Category: Globalism

Posted on

Bit Of History: WHO Wrote Paper On “Implied Consent” For Vaccinations In 2014

Several years ago, the World Health Organization published a paper on various levels of “consent” required for vaccinating children. It also introduces the idea of “implied consent for children”. Apparently, just going to school after a notice has been given will suffice.

Approaches to obtain informed consent:

  • 1. Written consent
  • 2. Verbal consent
  • 3. Implied consent

It’s the third type that is the most nefarious.

3. An implied consent process by which parents are informed of imminent vaccination through social mobilization and communication, sometimes including letters directly addressed to the parents. Subsequently, the physical presence of the child or adolescent, with or without an accompanying parent at the vaccination session, is considered to imply consent. This practice is based on the opt-out principle and parents who do not consent to vaccination are expected implicitly to take steps to ensure that their child or adolescent does not participate in the vaccination session. This may include not letting the child or adolescent attend school on a vaccination day, if vaccine delivery occurs through schools.

Implied consent procedures are common practice in many countries. However, when children present for vaccination unaccompanied by their parents, it is challenging to determine whether parents indeed provided consent. Therefore, countries are encouraged to adopt procedures that ensure that parents have been informed and agreed to the vaccination. Comprehensive data on whether the approach countries use to deal with consent has changed or evolved over the last decades is not available.

Based on concepts of vaccines as a public good, or on public-health goals of disease elimination and outbreak control, some countries identify one or more vaccines as mandatory in law, or in their policies. Vaccination may, for example, be made a condition for entry into preschool or primary school, or to enable access to welfare benefits. Whether consent is needed for mandatory vaccination depends on the legal nature of the regulations. When mandatory vaccination is established in relevant provisions in law, consent may not be required. If the mandatory nature of vaccination is based on policy, or other forms of soft law, informed consent needs to be obtained as for any other vaccines. Some countries allow individuals to express non-consent (opt-out) and obtain an exemption for mandatory vaccines. This may come with certain conditions, like barring unvaccinated children from attending school during disease outbreaks

Have to cringe at how getting informed consent, or having the parents involved, is seen as an inconvenience. Then again, many concerned parents would put a stop to such things.

(1) https://www.who.int/immunization/programmes_systems/policies_strategies/consent_note_en.pdf
(2) WHO Schools And Implied Not Direct Consent
(3) https://www.sott.net/article/424625-WHO-now-says-your-childs-presence-in-school-counts-as-informed-consent-for-vaccination-parental-presence-not-required

Posted on

Karlyn Borysenko Wants CRT Banned As Anti-White Agenda Is Too Obvious

On June 17, 2021, Karlyn Borysenko released a video, demanding that people stop calling critical race theory (CRT) an anti-white ideology. The entire video is well worth a watch. According to her biography, she is a “organizational psychologist and executive/performance coach.” Clearly, this is a smart person, which makes this claim so striking.

CRITICAL RACE THEORY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH RACE

This doesn’t appear to be trolling. Borysenko it making the straight faced claim that this is the reality. Her major points are as follows:

  1. Borysenko claims that critical race theory isn’t about race, but about power. She says this is done to ultimate promote a communist utopia
  2. Borysenko claims that CRT makes people racist, despite previously statin that CRT isn’t about race. Some nice mental gymnastics
  3. Borysenko claims that CRT will create an actual white power movement in the United States.

Borysenko says that CRT came from the universities in the 1970s, and the idea is that racism exists everywhere. Consequently, it must be “sussed out”. While there is truth to this, she intentionally leaves out that the West has been continuously framed as a “white power” ideology, built on oppression. It doesn’t target any other group.

Also, the bulk of the people promoting the anti-white narrative aren’t white now, are they?

She repeats her contradictory claims that CRT is both: (a) not about race; and (b) can be used to target people of any race. How can an ideology that has nothing to do with race also be incredibly racist?

She claims that CRT can be directed against any group, including black and hispanic. Strange how there aren’t any claims of Mexican power in academia.

She also claims that an “actual white power movement” will result from pushing of CRT. Of course, she conflates violence with whites realizing that they are deliberately under attack. This attempt to steer the narrative has been done before, and she comes across as a less eloquent version of Jordan Peterson.

This dishonest take on CRT has an obvious interpretation: Borysenko doesn’t object to the anti-white agenda overall, but CRT is too overtly so. Can’t have the whites realizing that they are the targets. It’s a question of tactics here, not beliefs.

She makes the assertion that CRT is used to divide people while keeping a certain group in power. Okay, who’s in power? It probably isn’t whites, considering this is the only group it’s legal to discriminate against.

If Borysenko had simply condemned CRT, or claimed that things were being blown out of proportion, there would have been a lot less to question. However, she denies what is obvious, and claims that people organizing to resist it is an “actual white power movement”.

