Category: *SOLUTIONS*

Posted on

Ontario Health Care Consent Act Of 1996: FYI For Vaccines Or Tests

A disclaimer: this article is merely information about what laws exist. It does not constitute advice. Read, research, research further, and come to your own conclusions.

That being said, a request in Ontario had been made asking about was on the books regarding forced (or coerced) tests. This is course refers to the nasal rape sticks that are being passed off as coronavirus tests. Here is what some digging uncovered. Again, take this as information, and then decide for yourself.

On the issue of masks as a human rights issue, recent Clown Rights Tribunals have found that these demands from stores can be enforced in most cases. Simply having breathing issues is not sufficient. How it would be enforced in a health care setting is a bit more complicated. That said, let’s take a look at the poking stuff.

https://www.cpso.on.ca/About/Legislation-By-Laws
https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/930856
https://www.cpso.on.ca/Physicians/Policies-Guidance/Policies/Consent-to-Treatment/Advice-to-the-Profession-Consent-to-Treatment
https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/so-1996-c-2-sch-a/latest/so-1996-c-2-sch-a.html
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-51.html#docCont
https://www.laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/F-27/page-8.html#h-234517
Interim Order From Patty Hajdu

  • Know What Is Actually Considered Malpractice
  • Understand What Consent Really Is
  • Applicable Legislation: Health Care Consent Act, 1996
  • Canada Criminal Code
  • Approved v.s. Interim Authorized Treatments

1. How College Of Physicians Views Malpractice

Medicine Act, 1991
Loi de 1991 sur les médecins
ONTARIO REGULATION 856/93
PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT
Consolidation Period: From December 3, 2010 to the e-Laws currency date.
Last amendment: 450/10.
This Regulation is made in English only.
.
1. (1) The following are acts of professional misconduct for the purposes of clause 51 (1) (c) of the Health Professions Procedural Code
.
2. Failing to maintain the standard of practice of the profession.
.
3. Abusing a patient verbally or physically.
.
7. Discontinuing professional services that are needed unless,
i. the patient requests the discontinuation,
ii. alternative services are arranged, or
iii. the patient is given a reasonable opportunity to arrange alternative services.
.
8. Failing to fulfil the terms of an agreement for professional services.
.
9. Performing a professional service for which consent is required by law without consent.
.
12. Failing to reveal the exact nature of a secret remedy or treatment used by the member following a proper request to do so.
.
13. Making a misrepresentation respecting a remedy, treatment or device.
.
14. Making a claim respecting the utility of a remedy, treatment, device or procedure other than a claim which can be supported as reasonable professional opinion.

On the College of Physicians and Surgeons for Ontario website, they have a link to a very extensive list of what is considered to be malpractice. On the surface, forcing “Covid tests” would certainly seem to qualify as misconduct on several counts. If a person cannot access health care in a normal fashion without having this pushed on them, it would appear to count as misconduct, at least in Ontario.

Also, #12 makes it very clear that the exact nature of whatever medical procedure must be explained. That includes the process, and the risks. This cannot be shrugged off. Obviously, they will be at a loss to explain how these “Covid tests” or these “vaccines” actually work.

2. CPSO Describes Consent For Treatment

Source of Obligations
What is the source of my consent obligations?
.
Physicians have both legal and professional obligations to obtain consent prior to providing treatment. Although the policy does not contain an exhaustive catalogue, it does highlight many of the legal obligations set out in the Health Care Consent Act, 1996 (HCCA). It also sets out certain obligations that are not codified in the HCCA, but are professional expectations of physicians set by the College.

My patient is refusing to consent to a treatment that I think they should have. Does this mean they are incapable?
.
Not necessarily. Patients and SDMs have the legal right to refuse or withhold consent. Consent can also be withdrawn at any time, by the patient if they are capable with respect to the treatment at the time of the withdrawal, or by the patient’s SDM if the patient is incapable.
.
Patients or SDMs may sometimes make decisions that are contrary to the physician’s treatment advice. You cannot automatically assume that because the patient is making a decision you do not agree with, that they are incapable of making that decision.
.
It is possible, however, that a patient’s decision may cause you to question whether the patient has the capacity to make the decision (e.g., that the patient may not truly understand the consequences of not proceeding with the treatment). Where this is the case, you may want to consider doing a more thorough investigation of the patient’s capacity to ensure the patient’s decision is informed and valid.
.
It is important to remember that it is inappropriate for a physician to end the physician-patient relationship in situations where the patient chooses not to follow the physician’s treatment advice (for more information, see the College’s Ending the Physician-Patient Relationship policy).

The CPSO makes it clear that consent is MANDATORY in order to do anything to the patient. Moreover, it is explicitly stated that it’s considered inappropriate to terminate the patient-physician relationship just because the doctor doesn’t personally agree with the patient’s decision(s).

3. Ontario Health Care Consent Act, 1996

Purposes
.
1 The purposes of this Act are,
(a) to provide rules with respect to consent to treatment that apply consistently in all settings;
(b) to facilitate treatment, admission to care facilities, and personal assistance services, for persons lacking the capacity to make decisions about such matters;
(c) to enhance the autonomy of persons for whom treatment is proposed, persons for whom admission to a care facility is proposed and persons who are to receive personal assistance services by,
(i) allowing those who have been found to be incapable to apply to a tribunal for a review of the finding,
(ii) allowing incapable persons to request that a representative of their choice be appointed by the tribunal for the purpose of making decisions on their behalf concerning treatment, admission to a care facility or personal assistance services, and
(iii) requiring that wishes with respect to treatment, admission to a care facility or personal assistance services, expressed by persons while capable and after attaining 16 years of age, be adhered to;

No treatment without consent
.
10 (1) A health practitioner who proposes a treatment for a person shall not administer the treatment, and shall take reasonable steps to ensure that it is not administered, unless,
(a) he or she is of the opinion that the person is capable with respect to the treatment, and the person has given consent; or
(b) he or she is of the opinion that the person is incapable with respect to the treatment, and the person’s substitute decision-maker has given consent on the person’s behalf in accordance with this Act.

Elements of consent
.
11 (1) The following are the elements required for consent to treatment:
1. The consent must relate to the treatment.
2. The consent must be informed.
3. The consent must be given voluntarily.
4. The consent must not be obtained through misrepresentation or fraud.
.
Informed consent
(2) A consent to treatment is informed if, before giving it,
(a) the person received the information about the matters set out in subsection (3) that a reasonable person in the same circumstances would require in order to make a decision about the treatment; and
(b) the person received responses to his or her requests for additional information about those matters
.
Same
(3) The matters referred to in subsection (2) are:
1. The nature of the treatment.
2. The expected benefits of the treatment.
3. The material risks of the treatment.
4. The material side effects of the treatment.
5. Alternative courses of action.
6. The likely consequences of not having the treatment.

The 1996 Health Care Consent Act makes it clear that consent to any medical treatment must be voluntary, informed, and the risks spelled out. These are not things that can just be ignored under the guise of an “emergency”.

For the nasal rape sticks: ask probing questions. Ask what are the effects of putting cotton almost to the brain barrier? Ask if they have verified themselves the sticks are not contaminated in any way. Ask how the PCR test works, and get specific information.

For the gene replacement “vaccines”: ask about the lack of testing on certain groups. Ask about the ongoing testing, and how they can be sure they are safe. Ask if they know and understand what is even in them. This shouldn’t be controversial.

Offences Against the Person and Reputation (continued)
Duties Tending to Preservation of Life (continued)
Marginal note:Duty of persons undertaking acts dangerous to life

4. Canada Criminal Code Provisions

Duty of persons undertaking acts dangerous to life
.
216 Every one who undertakes to administer surgical or medical treatment to another person or to do any other lawful act that may endanger the life of another person is, except in cases of necessity, under a legal duty to have and to use reasonable knowledge, skill and care in so doing.

Duty of persons undertaking acts dangerous to life
Marginal note: Duty of persons undertaking acts
.
217 Every one who undertakes to do an act is under a legal duty to do it if an omission to do the act is or may be dangerous to life.

Duty of persons undertaking acts dangerous to life
Marginal note: Duty of persons directing work
.
217.1 Every one who undertakes, or has the authority, to direct how another person does work or performs a task is under a legal duty to take reasonable steps to prevent bodily harm to that person, or any other person, arising from that work or task.

Criminal negligence
.
219 (1) Every one is criminally negligent who
(a) in doing anything, or
(b) in omitting to do anything that it is his duty to do,
shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons.
.
Definition of duty
(2) For the purposes of this section, duty means a duty imposed by law.

Assault
.
265 (1) A person commits an assault when
(a) without the consent of another person, he applies force intentionally to that other person, directly or indirectly;
(b) he attempts or threatens, by an act or a gesture, to apply force to another person, if he has, or causes that other person to believe on reasonable grounds that he has, present ability to effect his purpose; or
(c) while openly wearing or carrying a weapon or an imitation thereof, he accosts or impedes another person or begs.
.
Marginal note: Application
.
(2) This section applies to all forms of assault, including sexual assault, sexual assault with a weapon, threats to a third party or causing bodily harm and aggravated sexual assault.
.
Marginal note: Consent
.
(3) For the purposes of this section, no consent is obtained where the complainant submits or does not resist by reason of
(a) the application of force to the complainant or to a person other than the complainant;
(b) threats or fear of the application of force to the complainant or to a person other than the complainant;
(c) fraud; or
(d) the exercise of authority.

Just a take on this, but could pressuring people to take needles into their arms, or sticks up their nose, be seen as breaching the Criminal Code of Canada? Serious crimes can’t be masked simply by classifying them as medical care.

5. Interim Authorization V.S. Approval

To make this point, consider these categories:

(a) Approved: Health Canada has fully reviewed all the testing, and steps have been done, with the final determination that it can be used for the general population
(b) Interim Authorization: deemed to be “worth the risk” under the circumstances, doesn’t have to be fully tested. Allowed under Section 30.1 of the Canada Food & Drug Act, if an Interim Order is signed. Commonly referred to as an emergency use authorization.

https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/astrazeneca-covid-19-vaccine-pm-en.pdf
https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/janssen-covid-19-vaccine-pm-en.pdf
https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/covid-19-vaccine-moderna-pm-en.pdf
https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/pfizer-biontech-covid-19-vaccine-pm1-en.pdf

Here’s a question that even small children should be able to understand: Looking at the product monographs, does it say these “vaccines were approved? Or does it say they were authorized under section 5 of an Interim Order? If the person doesn’t know, (and most won’t), pushing for vaccination would probably be malpractice.

It can’t really be informed consent if the people pushing it have no information about the product in question.

6. No Science Behind Any Of This

Too long to detail here, but there is no real science behind any of this so called “pandemic”. As an example, these “gold-standard” PCR tests are unable to distinguish between dead genetic material and an active infection. Using them at all is fraudulent. Feel free to argue any of this.

Now, just because these protections are in place, it doesn’t mean that health care workers actually know about them. It also doesn’t mean that they will care if push comes to shove.

That being said: at least know what you are talking about when you try to assert your rights. Perhaps bring a recording device if possible. That should make it easier for the patient.

To reiterate from before: all of this content is for informational purposes, and should not be considered professional advice. Please, do your own homework.

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

Can Plaintiffs/Defendants Testify As Expert Witnesses In Their Own Cases?

This piece is going to be a bit different. It’s an effort to answer a question: can interested parties also serve as experts in the same case? It will look at an example, using Ontario as a model.

The instinctive answer would be no, this is a serious conflict of interest. But let’s look a bit deeper. Remember, this is just for information, and there’s no need for anyone to overreact.

1. Important Links

Ontario Rules Of Civil Procedure
Ontario Law Society: Rule 3.4 (Conflicts Of Interest)
Canadian National Railway Co. v. McKercher LLP, 2013 SCC 39
Vaccine Choice Canada Lawsuit, October 2019
Vaccine Choice Canada Lawsuit, July 2020

2. Ontario Rules Of Civil Procedure

RULE 4.1 DUTY OF EXPERT
.
DUTY OF EXPERT
.
4.1.01 (1) It is the duty of every expert engaged by or on behalf of a party to provide evidence in relation to a proceeding under these rules,
.
(a) to provide opinion evidence that is fair, objective and non-partisan;
.
(b) to provide opinion evidence that is related only to matters that are within the expert’s area of expertise; and
.
(c) to provide such additional assistance as the court may reasonably require to determine a matter in issue. O. Reg. 438/08, s. 8.
.
Duty Prevails
.
(2) The duty in subrule (1) prevails over any obligation owed by the expert to the party by whom or on whose behalf he or she is engaged. O. Reg. 438/08, s. 8.

According to Rule 4.1.01(1) and (2), the answer likely is no. A person who is a Plaintiff or Defendant is by nature an interested party. If the person has a vested interest (financial or otherwise), then overcoming that conflict of interest would be difficult.

3. What Expert Reports Will Include (Ontario)

(2.1) A report provided for the purposes of subrule (1) or (2) shall contain the following information:
.
1. The expert’s name, address and area of expertise.
.
2. The expert’s qualifications and employment and educational experiences in his or her area of expertise.
.
3. The instructions provided to the expert in relation to the proceeding.
.
4. The nature of the opinion being sought and each issue in the proceeding to which the opinion relates.
.
5. The expert’s opinion respecting each issue and, where there is a range of opinions given, a summary of the range and the reasons for the expert’s own opinion within that range.
.
6. The expert’s reasons for his or her opinion, including,
i. a description of the factual assumptions on which the opinion is based,
ii. a description of any research conducted by the expert that led him or her to form the opinion, and
iii. a list of every document, if any, relied on by the expert in forming the opinion.
.
7. An acknowledgement of expert’s duty (Form 53) signed by the expert. O. Reg. 438/08, s. 48.

Rule 53.03 of Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure outlines what is expected by expert witness to submit in their reports to the Court, in advance of trial. It’s a pretty good outline for the contents.

4. OLS Rules Of Professional Conduct

SECTION 3.4 CONFLICTS
Duty to Avoid Conflicts of Interest
3.4-1 A lawyer shall not act or continue to act for a client where there is a conflict of interest, except as permitted under the rules in this Section.

Commentary
[1] As defined in rule 1.1-1, a conflict of interest exists when there is a substantial risk that a lawyer’s loyalty to or representation of a client would be materially and adversely affected by the lawyer’s own interest or the lawyer’s duties to another client, a former client, or a third person. Rule 3.4-1 protects the duties owed by lawyers to their clients and the lawyer-client relationship from impairment as a result of a conflicting duty or interest. A client’s interests may be seriously prejudiced unless the lawyer’s judgment and freedom of action on the client’s behalf are as free as possible from conflicts of interest.

[2] In addition to the duty of representation arising from a retainer, the law imposes other duties on the lawyer, particularly the duty of loyalty. The duty of confidentiality, the duty of candour and the duty of commitment to the client’s cause are aspects of the duty of loyalty. This rule protects all of these duties from impairment by a conflicting duty or interest.

[7] A bright line rule has been developed by the courts to protect the representation of and loyalty to current clients. c.f. Canadian National Railway Co. v. McKercher LLP, [2013] 2 S.C.R. 649. The bright line rule holds that a lawyer cannot act directly adverse to the immediate legal interests of a current client, without the clients’ consent. The bright line rule applies even if the work done for the two clients is completely unrelated. The scope of the bright line rule is limited. It provides that a lawyer cannot act directly adverse to the immediate legal interests of a current client. Accordingly, the main area of application of the bright line rule is in civil and criminal proceedings. Exceptionally, the bright line rule does not apply in circumstances where it is unreasonable for a client to expect that the client’s law firm will not act against the client in unrelated matters.

Consent
3.4-2 A lawyer shall not represent a client in a matter when there is a conflict of interest unless there is consent, which must be fully informed and voluntary after disclosure, from all affected clients and the lawyer reasonably believes that he or she is able to represent each client without having a material adverse effect upon the representation of or loyalty to the other client.

Having an expert witness as a Plaintiff or Defendant is a conflict. It gets even trickier when there are other clients involved in the same case. The duty of the expert is to the court first and foremost. The Ontario Law Society, (a.k.a. Law Society of Upper Canada), has strict rules against members engaging in conflicts of interest.

5. Supreme Court: Bright Red Line Rule

Canadian National Railway Co. v. McKercher LLP, 2013 SCC 39

Cases Cited
.
Referred to: R. v. Neil, 2002 SCC 70, [2002] 3 S.C.R. 631; MacDonald Estate v. Martin, 1990 CanLII 32 (SCC), [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1235; R. v. Cunningham, 2010 SCC 10, [2010] 1 S.C.R. 331; Cholmondeley v. Clinton (1815), 19 Ves. Jun. 261, 34 E.R. 515; Bricheno v. Thorp (1821), Jacob 300, 37 E.R. 864; Taylor v. Blacklow (1836), 3 Bing. (N.C.) 235, 132 E.R. 401; Rakusen v. Ellis, [1912] 1 Ch. 831; Strother v. 3464920 Canada Inc., 2007 SCC 24, [2007] 2 S.C.R. 177; Bolkiah v. KPMG, [1999] 2 A.C. 222; Moffat v. Wetstein (1996), 1996 CanLII 8009 (ON SC), 29 O.R. (3d) 371; Canadian Pacific Railway v. Aikins, MacAulay & Thorvaldson (1998), 1998 CanLII 5073 (MB CA), 23 C.P.C. (4th) 55; De Beers Canada Inc. v. Shore Gold Inc., 2006 SKQB 101, 278 Sask. R. 171; Toddglen Construction Ltd. v. Concord Adex Developments Corp. (2004), 34 C.L.R. (3d) 111.

(f) The Bright Line Rule
.
[27] In Neil, this Court (per Binnie J.) stated that a lawyer may not represent a client in one matter while representing that client’s adversary in another matter, unless both clients provide their informed consent. Binnie J. articulated the rule thus:

The bright line is provided by the general rule that a lawyer may not represent one client whose interests are directly adverse to the immediate interests of another current client — even if the two mandates are unrelated — unless both clients consent after receiving full disclosure (and preferably independent legal advice), and the lawyer reasonably believes that he or she is able to represent each client without adversely affecting the other. [Emphasis in original; para. 29]

[28] The rule expressly applies to both related and unrelated matters. It is possible to argue that a blanket prohibition against concurrent representation is not warranted with respect to unrelated matters, where the concrete duties owed by the lawyer to each client may not actually enter into conflict. However, the rule provides a number of advantages. It is clear. It recognizes that it is difficult — often impossible — for a lawyer or law firm to neatly compartmentalize the interests of different clients when those interests are fundamentally adverse. Finally, it reflects the fact that the lawyer-client relationship is a relationship based on trust. The reality is that “the client’s faith in the lawyer’s loyalty to the client’s interests will be severely tried whenever the lawyer must be loyal to another client whose interests are materially adverse”: Restatement of the Law, Third: The Law Governing Lawyers (2000), vol. 2, § 128(2), at p. 339

The “bright red line” has been explicitly stated to lawyers who represent clients with opposing interests. However, the idea of representing an expert witness is an interesting twist.

Though the language differs across jurisdictions, experts are considered “Friends of the Court”, neutral people who can provide unbiased information and opinion for a Judge and/or Jury.

True, experts are paid for their time by someone. That alone does not render them useless, as they do have a role to play. But what happens when the Expert has a vested interest in the outcome of the case?

While the Lawyer’s Clients (the Experts and non-Experts) could conceivably agree that this conflict of interest should be set aside, what about opposing Parties? Could it not result in an unfair Trial by stacking the deck against them?

Something seems off about this.

6. Such A Conflict In Ongoing Case?!?!

Pages 39-43 of the Statement of Claim spell out the qualifications and education of Denis Rancourt. And yes, it is quite impressive. However, no facts are pleaded to demonstrate that Rancourt has been harmed in any way by these restrictions, or that he has suffered any losses. He is clearly being introduced as an expert witness.

It’s not just that Rancourt is to be paid a fee for his time and trouble. That would be one thing. Here, he is a Plaintiff in an $11 million lawsuit — which he doubles as an Expert in. It stands to reason that he could make $1 to $2 million is the case is successful, which is a conflict of interest. Even if he is unbiased, this conflict will not be lost on the Court — or the other lawyers.

Is this normal? Are Experts typically interested Parties in the cases they participate in? Is there some exception or clause in the law that allows for this to happen? Is this a common practice that just isn’t discussed much? This appears to be the sort of thing that would jeopardize fair proceedings, but who knows?

Note: this is not an attempt to defend the nonsense that has gone on Federally, Provincially, Municipally and even in other countries. All of those people should be tried for crimes against humanity. The CV hoax is extensively outlined in this series. However, all problems need to be called out.

There are of course other issues, such as missing service addresses, and no defenses filed, but they have been addressed elsewhere.

The Statement of Claim was released publicly, but with most Plaintiff names redacted. Anyone who wants the unedited version can get a copy for free from the Ontario Superior Court (Civil Division) in Toronto.

Posted on

Freedom Of Information Requests By Fluoride Free Peel On Virus Isolation

A site worth checking out is https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/. They have compiled considerable research on fluoridation, and have filed a small mountain of requests for documentation on the isolation of this “virus”.

1. Mass Filings Of FOI Requests

Beyond this single article, there is a larger issue to consider: filing freedom-of-information requests (also called access-to-information requests). These can be beneficial for research, or other reasons. True, Governments can, and often will, redact information, but they will often give something. Or in this case, it’s what they admit they don’t have that is of considerable interest.

2. Results Of Those FOI Requests

Of course, this nowhere near all of the responses or requests. Still, it’s pretty strange to have a test for such a virus. Even more absurd to be working on dozens of vaccines to cure it.

3. Comment By Christine Massey Of FFP

The public needs to understand that worldwide belief in “COVID-19” is based on fraudulent science, fraudulent tests and fraudulent diagnoses, not the scientific method.
.
Here is an excerpt from an email I sent to a Kingston Councillor recently:
.
Investigation is needed to determine whether a new virus is causing disease. Public health figures don’t simply “know” these things. There are well -established, logic-based steps (known as Koch’s Postulates) that have been taught in universities for decades as the accepted means of determining the existence of a new contagious pathogen. They were modified slightly years ago for use with a suspected virus.
.
Step 1 is isolation/purification – separate the thing from the host and everything else; then do experiments with it to see if it can replicate in healthy host cells, cause the disease question, etc. Instead, in practice, virologists have been doing the exact opposite – adulterating a patient sample with genetic material and toxic drugs and irrationally blaming observed effects to a cell line on “the virus” that no one even tried to find in the patient sample. They perform completely meaningless PCR tests that are utterly incapable of determining the presence of an intact virus (let alone disease caused by a virus), they make meaningless comparisons with fabricated (not discovered) “SARS-COV-2 genomes” and call that “isolation”.
.
That is not science, it’s wild speculation/fantasy and it’s blatantly fraudulent.

Here is their most recent publication, which compiles the results of some 34 requests for information. Quite the effort. A thank you is extended to everyone at Fluoride Free Peel for putting all of this together.

4. 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 “Great Reset“. The Gates Foundation finances: the WHO, the US CDC, GAVI, ID2020, John Hopkins University, Imperial College London, the Pirbright Institute, the BBC, and individual pharmaceutical companies. Also: there is little to no science behind what our officials are doing; they promote degenerate behaviour; the Australian Department of Health admits the PCR tests don’t work; the US CDC admits testing is heavily flawed; and The International Health Regulations are legally binding. See here, here, and here. The media is paid off, and our democracy is thoroughly compromised, as shown: here, here, here, and here.

5. Previous Solutions Offered

For serious suggestions offered, on many different subjects, check here. Complaining and criticizing is one thing, but real answers have to be proposed as some point. These proposals, (such as FOI requests, taping and documenting), should be worth serious consideration.

Posted on

Serious Proposal: Mass Filings Of Complaints To Get Public Health Officers’ Licenses Revoked

It’s past time to fight back. Here is an idea that is worth consideration: mass filings of complaints against Chief Medical Officers in various Provinces in Territories. Go after local Health Officers if they have done something. Go after Deputy Medical Officers. The complaints are free to file, and they have to responded to. It’s not optional.

1. Colleges Which License Canadian Doctors

Alberta College Of Physicians And Surgeons
Deena Hinshaw

BC College Of Physicians And Surgeons
Bonnie Henry

Manitoba College Of Physicians And Surgeons
Brent Roussin

New Brunswick College Of Nurses And Physicians
Jennifer Wylie-Russell

Newfoundland College Of Physicians And Surgeons
Janice Fitzgerald

Northwest Territories Physicians
Kami Kandola

Nova Scotia College Of Physicians And Surgeons
Robert Strang

Nunavit Physicians
Michael Patterson

Ontario College Of Physicians And Surgeons
Theresa Tam
Barbara Yaffe
David Williams

Quebec College Des Medecins
Horacio Arruda

PEI College Of Physicians And Surgeons
Heather Morrison

Saskatchewan College Of Physicians And Surgeons
Saqib Shahab

Yukon Medical Council – Physician Licensing
Brendan Hanley

2. Why Even Attempt This Action?

Given the “restrictions” that various so-called medical experts have imposed, and based on this pseudo-science, it is past time to get rid of them. By get rid of, this doesn’t just mean remove them from the position of Public Health Officer. It means ending their medical careers altogether.

What These Dictates Lead To
-Causing mass panic over a virus that in all honesty, probably hasn’t even been isolated
-Arbitrarily closing down so-called “non-essential” businesses
-Causing mass bankruptcies and foreclosures
-Causing depressions and suicides
-Closing down religious services while booze and abortion remain open
-Limiting access to preventative care
-Limiting the gathering sizes of people
-Limiting rights to peacefully assemble and protest
-Sabotaging the education of children
-Compliant media giving glowing reviews
-Putting travel restrictions in place
-Handing out tickets, threatening arrests
-Pushing masks KNOWING that they do nothing
-Demanding establishments keep customer information
-Pushing the “Great Reset” the entire time

Take your pick. The list of civil rights abuses by these so-called experts is a long one. Now, this isn’t to let politicians off the hook. They WILLINGLY abdicated their duties to govern and allow unelected bureaucrats to rule by decree.

Will any of them get lose their licenses? Who knows, but a deluge of complaints might help. At a bare minimum, it would force the various Colleges to put (in writing) what their positions are.

Health care (for the most part), is a Provincial matter, and Public Health Officers are doctors who are licensed by their Province, (and possible other ones). File complaints, and get formal investigations opened.

File Federally.
File Provincially.
File Municipally.

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 “Great Reset“. The Gates Foundation finances: the WHO, the US CDC, GAVI, ID2020, John Hopkins University, Imperial College London, the Pirbright Institute, the BBC, and individual pharmaceutical companies. Also: there is little to no science behind what our officials are doing; they promote degenerate behaviour; the Australian Department of Health admits the PCR tests don’t work; the US CDC admits testing is heavily flawed; and The International Health Regulations are legally binding. See here, here, and here. The media is paid off, and our democracy is thoroughly compromised, as shown: here, here, here, and here.

4. Previous Solutions Offered

For serious suggestions offered, on many different subjects, check here. Complaining and criticizing is one thing, but real answers have to be proposed as some point. These proposals should be worth serious consideration.

Posted on

Serious Suggestion For Gaining Entry To Stores Despite Mask Demands

Do you want to go shopping but cringe at the new mask requirements? Well, here are some suggestions that should help in most cases.

1. Human Rights In Canada, By Province

Alberta Human Rights Commission
British Columbia Human Rights Code
Manitoba Human Rights Commission
New Brunswick Human Rights Commission
Newfoundland & Labrador Human Rights
Northwest Territories Human Rights Commission
Nova Scotia And Human Rights
Ontario Human Rights Code
PEI Human Rights Commission
Quebec Human Rights And Freedoms
Saskatchewan Human Rights Code
Yukon Human Rights Commission

2. A Few Cautionary Warnings

This should go without saying, but will be said anyway: DO NOT be belligerent, threatening, aggressive, or swearing when attempting this. Don’t be intoxicated in any way either. Business owners might look for any reason to ban you from the premises, and such behaviour may give them legitimate grounds.

The above warning applies even more so to large men talking to women working in the store. Yes, this is sexist, but play along anyway. You do not want to provide any excuse to boot you out.

Another bit of advice: if you concerned about getting kicked out for life, or burning bridges, start with someplace you don’t normally go. Even better if it is quite a ways away. Again, this is just to be careful.

3. Read Up On The Law In Advance

First, you will want to read up on the Human Rights Legislation in your province. From the British Columbia Human Rights Code, we see the following passages:

Discrimination and intent
2 Discrimination in contravention of this Code does not require an intention to contravene this Code.

Discrimination in accommodation, service and facility
8 (1) A person must not, without a bona fide and reasonable justification,
.
(a) deny to a person or class of persons any accommodation, service or facility customarily available to the public, or
.
(b) discriminate against a person or class of persons regarding any accommodation, service or facility customarily available to the public
.
because of the race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or age of that person or class of persons.
.
(2) A person does not contravene this section by discriminating
.
(a) on the basis of sex, if the discrimination relates to the maintenance of public decency or to the determination of premiums or benefits under contracts of life or health insurance, or
.
(b) on the basis of physical or mental disability or age, if the discrimination relates to the determination of premiums or benefits under contracts of life or health insurance.

Using the BC Human Rights Code as an example, it is abundantly clear that a shop or store owner cannot discriminate against people based on any “physical or mental disability”. If wearing a mask makes breathing difficult, than that alone is enough to satisfy the requirement.

Businesses are required to make accommodations to people with disabilities. It isn’t optional.

Note: stores, shops and service providers are not allowed to pry into the specifics of what that disability may be. They are prohibited from trying to get that information.

An observant reader will notice Section 2. This states that no intent is required on the part of anyone to be discriminatory. While that (in many cases), may be open to abuse, it would be very helpful here.

4. Document Your Encounter With A Cellphone

A possible encounter might go something like this. Head to the establishment, and walk into the building as normal.

[A] If stopped by an employee telling you to wear a mask or leave, pull out your cellphone (or other such recording device). Audio is fine, and video may be off-putting.

[B] State the time, date, and location into your phone, and ask the employee to repeat him or herself. If you are asked if you are recording, admit it, and state that it’s legal under Canadian law.

[C] Inform the employee that you have a condition — but do not specify — which impedes your ability to wear a mask

[D] Inform the employee that the (specify) Human Rights Code requires employees in services available to the public to make accommodations.

[E] Inform the employee that there are always exemptions — regardless of whether it is a municipal bylaw, a provincial law, or simply store policy. Ask why those exemptions are not publicly displayed.

[F] If asked for details, inform the employee that it is private medical information, and they have no legal right to demand it in return for entry.

[G] If pressed, repeat to the employee that they have no right to demand this information.

[H] Reiterate that the (specify) Human Rights Code prohibits discrimination. Give the specific section number. If applicable, state that (other section) doesn’t require intent for there to be discrimination.

[I] If still not granted entry, ask the employee this question very deliberately: “Am I being refused entry because of my condition?”

[J] Feel free to ask a second time, just so there is no misunderstanding. Also, feel free to ask for the full name.

This is the critical point. The person will either: (a) admit you entry; or (b) knowingly state on tape that you are being refused because of your disability. It would take nerves of steel to tell a person “no” when pressed like this. However, if it does happen, you have a taped, documented case of discrimination.

Remember, this is not about picking a fight, but in enforcing your human rights to patronize businesses that you need to. If you are allowed in without a mask, accept the victory and move on.

Keep in mind, that many employees are stressed out, and don’t want a fight. If it becomes clear that you are prepared, and know the law, many (most?) will back down and let you go through. Try to understand their perspective.

If pushing the disability angle doesn’t suit you, bear in mind that human rights codes also allow for exemptions based on religion. Apparently, the virus doesn’t attack devout followers.

And again, see Part 2 about behaviour to not engage in.

Now, as for more information about the “planned-emic”, and other constructive suggestions (on various topics), see the sections below.

5. 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 “Great Reset“. The Gates Foundation finances: the WHO, the US CDC, GAVI, ID2020, John Hopkins University, Imperial College London, the Pirbright Institute, the BBC, and individual pharmaceutical companies. Also: there is little to no science behind what our officials are doing; they promote degenerate behaviour; the Australian Department of Health admits the PCR tests don’t work; the US CDC admits testing is heavily flawed; and The International Health Regulations are legally binding. See here, here, and here. The media is paid off, and our democracy is thoroughly compromised, as shown: here, here, here, and here.

6. Previous Solutions Offered

For serious suggestions offered, on many different subjects, check here. Complaining and criticizing is one thing, but real answers have to be proposed as some point. These proposals should be worth serious consideration.