Category: UN/WHO

Posted on

CV #45: Ottawa Lies, WHO “Doesn’t” Recommend 2m Distancing

WHO says 1 metre.
So where does the 2 metre guidelines come from?

Here, we are continuing to expose the lies. First, a recap of several examples of the “science” being distorted, then let’s jump into the lie that WHO recommends people be separated by 2 metres.

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

For more on the hoax, check out this series. Understand the lies, corruption, lobbying, conflicts of interest, and money changing hands. This rabbit hole is much deeper than what people realize.

2. No Science Behind Computer Modelling

Why would anyone listen to Imperial College London or Neil Ferguson after their lengthy track record of completely wrong predictions? Remember, models aren’t proof of anything, just predictions. When you realize that the Gates Foundation has been funding them for years, things start to make sense.

3. No Science Predicting Asymptomatic Transfer

The World Health Organization can’t give any sort of clear answer on the rate of asymptomatic people spreading. They also have no clue how many people are infected globally. Again, this is all based on computer modelling. Saying (in June) that 6% to 41% of the population is infected but asymptomatic is pretty useless. But it does raise the serious question how deadly this virus is.

4. No Science Behind Limiting Group Sizes

BC Provincial Health Officer Bonnie Henry repeatedly admits there is no science behind limiting public gatherings to 50 people, but does it anyway. On May 25, 2020, she said that “50 cars” was included in the guidelines for limiting groups of people who can get together.

5. No Science Masking Healthy People

WHO-april-6-2019-nCov-IPC_Masks-2020
WHO-2019-nCov-IPC_Masks-2020.4-eng (1)

Worth a reminder: the World Health Organization said in April 2020 that there was no evidence to support masks for healthy people, but that health care providers need access anyway. In June 2020, WHO said there was still no evidence, but recommended them anyway. See this post, or an admission from BBC that this is political, at 4:20 in the video.

6. Covid Test Gets 50% False Positives

People really think that testing is going to solve the entire problem, and it isn’t. It’s one component of a response. If you test someone today, you only know if they’re infected today. And in fact, of you’re testing in a population that doesn’t have very much covid, you’ll get false positives, almost half the time. That is, the person doesn’t actually have covid. They have something else. They may have nothing. So, it will just complicate the picture. On the other hand, if we have evidence of a case, even a suspect case in school, all the contacts, be it a child or a teacher, would be tested.

This is Ontario Associate Chief Medical Officer Of Health, Barbara Yaffe. She says that tests can have up to a 50% false positive rate. The test is garbage, as the article explains. See this clip, and this full video (at 36:20).

7. People Recovering Without Any Vaccine

PROV RECOVERED CASES % DEAD ICU
BC 2,898 3,392 85% 190 3
AB 8,506 9,975 85% 176 21
SK 838 1,072 78% 16 13
MB 319 375 86% 7 1
ON 33,963 38,210 89% 2,755 35
QC ? 58,080 ? 5,662 14
NB 165 170 97% 2 0
NS 1,003 1,067 94% 63 0
NFLD 259 264 98% 3 0
PEI 34 36 94% 0 0

The table represents the compiled data as of July 23, 2020. Each Province (except Quebec, who wasn’t listed) says that their infected people are overwhelmingly recovering on their own.

8. Lobbying, Not Science, In Vaccine Drive

This has been covered in Part 4, Part 5, Part 21, and elsewhere in the series. The pharmaceutical industry is heavily invested in making sure that a vaccine is “necessary” regardless of whether or not it’s needed for public health. An awful lot of money tied up in this.

9. Politics, Not Science Inflating Death Toll

This list has been added to several times. It is a compilation of lies and inconsistencies when public officials distort the truth in order to make the “pandemic” seem much worse than it really is.

10. Global Reset Is Agenda, Not Science

Globalist players have been planning to use this “pandemic” as an opportunity to seek broader changes. See this review, or this video.

Now that we’ve set the stage for the lies and dishonesty being perpetrated, let’s get to the specific topic of that 2 metre separation between people.

11. What WHO Says On People Distancing

To prevent infection and to slow transmission of COVID-19, do the following:
.
-Wash your hands regularly with soap and water, or clean them with alcohol-based hand rub.
-Maintain at least 1 metre distance between you and people coughing or sneezing.
-Avoid touching your face.
-Cover your mouth and nose when coughing or sneezing.
-Stay home if you feel unwell.
-Refrain from smoking and other activities that weaken the lungs.
-Practice physical distancing by avoiding unnecessary travel and staying away from large groups of people.

