TSCE #25: Bit Of History — Doug & Rob Ford Voted In 2013 For Sanctuary Toronto, Amnesty For Illegals

In 2013, brothers Doug Ford and Rob Ford voted to officially make Toronto a sanctuary city. This allows people in the city, (but without a legal right to be in Canada), to continue to access social services. It also makes deportations harder to implement, and furthers balkanization of Toronto. However, there is another consequence of doing this: making human trafficking, smuggling, & child exploitation easier.

1. Trafficking, Smuggling, Child Exploitation

There is a lot already covered in the TSCE series. Many of the laws politicians pass absolutely ensure this obscenity will continue. Also, take a look at the Border Security topic for some extra background, and the NGOs who are supporting open borders.

2. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for Toronto Resolution CD18.5, create a sanctuary City.
CLICK HERE, for Toronto Resolution EC5.4, human trafficking survivors.
CLICK HERE, for sanctuary cities ignoring trafficking.
CLICK HERE, for John Tory also supports sanctuary Toronto.
CLICK HERE, for BC webpages on trafficking frequency.
CLICK HERE, for RCMP findings on human trafficking.
CLICK HERE, for BC Gov’t on international trafficking.

3. Fords Vote To Create Sanctuary Toronto

City Council Decision
City Council on February 20 and 21, 2013, adopted the following:
1. City Council re-affirm its commitment to ensuring access to services without fear to immigrants without full status or without full status documents.

2. City Council request the Executive Director, Social Development, Finance and Administration to conduct an internal review, with community consultation, of City Divisions, Agencies and Corporations, and to report to the Community Development and Recreation Committee in the 3rd quarter of 2013 on the following:
a. a review of opportunities to improve access without fear;
b. opportunities for City-funded agencies to improve access without fear;
c. providing training for front line staff and managers to ensure that undocumented residents can access services without fear; and
d. a complaints protocol and a public education strategy to inform Torontonians of the City’s policy.

3. City Council request the City Manager and the Executive Director, Social Development, Finance and Administration to report to the Community Development and Recreation Committee on current Federal and Provincial arrangements to deliver immigration and settlement programs in Ontario, and options for strengthening intergovernmental collaboration and partnerships with the City of Toronto.

4. City Council request the Federal government to establish a regularization program for undocumented residents, and that a letter be sent to the Government and Opposition parties to this end.

5. City Council request the Federal government to increase Provincial Nominee Program levels so that the Province can bring in workers with specific skills who have left Canada as undocumented workers with Canadian children, and that they be given priority processing by Canadian Citizenship and Immigration.

6. City Council request the Provincial government to review its policies for Provincially-funded services for undocumented residents with a view to ensuring access to health care, emergency services, community housing and supports for such residents within a social determinants of the health framework.

Here is what the final resolution actually says. Despite all attempts to make it sound compassionate and humanitarian in nature, this really is an “amnesty for illegals” piece oflegislation.

#1 is a commitment to fund services for illegal aliens.
#2(c) is to train workers that illegals have access to services.
#2(d) is to convince the public that this is somehow okay.
#4 is asking amnesty for illegal aliens.
#5 is asking the Federal Government to give priority to illegal aliens with anchor baby children in the citizenship line.
#6 is asking the Province of Ontario to review its current decision to NOT directly fund services for illegal aliens.

4. Fords Support Amnesty For Illegal Aliens

One has to marvel at the mental gymnastics the Ford Brothers engage in. They vote FOR creating a sanctuary city, which allows illegal aliens to receive free city benefits. They vote FOR illegals with anchor baby children going to the front of the line in a pathway to citizenship. However, they also vote to REMOVE illegals from Toronto, and push for legal immigration.

How does this work? Give illegals access to public services, then deport them, then bring them back to get expedited for a pathway to citizenship?

Possibly the vote on the amendment to deport illegals was just an attempt to pander to constituents who hadn’t read the entire legislation.

5. Ford’s Hypocrisy On Horwath Proposal


We will work with professional associations and the federal government to streamline the process for foreign credential recognition so that highly-educated immigrants can find meaningful employment in their areas of expertise.

And we’ll take steps to make sure that rights and dignity are respected by calling on the federal government to stop using provincial jails to detain immigrants.

We will declare Ontario a Sanctuary Province.

In the 2018 Ontario election campaign, NDP leader Andrea Horwath took a lot of criticism for a proposal (see page 11) to make Ontario a sanctuary province. Much of that came from the “Conservative” party of Doug Ford. In reality though, Horwath was just proposing to expand what Ford was on record as having voting for.

Amnesty or sanctuary cities/provinces are horrible ideas, certainly. But Doug Ford really has no moral high ground to stand on here.

6. Businesses Support Cheap Labour Pool

This pilot program was covered previously on this site. While it specifies 500 workers and their families (some 2,000 to 3,000 people total), don’t be naive and think that this will be a one time deal. Why do many businesses support the inflow of labour? Because it helps to drive wages down.

Now, certainly the cheap labour and strain on social services are large problems in a sanctuary city. However, there is something much darker, and more evil to worry about.

7. Smuggling/Trafficking & Open Borders Link

2.2 Conceptualization of smuggling of migrants
2.2.1 Smuggling as an illegal migration business
The conceptualization of smuggling as a migration business was formally developed by Salt and Stein in 1997, even if one may find reference to this theory in earlier literature. This new interpretation of the smuggling phenomenon had a great influence on academic circles, and the concept was then borrowed by many academics. In a critical analysis of this concept, Herman stresses that the focus of expert discussions then revolved around the notion of a migration industry and its professionalization, in which migrants are seen as “products” and “people who aid migrants are called ‘smugglers’, and are portrayed as illegal ‘entrepreneurs’”

Salt and Stein suggested treating international migration as a global business that has both legitimate and illegitimate sides. The migration business is conceived as a system of institutionalized networks with complex profit and loss accounts, including a set of institutions, agents and individuals each of which stands to make a commercial gain.

The model conceives trafficking and smuggling as an intermediary part of the global migration business facilitating movement of people between origin and destination countries. The model is divided into three stages: the mobilization and recruitment of migrants; their movement en route; and their insertion and integration into labour markets and host societies in destination countries. Salt and Stein conclude their theory by citing the need to look at immigration controls in a new way, placing sharper focus on the institutions and vested interests involved rather than on the migrants themselves.

