“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.” Section 30.1(1) of the Food and Drugs Act. Sure, there are standards, but they can be bypassed if needed.
1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”
The rest of the series is here. Many lies, lobbying, conflicts of interest, and various globalist agendas operating behind the scenes, obscuring the vile agenda called the “Great Reset“. The Gates Foundation finances: the WHO, the US CDC, GAVI, ID2020, John Hopkins University, Imperial College London, the Pirbright Institute, the BBC, and individual pharmaceutical companies. Also: there is little to no science behind what our officials are doing; they promote degenerate behaviour; the Australian Department of Health admits the PCR tests don’t work; the US CDC admits testing is heavily flawed; and The International Health Regulations are legally binding. See here, here, and here. The media is paid off, and our democracy compromised, shown: here, here, here, and here.
Neil Ferguson and Imperial College London were also involved in modelling H1N1 (Swine Flu), over a decade ago. His models are about as off the mark then as they are now.
Imperial College London has financial ties to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Gates himself shows interest in many of ICL’s activities.
Professor Neil Ferguson, the corresponding author of the new research from the MRC Centre for Outbreak Analysis and Modelling at Imperial College London, said: “Our study shows that this virus is spreading just as we would expect for the early stages of a flu pandemic. So far, it has been following a very similar pattern to the flu pandemic in 1957, in terms of the proportion of people who are becoming infected and the percentage of potentially fatal cases that we are seeing.
“What we’re seeing is not the same as seasonal flu and there is still cause for concern – we would expect this pandemic to at least double the burden on our healthcare systems. However, this initial modelling suggests that the H1N1 virus is not as easily transmitted or as lethal as that found in the flu pandemic in 1918,” added Professor Ferguson.
Even back in 2009 (and in fact earlier), Ferguson was quite willing to push the panic button based on very incomplete information. It must be noted that models are not proof or evidence, they are merely predictions. These predictions are subjected to the same limitations and biases of the people conducting them.
Ferguson’s “models” predicted some 65,000 deaths in the U.K. as a result of Swine Flu. A total of 457 materialized in the end. And it’s just one of the times he’s grossly overshot the mark.
4. PCR Tests Used For Swine Flu Detection
This guidance was revised to clarify that the current rRT-PCR developed by CDC to detect novel influenza A ( H1N1) is authorized by the FDA. The FDA authorization, also termed Emergency Use Authorization or EUA, is not equivalent to FDA cleared, which was incorrectly stated in the previous version of the guidance.
Those PCR tests (which don’t detect Covid-19), were also approved for use in diagnosing H1N1 by the Center for Disease Control in the U.S. The technology wasn’t suited then, and isn’t now.
5. Inadequate Clinical Trials: (Arepanrix H1N1)
4. What evidence was used to support the authorization of Arepanrix™ H1N1?
A prototype or “mock” vaccine was developed in the pre-pandemic period using another strain of influenza virus, the H5N1 strain. During this period Health Canada inspected the vaccine manufacturing facilities, validated the vaccine production process, and reviewed results from both animal and human studies with the mock vaccine. In addition, the safety and effectiveness of the adjuvant to be used with the vaccine was assessed by Health Canada. Once the H1N1 virus emerged as the pandemic virus, the manufacturer initiated vaccine production using the strain recommended by the WHO.
5. What are the benefits and potential risks associated with Arepanrix™ H1N1?
Criteria have been established to assess the immunogenicity of vaccines. Clinical trial results indicate that Arepanrix meets all of these criteria, which means that the vaccine produces an adequate level of protection against the H1N1 pandemic virus.
As with all medicinal products, there may be side effects or adverse events associated with the use of the product. Some of the very common adverse events that have been observed in clinical trials with the pandemic vaccine include pain at the injection site, fatigue, headache, swollen glands in the neck, joint pain, and muscle ache. Refer to the product leaflet for additional information on adverse events.
6. How was Arepanrix™ H1N1 authorized?
Arepanrix™ H1N1 was approved because it was shown that the benefits of the vaccine outweigh any risks. The time frame between vaccine manufacturing and the need to use the vaccine in time to provide the public with protection against the virus is very short. As a result, it has not been possible for the manufacturer to collect the usual full information necessary for a Notice of Compliance to be issued under the Food and Drug Regulations. For this reason, an Interim Order was used to provide an alternate pathway to allow for the authorization for sale of the vaccine. Under the Interim Order, the manufacturer is required to continue submitting data on the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine. Health Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada will review this information as it becomes available.
This vaccine was rushed out for use in the general population. This was despite the testing not being complete. The Minister of Health signed an interim Order allowing it to be dispensed anyway.
It’s worth pointing out that initial trials were not even conducted on the H1N1 influenza strain, but on another one. Fair to ask how valid that initial research would be.
Elderly (>60 years):
There are limited data available from clinical studies with Pandemrix™ (H1N1) and with Arepanrix™ H1N1 vaccine in adults aged over 60 years.
The recommended dosage for this age group is one dose of 0.5mL.
Immunogenicity data obtained at 3 weeks after administration of Pandemrix (H1N1) or Arepanrix™ H1N1 in clinical studies in this age group suggest that a single dose may be sufficient.
If a second dose is administered, it should be given after an interval of at least three weeks. See section Pharmacodynamics.
Children and adolescents aged 10-17 years: No clinical data are available for Arepanrix™ H1N1 in this age group. There are limited data available from a clinical study with Pandemrix™ (H1N1) in this age group.
The recommended dosage for this age group is in accordance with recommendations for adults.
Children aged from 6 months to 9 years:
One dose of 0.25mL (i.e. half of the adult dose) at an elected date.
Preliminary immunogenicity data obtained in a limited number of children aged 6-35 months who received two doses of 0.25 mL of Pandemrix™ (H1N1) containing 1.9 µg HA derived from A/California/7/2009 (H1N1) and a limited number of children aged 3-9 years who received one dose of 0.5 mL of Pandemrix™ (H1N1) show that a good immune response is elicited after the first dose, but there is a further immune response to a second dose of 0.25 mL administered to children aged 6-35 months after an interval of three weeks.
Extremely limited studies were done prior to getting interim approval from the Minister of Health. In some cases, they were using different vaccines and working with different strains. Not really an apples to apples comparison.
6. Inadequate Trials: (Monovalent Vaccine)
Elderly (>60 years): No clinical data are available for Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Pandemic Monovalent Vaccine (Without Adjuvant) in this age group. One dose of 0.5mL may be administered at an elected date.
Children and adolescents aged 10-17 years: No clinical data are available for the Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Pandemic Monovalent Vaccine (Without Adjuvant) in this age group. One dose of 0.5mL may be administered at an elected date.
Children aged 3-9 years: No clinical data are available for the Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Pandemic Monovalent Vaccine (Without Adjuvant) in this age group. The use of this vaccine should be considered in light of PHAC recommendations for the A/California/7/2009(H1N1)v-like vaccination. Preliminary data with other similar unadjuvanted vaccines suggest that if used in this age group, a 2-dose regimen (0.5mL with an interval of at least 21 days between doses) is recommended.
Children aged from 6-35 months: No clinical data are available for the Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Pandemic Monovalent Vaccine (Without Adjuvant) in this age group. The use of this vaccine should be considered in light of PHAC recommendations for the A/California/7/2009(H1N1)v-like vaccination. Preliminary data with other similar unadjuvanted vaccines suggest that for this age group, unadjuvanted vaccine may not be suitable against this pandemic strain.
