Human Rights Archives - Page 28 of 71

June 26, 2021June 26, 2021

CV #26(H): Region Of Peel Lies About Infertility, Deaths, Approval

Let’s do a little math here: a normal pregnancy is 9 months.

These so-called “vaccines” started being injected back in December 2020, and this tweet comes in June 2021. That is about 6 months difference. By this logic, there wouldn’t have been enough time for women to have taken this “concoction”, gotten pregnant, and then had full term pregnancies.

Also, the quote, “millions of people including pregnant women” seems nonsensical. Who else gives birth?

Even if there had been some, Peel Health lies by omission by not mentioning the miscarriages or unintended abortions that have resulted from drug.

Like so many jurisdictions, Peel dishonestly conflates “dying with” and “dying from”. Setting aside the fact that this so-called virus has never been isolated, this is extremely dishonest.

Peel deliberately misrepresents the status of these “vaccines”. Currently, they have interim authorization under an emergency order, but are not approved. This cannot be a mistake in wording.

These people are not to be trusted.

(1) https://twitter.com/regionofpeel/status/1408789646046281730
(2) https://twitter.com/regionofpeel/status/1408365853360357379
(3) https://twitter.com/TOPublicHealth/status/1275888390060285967
(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

June 26, 2021December 6, 2021

Canadian Immunization Research Network, Which Evaluates Vaccines, Is Funded By Big Pharma

The Canadian Immunization Research Network is a group that receives substantial funding from drug companies, as well as Canadian taxpayers. Part of their mandate is evaluating vaccine effectiveness. Now, here’s where things start to get interesting.

Our Focus
CIRN’s goals remain consistent with that of PCIRN, however, the network will not be limited to influenza research alone. Rather, CIRN will cover a broader scope of research pertaining to all areas of vaccine, immunization, and infectious diseases. The network will strive to achieve the following goals:
.
(1) Continue to perform vaccine research to inform health policy in Canada.
(2) Maintain an active research network capable of immediate response to infectious disease threats in Canada.
(3) Further develop collaborations between Canadian vaccine experts.
(4) Train the next generation of pandemic vaccine researchers.
(5) Perform applied public health research and vaccine evaluations of high priority for Canadian health decision makers.

In their “focus section“, the CIRN mentions that evaulating vaccines of high priority for Canadian decision makers is something they do. So, are these the people who ensured these experimental “vaccines” got interim authorization.

Also, considering that Pfizer/BioNtech is one of the products that got the emergency authorization, isn’t this a conflict of interest? After all, Pfizer is one of the major donors.

According to their financial statements, almost $24 million of the $59 million that the CIRN has received since 2009 has come from industry sources. Considering that Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline and Sanofi are listed as partners, the bulk of it probably was from them.

Pfizer has been lobbying Ottawa for years to get its products distributed here. One of its officials, Steven Hogue, worked in the Prime Minister’s Office back when Jean Chretien was in charge.

GlaxoSmithKline is another one that’s busy in Ottawa. Lobbyists for the company have ties to both the Liberal and Conservative Parties of Canada. In fact, Amber Ruddy, the Secretary of the National Council of the CPC, used to be a GSK lobbyist. Sanofi is involved in this as well.

This should be red flag for people. Pharmaceutical companies, involved in lobbying Ottawa and trying to sell products, are also financing the “independent” group that evaluates their effectiveness.

CIRN conducts a variety of research studies throughout the year, and many of these studies are multi-year projects. Often there are opportunities for members of the public to participate in studies in their local area; the Research Studies descriptions provide an overview of the study and indicate whether the study is active and recruiting.
.
Each research study funded by the CIRN Network will address one or more of the 5 following research area priorities:
.
(1) Rapid evaluation of candidate vaccines for safety and immunogenicity in persons of all ages;
(2) Population based methods to evaluate vaccine effectiveness and safety following release for general use;
(3) Vaccine hesitancy and evaluation of strategies to address hesitancy;
(4) Vaccine coverage, including isolated communities and cohorts of concern; and
(5) Adverse events following immunization.

