Category: Human Rights

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?

Posted on

CV #25(C): Brian Pallister Hires Intelligence & Detention Firm G4S For “Security” In Manitoba

Manitoba Premier Brian Pallister has publicly floated the idea of a mandatory curfew, which he claims will be “limited”. He has since banned the sale of what he calls “non-essential goods” in stores. However, he is not being forthcoming with residents about G4S, the security firm he brought in.

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

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

2. Important Links

(1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_surrounding_G4S#Immigrant-detainee_labour
(2) https://twitter.com/BrianPallister/status/1323638895586779136
(3) https://archive.is/p3MnX
(4) https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/covid19-enforcement-update-manitoba-pallister-1.5804774
(5) https://archive.is/8brqz
(6) https://www.reuters.com/article/us-florida-shooting-g4s-idUSKCN0Z02QS
G4S: Services That We Offer
(7) https://archive.is/VnobR
(8) https://www.g4s.com/en-gb/what-we-do/care-and-justice-services/custody-and-detention-services
(9) https://archive.is/LEWya
(10) https://www.latimes.com/socal/daily-pilot/entertainment/story/2020-09-24/garden-grove-approves-1-8m-contract-outsourcing-jail-security-service-to-g4s
(11) https://archive.is/UhceY
(12) https://www.g4s.com/what-we-do/care-and-justice
(13) https://www.g4s.com/en-us/media/news/2020/04/14/g4s-adds-ai-based-stabilitas-critical-event-intelligence-engine-to-roc-offering
(14) ttps://www.g4s.com/news-and-insights/insights/2018/08/30/the-future-of-drones-in-security
(15) https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/australia-to-deploy-drones-to-photograph-unmasked-faces-drivers-too-far-from-home
(16) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/G4S-Contact-Tracing-Info.pdf
(17) https://www.g4s.com/en-ca/vancouver
(18) https://indianexpress.com/article/business/companies/gates-foundation-sells-stake-in-britains-g4s/
(19) https://www.g4s.com/investors/regulatory-announcements/2016/12/02/agreement-reached-on-sale-of-g4s-israel

3. CBC Article And Video On Hiring G4S

Private security officers will crack down on rule breakers after shoppers crowded into big-box stores, where many bought non-essential goods during the first weekend of the province’s latest lockdown.

The province has hired security firm G4S Canada to boost its enforcement of COVID-19 regulations, and their personnel should be handing out tickets by this weekend, Premier Brian Pallister said Tuesday.

The province is also filing charges in addition to levying fines against those who took part in a rally in Steinbach this past weekend where protesters flouted COVID-19 regulations, Pallister said.

To start with the obvious question: who does Brian Pallister think he is, to determine what is and what isn’t “essential items” to purchase? Aren’t conservatives supposed to support free will and individual choice? And even if this were legitimate, why is it necessary to hire outside sources?

Beyond that, Pallister pitches this as glorified mall cops. However, this is disingenuous when you consider the other skills and resources G4S has. Perhaps this hiring is more about doing overall surveillance on Manitobans overall.

4. Mass Killer Omar Mateen Ex-G4S Employee

Bit of a sidenote: Omar Mateen, who killed 49 people in an Orlando nightclub in 2016, was an employee of G4S for years. They have been criticized for not doing enough to look into his background.

5. G4S Offers Consulting Services As Well

Whether threats are from crime or terrorism, or simply from entering new ventures markets or territories, we work to design and implement effective measures to mitigate or manage these risks. Should the unexpected happen, we can support clients in times of emergency or crisis.
.
We enable our clients to develop resilience to business risk by providing:
.
-Proactive intelligence gathering, analysis and research, using the latest techniques and processes
-World class risk advisory and mitigation services
-Outstanding crisis management and response capability
-Expert advice on risk management technologies.
–Specialist training and capacity building programmes

EVERY SOLUTION STARTS WITH UNDERSTANDING THE THREAT
Our team of 24/7 analysts provide insight and intelligence into the threats that our clients face. By understanding the threat we can use our expertise, global resources and intelligence to work with our clients to develop a solution which matches their exact requirements. With the aim of not only protecting people and assets but improving business efficiency.
.
We work with some of the world leading security consultants with expertise in Crowded Places, Aviation, High-Risk Environments, Secure by Design, Major Events, CNI, Counter-Terrorism, CBRN and Blast Modelling.

The client in this case is the Manitoba Government. What if the threat G4S was supposed to prevent was an informed population rising up tp assert its rights? This is much, MUCH more than simply doing local security for shopping centers. Here is a promotional video in Canada.

6. G4S Operates Private Prisons

G4S has been providing value for money, innovation, and social benefit within the criminal justice sector in the United Kingdom since the first private sector prison in the country was opened in 1992. Since then, expertise from around the business has been used to expand and improve our offering.

One of the services G4S offers is in private prisons. They have existed (at least in the UK), since 1992. In September of this year, Garden Grove switched to G4S. These services are also offered in Australia. It should be noted that G4S is also involved in running immigration detention as well.