This was addressed in Part 9 of the series. Even the United Nations recognizes the connection between illegal entry, and human smuggling & trafficking. While this 2011 study focused on borders, the same idea applies to sanctuary cities. After all, it will be a lot easier for illegals to get by if they can access social services without actually having to be in the country lawfully.

8. Toronto’s Human Trafficking Problem

The City of Toronto condemns the horrific crime of human trafficking and is committed to working collaboratively to support survivors of human trafficking and eradicate human trafficking in Toronto.

Over the last decade, concern regarding human trafficking in Canada has grown. In Toronto, human trafficking for the purposes of forced sexual labour has received significant attention.

Human trafficking is a complex issue for which there is limited data that can be relied upon to fully describe and understand the problem. From the limited data that is available, it is clear that human trafficking occurs throughout Toronto.

The City’s work related to human trafficking falls into the four main categories of the anti-human trafficking lens, where the person being trafficked, or at risk of being trafficked, is put at the centre, and their safety, well-being and human rights are prioritized:
(1) identifying people being or at-risk of being trafficked
(2) supporting survivors of human trafficking
(3) preventing human trafficking
(4) avoiding increasing the vulnerability of people engaged in consensual sex work.
On June 18, 2019, Council adopted the report (EC5.4) that outlines a number of actions that the City proposes to take, in collaboration with other agencies, corporations and divisions to support survivors of human trafficking.

Certainly, human trafficking is awful. There is no excuse whatsoever for forcing or coercing someone, or for exploitation of people. This is even more true when minors are involved.

But what does any of this have to do with open borders, or with Toronto becoming a sanctuary city? Take a look at some of Toronto’s “measures to combat” trafficking, and it becomes more clear.

Service Access
The City has many services that may be useful to survivors of human trafficking. While some people may be fearful of accessing services because they do not have immigration status, the City’s Access to City Services for Undocumented Torontonians (Access T.O.) ensures access to services to all Torontonians, including those without full status or full status documents.

Yes, letting people into the country illegally, or establishing sanctuary cities are harmless, critics say. However, the City of Toronto is fully aware that trafficking happens to people who aren’t in the country legally. Whether entry comes from illegally entering, or overstaying a legal entry, the result is much the same. People are here — unknown to the Government — who are being exploited.

Did Doug and Rob Ford vote to support human trafficking? No they didn’t. However, by supporting Toronto becoming a “sanctuary city”, they helped ensure that illegals will continue to flood into Toronto, and that identifying people will become that much harder.

9. Toronto Knows Illegals Are Trafficked


(page 9) Service access: The City has many services, as noted above, that may be useful to survivors of human trafficking. However, some people may be fearful of accessing services because they do not have immigration status. The City’s Access Toronto policy is relevant. In February 2013, City Council affirmed its commitment to ensuring access to services to all Torontonians, including those without full status or without full status documents.

(page 11) Access to income: Toronto Employment and Social Services has established several policies to support individuals who are vulnerable and at-risk of exploitation, including human trafficking survivors. For example, within eligibility for Ontario Works, procedures are in place that permit the waiver of documentation requirements on a short term basis when information is not readily available due to circumstances beyond a person’s control.

Individuals without immigration status in Canada can access Toronto Employment and Social Services Employment Centres, and apply for financial support through the Hardship Fund or Emergency Energy Fund that is administered by Toronto Employment and Social Services. Additionally, Toronto Employment and Social Services Service Delivery Guidelines ensure clients are connected to relevant support services and community resources.

The City of Toronto is fully aware that a portion of victims (though it’s not clear how many), are in the country illegally. Open borders, combined with sanctuary status, ensures that this will only get worse.

The Fords may not have explicitly voted for this, but it is the consequence. People involved in human trafficking — both as victims and perpetrators — are now able to live in a major city, and are completely unknown to authorities.

10. Toronto Pays Ethnic Anti-Trafficking NGOs

Not too many convictions since Toronto Police Services began keeping track in 2014. And considering recent calls to defund the police, how will this get any better?


(Appendix F) In September 2017, the Ministry of Children, Community and Social Services, Government of Ontario, announced a total of approximately $18.6 million to 44 partners and agencies across the province for projects that aim to prevent human trafficking and support survivors. Grants for Toronto-based partners were allocated the total amount of $3.1 million and the funded period started in 2017.

  • FCJ Refugee Centre: Identification, intervention and prevention of labour trafficking and exploitation among migrant workers ($369,289)
  • South Asian Legal Clinic Ontario: Legal education for victims and survivors of human trafficking and front-line service providers in the areas of criminal law, immigration law and employment law, including e-learning tools that can be accessed throughout Ontario ($156,768)
  • Butterfly (Asian and Migrant Sex Workers Support Network): Butterfly: Asian and Migrant Sex Workers Support Network is managing the Migrant Sex Workers Outreach and Education Project which provides outreach specifically to migrant sex workers across Toronto. Peer workers provide monthly harm reduction workshops at informal gatherings to reduce isolation and increase harm reduction knowledge amongst migrant sex workers. ($199,311)
  • Native Family Child and Youth Services Toronto: Comprehensive culture-based outreach, prevention, healing, and treatment services for Indigenous survivor ($406,325)
  • Native Women’s Resource Centre Toronto Facilitation of regional working groups to provide education, evidence-based interventions, holistic individualized supports and wraparound resources that empower survivors. This will include 12 community engagements ($678,641)

Human trafficking seems to be such a widespread problem that groups are choosing to help victims along ethnic lines. Again, how does making Toronto a sanctuary city cause it to be any safer?

11. Sanctuary Cities Shield Predators

Although there is more data available in the United States on illegals being released, the same issue exists in Canada. Predators in Canada are already released after short sentences. If sanctuary cities exist, it becomes easier to disappear. Either the person can hide in such a city, or, if deported, can come back and hide fairly easily.

Think of it from this perspective: if city staff doesn’t care whether its residents are there legally, how seriously will it take the plight of people being exploited?

12. Porn/Prostitution & Trafficking Are Linked


Distinctions between consensual sex work and human trafficking

A broad range of stakeholders are concerned about the conflation of consensual sex work and human trafficking. While consensual sex work may include some elements of exploitation, as many forms of work do, it is distinct from human trafficking in that the “worker” is not coerced. There is general agreement that anti-human trafficking measures should focus on people who are being coerced and controlled.

