“Inside The Ontario Science Table” Now Available Online

Inside The Ontario Science Table: The “Independent” Group Pulling Ford’s Strings, is now available both in paperback, and as an ebook. It builds off of the last one, and as the name implies, there is a heavy focus on that one Province. Of course, Twenty Twenty-One is still there as well, and covers a lot of topics related to this so-called “pandemic”.

A lot of work has gone into both of these, so please support independent research. Thank you.

Other coverage on the site continues.

(1) https://www.amazon.ca/B09BCNP48J
(2) https://www.amazon.ca/B095Y515XK

Bit Of History: WHO Wrote Paper On “Implied Consent” For Vaccinations In 2014

Several years ago, the World Health Organization published a paper on various levels of “consent” required for vaccinating children. It also introduces the idea of “implied consent for children”. Apparently, just going to school after a notice has been given will suffice.

Approaches to obtain informed consent:

  • 1. Written consent
  • 2. Verbal consent
  • 3. Implied consent

It’s the third type that is the most nefarious.

3. An implied consent process by which parents are informed of imminent vaccination through social mobilization and communication, sometimes including letters directly addressed to the parents. Subsequently, the physical presence of the child or adolescent, with or without an accompanying parent at the vaccination session, is considered to imply consent. This practice is based on the opt-out principle and parents who do not consent to vaccination are expected implicitly to take steps to ensure that their child or adolescent does not participate in the vaccination session. This may include not letting the child or adolescent attend school on a vaccination day, if vaccine delivery occurs through schools.

Implied consent procedures are common practice in many countries. However, when children present for vaccination unaccompanied by their parents, it is challenging to determine whether parents indeed provided consent. Therefore, countries are encouraged to adopt procedures that ensure that parents have been informed and agreed to the vaccination. Comprehensive data on whether the approach countries use to deal with consent has changed or evolved over the last decades is not available.

Based on concepts of vaccines as a public good, or on public-health goals of disease elimination and outbreak control, some countries identify one or more vaccines as mandatory in law, or in their policies. Vaccination may, for example, be made a condition for entry into preschool or primary school, or to enable access to welfare benefits. Whether consent is needed for mandatory vaccination depends on the legal nature of the regulations. When mandatory vaccination is established in relevant provisions in law, consent may not be required. If the mandatory nature of vaccination is based on policy, or other forms of soft law, informed consent needs to be obtained as for any other vaccines. Some countries allow individuals to express non-consent (opt-out) and obtain an exemption for mandatory vaccines. This may come with certain conditions, like barring unvaccinated children from attending school during disease outbreaks

Have to cringe at how getting informed consent, or having the parents involved, is seen as an inconvenience. Then again, many concerned parents would put a stop to such things.

(1) https://www.who.int/immunization/programmes_systems/policies_strategies/consent_note_en.pdf
(2) WHO Schools And Implied Not Direct Consent
(3) https://www.sott.net/article/424625-WHO-now-says-your-childs-presence-in-school-counts-as-informed-consent-for-vaccination-parental-presence-not-required

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).

Centre For Effective Practice, Yet Another OST “Partner” That Stands To Profit From Lockdowns

The Centre for Effective Practice, or CEP, is another “partner” of the Ontario Science Table. The OST apparently does the thinking for Doug Ford and Christine Elliott.

Unsurprisingly, CEP was established as part of the University of Toronto in 2004. They list their services as: research & evaluation, clinical tools and digitization, education programs, and engagement & communication.

CEP also provides a set of key talking points that doctors and other health care providers are to parrot concerning these “vaccines” now available in Canada. The goal isn’t to address legitimate concerns, but rather, to appear to be addressing them.

COVID-19 vaccine authorization
Health Canada has authorized a number of COVID-19 vaccines for use in Canada after a thorough and rigorous review of the evidence to ensure the vaccines meet the standards of safety, quality and efficacy for authorization in Canada. Health Canada will continue to monitor the safety of the vaccines after they are available.

Key messages
Lead by example. Get the COVID-19 vaccine yourself as soon as it is offered to you to protect yourself, your patients, and your community.
Advise patients to receive the vaccine. Communication by trusted health professionals about the importance of vaccines is the most effective way to counter vaccine hesitancy. Tell your patients you will get or have already received the vaccine.
-Be an educator. Be prepared to answer patient questions and address concerns about the vaccine.

Vaccine summary
Efficacy against severe disease and hospitalization
-All of the approved vaccines have a high efficacy rate against severe disease. In the clinical trials, efficacy against severe disease was shown to be:

Pfizer: 75-100% (after dose 2)
Moderna: 100% (14 days after dose 2)
AstraZeneca: 100% (after dose 2)
Janssen: 85.4% (28 days after dose)

First, whether by accident, or by design, CEP is blurring the line between “approved” vaccines, and ones given “interim authorization”. To clarify, these are not approved. Section 30.1 of the Canada Food & Drug Act allows the Health Minister to sign an Interim Order, allowing them on the market anyway.

(a) Approved: Health Canada has fully reviewed all the testing, and steps have been done, with the final determination that it can be used for the general population
(b) Interim Authorization: deemed to be “worth the risk” under the circumstances, doesn’t have to be fully tested. Allowed under Section 30.1 of the Canada Food & Drug Act. Commonly referred to as an emergency use authorization.

Have a look at the Interim Order, particularly Section 5. Getting authorization isn’t exactly a difficult burden to meet.

Second, an astute person will notice the sleight-of-hand here. These so-called vaccines were “authorized” by Health Canada, however “approved” ones will be rigorously tested. This is an indirect way of saying that these weren’t actually subjected to such testing.

Third, these aren’t really vaccines. Gene replacement therapy would be a more accurate description of the mRNA substances that Pfizer and Moderna produced.

Fourth, it doesn’t say that these gene-replacement “vaccines” will prevent a virus. Instead, it touts efficacy against severe disease and hospitalization. In other words, symptom management.

Fifth, it is explicitly stated that people will rely on your opinion in order to make the decision. While it’s also stated to answer questions, this passage is full of misrepresentations.

https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/astrazeneca-covid-19-vaccine-pm-en.pdf
https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/janssen-covid-19-vaccine-pm-en.pdf
https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/covid-19-vaccine-moderna-pm-en.pdf
https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/pfizer-biontech-covid-19-vaccine-pm1-en.pdf

Instead of taking word of someone on the internet, it’s probably best to read the product inserts for yourself. Above are the documents provided by Health Canada. Notice, that nowhere do they say “approved” in the documentation.

However, CEP doesn’t provide the actual Health Canada documents. They do other an AstraZeneca summary and a comparison paper, but not the original source materials

Now, why why CEP, the Centre for Effective Practice, be such a blatant shill in the name of big pharma? When you look at their donors and collaborators, things start to make a lot of sense.

Some of CEP’s financial contributors, associates are worth a closer look:

  1. Association of Family Health Teams of Ontario
  2. eHealth Centre of Excellence
  3. Healthcare Excellence Canada
  4. OntarioMD

Could it be that CEP, and its partners and donors support continued lockdowns and restrictions in Ontario, (and elsewhere), at least partially because it’s good for business? Let’s take a look into some of these groups.

We Are The Advocate, Network And Resource For Team-Based Primary Care In Ontario
The Association of Family Health Teams of Ontario (AFHTO) works to support the implementation and growth of primary care teams by promoting best practices, sharing lessons learned, and advocating on behalf of all primary care teams. Evidence and experience show that team-based comprehensive primary care is delivering better health and better value to patients.
.
AFHTO is a not-for-profit association representing Ontario’s primary health care teams, which include Family Health Teams (FHTs), Nurse Practitioner-Led Clinics (NPLCs) and others who provide interprofessional comprehensive primary care.
.
Working towards a common vision
Our members share the compelling vision that one day, all Ontarians will have timely access to high-quality and comprehensive primary care; care that is:
.
Informed by the social determinants of health – the conditions in which people are born, grow, live, work and age
Delivered by the right mix of health professionals, working in collaborative teams in partnership with patients, caregivers and the community
.
Anchored in an integrated and equitable health system, promoting good health and seamless care for all patients
Sustainable – efficiently delivered and appropriately resourced to achieve expected outcomes

AFHTO works with and on behalf of members to:
.
Provide leadership to promote expansion of high-quality, comprehensive, well-integrated interprofessional primary care for the benefit of all Ontarians, and
Be their advocate, champion, network and resource to support them in improving and delivering optimal interprofessional care

The Association of Family Health Teams of Ontario is essentially a lobbying group, for the unmbrella of health care workers. That’s what this word salad means. AFTHO also is quite partisan in their efforts, and are pushing for the virtual care model of health, a large part of their online content covers that.

AFHTO is also demanding Ford impose a stay-at-home order. This is a conflict of interest since they are also promoting the “solution”: more access to online health services.

The eHealth Centre of Excellence is another online medical service that offers e-prescribing, referrals, and consults with specialists. As continued lockdowns make physical movement more tricky, this enterprise will surely grow. Also, as the physical and mental health of people wears down, it will artificially generate more business.

Healthcare Excellence Canada acts as a cross between a health care consultant, and an continuing education provided. They also donate to CEP, and their business model is expected to grow. Also, if you wish to take their Executive Training Program, it’s only $2,500 to enroll. What a deal!

OntarioMD offers a variety of services, such as digital health services, which can be bundled together. There’s also eConsulting, which aims to connect patients to specialists quicker. There’s also a Health Medical Upgrade, which is a way of digitizing, storing, and moving records. As physical appearances in health care settings are replaced, the demand for this will grow.

It’s worth pointing out that OntarioMD is not the only party to benefit from this arrangement. Additionally, it means increased business for its vendors, who will also see the rewards. Some of these names should be familiar.

To circle back to the start of the article: what is the real reason that the Centre for Effective Practice, (an Ontario Science Table partner), is so on board with restrictions to liberty? Or, are these connections just coincidental, and completely unrelated?

IMPORTANT LINKS
(1) https://cep.health/
(2) https://cep.health/toolkit/covid-19-resource-centre/
(3) https://tools.cep.health/tool/covid-19-vaccines/
(4) https://tools.cep.health/tool/covid-19-vaccine-staging-environment/
(5) https://tools.cep.health/tool/virtual-management-of-chronic-conditions-during-covid-19/
(6) https://covid19-sciencetable.ca/our-partners/
(7) https://twitter.com/Roman_Baber/status/1386788379669508103
(8) Ontario Science Table 01 Behaviour Control Techniques April 22 2021
(9) Ontario Science Table 02 Vaccine Confidence March 5 2021
(10) Ontario Science Table 03 Learning From Israel Feb 1 2021
(11) Ontario Science Table 04 Putting In Harsher Restrictions Oct 15 2021
(12) https://www.laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/F-27/page-8.html#h-234517
(13) Patty Hajdu’s September 16 Interim Order
(14) CEP AstraZeneca Information Propaganda
(15) CEP Vaccine Comparison Sheet Propaganda
(16) https://www.afhto.ca/
(17) https://www.afhto.ca/afhtos-role-supporting-team-based-care/about-afhto
(18) https://www.afhto.ca/news-events/news/ontario-needs-stay-home-order
(19) AFHTO Shift To Virtual Health Care
(20) https://ehealthce.ca/Our-Team.htm
(21) https://healthcareexcellence.ca/
(22) Health Care Excellence Executive Training Class
(23) https://www.ontariomd.ca/
(24) https://www.ontariomd.ca/about-us/our-organization/our-partners

EARLIER IN THIS SERIES
(a) Michael Warner Financially Benefits From Prolonged Lockdowns
(b) Who Is Ontario Deputy Medical Officer, Barbara Yaffe?
(c) OST, Monopoly From The University Of Toronto Connected
(d) OST, University Of Toronto, Look At Their Members And Partners
(e) OST’s Robert Steiner Claims To Be Behind PHAC Canada Creation
(f) OST’s Kwame McKenzie Headed 2017 UBI Pilot Project
(g) OST UofT Prelude Actually Set Out In May 2019
(h) OST’s Murty Has Tech Firm That Benefits From Lockdowns
(i) Como Foundation Gives Trillium Health Partners $5M
(j) Current PHO Officials Also Sitting On Ontario Science Table
(k) Canadian Agency For Drugs & Technologies In Health; pCPA

Subversion In The Courts: SOGI Activists Implementing Their Agenda By Stealth

According to the publication: Canadian Lawyer, working tirelessly to upend tradition and social norms is worthy of an honourable mention. Never mind the consequences of that work.

An interesting point about the struggle for “equal” rights. The more victories you achieve, only the less and less important issues remain. Here, “Morgane” Oger goes on CBC to talk about removing references involving gender from BC Courts. Yes, that’s where we are. Keep in mind, this person wanted to establish a doxing website, took a Christian to the cleaners for telling the truth, and got Vancouver Rape Relief defunded for not admitting men. Yes, Oger felt the need to push for an ideology at the expense of women.

As bad as Oger is, we need to look at the bigger picture: the SOGI agenda is being implemented into the Courts, with the deliberate aim of corrupting them. The institutional rot is not limited to a few activists seeking attention. Oger is a symptom of a much larger problem.

LEADER. EDUCATOR. ADVOCATE.
The CBA Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Community Section (SOGIC) aims to:
-Address the needs and concerns of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and two-spirited members within the CBA
Provide a forum for the exchange of information, ideas and action on legal issues relating to sexual orientation and gender identity
-Encourage lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and two-spirited lawyers to actively participate in the CBA’s work
-Develop and provide continuing legal education and other professional development programs on legal issues relating to sexual orientation and gender identity
-Develop member services relevant to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and two-spirited CBA members
.
OUR WORK
SOGIC is a founding member of the International Lesbian and Gay Law Association. We liaise with lesbian and gay law groups in the United States, the United Kingdom and Israel, among others. Our members frequently attend the Nstrong>National Lesbian and Gay Law Association’s (NLGLA) Lavender Law conferences. The NLGLA is affiliated with the American Bar Association.

The Canadian Bar Association (CBA) has its own SOGI (sexual orientation and gender identity) section within it. Far from being limited, it has Provincial and International partners. Specifically, they list the U.S., U.K. and Israel.

This is far more coordinated than some activists and sympathetic media. The major goal is to get SOGI policies implemented into law. These are people trying to circumvent the legislative process.

One such person is Barbara Findlay, who refuses to spell her name with capital letters as an act of defiance. This spelling wasn’t for any real reason, just to cause friction. The publisher, Canadian Lawyer, did an article which lists several accomplishments she had over the years.

  • Changing definition of marriage
  • Putting 2 women on a birth certificate (2 mothers)
  • Forcing centers to host gay “weddings”
  • Forcing rape centers to accept tran-volunteers
  • Getting sex change surgery for inmates
  • Putting biologically male inmates in women’s prisons

Recently, Findlay was successful in getting a B.C. father‘s rights removed, as he tried to prevent his daughter from transitioning into a boy. Never mind the high regret and suicide rate among trans-children. The agenda had to go ahead.

Forcing the Knights of Columbus Center to host a lesbian “wedding” is an interesting one. Remember: the main rallying cry when changing the definition of marriage was that it wouldn’t impose on others. Turns out, that was a lie. There was every intention of imposing — later on.

Findlay and Oger line up ideologically when it comes to Vancouver Rape Relief. Findlay tried to force it to accept trans-volunteers, and Oger got it defunded for only accepting biological women as victims.

The society also notes that findlay founded the CBABC Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Community (SOGIC) section and co-founded the CBA National SOGIC federation. In BC, SOGIC is now a community of over 215 LGBTQ2SI+ lawyers, law students and judges.

Findlay isn’t just a bystander. She founded the BC Branch of SOGI lawyers, and co-founded the National Federation. She has been involved in establishing the infrastructure.

The Canadian Bar Association also has an overtly anti-white agenda. They explicitly ask Trudeau to put more “BIPOC” (black, indigenous, people of colour), members onto the bench. Apparently whites can’t be trusted to understand the lived experience of others, especially when non-whites have such high crime rates.

The CBA has also written the Government on a variety of issues, including: conversion therapy, gay blood donation ban, banning intersex surgery decisions by parents, etc… This reads like it was written by EGALE or some other gay rights group.

C. A specific online hate remedy [Page 8]
.
While existing remedies not specifically addressed to the internet – section 12 of the CHRA, for instance – may be available to address online hate, we recommend adding a remedy specific to the internet. This would remove uncertainty and avoid litigation about the meaning of more generic legislation. It could also serve as a warning with an educational and preventive purpose. The government should not miss this opportunity.
.
A revised civil remedy needs to be directed not only against inciters, but also against publishers, including internet platforms. Internet providers should not have civil immunity for the material on their platforms.
.
Rather than removing liability of internet providers from individual defamation suits, we recommend that the Tribunal have legislated power to make legally binding orders on internet providers.
.
The repealed section 13 of the CHRA excluded internet providers from its ambit:
(3) For the purposes of this section, no owner or operator of a telecommunication undertaking communicates or causes to be communicated any matter described in subsection (1) by reason only that the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking owned or operated by that person are used by other persons for the transmission of
that matter.
.
A re-enacted section 13 should expressly say the exact opposite: when an internet provider allows a person to use their services, the provider is communicating what the person posts on the provider’s platform.

The CBA explicitly supports hate speech laws. Typically, lawyers argue that people should have more freedoms and more rights. But here, they are quite okay with stripping away those rights, and putting the screws to internet providers, in the name of fighting hate.

Now, calling for less whites to be put on benches should be seen as an act of hate speech, right? No, there are a few groups it’s perfectly legal to discriminate against.

If the CBA were truly committed to open and honest discussion on controversial topics, that point of view may be understood. However, it functions as an activist group.

These are the people who have infiltrated our legal system, and are covertly (and not covertly) trying to remake society. Equality for all is a great talking point, but that isn’t really the goal.

It’s true that CBA-SOGIC may not speak for all members, and likely doesn’t, but they act as if they do.

Oger Discusses Stripping “Gendered Language” From BC Courts
https://canucklaw.ca/morgane-oger-foundation-wants-to-be-another-doxxing-site/
https://canucklaw.ca/morgane-oger-further-weaponizes-human-rights-codes-55k-ruling/
https://morganeoger.ca/2020/02/20/vancouver-rape-relief-failure-to-meet-vancouver-criteria-for-program-funding-shows-pressing-need-to-update-approach/

https://www.cba.org/Sexual-Orientation-and-Gender-Identity-Community/
Canadian Lawyer Mag On Barbara Findlay
https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/2019bcsc254/2019bcsc254
https://canucklaw.ca/bc-supreme-court-rules-parents-cant-stop-kids-from-getting-sex-changes/
Canadian Bar Association Put More Non Whites On Benches
Canadian Bar Association Trudeau Should Change Laws
Canadian Bar Association Hate Speech Laws

CV# 66(6): WHO Policy Paper On MANDATORY “Vaccines”, Admitting They’re Experimental

Less than a year ago, this was decried as a conspiracy theory cooked up by paranoid tinfoil hatters. Now, the World Health Organization is openly discussing policies of MANDATORY injections. And to clarify, all of these gene-replacement “vaccines” are still considered experimental. They are authorized for emergency measures, but are not actually approved.

WHO Paper On MANDATORY Vaccination April 13, 2021 (Original)
WHO Paper On MANDATORY Vaccination April 13, 2021 (Copy)
Section 30.1 Canada Food & Drug Act
September 2020 Interim Order From Patty Hajdu
https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/astrazeneca-covid-19-vaccine-pm-en.pdf
https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/janssen-covid-19-vaccine-pm-en.pdf
https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/covid-19-vaccine-moderna-pm-en.pdf
https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/pfizer-biontech-covid-19-vaccine-pm1-en.pdf

Before going any further, it is time to distinguish between 2 completely different ways medical devices and substances can be advanced.

(a) Approved: Health Canada has fully reviewed all the testing, and steps have been done, with the final determination that it can be used for the general population
(b) Interim Authorization: deemed to be “worth the risk” under the circumstances, doesn’t have to be fully tested. Allowed under Section 30.1 of the Canada Food & Drug Act. Commonly referred to as an emergency use authorization.

To be approved means that this thing has been rigorously tested, and has passed all safety measures, and that it has rigorously been examined. This is not what happened here. Instead, these “vaccines” were given interim authorization, because the Government has decided that it’s worth releasing it to the general public, and finishing the testing later. This is allowed under Section 30.1 of the Canada Food & Drug Act, and an Interim Order was signed by Patty Hajdu.

Think this is an exaggeration? Take a look at the paperwork available from Health Canada. Not once do they refer to them as approved. Instead, they are “authorized under an Interim Order”. These are not the same thing, and cannot be used interchangeably. Now, let’s get to the WHO paper.

Vaccines are one of the most effective tools for protecting people against COVID-19. Consequently, with COVID-19 vaccination under way or on the horizon in many countries, some may be considering whether to make COVID-19 vaccination mandatory in order to increase vaccination rates and achieve public health goals and, if so, under what conditions, for whom and in what contexts

Right off the bat, there is no semblance of neutrality. The World Health Organization starts off with the assumption that these are safe and effective. So legitimate concerns about testing, long term side effects, and the necessity of these “vaccines” is minimized.

It is not uncommon for governments and institutions to mandate certain actions or types of behaviour in order to protect the well-being of individuals or communities. Such policies can be ethically justified, as they may be crucial to protect the health and well-being of the public. Nevertheless, because policies that mandate an action or behaviour interfere with individual liberty and autonomy, they should seek to balance communal well-being with individual liberties. While interfering with individual liberty does not in itself make a policy intervention unjustified, such policies raise a number of ethical considerations and concerns and should be justified by advancing another valuable social goal, like protecting public health.
.
This document does not provide a position that endorses or opposes mandatory COVID-19 vaccination. Rather, it identifies important ethical considerations and caveats that should be explicitly evaluated and discussed through ethical analysis by governments and/or institutional policy-makers who may be considering mandates for COVID-19 vaccination.

Interesting. This paper attempts to take a neutral and academic approach towards the idea of forced vaccinations (or gene replacement therapy). How exactly does someone take a neutral stance on forcing millions, or billions, or people to take experimental drugs? Is this really necessary for safety?

How do you balance: (a) your right to self autonomy and control over your own body, and (b) the doomsday predictions of sociopathic politicians, and corrupt scientists?

1. Necessity and proportionality
Mandatory vaccination should be considered only if it is necessary for, and proportionate to, the achievement of an important public health goal (including socioeconomic goals) identified by a legitimate public health authority. If such a public health goal (e.g., herd immunity, protecting the most vulnerable, protecting the capacity of the acute health care system) can be achieved with less coercive or intrusive policy interventions (e.g., public education), a mandate would not be ethically justified, as achieving public health goals with less restriction of individual liberty and autonomy yields a more favourable risk-benefit ratio.
.
As mandates represent a policy option that interferes with individual liberty and autonomy, they should be considered only if they would increase the prevention of significant risks of morbidity and mortality and/or promote significant and unequivocal public health benefits. If important public health objectives cannot be achieved without a mandate – for instance, if a substantial portion of individuals are able but unwilling to be vaccinated and this is likely to result in significant risks of harm – their concerns should be addressed, proactively if possible. If addressing such concerns is ineffective and those concerns remain a barrier to achievement of public health objectives and/or if low vaccination rates in the absence of a mandate put others at significant risk of serious harm, a mandate may be considered “necessary” to achieve public health objectives. In this case, those proposing the mandate should communicate the reasons for the mandate to the affected communities through effective channels and find ways to implement the mandate such that it accommodates the reasonable concerns of communities. Individual liberties should not be challenged for longer than necessary. Policy-makers should therefore frequently re-evaluate the mandate to ensure it remains necessary and proportionate to achieve public health goals. In addition, the necessity of a mandate to achieve public health goals should be evaluated in the context of the possibility that repeated vaccinations may be required as the virus evolves, as this may challenge the possibility of a mandate to realistically achieve intended public health objectives.

Our “leaders” rely on computer modelling and data manipulation in order to drive these predictions. Therefore, the case of necessity can always be skewed. Liberties should not be challenged longer than necessary, yet the only way to achieve it — at some point — is to take experimental drugs.

Not only should we consider mandating these “vaccines”, we should also consider if more and more will be needed to deal with mutations of it.

There’s little to no concern about the long term effects of these “vaccines”. In fact, the authors parrot the talking points that they are safe and effective. The only issue seems to be about making it required if they cannot “educate” the public in sufficient numbers.

2. Sufficient evidence of vaccine safety
.
Data should be available that demonstrate the vaccine being mandated has been found to be safe in the populations for whom the vaccine is to be made mandatory. When safety data are lacking or when they suggest the risks associated with vaccination outweigh the risks of harm without the vaccine, the mandate would not be ethically justified, particularly without allowing for reasonable exceptions (e.g., medical contraindications). Policy-makers should consider specifically whether vaccines authorized for emergency or conditional use meet an evidentiary threshold for safety sufficient for a mandate. In the absence of sufficient evidence of safety, there would be no guarantee that mandating vaccination would achieve the goal of protecting public health. Furthermore, coercive exposure of populations to a potentially harmful product would violate the ethical obligation to protect the public from unnecessary harm when the harm the product might cause outweighs the degree of harm that might exist without the product. Even when the vaccine is considered sufficiently safe, mandatory vaccination should be implemented with no-fault compensation schemes to address any vaccine-related harm that might occur. This is important, as it would be unfair to require people who experience vaccine-related harm to seek legal remedy from harm resulting from a mandatory intervention. Such compensation would depend on countries’ health systems, including the extent of universal health coverage and how they address harm from vaccines that are not fully licensed (e.g., vaccines authorized for emergency or conditional use).
.
3. Sufficient evidence of vaccine efficacy and effectiveness
.
Data on efficacy and effectiveness should be available that show the vaccine is efficacious in the population for whom vaccination is to be mandated and that the vaccine is an effective means of achieving an important public health goal. For instance, if mandatory vaccination is considered necessary to interrupt transmission chains and prevent harm to others, there should be sufficient evidence that the vaccine is efficacious in preventing serious infection and/or transmission. Alternatively, if a mandate is considered necessary to prevent hospitalization and protect the capacity of the acute health care system, there should be sufficient evidence that the vaccine is efficacious in reducing hospitalization. Policy-makers should carefully consider whether vaccines authorized for emergency or conditional use meet evidentiary thresholds for efficacy and effectiveness sufficient for a mandate.

Here we get to the heart of it. The World Health Organization mentions that policy makers might consider a mandate, even if these gene replacement “vaccines” have only emergency or conditional authorization. As mentioned earlier, that is what status the chemicals in Canada have.

Vaccine compensation programs should be established, but that leaves out a key detail. It’s not the drug manufacturers who would be paying for such injuries. It would be funded by the public. Privatized profits, socialized losses.

There’s also the interesting question: if an experimental or emergency use “vaccine” is taken, who actually is responsible for it?

Mandatory COVID-19 vaccination in context
.
Authorized COVID-19 vaccines have been shown to be safe and efficacious in preventing severe disease and death, and it is clear that vaccine supply will continue to increase globally, albeit inequitably. That being said, the nature of the COVID-19 pandemic and evidence on vaccine safety, efficacy, and effectiveness continue to evolve (including with respect to variants of concern). Consequently, the six considerations identified above are described generally so that they can be applied at any point in time and in any context. For illustrative purposes, we now turn our attention to the application of these ethical considerations in three settings for which mandatory vaccination is commonly discussed: for the general public, in schools, and for health workers.

Within this paragraph, it’s stated that authorized vaccines (again, not approved), are safe and efficacious. Then, it immediately claims this will continue to evolve. In other words, these “safety” guarantees are worth nothing.

Conclusions
Vaccines are effective for protecting people from COVID-19. Governments and/or institutional policy-makers should use arguments to encourage voluntary vaccination against COVID-19 before contemplating mandatory vaccination. Efforts should be made to demonstrate the benefit and safety of vaccines for the greatest possible acceptance of vaccination. Stricter regulatory measures should be considered only if these means are not successful. A number of ethical considerations and caveats should be explicitly discussed and addressed through ethical analysis when considering whether mandatory COVID-19 vaccination is an ethically justifiable policy option. Similar to other public health policies, decisions about mandatory vaccination should be supported by the best available evidence and should be made by legitimate public health authorities in a manner that is transparent, fair, non-discriminatory, and involves the input of affected parties.

