Vaccine Credential Initiative: Passports; Digital Health Passes; Ontario; Ford

Don’t worry, global vaccine passports are just a crazy conspiracy theory. That’s what they tell us. In reality, hundreds of organizations are partnering to get digital health passes and vaccine records going.

Microsoft is a familiar name.
Why is that?

The presence of Microsoft as a partner in VCI should surprise no one. After all, this organization helped started up ID2020 in 2016, along with GAVI and the Rockefeller Foundation.

The Commons Project (TCP) is also listed as promoting Vaccine Credential Initiative. TCP is also prominently featured by the World Economic Forum, and gets funding from Rockefeller.

From VCI’s YouTube channel, they describe themselves and their work in the following way:

VCI is working to enable individuals vaccinated for COVID-19 to access their vaccination records in a secure, verifiable and privacy-preserving way. The Coalition is developing a standard model for organizations administering COVID-19 vaccines to make credentials available in an accessible, interoperable, digital format. empower consumers to conveniently access, store, and share digital COVID-19 vaccination records.

The webinars are publicly available, and the next one is scheduled for June 16. Should be quite enlightening.

April speakers include: Gainwell, Common Trust Network, World Economic Forum, Mayo Clinic. Smart Health Pass details being shared.

Louisiana has apparently already had “digital driver’s licenses” for a few years now. Also, instead of using the term “vaccine passport”, we should call them “vaccine verification” in order to make it less obvious. Smart health cards are coming. Only “approved” issuers list will be coming.

The VCI™ Charter
VCI™ is a voluntary coalition of public and private organizations committed to empowering individuals with access to verifiable clinical information, including a trustworthy and verifiable copy of their vaccination records in digital or paper form using open, interoperable standards.
The scope of VCI™ is to harmonize the standards and support development of implementation guides needed to issue, share, and validate vaccination records bound to an individual identity.
Individuals can then use those verifiable credentials for medical purposes and to demonstrate their vaccination status to safely return to work, school and travel.
A SMART Health Card stores healthcare information and other vital medical data. SMART Health Cards provide a platform to:
-Improve privacy and security of patient information
-Make medical records portable
-Reduce healthcare fraud

