Media Silent On “Babbling Bonnie” Henry’s Incoherence On Masks

Note: Thank you to whoever compiled this video. It is a pretty detailed track of how BCPHO Bonnie Henry had repeatedly told the Province that there was no benefit to wearing masks for prolonged periods. She then abruptly changed her tune in late 2020.

For more on the lack of science behind what Bonnie does, here are some other examples.

1 Year Later, Media Silent On Christine Elliott’s Admission Deaths “With Covid” And Deaths “From Covid” Conflated

One year ago, Ontario Health Minister, Christine Elliott, was asked in a press conference about the death of a woman who died “from Covid”, as it was officially listed. The interesting thing was that she tested positive for the coronavirus, but that wasn’t acually the cause of her death. Nonetheless, it was formally written up as if it were.

The obvious conclusion one could draw from that was that Ontario (and other jurisdictions) were deliberately conflating the 2 in order to artificially drive up the death toll. In other words, this “pandemic” was being manufactured, at least in part. See this for more examples.

This video was pulled off a Facebook page in early June, which is now unavailable.

To my knowledge, there has never been any follow-up on this, by anyone in any “mainstream” outlet in Canada.

Elliott’s main qualification for being in Cabinet seems to be her being the widow of the late Jim Flaherty, former Ontario Finance Minister.

British Fertility Society Promotes Vaccines, Funded By Big Pharma

A few months ago, the British Fertility Society published a paper saying that there were no concerns about vaccination pregnant women, or women who were soon to become pregnant. Or even egg or sperm donors.

Should people of reproductive age receive a Covid-19 vaccine?
People of reproductive age are advised to have the vaccine when they receive their invitation for vaccination. This includes those who are trying to have a baby as well as those who are thinking about having a baby, whether that is in the near future or in a few years’ time.

Can any of the Covid-19 vaccines affect fertility?
There is absolutely no evidence, and no theoretical reason, that any of the vaccines can affect the fertility of women or men.

Can I have a Covid-19 vaccine during my fertility treatment (IVF, Frozen Embryo Transfer, Egg Freezing, Ovulation Induction, Intra-Uterine Insemination, using donated gametes or not)?
You may wish to consider the timing of having a Covid-19 vaccine during your fertility treatment, taking into account that some people may get bothersome side effects in the few days after vaccination that they do not want to have during treatment. These include for example, tenderness at the injection site, fever, headache, muscle ache or feeling tired. It may be sensible to separate the date of vaccination by a few days from some treatment procedures (for example, egg collection in IVF), so that any symptoms, such as fever, might be attributed correctly to the vaccine or the treatment procedure. Your medical team will be able to advise you about the best time for your situation.

Should I delay my fertility treatment until after I have had the Covid-19 vaccine?
The only reason to consider delaying fertility treatment until after you have been vaccinated would be if you wanted to be protected against Covid-19 before you were pregnant. The chance of successful treatment is unlikely to be affected by a short delay, for example of up to 6 months, particularly if you are 37 years of age or younger. However, delays of several months may affect your chance of success once you are over 37 and especially if you are 40 years of age or older.

How soon after having a Covid-19 vaccine can I start my fertility treatment?
Immediately – you do not need to delay your fertility treatment, unless you wish to have your second dose before pregnancy (see above).

I had a positive pregnancy test today. Can I still have a Covid-19 vaccine?
If you are in a risk category for Covid-19, either because of the potential for exposure at work or medical issues, you can still have the vaccine in pregnancy. If you have no increased risks for Covid-19, the Joint Committee on Vaccination & Immunisation (JCVI) have advised that you delay it until after pregnancy. There is no reason to believe that any of the Covid-19 vaccines would be harmful, but their effects in pregnancy have not yet been fully investigated. The information that is known is reassuring. None of the vaccines contain live virus and so there is no risk that the pregnant woman or her baby could get Covid-19 from the vaccine. For further information on vaccination in pregnancy, see the information produced by the Royal College of Obstetricians & Gynaecologists []. The health care professional looking after you in pregnancy will be able to advise you taking into account your individual risk.

