Category: World

Posted on

TSCE #13(E): Gates, Trudeau Using Other People’s Money To Finance Genocide Globally

It’s bad enough that successive Governments waste the public’s money. It’s far worse when used to finance the genocide of babies, both domestically and abroad. Instead of being direct about this, it’s cloaked in misleading labels like “reproductive health”. Here are some specific cases.

Bill Gates believes there are too many people on the planet. It’s also the case that aborted fetal tissue, (from dead babies), is also used in manufacturing vaccines. If only there was a common solution to all of these problems.

See this article for more background information.

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. Gates Funds Planned Parenthood Groups

DATE GROUP AMOUNT
April 1998 PP Federation Of America $115,000
April 1998 PP of Western Washington $500,000
June 1998 PP Federation Of America $2,600,000
August 1998 International PP Federation $1,730,000
November 1998 International PP Federation $1,492,400
August 1999 PP Canada $569,000
April 1999 PP Federation Of America $5,000,000
August 1999 International PP Worldwide $2,845,268
November 1999 International PP Federation $1,492,400
June 2000 PP of Central Washington $75,000
October 2000 PP Federation of America $3,000,000
January 2001 International PP Worldwide $8,865,000
November 2002 International PP Worldwide $800,000
December 2002 International PP worldwide $800,000
September 2005 PP of Western Washington $1,000,000
November 2005 International PP Europe $3,024,011
June 2006 International PP Worldwide $10,000
December 2006 PP Of Western Wshington $200,000
July 2007 International PP Europe $7,023,160
July 2007 International PP Worldwide $14,990,698
September 2008 International PP Europe $23,000
November 2010 International PP Europe $7,298,377
October 2011 International PP Worldwide $250,000
October 2013 International PP Europe $6,973,371
November 2014 International PP Europe $431,947
August 2016 International PP Europe $11,021,872
July 2018 International PP Worldwide $490,000
September 2018 International PP Worldwide $99,000
October 2018 International PP Worldwide $250,000
October 2018 Shanghai Institute of PP Research $1,628,290
July 2019 International PP Worldwide $500,000
October 2019 International PP Europe $599,221
March 2020 International PP Worldwide $500,000

These dates and amounts are available directly from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation website. They’ve been at this for over 20 years now. And in case someone thinks that this doesn’t financially cost Canadians, we pay for groups like GAVI.

3. Canadian Taxpayers Funding Abortion Abroad

DATE ORGANIZATION AMOUNT
Oct. 1, 2014 MCPHAIL, Deborah $230,130
Apr. 15, 2020 International Rescue Committee $1,900,000
Jul. 1, 2015 Loutfy, Mona R $1,586,064
Dec. 15, 2015 UN Population Fund $54,200,000
Jan. 20, 2016 Plan International Canada $59,406,343
Feb. 8, 2016 ADRA – Adventist $25,820,973
Mar. 8, 2016 World Vision Canada $46,185,312
Mar. 10, 2016 L’Oeuvre Léger $8,975,663
Mar. 15, 2016 Primate’s World Relief $19,683,960
Mar. 17, 2016 CARE Canada $22,217,442
Mar. 10, 2017 Ministry of Finance (Tanzania) $87,300,000
Mar. 30, 2017 University of Saskatchewan $16,986,886
May 1, 2017 Carew, Jenna N. $17,500
Jan. 29, 2018 CCISD $8,799,485
Feb. 26, 2018 CCISD-CHUM $20,850,786
Feb. 28, 2018 Pathfinder International $18,500,000
Mar. 2, 2018 UN Population Fund $25,000,000
Mar. 23, 2018 UN Population Fund $21,354,000
May 7, 2018 Action Against Hunger – Spain $2,000,000
Aug. 9, 2018 Oxfam Canada $17,959,000
Oct. 22, 2018 The George Small Project Foundation Inc $19,912
Mar. 1, 2019 Money, Deborah M $24,906
May 3, 2019 Doctors Without Borders $1,000,000
May 4, 2019 Canadian Red Cross $1,500,000
May 6, 2019 UN Population Fund $1,000,000
May 7, 2019 Action Against Hunger $3,000,000
May 29, 2019 CARE Canada $2,500,000
May 30, 2019 International Rescue Committee $4,000,000
Jul. 3, 2019 Partners In Health Canada $11,149,825
Jul. 25, 2019 UN Population Fund $10,000,000
Sep. 9, 2019 UN Population $57,000,000
Sep. 30, 2019 Canadian Red Cross $9,000,000
Oct. 30, 2019 CAUSE Canada $1,903,735
Dec. 3, 2019 Ghana Rural Integrated Development $1,331,880
Dec. 20, 2019 WHO – World Health Organization $2,000,000
Dec. 20, 2019 Canadian Red Cross $9,000,000
Jan. 31, 2020 Action Canada for Sexual Health and Rights $10,887,328
Feb. 19, 2020 World Relief Canada $4,000,000
Feb. 24, 2020 CARE Canada $4,500,000
Feb. 25, 2020 World Vision Canada $2,000,000
Mar. 10, 2020 Doctors of the World Canada $4,500,000
Mar. 11, 2020 University of Calgary $3,449,579
Mar. 27, 2020 Action Against Hunger $3,000,000
Mar. 27, 2020 CCISD $19,970,246
Mar. 28, 2020 Development and Peace $2,000,000
Mar. 20, 2020 CARE Canada $4,800,000
Mar. 30, 2020 UN Population Fund $4,650,000
Mar. 30, 2020 UN Population Fund $4,650,000
Apr. 6, 2020 Université de Montréal $19,998,232
Apr. 15, 2020 International Rescue Committee $1,900,000
Apr. 21, 2020 UN Population Fund $1,500,000
Apr. 23, 2020 Doctors Without Borders $1,000,000
Apr. 23, 2020 CARE Canada $1,250,000
May 13, 2020 Doctors Without Borders $2,600,000
May 13, 2020 Doctors Without Borders $1,500,000
May 13, 2020 Doctors Without Borders $1,000,000
May 18, 2020 Rise Up Feminist Digital Archive $24,990
Jul. 9, 2020 UN Development Programme $3,000,000
Sep. 4, 2020 UN Population Fund $1,000,000
Nov. 10, 2020 World Health Organization $2,236,000

While these groups do serve other purposes, they will often include terms like “sexual rights”, or “reproductive care”. These are euphemisms for abortion most times.

4. Conservative Cuckery On Abortion

This is the sad state of “conservatism” in Canada. There’s no moral or ideological objection to infanticide. Instead, they choose to virtual signal about how it’s wrong to do if it’s based on sex. Apparently being viewed as a misogynist is worse than being a murderer.

Males and females are to be treated equally, and apparently that applies to them being equally expendable.

5. Euthanasia, Medical Assistance In Dying

DATE GROUP AMOUNT
Jul. 20, 2017 Canadian Association for Community Living $399,895
Mar. 9, 2018 Western Canada Livestock Dev. Corp. $854,250
May 1, 2018 Moon, Christine $150,000
Oct. 1, 2018 Li, Madeline $818,550
Nov. 30, 2018 ADJEF, NB $14,000
Sep. 1, 2019 Western Canada Livestock Dev. Corp. $854,250
Sep. 2, 2019 ADJEF, NB $49,626

While we’re at it, let’s see what has been spent Federally on the topic of MAiD, or medical assistance in dying, or euthanasia. 2 of the grants apparently cover mass euthanasia of cattle, and other farm animals.

Definitely some strange uses of taxpayer money.

Posted on

TSCE #14(E): Hypocrisy In Declaration Against Arbitrary Detention in State-to-State Relations

Declaration Against Arbitrary Detention

59 countries endorses the Declaration Against Arbitrary Detention in State-to-State Relations. This was designed to prevent the rights of foreign nationals from being abused for political reasons. However, there are some issues to address.

1. Declaration Sounds Fine On The Surface


https://twitter.com/JosepBorrellF/status/1361332231378243588

The arbitrary arrest or detention of foreign nationals to compel action or to exercise leverage over a foreign government is contrary to international law, undermines international relations, and has a negative impact on foreign nationals traveling, working and living abroad. Foreign nationals abroad are susceptible to arbitrary arrest and detention or sentencing by governments seeking to compel action from other States. The purpose of this Declaration is to enhance international cooperation and end the practice of arbitrary arrest, detention or sentencing to exercise leverage over foreign governments.

