Category: Corruption

Posted on

CV #37(C): WHO’s Own Documents Show It Knew The Entire Time PCR Testing Was A Fraud

The PCR tests (polymerase chain reaction) are held up publicly as this gold standard for testing for infectious diseases. But what does the World Health Organization actually have to say about this?

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

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

2. Important Links

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

Kary Mullis, Creator Of The PCR Test

3. BCPHO Bonnie Henry Getting Duper’s Delight

BC Provincial Health Officer Bonnie admits that Covid-19 testing is highly flawed and can have a 30% false negative rate. She also admits there’s no science behind her dictate that gatherings of 50 were allowed. Currently visitors and gatherings are prohibited.

That being said, it doesn’t mean this lunatic can’t enjoy a moment of fun now and again. It’s not like she destroyed B.C., or anything like that. The reality is that there is no science behind nearly everything that she’s been doing.

Bonnie is on record saying that she doesn’t support mass testing of asymptomatic people, since false positives could overwhelm hospitals. In other words, she’s fully aware that it doesn’t work.

4. BCCDC Record Shows 30% Error A Hoax

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 respiratory tract 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 detection in 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

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).

That comes from the BC CDC, the BC Centre for Disease Control. To summarize, the tests can’t tell for certain whether a person is positive or negative, regardless of the result.

Moreover, the Government can’t tell you what the error rates are either for false positives or false negatives, because they don’t know. When Bonnie Henry says 30%, she is quoting a statistic that is throw around for other viruses. A little transparency would be nice.

5. WHO’s January 17, 2020 Testing Guidance

[Page 1]
3. Specimen collection and shipment Rapid collection and testing of appropriate specimens from suspected cases is a priority and should be guided by a laboratory expert. As extensive testing is still needed to confirm the 2019-nCoV and the role of mixed infection has not been verified, multiple tests may need to be performed and sampling sufficient clinical material is recommended. Local guidelines should be followed regarding patient or guardian’s informed consent for specimen collection, testing and potentially future research.

This is a warning sign. Multiple tests are recommended since a mixed infection cannot be ruled out. How reliable can the test be then>

6. WHO’s March 19, 2020 Testing Guidance

[Page 2/3]
Laboratory-confirmed case by NAAT in areas with established COVID-19 virus circulation.
In areas where COVID-19 virus is widely spread a simpler algorithm might be adopted in which, for example, screening by rRT-PCR of a single discriminatory target is considered sufficient.

One or more negative results do not rule out the possibility of COVID-19 virus infection. A number of factors could lead to a negative result in an infected individual, including:
 poor quality of the specimen, containing little patient material (as a control, consider determining whether there is adequate human DNA in the sample
by including a human target in the PCR testing).
 the specimen was collected late or very early in the infection.
 the specimen was not handled and shipped appropriately.
 technical reasons inherent in the test, e.g. virus mutation or PCR inhibition.

If a negative result is obtained from a patient with a high index of suspicion for COVID-19 virus infection, particularly when only upper respiratory tract specimens were collected, additional specimens, including from the lower respiratory tract if possible, should be collected and tested.

Each NAAT run should include both external and internal controls, and laboratories are encouraged to participate in external quality assessment schemes when they become available. It is also recommended to laboratories that order their own primers and probes to perform entry testing/validation on functionality and potential contaminants.

Even if a person tests negative, it doesn’t mean they are actually negative. Even if they test negative multiple times, it doesn’t mean they are cleared. These tests aren’t even screening for the virus, but rather, just a single marker. And of course, there is this little gem below, from the bottom of page 3.

Viral culture
Virus isolation is not recommended as a routine diagnostic procedure.

It’s not recommended to try to isolate the virus for the purposes of diagnosis. Just checking for a few (or even one) target is considered sufficient. And the test can’t be that reliable when it’s recommended to retest based on suspicion.