CIRN funds research into a variety of subtopics, including vaccine hesitancy. This refers to the normal reluctance to put strange medications into one’s body. They are also involved in trying to convince pregnant women to take it. Research has also been done into proper messaging for Public Health Officials, as in, what lines or scripts are most effective. Another was using the internet to explain to why large portions of the public may be reluctant to take this.

Considering the amount of money CIRN gets from drug companies, there is an obvious dual loyalty presented here.

It’s not a stretch to call these “vaccine hesitancy” projects a form of marketing. Pfizer, GSK and Sanofi are studying their target markets, to see what techniques work.

CIRN has also received a number of grants from PHAC and the CIHR. Some of that is listed below.

June 25, 2021June 25, 2021

Bill C-36: Red Flag Laws In The Name Of Preemptively Combatting Hate Speech

Bill C-36 has been introduced into the House of Commons. It would be fair to describe portions of this as a “red flag” law. People can be subjected to Court restrictions simply based on the suspicion that they may engage in hate speech or hate propaganda.

Welcome to the Pre-Crime Unit, and the Minority Report

Fear of hate propaganda offence or hate crime
810.‍012 (1) A person may, with the Attorney General’s consent, lay an information before a provincial court judge if the person fears on reasonable grounds that another person will commit
(a) an offence under section 318 or subsection 319(1) or (2);
(b) an offence under subsection 430(4.‍1); or
(c) an offence motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or any other similar factor.
Appearances

(2) The provincial court judge who receives an information under subsection (1) may cause the parties to appear before a provincial court judge.

Adjudication
(3) If the provincial court judge before whom the parties appear is satisfied by the evidence adduced that the informant has reasonable grounds for the fear, the judge may order that the defendant enter into a recognizance to keep the peace and be of good behaviour for a period of not more than 12 months.

Duration extended
(4) However, if the provincial court judge is also satisfied that the defendant was convicted previously of any offence referred to in subsection (1), the judge may order that the defendant enter into the recognizance for a period of not more than two years.

Refusal to enter into recognizance
(5) The provincial court judge may commit the defendant to prison for a term of not more than 12 months if the defendant fails or refuses to enter into the recognizance.

Conditions in recognizance
(6) The provincial court judge may add any reasonable conditions to the recognizance that the judge considers desirable to secure the good conduct of the defendant, including conditions that
(a) require the defendant to wear an electronic monitoring device, if the Attorney General makes that request;
(b) require the defendant to return to and remain at their place of residence at specified times;
(c) require the defendant to abstain from the consumption of drugs, except in accordance with a medical prescription, of alcohol or of any other intoxicating substance;
(d) require the defendant to provide, for the purpose of analysis, a sample of a bodily substance prescribed by regulation on the demand of a peace officer, a probation officer or someone designated under paragraph 810.‍3(2)‍(a) to make a demand, at the place and time and on the day specified by the person making the demand, if that person has reasonable grounds to believe that the defendant has breached a condition of the recognizance that requires them to abstain from the consumption of drugs, alcohol or any other intoxicating substance;
(e) require the defendant to provide, for the purpose of analysis, a sample of a bodily substance prescribed by regulation at regular intervals that are specified, in a notice in Form 51 served on the defendant, by a probation officer or a person designated under paragraph 810.‍3(2)‍(b) to specify them, if a condition of the recognizance requires the defendant to abstain from the consumption of drugs, alcohol or any other intoxicating substance; or
(f) prohibit the defendant from communicating, directly or indirectly, with any person identified in the recognizance, or refrain from going to any place specified in the recognizance, except in accordance with the conditions specified in the recognizance that the judge considers necessary.

Conditions — firearms
(7) The provincial court judge shall consider whether it is desirable, in the interests of the defendant’s safety or that of any other person, to prohibit the defendant from possessing any firearm, cross-bow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition or explosive substance, or all of those things. If the judge decides that it is desirable to do so, the judge shall add that condition to the recognizance and specify the period during which it applies.

