Category: UN/WHO

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

Pavlov’s Dogs: OST’s Obedience Training Guide For Ontario Residents

Many years ago, Ivan Pavlov discovered that given the right structure of rewards, dogs could be trained simply by ringing a bell. Dogs would to associate the ringing with food, even at times when that wasn’t the end result.

While his experiments are rudimentary today, they were important break throughs at the time. It’s still taught in introductory college psychology classes. Now, from the Ontario Science Table, and their paper of April 2021.

Key Message
The science of getting people to start something new is different from the science of getting them to continue positive behaviours. Amid rising rates of new SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern, Ontario needs a refreshed approach to maintaining and enhancing adherence to public health measures. Promising strategies to increase effective masking and physical distancing include persuasion, enablement, modelling the behaviour, and clear education.

As such, the strategies are explicitly linked to target groups in a position to action them to support two key groups of Ontarians:
.
1. Those who are already adhering to physical distancing and masking in most situations but are unclear on the remaining high-risk scenarios that exist in their lives (focus on maintenance).
2. Those who are inconsistently following these public health measures due to easily addressed capability, opportunity and motivation reasons (focus on enhancement)

This paper (also archived here) from the Ontario Science Table outlines psychological and behavioural modification techniques that can be applied to convince people to obey the ever changing public health measures.

This was mentioned in a previous article, but now, deserves its own standalone piece. This is quite a piece of work.

The Ontario Science Table recommends tax breaks for companies to force customers and employees to wear masks. That had been rumoured to be a part of the subsidy requirements, but the OST openly suggests that sort of thing.

This is a common type of tactic in retail settings. By moving certain products to make them constantly visible, they are more likely to be on the minds of customers. Hence, they are more likely to be bought.

Masks are to be provided at will in order to reinforce the message that mask wearing is necessary. And by extension, masks are used to reinforce the claim that there is a global pandemic, despite there not being any evidence whatsoever for it.

This one puts the “training” in obedience training. OST recommends creating videos and instructional guides on masks, and to claim it’s what they’ve learned from the science.

OST recommends the implementation of “mask refreshers” so that masks are constantly on the minds of Ontarians. This is essential, otherwise they may start questioning whether there really is a pandemic.

This is straight out of advertising. Get people to identify with those sending the messages, and they are much more likely to comply. It’s subtle emotional manipulation.

Interesting way to get people to go along with the psy-op. Just use humour to lighten the situation.

That same idea can apply to people who get the experimental gene-replacement shot. Doughnuts, beer, lottery tickets and other incentives are already being handed out. Then again, maybe taking out such people is for the best.

https://covid19-sciencetable.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Science-Brief_Enhancing-Adherence-to-Public-Health-Measures_20210422_published.pdf

Interpretation
Governments, public health units, and healthcare organizations are delivering strategies to support Ontarians in adhering to public health measures, with an emphasis on physical distancing and masking. This Science Brief recognizes that more than a year into the COVID-19 pandemic, we need to move beyond “more of the same” when it comes to strategies to maintain and enhance how, when, and where Ontarians engage in masking and distancing. Groups in a position to support change can leverage behavioural science to refresh their approaches by using a range of evidence-based behavioural change strategies. These strategies can help to move beyond asking Ontarians to “do more” (potentially contributing to pandemic fatigue) and instead focus on creating the conditions needed to ensure ongoing adherence in our current state.

Methods Used for This Science Brief
The advice on this brief has been developed using the COM-B model. COM-B is a theoretical framework employed by Behavioural Scientists to help identify key behavioural barriers to desired action. The model identifies three essential conditions: Capability, Opportunity, Motivation that affect Behaviour and decision making. Capability barriers include lack of knowledge and comprehension about a behaviour and its consequences, and lack of skill necessary to carry out a behaviour. Opportunity barriers include time and resource constraints that make a desired behaviour more difficult or costly to carry out. Motivation barriers include emotional reactions and inaccurate beliefs that create obstacles for carrying out a behaviour.

It’s hard to believe that the OST would release such a report, detailing how to use Ontario as modern day dogs of Ivan Pavlov. But here we are. The April 2021 white paper speaks for itself, and commentary isn’t really necessary.

(1) https://covid19-sciencetable.ca
(2) https://covid19-sciencetable.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Science-Brief_Enhancing-Adherence-to-Public-Health-Measures_20210422_published.pdf
(3) OST Science Brief Enhancing Adherence to Public Health Measures
(4) https://www.simplypsychology.org/pavlov.html

WHO IS THE ONTARIO SCIENCE TABLE?
(5) Ontario Science Table: Ties To University Of Toronto
(6) Ontario Science Table: Extension Of Gov’t, No Independence
(7) UotT/DLSPH Joins WHO; Communism; Anti-White
(8) Ontario Science Table: Kwame McKenzie, Ontario UBI Pilot Project
(9) Robert Steiner Claims To Be Major PHAC Advisor To Liberals
(10) Ontario Science Table: Actually Set Out In May 2019?
(11) Ontario Science Table; Kumar Murty; Perfect Cloud
(12) Ontario Science Table: Influenced By $5M From Como???
(13) OST: Partnered With CADTH, A WHO Group; And pCPA
(14) Centre For Effective Practive/Partners Profit From Lockdowns
(15) Ontario Science Table: Cochrane Canada; McMaster; Gates
(16) Ontario Science Table: SPOR Evidence Alliance; WHO Funding
(17) OST: David Fisman; Race Baiting; Side Job With ETFO
(18) OST: Adalsteinn Brown; DLSPH; MOH; Premiers Council
(19) Institute For Pandemics Started For Ontario Science Table Hacks

Posted on

British Fertility Society Promotes Vaccines, Funded By Big Pharma

A few months ago, the British Fertility Society published a paper saying that there were no concerns about vaccination pregnant women, or women who were soon to become pregnant. Or even egg or sperm donors.

Should people of reproductive age receive a Covid-19 vaccine?
.
Yes.
People of reproductive age are advised to have the vaccine when they receive their invitation for vaccination. This includes those who are trying to have a baby as well as those who are thinking about having a baby, whether that is in the near future or in a few years’ time.

Can any of the Covid-19 vaccines affect fertility?
.
No.
There is absolutely no evidence, and no theoretical reason, that any of the vaccines can affect the fertility of women or men.

Can I have a Covid-19 vaccine during my fertility treatment (IVF, Frozen Embryo Transfer, Egg Freezing, Ovulation Induction, Intra-Uterine Insemination, using donated gametes or not)?
.
Yes.
You may wish to consider the timing of having a Covid-19 vaccine during your fertility treatment, taking into account that some people may get bothersome side effects in the few days after vaccination that they do not want to have during treatment. These include for example, tenderness at the injection site, fever, headache, muscle ache or feeling tired. It may be sensible to separate the date of vaccination by a few days from some treatment procedures (for example, egg collection in IVF), so that any symptoms, such as fever, might be attributed correctly to the vaccine or the treatment procedure. Your medical team will be able to advise you about the best time for your situation.

Should I delay my fertility treatment until after I have had the Covid-19 vaccine?
.
The only reason to consider delaying fertility treatment until after you have been vaccinated would be if you wanted to be protected against Covid-19 before you were pregnant. The chance of successful treatment is unlikely to be affected by a short delay, for example of up to 6 months, particularly if you are 37 years of age or younger. However, delays of several months may affect your chance of success once you are over 37 and especially if you are 40 years of age or older.

How soon after having a Covid-19 vaccine can I start my fertility treatment?
.
Immediately – you do not need to delay your fertility treatment, unless you wish to have your second dose before pregnancy (see above).

I had a positive pregnancy test today. Can I still have a Covid-19 vaccine?
.
If you are in a risk category for Covid-19, either because of the potential for exposure at work or medical issues, you can still have the vaccine in pregnancy. If you have no increased risks for Covid-19, the Joint Committee on Vaccination & Immunisation (JCVI) have advised that you delay it until after pregnancy. There is no reason to believe that any of the Covid-19 vaccines would be harmful, but their effects in pregnancy have not yet been fully investigated. The information that is known is reassuring. None of the vaccines contain live virus and so there is no risk that the pregnant woman or her baby could get Covid-19 from the vaccine. For further information on vaccination in pregnancy, see the information produced by the Royal College of Obstetricians & Gynaecologists [https://www.rcog.org.uk/en/news/updated-adviceon-covid-19-vaccination-in-pregnancy-and-women-who-are-breastfeeding/]. The health care professional looking after you in pregnancy will be able to advise you taking into account your individual risk.

I am donating my eggs/sperm for the use of others. Can I still have a Covid-19 vaccine?
.
Yes.
Covid-19 vaccines do not contain any virus and so you cannot pass on Covid-19 by receiving the vaccine. The Human Fertilisation & Embryology Authority have stated that you must allow at least 7 days from the most recent vaccination prior to donating eggs or sperm. If the donor feels unwell after the vaccination, they must not donate for 7 days after their symptoms have got better [https://www.hfea.gov.uk/treatments/covid-19-and-fertility-treatment/].

Not only can prospective couples get the vaxx, they can donate eggs and sperm as well, with no risk to the new hosts. While that certainly sounds strange enough, the document is ended with the following disclaimer. Of course, it’s in the fine print, and is difficult to read.

Disclaimer
This FAQ document represents the views of ARCS/BFS, which were reached after careful consideration of the scientific evidence available at the time of preparation. In the absence of scientific evidence on certain aspects, a consensus between the Executive teams and other members has been obtained. ARCS/BFS are not liable for damages related to the use of the information contained herein. We cannot guarantee correctness, completeness or accuracy of the guidance in every respect. Please be aware that the evidence and advice for COVID-19 vaccines for those trying to achieve a pregnancy or those who are pregnant already is rapidly developing and the latest data or best practice may not yet be incorporated into the current version of this document. ARCS and BFS recommend that patients always seek the advice of their local centre if they have any concerns.

This group hedges its statements as well. They claim that there is no risk (or even theoretical risk) to a pregnant woman, while still saying more research needs to be done. That alone should be enough reason to walk away.

Apparently, there is no theoretical reason to be worried about vaccines and pregnancy, however, the evidence is always changing. And these people assume no liability for anything they say to you. Things start to become clear when it’s known who funds the BFS. It’s even more transparent in that BFS had some of their work signal boosted by the Vaccine Confidence Project.

In fact, there are a lot of groups working together to promote the mass vaccination agenda globally. These are just a few of them:

  • World Health Organization
  • Imperial College London
  • Vaccine Impact Modelling Consortium
  • London School Of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine
  • Vaccine Confidence Project
  • GAVI – Global Vaccine Alliance
  • IFFIm – International Finance Facility for Immunization
  • Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
  • UN Verified Initiative
  • Team Halo

Team Halo partially explains the relationship between the groups as follows:

Team Halo was established as part of the United Nations Verified Initiative in partnership with The Vaccine Confidence Project at the University of London’s School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. It is proud to collaborate with the Vaccine Alliance and GAVI. Support is provided by Luminate and IKEA Foundation.

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation directly (or indirectly) finances: WHO; GAVI; Imperial College London; London School for Hygiene & Tropical Medicine; Vaccine Confidence Project; Vaccine Impact Modelling Consortium; the BBC; the US CDC; and countless drug companies.

Imperial College London became notorious for the doomsday modelling of Neil Ferguson, nicknamed “Dr. Lockdown”, owing to his wild predictions about death waves that never materialize.

GAVI was started up in 1999, in large part because of a $750 million grant from the Gates Foundation. GAVI coordinates spreading its concoctions around the world. It also coordinates a funding scam with the International Finance Facility for Immunizations (IFFIm). Here countries make pledges of donations, which are then converted into “vaccine bonds“.

