Category: Globalism

Posted on

Reminder, Bill S-240 Didn’t Pass, Would Criminalize Leaving Canada For Trafficked Organs

Senate Bill S-240 would make it a crime to go abroad for the purposes of receiving trafficked organs. The rationale being, if it’s illegal here, leaving to do it should be treated the same way. In part, Bill S-240 has been in response to revelations that China has been involved in forced organ harvesting.

This is the 4th version of the idea to come forward. Yet again, it did not pass before the session ended.

1. Trafficking, Smuggling, Child Exploitation

Serious issues like smuggling or trafficking are routinely avoided in public discourse. Also important are the links between open borders and human smuggling; between ideology and exploitation; between tolerance and exploitation; between abortion and organ trafficking; or between censorship and complicity. Mainstream media will also never get into the organizations who are pushing these agendas, nor the complicit politicians. These topics don’t exist in isolation, and are interconnected.

2. Important Links

Senate Introduces Bill S-240, Criminal Code, Organ Trafficking
Bill S-240 Transcript Of Hearings
Senate Bill S-240: Going Abroad To Obtain Illegal Organs
Open Parliament On MP Speeches, Quotes
House Committee Hearings On Bill S-240
The Conversation: Canada Complicit In Chinese Organ Trafficking
EndTransplantAbuse.Org

3. From 2018 Senate Hearings

Bills don’t always have to originate in the House of Commons. Many come from the Senate as well, and Bill S-240 is just one of them. It would have amended the Criminal Code to make it a crime to go abroad to obtain an organ where there has been no informed consent. It’s already a crime to leave the country to participate in terrorism or child sex offences, so it’s not much of a stretch.

The Senate adopted it on June 14, 2018. However, it would be another year before the House of Commons would hold hearings on it.

4. Audio From Parliamentary Hearings

February 26, 2019 — House Committee

February 27, 2019 — House Committee


From the House of Commons hearings.

5. Most Recent Text Of Bill S-240

BILL S-240
An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (trafficking in human organs)
Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:
.
R.‍S.‍, c. C-46
Criminal Code
1 (1) Section 7 of the Criminal Code is amended by adding the following after subsection (4.‍11):
Offence outside Canada
.
(4.‍2) Despite anything in this Act or any other Act, a person who commits an act or omission outside Canada that, if committed in Canada, would be an offence under section 240.‍1 is deemed to commit that act or omission in Canada if the person is a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident within the meaning of subsection 2(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
.
(2) Subsection 7(4.‍3) of the Act is replaced by the following:
Consent of Attorney General
.
(4.‍3) Proceedings with respect to an act or omission deemed to have been committed in Canada under subsection (4.‍1) or (4.‍2) may only be instituted with the consent of the Attorney General.
.
2 The Act is amended by adding the following after section 240:
Trafficking in Human Organs
Removal without informed consent
.
240.‍1 (1) Everyone commits an offence who
(a) obtains an organ to be transplanted into their body or into the body of another person, knowing that the person from whom it was removed did not give informed consent to the removal, or being reckless as to whether or not that person gave informed consent;
.
(b) carries out, participates in or facilitates the removal of an organ from the body of another person, knowing that the person from whom it was removed did not give informed consent to the removal, or being reckless as to whether or not that person gave informed consent; or
.
(c) acts on behalf of, at the direction of or in association with a person who removes an organ from the body of another person, knowing that the person from whom it was removed did not give informed consent to the removal, or being reckless as to whether or not that person gave informed consent.

The Bill underwent some changes along the way, but that is the latest version. Not only would a person receiving a trafficked organ be exposed to prosecution for leaving Canada, but others involved in facilitating it would be as liable as well.

6. S-204 A Response To China’s Trafficking

The clock is ticking on Canada’s chance to enact important measures against organ trafficking.

For the past two decades, the Chinese regime has been killing prisoners of conscience for their organs. The purchase and sale of human lives has become an industry, and Canada, among other developed countries, has been supporting it.

Bill S-240 seeks to put a stop to Canadian complicity by criminalizing organ tourism. The bill has received unanimous consent from both the Senate and the House of Commons, and is awaiting final Senate approval before the end of the parliamentary session before it can be passed.