Children aged less than 6 months:
Vaccination is not currently recommended in this age group.
For further information, see section Pharmacodynamics.
This isn’t selective editing or anything of the sort. Health Canada approved the use of this drug for children between 6 months and 17 years, and over the age of 60, without there being clinical data to support that it worked. This is chilling to read.
7. Approval Of Experimental Drugs
“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.” [from the Food and Drugs Act]
That is Section 30.1(1) of the Food and Drug Act of Canada. It was used to approve 2 vaccines without full and complete trials. They were:
 Arepanrix™ H1N1 (AS03-Adjuvanted H1N1 Pandemic Influenza Vaccine)
 Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Pandemic Monovalent Vaccine (Without Adjuvant)
The Minister has the discretion to do this. And it happened, despite there not being adequate testing done. Could the same thing happen with Covid-19?
8. Indemnification From The Courts
Adam, Abudu v. Ledesma-Cadhit et al, 2014 ONSC 5726 (CanLII)
Adam v. GlaxoSmithKline Inc., 2019 ONSC 7066 (CanLII)
There are actually 2 different rulings based on vaccine injury from GlaxoSmithKline. Here are quotes from the later ruling.
 In early 2009, the WHO became aware of the development of a new strain of influenza virus: H1N1, commonly known as swine flu. It had not been seen in human populations before, as a result of which humans had no built up immunity. The WHO declared H1N1 to be a pandemic.
 On June 11, 2009, the WHO declared a phase 6 pandemic. This is the final and most serious stage of a pandemic. It marks sustained human-to-human transmission of the virus in more than one region of the world. By early July there had been 94,512 reported cases and approximately 429 recorded deaths attributable to H1N1.
 In the summer of 2009, the WHO called for manufacturers to begin clinical trials for a vaccine to combat H1N1.
 GSK developed two vaccines to combat H1N1: Arepanrix and Pandemrix. Both are substantially similar. Pandemrix was manufactured and distributed in Europe. Arepanrix was manufactured and distributed in Canada. Clinical trials for Arepanrix began in 2008 but had not been completed when the pandemic was declared.
 The federal Minister of Health authorized the sale of the Arepanrix vaccine pursuant to an interim order dated October 13, 2009. Human trials of the vaccine were still underway. The Minister of Health is empowered to make interim orders if immediate action is required because of a danger to health, safety or the environment. In issuing the interim order, Health Canada deemed the risk profile of Arepanrix to be favourable for an interim order. The authorization was based on the risk caused by the current pandemic threat and its danger to human health. As part of the interim order process, Health Canada agreed to indemnify GSK for any claims brought against it in relation to the administration of the Arepanrix vaccine.
 Although human trials of Arepanrix were not finished by the time Health Canada authorized its use, the vaccine was not without clinical history.
 The plaintiffs’ principal allegation with respect to the standard of care is that GSK failed to make adequate disclosure of the risks involved with Arepanrix.
 The plaintiffs began their challenge about disclosure with the evidence of Ms. Hyacenth who testified that she was not told that: (i) the vaccine had not been tested through the usual route, (ii) the vaccine had been subject to a hastened approval process by Health Canada, (iii) adjuvants had never been used in children, (iv) the Government of Canada was indemnifying the vaccine manufacturer; and (v) some countries refused to make the vaccine available because of safety concerns. Ms. Hyacenth says that had she been told about these things she would not have risked having her children vaccinated.
 Part of the challenge of the plaintiffs’ inadequate disclosure case is that Ms. Hyacenth was not the direct purchaser of the vaccine. Vaccines are administered through a “learned intermediary,” in this case, her family physician. The issue is significant because any disclosures GSK makes are made in product monographs or inserts that accompany each vial of vaccine. The patient getting the vaccine does not receive the box containing the vaccine and whatever disclosure document it contains. It is the physician who receives this.
 GSK did disclose in its Product Information Leaflet for the Arepanrix vaccine and in its product monograph that Health Canada had authorized the sale of the vaccine based on only limited clinical testing and no clinical experience at all with children. Dr. Ledesma-Cadhit believes she knew this from the Health Canada website. She was also aware that Arepanrix was authorized through a special process because of the pandemic.
 The product monograph for Arepanrix disclosed that there was limited clinical experience with an investigational formulation of another adjuvanted vaccine but no clinical experience with children. In addition, the product information leaflet and product monograph disclosed a number of risks.
In short, Health Canada approved a vaccine that in which trials were still ongoing. The doctor, despite reading the lengthy disclaimer, injected it, and this comes in spite of there being no trials on children.
The Canadian Government had agreed to indemnify the manufacturer, GSK, ahead of time. Moreover, the victims didn’t buy the product from the manufacturer, but from the doctor, a “learned intermediary”. In short, GlaxoSmithKline was legally off the hook for what it sold to the public.
Can we expect the same sort of thing here with Covid-19? Will the Government approve a vaccine (or multiple vaccines), that haven’t properly been tested, and indemnify the manufacturers? After all, the patients aren’t buying directly from the manufacturer, but are getting it from their doctors.
Moreover, doctors are largely immune from action against them if they are following approved practices. In this case, it would be administering drugs that Health Canada approved.
GSK has been registered as lobbying the Federal Government since 1996, and there are hundreds of communications reports. But getting an indemnification agreement was probably just a coincidence.
9. Strange Events Happened In 2010
The next year, Tam would go on to have an appearance in the movie “Outbreak: Anatomy Of A Plague”. She advocated locking people up and putting tracking bracelets on them. Quite the bit of predictive programming.
The infamous “Lockstep Narrative” was also written in 2010. That was just one scenario laid out in the infamous paper, but it largely parallels what’s happening today.
10. History Repeating Itself In 2020?
This may seem a bit hyperbolic, but what is going on in 2009 with Swine Flu closely parallels what is happening Covid-19. Main points include:
-Neil Ferguson and Imperial College London
-Useless PCR tests to detect viral infection
-Vaccines not fully tested
-Health Canada approves despite incomplete tests
-Vaccine manufacturers are indemnified
There are some differences though. The World Economic Forum wasn’t touting the “Great Reset”, and communist movements weren’t nearly as overt as today. Or perhaps that was all just setting it in motion.
Think recent public efforts to convince the public to act on climate change just happened? No, they are the result of years of planning, and from an organization called Green New Deal Group.
There is some real strategy at play here. Divert people’s attention with protests, riots, and public movements, and the agenda can be quietly passed. After all, how much coverage do the various treaties we sign (and bills we pass), actually get?
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. Now, the bankers work with the climate mafia and pandemic pushers to promote their mutual goals of control and debt slavery.
2. Debunking The Climate Change Scam
The entire climate change industry, (and yes, it is an industry) is a hoax perpetrated by the people in power, run by international bankers. Plenty has also been covered on the climate scam, the propaganda machine in action, and some of the court documents in Canada. Carbon taxes are just a small part of the picture, and conservatives are intentionally sabotaging their court cases.
As in past times of crises, disparate groups have come together to propose a new solution to an epochal challenge. The Green New Deal Group drew inspiration from the ambition of President Roosevelt’s comprehensive response to the Great Depression to propose a modernised version, a ‘Green New Deal’ in 2008. It was designed to kick start a rapid transition to a new economy shaped to prevent a climate breakdown and transform a failed financial system. The Green New Deal will power a renewables revolution, create thousands of green-collar jobs across the economy and rein in the distorting and socially-destructive power of the finance sector while making more low-cost capital available for pressing priorities.