One has to wonder why she is being promoted as a “thought leader”, when many of the things she says are so obviously false.

Borysenko repeatedly makes strawman arguments. People calling CRT what it is are not trying to start any violent movement, they just want the truth told about this. However, she’s being intellectually dishonest when gaslighting such concerns.

Of course, if you start pointing out (with details) that CRT is anti-white, Borysenko has no problems blocking you. In fact, she seems to enjoy the idea of shutting out dissenting views. Her attitude and actions show that she has no interest in openly discussing what is obvious:

Critical race theory is anti-white, and used to condemn whites.

This isn’t just a one off. Borysenko’s YouTube channel is full of such content. On June 11, she did a stream on Robyn DiAngelo, author of “White Fragility”. DiAngelo isn’t white, but likes to condemn them anyway. Go through Borysenko’s work for more examples.

(1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yh0EMfjhqzM
(2) http://www.twitter.com/drkarlynb
(3) https://twitter.com/DrKarlynB/status/1406618460428378120
(4) http://facebook.com/drkarlynb
(5) https://www.linkedin.com/in/karlynborysenko/
(6) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcZgVjM9K34
(7) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Av2HN7e8n8Q
(8) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYTy6x7-5V8

Posted on

President Of CPC National Council, Robert Batherson, Starts Up Own Lobbying Firm

We come to Robert Batherson, the President of the National Council of the CPC. This is yet another example of the revolving door between politics and lobbying.

First elected to National Council in 2016, Robert Batherson has been an active Conservative for more than 25 years. He served as the president of two Nova Scotia electoral district associations and was a member of the National Policy Committee in 2012-2013. Rob has been as active at the provincial level, serving as president of the PC Party of Nova Scotia from 2009 to 2012 and co-chairing the 2006 PC Party of Nova Scotia Leadership Convention.

As Executive Vice President, Public Relations, for one of the largest communications agencies in Atlantic Canada, Rob provides counsel and support to senior leaders in a wide range of sectors. He is an active community volunteer with extensive board governance experience, having chaired both the Halifax Chamber of Commerce and Neptune Theatre Foundation, where he became one of only eight people in the theatre’s 58-year history to be named honourary director in recognition of his service.

Rob holds a Bachelor of Public Relations degree and certificate of proficiency in French from Mount Saint Vincent University.

After a stint in Federal politics, Batherson got involved with Nova Scotia politics. He then spent over a decade at the PR firm “Colour”, which was essentially lobbying and marketing. He’s now back with the Federal Conservative Party, and is the President of the National Council.

In short, Batherson is one of the people who actually run the party, even if very few outside of that circle know who he is. But here’s where things take an ugly turn:

On May 16, 2021, the MacDonald Notebook reported that Batherson was starting up his own PR firm, Harbourview Public Affairs. The Halifax Chamber of Commerce also shared the announcement.

It’s unclear which clients Batherson will be taking on as the Owner of Habourview Public Affairs. Nonetheless, this seems to be a serious conflict of interest. If the CPC had any integrity, they would strip him of his Party role.

Just a hunch, but it’s likely that pharmaceutical companies will be approaching him, given his new found position as the man behind Erin O’Toole

A Few Names To Keep In Mind
Erin O’Toole: ex-Facebook lobbyist, CPC Leader
Amber Ruddy: CURRENT pharma lobbyist, CPC National Council Secretary
Robert Batherson: CURRENT lobbyist, CPC National Council President
Melissa Lantsman: ex-pharma lobbyist, CPC Candidate for Thornhill

(1) https://www.conservative.ca/
(2) https://www.conservative.ca/team/national-council/
(3) https://www.conservative.ca/team-member/robert-batherson/
(4) https://www.linkedin.com/in/robert-batherson-he-him-7601a6a3/
(5) https://archive.is/8dm97
(6) https://www.themacdonaldnotebook.ca/2021/05/16/rob-batherson-incorporates-his-own-pr-company-harbourview-public-affairs/
(7) http://business.halifaxchamber.com/members/member/harbourview-public-affairs-179707
(8) https://secure.llscanada.org/site/TR/MWOY/Atlantic?px=1198385&pg=personal&fr_id=1101
(9) https://www.conservative.ca/team-member/amber-ruddy/

Posted on

Aruna Khilanani, Anti-White Forensic Psychiatrist/Psychoanalyst, Doubles Down

Considering that Khilanani claims her words were taken out of context, it’s best to show the entire video here. She did a follow up interview after the initial talk.

On April 6, Aruna Khilanani, a forensic psychiatrist and psychoanalyst gave a talk at Yale University, where she spoke of violent fantasies about killing white people.

