CV #66(C): Trudeau Lies, Covid “Vaccines” Being Injected Were Never Approved By Health Canada

Justin Trudeau, Theresa Tam, Patty Hajdu and others are misrepresenting when they claim that these vaccines have been approved for use. Aside from not really being vaccines, we need to distinguish between 2 things:

(a) Emergency use 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.
(b) 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.

The substances being injected have been authorized for use, because of an Interim Order.

1. Canada Food & Drug Act, Section 30.1

Interim orders
.
30.1 (1) The Minister may make an interim order that contains any provision that may be contained in a regulation made under this Act if the Minister believes that immediate action is required to deal with a significant risk, direct or indirect, to health, safety or the environment.
.
Marginal note: Cessation of effect
(2) An interim order has effect from the time that it is made but ceases to have effect on the earliest of
(a) 14 days after it is made, unless it is approved by the Governor in Council,
(b) the day on which it is repealed,
(c) the day on which a regulation made under this Act, that has the same effect as the interim order, comes into force, and
(d) one year after the interim order is made or any shorter period that may be specified in the interim order.

Section 30.1 of the Canada Food & Drug Act. Here is the Interim Order signed September 16, 2020 by Health Minister Patty Hajdu. This is quite different from having drugs or medical devices being approved through the formal channels. Now, what does that document actually say?

2. September 16 Order From Patty Hajdu

Application for authorization
.
3 (1) Subject to section 4, an application for an authorization in respect of a COVID-19 drug must be in a form established by the Minister and contain sufficient information and material to enable the Minister to determine whether to issue the authorization, including
.
(a) the applicant’s name and contact information and, in the case of a foreign applicant, the name and contact information of their representative in Canada;
(b) a description of the drug and a statement of its proper name or its common name if there is no proper name;
(c) a statement of the brand name of the drug or the identifying name or code proposed for the drug;
(d) a list of the ingredients of the drug, stated quantitatively;
(e) the specifications for each of the drug’s ingredients;
(f) a description of the facilities and equipment to be used in the manufacture, preparation and packaging of the drug;
(g) details of the method of manufacture and the controls to be used in the manufacture, preparation and packaging of the drug;
(h) details of the tests to be applied to control the potency, purity, stability and safety of the drug;
(i) the names and qualifications of all the investigators to whom the drug has been sold;
(j) a draft of every label to be used in connection with the drug, including any package insert and any document that is provided on request and that sets out supplementary information on the use of the drug;
(k) a statement of all the representations to be made for the promotion of the drug respecting
(i) the recommended route of administration of the drug,
(ii) the proposed dosage of the drug,
(iii) the drug’s indications, and
(iv) the contra-indications and side effects of the drug;
(l) a description of the dosage form that is proposed for the sale of the drug;
(m) evidence that all test batches of the drug used in any studies conducted in connection with the application were manufactured and controlled in a manner that is representative of market production;
(n) in the case of a drug intended for administration to food-producing animals, the withdrawal period of the drug; and
(o) the known information in relation to the quality, safety and effectiveness of the drug.

This may be nitpicking, but notice that the Order doesn’t say that the drug has to be safe. It only states that the “unknown information” has to be provided.

It also doesn’t specify that the testing has to be completed, or anywhere close to done. In fact, these authorizations can be issued with next to no testing being done.

Yes, a considerable amount of information needs to be provided. But it doesn’t mean that safety — the biggest issue — has to be conclusively established. The standard is much lower.

4 Content
.
4(2) The application must be in a form established by the Minister and contain the following information and material:
(a) the information and material described in paragraphs 3‍(1)‍(a) to (d), (f), (j) to (l) and, if applicable, (n);
(b) an attestation, signed and dated by an individual who has authority to bind the applicant in Canada, certifying that the applicant has access to the information referred to in paragraph 3‍(1)‍(o) that was submitted to the relevant foreign regulatory authority in order for the foreign drug to be authorized to be sold;
(c) information that demonstrates that the drug is identical to, and is manufactured, prepared and packaged in the same manner as, the foreign drug;
(d) information that demonstrates that the sale of the foreign drug is authorized by the foreign regulatory authority referred to in paragraph (b); and
(e) any labels that are approved by the foreign regulatory authority referred to in paragraph (b) for use in connection with the foreign drug.

Issuance
.
5 The Minister must issue an authorization in respect of a COVID-19 drug if the following requirements are met:
-the applicant has submitted an application to the Minister that meets the requirements set out in subsection 3‍(1) or 4‍(2);
-the applicant has provided the Minister with all information or material, including samples, requested under subsection 13‍(1) in the time, form and manner specified under subsection 13‍(2); and
-the Minister has sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that the benefits associated with the drug outweigh the risks, having regard to the uncertainties relating to the benefits and risks and the necessity of addressing the urgent public health need related to COVID-19.

If the above criteria are met, then the authorization MUST be approved, according to Section 5 of the Order.

To be clear, getting an authorization under this Interim Order isn’t the same thing as having a drug of vaccine getting approved. This authorization is a sort of temporary emergency measure. These are not the same thing, and should not be conflated in any way.

Prohibition – significant difference
.
6 (1) It is prohibited to sell a COVID-19 drug to which an authorization relates if any of the matters referred to in subsection 3‍(1) or subsection 4‍(2) — other than in paragraph 3‍(1)‍(i) or 4‍(2)‍(e), as the case may be — are significantly different from the information or material contained in the application, unless the Minister amends the authorization.

Amendment
(2) The Minister must amend the authorization if the following requirements are met:
.
(a) the holder of the authorization has submitted an application to the Minister to amend it;
(b) the holder has provided the Minister with all information or material, including samples, requested under subsection 13‍(1) in the time, form and manner specified under subsection 13‍(2); and
(c) the Minister has sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that the benefits associated with the drug outweigh the risks, having regard to the uncertainties relating to the benefits and risks and the necessity of addressing the urgent public health need related to COVID-19.

Notice that the September 16, 2020 Order keeps referring to this as an “authorization” for drugs. It never says the term “approval”. Why is this? It’s because a temporary authorization and an approval are 2 entirely different animals.

True, both lead to “vaccines” getting put into people’s arms. But they are not the same in terms of standards, testing, length of study, and review.

3. Authorized Despite Testing Deficiencies

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

Want to know the shortcomings in these “thoroughly tested” vaccines? This page contains information directly from the product information. Why aren’t our so-called opposition parties addressing any of this?

Think that suing the manufacturer will be an option if these “vaccines” harm you? Think again. They are exempt from liability. While an injury compensation program was announced back in December, there have been no details or updates since.

4. Same Deception Problem With Fauci

In this recent interview, Anthony Fauci gets called out by Eugenio Derbez for repeatedly distorting the truth. Fauci tries to conflate vaccines being “approved by the FDA”, and an “Emergency Use Authorization”. They are not the same thing. See here for the full conversation.

IBC #11(B): World Economic Forum Partnering With Major Banks, Pension Funds

This may be nothing, but should we be worried that the World Economic Forum has partnered with the banking industry, asset management groups, pharmaceutical companies, and other major corporations?

1. More On The International Banking Cartel

For more on the banking cartel, check this page. The Canadian Government, like so many others, has sold out the independence and sovereignty of its monetary system to foreign interests. BIS, like its central banks, exceed their agenda and try to influence other social agendas. See who is really controlling things, and the common lies that politicians and media figures tell. The bankers work with the climate mafia and pandemic pushers to promote mutual goals of control and debt slavery.

2. WEF Partners: Banks, Finance, Pensions

  • African Development Bank Group
  • Algebris Investments
  • Al Nowais Investments
  • Banco Bradesco
  • Banco BTG Pactual
  • Banco Safra Brasil
  • Banco Santander
  • Bangchak
  • Bank Julius Baer
  • Bank Leumi Le-Israel
  • Bank Lombard Odier & Co.
  • Bank Mandiri (Persero)
  • Bank of America
  • BlackRock
  • Blackstone Group
  • BMO Financial Group
  • Brightstar Capital Partners
  • Broadridge Financial Solutions
  • Brookfield Asset Management
  • Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec (CDPQ)
  • Capricorn Investment Group
  • Cassa Depositi e Prestiti
  • Cathay Capital Private Equity
  • Cedar Holdings Group
  • China Construction Bank
  • Citibank
  • CLS Bank International
  • CPP Investments
  • Credit Suisse
  • CVC Capital Partners (Luxembourg)
  • Deloitte
  • Depository Trust & Clearing (DTCC)
  • Deutsche Bank
  • Development Bank of Japan (DBJ)
  • Development Bank of Southern Africa
  • Discovery
  • European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD)
  • European Investment Bank
  • Fidelity International
  • Fubon Financial Holding
  • Giti Group
  • Glencore International
  • Global Asset Capital
  • Goldman Sachs
  • Grupo Mega
  • HPS Investment Partners
  • HSBC Holdings
  • Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (ICBC)
  • Industrial Development Corporation of South Africa
  • ING Group
  • Inter-American Development Bank
  • Islamic Development Bank
  • Itaú Unibanco
  • Japan Bank for International Cooperation (JBIC)
  • John Keells Holdings
  • JPMorgan Chase & Co.
  • Kcap Holdings
  • Kirin Holdings
  • KPMG
  • Lloyds Banking Group
  • Manulife
  • Mastercard
  • McKinsey & Company
  • Mizuho Financial Group
  • Morgan Stanley
  • MUFG Bank
  • Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA)
  • Nasdaq
  • Nedbank Group
  • NYSE
  • Olayan Financing Group
  • Old Mutual
  • OMINVEST
  • Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan
  • Pension Danmark
  • Public Institution for Social Security (PIFSS)
  • Qatar Financial Centre (QFC)
  • Qatar Investment Authority
  • Qatar National Bank
  • Rabobank
  • RBC (Royal Bank of Canada)
  • Russian Direct Investment Fund
  • S&P Global
  • S4Capita
  • Saudi Industrial Development Fund
  • Sberbank
  • Scotiabank
  • Sequoia Capital
  • Softbank Group
  • Standard Bank Group
  • Standard Chartered Bank
  • Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group (SMFG)
  • Takeda Pharmaceutical
  • TD Bank Group
  • Turkey Wealth Fund
  • Unison Capital
  • Visa
  • Vista Equity Partners
  • Vital Capital Fund
  • VTB Bank
  • Zenith Bank
  • Zurich Insurance Group

3. WEF Partners With Major Corporations

  • Alshaya Group
  • Amazon Web Services
  • CVS Health
  • Honda
  • Huawei Technologies
  • Hyundai Motor
  • Lockheed Martin
  • SNC-Lavalin Group
  • The Coca-Cola Company
  • Uber Technologies
  • Walmart
  • Western Union
  • Zoom

4. WEF Partners With Vaccine Pushers

  • AstraZeneca
  • Bayer
  • Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
  • Facebook
  • Gilead Sciences
  • Google
  • Guangzhou Baiyunshan Pharmaceutical
  • Hikma Pharmaceuticals
  • Johnson & Johnson
  • Jubilant Bhartia Group
  • LinkedIn
  • Microsoft
  • Merck
  • Moderna
  • Novartis
  • Open Society Foundations
  • Pfizer
  • Takeda Pharmaceutical
  • These lists are not exhaustive, and the World Economic Forum does have more partners from these groups. However, it should demonstrate the “types” of organizations who ideologically support this.

    4. WEF’s Plants In Canadian Politics

    Any familiar faces?

    CV #66(B): Health Authorities Fine With Vaccinating Pregnant Women, While Admitting No Testing Done

    Bad medical advice is all too common. However, several “reputable” health authorities seem content to raise the stakes even more. They recommend — or at least don’t oppose — vaccinating pregnant women, despite openly admitting a serious lack of testing and longitudinal studies.

    1. Who Are These “Reputable” Organizations?

    • World Health Organization
    • American Society of Obstetricians & Gynaecologists
    • U.S. Center for Disease Control
    • U.K. National Health Services
    • Royal College of Physicians of Ireland
    • Australian Department of Health
    • Canadian Society of Obstetricians & Gynaecologists

    A disclaimer: this is certainly not all of them. More organizations could easily be added to this list.

    2. World Health Organization

    Should pregnant women be vaccinated?
    While pregnancy puts women at higher risk of severe COVID-19, very little data are available to assess vaccine safety in pregnancy.
    .
    Nevertheless, based on what we know about this kind of vaccine, we don’t have any specific reason to believe there will be specific risks that would outweigh the benefits of vaccination for pregnant women.
    .
    For this reason, those pregnant women at high risk of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 (e.g. health workers) or who have comorbidities which add to their risk of severe disease, may be vaccinated in consultation with their health care provider.

    The World Health Organization, or WHO, has very little data (or no data), concerning pregnant women and the risks of vaccination. Nonetheless, they don’t see a problem with this going ahead.

    3. Society Of Obstetricians/Gynaecologists, US

    -ACOG recommends that COVID-19 vaccines should not be withheld from pregnant individuals.
    -COVID-19 vaccines should be offered to lactating individuals similar to non-lactating individuals.
    -While a conversation with a clinician may be helpful, it should not be required prior to vaccination, as this may cause unnecessary barriers to access.
    -Vaccines currently available under EUA have not been tested in pregnant women. Therefore, limited safety data specific to use in pregnancy is available. See details about the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) EUA process below.
    Unfounded claims linking COVID-19 vaccines to infertility have been scientifically disproven.
    -ACOG recommends vaccination for all eligible people who may consider future pregnancy.

    It’s interesting that this group claims the link between COVID-19 vaccines and infertility has been scientifically disproved, considering they admit no testing has been done.

    4. US Center For Disease Control

    There are limited data about the safety of COVID-19 vaccines for people who are pregnant
    Until findings are available from clinical trials and additional studies, only limited data are available on the safety of COVID-19 vaccines, including mRNA vaccines, administered during pregnancy:
    .
    Limited data are currently available from animal developmental and reproductive toxicity studies. No safety concerns were demonstrated in rats that received Moderna COVID-19 vaccine before or during pregnancy; studies of
    -the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine are ongoing.
    -Researchers have studies planned in people who are pregnant.
    -Both vaccine manufacturers are monitoring people in the clinical trials who became pregnant.

    Getting vaccinated is a personal choice for people who are pregnant
    .
    People who are pregnant and part of a group recommended to receive COVID-19 vaccine, such as healthcare personnel, may choose to be vaccinated. A conversation between pregnant patients and their clinicians may help them decide whether to get vaccinated with a vaccine that has been authorized for use under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA). While a conversation with a healthcare provider may be helpful, it is not required prior to vaccination.

    The U.S. Center for Disease Control (USCDC) shrugs off the vaccinating of pregnant women as a “personal choice”, despite there being no studies done on it. When they say “limited data”, it actually means that they have no data.

    5. UK, National Health Services

    COVID-19 vaccine in pregnancy
    There is no known risk with giving inactivated virus or bacterial vaccines or toxoids during pregnancy or whilst breast-feeding. However, the COVID-19 vaccines have not yet been tested in pregnancy, so it has been advised that until more information is available, pregnant women should not routinely have these vaccines. As a matter of caution, COVID-19 vaccine is therefore not routinely advised in pregnancy but there are some circumstances in which the potential benefits of vaccination are particularly important for pregnant women. This may include women who are at very high risk of catching the infection or those with certain medical conditions that put them at high risk of suffering serious complications from COVID-19 infection. In such circumstances, a woman may choose to have COVID-19 vaccine in pregnancy following a discussion with her doctor or nurse.

    Evidence so far reviewed by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), the UK regulatory agency responsible for licencing medicines including vaccines, has raised no concerns for safety in pregnancy.

    The data for each licensed COVID-19 vaccine in pregnancy is limited because pregnant women are not included in vaccine trials. This is not because of any specific safety concerns but as a matter of caution, like that applied to trials of most other medicines.

    There is some deliberate word games here. The United Kingdown (Britain) tries to reassure the public that these vaccines are safe, while admitting that testing such as on pregnant women is non-existent. If no testing has been done, how can there be “limited evidence” available?

    Also note: the UK doesn’t prohibit or recommend that pregnant women not be given this vaccine. Instead, they say that it shouldn’t COMMONLY be happening. Not the same thing.

    6. Royal College Of Physicians Of Ireland

    COVID-19 vaccines have not been studied in pregnancy and breastfeeding
    .
    You may get some side-effects from getting the vaccine.

    What are the negatives of this option?
    1. COVID-19 vaccines have not been studied in pregnant and breastfeeding people
    We do not know for sure if there are negative impacts of giving COVID-19 vaccines in pregnancy.
    However available information is reassuring and there are no current safety concerns about these vaccines in pregnancy.
    2. You may get some side-effects from getting the vaccine.
    Common side effects are reported in more than 1 in 10 people and include fatigue, headache, sore arm, fever and muscle or joint
    pains. These are more common after the second dose and usually resolve within 2 days.

    Despite not being tested on pregnant women, it is presented in Ireland as a serious option to consider. Considering all the hype about the health risks of this virus, this groups comes across indifferent as to the side effects of these injections.

    7. Australian Department Of Health

    How do I know that the COVID-19 vaccine is safe?
    All vaccines are thoroughly tested for safety before they are approved for use in Australia. This includes careful analysis of clinical trial data, ingredients, chemistry, manufacturing and other factors.

    Can I get the vaccine if I am pregnant?
    In preparation for vaccine rollout, the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation (ATAGI) is currently finalising clinical advice for health care providers on the use of COVID-19 vaccines in Australia in 2021. This is likely to include advice in relation to pregnant women. This advice will be provided as soon as it is received.
    .
    Clinical trials for new medicines do not typically include pregnant or breastfeeding participants. Each country that is or has hosted clinical trials for COVID-19 vaccine candidates has different guidance regarding use of COVID-19 vaccines in pregnancy based on the benefits, risks and uncertainties in the context of the prevailing pandemic situation.

    Australia claims it is still finalizing its guidance. Fair enough. However, the lack of testing on pregnant women should be a huge red flag for any advice that might come out in favour of this. But that isn’t really what they are saying.

    8. Society Of Obstetricians/Gynaecologists, CA

    Consensus Statement: Women who are pregnant or breastfeeding should be offered vaccination at any time during pregnancy if they are eligible and no contraindications exist.
    .
    This decision is based on the women’s personal values and an understanding that the risk of infection and/or morbidity from COVID-19 outweighs the theorized and undescribed risk of being vaccinated during pregnancy or
    while breastfeeding
    . Women should not be precluded from vaccination based on pregnancy status or breastfeeding.

    Pregnant and breastfeeding women were excluded from the available Phase II and Phase III studies for the PfizerBioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines. However, for Pfizer-BioNTech, there were 23 individuals (12 in the vaccine arm and 11 in the placebo arm) who reported pregnancies during the trial and are being followed for pregnancy outcomes with no reports of adverse effects to date. For the Moderna trials, there were 13 women (6 in the vaccine and 7 in the placebo group) who reported pregnancies during the trial without report of adverse effects to date. Recently V-safe CDC registry which includes pregnant women reported no differences in the rates of adverse events or pregnancy complications for those women who were pregnant and received either the PfizerBioNtech vaccine or the Moderna vaccine. The Developmental and Reproductive Toxicity (DART) animal studies for the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines are ongoing. According to the World Health Organization (WHO) and the American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists (ACOG), no major safety signals have been identified.

    Similarly, breastfeeding women were also excluded from the Phase III trials available at present. Therefore, there is no data on the safety of COVID-19 vaccines in lactating women or the effects of mRNA vaccines on the breastfed infant or on milk production. Because mRNA vaccines are not considered live virus vaccines, they are not hypothesized to be a risk to the breastfeeding infant.

    Pregnant and breast feeding women were not part of the AstraZeneca trials either. It seems that this piece of information should be front and center of any discussion or recommendation.

    Decades of experience with other vaccines administered during pregnancy would suggest that we could expect a similar efficacy for the COVID-19 vaccines in pregnant women compared to non-pregnant women. Vaccines in general are immunogenic, safe, and efficacious when delivered to pregnant women. While there have been no red flags or hypothesized mechanisms for potential harm associated with the administration of an mRNA non-replicating viral vector vaccine during pregnancy, until more data is available, the potential risks of vaccination to a pregnant woman and her fetus remain unknown and only theoretical. What is known, however, is that an unvaccinated pregnant woman remains at risk of COVID-19 infection and remains at heightened risk of severe morbidity if infected compared to non-pregnant counterparts. Severe infection with COVID-19 carries risks to both maternal, fetal and neonatal health. While pregnancy itself does not appear to increase the risk of becoming infected with SARS-CoV-2, pregnant individuals may be in work-related (e.g., health-care worker, front line workers etc.) or community situations (e.g., caregiver, indigenous communities, outbreak setting, etc.) where the risk of infection is considerable. Owing to maternal age or underlying comorbidities, some pregnant women are at high risk of severe COVID-related morbidity.

    So we don’t actually have any data on pregnant women being studied. But looking at OTHER vaccines, we assume the risk is similar.

    NACI has advised “that a complete vaccine series with a COVID-19 vaccine may be offered to pregnant individuals in the authorized age group, without contraindications to the vaccine, if a risk assessment deems that the benefits outweigh the potential risks for the individual and the fetus, and if informed consent includes discussion about the absence of evidence on the use of COVID-19 vaccine in this population (Discretionary NACI Recommendation)”.

    We recommend that pregnant and breastfeeding women who are eligible for the COVID-19 vaccine due to exposure risk, medical status, or other circumstances should be able to make an informed decision by having access to up-to-date information about the safety and efficacy of the vaccine (including clear information about the data that is not yet available) and information about the risks of COVID-19 infection for them. The concern around vaccination in the absence of evidence of safety in pregnancy has been debated in the literature. The PREVENT Working Group state, “the absence of evidence and the mere theoretical or even documented risk of fetal harm is generally not sufficient to justify denying pregnant women access to a vaccine in an outbreak or epidemic.” During an epidemic, the default should be to offer vaccines to pregnant women alongside other affected populations

    Individuals contemplating pregnancy
    For an individual planning a pregnancy, it is recommended to complete the entire COVID-19 vaccination series (where possible) to achieve maximal vaccine efficacy ahead of pregnancy. It is not known whether an individual should delay pregnancy following receipt of the vaccine and a risk-benefit discussion for those planning pregnancy should occur similar to the discussion for pregnant and breastfeeding women.

    It’s recommended that women anticipating pregnancy get vaccinated first. Interesting. It seems that studies have been done on the reproductive problems, or possible sterility.

    This entire article is filled with such nonsense. Pregnant women should be offered vaccination, however, the risks are downplayed, as is the lack of real testing. Also, it’s fair to assume that the overwhelming recovery rate of this “virus” is either minimized, or ignored entirely.

    Section 30.1 of the Canada Food & Drug Act allows for the Health Minister to sign an Interim Order allowing untested vaccines to be approved. Public officials don’t discuss this. Nor do they mention the fact that they don’t do any testing; they just review the documentation.

    In SOGC’s statement (see backup), they see nothing wrong with giving pregnant women — or nursing mothers — these “vaccines”. The reasoning behind it is convoluted and twisted.

    These examples are hardly the only ones. However, it’s disturbing to see these seemingly legitimate organizations pushing vaccines on pregnant and nursing women — when they weren’t tested on them in the first place.

    IBC #8(B): Various Bonds, Enterprises, The World Bank Group Is Running

    The World Bank tries to portray itself as an organization devoted to the welfare of humankind globally. However, the organization is involved in many bond schemes that most people are completely unaware of. It’s quite the lucrative side operation.

    1. More On The International Banking Cartel

    For more on the banking cartel, check this page. The Canadian Government, like so many others, has sold out the independence and sovereignty of its monetary system to foreign interests. BIS, like its central banks, exceed their agenda and try to influence other social agendas. See who is really controlling things, and the common lies that politicians and media figures tell. The bankers work with the climate mafia and pandemic pushers to promote mutual goals of control and debt slavery.

    2. Important Links

    5 Organizations Make Up The World Bank

    World Bank Launches “Blockchain Bond” In 2018
    Second Round Of Blockchain Bonds In 2019
    Video Explaining Blockchain Implementation In New Bonds
    Seychelles Launches Blue Bonds In 2018
    Blue Bonds Partially Financed By Rockefeller Foundation
    Video Explaining Blue (Water) Bonds Concept
    Rockefeller Foundation Financing Green Bonds
    Founders And Partners Of Climate Bonds
    “Pandemic Bonds” Started in 2017 By World Bank Group
    Pandemic Emergency Financing Facility
    World Bank Won’t Pay Out Pandemic Bonds
    Video Explaining Pandemic Bonds Concept
    World Bank Launching Social Impact Bonds
    Lukashenko Claims IMF & World Bank Offered Bribe

    3. About The World Bank Group

    • IBRD, The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development
    • IDA, The International Development Association
    • IFC, The International Finance Corporation
    • MIGA, The Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency
    • ICSID, The International Centre for Settlement of Investment Dispute

    Partnering With Governments
    Together, IBRD and IDA form the World Bank, which provides financing, policy advice, and technical assistance to governments of developing countries. IDA focuses on the world’s poorest countries, while IBRD assists middle-income and creditworthy poorer countries.
    .
    Partnering With The Private Sector
    IFC, MIGA, and ICSID focus on strengthening the private sector in developing countries. Through these institutions, the World Bank Group provides financing, technical assistance, political risk insurance, and settlement of disputes to private enterprises, including financial institutions.
    .
    One World Bank Group
    While our five institutions have their own country membership, governing boards, and articles of agreement, we work as one to serve our partner countries. Today’s development challenges can only be met if the private sector is part of the solution. But the public sector sets the groundwork to enable private investment and allow it to thrive. The complementary roles of our institutions give the World Bank Group a unique ability to connect global financial resources, knowledge, and innovative solutions to the needs of developing countries.

    Most people don’t know this, but the World Bank is actually the partnership of 5 organizations. Strangely, an outside search of them reveals nothing about them, other than being part of the World Bank Group. A deep dive is needed into the inner workings of the World Bank, and is coming in a future article.

    4. Types Of Bonds World Bank Involved With

    Here are some of the programs the World Bank has been mixed up in. It’s quite the varied and lucrative enterprise. People can become very wealthy with these schemes, although, it’s dependent on others playing along.

    • Blockchain Bonds
    • Blue (Water) Bonds
    • Green Bonds
    • Pandemic Bonds
    • Social Bonds
    • Vaccine Bonds

    5. World Bank & Blockchain Bonds

    WASHINGTON/SYDNEY, August 23/24, 2018 – The World Bank launched bond-i (blockchain operated new debt instrument), the world’s first bond to be created, allocated, transferred and managed through its life cycle using distributed ledger technology. The two-year bond raised $110 million, marking the first time that investors have supported the World Bank’s development activities in a transaction that is fully managed using the blockchain technology.

    The World Bank mandated Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA) as arranger for the bond on August 10. The announcement was followed by a two-week consultation period with the market, with key investors indicating strong support for the issuance.

    Investors in the bond include CBA, First State Super, NSW Treasury Corporation, Northern Trust, QBE, SAFA, and Treasury Corporation of Victoria. CBA and the World Bank will continue to welcome investor interest in the bond throughout its life cycle, and inquiries from other market participants in relation to the platform.

    The bond is part of a broader strategic focus of the World Bank to harness the potential of disruptive technologies for development. In June 2017, the World Bank launched a Blockchain Innovation Lab to understand the impact of blockchain and other disruptive technologies in areas such as land administration, supply chain management, health, education, cross-border payments, and carbon market trading.

    The World Bank Group started “blockchain bonds” in 2018. Rather than the more traditional methods, this would, as the name implies, use Blockchain technology as an alternative. The next round of bonds came in 2019.

    6. World Bank & Blue (Water) Bonds

    The Republic of Seychelles start the first sovereign “blue bond” in 2018. The Rockefeller Foundation, Standard Chartered Bank and Bank of New York Mellon helped with payments. The bonds themselves were placed with the private investors: Nuveen, Prudential and Calvert Impact Capital.

    7. World Bank & Green/Climate Bonds

    Climate Bonds, or “Green Bonds“, is yet another growing industry that the Rockefellers and other environmental groups are trying to pump up. This is an industry that is potentially worth $100 trillion or more. However, the money likely won’t be going where people think it will.

    8. World Bank, PEFF & Pandemic Bonds

    Washington, DC, June 28, 2017 – The World Bank (International Bank for Reconstruction and Development) today launched specialized bonds aimed at providing financial support to the Pandemic Emergency Financing Facility (PEF), a facility created by the World Bank to channel surge funding to developing countries facing the risk of a pandemic.

    This marks the first time that World Bank bonds are being used to finance efforts against infectious diseases, and the first time that pandemic risk in low-income countries is being transferred to the financial markets.

    The PEF will provide more than $500 million to cover developing countries against the risk of pandemic outbreaks over the next five years, through a combination of bonds and derivatives priced today, a cash window, and future commitments from donor countries for additional coverage.

    The transaction, that enables PEF to potentially save millions of lives, was oversubscribed by 200% reflecting an overwhelmingly positive reception from investors and a high level of confidence in the new World Bank sponsored instrument. With such strong demand, the World Bank was able to price the transaction well below the original guidance from the market. The total amount of risk transferred to the market through the bonds and derivatives is $425 million.

    In June 2017, the World Bank started up “Pandemic Bonds“, which would be a sort of insurance policy against infectious diseases. Of course, one has to wonder how far ahead they saw in starting this.

    The PEFF, or Pandemic Emergency Financing Facility, will determine if there is a pandemic, according to certain criteria. But early in 2020, the World Bank was accused of “waiting for people to die”, by refusing to pay out this money.

    9. World Bank & Social Impact Bonds

    In February 2019 “Social Impact Bonds” were started up. They are marketed as a sort of social investment driver, to improve the quality of live for people in the 3rd World, particularly women. They are also supposed to help with the financing of the UNSDA, or United Nations Sustainable Development Agenda.

    10. World Bank, IFFM & Vaccine Bonds

    This was addressed in the Planned-emic series. Instead of giving money directly to GAVI, there is a convoluted scheme that involves making pledges to IFFIm, the International Finance Facility for Immunizations. Those pledges are then used to generate bonds which are sold to the World Bank. The World Bank then re-sells those bonds on the open market. The money from sales goes to GAVI, who uses it to finance their vaccine agenda.

    Note: IFFIm is actually financed by GAVI (who is financed by Gates), so there isn’t really any independence here.

    Of course, these means that donor pledges end up costing much more than originally told, or it means only a portion of that money is put to use.

    11. Some Thoughts On These Bonds

    In early 2020, the President of Belarus claimed that the IMF (International Monetary Fund), and World Bank, offered him a bribe of almost $1 billion if he would impose pandemic measures on his country. He refused. While that seemed like an absurd conspiracy theory at the time, more and more questions need to be answered.

    What are the IMF and World Bank up to, and are these bonds connected to their push for drastic (and forced) social changes?

    While all of these projects have nice enough sounding names, a question keeps coming up: why is it necessary to use these bonds at all? Instead of selling, and reselling bonds, shouldn’t the money go directly to the people who will be impacted? After all, the average person doesn’t benefit from increased bond values, only the bond holders do.

    It’s interesting that the Rockefeller Foundation is so supportive of all of this. After all, they drafted the Lockstep Narrative in 2010. They lay out in broad strokes how to force social change under the false pretense of a global health crisis.

    Of course, companies that don’t play along with the agenda, such as “non-green” industries, will soon be forced out of business. The threats have been openly made for a long time now.

    Using Artificial Scarcity, Product Placement, Market Manipulation, To Drive Up Demand

    This article will get into some of the advertising and marketing techniques employed to get people to purchase products and services. There is quite a lot of science and research behind it.

    1. Important Links

    Alex Cattoni On Creating Scarcity Conditions
    Justin Atlan On Scarcity To Create Sense Of Urgency
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_scarcity
    Psychology Today: The Scarcity Mindset
    Investopedia On Suggestive Selling
    Product Placement Strategies, History
    Marketing Plans Should Include Sponsorship
    Psychology In Advertising: Common Methods
    CTV: Culture Shift On Wearing Masks

    2. Techniques To Create Scarcity Illusion

    1. Price Scarcity — the price will increase
    2. Quantity Scarcity — limited amount available
    3. Premium Scarcity — limited time bonuses
    4. Offer Scarcity — relaunching a temporary product

    Now, these specific techniques can be used individually, or in some combination, depending on the circumstances. The point of this is to put pressure on people to act now, or else the offer will never be better. While the creator, Alex Cattoni, says to be honest, artificially creating scarcity can be very manipulative nature. This type of pressure can be applied almost universally, although the specific methods vary. Justin Atlan talks about using scarcity in order to drive up sales.

    Of course, artificially creating scarcity can be done for many reasons, and several of them are quite valid and legitimate.

  • Cartels, monopolies and/or rentier capitalism
  • Competition regulation, where regulatory uncertainty and policy ambiguity deters investment.
  • Copyright, when used to disallow copying or disallow access to sources. Proprietary software is an example.
  • Copyleft software is a counterexample where copyleft advocates use copyright licenses to guarantee the right to copy, access, view, and change the source code, and allow others to do the same to derivatives of that code.
  • Patent
  • The Agricultural Adjustment Act
  • Hoarding, including cornering the market
  • Deliberate destruction
  • Paywalls
  • Torrent poisoning such as poisoning bittorrent with half broken copies of music and videos to drive up prices when instead streamed from places the author has deals with
  • Planned obsolescence
  • Decentralized digital currencies (e.g. Bitcoin)
  • This is from Wikipedia. There are perfectly valid reasons to engage in the creation of scarcity, such as intellectual property, and not undercutting your own prices. That said, there are unscrupulous ones as well.

    Economics is the study of how we use our limited resources (time, money, etc.) to achieve our goals. This definition refers to physical scarcity. In a recent book titled Scarcity, Mullainathan & Eldar (2013) broaden the concept of scarcity by asking the following questions: What happens to our minds when we feel we have too little? How does the context of scarcity shape our choices and our behaviors? They show that scarcity is not just a physical limitation. Scarcity affects our thinking and feeling. Scarcity orients the mind automatically and powerfully toward unfulfilled needs. For example, food grabs the focus of the hungry. For the lonely person, scarcity may come in poverty of social isolation and a lack of companionship.

    The scarcity mentality is well known by social psychologists. It forces being to think in finite terms, and to ask what they are missing out on. This can be good or bad, depending on the circumstances.

    3. Fear Of Missing Out On A Benefit

    FOMO, or the fear of missing out, is commonly used to pressure people into buying good and services now. Notice, it doesn’t have to be the product itself. It can just be having their life back to the way that it used to be. Perhaps something happened recently to change what was considered normal.

    4. Suggestive Selling/Upselling

    Understanding Suggestive Selling
    The idea behind the technique is that it takes marginal effort compared with the potential additional revenue. This is because getting the buyer to purchase (often seen as the most difficult part) has already been done. After the buyer is committed, an additional sale that is a fraction of the original purchase is much more likely.

    Typical examples of add-on sales are the extended warranties offered by sellers of household appliances such as refrigerators and washing machines, as well as electronics. A salesperson at an automobile dealership also generates significant add-on sales by suggesting or convincing a buyer sitting at their desk that the buyer would be much happier with the car with a few or several add-on options.