Surrender, etc.
(8) If the provincial court judge adds a condition described in subsection (7) to a recognizance, the judge shall specify in the recognizance how the things referred to in that subsection that are in the defendant’s possession shall be surrendered, disposed of, detained, stored or dealt with and how the authorizations, licences and registration certificates that are held by the defendant shall be surrendered.

Reasons
(9) If the provincial court judge does not add a condition described in subsection (7) to a recognizance, the judge shall include in the record a statement of the reasons for not adding it.

Variance of conditions
(10) A provincial court judge may, on application of the informant, the Attorney General or the defendant, vary the conditions fixed in the recognizance.

Other provisions to apply
(11) Subsections 810(4) and (5) apply, with any modifications that the circumstances require, to recognizances made under this section.

-A person can be ordered to appear before a Provincial Court
-A Judge can order a person to enter into a Recognizance for 12 months
-That Recognizance can last for 24 months if there is a prior conviction
-A person can be jailed for 12 months for refusing a Recognizance
-A person can be ordered to wear an electronic monitoring device
-A person can be subjected to a curfew
-A person can be ordered to abstain from alcohol
-A person can be subjected to drug/alcohol testing
-That drug/testing can be ordered at regular intervals
-A person can be subjected to a no contact order (of 3rd parties)
-A person can be prohibited from going to certain places
-A person may be subjected to other conditions

Keep in mind, all of these conditions can be imposed, simply because of the SUSPICION that a hate crime will be committed, or hate propaganda will be distributed.

Not only is the Canadian Criminal Code to be amended, but the Canadian Human Rights Code will be as well, to implement fines and cessation orders. There doesn’t seem to be real standard for what counts as hate speech.

Canadian Human Rights Act
Amendments to the Act
2013, c. 37, s. 1
12 Section 4 of the Canadian Human Rights Act is replaced by the following:
Orders regarding discriminatory practices
4 A discriminatory practice, as described in sections 5 to 14.‍1, may be the subject of a complaint under Part III and anyone found to be engaging or to have engaged in a discriminatory practice may be made subject to an order as provided for in section 53 or 53.‍1.
.
13 The Act is amended by adding the following after section 12:
Communication of hate speech
.
13 (1) It is a discriminatory practice to communicate or cause to be communicated hate speech by means of the Internet or other means of telecommunication in a context in which the hate speech is likely to foment detestation or vilification of an individual or group of individuals on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.
Continuous communication
.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), a person who communicates or causes to be communicated hate speech continues to do so for as long as the hate speech remains public and the person can remove or block access to it.

Complaint substantiated — section 13
53.‍1 If at the conclusion of an inquiry the member or panel conducting the inquiry finds that a complaint relating to a discriminatory practice described in section 13 is substantiated, the member or panel may make one or more of only the following orders against the person found to be engaging or to have engaged in the discriminatory practice:
(a) an order to cease the discriminatory practice and take measures, in consultation with the Commission on the general purposes of the measures, to redress the practice or to prevent the same or a similar practice from recurring;
(b) an order to pay compensation of not more than $20,000 to any victim personally identified in the communication that constituted the discriminatory practice, for any pain and suffering that the victim experienced as a result of that discriminatory practice, so long as that person created or developed, in whole or in part, the hate speech indicated in the complaint;
(c) an order to pay a penalty of not more than $50,000 to the Receiver General if the member or panel considers it appropriate having regard to the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the discriminatory practice, the wilfulness or intent of the person who is engaging or has engaged in the discriminatory practice, any prior discriminatory practices that the person has engaged in and the person’s ability to pay the penalty.
Award of costs
53.‍2 A member or panel conducting an inquiry into a complaint filed on the basis of section 13 may award costs for abuse of process in relation to the inquiry.

According to the revisions in the Act, “hate speech” will be ongoing as long as the material is available publicly, and could be removed. A person can also be ordered to be $20,000 to each victim, and $50,000 to the panel itself.