Statement from YSM
On April 6, a speaker who is not affiliated with Yale gave a Child Study Center Grand Rounds talk, with the provocative title “The Psychopathic Problem of the White Mind.” After the event, several faculty members expressed concern to the Yale School of Medicine’s Office of Academic and Professional Development and the Office of Diversity, Equity & Inclusion about the content of the talk.

Based on these concerns, School of Medicine leaders, including Dean Brown and Deputy Dean Latimore, in consultation with the Chair of the Child Study Center, reviewed a recording of the talk and found the tone and content antithetical to the values of the school. Because Grand Rounds are typically posted online after the event and in consideration of Yale’s commitment to the right of free expression, school leaders further reviewed the Report of the Committee on Freedom of Expression at Yale.

In deciding whether to post the video, we weighed our grave concern about the extreme hostility, imagery of violence, and profanity expressed by the speaker against our commitment to freedom of expression. We ultimately decided to post the video with access limited to those who could have attended the talk — the members of the Yale community. To emphasize that the ideas expressed by the speaker conflict with the core values of Yale School of Medicine, we added the disclaimer: “This video contains profanity and imagery of violence. Yale School of Medicine expects the members of our community to speak respectfully to one another and to avoid the use of profanity as a matter of professionalism and acknowledgment of our common humanity. Yale School of Medicine does not condone imagery of violence or racism against any group.”

Instead of outright condemning this, Yale decided to post it, but limit the access of who could watch it. One can only imagine the outrage if the races had been reversed in this case. She now claims she was using metaphors, and wasn’t calling for overt violence.

Khilanani tries to spin this as some sort of social justice mindset, instead of overtly calling for violence. It comes across as incredibly condescending when she tries to “explain” it.

Khilanani has since doubled down, claiming both: (a) that she wasn’t quoted in full context; and (b) justifying how such views would be shaped. See the video at the top. She appeared on BNC news on June 16.

Apparently, white people got triggered (pardon the pun) for Khilanani saying that she fantasized about shooting whites in the head and walking away. She mocks whites for being offended by her words. Despite an initial impression, this woman doesn’t appear to be trolling. She seems to mean the anti-white hatred she spits out.

Also, if the West was built by whites oppressing and slaughtering others, is Khilanani not benefitting from this? Is she not enjoying a Western lifestyle created from the blood and bones of others? There’s no indication she’s about to abandon that life here and move elsewhere.

Treating everyone else just as people isn’t enough, in her mind.

This is racial hatred cloaked as psychological methods and research. Her choice of hosts for a “clarification” interview is interesting as well.

(1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o20tk-QrZiE
(2) https://twitter.com/marclamonthill/status/1405491706842292225
(3) https://medicine.yale.edu/childstudy/education/rounds/
(4) https://yalecollege.yale.edu/get-know-yale-college/office-dean/reports/report-committee-freedom-expression-yale

Posted on

Bill C-11: CPC National Secretary Lobbied For Big Pharma To Get Easier Access To Your Medical Data

Bill C-11, the Digital Charter Implementation Act, is currently before Parliament. At the time of writing this, it has still only undergone the first reading. Some of the more disturbing sections of it were covered previously.

Contrary to what the name may imply, “Digital Charter” doesn’t refer to antiviolence activity, spawned by the Christchurch psy-op. Instead, this is an end run around privacy as we know it.

This piece will focus on big pharma getting its hands on Canadians’ medical information. If this were to pass, then potentially all of this, minus your name and address, would be available to anyone will to purchase it.

What’s particularly disturbing is that one of the people pushing for this is Amber Ruddy, the Secretary of the National Council of the Conservative Party of Canada. She’s also CURRENTLY an employee at Counsel Public Affairs, the lobbying firm, and has Emergent BioSolutions, the company making the AstraZeneca vaccines, as a client.

A November 23, 2020 press release by the Federal Government summarized what it expected to accomplish with Bill C-11. Very interestingly, there will be new exceptions to requiring consent in order to obtain personal information.

CPPA will also promote responsible innovation by reducing regulatory burden. A new exception to consent will address standard business practices; a new regime to clarify how organizations are to handle de-identified personal information, and another new exception to consent to allow organizations to disclose personal information for socially beneficial purposes, such as public health research, for example.

There is nothing ambiguous about this. Public health research could be considered a “socially beneficial purpose” and your records handed over. But in fairness, this has probably been happening for a long time already. This Bill would make it a specifically permitted reason.

Among other things, Ruddy (and her colleagues) wanted to make it easier for drug companies to access “anonymized health data”. What this would mean is that your medical records could be send off to third parties, with the only caveat being that your personal information is removed.

Items like date of birth (showing age), and postal code (showing region) would likely still be included. As would the details of your visits, procedures, medications, and dates performed. Keep in mind, even anonymized accounts can be re-identified based on just a few clues.

Search “GlaxoSmithKline” and “Digital Charter”, it shows 35 registrations over the last few years, including Ruddy.

