Category: Vaccines

Posted on

Brian Lilley Mentions Global Canada Piece On Lockdowns, Omits Group Is Gates Funded

A group called Global Canada is proposing extremely strict lockdowns (a.k.a. martial law), in Canada, for a limited time. At least they claim it will be a limited time. Of course, there is more to this than meets the eye, and we will get to their paper soon enough.

And Brian Lilley, a so-called “journalist” with the Toronto Sun, can’t be bothered to do even a small amount of research on this group.

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

The rest of the series is here. Many lies, lobbying, conflicts of interest, and various globalist agendas operating behind the scenes, obscuring the vile agenda called the “Great Reset“. The Gates Foundation finances: the WHO, the US CDC, GAVI, ID2020, John Hopkins University, Imperial College London, the Pirbright Institute, the BBC, and individual pharmaceutical companies. Also: there is little to no science behind what our officials are doing; they promote degenerate behaviour; and the International Health Regulations are legally binding. See here, here, and here. The media is paid off, and our democracy compromised, shown: here, here, here, and here.

2. Important Links

Brian Lilley’s Toronto Star Article On Proposed Lockdown
Global Canada Proposes Complete Lockdown
Global Canada Proposes Total Lockdown
https://twitter.com/brianlilley/status/1346454136640974850
https://global-canada.org/
https://global-canada.org/supporters/
https://global-canada.org/team/
https://archive.is/JzFdL
https://archive.is/SETfE
https://archive.is/hGLwi
http://www.18millionwomen.ca/
Family Planning Initiative Calls For Money

3. Conservative Inc.’s Brian Lilley Reports

While I agree that they have diagnosed several problems with our current system correctly, the prescription isn’t one I can get wholly behind.

The group smartly says we do need effective border controls, including testing of air travelers and proper quarantine methods.

The group even suggests making truckers and other essential workers who cross the Canada-US land border a priority group for vaccinations to prevent them from becoming new infection vectors.

What I have trouble with is the idea of another four-to-six week lockdown.

The plan is to invoke a harsh lockdown for four to six weeks, then gradually relax restrictions as cases fall by 17-25% per week until we reach a benchmark of one new case per day per one million of population.

How long that would take would vary greatly by province.

For Ontario and Alberta, that’s at least four to six months, while in Manitoba the effort would take two months, possibly more.

I don’t expect everything to open back up tomorrow, or for life to get back to normal anytime soon.

Yet I doubt many politicians have the desire to sell the public on this plan, of “just one more short lockdown” — and given the past week and how the political class have acted, I doubt very much the public wants to hear it.

From the looks of the article, Lilley doesn’t seem to take any issue (on principle), of forcibly locking down Canada for months. He just seems mildly skeptical that it would be as effective as needed.

Keep in mind, Lilley takes the perspective that we should be grateful it’s Doug Ford imposing lockdowns in Ontario, as others would surely be worse. Whether by accident or by design, Lilley only provides the most tame and meek efforts at holding the Government accountable. What else is he not reporting about this group that calls for more lockdowns?

4. Who Supports This NGO: Global Canada?

  • Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
  • Caisse de Depot et Placement du Quebec
  • AIMIA
  • CIGI
  • Competia
  • ZED

Yes, the supporters of Global Canada include the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, who is heavily involved in the pharmaceutical push. Caisse de Depot et Placement du Quebec is a large investment firm. So is AIMIA.

It would have been nice if Brian Lilley included this is his article. He linked the original paper.

5. Robert Greenhill Chairs Global Canada

Robert Greenhill
Executive Chairman, Global Canada
.
With a strong interest in global issues, Robert Greenhill has combined a career in international business with a commitment to public policy.
.
Robert Greenhill is Executive Chairman of the Global Canada Initiative. Previous roles include Managing Director and Chief Business Officer of the World Economic Forum, Deputy Minister and President of the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), and President and Chief Operating Officer of the International Group of Bombardier Inc. Robert started his career with McKinsey & Company.
.
Robert has a BA from the University of Alberta, MA from the London School of Economics, and MBA from INSEAD

Global Canada is chaired by a former Managing Director and Chief Business Officer of the World Economic Forum, an organization pushing lockdowns, and which our politicians have ties to. Greenhill also has ties to Bombardier and McKinsey & Company.