7. Using AI To Track Covid-19 Hotspots

“The recent COVID-19 outbreak has made evident the need for local intelligence that can be globally communicated, as businesses with people and operations around the world need quick, comprehensive and actionable information to effectively respond to hotspots and make business-critical decisions daily,” said G4S Americas CEO John Kenning. “G4S ROC analysts are able to use the Stabilitas’ AI platform to provide customers with actionable data to help protect their employees, operations and assets. Our strategic partnership with Stabilitas enhances the integrated security service offerings we provide customers under our Security Operations Center (SOC) Practice.”

Stabilitas’ AI-based platform also equips G4S ROC staff to deliver real-time intelligence, travel risk management, asset visualization and mass notifications to clients, employees, travelers and assets to keep their operations secure, a particularly valuable resource in the face of rapidly evolving global threats such as the COVID-19 pandemic. The platform filters more than 17,000 trusted data sources across government, weather and geological, local and international, social media, IoT networks and other external data sources into a single feed that identifies critical events and correlates those on a global scale, far surpassing the capabilities of manual monitoring and analysis processes.

G4S claims to be able to better monitor and track outbreaks in this “pandemic” using artificial intelligence technology. Since they’ll be providing actual security, at least in Manitoba, this will effectively cut out the middleman.

8. G4S Implementing Drone Technology

G4S now has drones in its inventory, allowing it to conduct search and surveillance in places and ways that had not been previously possible. Australia has an application for this technology: catching people who aren’t wearing masks.

9. G4S Offers Tech For Contact Tracing

If you have an existing security access system, you may not realize that it can be used to supplement your contact tracing program. Access systems can track an employee or visitor and determine who else was in the same area at the same time. They provide timely information which is critical for contact protocols. You
can choose the amount of time to track. If an employee or visitor displays virus symptoms, these tools can tell you who that person may have come into contact with, and provide the data to notify other individuals who may have been exposed. Ongoing reports can be generated to maintain compliance and meet everchanging regulations.

G4S offers electronic visitor management systems to assist with contact tracing. These systems can prompt people to answer specific questions related to self-declaration (e.g. have you been in contact with anyone who has displayed symptoms of a fever in the past 14 days?) and can be used to alert personnel to any answers that may require secondary screening. As these systems are designed for employees and visitors to provide basic contact information, they can be used to generate a prescribed report as to who was in the building, when they were there and with whom they met.

Contact tracing benefits come from the basic information a user would enter when prompted, creating a contact list and a record of compliance as to who had entered, when they did and a phone number to reach them

G4S sees the contact tracing industry as an area for significant growth. Given the increase surveillance Governments are demanding, it seems smart from a business perspective.

10. G4S Also Involved In Airport Security

G4S is proud to provide services throughout the province of British Columbia.
.
G4S is Canada’s leading security service provider to the energy sector. G4S specializes in providing service to mining, forestry, retail, special events & property management. G4S provides screening services to airports throughout British Columbia and the Yukon in partnership with the CANADIAN AIR TRANSPORT SECURITY AUTHORITY (CATSA).

Yes, the same group involved with contact tracing, artificial intelligence, drones, and pandemic management also has a foothold in airport security in Canada.

11. Gates Foundation Sells Shares Of G4S Stock

Until the Spring of 2014, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation was actually a co-owner of G4S, holding approximately 3% of the stock. However, it has since been sold off.

12. Sale: G4S Israel To FIMI Opportunity Funds

Effective December 31, 2015, G4S Israel was sold to FIMI Opportunity Funds for the equivalent of about 88 million British Pounds. Despite the change in ownership, G4S would still retain a presence in Israel. It’s denied that the sale had anything to do with BDS (ban, divest, sanction) efforts launched in many countries.

13. Why Is G4S Really In Manitoba?

Premier Brian Pallister made it seem like he was just hiring extra security guards due to a personnel shortage. However, when it’s considered what G4S does, and what they are capable of, what is the purpose of this? This certainly seems like overkill — unless there’s another agenda.

Yes, the company has been used for tickets and commercial security before. However, in light of everything going on, this doesn’t seem right.

If Ottawa or any Provincial Government ever wanted to give the order for G4S to start rounding up and detaining political dissidents, they would have the capability to do it.

Posted on

CV #35(B): Deja Vu? Parallels With 2009 H1N1; Ferguson; PCR; Limited Trials; Indemnification

“The Minister may make an interim order that contains any provision that may be contained in a regulation made under this Act if the Minister believes that immediate action is required to deal with a significant risk, direct or indirect, to health, safety or the environment.” Section 30.1(1) of the Food and Drugs Act. Sure, there are standards, but they can be bypassed if needed.

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

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

2. Important Links

Imperial College London Modelling H1N1
https://archive.is/KLgV2
Imperial College London’s Findings On Swine Flu (H1N1)
https://archive.is/gj4R6
CDC Approves PCR Tests For H1N1 Detection
Interim Order Allowing H1N1 Vaccine
[A] Q&A About Vaccine Arepanrix H1N1 Approval
[A] Information About Research Performed
https://archive.is/WskgA
[B] Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Pandemic Monovalent Vaccine
https://archive.is/wip/q1Z79
Food & Drug Act Of Canada
Adam v. GlaxoSmithKline Inc., 2019 ONSC 7066 (CanLII)
2010 Film: Outbreak, Anatomy Of A Plague
Rockefeller.Foundation.lockstep.2010

Order In Council: 2009-1769
Order In Council: 2009-1857

3. Neil Ferguson’s Shoddy Modelling

Neil Ferguson and Imperial College London were also involved in modelling H1N1 (Swine Flu), over a decade ago. His models are about as off the mark then as they are now.

