Vaccines Archives - Page 15 of 63

August 27, 2022August 27, 2022

Nova Scotia FOI: Gov’t Data On Deaths By Age/Vaxx Status

People in Nova Scotia continue to dig for information about this so-called pandemic. The full listings to date are below. This piece involves official death statistics in that area.

The demographic and place of residence data for Nova Scotians who died from COVID-19 since January 1, 2022. Date of death. Vaccination status.

Before getting into the statistics, a few disclaimers are needed. The most obvious of which is that no virus has ever been proven to exist.

A death due to COVID-19 is defined for surveillance purposes as a death resulting from a clinically compatible illness, in a probable or confirmed COVID-19 case, unless there is a clear alternative cause of death that cannot be related to COVID disease (e.g. trauma). There should be no period of complete recovery from COVID-19 between illness and death.

This has been covered before, but is worth a going over. The definition of a “Covid death” is nothing short of fraud. The original has been moved or deleted, but the archive is still available.

It’s also interesting that a “Medical Officer of Health”, who doesn’t even practice, is able to overrule local authorities in determining the cause of death. These deaths can also be attributed to “Covid” as long as there is believed to be some contributing factor. Pretty subjective.

Now, onto the data provided by Nova Scotia:

MONTH	DEATH TOTAL
January 1 -31, 2022	67
February 1 – 28, 2022	61
March 1 – 31, 2022	44
April 1 – 30, 2022	85
May 1 – 31, 2022	65
June 1 – 20, 2022	13
TOTALS	335

# OF SHOTS	DEATH TOTAL
0 (Purebloods)	58
1	9
2	96
3 or more	172
TOTALS	335

The FOI response adds in a disclaimer that no real conclusion can be drawn between vaccine efficacy and other factors. One would think that they don’t want people thinking these shots are useless (at best) or harmful (at worst).

SEX	DEATH TOTAL
Male	189
Female	146
Combined	335

Seems that none of the other 167 genders have fatalities to report in this deadly pandemic. What a strange observation we have here.

AGE GROUP	DEATH TOTAL
0 – 9	0
10 – 19	Less Than 5
20 – 29	0
30 – 39	Less Than 5
40 – 49	7
50 – 59	13
60 – 69	33
70 – 79	86
80 – 89	125
Over 90	69

The overwhelming majority of deaths are people who have had at least 2 shots. The majority are also seniors 70 years of age and older. Keep in mind, Nova Scotia has a population of approximately 1,000,000 people. Even if 1,000 people were to have died (with a direct causal link), it would be only 0.1% of the population. And we see just how flexible these people are with their definitions.

It’s almost as if there’s no virus, and that there’s no discernible health benefit to taking these experimental vaccines.

As a reminder, the WHO said in its March 2020 guidance (page 3), and September 2020 guidance (page 8) that virus isolation is not recommended for routine diagnostic procedures.

And if you haven’t seen Christine Massey’s work with Fluoride Free Peel, go do that. There are some 200 or so FOIs showing that no one, anywhere in the world, has ever isolated this “virus”. It’s never been proven to exist. There’s no point having a discussion on what treatments are beneficial, until the existence of this is demonstrated. Other interesting reads are apocalypticyoga, by Bill Huston, Stormhaven, by William Ray, and What’s Up Canada by Wayne Peters.

(1) 2022-00956-HEA_PublicPackage Nova Scotia
(2) https://www.who.int/classifications/icd/Guidelines_Cause_of_Death_COVID-19.pdf
(3) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/WHO-Guidelines-Classification-Of-Death.pdf
(4) “https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/fois-reveal-that-health-science-institutions-around-the-world-have-no-record-of-sars-cov-2-isolation-purification/
(5) https://apocalypticyoga.substack.com/
(6) https://stormhaven.blog/
(7) https://www.whatsupcanada.org/

August 24, 2022October 22, 2022

VCC July 6, 2020 Suit: Truth Finally Comes Out (Sort Of)

Here is the latest on the (second) Vaccine Choice Canada lawsuit, filed July 6, 2020.

This website has been about the only media outlet that has fully and truthfully reported on a number of high profile “anti-lockdown” lawsuits. Despite the hype surrounding them — and the endless requests for donations — there is stunningly little to report.

It’s not an exaggeration to say that nothing has been happening. According to the Ontario Court, these are all the documents that are available as of today, August 24, 2022.