Surely this is worth mentioning by the Toronto Sun. One of their roles is holding Government accountable for the things that they do, right?

Michael McAdoo Bio
Senior Consultant, The Boston Consulting Group
.
Michael is a Senior Advisor with the Global Advantage practice area of The Boston Consulting Group (BCG), where he specializes in international trade issues and manufacturing. He brings over twenty-five years of experience at the intersection of business strategy, international geopolitics, public policy, and deep expertise in international trade issues and in cross-cultural operations management.
.
Prior to his current role, Michael was an Executive Vice president with the Business Development Bank of Canada (BDC). From 2001-2014 he held a series of senior executive positons with Bombardier. Prior to Bombardier, he was a Principal with BCG (Toronto/Monterrey).
.
Michael holds Masters degrees in International Relations and Journalism from Columbia University, and received his undergraduate education at Queen’s University and Harvard. He has lived and worked in all three NAFTA countries, and is fluent in French and Spanish.

Quite the list of connections here:

  • Bain & Company
  • Bell Canada
  • Bombardier
  • Canadian International Development Agency
  • Boston Consulting Group
  • Business Development Bank of Canada
  • McKinsey & Company
  • Pfizer
  • Privy Council of Canada
  • UN Global Compact
  • World Economic Forum

6. Quotes From The Global Canada Proposal

Canada is relatively well positioned to achieve zero COVID transmission. We are surrounded by ocean on 3 sides with a comparatively small population, engaged citizenry, strong institutions, a federal system of government, mid-sized cities similar to Sydney or Melbourne, and several domestic examples of zero COVID success.

Canada’s situation is essentially the same as Australia’s—with the addition of one major land border. By vaccinating the 200 thousand truckers that regularly cross the border and fully implementing other proven measures, Canada can seal off the U.S.-Canada border to the COVID virus while allowing essential trade to continue unimpeded.

Achieving zero transmission is feasible in Canada. Indeed, Canada may have inadvertently thrown away its shot to get to zero once already this summer.

With rising COVID cases and hospitalizations, difficult decisions have to be made. If the wrong decisions are made, we will face potential shutdowns again in 3 months. The time is right to determine whether going for zero is a superior strategy for Canada. We cannot afford to throw away our shot a second time.

Conclusion: We Have a Choice
Tough decisions will be necessary across Canada over the next few weeks. Canadians will doubtless be asked to make significant additional sacrifices. It is critical that these decisions and sacrifices are made with the right strategy in mind.

The TANZANC strategy of aggressive suppression is a viable option for Canada. Given the critical challenges to our present approach, the TANZANC model should be assessed and debated.

It may be that a cost-benefit analysis demonstrates that the TANZANC model is not a better strategy. If, however, the TANZANC model is right for Canada, or for certain provinces, we should act on it now. We cannot afford to throw away our shot a second time.

The conclusion from this report is that Canada has a choice. Living with COVID in the world is reality. Living with COVID in our communities is a choice.
Is it the right choice?

This paper brings up the same old talking points about lockdowns (martial law) being necessary in order to stop people from getting infected. In short, we still have problems because restrictions haven’t been harsh enough.

No mention of the bogus science behind this, such as the virus not isolated, or PCR tests not designed for this. No mention that people overwhelmingly recover, or that restrictions have been applied in an arbitrary and inconsistent matter.

The group regularly talks about borders. But instead of closing the borders off completely, the proposal is to vaccinate everyone coming in. What could possibly go wrong.

7. Global Canada And 18MillionWomen

One area that was identified in our brainstorming with Canadian leaders was renewed Canadian leadership on family planning and reproductive health and rights. Over the past year Global Canada worked with other Canadian civil society actors to convene a gathering of global experts on reproductive health. The recommendations from this gathering (summarized at www.18millionwomen.ca) played an important role in Canada’s 650M announcement to support women’s sexual and reproductive health and rights announced in March, 2017. Global Canada will be exploring other “proof point” opportunities with the potential of significant global impact.

