Category: Human Rights

Posted on

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

Posted on

American College Health Foundation Is Funded By Big Pharma And Insurance

The American College Health Foundation (ACHF), is promoting the “pandemic” narrative, and even trying to coordinate the mass vaccination of students. Why would it do that? Turns out, the ACHF is involved with different organizations who don’t have the public’s interests at heart.

A look at some of their donors is an instant red flag. Several health companies, which stand to profit, are listed. True, this list is from 2018, but it gives a look into it. And sitting as a top tier donor: Pfizer.

With this in mind, it should not be at all surprising that the ACHF promotes the mass vaccination of college students.

Mass Vaccination Clinic Guidance and Resources
The ACHA COVID-19 task force has gathered resources to assist members in planning for mass vaccination clinics. While currently the focus is on planning the administration of COVID-19 vaccine to large numbers of students and other members of the campus community, these resources and principles may be applied to the administration of any vaccine in a large-scale event. Guidance for supply, delivery, storage, and administration of the anticipated COVID-19 vaccine will come from the federal government and state, territorial, tribal, and local health departments and therefore will not be addressed in any specific way in this document.

In the current situation, it is critical that colleges and universities reach out to the appropriate public health authority so as to be included in the planning and distribution of the vaccine for students and other campus community members. College and university health services will then provide direction to and coordination with their campus partners in setting up systems to manage the details of the immunization plan.

Although specific guidance will be forthcoming from governmental agencies, college health professionals have an important role in encouraging high uptake of vaccines in the campus community.

COVID-19 vaccine mass vaccination events will require additional planning including:

The ACHF is fully behind the agenda of mass vaccinating young adults, but omits any mention of the relevant details:

  1. These vaccines are still undergoing testing
  2. These vaccines have “Emergency Use Authorization” and are not approved
  3. Manufacturers are exempt from liability

The ACHF prominently posts a link to the CDC or Center for Disease Control in the U.S. This page gives “Covid communications” advice, including how to talk to people about getting vaccinated. See below.

For some context, the CDC doesn’t completely function as a Government body, but receives private funding. Its fundraising arm, the CDC Foundation is “an independent nonprofit and the sole entity created by Congress to mobilize philanthropic and private-sector resources to support the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s critical health protection work”. It’s listed as 501(c)(3) charity. Top partner organizations and corporations are drug companies. A charitable interpretation would be to call it a public-private partnership.

Established by Congress more than two decades ago, the CDC Foundation is an independent, 501(c)(3) public charity.

One of the ACHF’s partners is Pharmedrix, a company that packages drugs and medicine. It’s also “licensed as a drug manufacturer with the State of California and registered as a drug manufacturer/repackager with both the Food and Drug Administration and the Drug Enforcement Administration”. Pharmedrix is listed as a “Diamond Level” donors to the ACHF.

Another partner of the ACHF is Pyramed Health. The specific “pandemic” services it offers include: (a) Case Management System; (b) Contact Tracing; (c) Zoom Integration; and (d) Custom Lab Interfaces. The current situation seems to have kept them very busy.

Also on the list is Aetna Health, an insurance broker, who also provides referrals to a variety of other health services.

Gallagher Koster, is another insurance company, and another top donor to the ACHF. Unsurprisingly, its target customers are college students.

This is hardly an exhaustive listing, the pattern is unmistakable: there is a lot of money tied up in poisoning people, without fully disclosing the risks. The American education industry seems to be no different.

(1) https://www.acha.org/
(2) https://www.acha.org/ACHA/Resources/COVID-19_Novel_Coronavirus/Mass_Vaccination_Guidance_and_Resources/ACHA/Resources/Topics/Mass_Vaccination_Clinic_Guidance_and_Resources.aspx?hkey=aa394485-cc39-417a-ab2e-bcddc24f14ed
(3) https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/health-systems-communication-toolkit.html
(4) https://www.cdcfoundation.org/our-story
(5) https://www.cdcfoundation.org/partner-list/foundations
(6) https://www.cdcfoundation.org/partner-list/corporations
(7) https://www.acha.org/documents/ACHF/ACHF_Donor_List_2018.pdf
(8) ACHF Top Donor Honour Roll 2018
(9) https://www.acha.org/documents/ACHF/Partners_for_Wellness_2017.pdf
(10) ACHF Partners For Wellness 2017
(11) http://www.pharmedixrx.com/
(12) https://pyramed-health.com/covid-19-solutions/
(13) https://www.aetnastudenthealth.com/en/main/about-us.html
(14) https://www.gallagherstudent.com/
(15) http://www.sdweissfoundation.com/programs/

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

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/