Meeting since early 2007, the membership of the Green New Deal Group is drawn to reflect a wide range of expertise relating politics and economics, and the climate, nature and inequality crises. The views and recommendations of the Green New Deal series of reports, are those of the group writing in their individual capacities.
The Green New Deal Group is, in alphabetical order:
. Larry Elliott, Economics Editor of the Guardian, Colin Hines, Co-Director of Finance for the Future, former head of Greenpeace International’s Economics Unit, Jeremy Leggett, founder and Chairman of Solarcentury and SolarAid, Clive Lewis, Labour MP, Caroline Lucas, Green Party MP, Richard Murphy, Professor of Practice, City University, Director Tax Research LLP, Ann Pettifor, Director, Policy Research in Macroeconomics (PRIME), Charles Secrett, Advisor on Sustainable Development, former Director of Friends of the Earth, Andrew Simms, Co-Director, New Weather Institute, Coordinator, The Rapid Transition Alliance, Assistant Director, Scientists for Global Responsibility. Geoff Tily Senior Economist, TUC
Those are the people who make up the Green New Deal Group. In essence, this is the brainchild behind the eco movement in recent years.
5. GNDG Used To Reboot After 2008 Crash
In the coverage of the causes and likely future effects of the credit crunch, such grim parallels are becoming commonplace. But it’s now time to move from problems to solutions, and here too the Depression can form a useful reference point. Franklin Roosevelt’s action programme for dealing with the aftermath of the late 1920s credit crunch was threefold: first, strictly regulate the cause of the problem – the greedy and feckless finance sector; second, get people back to work, and generate business opportunities by a New Deal. This invested billions of dollars in training, better working conditions and a huge range of infrastructural projects such as highways, dams and bridges. Finally, fund this in part by an increase in taxes on big business and the rich – a measure which also had the positive effect of dramatically decreasing inequality.
Today the re-regulation of finance is even being discussed among consenting free market adults in the columns of the Financial Times. My colleague, environmentalist Colin Hines, has fleshed out the details of a Green New Deal which could help re-boot the economy after the credit crash, while putting serious money into addressing climate change.
As a result of the 2008 crash, this group decided that it would make a great opportunity to completely remake their economy, and deal with climate change in the first place. They reasoned that if banks were worth pouring trillions into, then the environment must be as well. The argument does have some merit to it.
Notice that it’s compared to the “New Deal” that Franklin Delano Roosevelt launched in the 1930s. This is not the last time that comparison will come up.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez introduced the U.S. public to the Green New Deal in 2019, just after taking office. It wasn’t some brainstorm she had, but had been drawn up many years ago. The YouTuber, Mr. Reagan, did address that AOC was a puppet, but he missed how far back the plan went.
6. GND Group To Solve “Triple Crunch”
Can I trust the bank to look after my money? Clickety clack. How much has my house fallen in value? Clickety clack. Will high fuel prices mean I can’t keep my car on the road? Can I afford to buy enough food for the family? Clickety clack. Will I lose my job, and why is everyone making me paranoid about climate change when there’s nothing I can do about it? Clickety, clickety clack … and then back to the beginning. The “triple crunch” of a credit-fuelled financial crisis, accelerating climate change and soaring energy prices – how did we get into this mess? In the face of so many simultaneous crises, we all have legitimate questions for the governments that allowed us to sleepwalk into this situation.
The Green New Deal was dreamed up as a way to solve multiple problems, such as: (a) financial crisis; (b) climate change; and (c) energy prices all at once.
While it’s nice to see the financial crisis addressed, this group seems to miss the elephant in the room: central banking. It’s that the Government legislates in such a way that the U.S. is forced to borrow — at interest — from the Federal Reserve, a private organization. Do they not know about any of this?
7. History Of The Green New Deal
Where the Green New Deal came from
The idea of a Green New Deal first arose at the time of 2007-2008 financial crisis roughly simultaneously in the us and the UK. New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman wrote an article in January 2007 that suggested the approach. The same year the UK-based Green New Deal group formed, independently developing and publishing the first full proposal for a Green New Deal in July 2008. The group’s report laid out the architecture of the Green New Deal for the first time: combining reining in the power of big finance and transforming the way that government manages the economy with a plan to transform the economy and society to meet the challenges of climate change. The group also published several subsequent reports developing the idea over the following years. The Green New Deal was then taken up by the Green Party in the UK, by Green parties across Europe and by the United Nations Environment Programme. In 2018, the idea was revived by us senator Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and the Sunrise Movement in the US following a meeting between a member of her team and UK Green New Deal group member Ann Pettifor. When AOC published a bill for the Green New Deal with Senator Edward Markey in February 2019 the idea caught on around the world.
Far from being some sort of a revolutionary, AOC was simply the latest person assigned to run with the agenda. While it is easy to mock the GND outright, it seems that elements of it are embedded within Agenda 2030 and the Great Reset.
8. UK PM Gordon Brown Promotes GND
Moving the UK to a low-carbon economy will create 400,000 new jobs over the next eight years, Gordon Brown has told a summit in London.
The prime minister called for an international “green new deal” to boost the environmental sector and help lift the global economy out of recession.
This will increase “confidence and certainty”, he added.
But unions and environmental groups called for more funding for green projects, along with better regulation.
The government has set a target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 80% from 1990 levels by 2050.
When he was Prime Minister of the UK, Gordon Brown openly called for a “Green New Deal” to rebuild the country after the banking collapse.
9. Green Quantitative Easing
As the Bank of England moves closer towards announcing an unprecedented third round of ‘Quantitative Easing’, experts are calling for this newly created money to be used more productively and effectively to achieve key social and environmental objectives. During the last round of Quantitative Easing (’QE’) the Bank of England purchased £275bn worth of government bonds with money it newly created. As the Bank of England prepares the ground to inject a likely £50bn to £75bn into the economy, the UK’s Green Party MP, Caroline Lucas, and Southampton University banking expert Professor Richard Werner, are calling for this money injection to be used for green projects that directly improve the environment and long-term quality of life, while creating many new jobs. Said Professor Richard A. Werner, Director of the Centre for Banking, Finance and Sustainable Development at the University of Southampton: “Many people would like money creation to be used to help the wider economy directly and to implement some badly needed green projects that would enhance the sustainability of the economy and improve the environment—as well as create new jobs.”
In 2012, Richard Werner submitted a proposal for “green quantitative easing”. In short, it would still involve printing off large sums of money. However, it would be spent on environmental causes, instead of being poured into banks.
10. GND Group UK Budget Submission
A Green New Deal Group briefing, The Green New Deal: Securing the Future, was sent to the Chancellor ahead of the March 2020 budget, with a letter signed by MPs from all the main opposition parties.
As the briefing, written by Green New Deal Group member Richard Murphy sets out, the Green New Deal Group have long argued that it is prudent for government to borrow (by issuing bonds) to invest in the transformation of our infrastructure and businesses while interest rates are low. The briefing shows how such government borrowing could be financed in a way that also creates a safe place for the nation’s pensions and savings, by making simple changes to existing tax incentives. Much of the £70bn saved annually in ISAs could then be invested in government-backed green bonds at an interest rate of 1.85% (the UK government’s current average cost of borrowing) and a quarter of the £100bn currently invested in pensions could be directed into Green New Deal investment.