The Family Planning Initiative has put out a call for Canada to spend at least $500 million each year for 10 years on what it calls sexual and reproductive health and rights. Yes, this would amount to Canada helping to finance genocide abroad by paying for abortions in the 3rd World. Global Canada is one of the groups that is involved in helping push that along.

Nothing says a commitment to saving lives quite like ensuring that there are a lot less of them around.

Posted on

How Conservative Inc. Media Provides Cover For Hoax Being Perpetrated

This is Brian Lilley, who works for the Toronto Sun. Rather than do any in depth reporting on the fraud and hoax that this “pandemic” is, Lilley prefers to run interference for Doug Ford. Instead of holding the Ontario Government to account, his response is: “well, the other guys would have been worse”.

Lilley wants people to look at a symptom (how this is managed), and not the disease (creeping Communist takeover). He’s far from alone.

1. Strategic Uselessness Of Con Inc. Media

Liberal position: More lockdowns, more restrictions, more freedoms taken away. Don’t be selfish and act in individual interest.

Conservative position: Maybe these measures are a bit harsh, but people shouldn’t go around flaunting the rules. They should follow the directions of Public Health.

The effect this has is one of limiting of Overton Window so that public discourse is extremely narrow. An honest discussion of what’s going on is not encouraged by either side. And Conservative Inc. media plays their part in freezing and neutralizing any real opposition.

Very few argue that these measures — which are effectively martial law — are completely wrong, or that the “pandemic” is a manufactured crisis. What they do is criticize details of how it’s implemented.

This is intentional, of course. The goal is not holding Governments accountable for the things they do, but the “illusion” of holding them accountable. This is something completely different.

2. Con Inc. 2-Faced On Media Subsidies

Lorrie Goldstein, in that one tweet, sums up what is wrong with “conservative” outlets in Canada. He feigns outrage at Trudeau for using taxpayer money to prop up unprofitable media. In the next breath, he shrugs it off as necessary to save jobs.

Perhaps their tepid opposition is one of pragmatism: in order to keep the subsidies rolling in, it’s best not to rock the boat too much. The odd shot at Trudeau is allowed, but no serious threats to the status quo are premitted.

Of course, an honourable mention goes to the “charity” of True North Centre for Public Policy. This is what Candice Malcolm, (Jason Kenney’s ex-Staffer), took over and claims to have founded. It was originally the Independent Immigration Aid Association. Even while Malcolm rails against media subsidies, she profits from repurposing an actual charity for tax benefits.

3. More Examples Of Controlled Media

People should follow the rules and obey Public Health guidelines. But at least Hillier is open about his position. Really?

What second wave?

Or take this piece by Spencer Fernando. He calls for Rod Phillips to be fired for taking a trip abroad in December, but Ford apparently gets a pass, despite covering it up. Such hypocrisy. Then again, what can one expect from the National Citizen’s Coalition?

There’s also this juvenile clip from Andrew Lawton. He proposes removing any restriction that a politician gets caught breaking. While amusing, he avoids any real coverage on the deception at the heart of the scam.

These examples are just a tiny bit of what is available online.

In recent days, 2 noticeable themes have emerged:
[1] Criticizing politicians for leaving the country
[2] Borders remain open during “pandemic”

A focus lately is how countless politicians have been caught breaking the rules they insist on for other people.

Interestingly, many in the media don’t take this as an opportunity to reevaluate how dangerous the whole situation is (or isn’t). Instead, the anger is directed at the people not being subjected to the same erosions of their freedoms. Nice trick.

Similarly with the flights coming in. Media in Canada are finally talking about the absurdity of keeping the borders open in a “pandemic”, and not asking why borders should be open at all. The focus becomes on asking if it is safe to allow travellers in.

These tactics are great are directing anger towards people breaking the rules, rather than getting the public to question why those rules exist in the first place. Conservative outlets don’t seem to have much of an issue with stripping our rights away in general. They just argue over the minor details of how to do it. It’s a way to narrow the focus on debate, and limit real discussion.