(1) VCC – Statement Of Claim Unredacted
(2) VCC – Discontinuance Against CBC
(3) VCC – Mercer Statement Of Defense
(4) VCC – Mercer Affidavit Of Service

After more than 2 years, all that has happened is that: (a) there was a Notice of Discontinuance against the CBC (removing them from the case); and (b) Nicola Mercer, MOH for the County of Wellington-Dufferin-Guelph, filed a Statement of Defense.

CBC implied in August 2020 that they were never served. They said they “obtained an unredacted copy”, which implies they contacted the Court directly. This is not proper service, and doesn’t start the 20 day time limit. Now, they threaten to bring a SLAPP Motion?! When were they served?

Interestingly, the Affidavit of Service came from Nicola Mercer’s lawyer when serving the Statement of Defense. There doesn’t appear to be any Affidavits of Service from the Plaintiffs for the Statement of Claim. Therefore, it’s a fair question to ask who has actually been served.

Considering the Claim is missing most service addresses, that alone may open it up to procedural challenges.

Here are a few points from Mercer’s Statement of Defense:

A “good faith” defense is raised with respect to issuing orders
There are statutory provisions to allow for such orders
Mercer was following the so-called scientific consensus
Mercer relies on a provision granting immunity
Paragraphs 25 and 26 say that all orders have expired, and that the issue is moot.

That last point is of particular concern. By doing nothing for 2 years, the Defendants, or at least this one, can now say there’s no issue, as the orders are over. “Moot” in the legal sense refers to something that has already been resolved, and thus, there’s no reason to bring to Court.

In essence, Mercer claims (as one defense) that so much time has elapsed, the issue of the various orders is no longer relevant.

This site covered the Action4Canada and Vaccine Choice Canada lawsuits. It was described in great detail how both Claims were horribly defective, and likely to be thrown out on a preliminary challenge.

This wasn’t designed to smear or defame anyone. Instead, these critiques were meant to be brutally honest reviews about what was wrong with the pleadings. They were drafted so poorly that it was difficult to view this as anything other than intentional.

This is from a recent stream. Don’t worry, more is available:

The above clips are from Vaccine Choice Canada’s July 13, 2022 livestream. Quotes from these are very revealing as to what’s really been going on.

“Most people measure the effectiveness of a Court submission based upon what a Judge decides…. There’s [more to] the impact of your legal proceedings than simply what happens within the Court.”
“It’s also how the Defendants respond, and how the public responds.”
“We brought awareness to a dynamic that was hidden from the public.”
“I would suggest that maybe this was the most important impact we had to date.”
“The VCC case was initiated as a shot across the bow.”
“It was aimed at [mandatory vaccines and mask exemptions]”.
“As soon as we filed, they quickly back-peddled in Ontario and put in regulations that allowed for masking exemptions, in the wording we were advocating for.”
“This is not Hollywood. Constitutional issues are not always resolved in the Courtroom.”
“They’re resolved by pre-emptive action that makes the Government have a sober second thought.”
“It’s not as if the VCC challenge has had no effect, particularly in Ontario.”
“A lot of the issues being raised in the umbrella challenge are not being pursued [within other challenges].”

These video clips are essentially admissions that the July 6, 2020 lawsuit was brought for reasons other than to diligently pursue a Trial. Pretty moronic. It’s obvious from the total lack of progress that there was never any urgency in bringing this forward.

Yes, other people have filed lawsuits with ulterior motives in the past. Others will do so in the future. But few are dumb enough to brag on a livestream that this is what was really happening.

It takes a special kind of stupid to admit this. While the Ontario Attorney General could always file a Motion to strike (for a variety of reasons), this makes it much easier. Beyond that, filing lawsuits with no intention to pursue them could lead to serious issues with the Law Society of Ontario, or whichever Province one practices in.

It’s unclear how this July 6, 2020 case was used to “leverage” anything out of the Ford Regime. It was written in such a disjointed manner, and contained so much irrelevant information, it would have been easy to get struck. This isn’t a document that would shake and scare the A.G.’s Office. It’s the kind of rant that would make most lawyers laugh.

Supposedly, there is some larger “litigation strategy” that Vaccine Choice refuses to disclose. This is a massive bait-and-switch. In the Summer of 2020, there was a fundraising blitz undertaken to raise cash for this ground breaking suit. This comes across as extremely unethical.

Many people donated in good faith to these lawsuits, believing that proceeding to Trial was the ultimate goal. But that apparently isn’t the case.

In the Summer of 2021, new talking points emerged about there being “Affidavits of evidence” that totaled in the thousands of pages. However, they haven’t been filed anywhere, if they even exist. A likely explanation is that this was done to quell concerns about the complete lack of activity.

And now that the various orders are (for now, at least) gone, it wouldn’t take much to get the case tossed for mootness. This 2 year delay made this possible.

Also, consider the Action4Canada case as a reference point. Brief responses were filed by the Defendants, followed by Applications to Strike. The B.C. Attorney General’s Office argued that the the long delays were used to drive up donations, while making no real progress. It was admitted in the May 31, 2022 session that over $750,000 had been raised. Currently, Judgement is reserved on various Applications to strike that suit as frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process.

All of this was laid out last August.
Vindication is bittersweet.

It’s not a stretch to see the Vaccine Choice Canada case going down that same path. The much longer delay is curious, and again raises questions of when Defendants were actually served.

The admissions that the July 6 case was a “shot across the bow”, or done “as pre-emptive action”, or done “to educate the public”, make it clear there were other agendas at play.

Donors should demand their money back, and Vaccine Choice really needs to open up the books for public inspection.

Now, about those rumours….

It’s not really a secret that this website (and anyone directly or indirectly associated) was sued last year for $7,000,000. The main issue was reporting the observation that it didn’t appear these anti-lockdown suits were ever meant to go to Trial. The problems, including defects with the pleadings themselves, were covered in great detail. More on that another time.

VACCINE CHOICE CANADA COURT DOCUMENTS
(1) VCC – Statement Of Claim Unredacted
(2) VCC – Discontinuance Against CBC
(3) VCC – Mercer Statement Of Defense
(4) VCC – Mercer Affidavit Of Service

ACTION4CANADA COURT DOCUMENTS
(1) A4C Notice of Civil Claim
(2) A4C Response October 14
(3) A4C Legal Action Update, October 14th 2021 Action4Canada
(4) A4C Notice of Application January 12
(5) A4C Notice of Application January 17
(6) A4C Affidavit Of Rebecca Hill
(7) A4C Response VIH-Providence January 17
(8) A4C Response to Application BC Ferries January 19
(9) https://action4canada.com/wp-content/uploads/Application-Record-VLC-S-S217586.pdf
(10) https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BfS_MyxA9J11WeYZmk8256G7GsWEFZ62/view

August 20, 2022August 20, 2022

British Columbia’s Convoluted Stance On Drugs And Safety

This article is going to be a little disjointed, but the purpose is to show how convoluted and illogical drugs policies are becoming in the Province of British Columbia.

Decriminalization
B.C. is the first province in Canada to receive a three-year exemption from the federal government to remove criminal penalties for people who possess small amounts of illicit drugs for personal use. Decriminalization of people who use drugs will reduce the fear and shame that keeps people silent and leads so many to hide their drug use and avoid treatment and support. Reducing the stigma of drug use is a vital part of B.C.’s work to build a comprehensive system of mental health and substance use care. Decriminalization will become effective Jan. 31, 2023, and the Province will work with a broad cross-section of partners to make sure police are trained and health authorities are prepared for this change.

The B.C Government got a 3 year exemption from Ottawa for possession of narcotics — any narcotics — that are in small enough quantities, and for personal use.

The (outgoing) Premier sent his condolences for deaths that resulted from a poisoned supply. Of course, it’s a bit rich considering that these drugs are poison to begin with. Perhaps they were just killing off the customers too quickly.

Just 2 years ago, Horgan actually recommended staying home and smoking pot as a way to stay safe during the so-called pandemic. There was even a “Good Times” website up in the Summer of 2020. It’s since been removed, but the archived version is still available.

The BCCDC, or B.C. Centre for Disease Control, has guidelines surrounding illicit drug use. Note: it doesn’t appear that stopping is a major objective. Here’s an archived version of it.