When consensual sex work is conflated with human trafficking, there is often increased surveillance of sex work and efforts to “rescue” sex workers. Avoiding conflating consensual sex work and human trafficking is important so that sex workers are not further surveilled, stigmatized, criminalized1, and forced underground, resulting in greater marginalization and isolation. The more socially and physically isolated sex workers are, the more vulnerable they are to violence and exploitation. Relatedly, providing access to services and resources that promote harm reduction to people engaged in consensual sex work both supports sex workers’ well-being and provides opportunities for sex workers to build relationships that may be useful if they choose to leave the sex industry and/or if they experience violence or exploitation.

The Toronto Anti-Trafficking Action Report tries to have it both ways. It repeatedly insists that consensual sex workers are not being exploited. Yet it also says that sex workers can be (and are) exploited to a degree. It seems almost schizophrenic in its reasoning.

13. John Tory Supports Sanctuary Toronto

Toronto Mayor, and former Ontario Conservative Party leader, John Tory, also supports Toronto being a sanctuary city. To think this man almost became Ontario Premier in 2007. Then again, his successors are no better.

14. How Widespread Is Trafficking In Canada?

Unfortunately, getting a real answer to this question is difficult, as there is little data available. However, the BC Government has some worthwhile information of a general nature. The RCMP does provide some numbers, and international trafficking is addressed.

15. Trudeau Reduced Penalties For Child Sex Crimes

Worth mentioning is this and this earlier articles, the Trudeau Government actually reduced the penalties for child sex crimes. While everyone was outraged about the diluted sentences for terrorism, the break that it gave to pedophiles seemed to slip by. Also, the various parties work together to prevent real border security from taking place.

16. Sanctuary Cities Conceal Problems

While touted as a humanitarian gesture, sanctuary cities can have the exact opposite effect. Making it easier to conceal people illegally in the country ensures they are more likely to be exploited. After all, few know where they are, and officially they don’t exist.

It’s expected that liberal globalists will support sanctuary cities. The real disappointment, however, is so-called “conservatives” who go along with it anyway.

CV #49: WHO’s July 31 List On Vaccine Research Projects, Disclaims Any Liability


This newest coronavirus is deadly and has no cure, hence the global push for a vaccine. This comes despite Health Canada consistently saying the vast majority of people in Canada who contracted it have already recovered.

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

For more on the fake “pandemic” that is taking over our lives, check out this series. Information on the: lies, lobbying, conflicts of interest, simulations, globalist interests are available. This is news that the mainstream media will never share.

2. WHO’s July 31 Vaccine Research List


DNA DNA Vaccine Ege University
DNA DNA plasmid vaccine RBD&N Scancell/University of Nottingham/ Nottingham Trent University
DNA DNA plasmid vaccine S,S1,S2,RBD &N National Research Centre, Egypt
DNA DNA with electroporation Karolinska Institute / Cobra Biologics (OPENCORONA Project)
DNA DNA with electroporation Chula Vaccine Research Center
DNA DNA Takis/Applied DNA Sciences/Evvivax
DNA Plasmid DNA, Needle-Free Delivery Immunomic Therapeutics, Inc./EpiVax, Inc./PharmaJet
DNA DNA vaccine BioNet Asia
DNA msDNA vaccine Mediphage Bioceuticals/University of Waterloo
DNA DNA vaccine Entos Pharmaceuticals
DNA bacTRL-Spike Symvivo
RNA Self-amplifying RNA Gennova
RNA mRNA Selcuk University
RNA LNP-mRNA Translate Bio/Sanofi Pasteur
RNA LNP-mRNA CanSino Biologics/Precision NanoSystems
RNA LNP-encapsulated mRNA cocktail encoding VLP Fudan University/ Shanghai JiaoTong University/RNACure Biopharma
RNA LNP-encapsulated mRNA encoding RBD Fudan University/ Shanghai JiaoTong University/RNACure Biopharma
RNA Replicating Defective SARS-CoV-2 derived RNAs Centro Nacional Biotecnología (CNB-CSIC), Spain
RNA LNP-encapsulated mRNA University of Tokyo/ Daiichi-Sankyo
RNA Liposome-encapsulated mRNA BIOCAD
RNA Several mRNA candidates RNAimmune, Inc.
RNA mRNA FBRI SRC VB VECTOR, Rospotrebnadzor, Koltsovo
RNA mRNA China CDC/Tongji University/Stermina
RNA LNP-mRNA Chula Vaccine Research Center/University of Pennsylvania
RNA mRNA in an intranasal delivery system eTheRNA
RNA mRNA Greenlight Biosciences
RNA mRNA IDIBAPS-Hospital Clinic, Spain

This is by no means everyone on the list. Still, it should give people a cause for concern, just how widespread this vaccine research is.

These landscape documents have been prepared by the World Health Organization (WHO) for information purposes only concerning the 2019-2020 pandemic of the novel coronavirus. Inclusion of any particular product or entity in any of these landscape documents does not constitute, and shall not be deemed or construed as, any approval or endorsement by WHO of such product or entity (or any of its businesses or activities). While WHO takes reasonable steps to verify the accuracy of the information presented in these landscape documents, WHO does not make any (and hereby disclaims all) representations and warranties regarding the accuracy, completeness, fitness for a particular purpose (including any of the aforementioned purposes), quality, safety, efficacy, merchantability and/or non-infringement of any information provided in these landscape documents and/or of any of the products referenced therein. WHO also disclaims any and all liability or responsibility whatsoever for any death, disability, injury, suffering, loss, damage or other prejudice of any kind that may arise from or in connection with the procurement, distribution or use of any product included in any of these landscape documents.

Just so you know, the World Health Organization makes absolutely no guarantees that any of these products are safe, let alone that they work. Take at your own risk.

But don’t worry. Why should we have any reason to doubt the experts at the World Health Organization? After all, our local experts are reliable and trustworthy. And our politicians certainly have our best interests at heart, right?

3. Gates: “Super Painful” Is Not Serious


Gates told CBS in a rather indifferent way that reactions that are “super painful” are not serious. He doesn’t appear to give a damn how the Moderna trials have gone. This is from July 26.

4. Trudeau & Premiers Are Parroting Gates

(Bill Gates predicts no more mass gathering until vaccine developed.

(See 1:30 mark in this, or original video)

Okay, so it seems like they are all pushing the agenda for mass vaccination. But at least major decisions are being made based on solid medical and scientific research, right? At least we can have confidence in what our leaders are telling us about this pandemic. Granted these are earlier videos, but still, creepy to watch.

5. Barbara Yaffe Admits 50% Test Error Rate

Ontario’s Deputy Medical Officer Barbara Yaffe admits that there is up to a 50% error in the testing method that is being used. Obvious question: why are we using such a method when the results are so unreliable? Premier Doug Ford, even when called out, won’t give any sort of explanation.