4. Goal Is To Limit Public Discussion

There isn’t any real opposition in the MSM to Governments imposing martial law, no matter where on the political spectrum they are. Instead,

Putting the spotlight on people like Rod Phillips, breaking his own rules, is a deliberate move. It is done to focus anger on those who are not following along. This is an appeal to emotion, deflecting from having a logical discussion.

A very common tactic is played out here: get people focused on a symptom (hypocritical politicians), and not on the disease (erosion of basic rights). Too many in Canada will spend their time covering the symptoms exclusively.

Keep in mind that Con Inc. media has very low regard for the growing resistance to these power grabs. These people are not allies, and cannot be trusted. Legitimate voices are ignored, or dismissed as conspiracy theorists.

5. Questions That Need To Be Asked

Here some difficult questions that must always be in the public eye. Before accepting the official narrative at face value, they have to be answered. Unfortunately, we aren’t getting this from the media giants.

  • Has this virus ever been isolated?
  • What’s the real fatality rate?
  • How many people have it, and have recovered?
  • Why use PCR tests, when its creator says this isn’t their purpose?
  • What’s the error rate of PCR tests?
  • What’s the error rate of antibody tests?
  • Why bother with rapid-tests if the test itself is flawed?
  • Do masks actually work?
  • How are group sizes (or bubbles) determined?
  • Where did the 2m distancing requirement come from?
  • Why are hospitals really being emptied out?
  • Why are other causes of death being downplayed?
  • Why are deaths mis-labelled to drive up the CV count?
  • How do you determine “non-essential” businesses?
  • Why are Governments so eager to shut businesses down?
  • Is this all just an excuse to implement social changes?
  • Was the “Great Reset” laid out in advance?
  • Why are laws written to give health officers dictator powers?
  • Are we legally obligated to follow WHO’s IHR?
  • Did the WHO actually write the 2005 Quarantine Act?
  • How many politicians actually oppose what is going on?
  • Have politicians been bribed or threatened into compliance?
  • Was all of this planned out?

6. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

The rest of the series is here. Many lies, lobbying, conflicts of interest, and various globalist agendas operating behind the scenes, obscuring the vile agenda called the “Great Reset“. The Gates Foundation finances: the WHO, the US CDC, GAVI, ID2020, John Hopkins University, Imperial College London, the Pirbright Institute, the BBC, and individual pharmaceutical companies. Also: there is little to no science behind what our officials are doing; they promote degenerate behaviour; and the International Health Regulations are legally binding. See here, here, and here. The media is paid off, and our democracy compromised, shown: here, here, here, and here.

This is what a small site can come up with, given enough time and hard work. Yet the mainstream media Canada in can’t provide proof that this “pandemic” is entirely manufactured?

Posted on

Can Plaintiffs/Defendants Testify As Expert Witnesses In Their Own Cases?

This piece is going to be a bit different. It’s an effort to answer a question: can interested parties also serve as experts in the same case? It will look at an example, using Ontario as a model.

The instinctive answer would be no, this is a serious conflict of interest. But let’s look a bit deeper. Remember, this is just for information, and there’s no need for anyone to overreact.

1. Important Links

Ontario Rules Of Civil Procedure
Ontario Law Society: Rule 3.4 (Conflicts Of Interest)
Canadian National Railway Co. v. McKercher LLP, 2013 SCC 39
Vaccine Choice Canada Lawsuit, October 2019
Vaccine Choice Canada Lawsuit, July 2020

2. Ontario Rules Of Civil Procedure

RULE 4.1 DUTY OF EXPERT
.
DUTY OF EXPERT
.
4.1.01 (1) It is the duty of every expert engaged by or on behalf of a party to provide evidence in relation to a proceeding under these rules,
.
(a) to provide opinion evidence that is fair, objective and non-partisan;
.
(b) to provide opinion evidence that is related only to matters that are within the expert’s area of expertise; and
.
(c) to provide such additional assistance as the court may reasonably require to determine a matter in issue. O. Reg. 438/08, s. 8.
.
Duty Prevails
.
(2) The duty in subrule (1) prevails over any obligation owed by the expert to the party by whom or on whose behalf he or she is engaged. O. Reg. 438/08, s. 8.