A budget proposal was submitted to the UK Government in March 2020. It was written by the Green New Deal Group, and was able to get the signatures of many politicians.
11. Protests/Riots Partly Entirely For Show
In recent years, there have been loud environmental movements going on across the Western World. There have been efforts to shut down industries, pipelines, and society altogether. These people seem oblivious to the fact that shutting down oil (for example), would lead to a drastic reduction in their living standards.
However, this is a sleight of hand. Even though politicians appear to be turned off by the antics of violent protesters, they work behind the scenes to ensure that the goals are enacted anyway. Treaties such as Agenda 21, Agenda 2030, and the Great Reset are designed to achieve many of the same goals.
BOLD Like A Leopard wrote a great piece on some of the forces acting behind the scenes. It’s well worth the time to read.
Now we look at the bigger picture. While the public is distracted by very visible protests over environmental issues, just quietly implement them behind the scenes. People likely won’t notice. They are too focused on radicals who seem hell bent on destabilization, though those are distractions.
12. Bankers Run Climate Change Movement
This will seem a cruel twist, but central banks are heavily behind the green movement. One such group is the Network for Greening the Financial System, which currently boasts 75 members.
Hard to be part of the resistance when the financial sector supports, (or at least appears to support), green initiatives. It’s unclear, however, if the banks simply co-opted the movement, or whether they were always running things from behind the scenes.
The London School Of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine gets substantial funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, as does Imperial College London. And both have been funded to conduct computer modelling. Let’s dive in a bit deeper.
1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”
The rest of the series is here. Many lies, lobbying, conflicts of interest, and various globalist agendas operating behind the scenes. The Gates Foundation finances many things, including, the World Health Organization, the Center for Disease Control, GAVI, ID2020, John Hopkins University, Imperial College London, the Pirbright Institute, the British Broadcasting Corporation, Sick Kids Hospital, and individual pharmaceutical companies. Worth mentioning: there is little to no science behind what our officials are doing; they promote degenerate behaviour; the Australian Department of Health admits the PCR tests don’t work; the US CDC admits testing is heavily flawed; and The International Health Regulations (IHR), that the WHO imposes are legally binding on all members.
2. Tax Filings Of B&M Gates Foundation
(Note: these are just a portion of the 2018 filings)
London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine
Date: September 2020
Purpose: to model the direct and indirect health and economic impacts of COVID-19 in LMICs Amount: $166,059
Topic: Delivery of Solutions to Improve Global Health
Program: Global Development
Grantee Location: London
Grantee Website: http://www.lshtm.ac.uk/
Granted, the School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine isn’t nearly as notorious as Imperial College London is at this point. However, Gates is still paying for computer modelling, so one has to wonder if the results are preplanned.
4. Earlier Gates Money For Modelling
London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine
Date: October 2016
Purpose: to maximize impact and accelerate development of new TB vaccines by creating and applying novel mathematical models to estimate the main target product profiles drivers for epidemiological impact of new TB vaccines Amount: $193,437
Program: Global Health
Grantee Location: London
Grantee Website: http://www.lshtm.ac.uk/
The Gates Foundation also donated to some 2016 computer modelling. There are of course other grants over the years.
5. Centre for the Modelling of Infectious Diseases
The Centre for the Mathematical Modelling of Infectious Diseases (CMMID) at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine is a multidisciplinary grouping of epidemiologists, mathematicians, economists, statisticians and clinicians from across all three faculties of LSHTM.
That is the main team of researchers who are involved in the computer modelling (or guesswork), trying to determine how much viruses will spread.
6. Online Course: Intro To Modelling
Infectious diseases remain a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide, with HIV, tuberculosis and malaria estimated to cause 10% of all deaths each year. New pathogens continue to emerge, as demonstrated by the SARS epidemic in 2003, the swine flu pandemic in 2009, MERS CoV in 2013, Zika in 2016 and recently, SARS-CoV-2.
Mathematical models are being increasingly used to understand the transmission of infections and to evaluate the potential impact of control programmes in reducing morbidity and mortality. Applications include determining optimal control strategies against new or emergent infections, such as SARS-CoV-2, Zika or Ebola, or against HIV, tuberculosis and malaria, and predicting the impact of vaccination strategies against common infections such as measles and rubella. Modelling was used extensively in the UK during the recent swine flu pandemic to monitor the extent of ongoing transmission and the potential impact of control such as school closures and vaccination. It is currently being used in many countries to predict the impact of interventions against COVID-19.
This two week online course, organised jointly between the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine and Public Health England is intended to introduce professionals working on infectious diseases in either developing or developed countries to this exciting and expanding area. The emphasis will be on developing a conceptual understanding of the basic methods and on their practical application, rather than the manipulation of mathematical equations. The methods will be illustrated by “hands-on” experience of setting up models in spreadsheets as well as other specialist modelling packages, and seminars in which the applications of modelling will be discussed.
If you have 1,700 pounds to spare, then this modelling course may be for you. It’s an introduction into how computer modelling works to estimate growth and decay.
While it is true that computer modelling was used in Zika, Ebola and Swine Flu, that’s not really something to brag about. Just search “Neil Ferguson Imperial College London”.
The focus won’t be on manipulating mathematical equations? That’s good I guess.
7. Gates Very Well Known In LSHTM
A quick search of Bill Gates on the school’s website flags 143 articles. Gates, and his foundation, are well known and written about.
8. Models Aren’t Evidence Of Anything
This should be abundantly clear to all, but it is worth repeating. Models are just predictions, and limited by:
 The quality of the data coming in
 The understanding of how nature actually works
 The political agenda of the modeler
They are not proof or evidence, and should be given no weight when it comes to making complicated and expensive policy decisions.
We see time and time again that the information going in is garbage, and that the people doing the work have little to no grasp of what they are estimating. We also see too many politicians, bureaucrats, academics, and people in business who have their own agenda.
Don’t take any of these “predictions” at face value.
There is tons of information on these 3 articles. Rather than rehashing or recreating what they have, here are the links to look for yourself.
3. Coronavirus Patent Application in 2015 (Pirbright)
This may come across as a conspiracy theory (and it sounds like one), but let’s take a look into the patent that Pirbright Institute recently obtained.
Patent number: 10130701
Filed: Jul 23, 2015
Date of Patent: Nov 20, 2018
Patent Publication Number: 20170216427 Assignee: THE PIRBRIGHT INSTITUTE (Woking, Pirbright)
Inventors: Erica Bickerton (Woking), Sarah Keep (Woking), Paul Britton (Woking)
Primary Examiner: Bao Q Li
Application Number: 15/328,179
Jul 23, 2015 – THE PIRBRIGHT INSTITUTE
The present invention provides a live, attenuated coronavirus comprising a variant replicase gene encoding polyproteins comprising a mutation in one or more of non-structural protein(s) (nsp)-10, nsp-14, nsp-15 or nsp-16. The coronavirus may be used as a vaccine for treating and/or preventing a disease, such as infectious bronchitis, in a subject.
FIELD OF THE INVENTION
The present invention relates to an attenuated coronavirus comprising a variant replicase gene, which causes the virus to have reduced pathogenicity. The present invention also relates to the use of such a coronavirus in a vaccine to prevent and/or treat a disease.