Transfer to service provider
19 An organization may transfer an individual’s personal information to a service provider without their knowledge or consent.
.
De-identification of personal information
20 An organization may use an individual’s personal information without their knowledge or consent to de-identify the information.
.
Research and development
21 An organization may use an individual’s personal information without their knowledge or consent for the organization’s internal research and development purposes, if the information is de-identified before it is used.

Public Interest
Individual’s interest
29 (1) An organization may collect an individual’s personal information without their knowledge or consent if the collection is clearly in the interests of the individual and consent cannot be obtained in a timely way.
Use
(2) An organization may use an individual’s personal information without their knowledge or consent if the information was collected under subsection (1).

Statistical or scholarly study or research
35 An organization may disclose an individual’s personal information without their knowledge or consent if
(a) the disclosure is made for statistical purposes or for scholarly study or research purposes and those purposes cannot be achieved without disclosing the information;
(b) it is impracticable to obtain consent; and
(c) the organization informs the Commissioner of the disclosure before the information is disclosed.

Socially beneficial purposes
39 (1) An organization may disclose an individual’s personal information without their knowledge or consent if
(a) the personal information is de-identified before the disclosure is made;
(b) the disclosure is made to
(i) a government institution or part of a government institution in Canada,
(ii) a health care institution, post-secondary educational institution or public library in Canada,
(iii) any organization that is mandated, under a federal or provincial law or by contract with a government institution or part of a government institution in Canada, to carry out a socially beneficial purpose, or
(iv) any other prescribed entity; and
(c) the disclosure is made for a socially beneficial purpose.
Definition of socially beneficial purpose
(2) For the purpose of this section, socially beneficial purpose means a purpose related to health, the provision or improvement of public amenities or infrastructure, the protection of the environment or any other prescribed purpose.

The entire Bill is quite long, but those are a few points. While claiming that this legislation gives members of the public wide control over their information, it lays out ways that same private info can be shared with 3rd parties, without the knowledge or consent of that person.

It’s interesting that Conservatives pretend to care about free speech and Bill C-10, but are silent about the erosion of privacy with Bill C-11. Have to wonder if their Secretary is the reason for this.

This is hardly the first such privacy intrusion has been brought forward. A decade ago, Vic Toews gaslighted Canadians who opposed warrantless seizures of their internet data as “standing with the child pornographers”. Seems not much has changed.

For more on Emergent BioSolutions, and other lobbying, check the links below. It’s quite the cesspit, and Ruddy is up to her neck in it.

(1) https://www.conservative.ca/
(2) https://www.conservative.ca/team-member/amber-ruddy/
(3) https://www.parl.ca/LegisInfo/BillDetails.aspx?Language=E&billId=10950130
(4) https://parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/43-2/bill/C-11/first-reading#ID0E0XB0BA
(5) https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/062.nsf/eng/00120.html
(6) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=367534&regId=908352
(7) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/advSrch?V_SEARCH.command=navigate&time=1624013972454
(8) https://canucklaw.ca/bill-c-11-digital-charter-implementation-act-of-canada/

Posted on

Bonnie Henry Lies Again: None Of These Vaccines Are “Approved” In Canada, AZ Isn’t Safe

What a lovely talk, if you turn off your brain. AstraZeneca is being pulled off the shelf in many countries because of the side effects, but it’s safe to use in Canada. The “approved” label sounds great, if you aren’t aware of the terminology.

(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. Commonly referred to as an emergency use authorization.

Now, looking at the front of the product information: are these approved, or are they given interim authorization under an emergency order? The 2 are quite different.

The push to have these experimental vaccines thrust on the public can be very easily explained. Just look at who politicians have been talking with. These are hardly the only examples.

Of course, this could be a rounabout way of admitting they aren’t safe. While “approved” vaccines may be safe, these are approved, and as such, aren’t included in the statements. And this lovely fellow is John Bell, the Head of AstraZeneca. He assures us that these are safe and effective.

So, why are these substances still being injected? It could have something to do with the rampant lobbying going on. Just putting the idea out there.

(1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5Mm3Os2QQ0
(2) https://ca.yahoo.com/news/astrazeneca-second-dose-good-choice-234058299.html
(3) WHO Paper On MANDATORY Vaccination April 13, 2021 (Copy)
(4) https://www.laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/F-27/page-8.html#h-234517
(5) https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-health-products/covid19-industry/drugs-vaccines-treatments/interim-order-import-sale-advertising-drugs.html#a2.3
(6) https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/astrazeneca-covid-19-vaccine-pm-en.pdf
(7) https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/janssen-covid-19-vaccine-pm-en.pdf
(8) https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/covid-19-vaccine-moderna-pm-en.pdf
(9) https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/pfizer-biontech-covid-19-vaccine-pm1-en.pdf