So not only does it say 1 metre (not 2), but it says to stay away from them coughing of sneezing. This is still up on WHO’s site. Not only that, it doesn’t list masks as a recommendation for prevention.

12. WHO Guidelines From May 10

may.10.WHO-2019-nCoV-Adjusting_PH_measures-Workplaces
Also see the original here.

Physical distancing
• Introduce measures to keep a distance of at least 1 metre between people and avoid direct physical contact with other persons (i.e. hugging, touching, shaking hands), strict control over external access, queue management (marking on the floor, barriers)
• Reduce density of people in the building (no more than 1 person per every 10 square metres), ivphysical spacing at least 1 metre apart for work stations and common spaces, such as entrances/exits, lifts, pantries/canteens, stairs, wherecongregation or queuing of employees or visitors/clients might occur.
• Minimize the need for physical meetings, e.g. by using teleconferencing facilities
• Avoid crowding by staggering working hours to reduce congregation of employees at common spaces such as entrances
or exits
• Implement or enhance shift or split-team arrangements, or teleworking
Defer or suspend workplace events that involve close and prolonged contact among participants, including social gatherings.

I don’t see any reference to 2 metres anywhere in the document.

13. WHO On “Safe” Ritualistic Slaughter

july.WHO-2019-nCoV-Eid_al_Adha-2020
Also see the original here.

Overarching considerations
Advice on physical distancing
• Practice physical distancing by strictly maintaining a distance of at least 1 metre between people at all times.
• If physical distancing cannot be achieved, wearing a fabric mask is recommended. It is critical to follow best practices on how to wear, remove and dispose of masks, and performing hand hygiene after removal.7
• Use culturally and religiously sanctioned greetings that avoid physical contact, such as waving, nodding, or placing the hand over the heart.
• Prohibit large numbers of people gathering in public places associated with Eid activities, such as markets, shops and mosques. If allowed, a mechanism should be in place to regulate such activities and avoid gathering of people.
• Restrict social gatherings, both public and private, and encourage the use of technology for meeting and greeting people to mitigate transmission.
• Consider closing of entertainment venues, particularly indoor venues, during Eid to avoid the mass gathering of people.

Again, where is this 2 metres that Canadian officials are always going on about? It doesn’t appear anywhere in the document.

Animal-Human Interface and Sacrificial Slaughter
.
The source of the SARS-CoV-2 virus has not yet been identified. Understanding which animal species are most susceptible to the virus is important in discovering potential animal reservoirs to mitigate transmission and future outbreaks. According to common safe practices when handling meat, countries should take strict measures around the selling and slaughtering of animals and the distribution of meat while ensuring that national food safety and hygiene regulations are enforced.

Understand that halal slaughter involves inflicting deliberate cruelty, and causing intentional suffering. The World Health Organization doesn’t actually say stop, just follow some rules.

Meanwhile, church goers who aren’t maiming or disfiguring animals are limited to gathering in groups of 50, at least in BC. This is from July 25, 2020.

14. WHO Guidelines From May 20

the importance of source control such as providing medical masks if available to travellers with respiratory symptoms, performing frequent hand hygiene and maintaining at least 1 meter physical distance from others before, during and after the interview process

travel.WHO-2019-nCoV-Ground_crossings

On May 20, 2020 guidelines, WHO said that 1 metre difference between people was sufficient, (see original). Again, where is 2 metres coming from?

15. Gov’t Distorts WHO Recommendations

https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/technical-guidance-publications

There are many more “technical guidance publications” that the World Health Organization has freely available. One thing they have in common: they never mention 2 metres (at least the ones seen so far). So what is the real reason for implementing this? To make surveillance easier?

Posted on

July: BBC Reports WHO Mask Reversal Politically Motivated

The BBC covered Atlantic Storm in 2005. Did no one connect the dots between that fake pandemic, and this one in 2020?

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

For more on the coronavirus hoax, take a dive into the rest of the series. Information that you will never hear about from the mainstream media.

2. BBC Video Publicly Released

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWxvpPu3Onc

CLICK HERE, for the original video. Also see a backup copy of the video mirrored onto Bitchute.