    Investopedia explains that upselling it often considered a better use of a person’s time that focusing solely on new customers. After all, the person is already buying something, so why not take the minimal amount of effort to see if they will purchase anything new?

    There is of course the idea of a volume discount. For example, take the BOGO (buy one, get one) free or greatly reduced. Often, people who may not have been willing to take multiple products now will, if it appears to reduce the price per unit.

    5. Product Placement As A Sales Strategy

    Product placement is a marketing strategy that has accidentally evolved a few decades ago. Nevertheless, the efficiency of the product placement has been spotted by professionals and since then various companies engage in product placement activities in various levels with varying efficiency. One of the main differences of product placement from other marketing strategies is the significance of factors contributing to it, such as context and environment within which the product is displayed or used.

    Implementing an efficient marketing strategy is one of the essential conditions for a product to be successful in the marketplace. Companies may choose different marketing strategies including advertising, channel marketing, internet marketing, promotion, public relations, product placement and others. Each of one of these marketing tools has its advantages and disadvantages and the rationale behind the choice among these tools relates to the type of the product, type of the market and the marketing strategy of the company.

    Product placement is a long recognized trick for getting a product into another production, without directly admitting that it is a form of advertising. This may be a substitute for more blatant ads, or may work in conjunction with it.

    6. Keep Repeating Your Talking Points

    This comment was (supposedly) in the context of pushing the climate change agenda on Canadians, but the principle can be applied much more broadly. It’s a variation of “if you tell a lie often enough, it becomes the truth”. Unfortunately, this is all too true.

    7. Including Sponsorship In Marketing Plan

    1. Shape consumer attitudes.
    2. Build brand awareness.
    3. Drive sales.
    4. Increase reach.
    5. Generate media exposure.
    6. Differentiate yourself from competitors.
    7. Take on a “corporate citizen” role.
    8. Generate new leads.
    9. Enhance business, consumer, and VIP relationships.

    Sponsoring a group or event can bring several benefits to your group, and those are outlined pretty well. Yes, the benefits are more intangible and difficult to measure, but it’s commonly believed to be an effective practice.

    8. Pay For Advertising, Sponsoring In Media

    (a) Subsidization Programs Available For Media Outlets (QCJO)
    (b) Political Operatives Behind Many “Fact-Checking” Groups
    (c) DisinfoWatch, MacDonald-Laurier, Journalists For Human Rights
    (d) Taxpayer Subsidies To Combat CV “Misinformation”
    (e) Postmedia Periodicals Getting Covid Subsidies
    (f) Aberdeen Publishing (BC, AB) Getting Grants To Operate
    (g) Other Periodicals Receiving Subsidies
    (h) Still More Media Subsidies Taxpayers Are Supporting
    (i) Media Outlets, Banks, Credit Unions, All Getting CEWS

    Paying for advertisements in newspapers, magazines, radio stations, and online, is a long accepted way of getting a message out. It’s an effective way to promote a product, service, or ideology. Of course, Governments can go the extra mile and just outright subsidize such outlets. It’s a way to create financial dependence, and ensure that they will be obedient to whatever is needed.

    9. Psychology Used In Selling To People

    1. Branding
    2. Give, Give, Give, Give, and Ask
    3. Power of Scarcity, FOMO
    4. Perceived Value & Pricing
    5. Power of Persuasion
    6. Power of Convenience
    7. Appeal To Morality
    8. Changing Language, Misusing Terms

    Advertising is much more complicated than simply being interesting and visually appealing. There are plenty of mental and psychological ways to do this. After this, it’s impossible to view ads in the same way ever again.

    10. Have Credible Actors Promote Message/Brand

    One of the keys to an effective marketing program is to have believable and realistic actors selling the message. Getting caught out like this doesn’t help at all. From a casting perspective, Ontario Deputy Medical Officer Barbara Yaffe was an extremely poor choice. Health Minister Christine Elliott wasn’t a great selection either.

    When the stakes are high, it’s essential to have actors and actresses who have read and understood their scripts. They will be better able to improvise when asked difficult questions. See here and here. Remember, even though the media questions are screened, sometimes they will accidently be curveballs.

    BC Provincial Health Officer Bonnie Henry is also a bizarre choice. While she seems likeable, and has the fake trembling nailed, she frequently jokes about the “no science” part. Perhaps she was never informed that this is serious.

    Alberta Premier Jason Kenney may have topped them all. He admits there could be 90% error — and hence, no pandemic — but then defers to the experts.

    Granted, these are difficult roles to play, given the scrutiny they are under. But still, the casting left a lot to be desired.

    11. Why Does This Marketing Info Matter?

    Even back in May 2020, the MSM in Canada was openly talking about “shifting the culture” to get everyone wearing masks for the foreseeable future. Of course, this sort of predictive programming is not limited to masks, but spread to other areas.

    Imagine a group of people not driven by money, but by ideology. They wanted to convince the general population to inject — en masse — an experimental mRNA vaccine, to cure a disease they don’t know exists.

    Such a task would be very difficult to accomplish, without using brute force. An alternative solution would be to apply some of the techniques outlined above, and get people to take it willingly.

    As for appealing to morality, does this sound familiar?
    “My mask protects you, and your mask protects me”.

    Words and terms are redefined in false and misleading ways.
    It’s not “martial law”, it’s “sheltering in place”.

    Healthy people should not be viewed as normal.
    Instead, they are “potential asymptomatic spreaders”.

    The Federal and Provincial Governments are not buying off media outlets and businesses into compliance. Instead, they are handing out “emergency relief”. See the difference?

    FOMO, or fear of missing out is being applied as a hardball tactic to get more people into taking the vaccine. After all, who isn’t desperate for some return to a normal life? If there aren’t enough to go around, doesn’t that create artificial scarcity?

    Covid internment camps are a conspiracy theory. Those “mandatory isolation centres” are not at all the same thing, and people need to stop misrepresenting the truth.

    No one is trying to trick citizens into taking the vaccine. Instead, they are just conducting research into ways to overcome “hesitancy”. See Part #1, #2, #3, #4 and #5.

    Regarding hope for the future: an astute person will note that Canada has ANNOUNCED a program to compensate people for injury or death caused by vaccines. However, there have been no DETAILS of what it will look like. It could be the Government falling behind, or it could be tat they have no intention of implementing anything.

    About Michael Chong’s Motion Concerning Genocide In China….

    Canada passed a resolution, declaring a genocide in China. It was sponsored by Michael Chong, and Ontario Member of Parliament with the Conservative Party of Canada. While the Motion itself is not the issue, the lack of consistency is.

    1. Trafficking, Smuggling, Child Exploitation

    Serious issues like smuggling or trafficking are routinely avoided in public discourse. Also important are the links between open borders and human smuggling; between ideology and exploitation; between tolerance and exploitation; between abortion and organ trafficking; or between censorship and complicity. Mainstream media will also never get into the organizations who are pushing these agendas, nor the complicit politicians. These topics don’t exist in isolation, and are interconnected.

    2. Text Of Motion Declaring Genocide

    MOTION TEXT
    That,
    .
    (a) in the opinion of the House, the People’s Republic of China has engaged in actions consistent with the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 260, commonly known as the “Genocide Convention”, including detention camps and measures intended to prevent births as it pertains to Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslims; and
    .
    (b) given that (i) where possible, it has been the policy of the Government of Canada to act in concert with its allies when it comes to the recognition of a genocide, (ii) there is a bipartisan consensus in the United States where it has been the position of two consecutive administrations that Uyghur and other Turkic Muslims are being subjected to a genocide by the Government of the People’s Republic of China, the House, therefore, recognize that a genocide is currently being carried out by the People’s Republic of China against Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslims, call upon the International Olympic Committee to move the 2022 Olympic Games if the Chinese government continues this genocide and call on the government to officially adopt this position.

    Michael Chong introduced a Motion to declare what has been going on in China as “genocide”. Have they always thought that the Chinese Government was bad?

    3. Michael Chong Then V.S. Now

    https://openparliament.ca/debates/2013/4/18/michael-chong-1/
    https://openparliament.ca/debates/2021/2/18/michael-chong-1/

    It’s interesting how Chong was a huge fan of letting China infiltrate Canada (via FIPA), in 2013/2014. He shrugged off the many justifiable objections to this.

    In fact, Conservatives in general have been largely supportive of “free trade” arrangements which outsource Canadian industries. They see nothing wrong in engaging in a rigged game with a country that can undercut Canadian workers and companies.

    4. Erin O’Toole Then V.S. Now

    https://openparliament.ca/debates/2014/9/22/erin-otoole-1/
    https://openparliament.ca/debates/2021/2/17/erin-otoole-7/

    Since first getting elected as an MP, O’Toole was a Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade. O’Toole repeatedly hyped up how Canada would benefit from FIPA, and how the concerns were unwarranted. His recent opposition to China appears to be politically motivated, not based on ideology or morality.

    5. Federal Cabinet Abstains In Vote

    The vote was 266-0, and sold as “unanimous” to the public. However, that’s misleading, considering that the Prime Minister and the Cabinet all abstained from voting. Was this done to at least make working with China possible, while pretending to object?

    Considering that everyone else voted to declare this a genocide, a predicted election would be interesting. Discussions around foreign relations could get awkward and strained.

    What really happens now, anyway? Other than some words on paper, what will actually be accomplished? Will the Chinese Government suddenly realize the error of its ways? Will these camps suddenly be shut down?

    6. Arbitrary Detention in State-to-State Relations

    Declaration Against Arbitrary Detention

    It was addressed a week ago that Canada, and dozens of other nations signed the Declaration Against Arbitrary Detention in State-to-State Relations. This seemed (at least in part), to be a shot a China, given it held 2 Canadians prisoner, and was abusing Muslim minorities on a massive scale.

    While this is fine in principle, the elephant in the room is that Canada has been under varying levels of martial law over the last year. Using the false of pretense of a health emergency, politicians of all parties have supported suspending indefinitely the basic rights of citizens.

    Going abroad to seek human organs should be criminalized (Bill S-240), but forcing quarantine on healthy people, and medical experimentation locally is very hypocritical.

    7. Support Genocide Via Population Replacement

    The Canadian Government grandstands about how morally superior it is to China. Even so, successive Administrations have engaged in the practice of population replacement, to eliminate the “old stock”, or at least, dilute their numbers. While it’s certainly not exclusively Chinese, they are in the top 3 source countries, year after year.

    Not only are the people replaced, but the culture, history and traditions go as well. This is supported by the United Nations. A “Canadian” identity is substituted for a “multicultural” one. This inevitably leads to balkanization and enclaves, as similar people band together.

    In most countries, this would be considered genocide. In Canada, and other Western nations, it’s diversity, and only racists question the agenda.

    These symbolic actions against China ring hollow when considered against other things that go on.

    8. Canada-China Business Council

    There is Ambassador Dominic Barton, featured prominently.
    Who else runs the group?

    • Paul Desmarais Sr. — former head of Power Corp (deceased)
    • Andre Desmarais — son-in-law of Jean Chretien
    • Oliver Desmarais — Vice President of Power Corp
    • Sam Boutziouvis — VP (Government Relations) of SNC Lavalin
    • Morgan Elliott — VP (Government Affairs) of Huawei
    • Tim McGuire — Executive VP, China Construction Bank
    • Martin Cauchon — was in Jean Chretien’s Cabinet
    • James Moore — was in Stephen Harper’s Cabinet
    • Stockwell Day — was in Stephen Harper’s Cabinet
    • Scott Brison — was in Justin Trudeau’s Cabinet

    Sure, Canadian politicians will grandstand to show how righteous they are with regards to China. But will any of this stop them from doing business with them? That seems highly unlikely. Morals are morals, but money is money.

    In fact, take a look at the CCBC website. There isn’t a single mention of genocide by the Chinese listed anywhere.

    While there is talk locally of boycotting the 2022 Beijing Olympics, that is pretty minor in the scheme of things. It is a single event.