I am donating my eggs/sperm for the use of others. Can I still have a Covid-19 vaccine?
Covid-19 vaccines do not contain any virus and so you cannot pass on Covid-19 by receiving the vaccine. The Human Fertilisation & Embryology Authority have stated that you must allow at least 7 days from the most recent vaccination prior to donating eggs or sperm. If the donor feels unwell after the vaccination, they must not donate for 7 days after their symptoms have got better [].

Not only can prospective couples get the vaxx, they can donate eggs and sperm as well, with no risk to the new hosts. While that certainly sounds strange enough, the document is ended with the following disclaimer. Of course, it’s in the fine print, and is difficult to read.

This FAQ document represents the views of ARCS/BFS, which were reached after careful consideration of the scientific evidence available at the time of preparation. In the absence of scientific evidence on certain aspects, a consensus between the Executive teams and other members has been obtained. ARCS/BFS are not liable for damages related to the use of the information contained herein. We cannot guarantee correctness, completeness or accuracy of the guidance in every respect. Please be aware that the evidence and advice for COVID-19 vaccines for those trying to achieve a pregnancy or those who are pregnant already is rapidly developing and the latest data or best practice may not yet be incorporated into the current version of this document. ARCS and BFS recommend that patients always seek the advice of their local centre if they have any concerns.

This group hedges its statements as well. They claim that there is no risk (or even theoretical risk) to a pregnant woman, while still saying more research needs to be done. That alone should be enough reason to walk away.

Apparently, there is no theoretical reason to be worried about vaccines and pregnancy, however, the evidence is always changing. And these people assume no liability for anything they say to you. Things start to become clear when it’s known who funds the BFS. It’s even more transparent in that BFS had some of their work signal boosted by the Vaccine Confidence Project.

In fact, there are a lot of groups working together to promote the mass vaccination agenda globally. These are just a few of them:

  • World Health Organization
  • Imperial College London
  • Vaccine Impact Modelling Consortium
  • London School Of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine
  • Vaccine Confidence Project
  • GAVI – Global Vaccine Alliance
  • IFFIm – International Finance Facility for Immunization
  • Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
  • UN Verified Initiative
  • Team Halo

Team Halo partially explains the relationship between the groups as follows:

Team Halo was established as part of the United Nations Verified Initiative in partnership with The Vaccine Confidence Project at the University of London’s School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. It is proud to collaborate with the Vaccine Alliance and GAVI. Support is provided by Luminate and IKEA Foundation.

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation directly (or indirectly) finances: WHO; GAVI; Imperial College London; London School for Hygiene & Tropical Medicine; Vaccine Confidence Project; Vaccine Impact Modelling Consortium; the BBC; the US CDC; and countless drug companies.

Imperial College London became notorious for the doomsday modelling of Neil Ferguson, nicknamed “Dr. Lockdown”, owing to his wild predictions about death waves that never materialize.

GAVI was started up in 1999, in large part because of a $750 million grant from the Gates Foundation. GAVI coordinates spreading its concoctions around the world. It also coordinates a funding scam with the International Finance Facility for Immunizations (IFFIm). Here countries make pledges of donations, which are then converted into “vaccine bonds“.

The Vaccine Confidence Project is part of the London School for Hygiene & Tropical Medicine. In addition to getting money from Gates, they receive contributions from major pharmaceutical companies.

These examples are by no means exhaustive, but they show just how interconnected these groups are. We are at the point where fertility organizations are funded by pharmaceutical companies, and advise that there is no risk to their future children. Remember: they are all in this together.

(6) British Fertility Society Recommends Vaccines

CV #25(F): Ottawa Launching Vaccine Passports At Instigation Of WHO-IHR, 7th Meeting

This is a sequel to the last article. Vaccine passports are coming to Canada, but where did the order come from?

On June 4, 2021, the World Health Organization handed down instructions on proceeding with vaccine passports. On June 7, (yesterday), the Federal Government posted an invitation to bid on the creation of a biometric tracking system, which would most likely include a form of vaccine passport.

For some context of the situation: (a) the International Health Regulations are legally binding; (b) the 2005 Quarantine Act came from WHO; (c) WHO manages the “pandemic”; and (d) PHAC was created in 2004 at the instigation of the WHO.

Now, about the report itself:

Given this recommendation from the IHR Emergency Committee meeting, the Smart Vaccination Certificate Secretariat has expanded the scope of the initiative to develop guidance that includes SARS-CoV-2 testing and COVID-19 recovery status. Accordingly, the Smart Vaccination Certificate specification will be renamed as the “Digital Documentation of COVID-19 Certificates (DDCC)” specification. The resulting guidance will be published in a series of three separate documents, which will guide Member States on how to digitally document COVID-19 vaccination status, SARS-CoV-2 test results, and COVID-19 recovery status. These guidance documents will include critical components such as the minimum datasets, expected functionality of digital systems, and preferred terminology code systems. They will also include a section on national digital architecture, recognizing that Member States are still expected to decide how they want to implement these systems. The DDCC specifications will include an HL7 FHIR Implementation Guide (IG), including example software implementations.

This page from the IHR Emergency Committee lays out in broad strokes what shall be contained in these vaccine passports. However, the implementation will be left to individual countries.

Manitoba Premier Brian Pallister announced new “privileges” for people who have taken the “vaccine”. See 15:00 in video. Keep in mind, these are experimental, not approved by Health Canada, and manufacturers are exempt from liability.

Rebel News published a portion of Manitoba’s “top doctor” saying that the Province is introducing their own version of the vaccine passport. Nothing nefarious, he claimed. It was just in case it was needed. Now, why did Brent Roussin say there was no specified purpose?

These guidance documents will make no reference to the specific circumstances under which these certificates should be used. Such guidance will be made available in separate guidance documents published by WHO (e.g. DG temporary recommendations to States Parties after IHR Emergency Committees; WHO’s interim guidance documents on considerations for the implementation of public health and social measures; WHO’s interim guidance documents on considerations for a risk-based approach to international travel in the context of COVID-19; etc.).

It could be because all parties were INSTRUCTED to say that there was no specific purpose for these vaccine certificates. That’s what it sounds like. Countries were instructed to develop these “digital systems” but not specify what they were to be used for.

Additionally, in line with the change in scope, WHO DDCC specifications will not include a section on global architecture for a Global Health Trust Framework. At point in this time, WHO does not intend to implement a Global Health Trust Framework to store the digital public keys of members states, to facilitate the validation and verification of digitally signed COVID-19 certificates (e.g., vaccination certificates, SARS-CoV-2 test certificates, and COVID-19 recovery status certificates) across borders.

WHO states that it does not intend to establish a global system to track vaccination status, for now. The key words are “at this point in time”. That could very easily change later. And no, this isn’t just something they are pondering.

WHO is soliciting proposals for experts to inform the definition of specifications and standards related to interoperability, governance, and design for a personal digital vaccination certificate, in preparation for COVID-19 vaccine availability. Please follow instructions, detailed below, to nominate experts, by 17:00 CET on December 14, 2020.

Furthermore, as detailed in the International Health Regulations (2005), WHO has the mandate to coordinate among member states to provide a public health response to the international spread of diseases. Currently, yellow fever is the only disease expressly listed in the International Health Regulations for which countries can require proof of vaccination from travellers as a condition of entry into a country. WHO has a mandate to take a coordinating role to ensure that member states are equipped and ready for the anticipated global distribution of COVID-19 vaccines. For effective implementation of COVID-19 vaccines, global coordination of relevant data management principles and processes is needed to account for and facilitate coherent implementation of transmission prevention and control by all member states.