3. WHO Says In June No Real Evidence

(Download the pdf at the bottom)
https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/advice-for-public/when-and-how-to-use-masks
WHO-2019-nCov-IPC_Masks-2020.4-eng (1)

(from page 4)

There are currently no studies that have evaluated the effectiveness and potential adverse effects of universal or targeted continuous mask use by health workers in preventing transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Despite the lack of evidence the great majority of the WHO COVID-19 IPC GDG members supports the practice of health workers and caregivers in clinical areas (irrespective of whether there are COVID-19 or other patients in the clinical areas) in geographic settings where there is known or suspected community transmission of COVID-19, to continuously wear a medical mask throughout their shift, apart from when eating and drinking or changing the mask after caring for a patient requiring droplet/contact precautions for other reasons (e.g., influenza), to avoid any possibility of cross-transmission

So there are no actual studies to test or research the effectiveness of masks in health care settings. However, it’s common practice to expect them to be worn.

(from page 6)

Available evidence
Studies of influenza, influenza-like illness, and human coronaviruses (not including COVID-19) provide evidence that the use of a medical mask can prevent the spread of infectious droplets from a symptomatic infected person (source control) to someone else and potential contamination of the environment by these droplets.(54, 55) There is limited evidence that wearing a medical mask by healthy individuals in households, in particular those who share a house with a sick person, or among attendees of mass gatherings may be beneficial as a measure preventing transmission.(41, 56-61) A recent meta-analysis of these observational studies, with the intrinsic biases of observational data, showed that either disposable surgical masks or reusable 12–16-layer cotton masks were associated with protection of healthy individuals within households and among contacts of cases.(42)

This could be considered to be indirect evidence for the use of masks (medical or other) by healthy individuals in the wider community; however, these studies suggest that such individuals would need to be in close proximity to an infected person in a household or at a mass gathering where physical distancing cannot be achieved, to become infected with the virus.

Results from cluster randomized controlled trials on the use of masks among young adults living in university residences in the United States of America indicate that face masks may reduce the rate of influenza-like illness, but showed no impact on risk of laboratory-confirmed influenza.(62, 63) At present, there is no direct evidence (from studies on COVID19 and in healthy people in the community) on the effectiveness of universal masking of healthy people in the community to prevent infection with respiratory viruses, including COVID-19

The World Health Organization admits there is no direct evidence that widespread masking of healthy people actually prevents any sort of sickness. They speak on in terms of “indirect evidence” or being “possible”.

(from page 6)

2) Advice to decision makers on the use of masks for the
general public
.
Many countries have recommended the use of fabric masks/face coverings for the general public. At the present time, the widespread use of masks by healthy people in the community setting is not yet supported by high quality or direct scientific evidence and there are potential benefits and harms to consider (see below).

However, taking into account the available studies evaluating pre- and asymptomatic transmission, a growing compendium of observational evidence on the use of masks by the general public in several countries, individual values and preferences, as well as the difficulty of physical distancing in many contexts, WHO has updated its guidance to advise that to prevent COVID-19 transmission effectively in areas of community transmission, governments should encourage the general public to wear masks in specific situations and settings as part of a comprehensive approach to suppress SARS-CoV-2 transmission (Table 2).

So no direct scientific evidence to support masking healthy people, but governments should encourage it anyway. Rather than focusing exclusively on science, it takes “values and preferences” into account. Perhaps this is why BCPHO Bonnie Henry says “there’s no science behind it”. It gets even better.

(from end of page 8/early 9)

A non-medical mask is neither a medical device nor personal protective equipment. However, a non-medical mask standard has been developed by the French Standardization Association (AFNOR Group) to define minimum performance in terms of filtration (minimum 70% solid particle filtration or droplet filtration) and breathability (maximum pressure difference of 0.6 mbar/cm2 or maximum Advice on the use of masks in the context of COVID-19: Interim guidance inhalation resistance of 2.4 mbar and maximum exhalation resistance of 3 mbar).

The lower filtration and breathability standardized requirements, and overall expected performance, indicate that the use of non-medical masks, made of woven fabrics such as cloth, and/or non-woven fabrics, should only be considered for source control (used by infected persons) in community settings and not for prevention. They can be used ad-hoc for specific activities (e.g., while on public transport when physical distancing cannot be maintained), and their use should always be accompanied by frequent hand hygiene and physical distancing.