6. Christine Elliott Admits Lying About C.O.D.

Health Minister Christine Elliott admits that people who die for reasons unrelated to CV are still being written up as CV deaths. This is deceptive and manipulative. And it seems that Toronto Public Health is no better when it comes to being transparent.

7. WHO’s Mask Recommendation Is Political

Also see this and this accompanying articles. The mask recommendations are completely political, and have no medical or scientific basis to them.

8. Bonnie Henry: No Science In What We Do

BC Provincial Health Officer Bonnie Henry repeatedly says there is no science in what they do. This video specifically referred to capping group sizes at 50 people, but the same sentiment can be applied more broadly. See the 1:00 mark in the video.

9. Shut Up And Take Your Vaccine

CV #45: Ottawa Lies, WHO “Doesn’t” Recommend 2m Distancing

WHO says 1 metre.
So where does the 2 metre guidelines come from?

Here, we are continuing to expose the lies. First, a recap of several examples of the “science” being distorted, then let’s jump into the lie that WHO recommends people be separated by 2 metres.

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

For more on the hoax, check out this series. Understand the lies, corruption, lobbying, conflicts of interest, and money changing hands. This rabbit hole is much deeper than what people realize.

2. No Science Behind Computer Modelling

Why would anyone listen to Imperial College London or Neil Ferguson after their lengthy track record of completely wrong predictions? Remember, models aren’t proof of anything, just predictions. When you realize that the Gates Foundation has been funding them for years, things start to make sense.

3. No Science Predicting Asymptomatic Transfer

The World Health Organization can’t give any sort of clear answer on the rate of asymptomatic people spreading. They also have no clue how many people are infected globally. Again, this is all based on computer modelling. Saying (in June) that 6% to 41% of the population is infected but asymptomatic is pretty useless. But it does raise the serious question how deadly this virus is.

4. No Science Behind Limiting Group Sizes

BC Provincial Health Officer Bonnie Henry repeatedly admits there is no science behind limiting public gatherings to 50 people, but does it anyway. On May 25, 2020, she said that “50 cars” was included in the guidelines for limiting groups of people who can get together.

5. No Science Masking Healthy People

WHO-2019-nCov-IPC_Masks-2020.4-eng (1)

Worth a reminder: the World Health Organization said in April 2020 that there was no evidence to support masks for healthy people, but that health care providers need access anyway. In June 2020, WHO said there was still no evidence, but recommended them anyway. See this post, or an admission from BBC that this is political, at 4:20 in the video.

6. Covid Test Gets 50% False Positives

People really think that testing is going to solve the entire problem, and it isn’t. It’s one component of a response. If you test someone today, you only know if they’re infected today. And in fact, of you’re testing in a population that doesn’t have very much covid, you’ll get false positives, almost half the time. That is, the person doesn’t actually have covid. They have something else. They may have nothing. So, it will just complicate the picture. On the other hand, if we have evidence of a case, even a suspect case in school, all the contacts, be it a child or a teacher, would be tested.

This is Ontario Associate Chief Medical Officer Of Health, Barbara Yaffe. She says that tests can have up to a 50% false positive rate. The test is garbage, as the article explains. See this clip, and this full video (at 36:20).

7. People Recovering Without Any Vaccine

BC 2,898 3,392 85% 190 3
AB 8,506 9,975 85% 176 21
SK 838 1,072 78% 16 13
MB 319 375 86% 7 1
ON 33,963 38,210 89% 2,755 35
QC ? 58,080 ? 5,662 14
NB 165 170 97% 2 0
NS 1,003 1,067 94% 63 0
NFLD 259 264 98% 3 0
PEI 34 36 94% 0 0

The table represents the compiled data as of July 23, 2020. Each Province (except Quebec, who wasn’t listed) says that their infected people are overwhelmingly recovering on their own.

8. Lobbying, Not Science, In Vaccine Drive

This has been covered in Part 4, Part 5, Part 21, and elsewhere in the series. The pharmaceutical industry is heavily invested in making sure that a vaccine is “necessary” regardless of whether or not it’s needed for public health. An awful lot of money tied up in this.

9. Politics, Not Science Inflating Death Toll

This list has been added to several times. It is a compilation of lies and inconsistencies when public officials distort the truth in order to make the “pandemic” seem much worse than it really is.

10. Global Reset Is Agenda, Not Science

Globalist players have been planning to use this “pandemic” as an opportunity to seek broader changes. See this review, or this video.

Now that we’ve set the stage for the lies and dishonesty being perpetrated, let’s get to the specific topic of that 2 metre separation between people.

11. What WHO Says On People Distancing

To prevent infection and to slow transmission of COVID-19, do the following:
-Wash your hands regularly with soap and water, or clean them with alcohol-based hand rub.
-Maintain at least 1 metre distance between you and people coughing or sneezing.
-Avoid touching your face.
-Cover your mouth and nose when coughing or sneezing.
-Stay home if you feel unwell.
-Refrain from smoking and other activities that weaken the lungs.
-Practice physical distancing by avoiding unnecessary travel and staying away from large groups of people.

So not only does it say 1 metre (not 2), but it says to stay away from them coughing of sneezing. This is still up on WHO’s site. Not only that, it doesn’t list masks as a recommendation for prevention.

12. WHO Guidelines From May 10

Also see the original here.

Physical distancing
• Introduce measures to keep a distance of at least 1 metre between people and avoid direct physical contact with other persons (i.e. hugging, touching, shaking hands), strict control over external access, queue management (marking on the floor, barriers)
• Reduce density of people in the building (no more than 1 person per every 10 square metres), ivphysical spacing at least 1 metre apart for work stations and common spaces, such as entrances/exits, lifts, pantries/canteens, stairs, wherecongregation or queuing of employees or visitors/clients might occur.
• Minimize the need for physical meetings, e.g. by using teleconferencing facilities
• Avoid crowding by staggering working hours to reduce congregation of employees at common spaces such as entrances
or exits
• Implement or enhance shift or split-team arrangements, or teleworking
Defer or suspend workplace events that involve close and prolonged contact among participants, including social gatherings.

I don’t see any reference to 2 metres anywhere in the document.

13. WHO On “Safe” Ritualistic Slaughter

Also see the original here.

Overarching considerations
Advice on physical distancing
• Practice physical distancing by strictly maintaining a distance of at least 1 metre between people at all times.
• If physical distancing cannot be achieved, wearing a fabric mask is recommended. It is critical to follow best practices on how to wear, remove and dispose of masks, and performing hand hygiene after removal.7
• Use culturally and religiously sanctioned greetings that avoid physical contact, such as waving, nodding, or placing the hand over the heart.
• Prohibit large numbers of people gathering in public places associated with Eid activities, such as markets, shops and mosques. If allowed, a mechanism should be in place to regulate such activities and avoid gathering of people.
• Restrict social gatherings, both public and private, and encourage the use of technology for meeting and greeting people to mitigate transmission.
• Consider closing of entertainment venues, particularly indoor venues, during Eid to avoid the mass gathering of people.

Again, where is this 2 metres that Canadian officials are always going on about? It doesn’t appear anywhere in the document.

Animal-Human Interface and Sacrificial Slaughter
The source of the SARS-CoV-2 virus has not yet been identified. Understanding which animal species are most susceptible to the virus is important in discovering potential animal reservoirs to mitigate transmission and future outbreaks. According to common safe practices when handling meat, countries should take strict measures around the selling and slaughtering of animals and the distribution of meat while ensuring that national food safety and hygiene regulations are enforced.

Understand that halal slaughter involves inflicting deliberate cruelty, and causing intentional suffering. The World Health Organization doesn’t actually say stop, just follow some rules.

Meanwhile, church goers who aren’t maiming or disfiguring animals are limited to gathering in groups of 50, at least in BC. This is from July 25, 2020.

14. WHO Guidelines From May 20

the importance of source control such as providing medical masks if available to travellers with respiratory symptoms, performing frequent hand hygiene and maintaining at least 1 meter physical distance from others before, during and after the interview process


On May 20, 2020 guidelines, WHO said that 1 metre difference between people was sufficient, (see original). Again, where is 2 metres coming from?

15. Gov’t Distorts WHO Recommendations


There are many more “technical guidance publications” that the World Health Organization has freely available. One thing they have in common: they never mention 2 metres (at least the ones seen so far). So what is the real reason for implementing this? To make surveillance easier?

World Economic Forum; The “Global Reset”; Hoax An Excuse To Bring About Change (CV #42, CCS #18)

1. Other Articles Globalism, CV Hoax

CLICK HERE, for the CV “planned-emic” series.
CLICK HERE, for review of the Paris Accord.
CLICK HERE, for UN Agenda 2030.
CLICK HERE, for UN Digital Cooperation (internet regulation).
CLICK HERE, for MasterCard and financial inclusion.
CLICK HERE, for research on vaccine hesitancy.
CLICK HERE, for the Vaccine Confidence Project.

2. World Economic Forum, Global Reset

The Covid-19 crisis, and the political, economic and social disruptions it has caused, is fundamentally changing the traditional context for decision-making. The inconsistencies, inadequacies and contradictions of multiple systems –from health and financial to energy and education – are more exposed than ever amidst a global context of concern for lives, livelihoods and the planet. Leaders find themselves at a historic crossroads, managing short-term pressures against medium- and long-term uncertainties.

As we enter a unique window of opportunity to shape the recovery, this initiative will offer insights to help inform all those determining the future state of global relations, the direction of national economies, the priorities of societies, the nature of business models and the management of a global commons. Drawing from the vision and vast expertise of the leaders engaged across the Forum’s communities, the Great Reset initiative has a set of dimensions to build a new social contract that honours the dignity of every human being.

The World Economic Forum has developed a reputation as a trusted platform for informed collaboration and cooperation between all stakeholders – reinforced by a track record of success over five decades. The Forum now offers its experience in building purpose-driven communities in service of the extraordinary challenge and opportunity the world faces for a “Great Reset”. The Forum provides an unparalleled platform for creating, shaping and delivering collaborative solutions for the future through its:

Is this about curing a deadly pandemic? No, it’s about using the “illusion” of a pandemic in order to bring about a massive social upheaval. This is an upheaval that

3. Global Reset Summit, June 2020

-CV shows that old systems are no longer adequate
-This is about addressing fairness and equality
-Nationalism apparently equates to racism
-Need to build a new social contract, be in harmony with nature
-This is an opportunity not to be wasted
-Cyberspace is lawless (ie no internet regulation)
-Inequality (financial?!) must be addressed
-Building on Agenda 2030 and Paris Accord
-Climate change is a major issue to be addressed
-Climate change threatens the human race
-Economy to be replaced by a “bio-economy”
-A new “global economic system” to replace existing one
-New priority is so-called sustainable financing
-This is an “opportunity” that may never come up again
-MasterCard rep is present and pushing financial inclusion
-Bailouts conditional on green committments

4. WEF Global Reset Subtopics


5. Chrystia Freeland, Mark Carney On WEF

Our current Deputy Prime Minister, Chrystia Freeland, is on the Board of Trustees for the World Economic Forum, while holding high office in Canada. So is Mark Carney, and former U.S. Vice President Al Gore.

6. GAVI Still Integral To WEF Agenda

GAVI was launched at the 2000 World Economic Forum at Davos. It remains a big part of WEF’s goal of world domination.

7. WEF’s March 2020 Action Plan

The dramatic spread of COVID-19 has disrupted lives, livelihoods, communities and businesses worldwide. All stakeholders, especially global business, must urgently come together to minimize its impact on public health and limit its potential for further disruption to lives and economies around the world.

But the sum of many individual actions will not add up to a sufficient response. Only coordinated action by business, combined with global, multistakeholder cooperation – at exceptional scale and speed – can potentially mitigate the risk and impact of this unprecedented crisis.

No coincidence, the World Health Organization declared a pandemic after the March summit. Almost like they are on the same page.

8. WHO Lies About CV Being Treatable

Supposedly there is no cure yet to this virus, at least according to the World Health Organization.

According to Health Canada, as of August 1st, there were 116,599 cases nationwide. Of those, 101,436 have already recovered. This is rather perplexing. How are people recovering en masse if there is no cure? Seriously, how are people getting cured if no cure exists?

An astute person will also notice recommendations of staying one (1) meter apart, not 2. Either government officials are not very observant, or they don’t want to give on this one.

9. Asymptomatic Spread? Don’t Know

On June 9, 2020, WHO reported that asymptomatic transfer was very rare. The next day they backtracked and said that “very rare doesn’t mean very rare”.

Can COVID-19 be caught from a person who has no symptoms?
COVID-19 is mainly spread through respiratory droplets expelled by someone who is coughing or has other symptoms such as fever or tiredness. Many people with COVID-19 experience only mild symptoms. This is particularly true in the early stages of the disease. It is possible to catch COVID-19 from someone who has just a mild cough and does not feel ill.
Some reports have indicated that people with no symptoms can transmit the virus. It is not yet known how often it happens. WHO is assessing ongoing research on the topic and will continue to share updated findings.

WHO’s latest version (from its website) seems to be maybe, but we have no idea how often it happens.

10. No Evidence To Support Maskings

WHO-2019-nCov-IPC_Masks-2020.4-eng (1)
(from page 4)

There are currently no studies that have evaluated the effectiveness and potential adverse effects of universal or targeted continuous mask use by health workers in preventing transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Despite the lack of evidence the great majority of the WHO COVID-19 IPC GDG members supports the practice of health workers and caregivers in clinical areas (irrespective of whether there are COVID-19 or other patients in the clinical areas) in geographic settings where there is known or suspected community transmission of COVID-19, to continuously wear a medical mask throughout their shift, apart from when eating and drinking or changing the mask after caring for a patient requiring droplet/contact precautions for other reasons (e.g., influenza), to avoid any possibility of cross-transmission

So there are no actual studies to test or research the effectiveness of masks in health care settings. However, it’s common practice to expect them to be worn.

(from page 6)

Available evidence
Studies of influenza, influenza-like illness, and human coronaviruses (not including COVID-19) provide evidence that the use of a medical mask can prevent the spread of infectious droplets from a symptomatic infected person (source control) to someone else and potential contamination of the environment by these droplets.(54, 55) There is limited evidence that wearing a medical mask by healthy individuals in households, in particular those who share a house with a sick person, or among attendees of mass gatherings may be beneficial as a measure preventing transmission.(41, 56-61) A recent meta-analysis of these observational studies, with the intrinsic biases of observational data, showed that either disposable surgical masks or reusable 12–16-layer cotton masks were associated with protection of healthy individuals within households and among contacts of cases.(42)

WHO reports that’s there no solid evidence to support the idea that forcing masks on healthy people works, yet they recommend it anyway.

11. No Evidence To Support Group Limits

Good old Bonnie Henry, BC Provincial Health Officer states that there is no science behind the Province allowing groups of up to 50 people.

12. Pandemic An Excuse To Enact Change

Why would politicians across country keep pushing the obviously BS narrative about the coronavirus? Quite simply, because this is all an elaborate diversion to keep the focus off the real goal. That goal, of course, is the global reset, and a new globalist agenda that will advance.

Big Tech Collusion With Big Pharma, And Against Free Speech (CV #40)


1. Free Speech Under Constant Threat

For more on free speech and the problems we face, check out this series. The right to speak one’s mind and be open are essential in any functioning society. However, there are hurdles and attacks all the time. Also, take a dive down the coronavirus and media rabbit holes. See what else there is.

2. Twitter Admits Shadow-Banning


In it’s July 30 pinned tweet, Twitter claims to be protecting the idea of an open internet. While the first item (preventing a few people from domination) makes sense, the second item is disturbing. It mentions focusing on “how the content is amplified and discovered”, implying that opinions the hosts don’t like will be supressed.

3. Twitter/UNESCO Collude On Media Literacy

Social media conglomerates are often looked upon with suspicion when it comes to the management of their platforms and collaboration for social development. Media and information literacy is a potent way to help people to critically navigate these information superhighways while enabling them to understand that they have the autonomy to choose what they do online or not.

In a unique partnership with UNESCO, Twitter is launching its updated Teaching and Learning with Twitter Guide during the Global MIL Week celebrations from 24-31 October 2019. The Twitter Learning Guide now has media and information literacy as its focus.

The Twitter Learning Guide benefitted from the direct rewriting and content provided by UNESCO through yearlong consultations. The vision and making of a partnership with Twitter were initiated a year ago when Twitter joined UNESCO on the promotion of Global Media and Information Literacy Week 2018.

This bold move demonstrates Twitter’s open commitment to enhancing the critical capacities of its users to make informed and wise choices about how they use the social media platform and engage with information that they encounter therein.

In October 2019, UNESCO and Twitter announced that they were partnering up for what they call “media and information literacy”.

While a campaign for media literacy sounds great on the surface, the devil is in the details. For example, UNESCO recently published “articles” telling people to only trust official sources for information on the coronavirus “pandemic”.

No one wants to see journalists harmed for doing their job. However, discrediting people for going against the official narratives is weasely and dishonest. See the previous article.

4. Big Tech Supports ChristChurch Call


In summer 2017, Facebook, YouTube, Microsoft and Twitter came together to form the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism (GIFCT).

The objective of the GIFCT has always been to substantially disrupt terrorists’ ability to promote terrorism, disseminate violent extremist propaganda, and exploit or glorify real-world acts of violence on our services. We do this by joining forces with counterterrorism experts in government, civil society and the wider industry around the world. Our work centers around three, interrelated strategies:

Interesting. Microsoft was (until recently), headed by Bill Gates, who now spends his time trying to vaccinate the planet. Microsoft, Facebook, YouTube and Twitter are all apparently on board with censoring information they deem harmful.

One has to wonder if this cooperation extends to Gates’ vaccination agenda. Would social media outlets do what they can in order to ensure it succeeds? As it turns out, yes they will.

5. Big Tech Supports Replacement Agenda

Washington: More than a dozen top American technology companies, including Google, Facebook and Microsoft, on Monday joined a lawsuit filed by the Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology against the Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) latest rule that bars international students from staying in the United States unless they attend at least one in-person course.

Seeking a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction, these companies, along with the US Chamber of Commerce and other IT advocacy groups, asserted that the July 6 ICE directive will disrupt their recruiting plans, making it impossible to bring on board international students that businesses, including amici, had planned to hire, and disturb the recruiting process on which the firms have relied on to identify and train their future employees.

For all the talk about not interfering in elections, big tech seems to have no issue with suing the Government in order to keep the cheap labour flowing. Then again, it was always about importing people who will work for less.

Of course, with record high unemployment, continuing to bring people in makes no sense to society. But it was never about that.

6. Twitter Openly Censors CV Information


In serving the public conversation, our goal is to make it easy to find credible information on Twitter and to limit the spread of potentially harmful and misleading content. Starting today, we’re introducing new labels and warning messages that will provide additional context and information on some Tweets containing disputed or misleading information related to COVID-19.

In March, we broadened our policy guidance to address content that goes directly against guidance on COVID-19 from authoritative sources of global and local public health information. Moving forward, we may use these labels and warning messages to provide additional explanations or clarifications in situations where the risks of harm associated with a Tweet are less severe but where people may still be confused or misled by the content. This will make it easier to find facts and make informed decisions about what people see on Twitter.

While false or misleading content can take many different forms, we will take action based on three broad categories:
(a) Misleading information — statements or assertions that have been confirmed to be false or misleading by subject-matter experts, such as public health authorities.
(b) Disputed claims — statements or assertions in which the accuracy, truthfulness, or credibility of the claim is contested or unknown.
(c) Unverified claims — information (which could be true or false) that is unconfirmed at the time it is shared.

Information that public health authorities or subject matter experts deem to be misleading will be grounds for terminating your account. But what happens to those wanting to fact-check or disprove misleading information from experts or authorities? Guess you’re guilty of wrong-think.

Of course, other media outlets should not get a free pass. Twitter, Facebook and YouTube are notorious for deleting accounts which post information that runs counter to the narrative.

7. AMA Wants Crackdown On Misinformation

The American Medical Association is urging the country’s largest internet technology firms to clamp down on misinformation about vaccines in light of the ongoing series of measles outbreaks.

The nation’s most influential physician organization on Wednesday sent a letter to the CEOs of Amazon, Facebook, Google, Pinterest, Twitter and YouTube expressing concern that their respective internet media channels are spreading false information about the safety and efficacy of vaccines, and as a result have been driving parents to not immunize their children.

In a similar fashion, last month Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif) sent a letter to chief executives at Facebook and Google requesting they address false claims about vaccines made on their platforms.

In March 2019, the AMA, the American Medical Association, urged social media platforms to crack down on what it calls “misinformation” about vaccines and their safety.

Several companies have taken steps to reduce vaccine misinformation in response to the criticism. On March 7, Facebook announced it would block advertisements that included false claims about vaccines and no longer show or recommend content that contained misinformation on its platform or on Instagram. In February, Pinterest announced it had blocked all vaccine-related searches on its platform in an effort to stop the spread of misinformation on anti-vaccination posts. Also, in the same month Google announced it had begun removing ads from videos that promote anti-vaccination content on YouTube.

It seems like these social media companies were already on board with the AMA’s request. They saw no issue with removing information that contradicted the narrative, though the methods differed somewhat.

8. Big Tech Helps Push Vaxx In Ireland

Social media companies have to decide “which side they are on” in the vaccine debate and should consider closing accounts and web pages that spread false information, Minister for Health Simon Harris has said.

Mr. Harris said he had invited Twitter, Facebook, Google and other companies to a “summit” to explain what they can do to support public health and clamp down on misinformation.

“These platforms can be a powerful tool for good, or they can be a vehicle for falsehoods and lies, and they need to decide what side they want to be on,” he said on Tuesday at the announcement of a vaccine alliance aiming to boost the uptake of childhood vaccines and reduce parental hesitancy about them.

Mr Harris said social media companies have to decide if they want their platforms to “be on the side of public health, or to be exploited for lies and disinformation”. He also challenged fellow TDs not to allow themselves to be “used” by asking “irresponsible” parliamentary questions about vaccines.

The Minister said the need for accurate, evidence-based information outweighed the need for “false balance” in the debate about vaccines and that efforts needed to be redoubled in order to save lives.

The Irish Minister of Health, in September 2019, invited big tech companies to Ireland to figure out ways to get people vaccinated in higher numbers. There is no pretense of having an open debate. Instead, the objective is quite clearly to push this agenda.

9. Big Tech Censors CV-19 Information

The rapid spread of the coronavirus in China and around the world has sent Facebook, Google and Twitter scrambling to prevent a different sort of malady — a surge of half-truths and outright falsehoods about the deadly outbreak.

The three Silicon Valley tech giants long have struggled to curtail dangerous health disinformation, including posts, photos and videos that seek to scare people away from much-needed vaccines. But the companies face their great test in the wake of a potential pandemic, now that the coronavirus has infected 4,400 people in China, killing at least 100, while sickening another five in the United States.

Already, Facebook and its peers have tried to battle back pervasive conspiracy theories, including a hoax that wrongly claims U.S. government officials secretly created or obtained a patent for the illness. Some of the misinformation has circulated through private Facebook groups — channels that are hard for researchers to monitor in real-time — that came into existence after news first broke about the coronavirus.

Even in January 2020, Facebook, Google and Twitter had been put to work trying to snuff out so-called “misinformation”. Plainly put, this is information that contradicts official narratives, regardless of how truthful or well researched.

Now, as seen in the tweets earlier in the article, outlets like Twitter are quite open about their agenda. This is not a free speech platform.

10. Big Tech Moves To Censor In EU

A representative for the EU told The Verge the program would be launched “without delays” and that detailed timings would soon be made public. The EU has told tech companies it would rather the data was comprehensive than rushed, and it’s likely the format will be similar to reports produced to tackle misinformation about the 2019 EU elections.

Spokespersons for Google, Facebook, and Twitter, told The Verge they supported the EU’s efforts and had already stepped up plans to combat misinformation about the pandemic on their platforms. Facebook and Google said they were committed to producing new monthly reports, while Twitter said it was still considering how to present this information, but that it would be adding regular updates to its coronavirus misinformation blog.

Similarly to the United States, Google, Twitter, Facebook, and others are being used to manipulate Europeans into believing that vaccines are completely safe. The article is from last month, June 2020. This is despite a litany of legitimate questions about what is in them, and what the side effects are.

11. Tech Censorship Is Done Openly

This isn’t some mystery, or crazy conspiracy theory. Companies like Google, YouTube, Facebook and Twitter are being asked — and agreeing — to alter the media to create a more pro-vaxx environment. They are complicit in ensuring that difficult questions aren’t being asked and answered. There is no benefit to this, whether is be from a free-speech perspective, or from a health and safety perspective.

To drive home the point: this censorship and manipulation isn’t some secret plan. It’s all out in the open.

CV #37: WHO Admits No Evidence For Universal Masking, Recommends It Anyway

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

This is a lengthy series, but a necessary read in order to understand what is really going on. This so-called pandemic is just a pretense for taking away more and more of your freedoms.

2. June 5, 2020 Interim Guidance

(Download the pdf at the bottom)
WHO-2019-nCov-IPC_Masks-2020.4-eng (1)

(from page 4)

There are currently no studies that have evaluated the effectiveness and potential adverse effects of universal or targeted continuous mask use by health workers in preventing transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Despite the lack of evidence the great majority of the WHO COVID-19 IPC GDG members supports the practice of health workers and caregivers in clinical areas (irrespective of whether there are COVID-19 or other patients in the clinical areas) in geographic settings where there is known or suspected community transmission of COVID-19, to continuously wear a medical mask throughout their shift, apart from when eating and drinking or changing the mask after caring for a patient requiring droplet/contact precautions for other reasons (e.g., influenza), to avoid any possibility of cross-transmission

So there are no actual studies to test or research the effectiveness of masks in health care settings. However, it’s common practice to expect them to be worn.

(from page 6)

Available evidence
Studies of influenza, influenza-like illness, and human coronaviruses (not including COVID-19) provide evidence that the use of a medical mask can prevent the spread of infectious droplets from a symptomatic infected person (source control) to someone else and potential contamination of the environment by these droplets.(54, 55) There is limited evidence that wearing a medical mask by healthy individuals in households, in particular those who share a house with a sick person, or among attendees of mass gatherings may be beneficial as a measure preventing transmission.(41, 56-61) A recent meta-analysis of these observational studies, with the intrinsic biases of observational data, showed that either disposable surgical masks or reusable 12–16-layer cotton masks were associated with protection of healthy individuals within households and among contacts of cases.(42)

This could be considered to be indirect evidence for the use of masks (medical or other) by healthy individuals in the wider community; however, these studies suggest that such individuals would need to be in close proximity to an infected person in a household or at a mass gathering where physical distancing cannot be achieved, to become infected with the virus.

Results from cluster randomized controlled trials on the use of masks among young adults living in university residences in the United States of America indicate that face masks may reduce the rate of influenza-like illness, but showed no impact on risk of laboratory-confirmed influenza.(62, 63) At present, there is no direct evidence (from studies on COVID19 and in healthy people in the community) on the effectiveness of universal masking of healthy people in the community to prevent infection with respiratory viruses, including COVID-19

The World Health Organization admits there is no direct evidence that widespread masking of healthy people actually prevents any sort of sickness. They speak on in terms of “indirect evidence” or being “possible”.

(from page 6)

2) Advice to decision makers on the use of masks for the
general public
Many countries have recommended the use of fabric masks/face coverings for the general public. At the present time, the widespread use of masks by healthy people in the community setting is not yet supported by high quality or direct scientific evidence and there are potential benefits and harms to consider (see below).

However, taking into account the available studies evaluating pre- and asymptomatic transmission, a growing compendium of observational evidence on the use of masks by the general public in several countries, individual values and preferences, as well as the difficulty of physical distancing in many contexts, WHO has updated its guidance to advise that to prevent COVID-19 transmission effectively in areas of community transmission, governments should encourage the general public to wear masks in specific situations and settings as part of a comprehensive approach to suppress SARS-CoV-2 transmission (Table 2).

So no direct scientific evidence to support masking healthy people, but governments should encourage it anyway. Rather than focusing exclusively on science, it takes “values and preferences” into account. Perhaps this is why BCPHO Bonnie Henry says “there’s no science behind it”. It gets even better.

(from end of page 8/early 9)

A non-medical mask is neither a medical device nor personal protective equipment. However, a non-medical mask standard has been developed by the French Standardization Association (AFNOR Group) to define minimum performance in terms of filtration (minimum 70% solid particle filtration or droplet filtration) and breathability (maximum pressure difference of 0.6 mbar/cm2 or maximum Advice on the use of masks in the context of COVID-19: Interim guidance inhalation resistance of 2.4 mbar and maximum exhalation resistance of 3 mbar).

The lower filtration and breathability standardized requirements, and overall expected performance, indicate that the use of non-medical masks, made of woven fabrics such as cloth, and/or non-woven fabrics, should only be considered for source control (used by infected persons) in community settings and not for prevention. They can be used ad-hoc for specific activities (e.g., while on public transport when physical distancing cannot be maintained), and their use should always be accompanied by frequent hand hygiene and physical distancing.

So a non-medical mask isn’t actually considered PPE. But it’s nice to know that 70% is the new standard for being an acceptable filter. And despite them not being beneficial to healthy people, the World Health Organization recommends them anyway.

(from page 10)

WHO is collaborating with research and development partners and the scientific community engaged in textile
engineering and fabric design to facilitate a better understanding of the effectiveness and efficiency of nonmedical masks. WHO urges countries that have issued recommendations on the use of both medical and non-medical masks by healthy people in community settings to conduct research on this important topic. Such research needs to look at whether SARS-CoV-2 particles can be expelled through non-medical masks of poor quality worn by a person with symptoms of COVID-19 while that person is coughing, sneezing or speaking. Research is also needed on nonmedical mask use by children and other medically
challenging persons
and settings as mentioned above.

World Health Organization recommends the use of masks, but admits that research needs to be done, and there’s no hard evidence that they work on healthy people.

3. April 6, 2020 Interim Guidance


(page 1/2)

Medical masks should be reserved for health care workers. The use of medical masks in the community may create a false sense of security, with neglect of other essential measures, such as hand hygiene practices and physical distancing, and may lead to touching the face under the masks and under the eyes, result in unnecessary costs, and take symptoms. The true extent of asymptomatic infections will be determined from serologic studies. Advice on the use of masks in the context of COVID-19: interim guidance masks away from those in health care who need them most, especially when masks are in short supply.

(page 2)

Advice to decision makers on the use of masks for healthy people in community settings. As described above, the wide use of masks by healthy people in the community setting is not supported by current evidence and carries uncertainties and critical risks. WHO offers the following advice to decision makers so they apply a risk-based approach.

(page 2)

However, the following potential risks should be carefully
taken into account in any decision-making process:
• self-contamination that can occur by touching and
reusing contaminated mask
• depending on type of mask used, potential breathing
• false sense of security, leading to potentially less
adherence to other preventive measures such as physical
distancing and hand hygiene
• diversion of mask supplies and consequent shortage of
mask for health care workers
• diversion of resources from effective public health
measures, such as hand hygiene

4. What Changed: April To June?

APRIL 2020: no evidence to support masking healthy people, and they need to be reserved for health care workers anyway.

JUNE 2020: no direct evidence to support masking healthy people, but governments should encourage it anyway.

Even taking the World Health Organization at face value (which is a stretch), they admit there is no hard evidence to support mandatory masking of healthy people. Governments are doing it of their own free will.