Recognising a pressing need for an international response to the prevalence of these practices, and guided by international law and the principles of the Charter of the United Nations:

1. We reaffirm that arbitrary arrests and detentions are contrary to international human rights law and instruments, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and other international and regional human rights instruments;

2. We express grave concern about the use of arbitrary arrest or detention by States to exercise leverage over foreign governments, contrary to international law;

3. We are deeply concerned that arbitrary arrest, detention, or sentencing to exercise leverage over foreign governments undermines the development of friendly relations and cooperation between States, international travel, trade and commerce, and the obligation to settle international disputes by peaceful means;

4. We are alarmed by the abuse of State authority, including judicial authority, to arbitrarily arrest, detain or sentence individuals to exercise leverage over foreign governments. We call on States to respect their obligations related to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal;

5. We urge all States to refrain from arbitrary arrest, detention, or sentencing to exercise leverage over foreign governments in the context of State-to-State relations;

6. We reaffirm the fundamental importance of the rule of law, independence of the judiciary, respect for human rights, and respect for the obligation to provide consular access in accordance with international law, including the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations and other applicable international instruments;

7. We call upon States to take concrete steps to prevent and put an end to harsh conditions in detention, denial of access to counsel, and torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment of individuals arbitrarily arrested, detained or sentenced to exercise leverage over foreign governments. We reaffirm the urgent need to provide these individuals with an effective remedy consistent with international human rights law, and call for their immediate release;

8. We stand in solidarity with States whose nationals* have been arbitrarily arrested, detained or sentenced by other States seeking to exercise leverage over them and acknowledge the need to work collaboratively to address this issue of mutual concern at the international level.

This Declaration remains open to endorsement.
.
(*) Including dual nationals in accordance with endorsing countries’ laws on nationality.

On the surface, there is nothing wrong with any of this. People’s rights shouldn’t be denied or abused in order to make some geopolitical power play. The text of the treaty sounds fine. However, there are some problems that need to be addressed.

Of course, how would such a treaty be enforced? Who and where would it be enforced? Could a country simply withdraw and go about business as usual? How could anyone scrutinize or investigate possible violations?

2. China Is The Elephant In The Room

There seems to be no mention of China, who has been holding 2 Canadians as prisoners for years. This of course, refers to Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor. This happened in retaliation for Canada arresting a Huawei executive. Also, what about the mass arrests and persecutions of religious minorities that China has long been accused of committing?

What is really the purpose of this Declaration? Is it to send a message? Is it to appear virtuous? Of course, appearing virtuous is not the same thing as being virtuous. It can’t be for ideological reasons, given the following issue:

3. Arbitrary Detention In So-Called Pandemic

For any of these countries to be taken seriously, what about the human rights abuses that are going on domestically against their own citizens? Is it okay, or less wrong, when it’s done locally? Do any of these sound familiar?

  • Forced quarantine detentions
  • Forced curfews
  • Forced stay-at-home orders
  • Forced closures of businesses
  • Forced closures of religious services
  • Forced masks on adults
  • Forced masks on children
  • Forced nasal rape for bogus tests
  • Peaceful assembly banned
  • Banning free speech as “misinformation”
  • Arrests for violating any of the above

While these 59 countries are crowing about how virtuous they are, many have implemented some or all of the above measures. Of course, this is done in the name of “public safety”. Are they not stripping their own people’s rights in order to implement political agendas? Shouldn’t human rights be applied universally, not just when travelling abroad?

Although it’s still just a proposal, public officials in Canada have openly suggested the idea of passing laws to ban what they call “misinformation”. Of course, this refers to people who will research and expose their lies.

Posted on

Provincial Health Acts Are Really Just WHO-IHR Domestically Implemented

Bill C-12 is the 2005 Quarantine Act, passed by Canada’s Parliament. It was heavily based on presumed changes to the International Health Regulations that the World Health Organization imposed. However, the problem has filtered down to the Provinces as well.

Strangely, it was only the Bloc Quebecois who voted against this. All other parties supported this Bill.

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

The rest of the series is here. Many lies, lobbying, conflicts of interest, and various globalist agendas operating behind the scenes, obscuring the vile agenda called the GREAT RESET. The Gates Foundation finances: the WHO, the US CDC, GAVI, ID2020, John Hopkins University, Imperial College London, the Pirbright Institute, the BBC, and individual pharmaceutical companies. The International Health Regulations are legally binding. The Postmedia empire and the “independent” media are paid off, as are the fact-checkers. The virus was never isolated, PCR tests are a fraud, as are forced masks, social bubbles, and 2m distancing.

2. Important Links

https://www.ourcommons.ca/Committees/en/HESA/StudyActivity?studyActivityId=981075
https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/38-1/HESA/report-2/

(AB) https://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/Acts/P37.pdf
(SK) https://www.canlii.org/en/sk/laws/stat/ss-1994-c-p-37.1/11022/ss-1994-c-p-37.1.html
(MB) https://web2.gov.mb.ca/laws/statutes/ccsm/p210e.php
(ON) https://healthunit.org/wp-content/uploads/Health_Protection_and_Promotion_Act.pdf

3. Canada’s Quarantine Act Written By WHO

As mentioned earlier, the International Health Regulations (IHR), that the WHO issues are legally binding on all Member States. Countries are expected to follow the directives that are sent, even if they are very much against national self interest.

In declaring this “pandemic”, Trudeau activated the 2005 Quarantine Act, a piece of legislation that violates many basic rights in the name of “public health”. However, Bill C-12 was actually written by the World Health Organization. What this means is that the Bill was drafted in anticipation of changes to the 3rd Edition of the IHR, which remain legally binding today.

But what about the Provinces? What is the situation with their Public Health Acts? Turns out that many of the clauses from the Quarantine Act are included, almost word for word?

4. British Columbia Public Health Act

Preventive measure
16 (1) Preventive measures include the following:
(a) being treated or vaccinated;
(b) taking preventive medication;
(c) washing with, applying or ingesting a substance, or having a substance injected or inserted;
(d) undergoing disinfection and decontamination measures;
(e) wearing a type of clothing or other personal protective equipment, or changing, removing or altering clothing or personal protective equipment;
(f) using a type of equipment or implementing a process, or removing or altering equipment or processes.
.
(2) A person subject to a regulation requiring preventive measures must not be in a place or do a thing that is prohibited by the regulation until the person has
(a)taken preventive measures as set out in the regulation, or
(b)if permitted by the regulation, made an objection under subsection (4).

General emergency powers
Division 2 — Order of the Minister
Minister may order temporary quarantine facility
.
26 (1)The minister may by order designate a place as a quarantine facility if the minister reasonably believes that the temporary use of the place for the purposes of isolating or detaining infected persons is necessary to protect public health.
.
(2) A person who has control of a place designated as a quarantine facility must provide the place to the minister or a medical health officer.

Division 3 — Orders Respecting Infectious Agents and Hazardous Agents
When orders respecting infectious agents and hazardous agents may be made
27 (1) A medical health officer may issue an order under this Division only if the medical health officer reasonably believes that
(a) a person
(i) is an infected person, or
(ii) has custody or control of an infected person or an infected thing, and
(b) the order is necessary to protect public health.
.
(2) An order may be issued based on clinical findings or a person’s or thing’s circumstances or medical history, even if the person or thing has been examined and the examination did not reveal the presence of an infectious agent or a hazardous agent.

General powers respecting infectious agents and hazardous agents
.
28 (1) If the circumstances described in section 27 [when orders respecting infectious agents and hazardous agents may be made] apply, a medical health officer may order a person to do anything that the medical health officer reasonably believes is necessary for either or both of the following purposes:
(a) to determine whether an infectious agent or a hazardous agent exists, or likely exists;
(b) to prevent the transmission of an infectious agent or a hazardous agent.

(2 ) A medical health officer may, in respect of an infected thing,
(a) make any order, with any necessary modifications, that can be made under this Division as if the infected thing were an infected person, and
(b) direct the order to any person having custody or control of the infected thing.