The Smart Vaccination Certificate consortium will bring together experts to focus on defining specifications and standards for a digital vaccination certificate that would serve current and future requirements, toward the dual purpose of (1) facilitating monitoring of national COVID-19 vaccination programs as well as (2) supporting cross-border uses architected for a potential future in which the COVID-19 vaccine would be included in an updated version of the International Health Regulations.

Late last year, WHO put out an offer for bids on establishing digital vaccine certificates. WHO also admits that vaccination will be included in the next edition of the International Health Regulations, which again, are legally binding.

In April 2021, WHO released a paper opening discussing the pros and cons of mandatory vaccination. In March, 23 countries agreed in principle with establishing a global order to address outbreaks in the future.

Remember last Spring, when the idea of mandatory vaccines and vaccine passports were dismissed as crazy conspiracy theories?


Canada Gives Marie Stopes Another $25 Million For Foreign Abortions, Media Silent

There are 2 entries listed for Canada on recent foreign abortion spending. One was for $19,959,594.00 in Mali, and the other was for $4,985,000.00 in Ghana. Together, these grants make up nearly $25 million. The records are publicly available.

At a time when we are (allegedly) in the middle of a global pandemic, killing African children abroad is apparently still a priority for this Government. Interesting. How come this hasn’t been mentioned in the media, or by “opposition” parties? Are they unaware of this?

Marie Stopes International is a leading provider of family planning and reproductive healthcare globally. It works in 37 countries around the world delivering services to over 20 million women and men every year to ensure the rights of women to have children by choice, not by chance.
As a part of reproductive health services, MSI Reproductive Choices provides surgical abortions by using the safe and simple technique which called manual vacuum aspiration (MVA).
MS HEALTH PTY LTD is MSI wholly owned subsidiary in China and the exclusive distribution agent in China and overseas for Marie Stopes® MVA product line.
With mission to ensure women the rights of women to have children by choice, not by chance, MS Health is promoting the MVA products and other products on women reproductive health.

Marie Stopes International is an organization that provides birth control, but also has a significant enterprise in abortion. The terms of the Canadian grants specify that at least some of the money will be used for abortion. In 2018, Canadian taxpayers shelled out $15 million to this group

This organization holds several patents, including for equipment to perform abortions. It has been doing this for a very long time.

In 2009, Marie Stopes received a $50 million grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Gates Sr. is a former Head of Planned Parenthood in the U.S., so this ideologically lines up.

Marie Stopes would definitely be worth a deep dive, as she frequently gets compared to Margaret Sanger. However, that will have to be for another time.

And what are “conservatives” saying about this? It seems they don’t actually oppose the killing of children ideologically. However, they do try to score points for claiming to oppose sex-selective abortion. In other words, snuffing out children is okay, just don’t be a bigot.


CV #27(C): Share Verified Uses Emotional Manipulation, Selective Truth To Promote Narrative

Not even Wikipedia is safe from being used as a staging ground to promote official narratives. Here, a volunteer brags about editing pages to be consistent with the “latest information”.

This piece will contain some overlap with the work from Civilian Intelligence Network. Go check out their article for extra information.

Share Verified works in a way that can be best described as emotional manipulation. In practice, the promote an appeal to authority, where only certain sources should be trusted. They attempt to dissuade real research by gaslighting such things as misinformation, but in a passive aggressive way.

As the world confronts its biggest challenge in living memory, there has never been a greater need for accurate, verified information. Like the virus itself, misinformation spreads from person-to-person, heightening the risk to health and spreading fear and division. The world cannot contain the disease and its impacts without access to trusted, accurate information that promotes science and real solutions – and builds solidarity within and between nations.

Verified is an initiative of the United Nations, in collaboration with Purpose, to provide content that cuts through the noise to deliver life-saving information, fact-based advice and stories from the best of humanity.

By promoting and sharing Verified content, everyday people can play a crucial role in the work of Verified by spreading reliable information about COVID-19 to their friends, families and social networks, with the goal of saving lives and countering misinformation. Organisations, businesses, civil society and media platforms partner with Verified to spread information that helps protect people, communities and forges connections across the planet.

Verified’s team of communicators, creatives and researchers produce content based on the latest information and guidance from the United Nations, the World Health Organisation and other UN agencies. We work with leading experts on misinformation First Draft.

Verified works with the support of Luminate, IKEA Foundation and UN Foundation and partners all over the world.

An important detail to point out is that Share Verified (a UN initiative) is not working alone. It has partnered with many other NGOs to collaborate on this narrative.

  • Luminate is funded by the Omidyar Group, named after Pierre Omidyar, the founder of eBay. Omidyar’s groups are involved in media manipulation, and include the NGOs “Reset”, and “Reset Australia”. Check the link for more information.
  • The IKEA Foundation seems like a bizarre one to be promoting this narrative. However, once you look at their partners, it makes sense. These include: Carbon Trust, Carnegie Council, Climate Analytics, Clinton Health Access Initiative, European Climate Foundation, UNCHR, UNICEF, UNDP and the World Bank Group.
  • First Draft News claims to be a news outlet devoted to countering misinformation on a variety of topics. Its donors include:
    1. Bernard and Anne Spitzer Charitable Trust
    2. Craig Newmark Philanthropies
    3. Democracy Fund
    4. Facebook Journalism Project
    5. Ford Foundation
    6. Google News Initiative
    7. John S. and James L. Knight Foundation
    8. The Klarman Family Foundation
    9. Media Democracy Fund
    10. The Newton and Rochelle Becker Charitable Trust
    11. Rita Allen Foundation
    12. Swiss Democracy Fund
    13. Open Society Foundations
    14. Wellcome Trust
  • Various UN Groups work with Share Verified, and in fact, it’s a branch of the organization. It could even be referred to as a media arm of the World Health Organization

Does anyone see anything wrong with a “medical doctor” spending her time online to edit pages on Wikipedia in order to influence the medical decisions of people who are not patients, and whom she has never examined? Really? Anyone?

The Vaccine Confidence Project, and the London School for Hygiene & Tropical Medicine receive funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and from drug companies. Just a thought, but perhaps they have an interest in pushing vaccines on the public.

Share Verified recommends pushing their talking points as a form of innoculation. They claim that people will be better able to sort through misinformation when the time comes.

In practice, in means prepping others with pre-set answers, so that questions or concerns (regardless of legitimacy) can be countered. A great way — although manipulative — to counter others is to simply attack the information as lies, but without addressing any key points.

Share Verified promotes the VCP, but who runs it?

A bit of background information here. The VCP, Vaccine Confidence Program, is part of the LSHTM, or London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine. Both receive extensive funding from pharmaceutical companies, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the World Health Organization, and Governments.

Who else is worth noting?

  • Board member, Carlos Alban (AbbVie)
  • Board member, Bill Anderson (Roche)
  • Board Member, Gabriel Baertschi (Grünenthal)
  • Board member, Anders Blanck (LIF)
  • Board Member, Olivier Charmeil (Sanofi)
  • Board Member, Alberto Chiesi (Chiesi)
  • Board member, Frank Clyburn (MSD)
  • Board Member, Eric Cornut (Menarini)
  • Board member, Richard Daniell (Teva Pharmaceutical Europe)
  • Board member, Johanna Friedl-Naderer (Biogen)
  • Board Member, Murdo Gordon (Amgen)
  • Board member, Peter Guenter (Merck)
  • Board member, Angela Hwang (Pfizer)
  • Board member, Enrica Giorgetti (Farmindustria)
  • Board member, Dirk Kosche (Astellas)
  • Board member, Jean-Luc Lowinski (Pierre Fabre)
  • Board member, Catherine Mazzacco (LEO Pharma)
  • Board member, Johanna Mercier (Gilead)
  • Board member, Luke Miels (GSK)
  • Board member, Gianfranco Nazzi (Almirall)
  • Board member, Oliver O’Connor (IPHA)
  • Board Member, Stefan Oelrich (Bayer)
  • Board member, Giles Platford (Takeda)
  • Board member, Antonio Portela (Bial)
  • Board member, Iskra Reic (AstraZeneca)
  • Board Member, Susanne Schaffert (Novartis)
  • Board member, Stefan Schulze (VIFOR PHARMA)
  • Board Member, Kris Sterkens (Johnson & Johnson)
  • Board member, Han Steutel (vfa)
  • Board member, Alfonso Zulueta (Eli Lilly)

One of the major donors of the Vaccine Confidence Project is the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA). It’s Board is made of up members representing major big pharma companies.

Another donor of VCP is the Innovative Medicine Institute. Salah-Dine Chibout is on the Governing Board of IMI, and also is the Global Head of Discovery and Investigational Safety at Novartis. Additionally, Paul Stoffels is the Chief Scientific Officer at Johnson & Johnson, Worldwide Chairman of Janssen Pharmaceutical Companies of Johnson & Johnson.

Share Verified promotes the VCP, which is funded by drug companies. Even the “independent” sponsors have ties to those same pharma organizations. Perhaps this is a serious conflict of interest.

And if that isn’t creepy enough, there is at least one (probably more) instruction manual on how to speak to people in order to get them to take vaccines. It gives plenty of tips on what type of emotional and psychological appeals to make, depending on the person.

Emotions to avoid

  • Sadness. Sadness can be helpful in gaining short-term engagement, but isn’t helpful over the long term. We are motivated to maintain a positive sense of ourselves, and tend to ignore information that makes us feel bad about our choices or doesn’t affirm our worldview.
  • Shame. It’s tempting to shame people for not choosing to get the vaccine. But as we’ve seen with mask wearing, shame activates people’s moral reasoning and they’ll find reasons why their choice is the right one to avoid feeling bad about themselves.
  • Fear. Using fear appeals can be effective when there’s a clear call to action, but in this case, it’s more likely that fear appeals will immobilize people. Fear motivates people to assess information systematically, so we may pay more attention to information when we are afraid. Public health scholars have found a relationship between fear and perceptions of personal or group risk. If the risk doesn’t seem relevant to an individual’s life, they won’t experience fear and are more likely to disengage from or discount the message. If people are seeing messages that suggest that the risks of COVID-19 are minimal, they’re unlikely to engage. People can experience fear when the consequences of risk are uncertain and they feel like they do not have control over the outcome. So using a fear-based message could damage more constructive efforts to demonstrate how taking the vaccine offers control.

We don’t want to shame people because they might thinking for themselves.

An interesting point: “FEAR MOTIVATES PEOPLE AT ASSESS INFORMATION SYSTEMATICALLY, SO WE MAY PAY MORE ATTENTION BECAUSE WE ARE AFRAID”. In other words, it’s recommended against using fear, but not out of human compassion. It’s because scared people are more likely to do their own research.

In case the term “emotional manipulation” may come off as hyperbolic, it’s not. These quotes are from pages 39 to 41 in the instruction manual. It was published by the University of Florida College of Journalism and Communications in partnership with Purpose and the United Nations Verified initiative.

And of course, if that doesn’t work, Dominic LeBlanc and other politicians seem to have no issues with just passing laws to ban whatever they call “misinformation”. Of course, the WHO is on board with such measures.

What is the takeaway from all of this? It’s that the pro-pandemic, pro-vaccine, pro-mask messages are a lot more planned, coordinated, and calculated that one might think. Now, go read the CIN article.

(21) Guide To Covid Vaccine Communications