Problem with all of this, “hate speech” is disturbingly vague. It could be applied subjectively, depending on the politics of the parties involved.

(1) https://www.parl.ca/LegisInfo/BillDetails.aspx?Language=E&billId=11452710
(2) https://parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/43-2/bill/C-36/first-reading
(3) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-69.html#docCont
(4) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-91.html#h-122977

June 24, 2021June 24, 2021

Ontario’s “Re-Education” Training For Health Care Workers Refusing “Vaccines”

Pretty Orwellian, isn’t is? The above video is from a health care worker in Ontario, one who has been forced to undergo “reeducation” as a result of refusing the experimental, unapproved “vaccine”. While it’s impossible to 100% verify that this is authentic, it’s consistent with the programming that Ford has already sent out.

Thank you to whoever produced this.

TORONTO — Workers at long-term care homes who chose not to receive a COVID-19 vaccine will soon have to participate in an educational program on the benefits of vaccination, unless they can provide proof of a medical reason for refusing the shot.

The Doug Ford government has announced that all 626 long-term care homes in Ontario will have to have immunization polices in place for staff that will, at a minimum, require workers who do not get both doses of the COVID-19 vaccine to “participate in an educational program about the benefits of vaccination and the risks of not being vaccinated.

The policy takes effect July 1 and the only exception will be for staff who can provide a “documented medical reason for not being vaccinated,” the province say.

Welcome to the Ministry Of Truth.

It’s important to note: these are not “approved vaccines”. They are given interim authorization as a result of an emergency order. They aren’t really vaccines either.

This tutorial, and other government propaganda, don’t bother to mention that there are no long term studies about the effects. Nor do they discuss the testing deficiencies, such as no testing for pregnant women, nursing mothers, children, carcinogenicity, or toxicity. No evidence of fertility issues…. yes, because testing for it was never done.

Also noteworthy: there’s no mention that the manufacturers are indemnified against liability. This means they cannot be sued, regardless of what damages can be proven.

Interesting that there is the statement that death soon after injection doesn’t necessarily mean the vaccine was responsible. That distinction was never made for “Covid deaths”.

No mention of the fact that even from the Government of Canada’s own data, the overwhelming majority of cases get better on their own.

These are just a few of the questions that aren’t addressed.

Ever get the sense they are trying too hard?

(1) https://rumble.com/vis5wt-propaganda-course-for-ltc-in-ontario-if-you-refuse-the-vax.html?fbclid=IwAR2SO_d7nEjKJQ3GF-EONMLr_zEig3tudLL8wIyh6GECF_M-VZ02ErFdbY4
(2) https://www.facebook.com/groups/137204671811144/permalink/144676727730605/
(3) https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/unvaccinated-ontario-long-term-care-workers-will-have-to-participate-in-educational-program-1.5450034
(4) https://www.hrreporter.com/focus-areas/safety/ontario-mandates-immunization-policies-for-long-term-care-homes/356705

June 23, 2021June 23, 2021

Ron DeSantis “Vaccine Passport Ban” Leaves EHP Act, Forced Vaccinations, Curfews Intact

Amendment To Original
It seems that many of these powers were already in place from 2002, and then Governor Jeb Bush. However, the vaccine passport ban left these intact. SB 1262, the Emergency Health Powers Act, was passed in the hysteria of terrorism, which the media helped perpetuate. It was (in error), attributed to DeSantis. Instead, he appears to have just left them in place.

There is a separate piece of legislation, SB 6003, to strike “vaccination” out. We’ll have to see how it goes.

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis is frequently hailed as a freedom lover, and a pushback to tyranny in the area. But is that really true? How strong is his resistance?

At no point does DeSantis condemn or criticize these experimental concoctions. He never states that they are not approved, but only allowed because of an FDA Emergency Use Authorization. He never talks about the manufacturers being indemnified from liability.

Granted, he issued a blanket pardon for all of the illegitimate fines and charges handed down for breaching previous draconian Orders, but they should never have been issued in the first place.

For starters, while local officials may be prohibited from imposing mask mandates, there is nothing stopping private businesses from demanding them, even for essential goods.

Recently, DeSantis signed SB 2006, which the media claimed would ban “vaccine passports”. While that is true, there were many poison pills left from the Bush era. Either the Governor didn’t fully read the existing Act, or he just didn’t care.

Specifically, still allows the right of the State to impose quarantine measures, similar to what the International Health Regulations call for. It also allows for forced vaccinations. That’s right, a provision was put in to allow for MANDATORY vaccinations “or other treatments”. SB 6003 is in the works to strip vaccination out, but so far, has not been passed.

https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2021/2006/BillText/er/HTML is the link, and it seems to be down. So is the general site. Thankfully, it has been archived.

1056 (d) The State Health Officer, upon declaration of a public
1057 health emergency, may take actions that are necessary to protect
1058 the public health. Such actions include, but are not limited to:
1059 1. Directing manufacturers of prescription drugs or over
1060 the-counter drugs who are permitted under chapter 499 and
1061 wholesalers of prescription drugs located in this state who are
1062 permitted under chapter 499 to give priority to the shipping of
1063 specified drugs to pharmacies and health care providers within
1064 geographic areas that have been identified by the State Health
1065 Officer. The State Health Officer must identify the drugs to be
1066 shipped. Manufacturers and wholesalers located in the state must
1067 respond to the State Health Officer’s priority shipping
1068 directive before shipping the specified drugs.
1069 2. Notwithstanding chapters 465 and 499 and rules adopted
1070 thereunder, directing pharmacists employed by the department to
1071 compound bulk prescription drugs and provide these bulk
1072 prescription drugs to physicians and nurses of county health
1073 departments or any qualified person authorized by the State
1074 Health Officer for administration to persons as part of a
1075 prophylactic or treatment regimen.
1076 3. Notwithstanding s. 456.036, temporarily reactivating the
1077 inactive license of the following health care practitioners,
1078 when such practitioners are needed to respond to the public
1079 health emergency: physicians licensed under chapter 458 or
1080 chapter 459; physician assistants licensed under chapter 458 or
1081 chapter 459; licensed practical nurses, registered nurses, and
1082 advanced practice registered nurses licensed under part I of
1083 chapter 464; respiratory therapists licensed under part V of
1084 chapter 468; and emergency medical technicians and paramedics
1085 certified under part III of chapter 401. Only those health care
1086 practitioners specified in this paragraph who possess an
1087 unencumbered inactive license and who request that such license
1088 be reactivated are eligible for reactivation. An inactive
1089 license that is reactivated under this paragraph shall return to
1090 inactive status when the public health emergency ends or before
1091 the end of the public health emergency if the State Health
1092 Officer determines that the health care practitioner is no
1093 longer needed to provide services during the public health
1094 emergency. Such licenses may only be reactivated for a period
1095 not to exceed 90 days without meeting the requirements of s.
1096 456.036 or chapter 401, as applicable.
1097 4. Ordering an individual to be examined, tested,
1098 vaccinated, treated, isolated, or quarantined for communicable
1099 diseases that have significant morbidity or mortality and
1100 present a severe danger to public health. Individuals who are
1101 unable or unwilling to be examined, tested, vaccinated, or
1102 treated for reasons of health, religion, or conscience may be
1103 subjected to isolation or quarantine.
1104 a. Examination, testing, vaccination, or treatment may be
1105 performed by any qualified person authorized by the State Health
1106 Officer.
1107 b. If the individual poses a danger to the public health,
1108 the State Health Officer may subject the individual to isolation
1109 or quarantine. If there is no practical method to isolate or
1110 quarantine the individual, the State Health Officer may use any
1111 means necessary to vaccinate or treat the individual.
1112 c. Any order of the State Health Officer given to
1113 effectuate this paragraph is shall be immediately enforceable by
1114 a law enforcement officer under s. 381.0012.
1115 (e)(2) Individuals who assist the State Health Officer at
1116 his or her request on a volunteer basis during a public health
1117 emergency are entitled to the benefits specified in s.
1118 110.504(2), (3), (4), and (5).
1119 Section 18. Section 381.00316, Florida Statutes, is created
1120 to read:
1121 381.00316 COVID-19 vaccine documentation.—
1122 (1) A business entity, as defined in s. 768.38 to include
1123 any business operating in this state, may not require patrons or
1124 customers to provide any documentation certifying COVID-19
1125 vaccination or post-infection recovery to gain access to, entry
1126 upon, or service from the business operations in this state.
1127 This subsection does not otherwise restrict businesses from
1128 instituting screening protocols consistent with authoritative or
1129 controlling government-issued guidance to protect public health.
1130 (2) A governmental entity as defined in s. 768.38 may not
1131 require persons to provide any documentation certifying COVID-19
1132 vaccination or post-infection recovery to gain access to, entry
1133 upon, or service from the governmental entity’s operations in
1134 this state. This subsection does not otherwise restrict
1135 governmental entities from instituting screening protocols
1136 consistent with authoritative or controlling government-issued
1137 guidance to protect public health.
1138 (3) An educational institution as defined in s. 768.38 may
1139 not require students or residents to provide any documentation
1140 certifying COVID-19 vaccination or post-infection recovery for
1141 attendance or enrollment, or to gain access to, entry upon, or
1142 service from such educational institution in this state. This
1143 subsection does not otherwise restrict educational institutions
1144 from instituting screening protocols consistent with
1145 authoritative or controlling government-issued guidance to
1146 protect public health.
1147 (4) The department may impose a fine not to exceed $5,000
1148 per violation.
1149 (5) This section does not apply to a health care provider
1150 as defined in s. 768.38; a service provider licensed or
1151 certified under s. 393.17, part III of chapter 401, or part IV
1152 of chapter 468; or a provider with an active health care clinic
1153 exemption under s. 400.9935.
1154 (6) The department may adopt rules pursuant to ss. 120.536
1155 and 120.54 to implement this section.
1156 Section 19. Subsection (1) of section 406.11, Florida
1157 Statutes, is amended, and paragraph (c) is added to subsection
1158 (2) of that section, to read:
1159 406.11 Examinations, investigations, and autopsies.—
1160 (1) In any of the following circumstances involving the
1161 death of a human being, the medical examiner of the district in
1162 which the death occurred or the body was found shall determine
1163 the cause of death and certify the death and shall, for that
1164 purpose, make or perform have performed such examinations,
1165 investigations, and autopsies as he or she deems shall deem
1166 necessary or as shall be requested by the state attorney:
1167 (a) When any person dies in this the state:
1168 1. Of criminal violence.
1169 2. By accident.
1170 3. By suicide.
1171 4. Suddenly, when in apparent good health.
1172 5. Unattended by a practicing physician or other recognized
1173 practitioner.
1174 6. In any prison or penal institution.
1175 7. In police custody.
1176 8. In any suspicious or unusual circumstance.
1177 9. By criminal abortion.
1178 10. By poison.
1179 11. By disease constituting a threat to public health.
1180 12. By disease, injury, or toxic agent resulting from
1181 employment.
1182 (b) When a dead body is brought into this the state without
1183 proper medical certification.
1184 (c) When a body is to be cremated, dissected, or buried at
1185 sea.
1186 (2)
1187 (c) A district medical examiner shall assist the State
1188 Health Officer in identifying and reporting deaths upon a
1189 request by the State Health Officer under s. 381.00315.
1190 Section 20. Except as otherwise expressly provided in this
1191 act, this act shall take effect July 1, 2021.

Included in this Bill, SB 2006, are the famous provisions to ban “vaccine passports”, and the text can be found on lines 1122 to 1147. As stated there is a $5,000 (maximum) penalty for breaching this. However, it is not a complete ban, and professions such as health care can still require it.

But that isn’t all. Starting on line 1097
1097 4. Ordering an individual to be examined, tested,
1098 vaccinated, treated, isolated, or quarantined for communicable
1099 diseases that have significant morbidity or mortality and
1100 present a severe danger to public health. Individuals who are
1101 unable or unwilling to be examined, tested, vaccinated, or
1102 treated for reasons of health, religion, or conscience may be
1103 subjected to isolation or quarantine.

A State Health Officer can order a person to be examined, tested, vaccinated, treated, isolated of quarantined for “communicable diseases”. People who refuse, even for valid exemptions, may be quarantined by force. That doesn’t exactly seem consistent with “freedom”. Why is it still there?

1107 b. If the individual poses a danger to the public health,
1108 the State Health Officer may subject the individual to isolation
1109 or quarantine. If there is no practical method to isolate or
1110 quarantine the individual, the State Health Officer may use any
1111 means necessary to vaccinate or treat the individual.

Line 1110 and 1110 state that the State Health Officer may use any means necessary to vaccinate, or otherwise “treat” an individual. What good is it to ban vaccine passports, when the underlying vaccination can still be imposed on a member of the public? What else is in there?

1029 (b) Before declaring a public health emergency, the State
1030 Health Officer shall, to the extent possible, consult with the
1031 Governor and shall notify the Chief of Domestic Security. The
1032 declaration of a public health emergency shall continue until
1033 the State Health Officer finds that the threat or danger has
1034 been dealt with to the extent that the emergency conditions no
1035 longer exist and he or she terminates the declaration. However,
1036 a declaration of a public health emergency may not continue for
1037 longer than 60 days unless the Governor concurs in the renewal
1038 of the declaration.

The State Health Official is an unelected bureaucrat, who has the power to just declare an emergency, and keep it going. Yes, the Governor needs to sign off on renewals past 60 days, but that doesn’t really fix the problem. And who runs Florida anyway, the Governor, or the State Health Officer?

124 specified format; requiring that orders issued by a
125 political subdivision which impose a curfew
126 restricting travel or movement allow persons to travel
127 during the curfew to and from their places of
128 employment; amending s. 377.703, F.S.

Don’t worry about more house arrest (sarcasm). In the event of a forced curfew, people would still be allowed to travel to their jobs. DeSantis won’t PREVENT areas from imposing one, but at least people will still be able to work.

Ron DeSantis is greatly admired in Canada. But is he really the freedom fighter that he claims to be? Why were all of these things left in?

(1) https://www.flsenate.gov/
(2) https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2021/2006/BillText/er/HTML
(3) https://archive.is/XCFxp
(4) Wayback Machine Archive
(5) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRFpYmBHzn0
(6) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zeL0lVxXms
(7) https://aapsonline.org/press/jebbushlet.htm
(8) https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2002/04/state-public-health-emergency-bills-getting-favorable-reception

June 21, 2021June 23, 2021

WHO Advises Not To Vaccinate Children, Then Changes It Secretly

As of 3 June 2021, WHO has evaluated that the following vaccines against COVID-19 have met the necessary criteria for safety and efficacy:

AstraZeneca/Oxford vaccine
Johnson and Johnson
Moderna
Pfizer/BionTech
Sinopharm
Sinovac

Read our Q&A on the Emergency Use Listing process to find out more about how WHO assesses the quality, safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines.

Some national regulators have also assessed other COVID-19 vaccine products for use in their countries.

Take whatever vaccine is made available to you first, even if you have already had COVID-19. It is important to be vaccinated as soon as possible once it’s your turn and not wait. Approved COVID-19 vaccines provide a high degree of protection against getting seriously ill and dying from the disease, although no vaccine is 100% protective.

WHO SHOULD GET VACCINATED

The COVID-19 vaccines are safe for most people 18 years and older, including those with pre-existing conditions of any kind, including auto-immune disorders. These conditions include: hypertension, diabetes, asthma, pulmonary, liver and kidney disease, as well as chronic infections that are stable and controlled.