According to Rule 4.1.01(1) and (2), the answer likely is no. A person who is a Plaintiff or Defendant is by nature an interested party. If the person has a vested interest (financial or otherwise), then overcoming that conflict of interest would be difficult.

3. What Expert Reports Will Include (Ontario)

(2.1) A report provided for the purposes of subrule (1) or (2) shall contain the following information:
.
1. The expert’s name, address and area of expertise.
.
2. The expert’s qualifications and employment and educational experiences in his or her area of expertise.
.
3. The instructions provided to the expert in relation to the proceeding.
.
4. The nature of the opinion being sought and each issue in the proceeding to which the opinion relates.
.
5. The expert’s opinion respecting each issue and, where there is a range of opinions given, a summary of the range and the reasons for the expert’s own opinion within that range.
.
6. The expert’s reasons for his or her opinion, including,
i. a description of the factual assumptions on which the opinion is based,
ii. a description of any research conducted by the expert that led him or her to form the opinion, and
iii. a list of every document, if any, relied on by the expert in forming the opinion.
.
7. An acknowledgement of expert’s duty (Form 53) signed by the expert. O. Reg. 438/08, s. 48.

Rule 53.03 of Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure outlines what is expected by expert witness to submit in their reports to the Court, in advance of trial. It’s a pretty good outline for the contents.

4. OLS Rules Of Professional Conduct

SECTION 3.4 CONFLICTS
Duty to Avoid Conflicts of Interest
3.4-1 A lawyer shall not act or continue to act for a client where there is a conflict of interest, except as permitted under the rules in this Section.

Commentary
[1] As defined in rule 1.1-1, a conflict of interest exists when there is a substantial risk that a lawyer’s loyalty to or representation of a client would be materially and adversely affected by the lawyer’s own interest or the lawyer’s duties to another client, a former client, or a third person. Rule 3.4-1 protects the duties owed by lawyers to their clients and the lawyer-client relationship from impairment as a result of a conflicting duty or interest. A client’s interests may be seriously prejudiced unless the lawyer’s judgment and freedom of action on the client’s behalf are as free as possible from conflicts of interest.

[2] In addition to the duty of representation arising from a retainer, the law imposes other duties on the lawyer, particularly the duty of loyalty. The duty of confidentiality, the duty of candour and the duty of commitment to the client’s cause are aspects of the duty of loyalty. This rule protects all of these duties from impairment by a conflicting duty or interest.

[7] A bright line rule has been developed by the courts to protect the representation of and loyalty to current clients. c.f. Canadian National Railway Co. v. McKercher LLP, [2013] 2 S.C.R. 649. The bright line rule holds that a lawyer cannot act directly adverse to the immediate legal interests of a current client, without the clients’ consent. The bright line rule applies even if the work done for the two clients is completely unrelated. The scope of the bright line rule is limited. It provides that a lawyer cannot act directly adverse to the immediate legal interests of a current client. Accordingly, the main area of application of the bright line rule is in civil and criminal proceedings. Exceptionally, the bright line rule does not apply in circumstances where it is unreasonable for a client to expect that the client’s law firm will not act against the client in unrelated matters.

Consent
3.4-2 A lawyer shall not represent a client in a matter when there is a conflict of interest unless there is consent, which must be fully informed and voluntary after disclosure, from all affected clients and the lawyer reasonably believes that he or she is able to represent each client without having a material adverse effect upon the representation of or loyalty to the other client.

Having an expert witness as a Plaintiff or Defendant is a conflict. It gets even trickier when there are other clients involved in the same case. The duty of the expert is to the court first and foremost. The Ontario Law Society, (a.k.a. Law Society of Upper Canada), has strict rules against members engaging in conflicts of interest.