7. WHO’s September 11, 2020 Testing Guidance

[Page 5]
Nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT)
Wherever possible, suspected active SARS-CoV-2 infections should be tested with NAAT, such as rRT-PCR. NAAT assays should target the SARS-CoV-2 genome. Since there is currently no known circulation of SARS-CoV-1 globally, a sarbecovirus-specific sequence is also a reasonable target. For commercial assays, interpretation of results should be done according to the instructions for use. Optimal diagnostics consist of a NAAT assay with at least two independent targets on the SARS-CoV-2 genome, however, in areas with widespread transmission of SARS-CoV-2, a simple algorithm might be adopted with one single discriminatory target. When using a one-target assay, it is recommended to have a strategy in place to monitor for mutations that might affect performance. For more details, see section below on “Background information on monitoring for mutations in primer and probe regions”.

[Page 6]
Careful interpretation of weak positive NAAT results is needed, as some of the assays have shown to produce false signals at high Ct values. When test results turn out to be invalid or questionable, the patient should be resampled and retested. If additional samples from the patient are not available, RNA should be re-extracted from the original samples and retested by highly experienced staff. Results can be confirmed by an alternative NAAT test or via virus sequencing if the viral load is sufficiently high. Laboratories are urged to seek reference laboratory confirmation of any unexpected results

[Page 7]
Rapid diagnostic tests that detect the presence of SARS-CoV-2 viral proteins (antigens) in respiratory tract specimens are being developed and commercialized. Most of these are lateral flow immunoassays (LFI), which are typically completed within 30 minutes. In contrast to NAATs, there is no amplification of the target that is detected, making antigen tests less sensitive. Additionally, false positive (indicating that a person is infected when they are not) results may occur if the antibodies on the test strip also recognize antigens of viruses other than SARS-CoV-2, such other human coronaviruses.

[Page 8]
Virus isolation is not recommended as a routine diagnostic procedure. All procedures involving viral isolation in cell culture require trained staff and BSL-3 facilities. A thorough risk assessment should be carried out when culturing specimens from potential SARSCoV-2 patients for other respiratory viruses because SARS-CoV-2 has been shown to grow on a variety of cell lines

Some points to take away from here: (a) still not testing for the virus, but for a single target; (b) false positives are still a significant problem; (c) antigen tests cannot distinguish between different viruses; and (d) virus isolation is still not recommended

8. WHO’s January 13, 2021 Testing Guidance

WHO guidance Diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2 states that careful interpretation of weak positive results is needed (1). The cycle threshold (Ct) needed to detect virus is inversely proportional to the patient’s viral load. Where test results do not correspond with the clinical presentation, a new specimen should be taken and retested using the same or different NAT technology.

WHO reminds IVD users that disease prevalence alters the predictive value of test results; as disease prevalence decreases, the risk of false positive increases (2). This means that the probability that a person who has a positive result (SARS-CoV-2 detected) is truly infected with SARS-CoV-2 decreases as prevalence decreases, irrespective of the claimed specificity.

Most PCR assays are indicated as an aid for diagnosis, therefore, health care providers must consider any result in combination with timing of sampling, specimen type, assay specifics, clinical observations, patient history, confirmed status of any contacts, and epidemiological information.

More guidance which give legitimate concerns that the tests themselves are completely bogus. If retesting is recommended so readily, what does it say about the reliability of the test? If test accuracy is dependent on community prevalence, what does it say about the test? If “patient history” must be confirmed, then what does it say about the test?

9. Barbara Yaffe: Mouthpiece For Ford/WHO

Interestingly, this research has answered an old question. Ontario Deputy Medical Officer Barbara Yaffe has been the butt of many jokes ever since she said that you can get 50% false positives when testing in an area where there isn’t very much Covid. It’s likely that she was simply parroting back one of WHO’s talking points, but wasn’t able to explain it in any sensible manner.

As for those vaccines that are already being rolled out in Canada, Yaffe admits they don’t know if they actually work. It’s a nice bait-and-switch, considering the public has been repeatedly told that testing was a success.

Then again, she just says whatever they write down for her, so there probably isn’t much thinking done at all on her part.

Not much different than Deborah Birx in the United States. If half of your cases are false positives, then there’s something seriously wrong with the test. There’s no good way to spin things.

10. Test’s Creator Denounces Infection Usage

Kary Mullis, the creator of the PCR test, has stated publicly that it was never designed to test for active infection, and hence, is useless for that task. It makes sense, as such a setup wouldn’t be able to distinguish between dead genetic material, and something that was active.

11. WHO Redefines “Herd Immunity”

The World Health Organization was recently called out for changing the definition of “herd immunity”. Previously, it meant immunity from some vaccination, or previous infection. It was changed to only reflect the vaccination option. After the public caught on, however, it was restored to the original version.

Posted on

CV #4(C): Crestview Strategy’s Ashton Arsenault Takes Over Lobbying For GAVI

The Gates Foundation lobbies the Canadian Government, but not directly. It uses proxies. GAVI (the Global Vaccine Alliance), is heavily funded by Gates, and it employs a lobbying firm called Crestview Strategy. Crestview was co-founded by Rob Silver, husband of Katie Telford, and is well connected. Lobbyists are dispatched to Ottawa to try to get more taxpayer money.

The most recent to sign up is Ashton Arsenault.

Keep in mind, lobbying is legal (for the most part), as long as all meetings are documented, and available to the public. Doesn’t make it any less underhanded though.

1. Ashton Arsenault Latest Shill For GAVI

Ashton Arsenault is a senior consultant with Crestview Strategy based out of the Ottawa office.

Prior to joining Crestview, Ashton worked as a political aid on Parliament Hill where he was responsible for parliamentary affairs and issues management for the Minister of National Revenue. Prior to that, he worked as a legislative researcher in the Official Opposition Office in Prince Edward Island. He continues to volunteer in electoral politics at the federal level.

Ashton has been involved in politics for several years, serving as a campaign manager for a Conservative candidate in the 2015 General Election. As well, he served as the University of Prince Edward Island’s Chair of Council from 2011-2012.

Ashton holds a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science from the University of Prince Edward Island and a Master of Political Management from Carleton University in Ottawa.

Zakery Blais worked for (Liberal) MP David Lametti, and Jason Clarke volunteered for (Liberal) candidates in Ottawa for the 2015 election. Arsenault has ties to the Conservative Party of Canada, showing that this is not simply a partisan issue.

Make no mistake, lobbying is a very effective way for corporations to get what they want. In total, GAVI has secured over $1 billion in funding, from different administrations.

2. Arsenault Also Represents Medicago

Arsenault is also lobbying on behalf of Medicago, which is working with GlaxoSmithKline to develop a plant-based vaccine for the coronavirus.

3. Arsenault Frequently A CPC Talking Head

Ashton Arsenault regularly appears on television in order to sell CPC talking points to a gullible crowd. This is, of course, not unique to Conservatives. All of these “debates” on screen are arranged to address pre-planned scripts for the public.

Arsenault has donated several times to the Conservative Party of Canada, but the amounts aren’t enough to draw much attention.

4. Arsenault Replaces Zakery Blais

Zakery Blais was previously a lobbyist for Crestview Strategy, on behalf of GAVI. He appears to have since left the firm. Blais also worked for David Lametti (yes, the sitting Attorney General), back when he was a Parliamentary Secretary.

5. What Else Crestview Strategy Does

Drive winning arguments.
.
Crestview Strategy effectively represents the interests of corporations, not-for-profits and industry associations to achieve results with governments around the world.
.
No longer is a winning outcome based on ‘who you know’ or the ‘magic meeting’. It is about contributing to the policy process, presenting a case that is supported by authentic community voices, verified impact and compelling insight. And getting in front of the right decision makers and opinion leaders to make that case.

Drive winning engagement.
.
We build and run campaigns that mobilize support and impact change for both political and corporate clients.
.
Mobilization campaigns are premised on the simple fact that for elected officials, the single most influential voice in shaping their decision is that of their local voters, influencers, and community leaders.
.
The benefits of mobilization go beyond just a one-off campaign. The long-term goal of mobilization is to increase engagement potential, provide greater value for members, and to increase the share of voice and influence outcomes.

Keep in mind that firms like Crestview Strategy employ operatives who cover multiple parties. By doing this, it ensures that influence peddling will be effective, regardless of who officially sits in power. It’s important to note that few politicians actually make their own decisions.

(1) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=368098&regId=906375
(2) https://www.crestviewstrategy.ca/ashton-arsenault
(3) https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashton-arsenault-3a241056/
(4) https://archive.is/dQIoW
(5) https://www.linkedin.com/in/zakery-blais-13a76b118/
(6) https://archive.is/tybUn

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

Bill C-405: Erin O’Toole Tried To Make It Easier For Companies To Transfer Employee Pensions In 2018

In 2018, the CPC MP for Durham, Erin O’Toole, introduced C-405, a Private Member’s Bill to make changes regarding employee pension plans. While touted as some great overhaul for workers, things are not what they appear to be.

1. Pensions, Benefits, Worker Entitlements

The public is often unaware of what is happening with their pensions and other social benefits. Often, changes are made with little to no input from the people who are directly impacted by it. Unfortunate, but we need to constantly be on top of these things.

2. Important Links

Private Member’s Bill C-405 Introduced By Erin O’Toole
Text Of Bill C-405 (First Reading)
Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985
Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act
Open Parliament: Announcement From Erin O’Toole
Open Parliament: Debate On Bill C-405

3. Bill C-405 Introduced In June 2018

Bill for Private Members rarely get far in the House of Commons, let alone pass. Often, they are just a way to signal to the sponsor that efforts are being made. O’Toole’s Bill didn’t get anywhere in Parliament, but it’s unclear how serious he was about pushing it.

4. Pension Benefits Standards Act

Termination and Winding-up of Pension Plans
Marginal note:Deemed termination
.
29 (1) The revocation of registration of a pension plan shall be deemed to constitute termination of the plan.

Effect of termination on assets
.
(8) On the termination of the whole of a pension plan, all assets of the plan that are to be used for the purpose of providing pension benefits or other benefits continue to be subject to this Act.

The language of section 29(8) of the Pension Benefits Standards Act is quite clear. Once a pension plan is terminated, the funds must be dispersed to those who have contributed to the plan. Here is part of what O’Toole wanted to add.

Amendment — liquidation, assignment or bankruptcy of the employer
(8.‍1) If an employer is the subject of proceedings under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act or Part III of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and the amount required to permit a pension plan to satisfy all obligations with respect to pension benefits and other benefits to be provided under the plan is greater than the assets of the plan, the administrator may
.
(a) despite subsection 10.‍1(2) and the terms of the plan, amend the plan to change the nature or form of the pension benefits and other benefits to be provided under the plan; or
.
(b) apply to the Superintendent for permission to transfer or permit the transfer of any part of the assets or liabilities of the pension plan to another pension plan.
Consent to amendment
.
(8.‍2) Before a pension plan may be amended or part of its assets or liabilities transferred in accordance with subsection (8.‍1),
.
(a) the administrator must provide any prescribed information, in the prescribed manner, to the members or former members, to any other persons entitled to pension benefits and to the representatives of the members or former members and of any other persons entitled to pension benefits; and
.
(b) the amendment or transfer must be approved by more than one third of the members or former members and of any other persons entitled to pension benefits or by the representatives of more than one third of the members or former members and of any other persons entitled to pension benefits.
.
No action against administrator
(8.‍3) No action lies against any administrator for amending a plan or for transferring or permitting the transfer of any part of the assets or liabilities of a pension plan to another pension plan in compliance with subsections (8.‍1) and (8.‍2).

Bill C-405 would have allowed employers to transfer the pension funds rather than pay out if the company were in serious financial difficulties.

As for the consent, that is an extremely low threshold. Forget a super majority, or even a simple majority. Only 1/3 would have to approve for this to happen. Even worse, the “representatives”, or people claiming to represent the workers could simply approve on their behalf. This seems ripe for abuse.

While transferring pension funds to another company may make that more solvent, the reality is, those employees did not sign up for it initially. An argument can be made that they should simply be allowed to collect on their entitlements, and walk away. If an opt-out were provided so individual members could cash out, it would nullify a lot of the criticism.

5. Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act

Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act
.
3 The Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act is amended by adding the following after section 11.‍52:
.
Limitation — pension plans
11.‍53 No order may be made under this Part respecting the approval of a plan offering incentives to certain directors, officers or employees to remain in the employ of the debtor company for the period during which the com­pany is expected to be subject to proceedings under this Act unless the court is satisfied
.
(a) if the debtor company participates in a prescribed pension plan for the benefit of its employees, that the relevant parties have entered into an agreement, approved by the relevant pension regulator, respecting the payment of the amounts referred to in subparagraphs 6(6)‍(a)‍(ii) and (iii);
.
(b) that the directors, officers or employees are necessary for the successful restructuring or liquidation of the debtor company or for the protection and the maximization of the value of the company’s property;
.
(c) that the directors, officers or employees have received a job offer from another person than the debtor company and the offering of the incentives is necessary for their retention in the employ of the debtor company; and
.
(d) that the amount of the incentive offer
.
(i) is not greater than ten times the amount of a similar incentive offer given to an employee of the debtor company for any purpose during the previous calendar year; or
.
(ii) if no incentive referred to in subparagraph (i) was offered, is not greater than an amount equal to 25% of the amount of any similar incentive given to a director or officer of the debtor company for any purpose during the previous calendar year.

Incentives and bonuses (primarily aimed at officers and directors), would still be allowed to be offered, and not be vulnerable to a court order. However, those incentives would be capped. Seems strange that heads of failing companies should be offered any type of incentives.

6. Does This Bill Benefit Workers?

If a company is failing, and going under, the right thing to do is to pay out its pension holdings to the people who have contributed to it. Transferring elsewhere, especially with such a low threshold, seems like shifting the goal posts. At a minimum, those who have contributed should be able to just take a pay out and leave.

People who run failing companies shouldn’t be getting bonuses, even if they are capped. This just rewards incompetence, often at the cost of other assets of the company.

The legislation was promoted as a way to protect pensions and to keep them going. However, such transfers (possible with just a minority of support), potentially remove all control from workers. And as with everything, the devil is in the details.

For now, it appears to be dead.

Posted on

Psychological Manipulation And Techniques To Overcome “Vaccine Hesitancy”

One way to “persuade” people to get vaccinated is to simply strip them of their rights. Sure, the Government won’t tie you down to get it, but good luck enjoying your life otherwise. This is David Williams, the Chief Medical Officer of Ontario.

A point of clarification: the research into “vaccine hesitancy” isn’t about CREATING safe vaccines. Instead, it’s about CONVINCING people that they already are. Big difference.

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

The rest of the series is here. Many lies, lobbying, conflicts of interest, and various globalist agendas operating behind the scenes, obscuring the vile agenda called the “Great Reset“. The Gates Foundation finances: the WHO, the US CDC, GAVI, ID2020, John Hopkins University, Imperial College London, the Pirbright Institute, the BBC, and individual pharmaceutical companies. Also: there is little to no science behind what our officials are doing; they promote degenerate behaviour; and the International Health Regulations are legally binding. See here, here, and here. The media is paid off, and our democracy compromised, shown: here, here, here, and here.

2. Important Links

Ontario Medical Officer David Williams: Boot To Neck
Health Canada On Addressing Vaccine Hesitancy
Canada On Improving Vaccination Rates
Canadian Family Physician Publication
Vaccine Hesitancy Clinic
CBC Smearing Skeptics Of Masks/Vaccines
May 2019 Statement On Canada And Vaccine Hesitancy

Vaccine Hesitancy: Part A; Part B; Part C

3. Be Vague, Avoid Giving Specifics

This infographic uses autism as an example. The trick is to be conclusive (but vague), in stating that there are no harmful effects. It recommends not saying anything meaningful or specific, in order to make it harder to pin down.

4. Only Be “Honest” With Vaccine Accepters

This chart gives different techniques depending how willing to the person is to accept vaccines at all. It suggests being somewhat open about the risks, but emphasizing that they are rare. For the reluctant people, the guidelines say to focus on “building rapport” to get them to take it, but doesn’t specify to list what’s actually in the vaccines. As for the “refusers”, the recommendation is a mild form of gaslighting. Avoid giving direct answers, and focus on the risks of not being vaccinated.

5. Have A Script/Technique Already Prepared

Start early:
Take advantage of prenatal appointments and the first few postnatal appointments. A mixed-methods study showed that parents who delayed or refused vaccines were twice as likely to start thinking about vaccines before their children’s births. A randomized controlled trial showed that adherence to the immunization schedule improved with a single prenatal education session, and another showed benefit from stepwise education interventions prenatally, postnatally, and 1 month after birth. At these appointments, parents can be provided with opportunities to ask questions and with credible take-home materials, websites, or tools.

Present vaccination as the default approach:
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends a presumptive approach to discussions about vaccinations and restating the recommendation after addressing parents’ concerns. A cross-sectional study found that parents were significantly more likely to resist vaccine recommendations if the provider used a participatory rather than a presumptive initiation format (odds ratio of 17.5, 95% CI 1.2 to 253.5) and that when providers pursued the original recommendations, almost half of initially resistant parents subsequently accepted the recommendations. While a follow-up cross-sectional study showed that the presumptive initiation format had a lower-rated visit experience, it was still associated with higher parental vaccine acceptance at the end of the visit.

Be honest about side effects when asked, and reassure parents of a robust vaccine safety system:
A 2014 systematic review showed that serious adverse events associated with vaccines are extremely rare. Perceived risk might be lowered by acknowledging that vaccines might result in mild side effects and very rarely serious adverse events. The Canadian vaccine safety system has 8 components, including an evidence-based approval process, manufacturer regulations, independent recommendations for vaccine use, and ongoing monitoring of adverse events. It has been shown in a randomized controlled trial that providing general information on the adverse event reporting system might increase trust and vaccine acceptance among adults. However, no similar study was found for childhood immunization.

Tell stories in addition to providing scientific facts:
According to a survey of primary care physicians in the United States, the most common communication practices deemed very effective for convincing skeptical parents were personal statements by physicians about what they would do for their own children and about their personal experiences with vaccine safety among their patients. Stories and images highlighting the effects of VPDs improved attitudes toward vaccination according to a randomized controlled trial, especially for individuals who had lower confidence in vaccines. However, another randomized controlled trial showed that dramatic narratives and images resulted in no significant change in intention to vaccinate and even decreased intention among those who had the least favourable perception. However, this study tested Web-based messages only. Although more evidence is needed on the topic, storytelling, which has commonly been used by the antivaccine movement, has been proposed as a possible messaging technique to supplement evidence-based information.

Build trust with parents:
A recent review found that parental trust in a provider helps ensure vaccine compliance. A qualitative study reported that a mother’s trust is obtained when a provider spends time discussing vaccines, does not deride her concerns, is knowledgeable, and provides satisfactory answers. Other qualitative studies identified respect, empathy, and tailored information as aspects of communication competence.

Address pain:
Pain associated with vaccination is a concern for many parents and children. Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines have been developed to reduce vaccination-associated.

Focus on protection for the child and community:
Necessity of vaccines is the top concern from Canadian parents, and a study conducted in Quebec found that one of the strongest factors associated with parental vaccine hesitancy was the belief that VPDs were not serious. A study conducted in the United States had similar findings. To highlight the importance of individual protection, the use of motivational interviewing could be considered. A recent Canadian randomized controlled trial showed that motivational interviewing on maternity wards increased the intention to vaccinate by 20% and the likelihood of complete vaccination status by 9%. A systematic review concluded that there might be some parental willingness to vaccinate children for the benefit of others; however, its relative importance as a motivating tool is uncertain.

Note that throughout this, there is no suggestion that the doctor have a frank and open discussion about what is actually in vaccines, the gaps in knowledge, or the long term effects. The recommendation is to build trust, so that the patient will not ask difficult questions and just take it. The entire approach can be described as “shut up and trust me”. Again, doctors are guided to be vague when answering questions.

6. Set Up Actual Vaccine Hesitancy Clinic

Again, the focus is on “building trust” and “forming a relationship”, but never a focus on educating the patient on what is in the vaccines, and the long term effects. Also, guilt trip the people by implying that it’s necessary in order for life to return to normal.

7. Social Media Manipulation, Censorship

There are many ways to “put one’s thumb on the scale” to ensure that the right, pro-vaccination messages are what is seen and heard online. Some techniques include:

(a) Flood social media with pro-vaxx content
(b) Automatically direct people to Government sites
(c) Take down sites which contradict the Government
(d) Get certain accounts demonetized
(e) Manipulate search algorithms

8. Deliberate Gaslighting Of Critics, Skeptics

There is the option of intentionally smearing people as emotional and bigoted for asking legitimate questions about masks and vaccines. While this CBC video explicitly claims to oppose shaming and humiliation, it’s tone seems to support exactly that.

9. Not Limited To Current “Pandemic”

No, this situation isn’t unique to 2020. Governments and NGOs have for many years been looking at ways to get more people vaccinated.

10. Patients Not Provided Real Information

Much of the research involves techniques of “building a relationship”, or of “building a rapport”, or of “being sympathetic”. This does nothing to address the litany of legitimate concerns and questions that many have about the chemicals being injected into their bodies.

Even more disturbingly, there aren’t recommendations that physicians and nurses take the time and effort to research and understand exactly what the chemicals are.

In fact, much of the published research explicitly recommends avoiding real discussion, especially with people who have done their homework — so called “vaccine refusers”. In effect, it encourages health care workers to betray their oath and obligations regarding informed consent.

If this is health care, then the entire system is broken beyond repair.

A telltale sign of deception is when a person is asked increasingly direct questions, but remains vague about the answers. That is exactly what is implied with these techniques to overcome “vaccine hesitancy”.

Posted on

CV #24(C): Vaccine Impact Modelling Consortium, More Bogus Science

The Vaccine Impact Modelling Consortium: just another group involved in the junk science of computer modelling for epidemics. It in under the umbrella of Imperial College London, and is heavily funded by Gates and GAVI. Of course, GAVI is heavily funded by Gates.

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

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

2. VIMC Key Partners

https://www.vaccineimpact.org/partners/

About us
The Vaccine Impact Modelling Consortium coordinates the work of several research groups modelling the impact of vaccination programmes worldwide.

The Consortium was established at the end of 2016 for a period of five years, and is currently coordinated by secretariat based at Imperial College London.

As its core objective, the Consortium aims to deliver more sustainable, efficient, and transparent approach to generating disease burden and vaccine impact estimates. Furthermore, the Consortium will work on aggregating the estimates across a portfolio of twelve vaccine-preventable diseases and further advancing the research agenda in the field of vaccine impact modelling.

The Consortium is funded by Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and the data generated by the Consortium will support the evaluation of the two organisations’ existing vaccination programmes, and inform potential future investments and vaccine scale-up opportunities.

https://www.vaccineimpact.org/aboutus/

Strange that the coronavirus isn’t listed. After all, this group is closely tied to Gates and GAVI. However, it seems to be involved in everything else under the sun.

3. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

In 2016, a donation of $5.6 million was awarded to Imperial College London to establish the Vaccine Impact Modelling Consortium. As the name implies, it would work on computer models to predict viruses and vaccine treatments. Of course, models are just predictions, and are not evidence of anything.

BILL & MELINDA GATES FOUNDATION
EIN: 56-2618866
gates.foundation.taxes.2016
gates.foundation.taxes.2017
gates.foundation.taxes.2018

BILL & MELINDA GATES FOUNDATION TRUST
EIN: 91-1663695
gates.foundation.trust.taxes.2018

The tax records are worth going through. The Gates Foundation donates to many universities across the globe. It’s difficult to comprehend without seeing the full list.

4. Know Who This Group Works For

The takeaway here is simple: when research is released, always know who is funding it, and where their allegiances lie. Vaccine Impact Modelling Consortium is no different.