Imperial College London has financial ties to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Gates himself shows interest in many of ICL’s activities.

Professor Neil Ferguson, the corresponding author of the new research from the MRC Centre for Outbreak Analysis and Modelling at Imperial College London, said: “Our study shows that this virus is spreading just as we would expect for the early stages of a flu pandemic. So far, it has been following a very similar pattern to the flu pandemic in 1957, in terms of the proportion of people who are becoming infected and the percentage of potentially fatal cases that we are seeing.

“What we’re seeing is not the same as seasonal flu and there is still cause for concern – we would expect this pandemic to at least double the burden on our healthcare systems. However, this initial modelling suggests that the H1N1 virus is not as easily transmitted or as lethal as that found in the flu pandemic in 1918,” added Professor Ferguson.

Even back in 2009 (and in fact earlier), Ferguson was quite willing to push the panic button based on very incomplete information. It must be noted that models are not proof or evidence, they are merely predictions. These predictions are subjected to the same limitations and biases of the people conducting them.

Ferguson’s “models” predicted some 65,000 deaths in the U.K. as a result of Swine Flu. A total of 457 materialized in the end. And it’s just one of the times he’s grossly overshot the mark.

4. PCR Tests Used For Swine Flu Detection

This guidance was revised to clarify that the current rRT-PCR developed by CDC to detect novel influenza A ( H1N1) is authorized by the FDA. The FDA authorization, also termed Emergency Use Authorization or EUA, is not equivalent to FDA cleared, which was incorrectly stated in the previous version of the guidance.

Those PCR tests (which don’t detect Covid-19), were also approved for use in diagnosing H1N1 by the Center for Disease Control in the U.S. The technology wasn’t suited then, and isn’t now.

5. Inadequate Clinical Trials: (Arepanrix H1N1)

4. What evidence was used to support the authorization of Arepanrix™ H1N1?
A prototype or “mock” vaccine was developed in the pre-pandemic period using another strain of influenza virus, the H5N1 strain. During this period Health Canada inspected the vaccine manufacturing facilities, validated the vaccine production process, and reviewed results from both animal and human studies with the mock vaccine. In addition, the safety and effectiveness of the adjuvant to be used with the vaccine was assessed by Health Canada. Once the H1N1 virus emerged as the pandemic virus, the manufacturer initiated vaccine production using the strain recommended by the WHO.

5. What are the benefits and potential risks associated with Arepanrix™ H1N1?
Criteria have been established to assess the immunogenicity of vaccines. Clinical trial results indicate that Arepanrix meets all of these criteria, which means that the vaccine produces an adequate level of protection against the H1N1 pandemic virus.
.
As with all medicinal products, there may be side effects or adverse events associated with the use of the product. Some of the very common adverse events that have been observed in clinical trials with the pandemic vaccine include pain at the injection site, fatigue, headache, swollen glands in the neck, joint pain, and muscle ache. Refer to the product leaflet for additional information on adverse events.

6. How was Arepanrix™ H1N1 authorized?
Arepanrix™ H1N1 was approved because it was shown that the benefits of the vaccine outweigh any risks. The time frame between vaccine manufacturing and the need to use the vaccine in time to provide the public with protection against the virus is very short. As a result, it has not been possible for the manufacturer to collect the usual full information necessary for a Notice of Compliance to be issued under the Food and Drug Regulations. For this reason, an Interim Order was used to provide an alternate pathway to allow for the authorization for sale of the vaccine. Under the Interim Order, the manufacturer is required to continue submitting data on the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine. Health Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada will review this information as it becomes available.

This vaccine was rushed out for use in the general population. This was despite the testing not being complete. The Minister of Health signed an interim Order allowing it to be dispensed anyway.

It’s worth pointing out that initial trials were not even conducted on the H1N1 influenza strain, but on another one. Fair to ask how valid that initial research would be.

Elderly (>60 years):
There are limited data available from clinical studies with Pandemrix™ (H1N1) and with Arepanrix™ H1N1 vaccine in adults aged over 60 years.
.
The recommended dosage for this age group is one dose of 0.5mL.
.
Immunogenicity data obtained at 3 weeks after administration of Pandemrix (H1N1) or Arepanrix™ H1N1 in clinical studies in this age group suggest that a single dose may be sufficient.
.
If a second dose is administered, it should be given after an interval of at least three weeks. See section Pharmacodynamics.

Children and adolescents aged 10-17 years:
No clinical data are available for Arepanrix™ H1N1 in this age group. There are limited data available from a clinical study with Pandemrix™ (H1N1) in this age group.
.
The recommended dosage for this age group is in accordance with recommendations for adults.

Children aged from 6 months to 9 years:
One dose of 0.25mL (i.e. half of the adult dose) at an elected date.