Specific powers respecting infectious agents and hazardous agents
.
29 (1) An order may be made under this section only
(a) if the circumstances described in section 27 [when orders respecting infectious agents and hazardous agents may be made] apply, and
(b) for the purposes set out in section 28 (1) [general powers respecting infectious agents and hazardous agents].
.
(2) Without limiting section 28, a medical health officer may order a person to do one or more of the following:
.
(a) remain in a specified place, or not enter a place;
(b) avoid physical contact with, or being near, a person or thing;
(c) be under the supervision or care of a specified person;
(d) provide to the medical health officer or a specified person information, records, samples or other matters relevant to the person’s possible infection with an infectious agent or contamination with a hazardous agent, including information respecting persons who may have been exposed to an infectious agent or a hazardous agent by the person;
(e) be examined by a specified person, including
(i) going to a specified facility for examination, and
(ii) being examined before a particular date or according to a schedule;
(f) submit to diagnostic examination, including going to a specified facility or providing the results to a specified person;
(g) take preventive measures, including
(i) going to a specified facility for preventive measures,
(ii) complying with preventive measures set out in the order, specified by a medical practitioner or nurse practitioner, or both, and
(iii) beginning preventive measures before a particular date, and continuing until a particular date or event;
(h) provide evidence of complying with the order, including
(i) getting a certificate of compliance from a medical practitioner, nurse practitioner or specified person, and
(ii) providing to a medical health officer any relevant record;

(I ) take a prescribed action.
.
(3) For greater certainty, this section applies even if the person subject to the order is complying with all terms and conditions of a licence, a permit, an approval or another authorization issued under this or any other enactment.

54 (1) A health officer may, in an emergency, do one or more of the following:
(a) act in a shorter or longer time period than is otherwise required;
(b) not provide a notice that is otherwise required;
(c) do orally what must otherwise be done in writing;
(d) in respect of a licence or permit over which the health officer has authority under section 55 [acting outside designated terms during emergencies] or the regulations, suspend or vary the licence or permit without providing an opportunity to dispute the action;
(e) specify in an order a facility, place, person or procedure other than as required under section 63 [power to establish directives and standards], unless an order under that section specifies that the order applies in an emergency;
(f) omit from an order things that are otherwise required;
(g) serve an order in any manner;
(h) not reconsider an order under section 43 [reconsideration of orders], not review an order under section 44 [review of orders] or not reassess an order under section 45 [mandatory reassessment of orders];
(i) exempt an examiner from providing examination results to an examined person;
(j) conduct an inspection at any time, with or without a warrant, including of a private dwelling;
(k) collect, use or disclose information, including personal information,
(i) that could not otherwise be collected, used or disclosed, or
(ii) in a form or manner other than the form or manner required.

Under Section 54 the B.C. Public Health Act, during emergencies (or self-identified emergencies), Health Officers can have any place inspected at any time. A person can be examined, and the results of that exam withheld from him/her. Business can be shut down, without any recourse to challenge it. Health Officers can do things with oral only notice, or with no notice at all, and these privileges can be extended longer than need be.

Under Section 16 of the Act, a person can be ordered to be: vaccinated; medicated; ingest or insert something, and other invasive procedures. Section 26 of the Act allows the Health Minister to take any property and convert it into a quarantine facility. Sections 27 through 29 allows a Medical Health Officer – in this case, Bonnie Henry – virtual dictatorial powers over other people’s lives and livelihoods.

Worth clarifying, these “Health Officers” or “Medical Officers” are not elected by the public in any capacity. They cannot be voted out of their positions, regardless of the sentiments of the general population.
The Act of course is much, much longer than this. However, it is truly stunning just how much power unelected Health Officers are given over other people’s lives. And in B.C., all parties are apparently okay with handing over their duties.

Sure, the B.C. Public Health Act gives bureaucrats that power, but who wrote the Act in the first place? Who was responsible for handing over that power to begin with? This Act was written and voted on by MLAs (Members of Legislative Assembly), who are, in theory, accountable to voters.

A cynic might wonder if MLAs made this law in order to avoid making themselves accountable for decisions they make. Here at least, they can claim it’s not them, and that they are simply following the advice of health professionals.

It’s interesting that the B.C Health Act was assented to (made law) in 2008. The 3rd Edition of WHO’s International Health Regulations came into effect in 2005, and Canada’s 2005 Quarantine Act was heavily based on those IHR. The B.C. Act contains much of the same information and powers as the WHO/Federal documents, and it’s fair to assume that the content was derived from them.

Of course, this is hardly limited to B.C. Other Provinces have their own version of a Provincial Health Act, and they carry many of the same powers. This includes: Alberta , Saskatchewan , Manitoba , among others. What these Acts all have in common is they give broad, sweeping powers to bureaucrats who are not elected by the public, and who cannot be voted out. Looking at Alberta:

5. Alberta Public Health Act

Powers of Chief Medical Officer
.
14(1) The Chief Medical Officer
.
(a) shall, on behalf of the Minister, monitor the health of Albertans and make recommendations to the Minister and regional health authorities on measures to protect and promote the health of the public and to prevent disease and injury,
.
(b) shall act as a liaison between the Government and regional health authorities, medical officers of health and executive officers in the administration of this Act,
.
(c) shall monitor activities of regional health authorities, medical officers of health and executive officers in the administration of this Act, and
.
(d) may give directions to regional health authorities, medical officers of health and executive officers in the exercise of their powers and the carrying out of their responsibilities under this Act.

(2) Where the Chief Medical Officer is of the opinion that a medical officer of health or executive officer is not properly exercising powers or carrying out duties under this Act in respect of a matter, the Chief Medical Officer may assume the powers and duties of the medical officer of health or executive officer in respect of the matter and act in that person’s place.

Isolation, Quarantine and Special Measures
.
Isolation and quarantine
.
29(1) A medical officer of health who knows of or has reason to suspect the existence of a communicable disease or a public health emergency within the boundaries of the health region in which the medical officer of health has jurisdiction may initiate an investigation to determine whether any action is necessary to protect the public health.
(2) Where the investigation confirms the presence of a communicable disease, the medical officer of health
(a) shall carry out the measures that the medical officer of health is required by this Act and the regulations to carry out, and
(b) may do any or all of the following:
(i) take whatever steps the medical officer of health considers necessary
(A) to suppress the disease in those who may already have been infected with it,
(B) to protect those who have not already been exposed to the disease,
(C) to break the chain of transmission and prevent spread of the disease, and
(D) to remove the source of infection;
(ii) by order
(A) prohibit a person from attending a school,
(B) prohibit a person from engaging in the person’s occupation, or
(C) prohibit a person from having contact with other persons or any class of persons for any period and subject to any conditions that the medical officer of health considers appropriate, where the medical officer of health determines that the person’s engaging in that activity could transmit an infectious agent;
.
(iii) issue written orders for the decontamination or destruction of any bedding, clothing or other articles that
have been contaminated or that the medical officer of health reasonably suspects have been contaminated.
(2.1) Where the investigation confirms the existence of a public health emergency, the medical officer of health
(a) has all the same powers and duties in respect of the public health emergency as he or she has under subsection (2) in the case of a communicable disease, and
(b) may take whatever other steps are, in the medical officer of health’s opinion, necessary in order to lessen the impact of the public health emergency.

Sections 13 to 15 of Alberta’s Public Health Act outline how a Medical Health Officer is appointed, and the vast powers available to that person. In Alberta, that is currently Deena Hinshaw. Like Bonnie Henry, she is not elected, and cannot be held directly liable to the public for anything that she does.

Pages 25 through 31 of the most recent version of that Act relate to quarantine measures, epidemics, and how the average person’s rights can be suspended almost indefinitely under the pretense of “public safety”. It reads like the Provincial counterpart to the Quarantine Act, which of course, was dictated by the WHO.