Some initiatives to combat drug abuse include:

Decriminalization
Access to prescribed safer supply, a Canadian first
Overdose prevention and supervised consumption services
Lifeguard App
Take-home naloxone kits
New beds for addictions and recovery care
Expanded scope of nursing practice, a Canadian first (RN prescriptions)
Expanded opioid agonist treatment

Now, there are also programs at various stages for emergency responses and expanded treatment options. However, considering the efforts untaken to expand drug use in this Province, efforts to stop the problem seem insincere.

Of course, the BC Centre for Disease Control is compromised, to put it mildly. The BCCDC Foundation is a registered charity, and gets major tax breaks. Its donors include drug companies, creating a serious conflict of interest. (Archive here). Should the organizations impacting public policy be getting donations from the same companies who profit from — vaccine mandates?

Champions
Our $75,000 – $250,000 Donors

GlaxoSmithKline
Julie Glover
Pfizer Canada Inc.
Unbounded Canada Foundation
Vancouver Foundation

Ambassadors
$25,000 – $74,999.99 Donors

British Columbia Association for Sexual Health
Merck Canada Inc.
Pacific Blue Cross
Teradici Corp

Allies
$5,000 – $24,999.99 Donors

AbbVie Canada Corp.
Associated Canadian Theological Schools Society
BC Teachers’ Federation
Ben and Lilac Milne
BlueSky Properties
Chef Ann Kirsebom’s Gourmet Sauces / BBQ Ltd.
Connor, Clark & Lunn Foundation
Gilead Sciences Canada Inc.
Imperial Medical Group Inc.
Leith Wheeler Investment Counsel Ltd.
LifeLabs
London Drugs Limited
Orbis Investments Canada Ltd.
Sanofi
Vancouver Dispensary Society
Vard Electro Canada Inc.

Just a thought: but perhaps the pharma money that the BCCDC Foundation receives contributes to the fact that it’s so pro-pharma. This cannot be ignored. Nor can the charity status of the B.C. Provincial Health Services Authority.

In 2018, B.C. began a class-action lawsuit on behalf of all federal, provincial and territorial governments in Canada and enacted the Opioid Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act. The aim of the class action and legislation is to recover health-care costs that resulted from wrongful conduct of opioid manufacturers, distributors and their consultants.

B.C. alleges that opioid manufacturers, distributors and their consultants engaged in deceptive marketing practices with a view to increase sales, resulting in increased rates of addiction and overdose. Purdue Canada is one among over 40 manufacturers and distributors named in the class action commenced in 2018 and scheduled for a certification hearing in the next year.

The proposed settlement with Purdue Canada has been agreed to by all federal, provincial and territorial governments and totals $150 million in monetary benefits, plus additional benefits including access to information and documents relevant to the lawsuit. This settlement was reached very early in the litigation process, before the allegations against Purdue Canada have been proven in court. This is the largest settlement of a governmental health claim in Canadian history. The proposed agreement is still subject to final approval by the courts, expected in the next few months.

At the end of June 2022, the B.C. announced a proposed $150 million settlement with Purdue Canada over its business practices.

Taxpayers are on the hook for the extra health care costs, and it seems unlikely that court rulings will come close to compensating the public. Of course, this only speaks to the financial burdens, not the societal and personal losses.

This is pretty convoluted to think that drug laws are getting watered down, resulting in easier access to drugs. Meanwhile, society is plagued by the results of legal drugs (opioids). It’s not just deaths, but ruined lives and families that are the collateral damages.

Will this settlement result in these pharmaceuticals being taken off the market, at least for the most part? Or will these court actions simply be viewed as the cost of doing business?

It’s difficult to see that the Government here is serious about ending drug problems in this Province. Then again, maybe the goal is not to stop it, but just to control it.

(1) https://twitter.com/jjhorgan/status/1559588217208184832
(2) https://twitter.com/jjhorgan/status/1294762295348715520
(3) https://goodtimes.gov.bc.ca/
(4) https://archive.ph/naVsZ
(5) http://www.bccdc.ca/health-info/diseases-conditions/covid-19/priority-populations/people-who-use-substances
(6) https://archive.ph/AVbNY
(7) https://news.gov.bc.ca/factsheets/escalated-drug-poisoning-response-actions-1
(8) http://www.bccdc.ca/health-professionals/data-reports/substance-use-harm-reduction-dashboard
(9) https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/life-events/death/coroners-service/statistical-reports
(10) https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/birth-adoption-death-marriage-and-divorce/deaths/coroners-service/statistical/illicit-drug-type.pdf
(11) https://canucklaw.ca/bc-centre-for-disease-control-foundation-is-registered-charity-with-pharma-funding/
(12) https://bccdcfoundation.org/our-donors/
(13) https://archive.ph/bg8cd
(14) https://news.gov.bc.ca/releases/2022AG0044-001031

August 18, 2022

ONSC Rules Child Cannot Be Forced To Take Injections

An Ontario Superior Court Judge dismissed an application to essentially force a minor to get a shot against her will.

Parents were in the midst of divorce and custody issues, and the topic of the “vaccines” came up. The father was insistent that the daughter get it, while the mother said she would respect the girl’s own choices. The girl, who is 12 years old, has outright refused to get it.

Throughout the decision, the term “taken judicial notice” comes up again and again. What this means is that a court will not look into an issue, simply because some other court or adjudication body has already done so. While there is a certain logic to it, garbage rulings can also simply be accepted on this basis.

[1] The respondent father brings this motion seeking an order directing that the applicant mother ensure that their daughter is vaccinated against COVID-19 and that she receives any further and additional scheduled vaccinations in accordance with provincial recommendations, failing which the father shall be permitted to return this matter to seek sole decision-making authority over all aspects of the child’s medical care.

[11] Unfortunately, Mr. Tonge was not able to provide the opinion requested. By letter to the parties dated February 22, 2022, Mr. Tonge stated that he understood he was requested and agreed to assist S. in reconnecting with her father and not to undertake an assessment of parental influence. He was unaware of the vaccination issue until it was raised by S.. Mr. Tonge could not comment on the “presence or absence of parental influence and the understanding, capacity and maturity of this child to make a decision” as he was not asked to, nor did he agree to conduct such an assessment.

[15] The respondent father’s position is that it is presumptively in S.’s best interest that she be vaccinated against the COVID-19 virus and mother has provided no evidence to rebut this presumption. The apparent objections of S. do not stem from any sound medical evidence or opinion. Mother has improperly left the decision up to S. who is not old enough, mature enough, or knowledgeable enough to make such a major health decision. Thus, it falls on this court to step in and protect the child’s best interests, to make sure that she receives her COVID-19 vaccination to protect her and to protect her classmates, her friends, her neighbours, and family.

[37] The issue before the court in taking judicial notice of scientific facts is not assessing whether the science is “fake science”, but whether scientific facts that would normally require expert opinion to be admitted, may be judicially noticed without proof. This issue was recently addressed by Breithaupt Smith J. in R.S.P. v. H.L.C. 2021 ONSC 8362 in which she provided what has been described as a timely warning (J.N. v. C.G., 2022 ONSC 1198 at para 65):

[42] I am not prepared to take judicial notice of any government information with respect to COVID-19 or the COVID-19 vaccines.

[43] Even if I were to take judicial notice of the “safety” and “efficacy” of the vaccine, I still have no basis for assessing what that means for this child. I must still determine how safe, how efficacious the vaccine is for this child. Does safe mean there are no side effects? Is the vaccine effective in protecting her from contracting COVID-19, from spreading it, from dying from it, from severity of symptoms? As with informed consent, there are many factors that must be carefully considered in weighing risks and benefits.

[58] I am mindful in considering S’s best interests that an order that mother ensure she is vaccinated would have irreversible consequences, if S. was vaccinated as a result. One cannot be unvaccinated. In that respect, it is a final order.

[59] Finally, I am satisfied that S. is a “mature minor” as explained by Abella J. in A.C. v. Manitoba (Director of Child and Family Services), 2009 SCC 30 at para 47. S. is capable with respect to treatment pursuant to s. 4 of the Health Care Consent Act, 1996, SO 1996, c 2, Sch A. She is mature enough to accept or refuse treatment.

There is a certain logic to it. If young children are “mature” enough to get the shot, then they should be mature enough to make the decision to refuse it.

The court also makes the observation that a person cannot ever be “unvaccinated”. That alone should be enough to give pause before pushing these injections. It was also noted that the “evidence” seems to keep changing, which is another reason to not take the matter as settled.

This adolescent girl seems to have more sense than either of her parents, but at least the mother was willing to respect her personal choices.

(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2022/2022onsc4580/2022onsc4580.html
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2022/2022onsc4580/2022onsc4580.pdf

M.M. v. W.A.K., 2022 ONSC 4580

August 4, 2022August 4, 2022

Some Thoughts On The Virus/No-Virus Challenges Going On

This brief piece was inspired by a recent article that was forwarded here. Many are not aware of a growing divide within the larger movement of freedom supporters. Broadly speaking these can be classified as two factions:

(1) Those who are opposed to various medical martial law measures, including lockdowns, business closures, curfews, vaccine passports, masks, and other intrusions, but who otherwise support the concepts of viruses and vaccines; and

(2) Those who think that this virus — and viruses more broadly — are a work of fiction to push various social and political agendas.

Yes, there has been the argument that all of this is pointless, and distracts from the larger picture. However, it could also be said that demonstrating there’s no way to properly isolate a virus would by default render all freedom restrictions unnecessary.

This isn’t, of course, to suggest that everyone who believes in viruses (or a specific one) is a fraud or a shill. Many good people do.

That being said, the implications are huge if the second group turns out to be correct. Much of modern medicine would collapse if it was shown to be founded on false pretenses. Anyhow:

Without getting too much into the nitty gritty, tensions seem to be rising over efforts to debunk virology, and germ theory as a whole.

One of the more interesting items is “flaw #22” on the page, specifically the asymmetric burden of proof.

Asymmetrical burden of proof. Among other things, the bar for “proof” that they set for themselves is unreasonably low, while the bar that they set for everyone else is unreasonably high. And it appears that the only judges whom they will be willing to accept are themselves.

There’s more of course, but this is worth addressing. The argument seems to be that a thesis can only be debunked if a stronger and more credible one can take it’s place. That not how things work. Consider these examples:

In criminal court, a judge or jury never actually rules a defendant to be innocent. Either the prosecution has sufficiently proven culpability (guilty), or they they haven’t (not guilty). There’s no requirement for a defendant to prove someone else committed a crime, though it would certainly be beneficial.
When inspecting an automobile, it’s not really proven to be safe. Instead, the mechanic or other person searches for common sources of damage, or defective operation. If nothing is found, then the result comes back okay.
University students have likely seen hypothesis testing in statistics. The goal isn’t to prove what the mean or variance is, but rather to debunk the assumption. The methods may prove your belief (reject the asserted mean or variance), or there may be insufficient proof (fail to reject). That said, there’s no demand to provide alternative answers

In the linked article, Steve Kirsch laments there is a double standard. People wishing to argue the existence of a specific virus, or viruses in general, must provide concrete proof. However, someone who wants to debunk that only need to find sufficient errors, not formulate a better answer.

Common criticisms for virus isolation include: improper (or no) controls, lack of replicability, and adding things like monkey kidney cells or fetal bovine tissue.

A favourite on this site is the screwy definition of a “Covid death”, which stands any sense of honesty and integrity on its head. The rampant pharma connections are also difficult to ignore. Sometimes, it’s not science, but common sense that should cause people to second guess.

Yes, there is a double standard when it comes to the evidence required for “prove v.s. debunk”. And that’s quite okay.

(1) https://stevekirsch.substack.com/
(2) https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/sam-baileys-very-disingenuous-settling
(3) https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/fois-reveal-that-health-science-institutions-around-the-world-have-no-record-of-sars-cov-2-isolation-purification/
(4) https://canucklaw.ca/a-death-resulting-from-a-clinically-compatible-illness/

July 16, 2022November 17, 2023

World Health Organization Constitution: Have You Actually Read It?

The World Health Organization Constitution is just one document that Canadians were subjected to, and this being done without knowledge or consent. Was there ever a referendum or election campaign run on this? Probably not.

The full text is available with a quick internet search. Below are some sections which might be the most troubling to any nationalist or patriot.

Article 4
Members of the United Nations may become Members of the Organization by signing or otherwise accepting this Constitution in accordance with the provisions of Chapter XIX and in accordance with their constitutional processes.

This part cannot be overemphasized. If a country wants to be part of the WHO, then they necessarily have to sign onto their constitution. The Federal Government did this on their own, with a signature. And as we go through it, the problems with this become obvious.

Article 7
If a Member fails to meet its financial obligations to the Organization or in other exceptional circumstances, the Health Assembly may, on such conditions as it thinks proper, suspend the voting privileges and services to which a Member is entitled. The Health Assembly shall have the authority to restore such voting privileges and services.

So, being part of this group is voluntary. However, if you don’t pay your bills, WHO can suspend your voting rights. They can also be removed under the undefined “exceptional circumstances”. Sounds a bit undemocratic, doesn’t it?

Article 19
The Health Assembly shall have authority to adopt conventions or agreements with respect to any matter within the competence of the Organization. A two-thirds vote of the Health Assembly shall be required for the adoption of such conventions or agreements, which shall come into force for each Member when accepted by it in accordance with its constitutional processes.

Article 20
Each Member undertakes that it will, within eighteen months after the adoption by the Health Assembly of a convention or agreement, take action relative to the acceptance of such convention or agreement. Each Member shall notify the Director-General of the action taken, and if it does not accept such convention or agreement within the time limit, it will furnish a statement of the reasons for non-acceptance. In case of acceptance, each Member agrees to make an annual report to the Director-General in accordance with Chapter XIV

The Health Assembly has the right to determine its own conventions and agreement, and it can be done with a 2/3 vote. By this rationale, Canada could easily be forced into adopting policies that it fundamentally disagrees with. And to state the obvious, there was never any domestic vote or referendum over this.

Members are also obligated to go along with any convention or agreement. If they refuse, written reasons have to be provided.

Article 21
The Health Assembly shall have authority to adopt regulations concerning:
(a) sanitary and quarantine requirements and other procedures designed to prevent the international spread of disease;
(b) nomenclatures with respect to diseases, causes of death and public health practices;
(c) standards with respect to diagnostic procedures for international use;
(d) standards with respect to the safety, purity and potency of biological, pharmaceutical and similar products moving in international commerce;
(e) advertising and labelling of biological, pharmaceutical and similar products moving in international commerce.

Article 22
Regulations adopted pursuant to Article 21 shall come into force for all Members after due notice has been given of their adoption by the Health Assembly except for such Members as may notify the Director-General of rejection or reservations within the period stated in the notice.

W.H.O.’s constitution makes it clear that quarantine measures fall under their purview. Quarantine, of course, is code for movement and population control. Strange how none of the freedom fighters in the media or politics ever mention this.

As for the standards and nomenclature of pharmaceuticals, this includes vaccines that are pushed on the public despite only having emergency authorization. There’s also a reference to testing, such as the PCR tests, which can’t determine anything.

W.H.O. names diseases as well, including ones that have never been proven to exist.

It doesn’t appear that Canada ever rejected or opted-out of any of this. As such, we are compelled to play along with this globalist organization.

Article 54
The Pan American Sanitary Organization represented by the Pan American Sanitary Bureau and the Pan American Sanitary Conferences, and all other inter-governmental regional health organizations in existence prior to the date of signature of this Constitution, shall in due course be integrated with the Organization. This integration shall be effected as soon as practicable through common action based on mutual consent of the competent authorities expressed through the organizations concerned.

All other organizations that use “public health” as a means of population control will eventually become integrated with W.H.O. Guess it keeps everything centralized.

CHAPTER XIII – VOTING
Article 59
Each Member shall have one vote in the Health Assembly.

Article 60
(a) Decisions of the Health Assembly on important questions shall be made by a two-thirds majority of the Members present and voting. These questions shall include: the adoption of conventions or agreements; the approval of agreements bringing the Organization into relation with the United Nations and inter-governmental organizations and agencies in accordance with Articles 69, 70 and 72; amendments to this Constitution.
(b) Decisions on other questions, including the determination of additional categories of questions to be decided by a two-thirds majority, shall be made by a majority of the Members present and voting.
(c) Voting on analogous matters in the Board and in committees of the Organization shall be made in accordance with paragraphs (a) and (b) of this Article.

This becomes a numbers game, where decisions that are detrimental to some nations can be adopted simply because the majority overall vote for it. With this mechanism in mind, there really is no sovereignty to rely on.

CHAPTER XV – LEGAL CAPACITY, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES
Article 66
The Organization shall enjoy in the territory of each Member such legal capacity as may be necessary for the fulfilment of its objective and for the exercise of its functions.