WHO Paper On MANDATORY Vaccination April 13, 2021 (Original)
WHO Paper On MANDATORY Vaccination April 13, 2021 (Copy)

Use arguments first. Mandate only if that doesn’t work. In other words, if we can’t persuade people to take it willingly, then consider forcing them. Funny how “involves the input of affected parties” gets in there. If these are mandated, then of course input is removed.

Don’t you love it when academic debate what our human rights should be, and what bodily autonomy we should have?

References
1. Nuffield Council on Bioethics. Public health: Ethical issues. London: Nuffield Council on Bioethics; 2007
(https://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/assets/pdfs/Public-health-ethical-issues.pdf).
2. Gravagna K, Becker A, Valeris-Chacin R, Mohammed I, Tambe S, Awan FA et al. Global assessment of national
mandatory vaccination policies and consequences of non-compliance. Vaccine. 2020;38:7865–73.
3. Colgrove J, Bayer R. Manifold restraints: Liberty, public health, and the legacy of Jacobson v Massachusetts. Am J Public
Health. 2005;95:571–6.
4. World Health Organization. COVID-19 virtual press conference 7 December 2020
(https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/covid-19-virtual-press-conference-transcript—7-december-2020).
5. World Health Organization. Interim position paper: Considerations regarding proof of COVID-19 vaccination for
international travellers. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2021 (https://www.who.int/news-room/articles-detail/interim-position-paper-considerations-regarding-proof-of-covid-19-vaccination-for-international-travellers).
6. Walkinshaw E. Mandatory vaccinations: The international landscape. Can Med Assoc J. 2011;183:e1167–8.
7. Gostin LO, Salmon DA, Larson HJ. Mandating COVID-19 vaccines. JAMA. 2020;325:532–3.
8. Halabi S, Heinrich A, Omer S. No-fault compensation for vaccine injury – The other side of equitable access to Covid-19
vaccines. N Engl J Med. 2020;383:e125.
9. Schwartz JL. Evaluating and deploying Covid-19 vaccines – The importance of transparency, scientific integrity, and
public trust. N Engl J Med. 2020;383:1703–5.
10. Shetty P. Experts concerned about vaccination backlash. Lancet. 2020;375:970–1.
11. Giubilini A. Chapter 3, Vaccination policies and the principle of least restrictive alternative: An intervention ladder. In
Giubilini A, The ethics of vaccination. Cham (CH): Palgrave Pivot; 2019.
12. Goldenberg M. Vaccine hesitancy: Public trust, expertise, and the war on science. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh
Press. 2021.
13. Opel DJ, Lo B, Peek ME. Addressing mistrust about COVID-19 vaccines among patients of color. Ann Intern Med.
2021;M21-0055. doi: 10.7326/M21-0055.
14. Colgrove J. Immunization and ethics: Beneficence, coercion, public health, and the state. In: Mastroianni AC, Kahn JP,
Kass NE, editors. The Oxford handbook of public health ethics, New York City (NY): Oxford University Press; 2020:435–
44.
15. Sutton EJ, Upshur REG. Are there different spheres of conscience? J Eval Clin Pract. 2010;16:338–43.
16. Harris J, Holm S. Is there a moral obligation not to infect others? BMJ. 1995;311:1215–7.
17. Gruben V, Siemieniuk RA, McGeer A. Health care workers, mandatory influenza vaccination policies and the law. Can
Med Assoc J. 2014;186:1076–80.
18. Krystal JH. Responding to the hidden pandemic for healthcare workers: Stress. Nat Med. 2020;26:639.
19. Van Buynder PG, Konrad S, Kersteins F, Preston E, Brown PD, Keen D, et al. Healthcare worker influenza immunization
vaccinate or mask policy: Strategies for cost effective implementation and subsequent reductions in staff absenteeism due
to illness. Vaccine. 2015;33:625–8.
20. Caplan A, Shah NR. Managing the human toll caused by seasonal influenza: New York State’s mandate to vaccinate or
mask. JAMA. 2013;310:1797–8.
21. World Health Organization. Mask use in the context of COVID-19 – Interim guidance. Geneva: World Health
Organization; 2020. (https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/advice-on-the-use-of-masks-in-the-community-duringhome-care-and-in-healthcare-settings-in-the-context-of-the-novel-coronavirus-(2019-ncov)-outbreak)