Preliminary immunogenicity data obtained in a limited number of children aged 6-35 months who received two doses of 0.25 mL of Pandemrix™ (H1N1) containing 1.9 µg HA derived from A/California/7/2009 (H1N1) and a limited number of children aged 3-9 years who received one dose of 0.5 mL of Pandemrix™ (H1N1) show that a good immune response is elicited after the first dose, but there is a further immune response to a second dose of 0.25 mL administered to children aged 6-35 months after an interval of three weeks.

Extremely limited studies were done prior to getting interim approval from the Minister of Health. In some cases, they were using different vaccines and working with different strains. Not really an apples to apples comparison.

6. Inadequate Trials: (Monovalent Vaccine)

Elderly (>60 years):
No clinical data are available for Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Pandemic Monovalent Vaccine (Without Adjuvant) in this age group. One dose of 0.5mL may be administered at an elected date.

Children and adolescents aged 10-17 years:
No clinical data are available for the Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Pandemic Monovalent Vaccine (Without Adjuvant) in this age group. One dose of 0.5mL may be administered at an elected date.

Children aged 3-9 years:
No clinical data are available for the Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Pandemic Monovalent Vaccine (Without Adjuvant) in this age group. The use of this vaccine should be considered in light of PHAC recommendations for the A/California/7/2009(H1N1)v-like vaccination. Preliminary data with other similar unadjuvanted vaccines suggest that if used in this age group, a 2-dose regimen (0.5mL with an interval of at least 21 days between doses) is recommended.

Children aged from 6-35 months:
No clinical data are available for the Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Pandemic Monovalent Vaccine (Without Adjuvant) in this age group. The use of this vaccine should be considered in light of PHAC recommendations for the A/California/7/2009(H1N1)v-like vaccination. Preliminary data with other similar unadjuvanted vaccines suggest that for this age group, unadjuvanted vaccine may not be suitable against this pandemic strain.

Children aged less than 6 months:
Vaccination is not currently recommended in this age group.
For further information, see section Pharmacodynamics.

This isn’t selective editing or anything of the sort. Health Canada approved the use of this drug for children between 6 months and 17 years, and over the age of 60, without there being clinical data to support that it worked. This is chilling to read.

7. Approval Of Experimental Drugs

“The Minister may make an interim order that contains any provision that may be contained in a regulation made under this Act if the Minister believes that immediate action is required to deal with a significant risk, direct or indirect, to health, safety or the environment.” [from the Food and Drugs Act]

That is Section 30.1(1) of the Food and Drug Act of Canada. It was used to approve 2 vaccines without full and complete trials. They were:
[1] Arepanrix™ H1N1 (AS03-Adjuvanted H1N1 Pandemic Influenza Vaccine)
[2] Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Pandemic Monovalent Vaccine (Without Adjuvant)

The Minister has the discretion to do this. And it happened, despite there not being adequate testing done. Could the same thing happen with Covid-19?

8. Indemnification From The Courts

Adam, Abudu v. Ledesma-Cadhit et al, 2014 ONSC 5726 (CanLII)
Adam v. GlaxoSmithKline Inc., 2019 ONSC 7066 (CanLII)

There are actually 2 different rulings based on vaccine injury from GlaxoSmithKline. Here are quotes from the later ruling.

[15] In early 2009, the WHO became aware of the development of a new strain of influenza virus: H1N1, commonly known as swine flu. It had not been seen in human populations before, as a result of which humans had no built up immunity. The WHO declared H1N1 to be a pandemic.

[16] On June 11, 2009, the WHO declared a phase 6 pandemic. This is the final and most serious stage of a pandemic. It marks sustained human-to-human transmission of the virus in more than one region of the world. By early July there had been 94,512 reported cases and approximately 429 recorded deaths attributable to H1N1.

[17] In the summer of 2009, the WHO called for manufacturers to begin clinical trials for a vaccine to combat H1N1.

[18] GSK developed two vaccines to combat H1N1: Arepanrix and Pandemrix. Both are substantially similar. Pandemrix was manufactured and distributed in Europe. Arepanrix was manufactured and distributed in Canada. Clinical trials for Arepanrix began in 2008 but had not been completed when the pandemic was declared.

[19] The federal Minister of Health authorized the sale of the Arepanrix vaccine pursuant to an interim order dated October 13, 2009. Human trials of the vaccine were still underway. The Minister of Health is empowered to make interim orders if immediate action is required because of a danger to health, safety or the environment. In issuing the interim order, Health Canada deemed the risk profile of Arepanrix to be favourable for an interim order. The authorization was based on the risk caused by the current pandemic threat and its danger to human health. As part of the interim order process, Health Canada agreed to indemnify GSK for any claims brought against it in relation to the administration of the Arepanrix vaccine.

[20] Although human trials of Arepanrix were not finished by the time Health Canada authorized its use, the vaccine was not without clinical history.

[34] The plaintiffs’ principal allegation with respect to the standard of care is that GSK failed to make adequate disclosure of the risks involved with Arepanrix.