Article 67
(a) The Organization shall enjoy in the territory of each Member such privileges and immunities as may be necessary for the fulfilment of its objective and for the exercise of its functions.
(b) Representatives of Members, persons designated to serve on the Board and technical and administrative personnel of the Organization shall similarly enjoy such privileges and immunities as are necessary for the independent exercise of their functions in connexion with the Organization.

Article 68
Such legal capacity, privileges and immunities shall be defined in a separate agreement to be prepared by the Organization in consultation with the Secretary-General of the United Nations and concluded between the Members

All employees and other workers are given immunity from legal action as part of their contracts with W.H.O. That’s a pretty good deal. They can’t be sued, charged, or have recourse taken against them, as long as they were doing their jobs. There doesn’t even seem to be a requirement that they be acting in good faith.

Article 69
The Organization shall be brought into relation with the United Nations as one of the specialized agencies referred to in Article 57 of the Charter of the United Nations. The agreement or agreements bringing the Organization into relation with the United Nations shall be subject to approval by a two-thirds vote of the Health Assembly.

The W.H.O. would be subject to U.N. control. It’s pretty clear that the ultimate goal is to merge all of these organizations into a single, centralized institution of power.

Article 71
The Organization may, on matters within its competence, make suitable arrangements for consultation and co-operation with non-governmental international organizations and, with the consent of the Government concerned, with national organizations, governmental or non-governmental

On its own, this doesn’t sound too bad, but the devil is always in the details. Which groups would be consulted? How would they be screened? Would their recommendations become binding on members?

Article 72
Subject to the approval by a two-thirds vote of the Health Assembly, the Organization may take over from any other international organization or agency whose purpose and activities lie within the field of competence of the Organization such functions, resources and obligations as may be conferred upon the Organization by international agreement or by mutually acceptable arrangements entered into between the competent authorities of the respective organizations.

The W.H.O. constitution gives itself the power to take over from any “international organization or agency” within its designated scope, as long as there is a 2/3 majority vote from the Health Assembly.

Sure, it’s done “on consent”, but who are the people that are really consenting?

Article 79
(a) States may become parties to this Constitution by:
(i) signature without reservation as to approval;
(ii) signature subject to approval followed by acceptance; or
(iii) acceptance.
(b) Acceptance shall be effected by the deposit of a formal instrument with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

Article 80
This Constitution shall come into force when twenty-six Members of the United Nations have become parties to it in accordance with the provisions of Article 79.

This isn’t everything, but just more eye-opening parts. The full text of the W.H.O. constitution is freely available. (Here’s the highlighted version). Look it up, read it, and see what exactly we have been signed onto without any sort of democratic mandate.

Rest assured, there are a lot more than 26 countries now. This means the constitution has come into force. And if anyone hasn’t gone through the chronology of events, it’s all laid out here:

1908: International Public Health Office to be created
1926: International Sanitary Convention was ratified in Paris.
1946: WHO’s Constitution was signed, and it’s something we’ll get into in more detail.
1951: International Sanitary Regulations adopted by Member States.
1969: International Health Regulations (1st Edition) replaced ISR. These are legally binding on all Member States.
2005: International Health Regulations 3rd Edition of IHR were ratified.

Being part of the World Health Organization means submitting to their rules and control. It’s laid out in their own constitution. To be clear, sovereignty will never be possible as long as Canada is part of this entity.

As has been outlined here before, the 2005 Quarantine Act, Bill C-12, was really just domestic implementation of the 3rd Edition of the International Health Regulations.

We’ve also gone heavily into the creation of PHAC, which is essentially just a branch of the World Health Organization. It was created at WHO’s instigation. It takes over (to a large degree) what Health Canada had been doing. The timeline is laid out, and worth a read.

The W.H.O. Constitution is a major step is the erasure of nations — under the guise of public health. Anyone serious about “freedom” in Canada, or elsewhere, needs to address this. Far too many are propped up as heroes, but who ignore the underlying legislation and treaties.

Category: Vaccines

Nova Scotia FOI: Gov’t Data On Deaths By Age/Vaxx Status

Like this:

VCC July 6, 2020 Suit: Truth Finally Comes Out (Sort Of)

Like this:

British Columbia’s Convoluted Stance On Drugs And Safety

Like this:

ONSC Rules Child Cannot Be Forced To Take Injections

Like this:

Some Thoughts On The Virus/No-Virus Challenges Going On

Like this:

World Health Organization Constitution: Have You Actually Read It?

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this: