UK Archives - Canuck Law

November 8, 2021October 7, 2023

Climate Propaganda To Be Embedded Throughout British Education System

The United Kingdom is apparently about to incorporate the climate change agenda into nearly every aspect of public education. This is according to a paper released recently by the Government.

While the language sounds all lofty and altruistic, this comes across as a combination of propaganda mixed with child abuse. Terrorizing kids into believing the world is coming to an end is sick and cruel.

In fairness: this is still just a draft. However, it’s pretty disturbing that such things are being seriously discussed.

[Page 5] Context
This strategy sets out ambitious activity to respond to recommendations for education from the Committee for Climate Change, the Dasgupta Review, Green Jobs Taskforce report and supports the delivery of the Government’s 25 Year Environment Plan and Net Zero Strategy. It includes how we will work in the context of:
• The Paris Climate Agreement, which aims to hold the increase in global average temperature to well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, and to pursue efforts to limit it to 1.5 degrees Celsius and includes measures relating to climate change education
• UK Government legislation to meet net zero by 2050. To achieve this, the UK is the first country to set legally binding carbon budgets, placing a restriction on the total amount of greenhouse gases the UK can emit over a five-year period. In the latest, Carbon Budget 6, the UK legislated to reduce emissions by 78% by 2035 compared to 1990 levels.
• UNESCO’s ‘ESD for 2030’ (Education for Sustainable Development) which sets out the key role of education in the successful achievement of the United Nation’s 17 Sustainable Development Goals.
• The Environment Bill which will deliver the most ambitious environmental programme of any country and drive forward action to protect nature and improve biodiversity, including through a target for species abundance for 2030, aiming to halt the decline of nature.
.
The UK requires the education sector to play its role in positively responding to climate change and inspiring action on an international stage.

If nothing else, the honesty is refreshing. The UK Government sees the “education” sector as vital in pushing the climate change narrative, achieving the Paris Agreement goals, and other environmental aspirations. The youth must be indoctrinated into accepting these goals.

[Page 12] Schools play an important role in preparing pupils for life in modern Britain and to become active citizens, whilst remaining politically impartial. Legal duties in this area help to ensure that pupils are allowed to form their own independent opinions on political issues that may define their future, without being influenced by the personal views of those teaching them.
.
Teaching about climate change and the scientific facts and evidence behind this, does not constitute teaching about a political issue and schools do not need to present misinformation or unsubstantiated claims to provide balance. However, in climate education there may be relevant political issues and partisan political views, for example on social and economic reform, that should be handled in line with schools legal duties on political impartiality. Importantly, whilst schools should support pupil’s interest in climate change and tackling both its causes and effects, it would not be appropriate to encourage pupils to join specific campaigning groups or engage in specific political activity, such as protests.

It’s interesting that presenting different viewpoints is considered “misinformation”. Now, limited discussion is permitted, but only in terms of what kind of solutions could be offered. In other words, the underlying claims of a crisis are not open for discussion. Is that how science works?

[Page 22] By 2025:
• DfE and its arms-length bodies will mandate that all suppliers bidding for contracts over £5m per year, commit to achieving Net Zero by 205012. Additionally, they must publish a Carbon Reduction Plan, which will clearly show how they will meet this target.

In the next few years, if a company wants to land a significant contract with the British Government, they’ll have to play along with this hoax, regardless of the costs to the business.

Documents like Agenda 2030 and the Paris Agreement are absolutely political in nature. To push them neutrally, without talking about the unending money flow is disingenuous. There really is no substitute for just reading the papers.

It’s infuriating, this technique of instilling fear and terror on impressionable minds. If you want society to stay intact, these are the measures that must be taken.

This review hardly does the paper real justice. The Government doesn’t even pretend that it’s not trying to trap the children at a young age.

Of course, it must be pointed out that Britain is hardly the only country to do this. Across the world, varying degrees of this indoctrination is going on. This is just some of the more obvious.

(1) https://www.gov.uk/government/news/education-secretary-puts-climate-change-at-the-heart-of-education–2#history
(2) https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1031454/SCC_DRAFT_Strategy.pdf
(3) UK Draft Education To Embed Climate Change Agenda Indoctrination
(4) https://canucklaw.ca/agenda-2030-un-sustainable-development-wealth-transfer-scheme/
(5) https://canucklaw.ca/ccs-2-the-paris-accord-a-giant-wealth-transfer-scheme/
(6) https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000374891
(7) https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/final-report-the-economics-of-biodiversity-the-dasgupta-review
(8) https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000374802
(9) https://www.oce.global/en
(10) https://www.oce.global/en/oce/partners

October 6, 2021October 6, 2021

Public Media Alliance, Brussels Declaration, Protecting Journalists & “Media Freedom”

The Public Media Alliance claims that harassment, threats, and violence towards journalists is a serious concern. This organization also thinks the media isn’t independent enough. While that is certainly true, it seems this NGO is less than sincere in what it states it supports.

For some even more Orwellian organizations, check this piece on: (a) Journalism Trust Initiative; (b) Trusted News Initiative; (c) Project Origin: and (d) The Trust Project. There’s also this article on the Coalition For Content Provenance And Authenticity.

So-called public service media, or PSM, refers to media outlets that are either run by, or heavily financed by the respective Governments. The PMA is quite blunt about this.

Financial models for public media organisations vary but an element of public funding is central. This is usually provided by either allocation from general government resources or via a general charge on users (licence fee). Public media organisations also supplement declining public resources with external revenue in order to maintain quality.

However, what will become clear is that the PMA doesn’t really advocate for a free and open media. Instead, it calls for media — and publicly funded ones — that operate within their own ideologies.

Within the PMA, there is a subgroup called the Global Task Force, or GTF.

The GTF claims its values are: access, accuracy, accountability, creativity, impartiality, independence and high standards of journalism. All these underpin an informed and healthy democracy. Many of these are under assault by various forces, both private and public.

It also says on its webpage that “public service media must develop a coordinated global response mechanism in order to defend and promote core values.” At face value, there is nothing that catches attention.

The Global Task Force exists to defend the values and the interests of Public Media.
.
The Global Task Force (GTF) was formed to develop a consensus and single, strong voice around the issues and challenges facing public media worldwide. An industry led initiative, the GTF offers a perspective that spans countries, languages and cultures.

The 8 members of the “Global Task Force” have openly supported the Brussels Declaration, which they claim is a new global initiative to protect journalists and media freedom.

David Anderson, Managing Director, ABC (Australia)
Thomas Bellut, Director General, ZDF (Germany)
Delphine Ernotte Cunci, President & CEO, France Télévisions (France)
Tim Davie, Director General, BBC (United Kingdom)
Jim Mather, Chair of the Board, RNZ (New Zealand)
Hanna Stjärne, Director General, SVT (Sweden)
Catherine Tait, President & CEO, CBC/Radio-Canada, GTF Chair (Canada)
Yang Sung-dong, President & CEO, KBS (South Korea)

This is by no means the entire list who endorsed the Brussels Declaration. In fact, dozens of broadcasters, mainly publicly funded, have already signed on to it. These include:

Radio-Télévision belge de la Communauté française (RTBF) – BEL
Vlaamse Radio- en Televisieomroeporganisatie (VRT) – BEL
Radio-Canada – CAN
CBC/Radio-Canada – CAN
France Télévisions – FRA
Radio France – FRA
British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) – GBR
Nederlandse Publieke Omroep (NPO) – NLD
European Broadcasting Union (EBU) – INT ORG
Public Media Alliance (PMA) – INT ORG
Les Médias Francophones Publics – INT ORG
Zweites Deutsches Fernsehen (ZDF) – DEU
Arbeitsgemeinschaft der öffentlich-rechtlichen Rundfunkanstalten der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (ARD) – DEU
International Federation of Journalists – INT ORG
European Federation of Journalists – INT ORG
Knowledge Network Corporation – INT ORG
Die Schweizerische Radio- und Fernsehgesellschaft (SRG SSR) – CHE
Médias multiplateforme éducatif et culturel du Québec – CAN
Sveriges Utbildningsradio – SWE
France Médias Monde – FRA
Yleisradio – FIN
Sveriges Television (SVT) – SWE
Asia – Pacific Broadcasting Organisation – INT ORG
Lituanian National Television and Radio – LTU
TV5 Québec Canada – CAN
TV5MONDE – FRA/INT ORG
Televisión América Latina (TAL, Union of Latinamerican Public, Educational and Cutlural Broadcasters) – INT ORG
Sindicato Nacional de Periodistas de Costa Rica – CRI
Korean Broadcasting System (KBS) – KOR
Radio New Zealand (RNZ) – NZL
Radio Télévision Suisse (RTS) – CHE
Radio and Television of Bosnia and Herzegovina – BIH
Österreichischer Rundfunk (ORF) – AUT
Rádio e Televisão de Portugal (RTP) – PRT
NHK (Japan Broadcasting Corporation) – JPN
Australian Broadcasting Corporation – AUS

That is quite the list, and it will surely grow in time.

Now, what is the Brussels Declaration? Primarily, it revolves around 5 points and commitments, claiming to want to protect a free and independent media worldwide.

[1] We improve the safety of journalists and other media staff
[2] We stand up for the independence of public broadcasters
[3] We encourage well-informed democratic debate
[4] We support a strong and diverse news media landscape
[5] We promote diversity, fairness and inclusion within our own organisation and in the society we serve

On the surface, there is nothing objectionable about any of this. In fact, these are great goals to work towards. However, when we see these principles applied in practice, and the rampant double standards, questions start to come up.

Each point could be an entire article by itself, but we will try to make this short, and more manageable. Considering the content of the Brussels Declaration, it’s fair to ask who wrote certain parts of Trudeau’s legislation over the last several years.

1. Enhancing the safety of journalists, crews and media professionals

All journalists, crew members and media professionals need to be able to safely perform their duties. To that end, the signatories commit to providing the resources and support their employees need to protect themselves from physical violence and online harassment, while raising public awareness about the impact of those attacks on democracy.

No one supports having physical harm come to journalists. However, legitimate criticism (and trolling) is often conflated with violence or attacking. By doing this, it undermines efforts to hold reporters accountable for what they publish, especially things that are provably false.

That said, there is little to no coverage of protests in Australia, Europe, and elsewhere. Nor do mainstream outlets cover police brutality towards peaceful demonstrators. It’s almost as if there was a certain narrative to push.

2. Standing up for the independence of public service media

The signatories commit to publicly condemning any attempt to undermine the independence of public service media — whether it’s through political pressure, financial threats or retribution, harassment or attacks against employees, or antimedia rhetoric. They also commit to improving understanding of the distinction between public and state broadcasters.

Public service media is independent? Watch 2:25 to 4:40 in particular, from this October 2020 video. Not a peep from any of the “journalists” there. Tam openly admits that: (a) journalists are asked to promote their agenda; (b) social media directs people to certain sites; (c) taking down content; (d) demonetizing content; and (c) manipulating the algorithm to bury certain content . However, not only are there no objections, but no one seems even the slightest bit surprised by this.

As for the independence of public service media, would it be too much to ask that it be made obvious that the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is a major donor of the BBC? It’s not like this was difficult to find, or that it’s even much of a secret at this point.

3. Fostering an informed and civil democratic debate

In response to the global disinformation crisis, the signatories commit to providing trusted news and information, supporting fact-checking initiatives, boosting media literacy, and monitoring and removing hate speech from their platforms. They also pledge to call on social media companies and regulators to eradicate online hate on third-party platforms.

Calling on social media companies to remove “hate”, whatever that is? This raises the obvious question of who actually writes legislation in Parliament to call for such things.

Should the Government be financing the fact-check organizations that keep it in line? Moreover, should political operatives be running such groups? How is there real accountability when the media and the groups monitoring them are funded by the same people? Isn’t it just a dog-and-pony show at that point? It’s not independent if funding depends on pushing a narrative — regardless of who’s pushing it. While too numerous to name here, below are recent articles on exactly this subject.

4. Supporting a strong news ecosystem with a diversity of sources

A diverse mix of public, community and private news media is fundamental to a strong news ecosystem and healthy democracy. Consequently, the signatories commit to collaborating with other domestic media outlets to protect local journalism — including sharing best practices on journalist safety and speaking with one voice on common challenges.

Quite interesting. Last April, CBC reported that Dominic LeBlanc, President of the Privy Council, was openly considering laws to ban “misinformation” around the so-called pandemic. Although nothing seems to have happened (yet), this is absolutely chilling. Nonetheless, CBC seemed relatively uninterested, and only gave this a passing mention. Moreover, these outlets seem rather blase about the steady erosion of civil rights, and the ever changing narratives.

Also, how is it exactly that there is a diversity of sources, when they are all being financed to some degree by the Government? Just like the fact-checkers, the media itself is bought off. This extends to many smaller and “independent” news sources. See below.

5. Promoting diversity, equity and inclusion within our organizations and in the societies we serve

In order to uphold the ideals of pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness that underpin democratic societies, the signatories commit to more accurately reflecting the diverse makeup and perspectives of the populations they serve, both in their programming and workforce — while also leading efforts to make their workplace inclusive for everyone.

This presumably means forced diversity. In the West, it means less whites, and in particular, less white men. And that’s pretty twisted, considering how few whites there are in general in the mainstream press.

(a) https://canucklaw.ca/press-forward-anti-white-independent-media-controlled-and-funded-by-the-establishment/
(b) https://canucklaw.ca/hirebipoc-replacing-whites-in-the-media-industry-all-at-taxpayer-expense/

In any event, it’s great news knowing that the CBC and some other outlets have signed the Brussels Declaration. It’s so relieving to know that strong, independent media will continue for the years to come.

Sarcasm aside, it doesn’t appear that the Public Media Alliance, the Global Task Force, or any of these groups actually care about having an independent media. This seems more like an effort to protect their dominance, while ignoring the assault on true reporters.

(1) https://www.publicmediaalliance.org/
(2) https://www.publicmediaalliance.org/global-task-force/
(3) https://www.publicmediaalliance.org/about-us/what-is-psm/
(4) https://www.publicmediaalliance.org/about-us/what-is-psm/content/
(5) https://www.publicmediaalliance.org/brussels-declaration-pma-joins-public-media-and-international-organisations-to-call-for-journalist-safety-and-media-freedom/
(6) https://brusselsdeclaration2021.com/
(7) https://brusselsdeclaration2021.com/declaration
(8) https://canucklaw.ca/journalism-trust-initiative-trusted-news-initiative-project-origin-the-trust-project/
(9) https://canucklaw.ca/coalition-for-content-provenance-and-authenticity-c2pa-project-origin-content-authenticity-initiative/
(10) https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/covid-misinformation-disinformation-law-1.5532325
(11) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Jr_rkzzr2Q
(12) https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaaction/about/annual-reports

June 13, 2021February 3, 2022

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?
.
Yes.
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?
.
No.
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)?
.
Yes.
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 [https://www.rcog.org.uk/en/news/updated-adviceon-covid-19-vaccination-in-pregnancy-and-women-who-are-breastfeeding/]. 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?
.
Yes.
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 [https://www.hfea.gov.uk/treatments/covid-19-and-fertility-treatment/].

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.

Disclaimer
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.

(1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98NA3nQBBLc
(2) https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCVQJ9BADJ9btFc8G0eNE9wg
(3) https://twitter.com/BritFertSoc
(4) https://www.britishfertilitysociety.org.uk/
(5) https://www.britishfertilitysociety.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Covid19-Vaccines-FAQ-1_3.pdf
(6) British Fertility Society Recommends Vaccines
(7) https://www.britishfertilitysociety.org.uk/about/sponsorship/
(8) https://www.britishfertilitysociety.org.uk/about/corporate-membership/
(9) https://www.vaccineconfidence.org
(10) https://www.vaccineconfidence.org/partners-funders
(11) https://www.un.org/en/coronavirus/%E2%80%98verified%E2%80%99-initiative-aims-flood-digital-space-facts-amid-covid-19-crisis
(12) https://www.un.int/news/un%E2%80%99s-verified-initiative-encourages-us-take-%E2%80%98pause%E2%80%99
(13) https://covidtrials.ca/
(14) https://archive.is/VKc0M
(15) https://www.thinkresearch.com/ca/
(16) https://www.thinkresearch.com/ca/2021/01/18/think-research-announces-appointment-of-dr-eric-hoskins-former-ontario-health-minister-to-board-of-directors/
(17) https://canucklaw.ca/cv-18-ottawa-sends-iffim-money-for-vaccine-bonds-gavi-gpei-grants/
(18) https://airmedtrials.com/
(19) https://canucklaw.ca/cv-24-gates-financing-of-imperial-college-london-and-their-modelling/
(20) https://canucklaw.ca/cv-24b-london-school-of-hygiene-tropical-medicine-more-modelling-financed-by-gates/
(21) https://canucklaw.ca/cv-24c-vaccine-impact-modelling-consortium-more-bogus-science/
(22) https://canucklaw.ca/cv-24d-heidi-larson-lshtm-vcp-vaxxing-pregnant-women-financed-by-big-pharma/
(23) https://canucklaw.ca/cv-27c-share-verified-uses-emotional-manipulation-selective-truth-to-promote-narrative/

May 24, 2021May 24, 2021

CV #44(B): BBC’s “Disinformation Specialist Reporter”, Marianna Spring, Is Funded By Gates Money

Marianna Spring works for the BBC, British Broadcasting Corporation, and claims to be a “specialist reporter covering disinformation and social media”. However, after a look through what she covers (and omits), the only logical conclusion is that she is deliberately spreading lies.

As a bit of a side note: Spring doesn’t allow people to comment on her tweets unless she follows them, or has tagged them. For a journalist trying to reach the people, she certainly doesn’t seem to want to hear from them.

According to her profile, she was a full time reporter with BBC, until in March 2020, she was tapped to head up the misinformation coverage in the network. She claims to report and track conspiracy theories and false reporting.

However, there is an interesting omission. Spring doesn’t like to address the people who are funding her employer, the BBC. Specifically, she doesn’t address the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. While it’s far from the only donor, it is a major one, and a regular one at that.

YEAR	PAGE	AMOUNT (UK POUNDS)
2016-2017	35	2,800,000
2017-2018	12	2,150,000
2018-2019	14	2,003,000
2019-2020	17	1,569,000

Notwithstanding donations to her own employer, Spring has shown no interest in covering any of the financial connections between the Gates Foundation, big pharma, and the education industry. Just a thought: when covering conspiracy theories, it may be wise to see if there is any truth to them.

https://apps.irs.gov/app/eos/

Let’s clarify here: there are actually 2 separate entities. The Foundation is the group that distributes money to various organizations and institutions. The Foundation Trust, however, is concerned primarily about asset management.

BILL & MELINDA GATES FOUNDATION
EIN: 56-2618866
gates.foundation.taxes.2016
gates.foundation.taxes.2017
gates.foundation.taxes.2018

BILL & MELINDA GATES FOUNDATION TRUST
EIN: 91-1663695
gates.foundation.trust.taxes.2018

However, Spring will never get into any of this, nor will she report of the financial interests that drive this “pandemic”. The grants to the World Health Organization, GAVI, the Pirbright Institute, John Hopkins, and many more are instantly available. It’s hard to classify someone as a “journalist” when they are so blind to one side of a story.

Even disregarding Gates, the bulk of the BBC funding comes from the British Government, who supports these martial law measures 100%. Surely Spring and her people know who butters their bread.

“We offer partners a number of benefits which include:

Exclusive invites to networking events, receptions and dinners hosted by BBC correspondents
Getting behind-the-scenes at the BBC with private tours of New Broadcasting House
Exclusive recognition on our website and marketing materials
Case studies of how your donation has impacted our work, for you to use in both internal and external communications
Exclusive opportunities to see and help deliver our work in action, in country.”

The BBC offers partnerships with other organization, and currently, they include Facebook and Twitter. As far as cracking down on “misinformation”, they seem to be ideologically aligned.

The BBC covered the Atlantic Storm pandemic scenario in 2005. Footage is still available of it online. Has Spring not found it strange that all of these preparation cases have been going on for decades?

Facebook has also confirmed that it will be removing content and people that discourages vaccination, REGARDLESS of whether or not it’s true. This is about pushing an agenda, not a search for objective truth. Does Spring not see how precarious her position is if the only way to succeed is to shut down opposing views? After all, she “identifies” as a journalist.

This kind of censorship has a chilling effect, regardless of the subject being discussed.

Volunteers fight back
It was the pandemic’s wave of anti-vaccine content that prompted Dave and Richard to embark on their plan.
.
“I was out of work,” Dave says. “So I wanted to do something constructive.”
.
Although the duo have only met in real life once, they now run multiple “honeypot” Facebook groups that have thousands of members from all over the world.
.
Inside the groups, people who believe in vaccine and Covid-19 conspiracy theories are allowed by the moderators to post false and misleading articles.
.
Richard admits he’s conflicted about the deception.
.
“It was horrible having to lie to begin with,” he says.
.
After members initially joined the group, he says, the pair would observe what they shared, sometimes for weeks.
.
“And then it’d stop,” Richard says, “and we’d start questioning their narrative.”
.
Dave and Richard debunk myths and challenge people in comments under posts and via private message.

Ever get the impression that certain groups and people were honeypots (or feds), deliberately trying to mislead a conversation and steer others away from asking important questions? Turns out, it’s for real. The BBC published an article on doing exactly that.

Rather than condemn such underhanded tactics, Spring tweeted it out approvingly, saying that it was necessary to stop people from falling for conspiracy theories. Does a “misinformation specialist” see nothing wrong with deceiving and misleading the public? Spring is either a fraud, or is engaging in olympic level mental gymnastics.

The screenshot is from last year, but there is a valid point. The U.K. defines “Covid deaths” as:

Number of deaths of people who had had a positive test result for COVID-19 and died within 28 days of the first positive test. Data from the four nations are not directly comparable as methodologies and inclusion criteria vary. Data for the period ending 5 days before the date when the website was last updated with data for the selected area, highlighted in grey, is incomplete.

The death count is for people who’ve had a positive test (real or false positive), and then died within 28 days, irrespective of the cause. This kind of definition opens the door to abuse. If Spring really had been researching conspiracy theories and misinformation, she would have heard that claim repeatedly. Did she ignore it, or check, and simply report lies anyway?

The World Health Organization defines it in the following way:

A death due to COVID-19 is defined for surveillance purposes as a death resulting from a clinically compatible illness, in a probable or confirmed COVID-19 case, unless there is a clear alternative cause of death that cannot be related to COVID disease (e.g. trauma). There should be no period of complete recovery from COVID-19 between illness and death.

While there is a lot of garbage posted online (that part is true), isn’t it the job of a professional journalist to wade through, and sort out fact from fiction?

Listening to Spring talk, it does appear that she has much of an interest in fact checking anything that she calls a conspiracy theorist. She seems to take the Government narrative at face value.

In her own words, this is about “putting a human face” on trying to counter information the Government doesn’t like. This comes across as crass emotional manipulation.

Take a good look. This is the face of deception in the modern age.

(1) https://twitter.com/mariannaspring
(2) https://twitter.com/mariannaspring/status/1396858528900567041
(3) https://twitter.com/mariannaspring/status/1396859428226441225
(4) https://www.linkedin.com/in/marianna-spring-279439b6/
(5) https://archive.is/aL3iN
(6) https://apps.irs.gov/app/eos/
(7) https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaaction/about/annual-reports
(8) https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaaction/about/funding
(9) https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaaction/support-us/current-partnerships
(10) https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-57051691
(11) https://inews.co.uk/news/technology/social-media-boycott-football-sport-bbc-marianna-spring-dealing-with-trolls-978728
(12) https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3ct2dmc
(13) https://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/our-work/events-archive/
(14) https://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/our-work/events-archive/2005_atlantic_storm/atlantic-storm-BBC
(15) https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/deaths
(16) https://www.who.int/classifications/icd/Guidelines_Cause_of_Death_COVID-19.pdf?ua=1
(17) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVNlI0ewkBk

March 10, 2021

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.

January 19, 2021January 31, 2022

IMM #1(D): CANZUK Still Going Ahead, Despite “Global Pandemic”

Canada is supposedly in the middle of a deadly health crisis. One might expect there to be a push to close national borders to the greatest extent possible. Instead, it’s full speed ahead to the one-world order. See Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3.

1. Mass LEGAL Immigration In Canada

Despite what many think, LEGAL immigration into Canada is actually a much larger threat than illegal aliens, given the true scale of the replacement that is happening. What was founded as a European (British) colony is becoming unrecognizable due to forced demographic changes. There are also social, economic, environmental and voting changes to consider. See this Canadian series, and the UN programs for more detail. Politicians, the media, and so-called “experts” have no interest in coming clean on this.

CLICK HERE, for UN Genocide Prevention/Punishment Convention.
CLICK HERE, for Barcelona Declaration & Kalergi Plan.
CLICK HERE, for UN Kalergi Plan (population replacement).
CLICK HERE, for UN replacement efforts since 1974.
CLICK HERE, for tracing steps of UN replacement agenda.

Note: If there are errors in calculating the totals, please speak up. Information is of no use to the public if it isn’t accurate.

2. Offshoring, Globalization, Free Trade

The other posts on outsourcing/offshoring are available here. It focuses on the hidden costs and trade offs society as a whole has to make. Contrary to what many politicians and figures in the media claim, there are always costs to these kinds of agreement. These include: (a) job losses; (b) wages being driven down; (c) undercutting of local companies; (d) legal action by foreign entities; (e) industries being outsourced; (f) losses to communities when major employers leave; and (g) loss of sovereignty to foreign corporations and governments. Intellectual property also becomes a tricky issue. Don’t believe the lies that these agreements are overwhelmingly beneficial to all.

3. Important Links

(1) https://www.linkedin.com/in/jrskinner/
(2) https://archive.is/IZ7MB
(3) http://openparliament.ca
(4) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x167VPhSJaY
(5) https://www.ic.gc.ca/app/scr/cc/CorporationsCanada/fdrlCrpDtls.html?corpId=12424363&V_TOKEN=1611040234112&crpNm=canzuk&crpNmbr=&bsNmbr=
(6) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/advSrch?V_SEARCH.command=navigate&time=1611036807784
(7) https://www.canzukinternational.com/2021/01/canzuk-a-cure-for-our-healthcare-challenges.html
(8) https://www.canzukinternational.com/2020/09/all-party-parliamentary-group-appoints-canzuk-international-as-official-adviser.html
(9) canzuk.01.directors.list
(10) canzuk.02.articles.of.incorporation
(11) canzuk.03.corporate.profile

4. CANZUK During (Alleged) Deadly Epidemic

For a bit of context, keep in mind that Covid-19 is supposedly a deadly disease that has caused untold death and misery across the planet. Now, it would seem counter-intuitive to promote the open borders agenda in the middle of it. However, that is exactly what is happening.

5. Who Is James Skinner, CANZUK Head?

Congressional Assistant (U.S.)
Parliamentary Adviser (Australia)
Parliamentary Adviser (U.K.)
Conservative Party of Canada

James Skinner is quite the varied political operative. It’s important to note that he was the Vice President of a Conservative Party of Canada EDA at the same time. Quite the conflict of interest.

Also, the politicians supporting CANZUK aren’t Liberals, they’re Conservatives. Skinner is using his political ties to push CPC policy towards open borders. Skinner is also an experienced lobbyist, and brings those skills to this project.

6. Bait-And-Switch #1: CANZUK V.S. UNGMC

In late 2018, the Conservative Party of Canada finally decided that it opposed the UNGMC, the United Nations Global Migration Compact. This was done just days before the agreement was scheduled to be signed. There were valid criticisms about “setting international standards” for migration.

However, this involves some serious mental gymnastics. CANZUK is literal open borders, and the CPC has that policy on its books. Worse, this would be legally binding, unlike the UN Compact.

7. Bait-And-Switch #2: Expand CANZUK Zone

This was addressed here. CANZUK is sold to the public as a free trade & open movement agreement between 4 countries. However, there are many, like Erin O’Toole, who support expanding it even further. Once it’s operational, open up to other countries.

8. Bait-And-Switch #3: When It Started

To begin with, the group was formed in 2015. The Above video of Erin O’Toole was from the 2018 CPC Policy Convention in Halifax. At that point, the Party officially adopted CANZUK. It is only AFTER this adoption that CANZUK International forms a Federal Corporation in Canada.

And it is only in the last few months that there is any “official” lobbying done on behalf of the organization. The order seems completely backwards.

The only way this makes sense is that it was all agreed to — behind closed doors — long before anything official was put into writing.

9. Bait-And-Switch #4: Countering China

Here’s another sleight of hand going on: CANZUK is currently being sold as a way to counter growing Chinese influence. This is nonsense, as CANZUK is not any sort of military agreement, simply trade and movement. Moreover, since O’Toole still supports high levels of Chinese immigration and trade, it’s unclear what he expects to accomplish.

Got to admire the nerve. The CPC pushed for FIPA, which allowed China almost unfettered access into Canada. It was sold as an investment protection initiative, and an increase in trade. Now that Canadians want less to do with China, CANZUK is sold as a way to counter China increasing global influence.

10. Bait-And-Switch #5: Healthcare Boost

Remember the panic over empty shelves of toilet paper or the sudden drug prescription limit of 30 days? Now imagine an alliance that would have allowed us to be better prepared to handle this crisis.

The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted numerous gaps in our healthcare systems, be it issues of equity and access as evidenced by the disproportionately affected visible minorities or the inadequate security of our supply chains. The disruptions in personal protective equipment (PPE), lack of adequate testing and drug shortages have been sources of stress for frontline workers, healthcare managers and patients alike.

Our healthcare services are perennially underfunded and overstretched: the pandemic has laid bare our vulnerabilities to physician shortages, high rates of infection (nearly 20 per cent as of September 2020) among healthcare workers, increased healthcare costs, worsening mental health, and chronically underfunded long-term care. Furthermore, the pandemic has demonstrated the lack of an effective international crisis-management system. With global and national realignments the need of the hour, CANZUK is an idea whose time has come.

Remember people buying out all the toilet paper last year? Well, guess what? If we had more open borders, with more free trade, that likely wouldn’t have happened. In fact, things would have been a lot better off. Forget about closing borders in a crisis.

11. Bait-And-Switch #6: No Global Crisis

One would think that in the middle of a so-called “global pandemic” that open borders ideas like CANZUK would be put on the backburner, at least for the foreseeable future. Nope. Instead, there is scarcely a mention. Funny, how that works out. It’s almost like there really is nothing serious to worry about.

In fact, scrolling through CANZUK’s many articles, there’s barely a mention at all.

Different excuses. Different lies. But the open borders agenda rolls on.

Category: UK

Climate Propaganda To Be Embedded Throughout British Education System

Like this:

British Fertility Society Promotes Vaccines, Funded By Big Pharma

Like this:

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