Coronaviruses are divided into four groups, as shown below:
Canine coronavirus (CCoV)
Feline coronavirus (FeCoV)
Human coronavirus 229E (HCoV-229E)
Porcine epidemic diarrhoea virus (PEDV)
Transmissible gastroenteritis virus (TGEV)
Human Coronavirus NL63 (NL or New Haven)
Bovine coronavirus (BCoV)
Canine respiratory coronavirus (CRCoV)—Common in SE Asia and Micronesia
Human coronavirus OC43 (HCoV-OC43)
Mouse hepatitis virus (MHV)
Porcine haemagglutinating encephalomyelitis virus (HEV)
Rat coronavirus (Roy). Rat Coronavirus is quite prevalent in Eastern Australia where, as of March/April 2008, it has been found among native and feral rodent colonies.
(No common name as of yet) (HCoV-HKU1)
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV)
Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV)
Infectious bronchitis virus (IBV)
Turkey coronavirus (Bluecomb disease virus)
Guinea fowl coronavirus
Bulbul coronavirus (BuCoV)
Thrush coronavirus (ThCoV)
Munia coronavirus (MuCoV)
Porcine coronavirus (PorCov) HKU15
More information is available here, but the point is this: the coronaviruses were (allegedly) modified to help cure other diseases, such as bronchitis.
The variant replicase gene of the coronavirus of the present invention may be derived from an alphacoronavirus such as TGEV; a betacoronavirus such as MHV; or a gammacoronavirus such as IBV.
As used herein the term “derived from” means that the replicase gene comprises substantially the same nucleotide sequence as the wild-type replicase gene of the relevant coronavirus. For example, the variant replicase gene of the present invention may have up to 80%, 85%, 90%, 95%, 98% or 99% identity with the wild type replicase sequence. The variant coronavirus replicase gene encodes a protein comprising a mutation in one or more of non-structural protein (nsp)-10, nsp-14, nsp-15 or nsp-16 when compared to the wild-type sequence of the non-structural protein.
This new version is apparently a derivative of an alpha, beta, or gamma coronavirus already in existence. I’ve been told this Wuhan coronavirus has nothing to do with Pirbright’s patent or work. Although the patent information states that the patented version may contain 80-99% of the wildtype replicase sequence.
The variant is essentially a mutation in 1 (or more) non-structural proteins.
Still, one heck of a coincidence to be doing so much research into a specific area and then something else emerges. It will become apparent why soon.
4. Pirbright Institute’s Other Patents
Attenuated African swine fever virus vaccine
Patent number: 10507237
Abstract: The present invention provides an attenuated African Swine Fever (ASF) virus which lacks a functional version of the following genes: multigene-family 360 genes 9L, 10L, 11L, 12L, 13L and 14L; and multigene-family 505 genes 1R, 2R, 3R and 4R. The invention further provides an attenuated African Swine Fever (ASF) virus which lacks a functional version of the DP148R gene. The present invention also provides a vaccine comprising such an attenuated virus and its use to prevent ASF. Further, the invention relates to intranasal administration of an attenuated ASF virus.
Filed: June 19, 2015
Date of Patent: December 17, 2019
Assignee: The Pirbright Institute
Inventors: Charles Abrams, Ana-Luisa Reis, Chris Netherton, Linda Dixon, Dave Chapman, Pedro Sanchez-Cordon
Stabilised FMDV capsids
Patent number: 10294277
Abstract: The present invention relates to the stabilization of foot-and-mouth disease virus (FMDV) capsids, by specific substitution of amino acids in a specific region of FMDV VP2. The invention provides stabilized FMDV capsids and vaccines against FMD.
Filed: March 25, 2014
Date of Patent: May 21, 2019
Assignee: The Pirbright Institute
Inventors: Abhay Kotecha, David Stuart, Elizabeth Fry, Robert Esnouf
Stabilised FMDV Capsids
Publication number: 20190135874
Abstract: The present invention relates to the stabilisation of foot-and-mouth disease virus (FMDV) capsids, by specific substitution of amino acids in a specific region of FMDV VP2. The invention provides stabilised FMDV capsids and vaccines against FMD.
Filed: January 17, 2019
Publication date: May 9, 2019
Applicant: Pirbright Institute
Inventors: Abhay Kotecha, David Stuart, Elizabeth Fry, Robert Esnouf
Chicken cells for improved virus production
Patent number: 10202578
Abstract: The present Invention provides as avian cell in which the expression or activity of one or more of the following genes, or a homologue thereof: Chicken IFITM 1 (SEQ ID No. 1); Chicken IFITM2 (SEQ ID No. 2) and Chicken IFITM3 (SEQ ID No. 3) is reduced. The invention also provides methods for passaging viruses in avian cells, embryos and/or avian cell lines which have reduced expression of one or more IFITM genes and methods which involve investigating the sequence of one or more of the following genes, or a homologue thereof: Chicken IFITM1 (SEQ ID No. 1); Chicken IFITM2 (SEQ ID No. 2) and Chicken IFITM3 (SEQ ID No. 3).
Filed: June 3, 2014
Date of Patent: February 12, 2019
Assignee: THE PIRBRIGHT INSTITUTE
Inventors: Mark Fife, Mark Gibson
That is just a few patents that The Pirbright Institute has. Now it seems harmless enough. But what happens if or when one of their creations becomes weaponized and turned against the public?
5. Gates Foundation Finances Pirbright Inst.
Researchers from The Pirbright Institute have been awarded US $5.5 million by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to establish a Livestock Antibody Hub aimed at improving animal and human health globally. The ambitious programme of work will see extensive collaboration between multiple UK research organisations in order to utilise research outcomes in livestock disease and immunology to support human health as part of the ‘One Health’ agenda.
Six leading scientists from Pirbright will be involved in the project, including Professor John Hammond, Professor Venugopal Nair, Dr Simon Graham, Dr Elma Tchilian, Professor Munir Iqbal and Dr Erica Bickerton. Their combined expert knowledge will drive the study of cattle, pig and poultry antibody responses at high resolution to expand our understanding of protective immunity in species that can also be used as models for a range of human infectious diseases.
The aim is to use Pirbright’s expertise in livestock viral diseases, cutting-edge technology and unique high-containment facilities to bring antibody discovery, manipulation and testing up to the benchmark already seen in the immunological field for rodents and humans. “New tools have given us the opportunity to utilise these detailed antibody responses to make the next generation of vaccines and therapies” said research lead Professor Hammond.
This highly collaborative work will address the needs of the livestock research community whilst bridging the requirements of the vaccine industry. A number of work programmes will focus on studying B cells and antibodies at multiple scales including gene expression, single cell function and the entire antibody response.
Findings from this research will be used to drive vaccine selection and design and test antibody therapies, “which will improve animal health and ultimately human health, as well as ensuring the security of our food supply”, finished Professor Hammond. Pirbright will ultimately act as a ‘Hub’ able to provide specific methods, access to animal models and the associated expertise to drive antibody research within the ‘One Health’ agenda.
“This is the single biggest investment in the immunology of livestock in the UK from an international funder, and the British Society for Immunology will do all we can to support this collaborative initiative and help maximise its impact for the benefit of human and animal health”, commented Dr Doug Brown, Chief Executive of the British Society for Immunology
A major contributor to Pirbright Institute is the Gates Foundation, headed by Bill and Melinda Gates. Yes, those Gates. But why is that an issue? What’s wrong with a wealthy couple contributing to help prevent infectious diseases?