Pages 39 through 51 cover Section 52 of the Alberta Public Health Act. It gives sweeping powers to unelected bureaucrats in the name of safety. The content of that Section reads almost beat for beat identical to that of the Quarantine Act. Moving on to Saskatchewan, we get this piece of legislation:

6. Saskatchewan Public Health Act

CONTROL OF EPIDEMICS Orders
.
45(1) The minister may make an order described in subsection (2) if the minister believes, on reasonable grounds, that:
.
(a) a serious public health threat exists in Saskatchewan; and (b) the requirements set out in the order are necessary to decrease or eliminate the serious public health threat. (2) An order pursuant to this section may: (a) direct the closing of a public place;
.
(b) restrict travel to or from a specified area of Saskatchewan;
.
(c) prohibit public gatherings in a specified area of Saskatchewan;
.
(d) in the case of a serious public health threat that is a communicable disease, require any person who is not known to be protected against the communicable disease:
(i) to be immunized or given prophylaxis where the disease is one for which immunization or prophylaxis is available; or
(ii) to be excluded from school until the danger of infection is past where the person is a pupil;
.
(e) establish temporary hospitals;
.
(f) require a local authority, a medical health officer or a public health officer to investigate matters relating to the serious public health threat and report to the minister the results of the investigation;
.
(g) require any person who, in the opinion of the minister or medical health officer, is likely to have information that is necessary to decrease or eliminate the serious public health threat to disclose that information to the minister or a medical health officer;
.
(h) authorize public health officers, peace officers or prescribed persons to confiscate substances or other materials found in any place, premises or vehicle, if those substances or materials are suspected by the public health officer, peace officer or prescribed person of causing or contributing to a serious public health threat or packages, containers or devices containing or suspected of containing any of those substances or materials;
.
(i) in the case of a serious public health threat that is a communicable disease, require any person to be isolated from other persons until a medical health officer is satisfied that isolation is no longer necessary to decrease or eliminate the transmission of a communicable disease.

Preventive detention order
45.1(1) If a person fails to comply with an order pursuant to clause 45(2)(i) and a medical health officer believes on reasonable grounds that the person is endangering the lives, safety or health of the public because the person is or probably is infected with, or has been or might have been exposed to, a communicable disease, the medical health officer may detain the person for a period not exceeding the prescribed period of transmissibility of the disease.

(2) A person detained by a medical health officer pursuant to subsection (1) may request a review of his or her detention by application to the Court of Queen’s Bench served on the minister, and the court may make any order with respect to the detention or the release of the person that the court considers appropriate, having regard to the danger to the lives, safety or health of the public.

In similar fashion, Saskatchewan has their own Public Health Act, which has undergone several revisions since the 1990s. It allows for freedoms and liberties to be suspended on even the vaguest suspicion that a person may have an infectious disease. It also allows for property to be seized, and people to be detained.

Things like public gatherings, and freedom of citizens to travel can also be suspended indefinitely under the guise of safety.

Note: as with all of these cases, it’s not the politicians doing the dirty work. It’s the various “experts” who call themselves Chief Medical Officers (or similar titles). This provides cover to elected officials, who want to stamp out civil rights, but don’t want to get their own hands dirty in the process. Now, about Manitoba:

7. Manitoba Public Health Act

PART 6
PUBLIC HEALTH EMERGENCY
Public health emergency
67(1) The chief public health officer may take one or more of the special measures described in subsection (2) if he or she reasonably believes that
(a) a serious and immediate threat to public health exists because of an epidemic or threatened epidemic of a communicable disease; and
(b) the threat to public health cannot be prevented, reduced or eliminated without taking special measures.

Special measures
67(2) The chief public health officer may take the following special measures in the circumstances set out in subsection (1):
(a) issue directions, for the purpose of managing the threat, to a regional health authority, health corporation, health care organization, operator of a laboratory, operator of a licensed emergency medical response system, health professional or health care provider, including directions about
(i) identifying and managing cases,
(ii) controlling infection,
(iii) managing hospitals and other health care facilities and emergency medical response services, and
(iv) managing and distributing equipment and supplies;
(a.1) issue an order prohibiting or restricting persons from travelling to, from or within a specified area, or requiring persons who are doing so to take specified actions;
(b) order the owner, occupant or person who appears to be in charge of any place or premises to deliver up possession of it to the minister for use as a temporary isolation or quarantine facility;
(c) order a public place or premises to be closed;
(d) order persons not to assemble in a public gathering in a specified area;
(d.1) order persons to take specified measures to prevent the spread of a communicable disease, including persons who arrive in Manitoba from another province, territory or country;
(e) order a person who the chief public health officer reasonably believes is not protected against a communicable disease to do one or both of the following:
(i) be immunized, or take any other preventive measures,
(ii) refrain from any activity or employment that poses a significant risk of infection, until the chief public health officer considers the risk of infection no longer exists;
(f) order an employer to exclude from a place of employment any person subject to an order under subclause (e)(ii).

Manitoba’s Public Health Act allows the Chief Medical Officer, and the operatives, to effectively suspend basic civil rights indefinitely. Of course this is “for your safety”, the ever present excuse. Basic liberties such as free association, freedom to peacefully assemble, and freedom to earn a livelihood can be stopped.

Note: the Act was assented to on June 13, 2006, a year after the Federal Quarantine Act, and the 3rd Edition of the International Health Regulations were implemented. The obvious implication is that this Act is just Manitoba enacting its own version.

Section 10 of the Act mandates that a Chief Medical Officer be named. Currently, that is Brent Roussin. In November, he caused a scandal when he openly admitted that public health orders don’t apply to public officials. Not leading by example.

8. Ontario Health Protection & Promotion Act

PART VI.1 PROVINCIAL PUBLIC HEALTH POWERS
.
Chief Medical Officer of Health may act where risk to health
.
77.1 (1) If the Chief Medical Officer of Health is of the opinion that a situation exists anywhere in Ontario that constitutes or may constitute a risk to the health of any persons, he or she may investigate the situation and take such action as he or she considers appropriate to prevent, eliminate or decrease the risk. 2007, c. 10, Sched. F, s. 15.
.
Same (2) For the purpose of subsection
.
(1), the Chief Medical Officer of Health,
.
(a) may exercise anywhere in Ontario,
(i) any of the powers of a board of health, including the power to appoint a medical officer of health or an associate medical officer of health, and (ii) any of the powers of a medical officer of health; and
.
(b) may direct a person whose services are engaged by a board of health to do, anywhere in Ontario, whether within or outside the health unit served by the board of health, any act,
(i) that the person has power to do under this Act, or
(ii) that the medical officer of health for the health unit served by the board of health has authority to direct the person to do within the health unit. 2007, c. 10, Sched. F, s. 15.
.
Authority and duty of person directed to act
(3) If the Chief Medical Officer of Health gives a direction under clause (2) (b) to a person whose services are engaged by a board of health, (a) the person has authority to act, anywhere in Ontario, whether within or outside the health unit served by the board of health, to the same extent as if the direction had been given by the medical officer of health of the board of health and the act had been done in the health unit; and (b) the person shall carry out the direction as soon as practicable. 2007, c. 10, Sched. F, s. 15. Section 22 powers
.
(4) For the purpose of the exercise by the Chief Medical Officer of Health under subsection (2) of the powers of a medical officer of health, a reference in section 22 to a communicable disease shall be deemed to be a reference to an infectious disease. 2007, c. 10, Sched. F, s. 15. Application to judge where risk to health 77.2 (1) If the Chief Medical Officer of Health is of the opinion that a situation exists anywhere in Ontario that constitutes or may constitute a risk to the health of any persons, he or she may apply to a judge of the Superior Court of Justice for an order under subsection (2). 2007, c. 10, Sched. F, s. 15.

Possession of premises for temporary isolation facility
.
77.4 (1) The Minister, in the circumstances mentioned in subsection (3), by order may require the occupier of any premises to deliver possession of all or any specified part of the premises to the Minister to be used as a temporary isolation facility or as part of a temporary isolation facility. 2007, c. 10, Sched. F, s. 15.
.
Extension
(2) An order under subsection (1) shall set out an expiry date for the order that is not more than 12 months after the day of its making and the Minister may extend the order for a further period of not more than 12 months. 2007, c. 10, Sched. F, s. 15.
.
Grounds for order
(3) The Minister may make an order under subsection (1) where the Chief Medical Officer of Health certifies in writing to the Minister that, (a) there exists or there is an immediate risk of an outbreak of a communicable disease anywhere in Ontario; and (b) the premises are needed for use as a temporary isolation facility or as part of a temporary isolation facility in respect of the communicable disease. 2007, c. 10, Sched. F, s. 15.