If supplies are limited in your area, discuss your situation with your care provider if you:

-Have a compromised immune system
-Are pregnant (if you are already breastfeeding, you should continue after vaccination)
-Have a history of severe allergies, particularly to a vaccine (or any of the ingredients in the vaccine)
-Are severely frail

Children should not be vaccinated for the moment.

There is not yet enough evidence on the use of vaccines against COVID-19 in children to make recommendations for children to be vaccinated against COVID-19. Children and adolescents tend to have milder disease compared to adults. However, children should continue to have the recommended childhood vaccines.

WHAT SHOULD I DO AND EXPECT AFTER GETTING VACCINATED

Stay at the place where you get vaccinated for at least 15 minutes afterwards, just in case you have an unusual reaction, so health workers can help you.

Check when you should come in for a second dose – if needed. Most of the vaccines available are two-dose vaccines. Check with your care provider whether you need to get a second dose and when you should get it. Second doses help boost the immune response and strengthen immunity.

In most cases, minor side effects are normal. Common side effects after vaccination, which indicate that a person’s body is building protection to COVID-19 infection include:

-Arm soreness
-Mild fever
-Tiredness
-Headaches
-Muscle or joint aches

Contact your care provider if there is redness or tenderness (pain) where you got the shot that increases after 24 hours, or if side effects do not go away after a few days.

If you experience an immediate severe allergic reaction to a first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine, you should not receive additional doses of the vaccine. It’s extremely rare for severe health reactions to be directly caused by vaccines.

Taking painkillers such as paracetamol before receiving the COVID-19 vaccine to prevent side effects is not recommended. This is because it is not known how painkillers may affect how well the vaccine works. However, you may take paracetamol or other painkillers if you do develop side effects such as pain, fever, headache or muscle aches after vaccination.

Even after you’re vaccinated, keep taking precautions

While a COVID-19 vaccine will prevent serious illness and death, we still don’t know the extent to which it keeps you from being infected and passing the virus on to others. The more we allow the virus to spread, the more opportunity the virus has to change.

Continue to take actions to slow and eventually stop the spread of the virus:

-Keep at least 1 metre from others
-Wear a mask, especially in crowded, closed and poorly ventilated settings.
-Clean your hands frequently
-Cover any cough or sneeze in your bent elbow
-When indoors with others, ensure good ventilation, such as by opening a window

Doing it all protects us all.

UPDATE TO ARTICLE

Children and adolescents tend to have milder disease compared to adults, so unless they are part of a group at higher risk of severe COVID-19, it is less urgent to vaccinate them than older people, those with chronic health conditions and health workers.

Shortly after originally posting, WHO changed its advice. Now, instead of “we shouldn’t vaccinate children”, the article reads “it’s less urgent”. Nice way to slip the narrative.

(1) https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/covid-19-vaccines/advice
(2) https://www.who.int/immunization/programmes_systems/policies_strategies/consent_note_en.pdf
(3) WHO Schools And Implied Not Direct Consent
(4) https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/340841/WHO-2019-nCoV-Policy-brief-Mandatory-vaccination-2021.1-eng.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
(5) WHO Paper On MANDATORY Vaccination April 13, 2021 (Copy)
(6) https://www.laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/F-27/page-8.html#h-234517
(7) 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
(8) https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/astrazeneca-covid-19-vaccine-pm-en.pdf
(9) https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/janssen-covid-19-vaccine-pm-en.pdf
(10) https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/covid-19-vaccine-moderna-pm-en.pdf
(11) https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/pfizer-biontech-covid-19-vaccine-pm1-en.pdf

Category: Human Rights

CV #26(H): Region Of Peel Lies About Infertility, Deaths, Approval

Like this:

Canadian Immunization Research Network, Which Evaluates Vaccines, Is Funded By Big Pharma

Like this:

Ontario’s “Re-Education” Training For Health Care Workers Refusing “Vaccines”

Like this:

Ron DeSantis “Vaccine Passport Ban” Leaves EHP Act, Forced Vaccinations, Curfews Intact

Like this:

WHO Advises Not To Vaccinate Children, Then Changes It Secretly

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this: