double-blind randomized controlled experiments. Health Canada’s 2014 FOI response to Ms. Joanne David confirmed those facts.

It is easy to prove using grade-school math that so-called “optimally fluoridated” water delivers contra-indicated doses of fluoride to children every single day (see slides 6 and 10 here). In every 350 ml glass of water a child receives the same amount of fluoride that all of the dental and public health authorities insist should be spit out, not swallowed, when brushing their teeth with the recommended amount of fluoridated toothpaste. Most dentists are completely unaware of this simple truth.

Despite the simplicity of this truth, even Medical Officers of Health sometimes try to dispute it, because they get paid massive salaries to push the government’s health agendas. I presented the simple math multiple times to the municipal council where I used to live. But only 1 sensible Councillor cared, the rest didn’t and they continued with the practice. It was like talking to a brick wall. And I wasn’t the only one trying to reason with them and showing them evidence of harm, many other people were doing the same thing.

What is your academic background?

I have a master’s degree in biostatistics from Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto. I used to work as a statistician with cancer researchers.

Some might claim that because you are not an expert on fluoride toxicity, or a virologist, your input is of no value on either topic. How would you respond to that?

No one needs a special background to grasp the grade-school math mentioned above, or the lack of randomized controlled studies to prove the alleged effectiveness of fluoridated water, or the lack of toxicology studies on the chemical, or to notice the blatant double-standard that is applied by the public health community and dentists.

If you show them a study that suggests ineffectiveness or harm to humans, they will dismiss it because it’s not a controlled experiment and they will go through it with a fine-tooth comb to point out weaknesses. What they won’t tell you is that they have zero controlled human experiments to prove effectiveness or safety, and that they rely solely on observational studies of equal or lesser quality when insisting the practice is safe and effective.

While they claim it would be unethical to carry out a controlled experiment on humans who give voluntary, informed consent to investigate potential harm, they insist it’s a “great public health achievement” to force an uncontrolled experiment without voluntary or informed consent onto entire communities.

Anyone can see the contradiction, and it applies to other health practices as well – for example not testing a drug on pregnant, consenting volunteers, but then marketing and administering that same drug to pregnant women, insisting that It’s safe and effective.

With regards to the isolation/purification of the theoretical “COVID-19 virus”, it’s as simple as recognizing the difference between mixing things together and separating things apart, and realizing that no one on the planet has a purified sample of the alleged virus. It’s not rocket science – anyone willing to invest a little time can understand it.

We have every right to question and dispute the so-called experts, and it’s important that we do, especially when it comes to things that directly impact our lives. Experts often don’t agree among themselves and have been wrong on many things throughout history. And some so-called experts (i.e. public health officials) are in fact not expert on a given public health topic. So it’s very dangerous for people to think that they should not investigate and should not feel free to question anything that does not make sense to them, and to demand answers if need be.

Right now our world is being turned upside down over claims that are quite easy to disprove. The truth is that no one has a purified sample of the alleged virus, and thus there are zero validated tests and zero “confirmed cases”.

How did you become aware of the “virus” isolation/purification issue?

Nothing about the “COVID-19” story made sense from the beginning, starting with the blind acceptance by media and governments that a deadly new virus was responsible for respiratory disease in heavily polluted Wuhan.

Also the numbers didn’t make sense here in Ontario when they put us into lockdown for the first time. And I simply could not take seriously the notion that the same governments in Canada and the U.S. that unlawfully mass medicate and experiment on the public with fluoride were suddenly taking extraordinary steps to protect us. They kept saying that they were doing it “out of an abundance of caution”. But they had demonstrated zero caution or credibility when it came to fluoridation, so it was completely contradictory to their usual behaviour.

Then I heard that they were using PCR tests to diagnose people, and I recalled hearing about those same tests from the great investigative journalist Jon Rappoport over the years. He had reported that they were highly problematic for diagnosing other alleged viral diseases.

So I started looking for more detailed information about the PCR tests, and in doing so came across the brilliant work of Canada’s David Crowe, and later the equally brilliant Dr. Andrew Kaufman, Dr. Thomas Cowan and Dr. Stefan Lanka, and eventually others as well. They were all pointing out flaws in the story of the alleged virus itself. So I studied their work, and started looking at the “isolation” studies for myself, which confirmed what these gentlemen were describing.

And what gave you the idea of requesting freedom of information responses from governments and institutions?

I had found the FOIs a very simple and effective tool for exposing the absence of safety studies at institutions that promote fluoridated water during pregnancy, and realized FOIs could be useful again to investigate whether the alleged virus had in fact been isolated/purified.

Please describe your initial steps, the wording of your requests, and the first response or 2 that you received.

My first request was submitted on May 14, 2020 to Health Canada. (Some people have claimed that Health Canada is not an appropriate institution to have submitted this request to, but I disagree because Health Canada is the Canadian institution that has approved all of the “COVID-19” test kits, clinical trials, injections and other drugs and devices.)

I was very careful with the wording because I wanted to weed out the fraudulent “isolation” studies where nothing is actually isolated/purified, but not make it so restrictive that it also weeded out any potential legitimate studies.

The request was for: “all records describing the isolation of a SARS-COV-2 virus, directly from a sample taken from a diseased patient, where the patient sample was not first combined with any other source of genetic material”.

I stressed that I meant “isolation” in the “every-day sense of the word: the act of separating a thing(s) from everything else” and that I was “not requesting records where “isolation of SARS-COV-2” refers instead to the culturing of something, or the performance of an amplification test (i.e. a PCR test), or the sequencing of something”.

And I clarified that my request was to include any such record that had been downloaded to a computer, or printed in hard copy, etc. In other words, any record authored by anyone, anywhere, that was held by Health Canada. And I requested citations for any such record that might already be available to the public elsewhere, since publicly available records are not covered by the FOI legislation.

On June 11th, 2020 an Access to Information analyst advised me that Health Canada would not typically evaluate the type of information I had requested and that “Information on virus isolation would be best obtained from the Public Health Agency of Canada or the National Research Council.”

On June 23rd, 2020 the same analyst advised that Health Canada’s role is only to review evidence provided by sponsors in order to make regulatory decisions to approve products and authorize clinical trials, and that I might wish to contact the sponsors of clinical trials and/or companies in order to get the information I was seeking.

Health Canada’s final response came on June 24, 2020 and it stated: “Having completed a thorough search, we regret to inform you that we were unable to locate any records responsive to your request.” So I posted the response on my website, shared it on social media and sent it to my municipal Council.

On July 14, 2020, the National Research Council of Canada provided their stating that “a thorough search of NRC’s records has now been completed, and we regret to inform you that no records responsive to your request were identified”.

On December 7, 2020, the Public Health Agency of Canada (which includes Canada’s only “biosafety level 4” laboratory, the National Microbiology Laboratory) responded and provided me with 1 study and several emails that they claimed were responsive, but none of the records described isolation/purification of the alleged virus from a patient sample or from anything else.

In a revised response to that same request, the Public Health Agency of Canada admitted that they had no responsive records and stated that the gold standard used to determine the presence of intact virus in patient samples is visible cytopathic effects on cells in a cell culture.

Further, the Agency said that in the case of SARS-COV-2 “isolation” kidney cells extracted from an African green monkey (“Vero cells”) “combined with minimal essential medium (MEM) were used because they are essential to support viral replication and cell growth”, and that “PCR further confirms that intact virus is present”. But of course culturing has nothing to do with isolating/purifying anything, and PCR tests do not even attempt detect alleged viruses or even alleged genomes.

What did you make of these responses?

It was clear that the top health institutions in Canada had no evidence that the alleged virus had ever been isolated/purified, and thus no proof that “it” even exists. I realized that this was important evidence that could help to open people’s eyes and possibly be used in court, so yes, I kept submitting requests to more and more institutions in Canada, including at the provincial and municipal levels.

As of today (November 1, 2021), your website lists responses from 127 institutions in over 25 countries. How did you amass such an enormous collection from around the world?

Eventually a gentleman from New Zealand contacted me and asked if I would mind him using the same wording in requests in his country. Of course I welcomed this, and this gentleman ended up submitting and receiving responses to many requests in New Zealand, Australia, the U.S. So I posted his responses on my website as well, to help publicize them and make it easier for people to find all of the isolation/purification FOI responses. (He went on to do many other initiatives on this issue as well, including a 59 second video that explains the irrational, unscientific version of “isolation” used in virology.)

Gradually more and more people got in touch with me, sending in the FOI responses they had received, and in some cases court documents, and all of them were added to the collection. I’m aware of responses from additional institutions that I don’t have copies of yet, as well.

To this day, no institution has provided or cited even 1 record of the alleged “COVID-19 virus” (or any other alleged virus, that I’m aware of) having been isolated/purified from even 1 patient sample on the planet.

There is an FOI Request Template on my website where I encourage people to submit requests to the institutions where they live.

What are the implications of the fact that no one has any record of the alleged virus having been purified from patient samples?

Politicians who have engaged in fear-mongering, terrorized, manipulated and coerced the public, misused public resources, sabotaged businesses and economies, passed fraud-based “laws” and regulations, gave so-called “emergency” powers to lying public health officials, and issued threats, “mandates”, and all manner of financial and psychological abuse are all responsible for their actions.

Purification is just 1 essential (but not sufficient) step in proving the existence of an alleged virus. And it needs to have been carried out on many patient samples, not just 1 or a few. And the steps of purifying and following up with the other necessary steps with the purified sample (characterization, sequencing and controlled experiments) should have been carried out by multiple research teams in order to replicate and verify the results. Instead, to this day, no one on the planet has performed even the purification step, from even 1 patient sample.

So it is 100% clear that these politicians all failed to demand proof that the alleged virus even exists, let alone proof of a pandemic. And on top of that they failed to respect God-given rights and freedoms and to uphold higher laws, and they have caused vast amounts of needless suffering and misery. They have participated in a global fraud and crimes against humanity, and they are responsible along with all the other complicit parties (virologists, public health officials, etc).

Despite all of the evidence to the contrary, institutions around the world still insist that the alleged “SARS-CoV-2” has been isolated. What do you say to that?

The FOI collection includes responses from numerous intuitions that had claimed to have “isolated the virus”, for example:

  • University of Toronto (Canada)
  • McMaster University (Canada)
  • Mount Sinai Hospital (Canada)
  • Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre (Canada)
  • Vaccine and Infectious Disease Organization – International Vaccine Centre (Canada)
  • U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
  • University of Otago (New Zealand)
  • Peter Doherty Institute (Australia)
  • Indian Council of Medical Research
  • National Institute of Infectious Diseases “Lazzaro Spallanzani” (Italy)

The Methods sections of the so-called “virus isolation” studies, and FOI responses from many institutions, make it clear that “SARS-COV-2 isolation” to a virologist means “culturing” a patient sample in monkey kidney cells (aka “Vero” cells), fetal bovine serum and toxic drugs, reducing the nutrition to the cells, and then irrationally and unscientifically blaming the alleged “virus” for whatever harm (“cytopathic effects”) they observe in the monkey cells. It’s all wild speculation and outlandish assumptions.

They usually don’t bother with any sort of controls, and in the studies where they do refer to “control” cells, they fail to describe exactly what they did to those cells.

A colleague of mine had an email conversation with a Chinese virologist involved in one of these papers, and this virologist admitted that they gave the experimental cells double the amount of toxic drugs that they gave their so-called “controls”. This was only 1 of the many problems with their paper.

And, we know there could not have been full control in any of the allegedly “controlled” experiments because full control would require everything to be the same in both the experimental and control groups except for the 1 factor that is being investigated – in this case the alleged virus. Since no one has a purified sample of the alleged virus, no experiment could have been fully controlled.

What myself and many other people have come to realize during the last 1.5 years is that virology is simply not a science. The faulty “virus isolation” methods applied during this virus-less “pandemic” are not even unique to “COVID-19”, they are typical.

Others, such as Germany’s Dr. Stefan Lanka, had already known of these problems for years or even decades. Now it is time for the entire world to come to this knowledge, so that we are never duped or coerced again into another faux “vaccine” or any other sort of “virus” manipulation.

A Talk With Bo, On The Challenges Of Navigating Ontario Schools

Some context for this piece: Bo is a high school student in Ontario. Her Dad (a friend of the site), arranged for this interview, and it ended up as a written conversation online. This was last night. Bo finds the school situation difficult to deal with, and accommodations less than satisfactory. She hopes that this is a way to get her story out to other people.

For obvious reasons, certain information has to be removed. We can’t have any doxing or harassment here. The talk is being reprinted with Bo’s permission.

[Canuck 18:56]
Well, how are things going for you?

[Bo 18:57]
Well, school wise, not so great

[Canuck 18:57]
You’re still doing virtual?

[Bo 18:57]
Yea, I mean I don’t really want to be wearing a mask for partially the whole day

[Bo 18:58]
Considering that the admins do not let you switch to in-person back to virtual

[Bo 18:58]
If you’re doing in person, you’re doing that the whole semester or whole year

[Bo 18:58]
I don’t think I can tolerate a mask for that long

[Canuck 18:59]
Are they not concerned with the long term health effects of masks?

[Bo 19:00]
Doesn’t seem like from what I see, during meetings I can catch a glimpse at the class, whom were masks the entire period, not to mention while I was picking up textbooks at the high school I had heard a teacher remind kids who were outside at that time to keep their masks on

[Canuck 19:01]
Guess they aren’t all that convinced their vaccines actually work

[Bo 19:01]
They do small 5 minutes walks from time to time, one teacher records herself, and even outside during walks do they still wear masks

[Bo 19:01]
[In reply to Canuck]
haha I guess so

[Bo 19:02]
They do covid screening everyday

[Bo 19:02]
aka. Nose-rape

[Canuck 19:02]
Crazy, isn’t it?

[Bo 19:03]
I agree, and it’s pretty depressing for us virtual students even if there isn’t a lot of us

[Bo 19:03]
Not even half the class, or quarter of the class

[Bo 19:03]
At least 3 virtual students including me

[Bo 19:03]
On my second week period, I am the only one and you get pretty much ignored

[Canuck 19:04]
On purpose, or do they just forget about you?

[Bo 19:04]
or tossed aside at least, since you are at least importance, what will the teacher prefer, to focus on a class full of students or the lone virtual student

[Canuck 19:06]
They should try to make sure you’re able to learn. Being online doesn’t make you a “lesser” student

[Bo 19:07]
[In reply to Canuck]
I can’t really tell, but I mean, I’ve been forgotten, for example during business class last Friday, I was given a test to complete and I had a few questions regarding it, the teacher was there to answer them then later left, he gave 45 minutes for the test but I was there for a hour as I had several more questions to ask. After a hour, he came on the test I was still finishing and I asked him where did he go, class still had a hour and a half to go, he just told me ‘Oh, I guess the secondary/supply teacher didn’t open or join the meet’ oh, and just adding, the supply never joined the meet for the rest of the period and I just handed the test in

[Bo 19:08]
[In reply to Canuck]
Sadly, most teachers which is 3 of the 4 main ones consider or act like I’m a lesser student

[Bo 19:08]
There is only one notable teacher who at least tries to put effort in teaching virtual students

[Canuck 19:09]
If you don’t mind me asking, what classes do you have this semester?

[Bo 19:09]
Business, Science, History and Arts

[Canuck 19:09]
A good mix?

[Bo 19:10]
Ehh sorta, art teacher loves to assign too much work

[Bo 19:10]
11 detailed drawings, and one other assignment, all within 3 days

[Canuck 19:11]

[Bo 19:11]
Not to mention all the overlapping work from other periods

[Bo 19:11]
I find art and science a bit hard for virtual, since I like doing things hands on sometimes, and I, myself am a visual learner, a lot of the teachers just read things and leave you to do the rest

[Bo 19:12]
Science, they do experiments which we can barely see due to the poor camera quality

[Canuck 19:12]
Watching a video isn’t really the same things as getting your hands dirty

[Bo 19:13]
Art, the teacher just gives a few examples to us online students, and shows the other in-person students how to do it herself right then and there

[Bo 19:14]
[In reply to Canuck]
That’s exactly what I mean

[Bo 19:15]
It’s quite unfortunate I will not be able to do my biology unit properly this year, they will be doing a dissection of a animal this semester, and I’m not sure how we would be able to participate

[Bo 19:15]
I don’t know

[Canuck 19:16]
What would you be dissecting? Rats? Fish? Lizards?

[Bo 19:17]
For now I’m not sure but the biology unit is next week and my teacher has hinted at a dissection of a animal

[Canuck 19:17]

[Canuck 19:18]
How are your friends handling this? The masks, testing and vaxx can’t be easy on them.

[Bo 19:20]
The thing is now that you mention it, I don’t have a lot of friends anymore or so had much in the first place, those that I considered ‘friends’ weren’t to happy or keen about my decision on not taking the vaccine, some actually mocked me saying ‘What? Am I going to grow a extra limb or something’ even though I’ve never said anything about such things, I just kept my reasons private

[Bo 19:20]
A lot of people came to me saying they got the vaccine

[Bo 19:21]
My best friend which I’m surprised about hadn’t taken it, and in doing so, has been having a rough time

[Bo 19:21]
I know her for being a popular person in school, but now that I started getting on contact with her again she seems more depressed

[Bo 19:21]
stating that she cannot go anywhere and that majority of the time she is at home

[Canuck 19:21]
That’s really sad

[Bo 19:21]
Yea, but there isn’t much I can do

[Bo 19:22]
another thing to consider is, last year everyone did virtual, it was easier to make friends then and there

[Bo 19:22]
but now that there is barely anyone in virtual, that is no longer really a option for me

[Bo 19:22]
Majority of everyone I know do in person

[Bo 19:23]
It makes me feel a bit of sorrow knowing that I wouldn’t be able to experience school for awhile, or so even try making friends

[Bo 19:23]
seeing others enjoy their time at school makes me want to go, but I still have my reasons not to attend in-person

[Canuck 19:24]
I’m guessing masks/testing/vaxx play heavily into that decision

[Bo 19:25]
Yes it does, though another smaller reason is because of a health condition

[Canuck 19:26]
ah, okay

[Canuck 19:28]
(You may not know), but as for your teachers, do they actually believe in this, or are they just doing what they’re told?

[Canuck 19:29]
Do they believe in all these “health measures”?

[Bo 19:31]
I (Think) they do, I hear one asking the students all the time to social distance, keep their masks on, sanitize their hands etc. I’ve heard my science teacher say a couple of times though, that wearing a mask is such a pain due to it being hard to hear her, and harder for us virtual students, but I like to believe that they do believe in these health measures, but another part of me likes to believe that a few of them are only doing this because they are told to do so

[Bo 19:31]
I don’t think any sane person would wear a mask for a whole day almost

[Bo 19:32]
If they had a choice, I would bet a few of them would actually take it off, while the other half would keep it

[Bo 19:32]
Though, they themselves has gotten the vaccine, so I’m most leaning to the fact that they do believe in these health measures

[Canuck 19:33]
I see

[Canuck 19:35]
Interestingly, one would think that science teachers would think a little bit more.

The air you breathe is 21% oxygen, and if it dips under 19.5%, it’s considered a workplace hazard, according to OSHA in the U.S. A mask will make your O2 intake under 19.5% in under a minute

[Bo 19:36]
Jesus, well apparently I don’t think she knows that and probably would believe it ironically

[Bo 19:36]

[Canuck 19:38]
According to the Canadian Biosafety Handbook, section 9.1.6., unless you have your own supplied air source, masks would be useless anyway. It’s crazy how people just don’t ask questions

[Bo 19:38]
It’s the sad reality of things

[Canuck 19:39]
It is

[Bo 19:39]
I could challenge the teachers about this, but I’m afraid that they would disregard the messages, attempt to silence me etc.

[Canuck 19:39]
Do people think you are a conspiracy nut?

Canuck, [11.10.21 19:40]
(I get called one)

[Bo 19:41]
I think so or at least a couple, it’s funny as I said during virtual school, do I need a vaccine to go to school in public chat, and one of the 2 virtual kids went ‘What? you didn’t take the vaccine?, why?’ aggressively as if I attacked him, but I really do think people that know I haven’t taken the vaccine see me as conspiracy nut, although I’ve only once been called that directly

[Bo 19:41]
It’s more mocking type of stuff, like I said earlier a lot of people said ‘am i going to grow a extra limb or something lol’

[Canuck 19:42]
Well, what are your reason(s) for not taking it?

[Bo 19:46]
Well various, the vaccine isn’t fully tested, it was more rushed, my health condition, the fact that I still need to wear a mask after it, another fact on how it is being extremely forced, if you dont take the vaccine you arent allowed to go anywhere (Some countries, and from what a friend that lives in germany has said) can’t go on a plane, I am now seeing signs where you need proof of vaccination to enter stores, I find this really suspicious or weird, youtube disabling comments on covid information videos, and some that aren’t disabled, are flooded with comments against the vaccine, its just how it is being pushed

[Bo 19:46]
I dont recall any other major pandemic having forcing vaccines on people like this

Canuck, [Canuck 19:46]
All of which are reasonable concerns

[Bo 19:47]
Ah, as I thought

[Canuck 19:47]
Has your dad told you what happened to a few of our videos, from reading the product inserts?

[Bo 19:47]
Yea he has

[Bo 19:48]
Also, I may need to head off soon

[Canuck 19:48]

Canuck, [11.10.21 19:49]
I guess the last thing: if there was something you really wanted people to know, what would it be?

[section redacted]

[Bo 19:58]
Whoa, thats interesting, I’ll consider that too, thank you very much

[Bo 19:59]
I have to head off now though, sorry

[Bo 20:00]
Alright thank you

The talk ended here. Anyhow, thank you to Bo and her Dad for setting this up. Hopefully, this will be heard be parents with similar concerns.

BCOHRC Deliberately Misrepresents Basic Information In Vaccination “Guidance”

The following piece comes from a “guidance document” that the BC Office of the Human Rights Commissioner recently published. In short, people CAN lose their jobs or livelihood.

To be clear, the Government won’t mandate this for B.C. That being said, employers will have wide discretion to require it, if they deem it “essential”. Is enabling all that much better?

Their media representative, Elaine (her last name has been scrubbed) was evasive, and tap danced around important information. This included: (a) vaccines not being approved, but having interim authorization; (b) how experimental vaccines can be pushed given BC cancelled its state of emergency; (c) the lack of long term testing; and (d) indemnified manufacturers, among other things

In short, the BCOHRC seems more content with the “illusion” of protecting human rights, rather than “actually” protecting human rights.

If Elaine, or her employer, cared about so-called marginalized people, they wouldn’t allow for experimental injections to be a condition of certain jobs. Despite all the social justice nonsense on their website, it’s clear that it’s all just for show.

From page 3:

Policies that treat people differently based on whether they have been vaccinated—“vaccination status policies”—must remain consistent with the obligations legislated under B.C.’s Human Rights Code. Individuals must be protected from discrimination based on their place of origin, religion, physical or mental disability, family status or other Code-protected ground.

Employers, landlords and service providers (duty bearers) can, in some limited circumstances, implement vaccination status policies—but only if other less intrusive means of preventing COVID-19 transmission are inadequate for the setting and if due consideration is given to the human rights of everyone involved.

Vaccination status policies should be justified by scientific evidence relevant to the specific context, time-limited and regularly reviewed, proportional to the risks they seek to address, necessary due to a lack of less-intrusive alternatives and respectful of privacy to the extent required by law. In applying such a vaccination
status policy, duty bearers must accommodate those who cannot receive a vaccine to the point of undue hardship.

No one’s safety should be put at risk because of others’ personal choices not to receive a vaccine. Just as importantly, no one should experience harassment or unjustifiable discrimination when there are effective alternatives to vaccination status policies.

People must be protected based on certain identity groups. But humans as a whole aren’t worth consideration. Now, from page 6:

Evidence-based — Evidence (of the risk of transmission in the specific setting) is required to justify policies that restrict individual rights for the purpose of protecting collective public health or workplace safety. Such policies must be aligned with up-to date public health recommendations and reflect current medical and epidemiological understanding of the specific risks the policy aims to address.

But once again, these are not approved, and there is no long term testing. From page 7:

The COVID-19 vaccines approved by Health Canada have proven highly effective at protecting individuals from COVID-19 infection and serious illness.

Except they aren’t approved. From page 8:

Migrant and undocumented workers, many of whom do not have a Personal Health Number, may be unaware they are eligible for the vaccine or concerned about revealing their immigration status.

Interesting the concern for “undocumented workers”, which is a euphemism for illegal aliens. The BCOHRC cares more about people illegally in the country than legitimate safety concerns of their guidelines. From page 10:

In my view, a person who chooses not to get vaccinated as a matter of personal preference—especially where that choice is based on misinformation or misunderstandings of scientific information—does not have grounds for a human rights complaint against a duty bearer implementing a vaccination status policy.

It would be nice to know what “misinformation or misunderstandings” would apply here. And in fact, that question was posed to Elaine. But as stated, the BCOHRC seems more concerned about appearing to care about human rights, than actually caring about human rights. Continuing from page 11:

It is in challenging times that it is most critical to place human rights at the centre of our decision making. No one’s safety should be put at risk because of other people’s personal choices not to receive a vaccine, and no one should experience harassment or unjustified discrimination when there are effective alternatives to vaccination
status policies.

We must all guard against the impulse to react out of fear, speculation and stereotyping. Restrictions imposed in the name of safety must be justified based on the most current public health recommendations reflecting the best available medical and scientific evidence, relevant to a specific setting.

While these paragraphs sound great, the BCOHRC is more concerned about optics and pretending to care about human rights.

Though this document doesn’t officially call for mandatory injections, it’s intended to provide instructions on how employers can get around it.

When specifically asked about approved v.s. authorized injections, Elaine pivots by claiming it’s not the place of the BCOHRC to provide medical advice. If she was being straightforward, this issue would have been addressed directly.

And no, this isn’t just some academic musings. Elaine made it clear that the BCOHRC intended for this document to be used as a guideline throughout B.C.

(2) BCOHRC_Jul2021_Vaccination-Policy-Guidance_FINAL
(3) Section 30.1, Canada Food & Drug Act
(4) Interim (Emergency) Order Signed By Patty Hajdu

In case anyone thinks this may be unfair, here is the entire email exchange, going back to last week. Does it sound like a person giving straightforward answers?

From: Ronnie Lempert
Sent: July 14, 2021 1:51 PM
Subject: media request for information on document


I run a small site in BC and came across this

There are some questions about its implementation, as it would impact readers.

Any chance of getting in touch?

Ronnie (Editor)

Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2021 2:09 PM
To: “”
Subject: RE: media request for information on document

Hello Ronnie,

Thank you for reaching out to us.

The Commissioner is not doing media on this release, and of course implementation and roll out decisions are going to come from government and other agencies, not BCOHRC

However, if you have specific questions about the guidance that fall within our jurisdiction, if you send them to me via email, I will check and see if there is any more information we have to provide to you.

Thank you,

Elaine XXXXXXX (she/her)
BC’s Office of the Human Rights Commissioner
Office: 1-844-922-XXXX | Cell: 1-250-216-XXXX | @humanrights4bc

From: Ronnie Lempert
Sent: July 14, 2021 2:33 PM
Subject: RE: media request for information on document

Hello Elaine

I’d hoped to ask in person, but here are the important parts.

(1) The Government takes its advice from the BCOHRC, does it not? So wouldn’t your reports and recommendations be considered, at a minimum?

(2) This document says on the top of page 10:
In my view, a person who chooses not to get vaccinated as a matter of personal preference—especially where that choice is based on misinformation or misunderstandings of scientific information—does not have grounds for a human rights complaint against a duty bearer implementing a vaccination status policy.

Okay, specifically, what would be a misunderstanding or what would count as misinformation?

(3) Middle of page 7, it’s stated that the vaccines are “approved by Health Canada”. However, when looking up the product inserts, they don’t say approved anywhere. They say “authorized under an interim order”.

So, are these vaccines approved, or are they given interim authorization? They are not the same thing.

(4) Considering that testing has gone on for about a year, how can the BCOHRC say with any confidence if and what any side effects would be in 5 or 10 years?

(5) Are the manufacturers indemnified against lawsuits from any injury?

(6) Will the BCOHRC assume any responsibility/liability if this policy were implemented for any injuries/deaths?

(7) What cost/benefit analysis was done in coming to the decision that mandatory vaccines may be required? Could I have a copy of those studies?

(8) Has the extensive legal history, particularly with Pfizer, been any sort of deterrent in coming to this kind of decision?

(9) Does imposing this vaccination requirement result in a backdoor vaccine passport?

(10) Considering BC ended its state of emergency June 30, what is the legal basis for allowing the requirement of these vaccines?

(11) If my boss fired me for refusing a vaccine based on the above questions, what would the BCOHRC do? Would you determine that the employer has a right to demand them? Would you determine that I am uninformed?

I realize this is a lot, but that document is a cause for concern.


From: “XXXXXXXX, Elaine OHRC:EX”
Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2021 3:14 PM
To: “”
Subject: RE: media request for information on document

Hi Ronnie,

That’s a long list. I will see if I can help clarify where possible.

I am sure you understand several of these questions are out of scope.

It’s nearing end of day. Would you let me know of your deadline please?

Thank you,

From: Ronnie Lempert
Sent: July 14, 2021 4:06 PM
Subject: RE: media request for information on document

Hello Elaine,

There isn’t a specific deadline, but whenever they can be done.

If there is someone in a different department or division who might have insight on some of them, they are welcome to add it in as well.

I realize this is a lot, but the kind of audience I write for doesn’t like the idea that their livelihoods could be conditional on taking this, for the issues outlined below


P.S. you are always welcome to visit the site if any of the content interests you.

From: “XXXXXXXX, Elaine OHRC:EX”
Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2021 2:14 PM
To: “”
Subject: RE: media request for information on document

Hi Ronnie,

I am able to get back to you today with clarifications from our Office.

This document is intended to provide guidance to duty bearers under B.C.’s Human Rights Code, including employers, housing providers, service providers, and government insofar as government plays each of these roles. Our hope is that duty bearers will consider – and follow – our recommendations.

You will note that this guidance does not contain a recommendation that government put into place a mandatory vaccine requirement, but it does allow for proof-of-vaccine requirements in some circumstances.

Our legislative mandate empowers us to provide public guidance and recommendations on matters of public policy by clarifying existing human rights laws and advising how new laws and public policy must be adapted to adhere to them. You can read the provisions of B.C.’s Human Rights Code here.

It is not within our mandate to provide medical advice. We rely on public health guidance issued by the Office of the Provincial Health Officer and the BC Centres for Disease Control, and invite you to refer to their work.

It is also not within our mandate to address individual human rights complaints. All human rights complaints in the province – including those made concerning COVID-19 accommodations such as masking and vaccination – are managed by a separate entity, the BC Human Rights Tribunal. You can read more about the purpose and function of the BC Human Rights Tribunal here.

Thank you,

From: Ronnie Lempert
Sent: July 15, 2021 3:08 PM
Subject: RE: media request for information on document

Hello Elaine,

If you hope that your recommendations will be followed, then what’s wrong with getting clarification from your office? I’m trying to determine exactly what you are calling for.

As just one example, these vaccines have interim authorization under an emergency order, (an emergency now cancelled in BC). See attached screenshots. On page 7 of the document they are referred to as “approved”, which distorts the truth. Does this concern you?

On page 10 of the document, it’s stated that people who refuse to get it for person reasons will not be protected. It also states that misinformation or misunderstandings are not an excuse. It’s a valid question to ask what qualifies as “misinformation”.

Also, does pointing out the lack of long term testing, or manufacturer indemnification count as misinformation?

To be blunt, it appears that the BCOHRC is empowering employers and others to force/coerce people into taking it, while glossing over the experimental status of these vaccines.

A human rights approach to proof of vaccination during the COVID-19 pandemic (

Hopefully I’m wrong,

Sent: Monday, July 19, 2021 5:07 PM
To: “”
Subject: RE: media request for information on document

Hello Ronnie,

As discussed last week, here is additional clarification from our Office.

To clarify, our Office focuses on promoting and protecting human rights through education, research, advocacy, monitoring and public inquiry into issues of systemic discrimination in the province. Our legislative mandate is specifically focused on systemic discrimination, and therefore we are not able to comment on individual cases nor can we provide legal advice.

The vaccination status guidance offers general advice on how duty bearers can respect human rights if developing vaccination status policies — that is, policies that treat people differently based on whether or not they have been vaccinated against COVID-19.

B.C.’s Human Rights Commissioner Kasari Govender and our Office have not advocated for mandatory vaccination.

The purpose of the guidance document is to provide a human rights based lens to the development of vaccination status policies. It offers general advice on how duty bearers should respect human rights law when developing policies that treat people differently based on whether or not they have been vaccinated against COVID-19. The document follows current health guidance from the PHO and BCCDC, as well as sources cited in the guidance document and footnotes.

It is the position of BCOHRC that human rights law provides that duty bearers (such as employers) can implement vaccination status policies, only if less intrusive means of preventing transmission are not possible and with accommodations in place, as per the guidance. Vaccination status policies must remain consistent with the obligations legislated under B.C.’s Human Rights Code.

I hope this clarifies for you. We don’t have anything to add that isn’t already in the guidance, so suggest if you are looking for more specific details on potential future scenarios or the legal parameters of instituting proof of vaccination policies (these are still evolving as this is such a new issue across the board), that you seek context from a lawyer experienced in human rights, privacy and workplace law.

Thank you,

From: Ronnie Lempert
Sent: July 19, 2021 6:59 PM
Subject: RE: media request for information on document

Hello Elaine,

My biggest concern — one which is getting sidestepped here, it that you are laying out guidelines for EXPERIMENTAL and UNAPPROVED vaccines (interim authorization is not approved), and never make it clear that that this is the case. In short, the recommendations are based on misleading, or at best, incomplete information.

Saying “we don’t provide legal advice” is a bit of a cop out, since policies will likely be drafted based on the recommendations your office makes.

For the record, is it BCOHRC’s position that these are fully approved? Or just authorized for emergency use?

On a semi-related note: I’m curious what studies or cost/benefit analysis has been done, either for this, or for you recommendations on masks. Anything that debated or considered physical or psychological harms? Do you have anything you could share? Alternatively, is there anything publicly posted that you relied on? I’d like to see specifically what science has been relied on.


Hi Ronnie,

You can read all of our current and past COVID-19 guidance, including footnotes and references here:

You can read Health Canada information about vaccines here:

We have nothing further to add or say that has not already been published.

Thank you,

An astute person will realize that not once did she address the issue of these “vaccines” being authorized under a (now cancelled) emergency order, and not approved.

A Talk With Professor Colin Furness Of The University Of Toronto DLSPH

This article is going to be different. Friday, July 9, I had a talk with University of Toronto Professor Colin Furness. Although our views are miles apart on a lot of this, it’s worthwhile to get another perspective.

This meeting came about after finding his name listed as an advisor for a firm called Sapphire Health. This company is currently working on a model to implement AI (artificial intelligence) into health records. However, it seems that this listing was done in error, as he personally knew the founder, and had talked on a social basis.

His recent work covers “the effectiveness of information systems for knowledge work; information and knowledge management; health behaviour change; infection control epidemiology; COVID-19 pandemic management in Canada.”

In any event, it’s nice to get outside the echo chamber once in a while.

B.C. Liberals Are Complicit In Propping Up Horgan/Henry Tyranny (Just The Audio)

This is a shorter piece that just focuses on the audio. Readers familiar with the “pandemic” subject will instantly know what is bein talked about. This is MLA Milobar. He doesn’t even pretend to oppose the tyranny imposed by John Horgan, Adrian Dix, Mike Farnworth, or Bonnie Henry.

The expanded version is here. So is earlier coverage of the October 2020 election, and trolling Sadie Hunter afterwards. Notice, no mention in the platform that they object to any of this. Does it look like people in this Province have any legitimate political options? Are there options anywhere?

In fairness, the B.C. Green Party doesn’t get a pass. They signed onto this with the previous NDP-Green Coalition Government.

A serious question to readers: has anyone else gotten this kind of spin, even of you live in another Province? If so, please share your story, and a tape (if you have one).

The B.C. Liberals Are Nothing But Controlled Opposition (With Audio)

In politics, lobbying and money make the world go round. Consider a recent talk with a B.C. Liberal MLA (Member of Legislative Assembly), Peter Milobar. You would think that there’d be some real opposition to John Horgan, Adrian Dix, Mike Farnworth and Bonnie Henry. But no, this isn’t the case. In fact, even referring to it as “controlled opposition” is a bit of a stretch.

In case this may just come off as having a bad day, consider what the candidates said in the October 2020 B.C. election. All parties agreed to abdicate responsibility to unelected bureaucrats. That said, trolling one of them afterwards was fun.

Milobar claims to have taken the AstraZeneca vaccine, which has now been pulled off the market. Let’s see if he actually believes what he’s saying. He also doesn’t really object to anything.

BC Liberal Party 2020 Platform Restore Confidence Rebuild BC

B.C. held a Provincial election in October 2020. One would think that with Horgan, Henry and their cronies destroying the place, the “opposition” party would jump at the chance to fix things. Instead, their election platform goes out of its way to avoid addressing the elephant in the room. Milobar isn’t alone in doing nothing for constituents. It’s everyone.

It this problem deeper than what it seems?

A recent piece covered Wellington Advocacy. This is a lobbying firm that has pushed Jason Kenney and Doug Ford into keeping defective PCR rapid test kits made by Spartan Biosciences. It’s worth noting that the same firm also has people connected to ex-Liberal Leader Christy Clark, and now outgoing leader Andrew Wilkinson.

According to Katy Merrifield’s profile:

As a BC native, and having served as Executive Director of the BC Liberal Party and Director of Communications to British Columbia Premier Christy Clark, Katy has a unique understanding of the province’s political, public and private sector landscapes. A seasoned expert in communications, corporate planning, campaign management and stakeholder advocacy, Katy is adept at delivering solutions with meaningful and measurable impact on public opinion. Katy has spent over a decade advising senior cabinet members and elected officials including as Chief of Staff to the Minister of Health, and the Minister of Jobs, Tourism, Skills Training and Labour in British Columbia.

According to Nick Koolsbergen’s profile:

Nick spent the last two years serving as Alberta Premier Jason Kenney’s Chief of Staff and Campaign Director. Prior to that Nick, served as former BC Premier Christy Clark’s Chief of Staff, as Director of Issues Management to former Prime Minister Stephen Harper, and as a senior advisor to numerous federal Cabinet Ministers.

According to Peter Csillag’s profile:

Peter joins after nearly ten years advising elected officials and candidates at the provincial and federal levels, and advising companies and non-profits in the private sector. He served as a senior advisor to Jason Kenney and Alberta’s United Conservative caucus and to former BC Premier Christy Clark and caucus. In Ottawa, he worked for then-Minister Jason Kenney in three major federal departments. Most recently, he worked as a director for a national strategic communications firm.

At least 3 members of Wellington Advocacy (which is lobbying for Spartan rapid test kits) were part of the Government of then B.C. Premier, Christy Clark. True, Clark lost power — and her own seat — in July 2017, but she held tremendous influence over the party. And Wilkinson just resigned as leader. This is, of course, just one group that lobbies for money and influence.

On a related note: Ray Novak is also part of the firm. He was involved with Harper’s Government, is employed with the firm Harper & Associates, and is a Member of the International Democratic Union, which Harper chairs.

K-12 restart planning relative to COVID (restart plan, Personal protection equipment, privacy and the use of digital platforms, Foundational Skills Assessments (FSAs), social distancing and class size, ministry guidelines, remote learning options, health and safety standards/guidelines, consistent reporting

The B.C. Teachers Federation has been lobbying the “opposition” Liberals for a number of things, including shutting down schools in favour of remote learning, and forcing masks on very young students. And by young, many want them imposed on kindergarten students.

The B.C. Labour Federation is also pushing the Liberals for a number of things, such as more handouts. They also demand more protections for illegal aliens (who they disingenuously call “undocumented workers”), more green jobs, and pay equity, which sounds sort of communist.

The BC Government and Service Employees’ Union (BCGEU), has also been pushing all parties for a number of benefits, or “pandemic bucks”, but has also demanded that masks be made mandatory in all Government buildings. Public unions are very powerful, so it would be difficult to say no.

Drug companies like GlaoSmithKline, Innovative Medicines Canada, Merck and Pfizer have all been lobbying B.C. in recent months. Of course, they would never unduly influence politicians. Except for cases like Jean-Marc Prevost.

The above groups aren’t the only ones trying to influence the B.C. Liberals. These are just a few for which there are actual records. It would be interesting to find out what isn’t documented.

It isn’t just one useless MLA like Milobar refusing to do anything. The entire Liberal Party has no real interest in stopping the medical tyranny imposed by Bonnie Henry, and the Horgan Government. They don’t even pretend to be against it, but avoid the subject altogether.

Nor is their interest in Henry’s flip-flop from when she was an expert witness in the Sault Area Hospital arbitration. She testified that neither masks nor vaccines do much against influenza. Considering Henry was picked by a Liberal Government, they seem particularly indifferent about challenging her.

Press Progress also put out an interesting piece on lobbying in Alberta. It’s well worth a read.