The Vaccine Confidence Project is part of the London School for Hygiene & Tropical Medicine. In addition to getting money from Gates, they receive contributions from major pharmaceutical companies.

These examples are by no means exhaustive, but they show just how interconnected these groups are. We are at the point where fertility organizations are funded by pharmaceutical companies, and advise that there is no risk to their future children. Remember: they are all in this together.

(1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98NA3nQBBLc
(2) https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCVQJ9BADJ9btFc8G0eNE9wg
(3) https://twitter.com/BritFertSoc
(4) https://www.britishfertilitysociety.org.uk/
(5) https://www.britishfertilitysociety.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Covid19-Vaccines-FAQ-1_3.pdf
(6) British Fertility Society Recommends Vaccines
(7) https://www.britishfertilitysociety.org.uk/about/sponsorship/
(8) https://www.britishfertilitysociety.org.uk/about/corporate-membership/
(9) https://www.vaccineconfidence.org
(10) https://www.vaccineconfidence.org/partners-funders
(11) https://www.un.org/en/coronavirus/%E2%80%98verified%E2%80%99-initiative-aims-flood-digital-space-facts-amid-covid-19-crisis
(12) https://www.un.int/news/un%E2%80%99s-verified-initiative-encourages-us-take-%E2%80%98pause%E2%80%99
(13) https://covidtrials.ca/
(14) https://archive.is/VKc0M
(15) https://www.thinkresearch.com/ca/
(16) https://www.thinkresearch.com/ca/2021/01/18/think-research-announces-appointment-of-dr-eric-hoskins-former-ontario-health-minister-to-board-of-directors/
(17) https://canucklaw.ca/cv-18-ottawa-sends-iffim-money-for-vaccine-bonds-gavi-gpei-grants/
(18) https://airmedtrials.com/
(19) https://canucklaw.ca/cv-24-gates-financing-of-imperial-college-london-and-their-modelling/
(20) https://canucklaw.ca/cv-24b-london-school-of-hygiene-tropical-medicine-more-modelling-financed-by-gates/
(21) https://canucklaw.ca/cv-24c-vaccine-impact-modelling-consortium-more-bogus-science/
(22) https://canucklaw.ca/cv-24d-heidi-larson-lshtm-vcp-vaxxing-pregnant-women-financed-by-big-pharma/
(23) https://canucklaw.ca/cv-27c-share-verified-uses-emotional-manipulation-selective-truth-to-promote-narrative/

Posted on

Jordan Peterson Sells Out: Asks To “Suspend Judgement” On Loss Of Civil Rights

Turn to 1:22:00 in the original video to see the clip that is being referenced here. It should shock people, especially considering how Peterson rose to prominence.

Peterson became famous in 2016/2017 for resisting tyranny and promoting individual rights. He calls the LBGT lobby monsters, and the Alt-Right racist. He claims that collectivism is a means for imposing tyranny on the public.

But with medical tyranny, he’s quite okay with that.

  • Peterson openly admits what’s going on amounts to severe and repeated violations of basic civil rights.
  • In spite of this going on for over a year now, he asks for ANOTHER 6 months to see what happens
  • Peterson admits the precedent has already been set, and acknowledges that this could be used in the future for another “pandemic”.
  • Peterson claims to have no special insight into what’s going on. This comes despite hundreds, if not thousands of citizen journalists posting well sourced information all the time.
  • Peterson promotes mass vaccination, despite obvious concerns such as: (a) lack of long term testing; (b) not being approved, but instead given interim authorization; and (c) indemnification for manufacturers.
  • Peterson’s “get the damn vaccine” comes across as gaslighting.
  • Peterson uncritically parrots the narrative that vaccination is the solution to going back to a normal life.
  • Peterson seems uninterested in the mountains of evidence suggesting that this entire “pandemic” was preplanned a long time ago.
  • Peterson seems uninterested in researching into the financial interests.
  • Peterson attempts to steer the narrative with his claim that infectious diseases are the real enemy of society.

Peterson ends the segment suggesting that authoritarianism may be BENEFICIAL in the future, if it can be used to combat future pandemics. It’s like the WHO wrote his script.

Then again, Peterson has long been (at best) inconsistent with his views. In 2017, “Mr. Free Speech” apparently took no issue for deplatforming Faith Goldy from a free speech event. Her crime: associating uncritically with the wrong people.

He also worked for the United Nations for 3 years, trying to remove the “ideological clap trap” from the Sustainable Development Agenda, in order to make it easier to sell to the public. The UNSDA, or Agenda 2030, is essentially laying the ground work for the Great Reset. This is to radically remake society, under the guise of overall benefit.

This is probably why Peterson still gets promoted. He is controlled opposition, and is useful to steer the narrative when it’s needed.

(1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rY9X6a-xxFo
(2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8zLcMGCedA
(3) https://canucklaw.ca/un-high-level-panel-on-global-sustainability-jordan-peterson-co-authors/
(4) https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/1392838374013165574

Posted on

1 Year Ago, Maria Van Kerkhove Of WHO Suggested 16% Of Global Population Already Infected

June 8, 2020, Maria Van Kerkhove, who claims to be a doctor and an expert, told the world “asymptomatic transmission” was extremely rare.

The day after, a very terrified looking Kerkhove backpedaled, claiming that “very rare” didn’t really mean very rare. She claimed that so-called modelling estimated that between 6% and 41% of the total population had already been infected. She stated that there was a point estimate (whatever that is), or around 16%.

Let’s crunch some numbers:
-The world population was around 7.8 billion people last year.
-6% of that would be 468 million people.
-16% of that would be 1.25 BILLION people.
-41% of that would be 3.2 BILLION people.

This time last year, assuming these models are even in the ballpark, 1 to 3 billion people had already been infected. About 500,000 people had died, notwithstanding how fraudulent the reporting system is.

In her still pinned tweet, Kerkhove tries to explain how scientific collaboration is done, and how different partners work together.

Kerkhove claimed in April 2020 that research papers are being sent to the WHO prior to publication. One has to wonder if the conclusions are “tweaked” in order to suit a particular narrative. She says that all evidence everywhere is looked at, which is reasonable take on its own.

Problem is that you have people like BC Provincial Health Officer, “Babbling Bonnie” Henry, who repeatedly admit that there is no real science behind the things that they do. Is this supposed to be a joke?

Neither Canadian public health officials nor bureaucrats at the WHO will address topics such as the heavy lobbying and financing from the pharmaceutical industry. They won’t delve into the new enterprises that stand to be lucrative from a prolonged pandemic. They go out of their way to avoid these subjects.

They also try to downplay how these gene therapy “vaccines” are not approved anywhere, but instead have some form of emergency use authorization. The manufacturers are indemnified from lawsuits, which removes the incentive to create safe products.

Things aren’t quite what they appear to be.

Any wonder why the idea of “airborne transmission” is now being pushed? They have to keep moving the goalposts in order to keep others from locking in on their lies. It’s also why they are now pushing the “variants” nonsense. Don’t be deceived.

How’s this for a conflict of interest? Kerkhove also works for Imperial College London, which featured Neil Ferguson (Professor Lockdown) and his doomsday modelling. ICL is heavily funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. She also got her PhD at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine. This also gets funding from Gates, and partners with the Vaccine Confidence Project — funded by drug companies.

Ever get the feeling that this woman isn’t been transparent?

(1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQTBlbx1Xjs
(2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Im0G7jb78jc
(3) https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/coronavirus/doctors-call-for-canada-to-adopt-airborne-transmission-protocols-for-covid-19-1.5464013?cid=sm%3Atrueanthem%3A%7B%7Bcampaignname%7D%7D%3Atwitterpost%E2%80%8B&taid=60c1adecd23e040001810e69&utm_campaign=trueAnthem%3A+Trending+Content&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=twitter
(4) https://twitter.com/mvankerkhove
(5) https://twitter.com/mvankerkhove/status/1402705209772675079
(6) https://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/news/the-rockefeller-foundation-announces-key-grants-and-collaborations-toward-the-creation-of-a-pandemic-prevention-institute/
(7) https://twitter.com/mvankerkhove/status/1255917989356019713
(8) https://www.linkedin.com/in/maria-van-kerkhove-4a562b4/
(9) https://canucklaw.ca/cv-24-gates-financing-of-imperial-college-london-and-their-modelling/
(10) https://canucklaw.ca/cv-24b-london-school-of-hygiene-tropical-medicine-more-modelling-financed-by-gates/
(11) https://canucklaw.ca/cv-24c-vaccine-impact-modelling-consortium-more-bogus-science/
(12) https://canucklaw.ca/cv-24d-heidi-larson-lshtm-vcp-vaxxing-pregnant-women-financed-by-big-pharma/

Posted on

CV #25(F): Ottawa Launching Vaccine Passports At Instigation Of WHO-IHR, 7th Meeting

This is a sequel to the last article. Vaccine passports are coming to Canada, but where did the order come from?

On June 4, 2021, the World Health Organization handed down instructions on proceeding with vaccine passports. On June 7, (yesterday), the Federal Government posted an invitation to bid on the creation of a biometric tracking system, which would most likely include a form of vaccine passport.

For some context of the situation: (a) the International Health Regulations are legally binding; (b) the 2005 Quarantine Act came from WHO; (c) WHO manages the “pandemic”; and (d) PHAC was created in 2004 at the instigation of the WHO.

Now, about the report itself:

Given this recommendation from the IHR Emergency Committee meeting, the Smart Vaccination Certificate Secretariat has expanded the scope of the initiative to develop guidance that includes SARS-CoV-2 testing and COVID-19 recovery status. Accordingly, the Smart Vaccination Certificate specification will be renamed as the “Digital Documentation of COVID-19 Certificates (DDCC)” specification. The resulting guidance will be published in a series of three separate documents, which will guide Member States on how to digitally document COVID-19 vaccination status, SARS-CoV-2 test results, and COVID-19 recovery status. These guidance documents will include critical components such as the minimum datasets, expected functionality of digital systems, and preferred terminology code systems. They will also include a section on national digital architecture, recognizing that Member States are still expected to decide how they want to implement these systems. The DDCC specifications will include an HL7 FHIR Implementation Guide (IG), including example software implementations.

This page from the IHR Emergency Committee lays out in broad strokes what shall be contained in these vaccine passports. However, the implementation will be left to individual countries.

Manitoba Premier Brian Pallister announced new “privileges” for people who have taken the “vaccine”. See 15:00 in video. Keep in mind, these are experimental, not approved by Health Canada, and manufacturers are exempt from liability.

Rebel News published a portion of Manitoba’s “top doctor” saying that the Province is introducing their own version of the vaccine passport. Nothing nefarious, he claimed. It was just in case it was needed. Now, why did Brent Roussin say there was no specified purpose?

These guidance documents will make no reference to the specific circumstances under which these certificates should be used. Such guidance will be made available in separate guidance documents published by WHO (e.g. DG temporary recommendations to States Parties after IHR Emergency Committees; WHO’s interim guidance documents on considerations for the implementation of public health and social measures; WHO’s interim guidance documents on considerations for a risk-based approach to international travel in the context of COVID-19; etc.).

It could be because all parties were INSTRUCTED to say that there was no specific purpose for these vaccine certificates. That’s what it sounds like. Countries were instructed to develop these “digital systems” but not specify what they were to be used for.

Additionally, in line with the change in scope, WHO DDCC specifications will not include a section on global architecture for a Global Health Trust Framework. At point in this time, WHO does not intend to implement a Global Health Trust Framework to store the digital public keys of members states, to facilitate the validation and verification of digitally signed COVID-19 certificates (e.g., vaccination certificates, SARS-CoV-2 test certificates, and COVID-19 recovery status certificates) across borders.

WHO states that it does not intend to establish a global system to track vaccination status, for now. The key words are “at this point in time”. That could very easily change later. And no, this isn’t just something they are pondering.

WHO is soliciting proposals for experts to inform the definition of specifications and standards related to interoperability, governance, and design for a personal digital vaccination certificate, in preparation for COVID-19 vaccine availability. Please follow instructions, detailed below, to nominate experts, by 17:00 CET on December 14, 2020.

Furthermore, as detailed in the International Health Regulations (2005), WHO has the mandate to coordinate among member states to provide a public health response to the international spread of diseases. Currently, yellow fever is the only disease expressly listed in the International Health Regulations for which countries can require proof of vaccination from travellers as a condition of entry into a country. WHO has a mandate to take a coordinating role to ensure that member states are equipped and ready for the anticipated global distribution of COVID-19 vaccines. For effective implementation of COVID-19 vaccines, global coordination of relevant data management principles and processes is needed to account for and facilitate coherent implementation of transmission prevention and control by all member states.

The Smart Vaccination Certificate consortium will bring together experts to focus on defining specifications and standards for a digital vaccination certificate that would serve current and future requirements, toward the dual purpose of (1) facilitating monitoring of national COVID-19 vaccination programs as well as (2) supporting cross-border uses architected for a potential future in which the COVID-19 vaccine would be included in an updated version of the International Health Regulations.

Late last year, WHO put out an offer for bids on establishing digital vaccine certificates. WHO also admits that vaccination will be included in the next edition of the International Health Regulations, which again, are legally binding.

In April 2021, WHO released a paper opening discussing the pros and cons of mandatory vaccination. In March, 23 countries agreed in principle with establishing a global order to address outbreaks in the future.

Remember last Spring, when the idea of mandatory vaccines and vaccine passports were dismissed as crazy conspiracy theories?

(1) https://www.who.int/news/item/04-06-2021-revised-scope-and-direction-for-the-smart-vaccination-certificate-and-who-s-role-in-the-global-health-trust-framework
(2) https://www.who.int/news/item/19-04-2021-statement-on-the-seventh-meeting-of-the-international-health-regulations-(2005)-emergency-committee-regarding-the-coronavirus-disease-(covid-19)-pandemic
(3) https://www.who.int/news/item/30-10-2020-statement-on-the-fifth-meeting-of-the-international-health-regulations-(2005)-emergency-committee-regarding-the-coronavirus-disease-(covid-19)-pandemic
(4) https://www.who.int/news-room/articles-detail/world-health-organization-open-call-for-nomination-of-experts-to-contribute-to-the-smart-vaccination-certificate-technical-specifications-and-standards-application-deadline-14-december-2020
(5) https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/340841/WHO-2019-nCoV-Policy-brief-Mandatory-vaccination-2021.1-eng.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
(6) https://www.who.int/news-room/commentaries/detail/op-ed—covid-19-shows-why-united-action-is-needed-for-more-robust-international-health-architecture
(7) https://canucklaw.ca/cv-62-who-legally-binding-international-health-regulations-ihr/
(8) https://canucklaw.ca/cv-62b-canadas-actions-were-dictated-by-whos-legally-binding-international-health-regulations/
(9) https://canucklaw.ca/cv-62c-the-2005-quarantine-act-bill-c-12-was-actually-written-by-who/
(10) https://canucklaw.ca/cv-62f-international-or-global-treaty-for-pandemic-preparedness-and-response-proposed/
(11) https://canucklaw.ca/cv-62g-public-health-agency-of-canada-created-as-branch-of-who-bill-c-12-phac-act/

*Disclaimers, Ethics* Proudly powered by WordPress