Ontario has the 2007 Health Protection and Promotion Act. The wording and powers are very similar to other Provinces, and to the Federal Quarantine Act. The timing is also suspicious, given that this was implemented soon after the 2005 International Health Regulations and the Federal legislation.

In Ontario, the Chief Medical Officer is David Williams, and the Deputy Medical Officer is Barbara Yaffe. As with the other so-called experts, these people are not elected, and have no real accountability to the public. Both have made very interesting statements about how dangerous this “pandemic” really is. More on them later.

9. These Acts Strip Away Basic Rights

At no time is there a requirement for there to be PROOF of a public health emergency to act on these powers. These Chief Medical Officers can simply claim that they “reasonably believe”, and that is sufficient.

Provincially and Federally, politicians write laws that allow unelected bureaucrats almost free reign to impose whatever measures they want. Of course, they don’t write content of the laws, but follow the instructions of a supra-national body that is accountable to no one.

This only covers 5 Provinces, however, they all have similar laws. If there is time, a Part II will be published to cover the others.

Posted on

CV #26(D): Provinces Can’t Get Their Stories Straight On “Covid Deaths” & Test Accuracy

At the behest of the World Organization, Governments (including Canada and the Provinces), are playing along with the psy-op that is Covid-19. Now, to anyone who doubts that we are governed by a supra-national body, consider the content below.

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

The rest of the series is here. Many lies, lobbying, conflicts of interest, and various globalist agendas operating behind the scenes, obscuring the vile agenda called the GREAT RESET. The Gates Foundation finances: the WHO, the US CDC, GAVI, ID2020, John Hopkins University, Imperial College London, the Pirbright Institute, the BBC, and individual pharmaceutical companies. The International Health Regulations are legally binding. The media is paid off. The virus was never isolated, PCR tests are a fraud, as are forced masks, social bubbles, and 2m distancing.

2. Important Documents

https://www.who.int/classifications/icd/Guidelines_Cause_of_Death_COVID-19.pdf
WHO Guidelines Classification Of Death

https://www.cpsbc.ca/for-physicians/college-connector/2020-V08-02/04
http://www.bccdc.ca/health-professionals/clinical-resources/covid-19-care/covid-19-testing/viral-testing
http://www.bccdc.ca/Health-Professionals-Site/Documents/COVID19_InterpretingTesting_Results_NAT_PCR.pdf

http://www.cpsa.ca/physicians-notes-basic-principles-on-medical-death-certification/?highlight=covid%20death%20certification
https://www.albertahealthservices.ca/assets/info/ppih/if-ppih-covid-19-sag-comparison-of-testing-sites-rapid-review.pdf
Alberta Test Comparisons Review

Saskatchewan Death Certificate
Saskatchwan Covid Death Certificate
https://www.saskhealthauthority.ca/news/service-alerts-emergency-events/covid-19/testing-screening-treatment-medical-directives/
Saskatchewan PROV-51-POCT-COVID-Panbio-Antigen-Testing

https://www.gov.mb.ca/health/publichealth/surveillance/covid-19/resources/Notes.html
https://manitoba.ca/asset_library/en/coronavirus/interim_guidance.pdf
Manitoba Interim Guidance

Ontario Public Health Testing FAQ
Ontario Health Covid Lab Testing
http://www.health.gov.on.ca/en/pro/programs/publichealth/coronavirus/docs/2019_case_definition.pdf
Ontario Covid 2019_case_definition

3. Guidelines Handed Down By WHO

1. PURPOSE OF THE DOCUMENT
This document describes certification and classification (coding) of deaths related to COVID-19. The primary goal is to identify all deaths due to COVID-19.
.
A simplified section specifically addresses the persons that fill in the medical certificate of cause of death. It should be distributed to certifiers separate from the coding instructions.

2. DEFINITION FOR DEATHS DUE TO COVID-19
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.
.
A death due to COVID-19 may not be attributed to another disease (e.g. cancer) and should be counted independently of preexisting conditions that are suspected of triggering a severe course of COVID-19.

In fairness this may just be extremely poor wording. However, it appears that the default position is to count deaths in confirmed OR PROBABLE cases if the death is from an illness COMPATIBLE WITH Covid-19 symptoms, and we should downplay PREEXISTING CONDITIONS that may have contributed.

As with the diagnosing of cases, there is no requirement to have a positive test. Speaks volumes about how shady this method is.

Now there is the disclaimer that it should not be counted if there is a clear alternative, but this appears to be just an afterthought.

C- CHAIN OF EVENTS
Specification of the causal sequence leading to death in Part 1 of the certificate is important. For example, in cases when COVID-19 causes pneumonia and fatal respiratory distress, both pneumonia and respiratory distress should be included, along with COVID-19, in Part 1. Certifiers should include as much detail as possible based on their knowledge of the case, as from medical records, or about laboratory testing.

D- COMORBIDITIES
There is increasing evidence that people with existing chronic conditions or compromised immune systems due to disability are at higher risk of death due to COVID-19. Chronic conditions may be non-communicable diseases such as coronary artery disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary diseas (COPD), and diabetes or disabilities. If the decedent had existing chronic conditions, such as these, they should be reported in Part 2 of the medical certificate of cause of death.

This guidebook from the World Health Organization is dated April 16, 2020. It defines Covid deaths as “a death resulting from a clinically compatible illness, in a probable or confirmed COVID-19 case”. In other words, it doesn’t have to have CAUSED the death, just be compatible with. Also, a deceased person can be a probable case, meaning no verification is needed that they actually have it.

Now, under WHO’s International Health Regulations, rules handed down are required to be followed by Member States. Let’s see just how well that’s happening.

4. BC College Of Physicians & Surgeons

1. Recording COVID-19 on the medical certificate of cause of death
.
COVID-19 should be recorded on the medical certificate of cause of death for all decedents where the disease caused, or is assumed to have caused, or contributed to death.

2. Terminology
.
The use of official terminology, as recommended by the World Health Organization (i.e. COVID-19) should be used for all certification of this cause of death.
.
As there are many types of coronaviruses it is recommended not to use “coronavirus” in place of COVID-19. This will help to reduce uncertainty for coding and monitoring these deaths which may lead to underreporting.

3. Chain of events
.
Due to the public health importance of COVID-19, when it is thought to have caused or contributed to death it should be recorded in Part I of the medical certificate of cause of death.
Specification of the causal sequence leading to death in Part I of the certificate is also important. For example, in cases when COVID-19 causes pneumonia and fatal respiratory distress, both pneumonia and respiratory distress should be included along with COVID-19 in Part I. Certifiers should include as much detail as possible based on their knowledge of the case, medical records, laboratory testing, etc.

4. Co-morbidities
.
There is increasing evidence that people with existing chronic conditions or compromised immune systems due to disability are at greater risk of death due to COVID-19. Chronic conditions may be non-communicable diseases such as coronary artery disease, COPD, and diabetes or disabilities. If the decedent had existing chronic conditions, such as those listed above, these should be listed in Part II of the medical certificate of cause of death.

Does this look familiar? It is almost word for word identical to that of the World Health Organization, and even explicitly states WHO is used as a reference point.

4. BC Lying About Cases/Testing Errors

Strange question: why would the BC Centre for Disease Control recommend LOWERING the testing threshold for certain people, depending on other factors? Don’t these tests work as advertised? Or is it to confirm a bias when something is suspected?

1. How does the test work?
The NAT works by detecting RNA specific to the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes COVID-19 infection, after RNA has been extracted from the specimen and then amplified in the laboratory. NATs are typically performed on nasopharyngeal swabs, but the test can also be done on other sample types such as throat swabs, saliva, sputum, tracheal aspirates, and broncho-alveolar lavage (BAL) specimens.
.
The NAT has a high analytical sensitivity (i.e., it works well at detecting the virus when the virus is present). The NAT can potentially detect as few as 10-100 copies of viral RNA per mL in a respiratory sample. Note that this is not the same as clinical sensitivity of NAT for detection of COVID-19 infection, which is unknown at this time (see #5 below).

2. What do the test results mean?
 Positive: Viral RNA is detected by NAT and this means that the patient is confirmed to have COVID-19 infection.
A positive NAT does not necessarily mean that a patient is infectious, as viral RNA can be shed in the respiratorytract for weeks but cultivatable (live) virus is typically not detected beyond 8 to 10 days after symptom onset.
 Negative: Viral RNA is not detected in the sample. However, a negative test result does not totally rule out COVID-19 infection as there may be reasons beyond test performance that can result in a lack of RNA detectionin patients with COVID-19 infection (false negatives; see below).
 Indeterminate: The NAT result is outside the validated range of the test (i.e., RNA concentration is below the limit of detection, or a non-specific reaction), or this might occur when the sample collected is of poor quality (i.e., does not contain a sufficient amount of human cells). Indeterminate results do not rule in or rule out infection.

Overall, clinical judgement remains important in determining the implications of NAT test results, and whether a repeat test is indicated for negative or indeterminate results (for example, if the patient’s recent exposures or clinical presentation suggest COVID-19 infection is likely, diagnostic tests for other respiratory pathogens remain negative, or there is worsening of symptoms). For clinical guidance including testing and specimen collection, please refer to COVID-19 testing guidelines for British Columbia.

5. What is the clinical sensitivity of the NAT test?
A statistic commonly quoted is that there is a 30% chance of a false negative result for a NAT test in a patient with COVID-19 infection (i.e., a 70% sensitivity). These and other similar estimates are based on a small number studies that compared the correlation between CT scan findings suggestive of COVID-19 infection to NAT on upper respiratory tract specimens. In these studies, 20-30% of people with a positive CT scan result had negative NAT results – and as discussed above a number of factors can contribute to false negative results. CT scan is not a gold standard for diagnosis of COVID-19 infection, and CT scan cannot differentiate amongst the many microbiological causes of pneumonia.
.
Ultimately, for COVID-19 testing, there is currently no gold standard, and the overall clinical sensitivity and specificity of NAT in patients with COVID-19 infection is unknown (i.e., how well NAT results correlate with clinical infection, “true positivity” or “true negativity” rate).

  • Can spot 10-100 copies, but that does not equate to infection
  • False positives are common
  • False negatives are common
  • Tests are entirely “open to interpretation”
  • 30% false negatives is just a commonly quoted statistic
  • CT scan not a gold standard
  • CT scan cannot differentiate microbiological causes of pneumonia

Even from the BC CDC’s own document, these tests are worthless, as they cannot be reliably used to detect infection, and are entirely open to interpretation.

5. Alberta Lying About Cases/Testing Errors

After the World Health Organization (WHO) declared COVID-19 a pandemic with increasing mortality, the importance of correctly certifying COVID-19-related deaths is crucial. In view of the public health importance of this infection, when it is thought to have caused death, or is assumed to have caused or contributed to death, it should be recorded in Part I of the medical cause of death. A specification of the causal sequence leading to death (e.g., acute respiratory distress syndrome, or pneumonia) is also important.

The use of official terminology, as recommended by the WHO (i.e., COVID-19), should be used for all certification of this cause of death.

As there are many types of coronaviruses it is recommended not to use “coronavirus” in place of COVID-19. This will help to reduce uncertainty for coding and monitoring these deaths which may lead to underreporting.

If a definite diagnosis cannot be made, but the circumstances are compelling within a reasonable degree of certainty, it is acceptable to report COVID-19 on a death certificate as “presumed” or “probable.”

Alberta also instructs its doctors to list Covid-19 as a cause of death if it’s believed to have caused or contributed to it. There is no requirement to be sure, or even to verify that the person has the virus.

Key Messages from the Evidence Summary
 The analytical validity of the lab-developed test used in Alberta is not in question, as confirmatory testing by the Canadian National Microbiology Lab (NML) showed that the Alberta test was 100% accurate, and analytical specificity of PCR testing has been reported to be 100% given the methodology – at least when done during active infection phase.
 However, problems with swab collection have been noted, and it is unknown how the anatomical site of sampling and the timing of the sample relative to the disease progression affects the likelihood of RNA detection in a person who is infected with SARS-CoV-2.
 There is very limited data regarding the negative predictive values and clinical sensitivity and specificity of commercially developed molecular tests for SARS-CoV-2. What data that exists publicly is a different assay from what is used in Alberta and comparisons should be made with caution.
 Studies comparing RNA detection from different sites used samples collected from any of the following sites: nasopharynx, nose, throat, sputum, or bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) fluid. The evidence was mixed with respect to the superiority (or inferiority) of nasal swabs compared to throat swabs. A small study (n=30) that is ongoing in Alberta indicates that NP and throat swabs may be equivalent while nasal swabs may have lower sensitivity. It is suspected that this is related to a lack of familiarity with deep nasal swab collection and poor collection technique, though this is based on anecdotal evidence.

Recommendations
1. Based on the evidence, false negative samples are infrequent but do occur and would appear to result from insufficient sample collection, emphasizing the importance of proper collection of samples.
2. A program should be devised to identify false negative test results and correlate to clinical cases of COVID-19. To calculate the clinical sensitivity of the test, a consistent case definition and a standard for confirming positive cases will be required. The current lack of a gold standard for confirming positive cases is a significant challenge.

Evidence from grey literature
Instructions for the RT-PCR novel coronavirus diagnostic panel developed by the United States Centers for Disease Control (CDC) highlight the limitations of their assay, specifying that their panel was validated only for respiratory tract specimens and that due to many factors in the sample collection chain, a negative test result should not be used to rule out disease (CDC, 2020a). This document also notes that the predictive values of diagnostic tests are highly dependent on the prevalence and risk of disease (CDC, 2020a). Specifically, false negative test results are more likely when prevalence is high and false positives are more likely when the prevalence is moderate or low (CDC, 2020a), although false positives are rare for RT-PCR based testing when primers and probes are designed appropriately.

This is an extremely important detail that got slipped in. The test is 100% effective — if the person is actually infectious. If they are not, then false positives are quite easy to occur. And this is interesting: they say that false negatives are pretty rare, but B.C. said they could be 30%. Which is it? Moreover, the clinical sensitivity of the test cannot be determined since there is no consistent standard. No “gold standard” anyway.

It speaks volumes about the quality of the test when it’s explained that low prevalence results in more false positives, and vice versa.

So which is it? The quality of the test is not in question, or there are no defined standards to base results on?

6. Sask. Death Certificates, Antigen Tests

3. RECORDING COVID-19 ON THE MCOD – CAUSE OF DEATH SECTION
COVID-19 should be recorded on the MCOD – Cause of Death section for ALL decedents where the disease caused, or is assumed to have caused, or contributed to death.
4. TERMINOLOGY
 The use of official terminology, as recommended by the WHO (i.e. COVID-19) should be used for all certification of this cause of death.
 Do not use “coronavirus” in place of COVID-19, as there are many types of coronaviruses. This will help to reduce uncertainty for coding and monitoring these deaths which may lead to underreporting.
5. CHAIN OF EVENTS
 When COVID-19 is thought to have caused or contributed to death, it should be recorded in Part 1 of the MCOD – Cause of Death section.
 Specification of the causal sequence leading to death in Part 1 of the certificate is also important. For example, in cases when COVID-19 causes pneumonia and fatal respiratory distress, both pneumonia and respiratory distress should be included along with COVID-19 in Part 1. Certifiers should include as much detail as possible based on their knowledge of the case, medical records, laboratory testing, etc.
 Here, on a generic model form, is an example of how to certify this chain of events in Part 1:
6. CO-MORBIDITIES
 If the decedent had existing chronic conditions, such as those listed below, these should be listed in Part 2 of the MCOD – Cause of Death section.
 Chronic conditions may be non-communicable diseases such as coronary artery disease, COPD, and diabetes or disabilities.
 There is increasing evidence that people with existing chronic conditions or compromised immune systems due to disability are at greater risk of death due to COVID-19.

Looking at Page 2 of the death certificate, we get this. Looks like it was taken straight from WHO’s guidelines on declaring Covid deaths.

Detects viral proteins/antigens
• Used at the point of specimen collection
• Has lower sensitivity when compared with laboratory-based PCR testing
• The use of a lower sensitivity test carries risks to clinical and public health decision making. However, these risks can be mitigated by implementing it in limited situations combined with careful and appropriate interpretation.
• Provides preliminary test results:
Negative: Does NOT rule out COVID-19 infection. Does NOT change any infection control precautions or isolation requirements.
Positive: Should be acted on immediately. Considered a “Presumptive Case” until confirmed by an in-lab PCR test.

According to the Saskatchewan Health Authority, this antigen test is basically useless. A patient would have to follow up with a PCR test regardless of the outcome.

7. Manitoba Deaths, Cases, PCR “Gold Standard”

Surveillance Case Definition
Cases include both confirmed and probable cases. Surveillance case definitions are provided for the purpose of standardizing case classification and reporting. They are based on evidence, public health response goals, and are subject to change as new information becomes available. Please visit https://manitoba.ca/asset_library/en/coronavirus/interim_guidance.pdf for the most current case definition.

Confirmed case – A person with a laboratory confirmation of infection with the virus that causes COVID-19 performed at a community, hospital or reference laboratory (NML or a provincial public health laboratory) running a validated assay. This consists of detection of at least one specific gene target by a NAAT assay (e.g. real-time PCR or nucleic acid sequencing).

Death due to COVID-19
Source: Adapted from WHO International Guidelines for Certification and Classification (coding) of COVID-19 as a cause of death
.
A death resulting from a clinically compatible illness, 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.

Underlying Illness
Validated algorithms developed by the Canadian Chronic Disease Surveillance System (CCDSS) are used to define the common chronic conditions of COVID-19 cases using administrative health records maintained by Manitoba Health, Seniors and Active Living. (MHSAL)

Under WHO’s rules, even probable cases are considered cases for the purposes of surveillance and reporting. Note: they aren’t even testing for a virus, but for a single gene.

[Page 6]
Laboratory Testing
 At present, a validated reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test on a clinically appropriate sample collected by a trained health care provider is the gold standard for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

[Page 14/15]
Testing Individuals After Death
In the interest of identifying all deaths related to COVID-19 and to better understand the burden of disease in Manitoba, collection of a post-mortem nasopharyngeal (NP) swab for COVID-19 testing should be considered if the following are true:
.
Part A: Prior testing
1) The deceased did not have a NP swab positive for COVID-19 prior to death
OR
2) The deceased did not have two or more NP swabs negative for COVID-19 in the past week
AND
Part B: Symptoms or cause of death
1) Death was preceded by influenza-like illness (ILI), upper or lower respiratory tract infection, or any symptoms compatible with COVID-19, even if very mild
OR
2) Cause of death is unclear
If a previous swab was positive, no further testing is required

It’s a little strange that B.C. claims there is no gold standard for testing, yet Manitoba claims that RT-PCR tests are. Did they not get their stories straight? And this post-death testing comes across as a way to artificially drive up the numbers.

8. Ontario Testing Sensitivity, False Positives

Testing Results and Performance
1. Q. What is the test performance of the PCR assay in use at PHO Laboratory?
A. PHO Laboratory validated the PCR assay currently in use in close collaboration with the National Microbiology Laboratory (NML), Canada’s reference microbiology laboratory. We have excellent concordance with NML from the parallel testing done with them at set up, which included a large number (over 100) and positives (over 20). The sensitivity and specificity of the assay, comparing to NML as the gold standard, is close to 100%.

However, there are many commercial and laboratory developed assays being released and used in Canada, and it is not possible to compare assay performance with every one of them. It is expected there will be some variance in performance if multiple assays are compared to each other, especially around the limit of detection of the individual assays. Parallel testing with the commercial kits in use so far shows similar performance with the assay in use at PHO Laboratory. More information on the testing done at PHO Laboratory from our COVID-19 Test Information Sheet:
https://www.publichealthontario.ca/en/laboratory-services/test-information-index/wuhan-novelcoronavirus

2. Q. What is the positive predictive value of COVID-19 PCR assays?
A. In general, the positive predictive value of COVID-19 PCR assays is excellent, and approaches 100%. At PHO Laboratory, we know this, as we are able to generate viral sequence from samples that are positive provided the viral copy number is not near the limit of detection of the assay.

4. Q. What is the sensitivity, and how often is the COVID-19 test false negative?
COVID-19 Laboratory Testing Q&A 4
A. It is hard to answer this question objectively on how many false negatives there are, as the only way to know is to retest patients who are initially negative, or retest a large number of the same samples with a different assay. Several studies with small sample sizes have been published, and have estimated that the first test done has a sensitivity of 70% to 90% for detecting SARS-CoV-2.

Some interesting questions show up in the Ontario publication. The paper repeatedly claims that the accuracy is close to 100%, but later states that other studies give a sensitivity of 70% to 90%. This would mean a 10% to 30% error. Doesn’t bode well.

9. What Does All This Mean?

The Provinces appear to be following WHO’s directive on deaths, which allows for a “clinically compatible illness” to be the basis for writing Covid-19 on the death certificate. It specifically allows for these certificates to be made based on the flimsiest evidence.

Despite the claims to the contrary, there are some real issues with the PCR and antigen tests. Even taking their words at face value, they are pretty much useless. Rather than them being any sort of “gold standard”, they are open to wide interpretation, and multiple samples may be needed. Keep in mind, they are not testing for an isolated virus, but rather, for a single genetic marker.

Let’s not forget people like Ontario Deputy Medical Officer Barbara Yaffe and Alberta Premier Jason Kenney, who admit potential 50% and 90% errors, respectively. Ontario Health Minister Christine Elliott admitted to fudgind the data when it comes to deaths.

These examples cited are by no means exhaustive. There are surely more documents that contradict the public health narratives on this “pandemic”.

If things really were as bad as advertised, there would be no need to constantly pour out the fear. There’d be no need to “reevaluate” or double check so frequently.

Posted on

A Serious Proposal: Economic Warfare Against Businesses Forcing Vaccines

https://twitter.com/talkRADIO/status/1355245943826894850

We are told in the West that the free market and personal choice are what make some businesses thrive, all while others die off. It’s time to really test that theory.

1. Disclaimer Against Physical Violence

This should go without saying, but will be anyway: This is NOT a call for physical violence, or breaking the law. Rather it is using the power as consumers to cripple businesses who engage in practices the public finds abhorrent. And forcing employees to take an experimental, mRNA vaccine to combat something with a 99% recovery rate is about as bad is gets. So let these places die off.

2. Bankrupt Companies Who Do This

The above video went viral (no pun intended), on Twitter. The man argues that this policy will be necessary for all new employees. Interestingly, the virus is so smart that legacy or grandfathered employees are not at risk. That alone guts any real argument that it’s necessary

What he doesn’t seem to realize is that those same “safety” arguments can be turned around against him. He may claim that it’s required to protect the public. We could just as easily argue that bankrupting such businesses — and deterring others in the future — is in the public interest. These mRNA injections aren’t really even vaccines, but more of a gene replacement therapy.

Is this coercion? Absolutely not! Businesses fail all the time because they charge do much, offer poor products of services, or get squeezed out by better competitors. It’s the free market doing its thing. And by that logic, companies who DON’T pressure people into risking their lives are a superior alternative.

Yes, he (most likely) does have the right to stick that in an employment contract for new employees. And we, as consumers, have the right to cripple his business, and any other such business.

In the show “Game of Thrones”, heads were put on spikes as a warning to others. It’s possible to do the ECONOMIC equivalent here: ruin businesses who mandate these “vaccines” as a warning to others considering similar policies.

If imposing this requirement is personal choice, then so is the decision to shut down companies who are involved in it. In a way, this isn’t much different than what some vegans do, but it’s easier to rally people behind.

  • Refuse to shop there
  • Discourage friends and family to shop there
  • Publicize these companies
  • Prospective employees: file lawsuits, complaints
  • (To business owners), refuse to provide service to such people

Will companies facing bankruptcy feel that forcing poisonous injections is necessary? Probably not, as principles tend to fly by the wayside when money is involved.

3. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

The rest of the series is here. Many lies, lobbying, conflicts of interest, and various globalist agendas operating behind the scenes, obscuring the vile agenda called the GREAT RESET. The Gates Foundation finances: the WHO, the US CDC, GAVI, ID2020, John Hopkins University, Imperial College London, the Pirbright Institute, the BBC, and individual pharmaceutical companies. The International Health Regulations are legally binding. The media is paid off. The virus was never isolated, PCR tests are a fraud, as are forced masks, social bubbles, and 2m distancing.

Posted on

CV #37(E): WHO Promoting Universal Masking Of Children As Young As 6

Yes, the World Health Organization has published its own recommendation for children wearing masks. It was released in August, just in time for school to return. There’s no way to describe this other than child abuse.

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

The rest of the series is here. Many lies, lobbying, conflicts of interest, and various globalist agendas operating behind the scenes, obscuring the vile agenda called the GREAT RESET. The Gates Foundation finances: the WHO, the US CDC, GAVI, ID2020, John Hopkins University, Imperial College London, the Pirbright Institute, the BBC, and individual pharmaceutical companies. The International Health Regulations are legally binding. The media is paid off. The virus was never isolated, PCR tests are a fraud, as are forced masks, social bubbles, and 2m distancing.

2. Important Links

https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/331693
April 6 WHO Guidance On Masks

https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/advice-for-public/when-and-how-to-use-masks
June 5 WHO Guidance On Masks

WHO On Forcing Masks On Children
August 21 WHO Guidance For Masks On Children

WHO On Masks: December 1 Update
December 1 WHO Guidance On Masks

Note: for more context for this article, check Part 37A, and Part 37B. They refer to the April 6, June 5 and December 1 guidelines handed down by the World Health Organization. In short, they still aren’t checking for logical consistency.

January 17, 2020 Testing Guidelines For WHO
March 19, 2020 Testing Guidelines For WHO
September 11, 2020 Testing Guidelines For WHO
September 11, 2020 WHO-2019-nCoV-Antigen_Detection
WHO: January, March, September 2020 Guidelines
WHO’s January 13, 2021 Posting On Test Guidelines

January 31 Global Surveillance For Human Infection
March 20 Global Surveillance For Human Infection
May 10 Global Surveillance For Human Infection
August 7 Global Surveillance For Human Infection
December 16 Global Surveillance For Human Infection

https://www.who.int/classifications/icd/Guidelines_Cause_of_Death_COVID-19.pdf
WHO Guidelines Classification Of Death

WHO Case Definition Guidelines

BCCDC: No Idea Actual Error Rate Of PCR Tests
BC COVID19_SerologyTestingGuidelines (1)
BC COVID19_InterpretingTesting_Results_NAT_PCR

Tricity: Bonnie Henry – False Positives Overwhelming Hospitals
CBC: Bonnie Henry Warning About False Negatives

WHO’s Definition Of “Herd Immunity”
WHO Posting On Herd Immunity Definition
WHO’s Other Definition Of Herd Immunity

3. Outline Of WHO Recommendation

Overview
This guidance provides specific considerations for the use of non-medical masks, also known as fabric masks, by children as a means for source control in the context of the current COVID-19 pandemic. It also advises on the use of medical masks for children under certain conditions. The document is an annex to the Advice on the use of masks in the context of COVID-19, in which further details on fabric masks can be found.

4. Frequently Asked Questions

Based on this and other factors such as childrens’ psychosocial needs and developmental milestones, WHO and UNICEF advise the following:
.
Children aged 5 years and under should not be required to wear masks. This is based on the safety and overall interest of the child and the capacity to appropriately use a mask with minimal assistance.
.
WHO and UNICEF advise that the decision to use masks for children aged 6-11 should be based on the following factors:

WHO and UNICEF advise that children aged 12 and over should wear a mask under the same conditions as adults, in particular when they cannot guarantee at least a 1-metre distance from others and there is widespread transmission in the area.

In general, children aged 5 years and under should not be required to wear masks. This advice is based on the safety and overall interest of the child and the capacity to appropriately use a mask with minimal assistance. There may be local requirements for children aged 5 years and under to wear masks, or specific needs in some settings, such as being physically close to someone who is ill. In these circumstances, if the child wears a mask, a parent or other guardian should be within direct line of sight to supervise the safe use of the mask.

WHO and UNICEF recommend masks for children as young as 6 years old. But even that is a bit misleading, as there are conditions where it is still expected. Considering all of the lies that go around with this “pandemic”, forcing kids to do this is cruelty.

5. WHO’s Publication For Masking Kids

[Page 1]
Background
The World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) advise the use of masks according to a risk-based approach, as part of a comprehensive package of public health interventions that can prevent and control the transmission of certain viral respiratory diseases, including COVID-19. Compliance with other measures including physical distancing, hand hygiene, respiratory etiquette and adequate ventilation in indoor settings is essential for reducing the spread of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19.

This guidance provides specific considerations for the use of non-medical masks, also known as fabric masks, by children as a means for source control in the context of the current COVID-19 pandemic. The document is an annex to the WHO’s Advice on the use of masks in the context of COVID-191 in which further details on fabric masks can be found. This annex also advises the use of medical masks for children under certain conditions. For the purposes of this guidance, children are defined as anyone below the age of 18 years

Currently, the extent to which children contribute to transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is not completely understood. According to the WHO global surveillance database of laboratory-confirmed cases developed from case report forms provided to WHO by Member States and other studies, 1-7% of COVID-19 cases are reported to be among children, with relatively few deaths compared to other age groups 4-8. The European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) has recently reported the age distribution of COVID-19 among children in the European Union (EU), European Economic Area (EEA) and the United Kingdom (UK); theyreported that as of 26 July 2020, 4% of all cases in the EU/EEA and the UK were among children.

Evidence on the benefits and harms of children wearing masks to mitigate transmission of COVID-19 and other coronaviruses is limited. However, some studies have evaluated the effectiveness of mask use in children for influenza and other respiratory viruses. A study of mask wearing during seasonal influenza outbreaks in Japan noted that the use of masks was more effective in higher school grades (9-12 year old children in grades 4-6) than lower grades (6-9 year old children, in grades 1-3). One study, conducted under laboratory conditions and using non-betacoronaviruses, suggested that children between five and 11 years old were significantly less protected by mask wearing compared to adults, possibly related to inferior fit of the mask. Other studies found evidence of some protective effect for influenza for both source control30 and protection in children, although overall compliance with consistent mask wearing, especially among children under the age of 15, was poor.

Some studies, including studies conducted in the context of influenza and air pollution, found the use and acceptability of mask wearing to be highly variable among children, ranging from very low to acceptable levels and decreasing over time while wearing masks. One study was carried out among primary school children during COVID-19 and reported 51.6% compliance.

Several studies found that factors such as warmth, irritation, breathing difficulties, discomfort, distraction, low social acceptability and poor mask fit were reported by children when using masks. So far, the effectiveness and impact of masks for children during play and physical activity have not been studied; however, a study in adults found that N95 respirator and surgical masks reduced cardiopulmonary capacity during heavy exertion

[Page 2]
The benefits of wearing masks in children for COVID-19 control should be weighed against potential harm associated with wearing masks, including feasibility and discomfort, as well as social and communication concerns. Factors to consider also include age groups, sociocultural and contextual considerations and availability of adult supervision and other resources to prevent transmission.

There is a need for data from high quality prospective studies in different settings on the role of children and adolescents in transmission of SARS-CoV-2, on ways to improve acceptance and compliance of mask use and on the effectiveness of masks use in children. These studies must be prioritized and include prospective studies of transmission within educational settings and households stratified by age groups (ideally <2, 2-4, 5-11 and > 12 years) and with different prevalence and transmission patterns. Particular emphasis must be placed on studies in schools in low- and middle-income settings.

[Page 6]
Monitoring and evaluation of the impact of the use of masks in children
If authorities decide to recommend mask-wearing for children, key information should be collected on a regular basis to accompany and monitor the intervention. Monitoring and evaluation should be established at the onset and should include indicators that measure the impact on the child’s health, including mental health; reduction in transmission of SARS-CoV-2; motivators and barriers to mask wearing; and secondary impacts on a child’s development learning, attendance in school, ability to express him/herself or access school; and impact on children with developmental delays, health conditions, disabilities or other vulnerabilities.

The WHO and UNICEF released their “guidelines” over the summer for how and when children should be forced to wear masks. Although the official cut-off is 5 years old, they make it clear that toddlers under that age might be required to as well.

This is barbaric, and amounts to child abuse. If adults want to play along with this psy-op, that is their decision. However, it should never be imposed on youths. What kind of a sicko comes up with things like that?