So a non-medical mask isn’t actually considered PPE. But it’s nice to know that 70% is the new standard for being an acceptable filter. And despite them not being beneficial to healthy people, the World Health Organization recommends them anyway.

(from page 10)

WHO is collaborating with research and development partners and the scientific community engaged in textile
engineering and fabric design to facilitate a better understanding of the effectiveness and efficiency of nonmedical masks. WHO urges countries that have issued recommendations on the use of both medical and non-medical masks by healthy people in community settings to conduct research on this important topic. Such research needs to look at whether SARS-CoV-2 particles can be expelled through non-medical masks of poor quality worn by a person with symptoms of COVID-19 while that person is coughing, sneezing or speaking. Research is also needed on nonmedical mask use by children and other medically
challenging persons and settings as mentioned above.

World Health Organization recommends the use of masks, but admits that research needs to be done, and there’s no hard evidence that they work on healthy people.

4. WHO Says In April No Real Evidence

https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/331693
WHO-april-6-2019-nCov-IPC_Masks-2020

In April 2020, the World Health Organization said there was no evidence to support putting masks on healthy people. In June, they reiterated that there was no evidence, but recommended them anyway. However, that “no evidence” portion gets lost in public discussions.

Wake up people. It’s all been a lie.

5. Gates Foundation Major BBC Donor

Link to search IRS charity tax records:
https://apps.irs.gov/app/eos/

BILL & MELINDA GATES FOUNDATION
EIN: 56-2618866
gates.foundation.taxes.2016.pdf
gates.foundation.taxes.2017.pdf
gates.foundation.taxes.2018.pdf

BILL & MELINDA GATES FOUNDATION TRUST
EIN: 91-1663695
gates.foundation.trust_.taxes.2018.pdf

Posted on

CV #43: Ontario Associate Chief Medical Officer Of Health, Barbara Yaffe, Admits Test Is Completely Bogus


1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

For more on the coronavirus hoax, take a dive into the rest of the series. Information that you will never hear about from the mainstream media.

2. Text Of The Quote

People really think that testing is going to solve the entire problem, and it isn’t. It’s one component of a response. If you test someone today, you only know if they’re infected today. And in fact, of you’re testing in a population that doesn’t have very much covid, you’ll get false positives, almost half the time. That is, the person doesn’t actually have covid. They have something else. They may have nothing. So, it will just complicate the picture. On the other hand, if we have evidence of a case, even a suspect case in school, all the contacts, be it a child or a teacher, would be tested.

3. Short Clip Of Confession

Admittedly, the audio isn’t great. It was taken from the clip recently posted on Twitter. Check the full press conference below for the entire video.

Ontario Premier Doug Ford was asked days later about this. He attempted to talk in circles to avoid giving a direct answer. He pretends to not get what is being asked.

4. Full Press Conference


Check around 36:20 for the relevant part in the video

5. These Tests Don’t Even Work

These tests don’t work. Getting false positives half the time (or anywhere close to that), is an indication that the tests are completely flawed. Remember, a “positive” test will lead to you being isolated for at least 14 days. This is malpractice at best.

6. Ontario Lying About CV Deaths

Ontario Health Minister Christine Elliott admits that the they have been screwing around with the numbers. The Government has been intentionally conflating those who died from, and those who die “with” this virus. Great way to make this seem worse than it is.

Posted on

World Economic Forum; The “Great Reset”; Hoax An Excuse To Bring About Change

1. Other Articles Globalism, CV Hoax

CLICK HERE, for the CV “planned-emic” series.
CLICK HERE, for review of the Paris Accord.
CLICK HERE, for UN Agenda 2030.
CLICK HERE, for UN Digital Cooperation (internet regulation).
CLICK HERE, for MasterCard and financial inclusion.
CLICK HERE, for research on vaccine hesitancy.
CLICK HERE, for the Vaccine Confidence Project.

2. World Economic Forum, Global Reset

THE CONTEXT
The Covid-19 crisis, and the political, economic and social disruptions it has caused, is fundamentally changing the traditional context for decision-making. The inconsistencies, inadequacies and contradictions of multiple systems –from health and financial to energy and education – are more exposed than ever amidst a global context of concern for lives, livelihoods and the planet. Leaders find themselves at a historic crossroads, managing short-term pressures against medium- and long-term uncertainties.