This is a critical moment of decision for Canada.

As a member of the Canadian Committee of the International Coalition To End Transplant Abuse In China, I have been among those advocating for Bill S-240, an act that brings important changes to the Criminal Code and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act in order to combat organ tourism.

Several articles available call this what is: fighting back largely against the forced organ harvesting that China is involved with.

This should be a pretty straightforward issue to get on board with. But like the other times this was introduced, it never quite made it through Parliament. Plenty of lesser and symbolic pieces of legislation have, but not this.

Posted on

IMM #10(B): Review Of 2020 Annual Immigration Report To Parliament

The 2020 Annual Immigration Report to the Canadian Parliament is now available to the public. Underneath all the self-congratulations, there are some serious issues to address.

1. Mass LEGAL Immigration In Canada

Despite what many think, LEGAL immigration into Canada is actually a much larger threat than illegal aliens, given the true scale of the replacement that is happening. What was founded as a European (British) colony is becoming unrecognizable due to forced demographic changes. There are also social, economic, environmental and voting changes to consider. See this Canadian series, and the UN programs for more detail. Politicians, the media, and so-called “experts” have no interest in coming clean on this.

CLICK HERE, for UN Genocide Prevention/Punishment Convention.
CLICK HERE, for Barcelona Declaration & Kalergi Plan.
CLICK HERE, for UN Kalergi Plan (population replacement).
CLICK HERE, for UN replacement efforts since 1974.
CLICK HERE, for tracing steps of UN replacement agenda.

Note: If there are errors in calculating the totals, please speak up. Information is of no use to the public if it isn’t accurate.

2. Annual Immigration Reports To Parliament

2004.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2005.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2006.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2007.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2008.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2009.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2010.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2011.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2012.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2013.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2014.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2015.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2016.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2017.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2018.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2019.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2020.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament

3. Total Number Of People Coming To Canada

341,180 permanent residence cards issued (page 34) in 2019. Broken down by category, we get the following totals.

  • 196,658 Economic
  • 91,311 Family
  • 48,530 Protected Person & Refugee
  • 4,681 Humanitarian

That is the total number of people awarded a PR designation. However, a significant portion of them were already in Canada, typically work or student visas. So that must be taken into account.

341,180 permanent residence cards issued
-74,586 (temporaries who transitioned to PR)
= 266,594 new PR brought into Canada

Temporaries Brought Into Canada
402,427 new student visas
+98,310 temporary foreign workers
+306,797 international mobility visa holders
= 807,534 temporaries with path to transition

6,080 “inadmissibles” allowed under Rule 24(1) of IRPA
527 “inadmissibles” allowed under Rule 25.2(1) of IRPA

4,125,909 eTAs (electronic travel authorizations)
1,696,871 TRV (temporary resident visas)

And who knows how many people have slipped into Canada where there is no documentation?

Disclaimer: it’s impossible to know how many people have actually left (v.s. stayed in Canada), since the Government doesn’t provide such information. Certainly many people have left once their visa or authorization expires, but there’s no way of determining the exact amount. Fair to assume it’s close to a million, or perhaps over that.

One has to wonder if all of this is left vague on purpose, in order to make the true scale of replacement migration unknown.

4. Continued Population Replacement

This graph is from page 33 of the 2020 Annual Report. Note: this is by no means everyone who is coming into Canada. However, it gives an idea of WHERE people are coming from. Each report lists the top 10 source countries, and it doesn’t vary much by year.

(Page 18 of the 2004 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 24 of the 2005 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 18, 19 of the 2006 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 19, 20 of the 2007 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 21, 22 of the 2008 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 16 of the 2009 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 14 of the 2010 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 18 of the 2011 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 15 of the 2012 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 19 of the 2013 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 16 of the 2014 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 16 of the 2015 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 10 of the 2016 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 14 of the 2017 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 28 of the 2018 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 36 of the 2019 Annual Report to Parliament)

This year, the top 5 source countries are:

  • India 25%
  • China 9%
  • Philippines 8%
  • Nigeria 4%
  • Pakistan 3%

Once again, these PR numbers (assuming they are even accurate), so not reflect the total number of people coming into Canada with some option to stay. So these totals are quite misleading.

Early in Canada’s history, the major source of immigration was British, as well other other Western European countries. Now, it’s primarily Asian, Middle Eastern and African. France and the UK are no longer even in the top 10. The result is very visible balkanization in places like the GTA, Vancouver, Edmonton, Winnipeg and elsewhere.

5. Temporary Visitors To Canada

TRV = Temporary Resident Visa
eTA = Electronic Travel Authorization

YEAR TRV Issued eTA Issued Totals
2016 1,347,898 2,605,077 3,952,975
2017 1,617,222 4,109,918 5,570,197
2018 1,898,324 4,125,909 6,024,233
2019 1,696,871 4,077,471 5,774,342

There were 4,125,909 eTAs (electronic travel authorizations), and 1,696,871 TRV (temporary resident visas) issued in 2019. See page 15. In fairness, the overwhelming majority of those people probably left without any sort of issue. But even when there are serious problems, getting into Canada LEGALLY isn’t all that difficult.

6. More “Inadmissibles” Let Into Canada

Table 1, Page 32 of the report.

Broadly speaking, there are two provisions within IRPA, the Immigrant and Refugee Protection Act, that allow people who were previously deemed inadmissible to Canada to be given Temporary Resident Permits anyway. Here are the totals from the Annual Reports to Parliament on Immigration. Note: the first one listed only started in 2010.

Those allowed in under Rule 25.2(1) of IRPA

YEAR TRP Issued Cumulative
2010 17 17
2011 53 70
2012 53 123
2013 280 403
2014 385 788
2015 1,063 1,851
2016 596 2,447
2017 555 3002
2018 669 3,671
2019 527 4,198

From 2010 to 2019, a total of 4,198 people who were otherwise inadmissible to Canada were allowed in anyway under Rule 25.2(1) of IRPA. This is the category that Global News previously reported on. As for the other one, under Rule 24(1) of IRPA, Global News leaves that out:

Year Permits Cumulative
2002 12,630 12,630
2003 12,069 24,699
2004 13,598 38,297
2005 13,970 52,267
2006 13,412 65,679
2007 13,244 78,923
2008 12,821 91,744
2009 15,640 107,384
2010 12,452 119,836
2011 11,526 131,362
2012 13,564 144,926
2013 13,115 158,041
2014 10,624 168,665
2015 10,333 178,998
2016 10,568 189,566
2017 9,221 198,787
2018 7,132 205,919
2019 6,080 211,999

From 2002 to 2019 (inclusive), a total of 211,999 people previously deemed inadmissible to Canada were given Temporary Resident Permits anyway. This has almost certainly been going on for a lot longer, but is as far back as the reports go. Now let’s consider the reasons these people are initially refused entry.

SEC = Security (espionage, subversion, terrorism)
HRV = Human or International Rights Violations
CRIM = Criminal
S.CRIM = Serious Criminal
NC = Non Compliance
MR = Misrepresentation

YEAR Total SEC HRV Crim S.Crim NC MR
2002 12,630 ? ? ? ? ? ?
2003 12,069 17 25 5,530 869 4,855 39
2004 13,598 12 12 7,096 953 4,981 20
2005 13,970 27 15 7,917 981 4,635 21
2006 13,412 29 20 7,421 982 4,387 18
2007 13,244 25 8 7,539 977 4,109 14
2008 12,821 73 18 7,108 898 4,170 17
2009 15,640 32 23 6,619 880 7,512 10
2010 12,452 86 24 6,451 907 4,423 36
2011 11,526 37 14 6,227 899 3,932 11
2012 13,564 20 15 7,014 888 5,206 18
2013 13,115 17 10 6,816 843 5,135 8
2014 10,624 12 2 5,807 716 3,895 14
2015 10,333 3 3 5,305 578 4,315 28
2016 10,568 8 4 4,509 534 2,788 20
2017 9,221 10 5 5,035 591 3,412 121
2018 7,132 5 3 4,132 559 2,299 131
2019 6,080 2 0 3,202 546 2,139 175

Even if people are excluded from Canada — for a variety of valid reasons — often they will still be given temporary entrance into Canada. Will they ever leave? Who knows?

7. Canada Scraps “Designated Country Of Origin”

Canada removes all countries from the designated country of origin list
May 17, 2019—Ottawa, ON—The Government of Canada is committed to a well-managed asylum system that’s fair, fast and final. Effective today, Canada is removing all countries from the designated country of origin (DCO) list, which effectively suspends the DCO policy, introduced in 2012, until it can be repealed through future legislative changes.
.
Claimants from the 42 countries on the DCO list were previously subject to a 6-month bar on work permits, a bar on appeals at the Refugee Appeals Division, limited access to the Interim Federal Health Program and a 36-month bar on the Pre-Removal Risk Assessment.
.
The DCO policy did not fulfil its objective of discouraging misuse of the asylum system and of processing refugee claims from these countries faster. Additionally, several Federal Court decisions struck down certain provisions of the DCO policy, ruling that they did not comply with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
.
Removing all countries from the DCO list is a Canadian policy change, not a reflection of a change in country conditions in any of the countries previously on the list.
.
De-designating countries of origin has no impact on the Canada-U.S. Safe Third Country Agreement.

On May 17, 2019, the Canadian Government announced it would no longer have the 42 so-called designated countries of origin. This was a list of nations — mainly in Europe — who were considered safe countries. This was done without debate in Parliament.

It’s a pretty convoluted justification, that this policy did little to prevent fraud and abuse. This comes while fake refugees from the U.S. are allowed to illegally stroll into Canada.

The change left the Safe 3rd Country Agreement intact — for the time being — but even that wouldn’t be safe.

8. “Refugees” From U.S. Warzone

Let’s be clear about one thing: illegal crossings from the U.S. could be stopped instantly, it politicians actually had any interest in doing so. Instead, they feign helplessness in order for the public to stop expecting results.

Asylum Claims
The in-Canada asylum system provides protection to foreign nationals when it is determined that they have a
well-founded fear of persecution.
.
Canada received over 64,000 in-Canada asylum claims in 2019, the highest annual number received on record.
Of these, approximately 26% were made by asylum claimants who crossed the Canada-U.S. border between
designated ports of entry. The Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada finalized 43,004 claims in 2019. Further, Budget 2020 earmarked $795 million over five years to support continued processing of 50,000 asylum
claims per year until 2023–2024. This investment builds on those made in Budgets 2019 and 2018 to effectively
manage Canada’s border and asylum system.

(From page 21), Canada still allowed bogus refugees from the warzone that is the United States. By exploiting a loophole written into the Safe 3rd Country Agreement, economic migrants are able to get to the U.S., then come further north and engage in asylum shopping.

Worth noting, in 2020 a Federal Court Judge struck down the Safe 3rd Country Agreement, claiming it violates the Charter Rights of people illegally in the country trying to claim asylum.

9. Students & Temporary Workers

In 2019, Canada issued 402,427 new study permits, (see page 15). Overall, there were 827,586 international students with visas. Note: this doesn’t include minor children exempt from the visa requirement.

The Report claims that there was $21.6 billion in tuition fees paid from international students. This is the devil’s bargain here: schools get the money, and students get a pathway to stay in Canada.

Temporary Foreign Workers (TFW), and the International Mobility Program (IMP) are listed on page 16. Both programs have seen considerable increases this year. In 2019, there were 98,310 TFW, and 306,797 IMP.

Year Stu TFWP IMP Total
2003 61,293 82,151 – 143,444

2004 56,536 90,668 – 147,204

2005 57,476 99,146 – 156,622

2006 61,703 112,658 – 174,361

2007 64,636 165,198 – 229,834

2008 79,509 192,519 – 272,028

2009 85,140 178,478 – 263,618

2010 96,157 182,276 – 278,433

2011 98,383 190,842 – 289,225

2012 104,810 213,573 – 318,383

2013 111,865 221,310 – 333,175

2014 127,698 95,086 197,924 420,078

2015 219,143 73,016 175,967 468,126

2016 265,111 78,402 207,829 551,342

2017 317,328 78,788 224,033 620,149

2018 356,876 84,229 255,034 696,139

2019 402,427 98,310 306,797 807,534

Let’s not pretend that all (or even the bulk) of people on these various visas will leave Canada afterwards.

Looking ahead
COVID-19 has had a tremendous impact on Canada’s prosperity, including our economy. Despite these current challenges, immigration will continue to be a source of long-term economic growth in Canada. IRCC will continue to work with provinces and territories, and other partners and stakeholders, to ensure that our approach to immigration supports Canada’s ongoing prosperity.

Despite the record high unemployment rate, and supposedly being in the middle of a “pandemic”, the Government is committed to continued high levels of population replacement.

10. Tracking People Leaving Canada

Strangely, it is Trudeau who brought in a full entry/exit system to track people leaving Canada, regardless of destination. Sure it took until the Summer of 2020 to be implemented, but still, an improvement. When Harper was in office, he only implemented a limited entry/exit system with the U.S. It didn’t apply to other countries.

However, it’s quite harmful that the CBSA apparently cancels outstanding warrants for people wanted for deportation. Clearly, there is bipartisan indifference towards real border security.

There’s also no effort, at any level of Government, to abolish the practice of “Sanctuary Cities“. These are municipalities that openly defy and circumvent Federal law in order to allow illegal aliens to remain and to access public services.

11. Other Noteworthy Developments

Open Work Permit for Vulnerable Workers
In June 2019, IRCC introduced a new measure to enable migrant workers who have an employer-specific work permit and are in an abusive job situation to apply for an open work permit. This measure helps to ensure that migrant workers who need to leave their employer can maintain their status, and find
another job.

Measures to support newcomers against family violence
In 2019, IRCC launched measures to ensure that newcomers experiencing family violence are able to apply for a fee-exempt temporary resident permit for newcomers in Canada. This gives them: (a) Legal status; (b) Work permit; (c) Health-care coverage

Home Child Care Provider Pilot and Home Support Worker Pilot
The Home Child Care Provider and Home Support Worker pilots opened for applications on June 18, 2019 and will run for five years. They replaced the expiring Caring for Children and Caring for People with High Medical Needs pilots.
.
Through these pilots, caregivers benefit from a clear transition from temporary to permanent status to ensure that once caregivers have met the work experience requirement, they can become permanent residents quickly. They also benefit from occupation-specific work permits, rather than employer-specific ones, to allow for a fast change of employers when needed. The immediate family of the caregiver may also receive open work permits and study permits to help families come to Canada together.
.
Features of the new pilots reflect lessons learned from previous caregiver programs and test innovative
approaches to addressing unique vulnerabilities and isolation associated with work in private households.

Rainbow Refugees Assistance Partnership
In June 2019, the Government of Canada announced the launch of the Rainbow Refugee Assistance Partnership. Starting in 2020, the five-year partnership will assist private sponsors with the sponsorship of 50 LGBTI refugees per year. The partnership will also strengthen collaboration between LGBTI organizations and the refugee settlement community in Canada.

From page 28 of the report. Some of the changes made in the last year. Most people have no idea the full extent of what’s really going on.

12. Conservatives Support Status Quo

Think that putting Conservatives back into power means that there will be a halt (or even a reduction) in the open borders policies currently going on? Items such as CANZUK, and the temp-to-PR pipeline, are cpc.policy.declaration party policy. O’Toole is on record saying he supports expanding CANZUK further.

13. Political Solution Not Possible

The courts have found that entering Canada (even illegally), is a human right. Politicians (of all parties), have no interest in doing anything about open borders.

All parties support genocidal levels of population replacement. They cloak it in terms like “diversity”, “compassion”, “serving labour needs”, family reunification”, “funding pensions and health care”, and other such lies. Simply ensuring that it happens LEGALLY does nothing to prevent the ultimate outcome.

Posted on

CV #35(C): Health Canada Refuses To Answer Questions About Indemnification For Vaccines

The public is understandably anxious about whether vaccine manufacturers will be indemnified (legally immune), for the products they sell. It’s a valid question, from a patient perspective, and as a taxpayer.

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. Email Exchange With Health Canada

Health Canada was contact specifically about the indemnification of vaccine manufacturers. Above are the responses. However, it’s a bit misleading to say that they can’t release information due to ongoing negotiating. Health Canada wouldn’t even discuss indemnification for Eli Lilly Canada and Gilead Sciences Canada. Both had been settled long ago.

3. Health Canada And Vaccine Regulation

Vaccination is one of the world’s greatest public health achievements. For over 50 years, vaccines have helped prevent and control the spread of deadly diseases and saved the lives of millions of infants, children and adults. For example, there are vaccines for:

-epidemics, such as Ebola
-childhood diseases and debilitating diseases, such as polio
-diseases, such as Yellow Fever, that are common in some travel destinations
-influenza strains that change every year
-preventing or treating cancer
Many vaccines are recommended as part of Canadian public health programs to prevent people from getting diseases. This means that they are given to large numbers of healthy people.

This is why regulating the safety, efficacy and quality of vaccines is of particular importance. There are also reporting systems in place to monitor vaccine safety.

https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-health-products/biologics-radiopharmaceuticals-genetic-therapies/activities/fact-sheets/regulation-vaccines-human-canada.html

Emergency access to vaccines
In some cases, such as public health emergencies like flu pandemics, special authorizations are used to give emergency access to a vaccine. For example, Health Canada issued an Interim Order in 2009 for the H1N1 pandemic vaccine. The vaccine was developed to protect against the H1N1 pandemic virus. The vaccine contained an inactivated (non-live) version of the H1N1 virus strain recommended by WHO for the manufacture of vaccines during the 2009 flu pandemic.

Worth addressing: in that 2009 Interim Order to approve vaccines for H1N1, Health Canada allowed drugs made by GlaxoSmithKline, (GSK), onto the market that hadn’t been fully tested. GSK was indemnified by the Government. Would it happen here?

Why is it so hard to get a straight answer with this case? Will they be indemnified or not?

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.

Posted on

CV #37(B): WHO Once Again Admits No Real Evidence For Masks, But Still Recommends Them

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Quotes From December 1 Guidance

BC’s tyrant-in-chief, Bonnie Henry, has said that she has no time for people who think that masks cause health problems, or reduce their freedom. This flies in the face on WHO guidelines, and even her own dictates. Henry gaslights people, despite there being no science behind limiting group sizes, or most things she says.

[Page 1]
This document, which is an update of the guidance published on 5 June 2020, includes new scientific evidence relevant to the use of masks for reducing the spread of SARS-CoV-2, thevirus that causes COVID-19, and practical considerations. It contains updated evidence and guidance on the following:

In case this isn’t obvious, this is suppose to reflect changes and more information coming out. Supposedly the evidence and knowledge evolves, as the situation requires it.

[Page 1]
The World Health Organization (WHO) advises the use of masks as part of a comprehensive package of prevention and control measures to limit the spread of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. A mask alone, even when it is used correctly, is insufficient to provide adequate protection or source control. Other infection prevention and control (IPC) measures include hand hygiene, physical distancing of at least 1 metre, avoidance of touching one’s face, respiratory etiquette, adequate ventilation in indoor settings, testing, contacttracing, quarantine and isolation. Together these measures are critical to prevent human-to-human transmission of SARS-CoV-2.

WHO still recommends face masks. Keep that point in mind. Also, it’s been mentioned before that WHO suggests people being 1m apart. There is no reference to 2m on their site.

[Page 3]
The presence of viral RNA is not the same as replication- and infection-competent (viable) virus that could be transmissible and capable of sufficient inoculum to initiate invasive infection. A limited number of studies have isolated viable SARS-CoV-2 from air samples in the vicinity of COVID-19 patients (20, 21).

This pretty much blows the whole PCR test out of the water. Simply having traces present doesn’t you are infected.

[Page 3]
High quality research is required to address the knowledge gaps related to modes of transmission, infectious dose and settings in which transmission can be amplified. Currently, studies are underway to better understand the conditions in which aerosol transmission or superspreading events may occur.
.
Current evidence suggests that people infected with SARSCoV-2 can transmit the virus whether they have symptoms or not. However, data from viral shedding studies suggest that infected individuals have highest viral loads just before or around the time they develop symptoms and during the first 5-7 days of illness (12). Among symptomatic patients, the duration of infectious virus shedding has been estimated at 8 days from the onset of symptoms (22-24) for patients with mild disease, and longer for severely ill patients (12). The period of infectiousness is shorter than the duration of detectable RNA shedding, which can last many weeks (17).

Research is still needed? That’s a pretty big thing to admit, since supposedly the vaccines are here, and ready to go. It seems that we won’t need it after all.

As for the claim that asymptomatic transmission is possible, that is likely a response to this bombshell dropped on June 8, 2020. WHO admitted asymptomatic transmission was very rare, but there was quite predictably a lot of anger and confusion over that. Maria Van Kerkhove spent the next day backtracking. See below.

Back in June, the WHO thought that as much as 41% of the global population could be infected, which is over 3 billion people. In reality, they have no idea.

[Page 5]
Evidence on universal masking in health care settings
.
In areas where there is community transmission or large-scale outbreaks of COVID-19, universal masking has been adopted in many hospitals to reduce the potential of transmission by health workers to patients, to other staff and anyone else entering the facility (50).
.
Two studies found that implementation of a universal masking policy in hospital systems was associated with
decreased risk of healthcare-acquired SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, these studies had serious limitations: both were before-after studies describing a single example of a phenomenon before and after an event of interest, with no concurrent control group, and other infection control measures were not controlled for (51, 52). In addition, observed decreases in health worker infections occurred too quickly to be attributable to the universal masking policy.

Universal masking seems to be the case in hospital settings. However, some of the scientific research supporting it has serious limitations.

[Page 6]
Fabric masks are not regulated as protective masks or part of the PPE directive. They vary in quality and are not subject to mandatory testing or common standards and as such are not considered an appropriate alternative to medical masks for protection of health workers. One study that evaluated the use of cloth masks in a health care facility found that health care workers using 2 ply cotton cloth masks (a type of fabric mask) were at increased risk of influenza-like illness compared with those who wore medical masks (72).

Interesting. Using cloth masks actually increased the risk of influenza like illnesses. But just wear a mask anyway.

[Page 8]
Evidence on the protective effect of mask use in community settings
.
At present there is only limited and inconsistent scientific evidence to support the effectiveness of masking of healthy people in the community to prevent infection with respiratory viruses, including SARS-CoV-2 (75). A large randomized community-based trial in which 4862 healthy participants were divided into a group wearing medical/surgical masks and a control group found no difference in infection with SARS-CoV-2 (76). A recent systematic review found nine trials (of which eight were cluster-randomized controlled trials in which clusters of people, versus individuals, were randomized) comparing medical/surgical masks versus no masks to prevent the spread of viral respiratory illness. Two trials were with healthcare workers and seven in the community. The review concluded that wearing a mask may make little or no difference to the prevention of influenza-like illness

Even a good chunk of their own research concluded there was little to no benefit to forcing masks on the general population.

[Page 8]
Guidance
The WHO COVID-19 IPC GDG considered all available evidence on the use of masks by the general public including
effectiveness, level of certainty and other potential benefits and harms, with respect to transmission scenarios, indoor versus outdoor settings, physical distancing and ventilation. Despite the limited evidence of protective efficacy of mask wearing in community settings, in addition to all other recommended preventive measures, the GDG advised mask wearing in the following settings:

WHO recommends mask wearing in many situations, despite limited evidence it actually works. Again, all of this is from their own report.

[Page 10]
The potential disadvantages of mask use by healthy people in the general public include:
• headache and/or breathing difficulties, depending on type of mask used (55);
• development of facial skin lesions, irritant dermatitis or worsening acne, when used frequently for long hours (58, 59, 127);
• difficulty with communicating clearly, especially for persons who are deaf or have poor hearing or use lipreading (128, 129);
• discomfort (44, 55, 59)
• a false sense of security leading to potentially lower adherence to other critical preventive measures such as physical distancing and hand hygiene (105);
• poor compliance with mask wearing, in particular by young children (111, 130-132);
• waste management issues; improper mask disposal leading to increased litter in public places andenvironmental hazards (133);
• disadvantages for or difficulty wearing masks, especially for children, developmentally challenged persons, those with mental illness, persons with cognitive impairment, those with asthma or chronic respiratory or breathing problems, those who have had facial trauma or recent oral maxillofacial surgery and those living in hot and humid environments (55, 130).

This is essentially a cut-and-paste from earlier guidance. Note: even though breathing problems are specifically listed, Bonnie Henry has no time for such people.

[Page 11]
Mask use during physical activity Evidence
.
There are limited studies on the benefits and harms of wearing medical masks, respirators and non-medical masks while exercising. Several studies have demonstrated statistically significant deleterious effects on various cardiopulmonary physiologic parameters during mild to moderate exercise in healthy subjects and in those with underlying respiratory diseases (134-140). The most significant impacts have been consistently associated with the use of respirators and in persons with underlying obstructive airway pulmonary diseases such as asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), especially when the condition is moderate to severe (136). Facial microclimate changes with increased temperature, humidity and perceptions of dyspnoea were also reported in some studies on the use of masks during exercise (134, 141). A recent review found negligeable evidence of negative effects of mask use during exercise but noted concern for individuals with severe cardiopulmonary disease (142).

The World Health Organization discourages the use of masks for people who are exercising. Good to know. However, is must be asked if people were deliberately subjected to this is order to gather data for the research.

[Page 19]
Background
A non-medical mask, also called fabric mask, community mask or face covering, is neither a medical device nor personal protective equipment. Non-medical masks are aimed at the general population, primarily for protecting others from exhaled virus-containing droplets emitted by the mask wearer. They are not regulated by local health authorities or occupational health associations, nor is it required for manufacturers to comply with guidelines established by standards organizations. Non-medical masks may be homemade or manufactured. The essential performance parameters include good breathability, filtration of droplets originating from the wearer, and a snug fit covering the nose and mouth. Exhalation valves on masks are discouraged as they bypass the filtration function of the mask.

Non-medical masks have no real standards for manufacturing.

[Page 19]
Evidence on the effectiveness of non-medical (fabric) masks
.
A number of reviews have been identified on the effectiveness of non-medical masks (151-156). One systematic review (155) identified 12 studies and evaluated study quality. Ten were laboratory studies (157-166), and two reports were from a single randomized trial (72, 167). The majority of studies were conducted before COVID-19 emerged or used laboratory generated particles to assess filtration efficacy. Overall, the reviews concluded that cloth face masks have limited efficacy in combating viral infection transmission.

Sure, there’s limited evidence they actually work. But just wear a mask, any mask, because it’s about community safety.

(from page 21): WHO recommends masks be able to filter out 70% or more of particles, at 3 microns or more. That is pretty meaningless since the virus is less then 1/10 that diameter.

4. Thoughts On Latest Guidance

Even giving the World Health Organization every benefit of the doubt, its own reports admit the evidence on mask use is limited and often contradictory. The recommendations are based on politics, not science.

Talking about the “Great Reset” or the depopulation agenda would be nice, but that sort of transparency is most unlikely.

Posted on

CV #43(B): Jason Kenney Shrugs Off Potential 90% Error Rate In PCR Tests

A radio interview between Jason Kenney and Danielle Smith. Kenney may be a career politician, and a habitual liar, but occasionally he does tell the truth. Let’s take a look at that.

It’s quite noticeable Smith was prepared in this interview. She clearly had done her homework, and Kenney was left bumbling away.

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. Possible 90% Error Rate No Big Deal

Here is the full interview with Danielle Smith, former leader of the Alberta Wildrose Party. Alberta Premier Jason Kenney is her guest. To Smith’s considerable credit, she has done a lot of research beforehand. Kenney mumbles and agrees the methods are flawed, but defers to Public Health. However, this is a complete cop-out. As Premier, the buck should stop there.

3. Exposing The Mountain Of Lies

Just a few of the videos about the lies, false positives, and deliberate misclassifying of deaths. There are many more where this came from.

4. Erin O’Toole Supports Jailing Protesters

This video clip came from Andrew Lawton of True North. Erin O’Toole, the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, self-identifies as a “conservative”. Presumably, he supports freedom and individual rights. However, it seems that he’s perfectly fine with arresting or ticketing peaceful protesters and dissidents.

5. Conservatism In Canada In 2020?

Kenney, like so many others, does a great job of attempting to look and come across as concerned. But it’s all just an act. Seriously, what is the point of voting for any of them, when they are just as tyrannical as liberals?