  • 196 LLC
  • 1Core Solution
  • 88th Gate Co. Ltd.
  • Access America
  • Aceso Health Limited
  • Acoer
  • Adara
  • AdventHealth
  • Afya Technologies LLC
  • aio Digital
  • Airside
  • Akinox Solutions Inc.
  • Allscripts
  • American Logistics Association
  • Amida Technology Solutions, Inc.
  • A subsidiary of Inc.
  • Appian
  • Asan Medical Center
  • Ascom
  • Associated Planners of Georgia
  • Athena Health
  • Atter Pathology Services
  • Auna
  • Aviva Pharmacy
  • Ayodo Foundation
  • Azuba Corporation
  • b.well Connected Health
  • Barcodes Inc.
  • Beth Israel Lahey Health
  • Billon
  • Bindle Systems
  • BLOK Solutions Ltd.
  • Bluefield Health
  • Boston Children’s Hospital
  • Brivo
  • Care Package Direct LLC
  • CareSpace
  • CARIN Alliance
  • Cassidy & Associates, LLC
  • Cedars-Sinai Health System
  • Cerner
  • CERTIFY Global
  • Change Healthcare
  • Cherokee Regional Medical Center
  • CIO Strategy Council
  • Clarity Diagnostics
  • ClarityPark LLC
  • Cleared4
  • ClearHealth
  • CloudConstable Incorporated
  • CodeREADr Inc.
  • Cohort.ID
  • CommonSpirit Health
  • Composite Apps
  • ConfirmD By BuddyCheque
  • Convergence Tech
  • Coropass
  • CourMed
  • COVID Immunity Project
  • Covidpedia Labs
  • CPSI
  • Critical Blue – Approov
  • CuraPatient, Inc.
  • Daon
  • Digital ID Collaborative @ University of South Florida
  • Dimagi
  • Docket Health, Inc.
  • Doconchain
  • Dragonfly Data, Inc
  • DrChrono EHR
  • Duke University Health System
  • EagleForce Health
  • ECP
  • EHE Health
  • Electronic Health Record Association
  • eLOOP SA
  • EMR Direct
  • Entrust
  • Envoc
  • EPIC
  • ESAC Inc.
  • everis
  • Everist Health
  • Evernorth
  • Evernym
  • Execution L.L.C.
  • Fidelity Life and Health
  • FIS
  • Flat Spell Technologies
  • FOLKS – Imunosafe
  • Franciscan Alliance
  • Gainwell Technologies
  • Garnet Healthcare
  • GenuChk
  • Get Real Health
  • Gnomon Informatics SA
  • GoInvo
  • Google
  • Graphcomp
  • GreenCarePlus+
  • Halza Pte Ltd
  • Health Level Seven International (HL7)
  • Health Roads
  • Healthcare IT Leaders
  • Healthshare Exchange
  • Healthstream (Pty) Limited
  • Hearthstone Care
  • Hedera Hashgraph
  • HID Global
  • HIMSS (Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society, Inc.)
  • HLN Consulting
  • Hubbub World
  • Humana
  • Humetrix
  • Hummingbird Health Inc.
  • HyperOffice
  • ibLaunch Company
  • IBM
  • iBonus Limited
  • iCrypto, Inc.
  • Ideando Inc
  • IdRamp
  • iHealth Paragon dba Healthy Mee
  • Imprivata
  • Ink Aviation
  • Intelligent Medical Objects
  • International Business Machines
  • Internet of People – IoP Srl
  • IOTA Foundation
  • IPRD Solutions
  • IriTech, Inc.
  • Iron Bridge
  • iShare Medical
  • Keyed Systems
  • Lehigh Valley Health Network
  • MaineHealth
  • Manceps
  • MaxMD
  • Mayo Clinic
  • mdCAREclik
  • Megical
  • mHealthCoach
  • Microsoft
  • My Work Badge
  • myElth
  • MyMeds
  • MyVaxPass
  • NeurSciences LLC
  • NeXplain
  • NextGen Healthcare
  • Northeast Georgia Health
  • Northwest Solutions LLC
  • NowSecure
  • OneRecord
  • OneSpan, Inc.
  • Onyx Technology, LLC
  • Optum
  • Orbita, Inc.
  • Othena
  • OwlTing
  • Pagemark Technology, Inc.
  • Panoramic Health Innovations, Inc.
  • Papirys Inc.
  • Partners
  • PathCheck Foundation
  • Patient Centric Solutions, Inc
  • PatientLink
  • Pharmapod Ltd.
  • Physician 360
  • Plan8
  • Point-of-Care Partners
  • PopcornApps
  • Portum
  • Primary Health
  • Proof Market
  • Prove
  • Province of Ontario – Ministry of Health
  • Proxy Inc
  • Quikr, Inc
  • RMM CADD Service,llc
  • Rx.Health
  • Safe Haus Group
  • SAFE Identity
  • SafeWorld™️
  • Saggio Consulting, LLC
  • Sama
  • SBTS Group LLC
  • Scicom (MSC) Bhd
  • ShareMy.Health
  • Shoptaki
  • Shufti Pro
  • SITA
  • Skyflow
  • Sorsix
  • STChealth
  • Strategio Consultant
  • Tamarin Health
  • Taylor Corporation
  • TECH5 SA
  • Technical Writers of India (TWIN)
  • The Commons Project Foundation
  • The Gekko Group
  • The George Washington University
  • The Sequoia Project
  • Threedot
  • TPT Med Tech
  • TranSendX
  • Transmute
  • Truepill
  • Twilio
  • UC San Diego Health
  • UCHealth
  • Unhackable
  • Unisys
  • Universal Healthcare Group
  • University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB)
  • University of California Davis Health
  • University of Chicago Medicine
  • V-Health Passport
  • V12 Health LLC
  • VaccineCheck
  • Valid Entry
  • VaxAtlas, Inc.
  • VAXCheck
  • VAXSYS Technologies, Inc.
  • Veri Doc Global Pty Ltd
  • Verif-y
  • Virus Geeks Inc.
  • vlinder
  • VSA-Health, Inc.
  • WebShield Inc.
  • WellUp
  • Wymsical INC
  • Xperterra
  • Yoti
  • Zamna Technologies Ltd.
  • Zebra Technologies Corporation
  • Zocdoc

The Province of Ontario, specifically the Ministry of Health, is also listed as a partner. Strange, there wasn’t any public announcement of this. This may have something to do with the recent announcement that Ontario would be launching a digital ID. (Archive)

Something to note here: the webpage explicitly states that vaccination records are an application for this digital ID. On the “businesses” portion, it states that this can be used to verify customer identity.

So combine the 2 ideas: customers can verify their vaccination status digitally, and businesses can use these IDs to verify who their customers are. This isn’t a stretch to see that this invites so-called vaccine passports as a condition to enter certain places, or work at some of them.

Wouldn’t it have been nice if this partnership had been publicly disclosed? There doesn’t seem to be any media or government announcement of it.

Although not listed, Walmart is also apparently a supporter of this project. Coincidently, Walmart heavily lobbied Ford into letting the company remain open, while small businesses were forced to close.

Ford and the Ontario parties are also too close to pharma lobbyists, as shown here, here, here, here, and here. Not that the Federal Conservatives, or others are any better.

Ford defers endlessly to the Ontario Science Table, abdicating his responsibility to govern. Quite the rabbit hole. However, the OST is riddled with conflicts of interest, both ideologically, and financially. It’s possible he’s completely unaware of all of this. But it seems more likely that he doesn’t care.

“For The People” was just an empty slogan.

The Commons Project is featured prominently on the World Economic Forum’s site. Both TCP and WEF receive substantial funding from the Rockefeller Foundation. In October 2020, Paul Meyer, the CEO, wrote an article about how to restore trust in air travel.

As an aside, ETFO is also tied to World Economic Forum. Both teacher and health care worker pensions are tied to advancing the GREAT RESET. They own the right stocks.

TCP and WEF also are partnered to run the Common Trust Network to push for vaccine certificates everywhere. Of course, instead of being preplanned and calculated, they spin it as “empowering individuals”. Mastercard also supports this, and is a partner at ID2020. IBM, Oracle and Salesforce are involved (and also part of VCI). These are just a few of the connections.

Don’t you get it? When they say “we’re all this together”, they really mean they have all been colluding.


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.

Funding in recent years for the BBC is all freely available online. To their credit, the BBC is quite organized when it comes to their records.
BBC Financial Statement 2006 to 2007
BBC Financial Statement 2007 to 2008
BBC Financial Statement 2008 to 2009
BBC Financial Statement 2009 to 2010
BBC Financial Statement 2010 to 2011
BBC Financial Statement 2011 to 2012
BBC Financial Statement 2012 to 2013
BBC Financial Statement 2013 to 2014
BBC Financial Statement 2014 to 2015
BBC Financial Statement 2015 to 2016
BBC Financial Statement 2016 to 2017
BBC Financial Statement 2017 to 2018
BBC Financial Statement 2018 to 2019
BBC Financial Statement 2019 to 2020

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.

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.

EIN: 56-2618866

EIN: 91-1663695

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.


TSCE #9(I): “Mr. Girl”, Pedo Defending Cuties Film Gets YouTube Channel Restored

Free speech and open discourse are generally extremely beneficial to society. However, the selective censoring of that on platforms like YouTube raise some serious questions. Here, YouTube and Twitter don’t seem to have an issue with disturbing content.

1. “Mr. Girl”, Max Karson, Defends Cuties

The first video is Max Karson (a.k.a. “Mr. Girl”) appearing on the Kill Stream with Ethan Ralph. Ralph frequently hosts discussion on topics like pornography, so this isn’t just a one-off. Karson then made his “Cuties” video the next day. While scrubbed from YouTube, it’s still on his site. Several people made great reviews of it, including Adonis Paul and Brittany Venti.

2. Most Likely Sincere, Not Trolling

The suggestion had been made several times that Karson was trolling, that this whole thing was an act either for attention, or to generate views. While that is possible, the tone and overall content comes across as someone who is serious about this content. While satire and comedy (even raunchy stuff) should be protected as free speech, this doesn’t look like that at all.

3. Karson’s YouTube Channel Gets Restored

Even though the Cuties video was taken from the YouTube channel, it is still available — in full — on the website, There’s also a disgusting “apology” video posted. Additionally, Karson is still able to receive donations via Square Space and Patreon.

There wouldn’t be as much of an issue if there were uniform standards, either for or against free speech absolutism. However, there seem to be double standards, depending on the subject.

Again, if this was some strange version of satire or parody, what exactly is the punch line? How does this result in humour or comedy?

YouTube has no problems with removing content that contradicts the Covid-19 narrative. Guess we have to draw the line somewhere. Canuck Law is just one of many accounts who have been threatened with the loss of their channel over that.

Worth pointing out: Twitter is currently being sued for (allegedly) not removing illegal material involving minors on its website. That is still ongoing in Court.

4. Trafficking, Smuggling, Child Exploitation

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

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

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

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

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

1. Canada Food & Drug Act, Section 30.1

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

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

2. September 16 Order From Patty Hajdu

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Authorized Despite Testing Deficiencies

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

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

4. Same Deception Problem With Fauci

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

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.

TSCE #12(C): Twitter Sued For (Allegedly) Refusing To Remove Child Exploitation Material

Twitter is being sued in U.S. District Court in the Northern District of California. It’s alleged that Twitter refused to take down pornographic material, even after becoming aware that minors were involved, and they were exploited. The site,, posted a copy of the complaint. The names were redacted in the papers to protect the identities of the family.

Just a reminder: at this point, it is just accusations against Twitter.

1. Trafficking, Smuggling, Child Exploitation

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

2. Important Links

Twitter CP Remained Up Lawsuit Filed Statement Of Claim
Endsexualexploitation,org Website Link
Interview With Epoch Times — American Thought Leaders
Twitter T.O.S.: Child Sexual Exploitation Policies
Twitter Medical Misinformation Policies
Twitter Misleading Information Updates

3. Epoch Times Interviews Plaintiff’s Lawyer

Lisa Haba, lawyer for the victim, gave an interview with Jan Jekielek of Epoch Times a few days ago. This is well worth a watch. They bring up several interesting topics, including using Section 230 as a legal defense.

4. Quotes From The Lawsuit Against Twitter

This is a civil action for damages under the federal Trafficking Victims’ Protection Reauthorization Act (“TVPRA”), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1591 and 1595, Failure to Report Child Sexual Abuse Material, 18 U.S.C. § 2258A, Receipt and Distribution of Child Pornography, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252A, and related state law claims arising from Defendant’s conduct when it knowingly hosted sexual exploitation material, including child sex abuse material (referred to in some instances as child pornography), and allowed human trafficking and the dissemination of child sexual abuse material to continue on its platform, therefore profiting from the harmful and exploitive material and the traffic it draws.

1. Sex trafficking is a form of slavery that illegally exists in this world—both throughout the United States and globally—and traffickers have been able to operate under cover of the law through online platforms. Likewise, those platforms have profited from the posting and dissemination of trafficking and the exploitative images and videos associated with it.

2. The dissemination of child sexual abuse material (CSAM) has become a global scourge since the explosion of the internet, which allows those that seek to trade in this material to equally operate under cover of the law through online platforms.

3. This lawsuit seeks to shine a light on how Twitter has enabled and profited from CSAM on its platform, choosing profits over people, money over the safety of children, and wealth at the expense of human freedom and human dignity.

4. With over 330 million users, Twitter is one of the largest social media companies in the world. It is also one of the most prolific distributors of material depicting the sexual abuse and exploitation of children.

28. Twitter explains how it makes money from advertising services as follows:
We generate most of our advertising revenue by selling our
Promoted Products
. Currently, our Promoted Products consist of
the following:
• Promoted Tweets. Promoted Tweets, which are labeled as
“promoted,” appear within a timeline, search results or profile
pages just like an ordinary Tweet regardless of device, whether it
be desktop or mobile. Using our proprietary algorithms and
understanding of the interests of each account, we can deliver
Promoted Tweets that are intended to be relevant to a particular
account. We enable our advertisers to target an audience based on
an individual account’s interest graph. Our Promoted Tweets are
pay-for-performance or pay-for-impression delivered advertising
that are priced through an auction. Our Promoted Tweets include
objective-based features that allow advertisers to pay only for the
types of engagement selected by the advertisers, such as Tweet
engagements (e.g., Retweets, replies and likes), website clicks,
mobile application installs or engagements, obtaining new
followers, or video views.

65. In 2017, when John Doe was 13-14 years old, he engaged in a dialog with someone he thought was an individual person on the communications application Snapchat. That person or persons represented to John Doe that they were a 16-year-old female and he believed that person went his school.

66. After conversing, the person or persons (“Traffickers”) interacting with John Doe exchanged nude photos on Snapchat.

67. After he did so the correspondence changed to blackmail. Now the Traffickers wanted more sexually graphic pictures and videos of John Doe, and recruited, enticed, threatened and solicited John Doe by telling him that if he did not provide this material, then the nude pictures of himself that he had already sent would be sent to his parents, coach, pastor, and others in his community.

68. Initially John Doe complied with the Traffickers’ demands. He was told to provide videos of himself performing sexual acts. He was also told to include another person in the videos, to which he complied.

69. Because John Doe was (and still is) a minor and the pictures and videos he was threatened and coerced to produce included graphic sexual depictions of himself, including depictions of him engaging in sexual acts with another minor, the pictures and videos constitute CSAM under the law.

70. The Traffickers also attempted to meet with him in person. Fortunately, an in person meeting never took place.

85. John Doe submitted a picture of his drivers’ license to Twitter proving that he is a minor. He emailed back the same day saying:

91. On January 28, 2020, Twitter sent John Doe an email that read as follows:
Thanks for reaching out. We’ve reviewed the content, and didn’t find a violation of our policies, so no action will be taken at this time.
If you believe there’s a potential copyright infringement, please start a new report.
If the content is hosted on a third-party website, you’ll need to contact that website’s support team to report it.
Your safety is the most important thing, and if you believe you are in danger, we encourage you to contact your local authorities. Taking screenshots of the Tweets is often a good idea, and we have more information available for law enforcement about our policies.

In short, the victim met someone online pretending to be someone else, and got him to send nude photos under false pretenses. The teen — which is still a minor today — was then blackmailed into sending more.

Some of this was posted on Twitter. Despite verifying the age and identity of the victim, they refused to remove the content, saying that they found no violations in their terms of services. It was only after Homeland Security stepped in, that Twitter finally complied.

Interestingly, almost half of the complaint against Twitter consists of copies of its own rules, policies, and terms of service. Twitter has rules on the books to prevent exactly this type of thing, but (allegedly) refused to act when it was brought to their attention.

The comment about “potential copyright infringement” comes across as a slap in the face. That was clearly never the concern of the child.

Twitter has not filed a response, so we’ll have to see what happens next.

5. Current Twitter Policy On Exploiting Minors

Child sexual exploitation policy
October 2020
We have a zero-tolerance child sexual exploitation policy on Twitter.
Twitter has zero tolerance towards any material that features or promotes child sexual exploitation, one of the most serious violations of the Twitter Rules. This may include media, text, illustrated, or computer-generated images. Regardless of the intent, viewing, sharing, or linking to child sexual exploitation material contributes to the re-victimization of the depicted children. This also applies to content that may further contribute to victimization of children through the promotion or glorification of child sexual exploitation. For the purposes of this policy, a minor is any person under the age of 18.

What is in violation of this policy?
Any content that depicts or promotes child sexual exploitation including, but not limited to:
-visual depictions of a child engaging in sexually explicit or sexually suggestive acts;
-illustrated, computer-generated or other forms of realistic depictions of a human child in a sexually explicit context, or engaging in sexually explicit acts;
-sexualized commentaries about or directed at a known or unknown minor; and
-links to third-party sites that host child sexual exploitation material.

The following behaviors are also not permitted:
-sharing fantasies about or promoting engagement in child sexual exploitation;
-expressing a desire to obtain materials that feature child sexual exploitation;
-recruiting, advertising or expressing an interest in a commercial sex act involving a child, or in harboring and/or transporting a child for sexual purposes;
sending sexually explicit media to a child;
-engaging or trying to engage a child in a sexually explicit conversation;
-trying to obtain sexually explicit media from a child or trying to engage a child in sexual activity through blackmail or other incentives;
-identifying alleged victims of childhood sexual exploitation by name or image; and
-promoting or normalizing sexual attraction to minors as a form of identity or sexual orientation.

At least on paper, Twitter has very strong policies against the sort of behaviour that is outlined in the California lawsuit. It’s baffling why Twitter wouldn’t immediately remove the content. This isn’t the hill to die on for any company.

Twitter can, and does, suspend accounts for insulting pedophiles and making comments about death or castration. Yet, this incident wasn’t against their terms of service.

6. Title 47, CH 5, SUBCHAPTER II Part I § 230

(c) Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material
(1)Treatment of publisher or speaker
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

(2) Civil liability
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—
(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or
(B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).[1]
(d) Obligations of interactive computer service
A provider of interactive computer service shall, at the time of entering an agreement with a customer for the provision of interactive computer service and in a manner deemed appropriate by the provider, notify such customer that parental control protections (such as computer hardware, software, or filtering services) are commercially available that may assist the customer in limiting access to material that is harmful to minors. Such notice shall identify, or provide the customer with access to information identifying, current providers of such protections.

The “Section 230” which is commonly referenced refers to the 1996 Communications Decency Act. This gave platforms — both existing, and ones that came later — significant legal protections. They were considered platforms, not publishers.

The distinction between platforms and publishers seems small, but is significant. Platforms are eligible for certain benefits and tax breaks, but are cannot (except in limited circumstances), be held liable. Publishers, however, can be much more discriminatory about what they allow to be shown.

The wording is such that it does give wiggle room for publishers to apply their own take on what material is considered offensive.

It has been suggested that Twitter could rely on its Section 230 protections, but that would not shield it from penalties for criminal actions. The allegations made in this lawsuit are not just civil, but criminal in nature.

While Twitter may not be liable for everything that goes on, this particular incident was brought to their attention. They asked for identification and age verification, received it, and then decided there was no violation to their terms of service. So claiming ignorance would be extremely difficult.

7. Loss On Social Media Anonymity?!

One issue not discussed as much is a potential consequence of legal actions against platforms like Twitter. Will this lead to the loss of anonymous accounts? Might identity verification come as an unintended consequence?

While no decent person wants children — or anyone — to be take advantage of, there is a certain security knowing that online and private life can be separated. This is the era of doxing, harassment and stalking, and as such, there are legitimate concerns for many people. This is especially true for those discussing more controversial and politically incorrect topics.

Do we really want things to go the way of Parler, who began demanding Government issued I.D., and then had a “data breach”?

8. Twitter Policies On “Medical Misinformation”

This topic is brought up to show how selective Twitter’s commitment is to free speech, and to dissenting viewpoints. Even a charitable interpretation would be that there is political bias in how the rules and standardds are applied.

Strangely, Twitter takes a more thorough approach to monitoring and removing tweets and accounts for promoting “medical misinformation”. Despite there being many valid questions and concerns about this “pandemic”, far more of that is censored. Odd priorities.

Yet child porn and exploiting minors can remain up?