THE OPPORTUNITY
As we enter a unique window of opportunity to shape the recovery, this initiative will offer insights to help inform all those determining the future state of global relations, the direction of national economies, the priorities of societies, the nature of business models and the management of a global commons. Drawing from the vision and vast expertise of the leaders engaged across the Forum’s communities, the Great Reset initiative has a set of dimensions to build a new social contract that honours the dignity of every human being.

OUR CONTRIBUTION
The World Economic Forum has developed a reputation as a trusted platform for informed collaboration and cooperation between all stakeholders – reinforced by a track record of success over five decades. The Forum now offers its experience in building purpose-driven communities in service of the extraordinary challenge and opportunity the world faces for a “Great Reset”. The Forum provides an unparalleled platform for creating, shaping and delivering collaborative solutions for the future through its:

Is this about curing a deadly pandemic? No, it’s about using the “illusion” of a pandemic in order to bring about a massive social upheaval. This is an upheaval that

3. Global Reset Summit, June 2020

-CV shows that old systems are no longer adequate
-This is about addressing fairness and equality
-Nationalism apparently equates to racism
-Need to build a new social contract, be in harmony with nature
-This is an opportunity not to be wasted
-Cyberspace is lawless (ie no internet regulation)
-Inequality (financial?!) must be addressed
-Building on Agenda 2030 and Paris Accord
-Climate change is a major issue to be addressed
-Climate change threatens the human race
-Economy to be replaced by a “bio-economy”
-A new “global economic system” to replace existing one
-New priority is so-called sustainable financing
-This is an “opportunity” that may never come up again
-MasterCard rep is present and pushing financial inclusion
-Bailouts conditional on green committments

4. WEF Global Reset Subtopics

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/07/can-the-tools-of-finance-build-back-better/
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/07/great-reset-fintech-financial-technology-cybersecurity-controls-cyber-resilience-businesses-consumers/
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/07/global-cooperation-is-more-vital-than-ever-this-is-why/
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/07/banking-force-for-good-covid-driven-credit-crisis/
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/07/great-reset-must-place-social-justice-centre/
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/07/covid-19-coronavirus-stimulus-future-infrastructure-risks-green-economy-economic-recovery/
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/07/racial-justice-black-community-oakland-america/
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/07/here-are-3-ways-to-close-digital-gaps-and-kickstart-recovery/

5. Chrystia Freeland, Mark Carney On WEF

Our current Deputy Prime Minister, Chrystia Freeland, is on the Board of Trustees for the World Economic Forum, while holding high office in Canada. So is Mark Carney, and former U.S. Vice President Al Gore.

6. GAVI Still Integral To WEF Agenda

GAVI was launched at the 2000 World Economic Forum at Davos. It remains a big part of WEF’s goal of world domination.

7. WEF’s March 2020 Action Plan

CONTEXT
The dramatic spread of COVID-19 has disrupted lives, livelihoods, communities and businesses worldwide. All stakeholders, especially global business, must urgently come together to minimize its impact on public health and limit its potential for further disruption to lives and economies around the world.

But the sum of many individual actions will not add up to a sufficient response. Only coordinated action by business, combined with global, multistakeholder cooperation – at exceptional scale and speed – can potentially mitigate the risk and impact of this unprecedented crisis.

No coincidence, the World Health Organization declared a pandemic after the March summit. Almost like they are on the same page.

8. WHO Lies About CV Being Treatable

Supposedly there is no cure yet to this virus (if it exists, at least according to the World Health Organization.

According to Health Canada, as of August 1st, there were 116,599 cases nationwide. Of those, 101,436 have already recovered. This is rather perplexing. How are people recovering en masse if there is no cure? Seriously, how are people getting cured if no cure exists?

An astute person will also notice recommendations of staying one (1) meter apart, not 2. Either government officials are not very observant, or they don’t want to give on this one.

9. Asymptomatic Spread? Don’t Know

On June 9, 2020, WHO reported that asymptomatic transfer was very rare. The next day they backtracked and said that “very rare doesn’t mean very rare”.

Can COVID-19 be caught from a person who has no symptoms?
COVID-19 is mainly spread through respiratory droplets expelled by someone who is coughing or has other symptoms such as fever or tiredness. Many people with COVID-19 experience only mild symptoms. This is particularly true in the early stages of the disease. It is possible to catch COVID-19 from someone who has just a mild cough and does not feel ill.
.
Some reports have indicated that people with no symptoms can transmit the virus. It is not yet known how often it happens. WHO is assessing ongoing research on the topic and will continue to share updated findings.

WHO’s latest version (from its website) seems to be maybe, but we have no idea how often it happens.

10. No Evidence To Support Maskings


WHO-2019-nCov-IPC_Masks-2020.4-eng (1)
(from page 4)

There are currently no studies that have evaluated the effectiveness and potential adverse effects of universal or targeted continuous mask use by health workers in preventing transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Despite the lack of evidence the great majority of the WHO COVID-19 IPC GDG members supports the practice of health workers and caregivers in clinical areas (irrespective of whether there are COVID-19 or other patients in the clinical areas) in geographic settings where there is known or suspected community transmission of COVID-19, to continuously wear a medical mask throughout their shift, apart from when eating and drinking or changing the mask after caring for a patient requiring droplet/contact precautions for other reasons (e.g., influenza), to avoid any possibility of cross-transmission

So there are no actual studies to test or research the effectiveness of masks in health care settings. However, it’s common practice to expect them to be worn.

(from page 6)

Available evidence
Studies of influenza, influenza-like illness, and human coronaviruses (not including COVID-19) provide evidence that the use of a medical mask can prevent the spread of infectious droplets from a symptomatic infected person (source control) to someone else and potential contamination of the environment by these droplets.(54, 55) There is limited evidence that wearing a medical mask by healthy individuals in households, in particular those who share a house with a sick person, or among attendees of mass gatherings may be beneficial as a measure preventing transmission.(41, 56-61) A recent meta-analysis of these observational studies, with the intrinsic biases of observational data, showed that either disposable surgical masks or reusable 12–16-layer cotton masks were associated with protection of healthy individuals within households and among contacts of cases.(42)

WHO reports that’s there no solid evidence to support the idea that forcing masks on healthy people works, yet they recommend it anyway.

11. No Evidence To Support Group Limits

Good old Bonnie Henry, BC Provincial Health Officer states that there is no science behind the Province allowing groups of up to 50 people.

12. Pandemic An Excuse To Enact Change

Why would politicians across country keep pushing the obviously BS narrative about the coronavirus? Quite simply, because this is all an elaborate diversion to keep the focus off the real goal. That goal, of course, is the global reset, and a new globalist agenda that will advance.

Posted on

CV #39: Forced Or Coerced Vaccination Violates Nuremberg Code

If the Nuremberg Code provides very reasonable guidelines on performing medical experiments, then what possible stretch of logic would prohibit people from refusing forced vaccines?

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

For much more on the coronavirus “pandemic”, check out this series. Know the real story about the lies, inflated death tolls, rampant lobbying, financial conflicts of interest, and other deception that the mainstream media will not report on.

2. Text Of Nuremberg Code

  1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.
  2. The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature.
  3. The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation and a knowledge of the natural history of the disease or other problem under study that the anticipated results will justify the performance of the experiment.
  4. The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.
  5. No experiment should be conducted where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects.
  6. The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment.
  7. Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability, or death.
  8. The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons. The highest degree of skill and care should be required through all stages of the experiment of those who conduct or engage in the experiment.
  9. During the course of the experiment the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end if he has reached the physical or mental state where continuation of the experiment seems to him to be impossible.
  10. During the course of the experiment the scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probable cause to believe, in the exercise of the good faith, superior skill and careful judgment required of him that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject.

3. Does Forcing Vaccines Violate Code?


It stands to reason that if forcing people to participate in medical experiments is unethical, then forcing vaccines on people should be as well. Considering the lack of testing and safety mechanisms, it would be hard to argue that this is not still experimental.

Beyond actual force, making it unreasonably difficult to live one’s life without being vaccinated should also imply a lack of informed consent. Would a Government put a “boot on the neck” under the guise of public safety? Well, they are already.

What will happen should this be put in a court challenge? Guess only time will tell.

Posted on

Does Targeting Religious Gatherings Violate 1948 UN Convention On Genocide?

152 countries are part of the United Nations Convention on Preventing and Punishing Genocide. Canada signed the treaty in 1949, and it became effective in 1952.
https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide-convention.shtml

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

As always, there is more to the story than most think. For other listings in the coronavirus hoax, check out this series. Know what is really going on v.s. what the media is telling you. Rest assured, you aren’t getting the whole story from mainstream news sources.

2. Context For This Piece

Governments across the Western world have been very perplexing choices in deciding what stays open, and what gets closed during this so-called pandemic. The British Columbia Government, for example, promotes and allows all sorts of degeneracy, but claims it can be done safely. In the meantime, gatherings, including religious gatherings are limited to 50 people. Elsewhere, it is even less.

But what if these weren’t just random, nonsensical choices? What if there really was an agenda, and it was to wage war on the idea of religious institutions. Keep in mind, after the “second wave” hits, (as we are told is coming), how do we know there won’t be more closures?

Is it hyperbolic to compare this to deliberate killings and violence towards a group? Perhaps, but keep in mind, that genocide usually starts off in increments.

3. Text Of 1948 UN Convention On Genocide

Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide

Article I
The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish.

Article II
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Article III
The following acts shall be punishable:
(a) Genocide;
(b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;
(c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;
(d) Attempt to commit genocide;
(e) Complicity in genocide.

Article IV
Persons committing genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III shall be
punished, whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private
individuals.

Allow depraved and degenerate acts to continue, while mandating that religious institutions to only operate in a limited and controlled fashion is a hypocritical double standard. It’s not as if Western Governments are treating “everyone” in the same manner. Instead, there is picking and choosing as to which groups are allowed to operate as normal.

Let’s not get the idea that this is almost over. Governments are hyping up the “second wave” in an act of predictive programming, to get people used to future restrictions.

Sure, we’re not killing people for their religious affiliations — at least for now. At the moment it is reduced to limiting, (or banning outright), how they may practice and worship.

4. Religious Freedom Guaranteed In Charter

Canadian.Charter.Of.Rights.Freedoms

Fundamental freedoms – section 2
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
.
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.

Freedom of religion is spelled out quite clearly in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Yet, gatherings are limited, while governments bend over backwards (pardon the pun) to allow and facilitate all kinds of degeneracy and risky behaviour.

However, there is probably a good reason for this double standard. Certainly, our officials have a solid basis for acting the ways that they do. Right?

5. BC Government Admits No Science Involved

BC Provincial Health Officer Bonnie Henry repeatedly admits there is no science behind the decision to limit gatherings — including religious gatherings — to just 50 people. See 1:00 in the video. Far from being a breath of transparency, Henry admits (and justifies) being entirely arbitrary about how rules are made.

6. SCOTUS Allows This In Nevada

Calvary Chapel Emergency Application for Injunction
scotus.allows.nevada.to.discriminate

CALVARY CHAPEL DAYTON VALLEY v. STEVE
SISOLAK, GOVERNOR OF NEVADA, ET AL.
ON APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
[July 24, 2020]
JUSTICE GORSUCH, dissenting from denial of application for injunctive relief. This is a simple case. Under the Governor’s edict, a 10-screen “multiplex” may host 500 moviegoers at any time. A casino, too, may cater to hundreds at once, with perhaps six people huddled at each craps table here and a similar number gathered around every roulette wheel there. Large numbers and close quarters are fine in such places. But churches, synagogues, and mosques are banned from admitting more than 50 worshippers—no matter how large the building, how distant the individuals, how many wear face masks, no matter the precautions at all. In Nevada, it seems, it is better to be in entertainment than religion. Maybe that is nothing new. But the First Amendment prohibits such obvious discrimination against the exercise of religion. The world we inhabit today, with a pandemic upon us, poses unusual challenges. But there is no world in which the Constitution permits Nevada to favor Caesars Palace over Calvary Chapel.

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), recently declined intervene in appeal from Nevada. The Applicants challenged the double standard of allowing gambling to open up (almost regardless of size), but religious institutions were limited. Justice Gorsuch’s dissent was short but sweet.

One has to wonder about Chief Justice John Roberts, a Bush appointee, who cast the deciding vote. One also has to wonder about his recent black eye and potential deep state ties.

7. A Formal Complaint To The Hague?

Again, it may be viewed as hyperbolic to compare restrictions on religious gatherings to outright mass murder. However, it is clear that governments do target this group, while giving much more risky and immoral behaviour a pass.

In fairness, however, the UN would likely do little, if anything. The World Health Organization seems to back this hoax fully.

This needs to be fought back against, one way or another.