[35] The plaintiffs began their challenge about disclosure with the evidence of Ms. Hyacenth who testified that she was not told that: (i) the vaccine had not been tested through the usual route, (ii) the vaccine had been subject to a hastened approval process by Health Canada, (iii) adjuvants had never been used in children, (iv) the Government of Canada was indemnifying the vaccine manufacturer; and (v) some countries refused to make the vaccine available because of safety concerns. Ms. Hyacenth says that had she been told about these things she would not have risked having her children vaccinated.

[36] Part of the challenge of the plaintiffs’ inadequate disclosure case is that Ms. Hyacenth was not the direct purchaser of the vaccine. Vaccines are administered through a “learned intermediary,” in this case, her family physician. The issue is significant because any disclosures GSK makes are made in product monographs or inserts that accompany each vial of vaccine. The patient getting the vaccine does not receive the box containing the vaccine and whatever disclosure document it contains. It is the physician who receives this.

[37] GSK did disclose in its Product Information Leaflet for the Arepanrix vaccine and in its product monograph that Health Canada had authorized the sale of the vaccine based on only limited clinical testing and no clinical experience at all with children. Dr. Ledesma-Cadhit believes she knew this from the Health Canada website. She was also aware that Arepanrix was authorized through a special process because of the pandemic.

[38] The product monograph for Arepanrix disclosed that there was limited clinical experience with an investigational formulation of another adjuvanted vaccine but no clinical experience with children. In addition, the product information leaflet and product monograph disclosed a number of risks.

In short, Health Canada approved, or rather authorized, a vaccine that in which trials were still ongoing. The doctor, despite reading the lengthy disclaimer, injected it, and this comes in spite of there being no trials on children.

The Canadian Government had agreed to indemnify the manufacturer, GSK, ahead of time. Moreover, the victims didn’t buy the product from the manufacturer, but from the doctor, a “learned intermediary”. In short, GlaxoSmithKline was legally off the hook for what it sold to the public.

Can we expect the same sort of thing here with Covid-19? Will the Government approve a vaccine (or multiple vaccines), that haven’t properly been tested, and indemnify the manufacturers? After all, the patients aren’t buying directly from the manufacturer, but are getting it from their doctors.

Moreover, doctors are largely immune from action against them if they are following approved practices. In this case, it would be administering drugs that Health Canada approved.

GSK has been registered as lobbying the Federal Government since 1996, and there are hundreds of communications reports. But getting an indemnification agreement was probably just a coincidence.

9. Strange Events Happened In 2010

The next year, Tam would go on to have an appearance in the movie “Outbreak: Anatomy Of A Plague”. She advocated locking people up and putting tracking bracelets on them. Quite the bit of predictive programming.

Rockefeller.Foundation.lockstep.2010

The infamous “Lockstep Narrative” was also written in 2010. That was just one scenario laid out in the infamous paper, but it largely parallels what’s happening today.

10. History Repeating Itself In 2020?

This may seem a bit hyperbolic, but what is going on in 2009 with Swine Flu closely parallels what is happening Covid-19. Main points include:

-Neil Ferguson and Imperial College London
-Useless PCR tests to detect viral infection
-Vaccines not fully tested
-Health Canada approves despite incomplete tests
-Vaccine manufacturers are indemnified

There are some differences though. The World Economic Forum wasn’t touting the “Great Reset”, and communist movements weren’t nearly as overt as today. Or perhaps that was all just setting it in motion.

Posted on

Green New Deal Group, Taking Lessons From The 2008 Banking Bailout

Think recent public efforts to convince the public to act on climate change just happened? No, they are the result of years of planning, and from an organization called Green New Deal Group.

There is some real strategy at play here. Divert people’s attention with protests, riots, and public movements, and the agenda can be quietly passed. After all, how much coverage do the various treaties we sign (and bills we pass), actually get?

1. About Green New Deal Group

As in past times of crises, disparate groups have come together to propose a new solution to an epochal challenge. The Green New Deal Group drew inspiration from the ambition of President Roosevelt’s comprehensive response to the Great Depression to propose a modernised version, a ‘Green New Deal’ in 2008. It was designed to kick start a rapid transition to a new economy shaped to prevent a climate breakdown and transform a failed financial system. The Green New Deal will power a renewables revolution, create thousands of green-collar jobs across the economy and rein in the distorting and socially-destructive power of the finance sector while making more low-cost capital available for pressing priorities.

Meeting since early 2007, the membership of the Green New Deal Group is drawn to reflect a wide range of expertise relating politics and economics, and the climate, nature and inequality crises. The views and recommendations of the Green New Deal series of reports, are those of the group writing in their individual capacities.

The Green New Deal Group is, in alphabetical order:
.
Larry Elliott, Economics Editor of the Guardian, Colin Hines, Co-Director of Finance for the Future, former head of Greenpeace International’s Economics Unit, Jeremy Leggett, founder and Chairman of Solarcentury and SolarAid, Clive Lewis, Labour MP, Caroline Lucas, Green Party MP, Richard Murphy, Professor of Practice, City University, Director Tax Research LLP, Ann Pettifor, Director, Policy Research in Macroeconomics (PRIME), Charles Secrett, Advisor on Sustainable Development, former Director of Friends of the Earth, Andrew Simms, Co-Director, New Weather Institute, Coordinator, The Rapid Transition Alliance, Assistant Director, Scientists for Global Responsibility. Geoff Tily Senior Economist, TUC

Those are the people who make up the Green New Deal Group. In essence, this is the brainchild behind the eco movement in recent years.

2. GNDG Used To Reboot After 2008 Crash

In the coverage of the causes and likely future effects of the credit crunch, such grim parallels are becoming commonplace. But it’s now time to move from problems to solutions, and here too the Depression can form a useful reference point. Franklin Roosevelt’s action programme for dealing with the aftermath of the late 1920s credit crunch was threefold: first, strictly regulate the cause of the problem – the greedy and feckless finance sector; second, get people back to work, and generate business opportunities by a New Deal. This invested billions of dollars in training, better working conditions and a huge range of infrastructural projects such as highways, dams and bridges. Finally, fund this in part by an increase in taxes on big business and the rich – a measure which also had the positive effect of dramatically decreasing inequality.

Today the re-regulation of finance is even being discussed among consenting free market adults in the columns of the Financial Times. My colleague, environmentalist Colin Hines, has fleshed out the details of a Green New Deal which could help re-boot the economy after the credit crash, while putting serious money into addressing climate change.

As a result of the 2008 crash, this group decided that it would make a great opportunity to completely remake their economy, and deal with climate change in the first place. They reasoned that if banks were worth pouring trillions into, then the environment must be as well. The argument does have some merit to it.

Notice that it’s compared to the “New Deal” that Franklin Delano Roosevelt launched in the 1930s. This is not the last time that comparison will come up.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez introduced the U.S. public to the Green New Deal in 2019, just after taking office. It wasn’t some brainstorm she had, but had been drawn up many years ago. The YouTuber, Mr. Reagan, did address that AOC was a puppet, but he missed how far back the plan went.

3. GND Group To Solve “Triple Crunch”

Can I trust the bank to look after my money? Clickety clack. How much has my house fallen in value? Clickety clack. Will high fuel prices mean I can’t keep my car on the road? Can I afford to buy enough food for the family? Clickety clack. Will I lose my job, and why is everyone making me paranoid about climate change when there’s nothing I can do about it? Clickety, clickety clack … and then back to the beginning. The “triple crunch” of a credit-fuelled financial crisis, accelerating climate change and soaring energy prices – how did we get into this mess? In the face of so many simultaneous crises, we all have legitimate questions for the governments that allowed us to sleepwalk into this situation.

The Green New Deal was dreamed up as a way to solve multiple problems, such as: (a) financial crisis; (b) climate change; and (c) energy prices all at once.

While it’s nice to see the financial crisis addressed, this group seems to miss the elephant in the room: central banking. It’s that the Government legislates in such a way that the U.S. is forced to borrow — at interest — from the Federal Reserve, a private organization. Do they not know about any of this?

4. History Of The Green New Deal

Where the Green New Deal came from
.
The idea of a Green New Deal first arose at the time of 2007-2008 financial crisis roughly simultaneously in the us and the UK. New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman wrote an article in January 2007 that suggested the approach. The same year the UK-based Green New Deal group formed, independently developing and publishing the first full proposal for a Green New Deal in July 2008. The group’s report laid out the architecture of the Green New Deal for the first time: combining reining in the power of big finance and transforming the way that government manages the economy with a plan to transform the economy and society to meet the challenges of climate change. The group also published several subsequent reports developing the idea over the following years. The Green New Deal was then taken up by the Green Party in the UK, by Green parties across Europe and by the United Nations Environment Programme. In 2018, the idea was revived by us senator Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and the Sunrise Movement in the US following a meeting between a member of her team and UK Green New Deal group member Ann Pettifor. When AOC published a bill for the Green New Deal with Senator Edward Markey in February 2019 the idea caught on around the world.

Far from being some sort of a revolutionary, AOC was simply the latest person assigned to run with the agenda. While it is easy to mock the GND outright, it seems that elements of it are embedded within Agenda 2030 and the Great Reset.

5. UK PM Gordon Brown Promotes GND

Moving the UK to a low-carbon economy will create 400,000 new jobs over the next eight years, Gordon Brown has told a summit in London.
.
The prime minister called for an international “green new deal” to boost the environmental sector and help lift the global economy out of recession.
.
This will increase “confidence and certainty”, he added.
.
But unions and environmental groups called for more funding for green projects, along with better regulation.
The government has set a target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 80% from 1990 levels by 2050.

When he was Prime Minister of the UK, Gordon Brown openly called for a “Green New Deal” to rebuild the country after the banking collapse.

6. Green Quantitative Easing

As the Bank of England moves closer towards announcing an unprecedented third round of ‘Quantitative Easing’, experts are calling for this newly created money to be used more productively and effectively to achieve key social and environmental objectives. During the last round of Quantitative Easing (’QE’) the Bank of England purchased £275bn worth of government bonds with money it newly created. As the Bank of England prepares the ground to inject a likely £50bn to £75bn into the economy, the UK’s Green Party MP, Caroline Lucas, and Southampton University banking expert Professor Richard Werner, are calling for this money injection to be used for green projects that directly improve the environment and long-term quality of life, while creating many new jobs. Said Professor Richard A. Werner, Director of the Centre for Banking, Finance and Sustainable Development at the University of Southampton: “Many people would like money creation to be used to help the wider economy directly and to implement some badly needed green projects that would enhance the sustainability of the economy and improve the environment—as well as create new jobs.”

Green Quantitative Easing Paper

In 2012, Richard Werner submitted a proposal for “green quantitative easing”. In short, it would still involve printing off large sums of money. However, it would be spent on environmental causes, instead of being poured into banks.

7. GND Group UK Budget Submission

A Green New Deal Group briefing, The Green New Deal: Securing the Future, was sent to the Chancellor ahead of the March 2020 budget, with a letter signed by MPs from all the main opposition parties.

As the briefing, written by Green New Deal Group member Richard Murphy sets out, the Green New Deal Group have long argued that it is prudent for government to borrow (by issuing bonds) to invest in the transformation of our infrastructure and businesses while interest rates are low. The briefing shows how such government borrowing could be financed in a way that also creates a safe place for the nation’s pensions and savings, by making simple changes to existing tax incentives. Much of the £70bn saved annually in ISAs could then be invested in government-backed green bonds at an interest rate of 1.85% (the UK government’s current average cost of borrowing) and a quarter of the £100bn currently invested in pensions could be directed into Green New Deal investment.

A budget proposal was submitted to the UK Government in March 2020. It was written by the Green New Deal Group, and was able to get the signatures of many politicians.

8. Protests/Riots Partly Entirely For Show

In recent years, there have been loud environmental movements going on across the Western World. There have been efforts to shut down industries, pipelines, and society altogether. These people seem oblivious to the fact that shutting down oil (for example), would lead to a drastic reduction in their living standards.

However, this is a sleight of hand. Even though politicians appear to be turned off by the antics of violent protesters, they work behind the scenes to ensure that the goals are enacted anyway. Treaties such as Agenda 21, Agenda 2030, and the Great Reset are designed to achieve many of the same goals.

BOLD Like A Leopard wrote a great piece on some of the forces acting behind the scenes. It’s well worth the time to read.

Now we look at the bigger picture. While the public is distracted by very visible protests over environmental issues, just quietly implement them behind the scenes. People likely won’t notice. They are too focused on radicals who seem hell bent on destabilization, though those are distractions.

9. Bankers Run Climate Change Movement

This will seem a cruel twist, but central banks are heavily behind the green movement. One such group is the Network for Greening the Financial System, which currently boasts 75 members.

Hard to be part of the resistance when the financial sector supports, (or at least appears to support), green initiatives. It’s unclear, however, if the banks simply co-opted the movement, or whether they were always running things from behind the scenes.

Green New Deal Group Main Page
https://archive.is/ncRvA
WayBack Machine Archives

About Us: Green New Deal Group
https://archive.is/rxRpv
WayBack Machine Archive

https://greennewdealgroup.org/2008/04/
Guardian 2008: We Wanted A Green New Deal
https://greennewdealgroup.org/2008/07/
Guardian 2008 Article On The Triple Crunch
https://greennewdealgroup.org/2009/03/
Gordon Brown Calls For Global Green New Deal
https://greennewdealgroup.org/2009/07/
The Ecologist: Bailed Out Banks Should Fund GND
Green New Deal Group Budget Proposal
Network For Greening The Financial System

AOC: This Is Our World War II
Mr. Reagan: The Brains Behind AOC
NBC On Sunrise Movement

Posted on

CV #42(C): Michelle Rempel Upset That Liberals, Not Conservatives, Will Get To Implement The Great Reset

Justin Trudeau has let it slip out that Liberals intend to implement the “Great Reset“. In short, this means using the fake pandemic as an excuse to accelerate Agenda 2030, the so-called “Sustainable Development Agenda”.

That isn’t going over so well in conservative circles. And why? Because it was Stephen Harper who signed Agenda 2030 on September 25, 2015. It was Harper who domestically implemented Agenda 21 in 2008 (which Brian Mulroney signed). In short, Conservatives had paved the way for the reset, and now Trudeau was stealing their thunder.

What’s a girl to do?

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 “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 is thoroughly compromised, as shown: here, here, here, and here.

2. Conservatives Support The “Great Reset”

The Liberals want to “build back better.” Conservatives will “build back stronger.”
.
We are facing the greatest economic crisis of our lifetime.
.
Canada’s Conservatives led by Erin O’Toole will bring back certainty and stability.
.
The Liberal agenda is to launch a risky experiment with Canada’s economy.
.
Justin Trudeau says, “We are all in this together.” But, under the Liberals, Canada is more divided than ever before.
.
With the Liberals, it’s the haves over the have-nots.
.
It’s Bay Street over Main Street.
.
It’s those with a salary, benefits, and a pension over those without.
.
It’s those with Liberal connections over the outsiders who have to play by the rules.
.
Instead, Erin O’Toole’s Conservatives will fight for you and your family, and the countless Canadians left behind by the Trudeau Liberal government.
.
Sign below if you want to build back stronger!

The Conservative Party of Canada completely supports the “Great Reset”. In fact, they coined the term: “build back stronger” as a way to show how cool and edgy they are.

To be clear, Michelle Rempel-Garner and the CPC aren’t upset that the Great Reset is taking place. They just pretend to be because Trudeau and the Liberals will get credit for it.

3. Conservatives Support Increased Lockdowns

OTTAWA — Conservative leadership candidate Erin O’Toole called Monday for the country to be placed on “war footing” to combat the spread of COVID-19, the latest escalation of rhetoric in the race now thrown into flux by the rapidly evolving crisis.

O’Toole said the federal government should invoke the Emergencies Act so the federal government can prohibit travel, enforce self-isolation and control assemblies, while also mobilizing the military to back up the health system.

“Now is the time to put our government and our economy on a war footing, with leadership from the top,” he said in an email to supporters.

When O’Toole was running to be the leader of the CPC, he openly advocated for even more draconian measures that what Trudeau had done. So much for conservatives valuing freedom.

4. CPC Still Calls For Less Freedom

MOTION TEXT
That the Standing Committee on Health be instructed to undertake a study on the emergency situation facing Canadians in light of the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, and that this study evaluate, review and examine any issues relevant to this situation, such as, but not limited to:

(a) rapid and at-home testing approvals and procurement process and schedule, and protocol for distribution;
.
(b) vaccine development and approvals process, procurement schedules, and protocol for distribution;
.
(c) federal public health guidelines and the data being used to inform them for greater clarity on efficacy;
.
(d) current long-term care facility COVID-19 protocols as they pertain solely to federal jurisdiction;
.
(o) the government’s contact tracing protocol, including options considered, technology, timelines and resources;
.
(p) the government’s consideration of and decision not to invoke the federal Emergencies Act;

Yes, Michelle Rempel-Garner is demanding to know why (among other things), the Emergencies Act hasn’t been invoked. She also supports contact tracing, and rapid test kits (even though the tests don’t work). These are clearly the actions of someone who supports the Great Reset deep down. No mention that when the long term care deaths are excluded, the death rate drops to almost nothing.

At no point do Conservatives complain that these measures are excessive, or question the highly dubious “science” behind it. The only objections are in how it’s carried out.

5. Rempel A Well Known WEF Globalist

Canadian Member of Parliament. Has served in Cabinet as a Minister of State in the government of Stephen Harper. Has also managed the sponsored research portfolio for one of Canada’s top research intensive universities. Has over a decade of experience in managing and commercializing intellectual property, and in management consulting. Named one of Canada’s Top 100 Most Powerful Women, Women’s Executive Network. Twice named as Parliamentarian of the Year – Rising Star, Maclean’s Magazine.

Can this woman really be trusted, given the glowing review the World Economic Forum has given to her? Keep in mind, WEF is one of the major pushers of the reset.

6. Agenda 2030 Signed In September 2015

In September 2015, Canada and all other 192 United Nations Member States adopted the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development at the UN General Assembly. This initiative is a global call to action to end poverty, protect the planet and ensure that all people enjoy peace and prosperity by 2030.

The 2030 Agenda presents Canada, and the world, with a historic opportunity to positively shape how societies of tomorrow grow and develop sustainably and inclusively to the shared benefit of all.

Canada signed onto Agenda 2030 on September 25, 2015. This was less than a month before Stephen Harper was voted out of office.

7. Pierre Poilievre’s Bogus Petition

Lovely petition, but again, the Conservatives were in power when Agenda 2030 was launched. The “Great Reset” is just Agenda 2030. And why is he still flying a foreign flag in his office?

8. Conservative Inc. Media Obscures Truth

Founded in 1967 with the express goal to stand up for Canadian taxpayers and to champion small-C conservative values, The National Citizens Coalition is made up of a dedicated group of individuals working together to ensure the continued success of Canada’s largest non-partisan organization.

Keep the term non-partisan in mind. While claiming to be independent and non-partisan, the NCC leaves out that Stephen Harper (yes, the former Prime Minister), used to head the organization.

Fernando acts as cheerleader for Rempel-Garner, in opposing the “Reset”. However, he fails to mention that the former head of National Citizens Coalition, his organization, signed Agenda 2030 in the first place. That agreement helped drive the Reset in motion. He also omits Rempel-Garner’s award from the World Economic Forum.

An epic conflict of interest that isn’t disclosed.

9. Would Harper Have Pushed The Great Reset?

This is impossible to know for sure. However, looking at his past actions, it’s clear that he had no real concern for Canada’s sovereignty or well being. Here are some examples:

(a) He domestically implemented Agenda 21
(b) He fought COMER to keep the banking cartel intact
(c) He added over $100 billion to the national debt
(d) He signed FIPA without allowing full debate
(e) He set “emissions targets” regarding the climate change scam
(f) He signed Agenda 2030
(g) He left the loophole in the Safe 3rd Country Agreement, allowing illegal aliens to enter from the U.S.

Would Harper and the Conservatives be implementing the “Great Reset” if they were still in power today? Just an opinion, but yes they would. Michelle Rempel-Garner is just angry she doesn’t get credit.