Let’s put it this way: Bill Gates has some views that are (mildly) controversial. He has gone on record with comments that suggest be supports human depopulation — reducing the number of people on Earth. Could this be a way to accomplish that goal?
6. Cull The Population To Save Planet?
(Bill Gates and depopulation, from 2011, clip from video)
(Bill Gates and depopulation, from 2011, entire video)
(Bill Gates, improved health care, overpopulation)
(Bill Gates: health and population correlation)
(Bill Gates: vaccines and Ebola virus)
Yes, Gates flouts the sales pitch that improving health results in less population. His stated reasoning is that people will simply have less children if they know the kids are more likely to survive into adulthood.
Problem is, that hasn’t fared out. Look at Africa and the Middle East. Improvements in health have lead to an exploding population. Granted, their goal (those who are Muslim) is to outbreed and eventually overrun every nation on Earth. But the population drop Gates claims simply isn’t a reality.
Now, is this simply an attitude that Bill Gates has, or has he taken any steps to estimate how the population could be reduced? Instead of lowering birth rates, perhaps there is a simpler and more direct method.
7. Bill Gates Running “Death Scenario”
A viral pandemic could kill 65 million people
Toner’s simulation imagined a fictional virus called CAPS. The analysis, part of a collaboration with the World Economic Forum and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, looked at what would happen if a pandemic originated in Brazil’s pig farms. (The Wuhan virus originated in a seafood market that sold live animals.)
The virus in Toner’s simulation would be resistant to any modern vaccine. It would be deadlier than SARS, but about as easy to catch as the flu.
The pretend outbreak started small: Farmers began coming down with symptoms that resembled the flu or pneumonia. From there, the virus spread to crowded and impoverished urban neighborhoods in South America.
Flights were canceled, and travel bookings dipped by 45%. People disseminated false information on social media.
After six months, the virus had spread around the globe. A year later, it had killed 65 million people.
Sure, this is all just a simulation. It’s just an academic exercise.
Of course, for people like Bill Gates, who claim that Carbon Dioxide has to be cut to save the planet, one has to wonder what his actual goals are. As outlined extensively in the CLIMATE CHANGE SCAM series, Carbon Dioxide isn’t pollution. This whole “industry” is very much a cash grab.
CLICK HERE, for Part II, the Paris Accord. CLICK HERE, for Part III, Saskatchewan Appeals Court Reference. CLICK HERE, for Part IV, Controlled Opposition to Carbon Tax. CLICK HERE, for Part V, UN New Development Funding. CLICK HERE, for Part VI, Disruptive Innovation Framework. CLICK HERE, for Part VII, Blaming Arson On Climate Change. CLICK HERE, for Part VIII, Review Of Green New Deal. CLICK HERE, for Part VIII(II), Sunrise Movement & Green New Deal. CLICK HERE, for Part IX, Propaganda Techniques, Max Boykoff. CLICK HERE, for Part X, GG Pollution Pricing Act & Bill C-97. CLICK HERE, for Part XI, Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai’s explanation of CCS. CLICK HERE, for Part XII, Joel Wood and Carbon tax “option”. CLICK HERE, for Part XIII, controlled opposition going to SCC. CLICK HERE, for Part XIV, Mark Carney’s new UN role. CLICK HERE, for Part XIV(II), Carney, CCX, Goldman, Central Banking. CLICK HERE, for UN global taxation efforts.
So why is Gates pushing an obviously false narrative? Why claim that improving the health of people in Africa and the Middle East will result in a reduced birthrate and lower population? Why claim that Carbon Dioxide is a pollution that will harm the planet?
Is it just a coincidence this “simulation” happened just months before the real thing? Or was this a calculated test run?
8. CBC: Nothing To See Here, People
Public Health Agency of Canada describes it as a possible ‘policy breach,’ no risk to Canadian public
Sure, just a policy breach. Just some minor bureaucratic error that went on. Surely nothing that the peons have to concern themselves with.
“All of this is unproven, but even microbiology, sometimes especially microbiology, can have issues that involve national security.”
It’s something the Canadian Security Intelligence Service has already warned about, said Leah West, who teaches national security law at Carleton’s Norman Paterson School of International Affairs.
“Canada is facing threats from foreign governments seeking to steal intellectual property and that could include state-funded research,” she said.
“The two big things I want to see is whether or not these individuals are charged with crimes by the RCMP …that will give us a lot of information about what is really at stake here.”
West is also interested in seeing how this plays out politically between Canada and the Chinese government.
Sure there’s nothing to worry about. China is a hostile country who kidnapped 2 of our citizens after we locked up one of their spies (Meng). But why should this, or anything else, prohibit the Chinese from getting such clearance into Canadian facilities?
Let’s be clear: diversity is a lie. The vast majority of people’s strongest ties are with those who they share an ethnic (racial) bond with. Letting Chinese nationals into confidential Canadian labs under the guise of “cooperation and diversity”, is coming national suicide.
One has to wonder if the Canadian Government is really trying to kill us with what they allow to happen
9. Depopulation The Real Goal?
This could all be an extremely wild and unlikely coincidence, but it’s difficult to take on the surface. Too much money at stake, and other nations have an agenda.
For people who (claim to) believe that there are too many people on the planet, and that climate change is inevitable, we must ask a question: what would they be willing to do to stop it?
Is potentially killing millions (or billions) of people a way to save the planet by cutting emissions? Even though the climate change scam is based on lies? There is more here than what the public is being told.
And while you’re at it, go check out Civilian Intelligence Network.
On a semi-serious ending, doesn’t the outbreak of Wuhan Coronavirus come across like this (fictional) movie series of Resident Evil?
(CPC party convention in Halifax, 97%-3% vote in favour of partially erasing Canadian borders)
(Canzuk video on its website)
1. Offshoring, Globalization, Free Trade
CLICK HERE, for #1: thoughts on potential free trade with China. CLICK HERE, for #2: NAFTA, lawsuits, job losses, sovereignty. CLICK HERE, for #3: looking at NAFTA’s hidden/ignored costs. CLICK HERE, for #4: Bill C-79, Trans-Pacific Partnership. CLICK HERE, for #5: why Trump abandoned the T.P.P.
2. Important Links
CLICK HERE, for #1: temp workers, other migration categories. CLICK HERE, for #2: close to 1M people/year entering on visas.
A lot of members of the “Conservative” Party of Canada. Have to wonder exactly what they’re “conserving” here. Also worth mentioning that Andrew Scheer, a “Conservative” also appears on the site with enthusiastic support for the agenda.
It was bad enough to see Scheer chugging a milk at his acceptance speech, (as his win was provided by Dairy Cartel rigging). This is arguably much worse. The erasure of Canada and Canadian borders marketed as opportunity.
4. CANZUK’s Official Mission
CANZUK International (CI) is the leading group advocating closer ties between Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom, known amongst diplomats at the United Nations as the ‘CANZUK Group’.
CANZUK International seeks to establish a comprehensive multi-lateral free trade agreement between Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. Customs duties and other barriers to commerce would be removed. Such a union would give its constituent members more collective bargaining power in dealing with large trading partners such as the USA, China, India and the European Union.
Freedom of movement within the CANZUK Group for citizens of the four realms would be an essential ingredient for a successfully open market. As these nations have compatible economic profiles, this form of immigration would be unlikely to lead to distortions in labour markets. Not only would an arrangement of this kind make good economic sense, it would reinforce a feeling of solidarity amongst the four kindred peoples. The Trans-Tasman Travel Agreement between Australia and New Zealand is a working model upon which to build. Although freedom of movement exists for citizens of both countries, there is an exclusion provision for those deemed to be a threat to the national interest. In this way mobility can foster trade and economic growth without jeopardising security.
CANZUK International endeavours to promote greater cooperation amongst the CANZUK Group with respect to foreign policy, defence and intelligence gathering. The ‘Five Eyes’ (FVEY) agreement between Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States of America has been highly effective in gathering signals, military and human intelligence. It provides a useful starting point for a more comprehensive diplomatic alliance for the nations of the CANZUK Group, which would compliment the work of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) and the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). An association comprising Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom would enjoy a more balanced relationship with the United States. Collectively, these countries could be global rather than merely regional players in the geopolitical arena.
The shared Sovereign would be an essential aspect of any CANZUK Group association. The monarch, who represents a global institution, has played an important role as a symbol of a common heritage and parliamentary tradition. Furthermore, the Crown has been the cornerstone of democratic government and the rule of law over a long history of peaceful constitutional development. It is instructive to note that the English speaking countries which have retained the monarchy have been far more successful in avoiding civil unrest than their republican counterparts.
In concrete terms, the existing dialogue between viceregal representatives and the judiciary of the CANZUK Group should be encouraged. This initiative could build upon meetings that already occur between the Governors-General of the various Commonwealth realms every two years. The joint decision to revise the royal succession laws through the Perth Agreement of 2011 is a good example of effective collaboration in regard to matters of constitutional law.
One interesting thing is that this only talks about such closer cooperation between the “CANZUK” nations: Canada, New Zealand, Australia and the UK. A lot of this seems very reasonable.
However, in a different part of the website, CANZUK International talks about extending memberships far beyond the original 4 members. And it is quite a long list.
Remember: it is pitched to the general populations as increased cooperation between 4 nations of fairly similar language, culture and customs. That is how to sell it. Once it is sold and operational, the goal becomes to expand its size and influence.
5. CANZUK Could Expand To Other Countries
Using political, social and economic analysis, CANZUK International’s Research Associate, Luke Fortmann, explores the future possibilities of other countries joining a free movement and trade alliance with Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom.
It should be said that a new Commonwealth union would be welcoming of any potential members – with each being considered on a case-by-case basis – and that the CANZUK project is very much a work in progress; always receptive of fresh ideas and potential avenues to explore.
A useful way to begin is by taking a look at the CANZUK countries’ dependent territories, such as Christmas Island, the Cook Islands and Anguilla, for example, which are dependencies of Australia, New Zealand, and the UK, respectively, as well as the UK’s Crown dependencies (Guernsey, Jersey, and the Isle of Man).
Each area would naturally become full members of the new group along with the nations to which they are related. Some advocates claim that these small islands, and their generally sparse populations, are currently under-utilised, and that a CANZUK alliance would offer a tremendous opportunity for their communities to acquire a far more extensive set of rights by becoming equal partners in a union, while shaking off their somewhat colonial tint.
Widening our scope, we arrive at the Commonwealth realms. These realms are sovereign states who are members of the Commonwealth and who currently share Queen Elizabeth II as their monarch, of which, there are 16 including the CANZUK countries.
But, whether founded or not, the notion that free immigration was causing problems for the UK was undoubtedly a primary motivation for its departure from the European Union. A CANZUK union would seek to avoid such issues by moving slowly and steadily with the original four members, providing economic assistance to the realms before allowing their eventual membership.
Additionally, it’s been noted that, particularly concerning the more populous realms such as Jamaica and Papua New Guinea, immediate free movement would generate a rush of emigrants who may be poorly equipped for employment in the CANZUK countries; while at the same time enticing the more skilled minority away from their homeland in search of better-paying positions in the richer nations, ridding schools and hospitals of vital staff.
Instinctively, the next place to turn is to the Commonwealth as a whole. Broadening our vision in this way does present some of the same issues, as well as some new ones. A complete Commonwealth union would of course be dominated by India, with a population of over 1.3 billion, along with Pakistan (193 million), Nigeria (186 million), and Bangladesh (163 million) who would dwarf the CANZUK countries in terms of inhabitants, rendering them merely minor players.
When weighing up the potential barriers to entry that many of these Commonwealth countries have, we’re often confronted with the challenge that this new alliance is concerned only with nations that are populated by white folk. Such criticism is fairly lazy and can be easily dealt with. Firstly, as we’ve just seen, there’s absolutely no reason why these countries couldn’t join in the future, so long as efforts were directed at bringing them up to par in the ways just discussed.
At first, the project will be challenging enough, and caution will be required. Having said that, and as previously mentioned, CANZUK’s immense potential truly knows no bounds, and, down the line, further options can always be explored.
Theoretically, who could become part of CANZUK at some point in the future? Here is the list, based on the above criteria and comments:
Isle of Mann
Papua New Guinea
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Really? We were told this was an agreement between 4 first world, developed nations. Now we are bringing in half of the third world.
Let’s be clear: marketing with the 4 nations (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the UK) is just a sales pitch. The agreement could very well expand once this is in motion. And it likely will.
6. Possible CANZUK Joint Defense Force
The first objective of any government is to protect its own citizens from external danger. How can CANZUK help achieve that goal?
Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United Kingdom have a common military heritage, and this shows in things as diverse as ranks, camouflage patterns and banners. They have a high degree of inter-operability – and in some cases, citizens of one nation can join the armed forces of another.
The nations have strategic similarities as well. Three out of four are island nations, whilst the fourth, Canada has the longest coastline of any nation. This places a premium on naval power – all the nations have considerable dependence on trade, vulnerability to blockades and an interest of open sea-lanes.
No joke. They are open about joint military and naval ventures. Interesting to note: aren’t this countries all part of NATO? How exactly would that square with those obligations, especially as Canada can’t afford to pay for its NATO commitments anyway?
To be fair, this soldier-swap already exists to a degree. The UK accepts Commonwealth citizens in its military. To a limited degree, Canada, Australia and New Zealand allow foreigners in as well. This seems a way to do it on a much bigger scale.
7. Where Is CANZUK Going?
CANZUK International was founded in January 2015 as The Commonwealth Freedom of Movement Organisation, and is the world’s leading non-profit organisation advocating freedom of movement, free trade and foreign policy coordination between Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom (the “CANZUK” countries).
Our campaign advocates closer cooperation between these four nations so they may build upon existing economic, diplomatic and institutional ties to forge a cohesive alliance of nation-states with a truly global outlook.
This seems harmless enough, but this will not be the end of it. The group will want to expand its sphere of influence and start controlling more issues and policies.
Remember, before the EU, there was a 6 nation bloc (France, West Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Belgium). They started a trade agreement amongst themselves. Today, it is 28 nations — though the UK is leaving — and controls everything from budgets to agriculture to immigration. It swelled far beyond its original purpose.
It is very easy to see the “CANZUK 4” become 6, 8, 12, or 15. And those innocuous issues discussed on the website may morph into foreign bodies actually controlling national agendas.
As is obvious, the Conservative Party of Canada is an enthusiastic supporter of the CANZUK agenda. This is apparently regardless of the long-term erosion of national sovereignty. Globalists.
CLICK HERE, for #1: universities fighting against pro-life groups. CLICK HERE, for #2: citing abortion stats now considered violence. CLICK HERE, for #3: up to birth abortion now legal in VA/NY. CLICK HERE, for #4: letting babies who survive abortion die. CLICK HERE, for #5: UN supports abortion rights, even for kids. CLICK HERE, for #6: fallout and some pushback on abortion. CLICK HERE, for #7: ONCA rules docs must provide service or referral. CLICK HERE, for #8: hypocrisy in summer jobs grant, purity tests. CLICK HERE, for #9: partial funding lost for planned parenthood.
CLICK HERE, for trafficking, smuggling, child exploitation series.
2. Important Links
CLICK HERE, for China Tribunal. CLICK HERE, for China Tribunal, forced harvesting of organs from China’s political prisoners. CLICK HERE, from China Tribunal’s December 2018 findings. CLICK HERE, for firstthings.com, and then US Vice President Joe Biden’s attitude to what went on in China. CLICK HERE, for 2015 on China’s organ trafficking. CLICK HERE, for Lifesite article on China. CLICK HERE, for NBC article, China promises to phase out practice. CLICK HERE, for an NBC article on China’s practice.
3. China Tribunal’s Findings
From the December 2018 interim report:
“The Tribunal’s members are certain – unanimously, and sure beyond reasonable doubt – that in China forced organ harvesting from prisoners of conscience has been practiced for a substantial period of time involving a very substantial number of victims.”
That was part of the interim report. But now the final report goes on even further:
The Tribunal has considered evidence, in its many forms, and dealt with individual issues according to the evidence relating to each issue and nothing else and thereby reached a series of conclusions that are free of any influence caused by the PRC’s reputation or other potential causes of prejudice.
These were as follows;
• That there were extraordinarily short waiting times (promised by PRC doctors and hospitals) for organs to be available for transplantation;
• That there was torture of Falun Gong and Uyghurs;
• That there was accumulated numerical evidence (excluding spurious PRC data) which indicated:
o the number of transplant operations performed, and
o the impossibility of there being anything like sufficient ‘eligible donors’ under the recently formed PRC voluntary donor scheme for that number of transplant operations;
• That there was a massive infrastructure development of facilities and medical personnel for organ transplant operations, often started before any voluntary donor system was even planned; That there was direct and indirect evidence of forced organ harvesting.
And this led to the conclusion that:
forced organ harvesting has been committed for years throughout China on a significant scale and that Falun Gong practitioners have been one – and probably the main – source of organ supply. The concerted persecution and medical testing of the Uyghurs is more recent and it may be that evidence of forced organ harvesting of this group may emerge in due course. The Tribunal has had no evidence that the significant infrastructure associated with China’s transplantation industry has been dismantled and absent a satisfactory explanation as to the source of readily available organs concludes that forced organ harvesting continues till today.
However, on the topic of “genocide” China Tribunal pussyfoots around the issue and says they cannot conclude there is intent for genocide. This despite stating that the actions met the other elements.
The Tribunal considered whether this constituted a crime of Genocide; The Falun Gong and the Uyghurs in the PRC each qualify as a ‘group’ for purposes of the crime of Genocide. For the Falun Gong, the following elements of the crime of Genocide are clearly established:
• Killing members of the group;
• Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group.
Thus, bar one element of the crime, Genocide is, on the basis of legal advice received, clearly proved to the satisfaction of the Tribunal. The remaining element required to prove the crime is the very specific intent for Genocide. Accepting legal advice about proving this intent, the Tribunal cannot be certain that the requisite intent is proved and thus cannot be certain that Genocide itself is proved.
That’s right. Due to legal advice, China Tribunal cannot actually conclude there is intent to commit genocide, despite the prolonged actions that would justify the claims.
China Tribunal then “appears” to condemn what happens to Falun Gong and the Uyghurs, but waters down the language to “criminality”, despite the included detail. The tribunal claims the “elements have been met for crimes against humanity”.
Commission of Crimes Against Humanity against the Falun Gong and Uyghurs has been proved beyond reasonable doubt by proof of one or more of the following, legally required component acts:
• imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law;
• rape or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;
• persecution on racial, national, ethnic, cultural or religious grounds that are universally recognised as impermissible under international law ;
• enforced disappearance
in the course of a widespread and systematic attack or attacks against the Falun Gong and Uyghurs.
This seems to be splitting hairs. It meets the criteria for crimes against humanity. Yet China Tribunal, on advice from their lawyers, refuse to state there is intent to qualify as “genocide”.
The report ends with a very interesting comment about the power of media and citizen journalists.
Governments and international bodies must do their duty not only in regard to the possible charge of Genocide but also in regard to Crimes against Humanity, which the Tribunal does not allow to be any less heinous. Assuming they do not do their duty, the usually powerless citizen is, in the internet age, more powerful than s/he may recognise. Criminality of this order may allow individuals from around the world to act jointly in pressurising governments so that those governments and other international bodies are unable not to act.
The China Tribunal has no power to actually do anything. However, it seems to believe that by spreading word online it can put pressure on governments to act.
But as I was talking to some of your leaders, you share a similar concern here in China. You have no safety net. Your policy has been one which I fully understand — I’m not second-guessing — of one child per family. The result being that you’re in a position where one wage earner will be taking care of four retired people. Not sustainable. So hopefully we can act in a way on a problem that’s much less severe than yours, and maybe we can learn together from how we can do that.
In order to maintain the 1-child policy, China has had to result to extreme and inhuman measures:
sex-selective abortions against girls
Biden seemed critical that the declining birth rate would be able to sustain the retired population. However he seemed to have no concern over the mass aborting and sterilizations that went on.
In 2014, state media reported that China would phase out the practice of taking organs from executed prisoners and said it would rely instead on a national organ donation system.
The Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs on Tuesday was not immediately available to comment on the tribunal’s findings.
In a statement released alongside the final judgment, the tribunal said many of those affected were practitioners of Falun Gong, a spiritual discipline that China banned in the 1990s and has called an “evil cult.” The tribunal added that it was possible that Uighur Muslims — an ethnic minority who are currently being detained in vast numbers in western China — were also being targeted.
China had been promising for years to end this practice, but it doesn’t seem to have happened.
6. Lifesite Take On The Situation
Still, there has been too much reporting for too long about this profound human-rights abuse to ethically continue to look the other way. The question thus becomes: Will the U.S. specifically outlaw traveling to China for the purpose of buying an organ — just as we do participating in pedophilia tourism overseas? (Spain, Israel, Italy, and Taiwan have passed such laws already.) I can’t think of one argument against pursuing such a course.
If we don’t at least do what we can, it seems to me that we make ourselves complicit in allowing the demand for black-market organs forcibly harvested from murdered prisoners to continue unimpeded — and the blood of the slaughtered victims will also be on us.
(Lifesite article here) This echoes what China Tribunal has been saying: that political pressure is needed to put a stop to this practice.
7. My Take On This Story
If the allegations are true, and they seem to be, then this is abhorrent.
At some level this is no different that what abortion industries like Planned Parenthood do: snuff out lives in order to obtain a commodity, their organs. If we subscribe to the idea that life is valuable, then this is little — though more heinous — than a common murder and robbery.
While donation of organs (for after death), should be encouraged, this is an entirely different matter. This is premeditated mass murder in order to steal those parts. The practice is barbaric.
Consider the flack Canada has taken over the Government’s genocide claims over Indigenous women and girls. Most of the deaths and disappearances (at least where it is known) were at the hands of Indigenous men they knew. That is apparently a “genocide”. Yet what is going on in China is not really worth the attention apparently.