5. Supreme Court: Bright Red Line Rule

Canadian National Railway Co. v. McKercher LLP, 2013 SCC 39

Cases Cited
.
Referred to: R. v. Neil, 2002 SCC 70, [2002] 3 S.C.R. 631; MacDonald Estate v. Martin, 1990 CanLII 32 (SCC), [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1235; R. v. Cunningham, 2010 SCC 10, [2010] 1 S.C.R. 331; Cholmondeley v. Clinton (1815), 19 Ves. Jun. 261, 34 E.R. 515; Bricheno v. Thorp (1821), Jacob 300, 37 E.R. 864; Taylor v. Blacklow (1836), 3 Bing. (N.C.) 235, 132 E.R. 401; Rakusen v. Ellis, [1912] 1 Ch. 831; Strother v. 3464920 Canada Inc., 2007 SCC 24, [2007] 2 S.C.R. 177; Bolkiah v. KPMG, [1999] 2 A.C. 222; Moffat v. Wetstein (1996), 1996 CanLII 8009 (ON SC), 29 O.R. (3d) 371; Canadian Pacific Railway v. Aikins, MacAulay & Thorvaldson (1998), 1998 CanLII 5073 (MB CA), 23 C.P.C. (4th) 55; De Beers Canada Inc. v. Shore Gold Inc., 2006 SKQB 101, 278 Sask. R. 171; Toddglen Construction Ltd. v. Concord Adex Developments Corp. (2004), 34 C.L.R. (3d) 111.

(f) The Bright Line Rule
.
[27] In Neil, this Court (per Binnie J.) stated that a lawyer may not represent a client in one matter while representing that client’s adversary in another matter, unless both clients provide their informed consent. Binnie J. articulated the rule thus:

The bright line is provided by the general rule that a lawyer may not represent one client whose interests are directly adverse to the immediate interests of another current client — even if the two mandates are unrelated — unless both clients consent after receiving full disclosure (and preferably independent legal advice), and the lawyer reasonably believes that he or she is able to represent each client without adversely affecting the other. [Emphasis in original; para. 29]

[28] The rule expressly applies to both related and unrelated matters. It is possible to argue that a blanket prohibition against concurrent representation is not warranted with respect to unrelated matters, where the concrete duties owed by the lawyer to each client may not actually enter into conflict. However, the rule provides a number of advantages. It is clear. It recognizes that it is difficult — often impossible — for a lawyer or law firm to neatly compartmentalize the interests of different clients when those interests are fundamentally adverse. Finally, it reflects the fact that the lawyer-client relationship is a relationship based on trust. The reality is that “the client’s faith in the lawyer’s loyalty to the client’s interests will be severely tried whenever the lawyer must be loyal to another client whose interests are materially adverse”: Restatement of the Law, Third: The Law Governing Lawyers (2000), vol. 2, § 128(2), at p. 339

The “bright red line” has been explicitly stated to lawyers who represent clients with opposing interests. However, the idea of representing an expert witness is an interesting twist.

Though the language differs across jurisdictions, experts are considered “Friends of the Court”, neutral people who can provide unbiased information and opinion for a Judge and/or Jury.

True, experts are paid for their time by someone. That alone does not render them useless, as they do have a role to play. But what happens when the Expert has a vested interest in the outcome of the case?

While the Lawyer’s Clients (the Experts and non-Experts) could conceivably agree that this conflict of interest should be set aside, what about opposing Parties? Could it not result in an unfair Trial by stacking the deck against them?

Something seems off about this.

6. Such A Conflict In Ongoing Case?!?!

Pages 39-43 of the Statement of Claim spell out the qualifications and education of Denis Rancourt. And yes, it is quite impressive. However, no facts are pleaded to demonstrate that Rancourt has been harmed in any way by these restrictions, or that he has suffered any losses. He is clearly being introduced as an expert witness.

It’s not just that Rancourt is to be paid a fee for his time and trouble. That would be one thing. Here, he is a Plaintiff in an $11 million lawsuit — which he doubles as an Expert in. It stands to reason that he could make $1 to $2 million is the case is successful, which is a conflict of interest. Even if he is unbiased, this conflict will not be lost on the Court — or the other lawyers.

Is this normal? Are Experts typically interested Parties in the cases they participate in? Is there some exception or clause in the law that allows for this to happen? Is this a common practice that just isn’t discussed much? This appears to be the sort of thing that would jeopardize fair proceedings, but who knows?

Note: this is not an attempt to defend the nonsense that has gone on Federally, Provincially, Municipally and even in other countries. All of those people should be tried for crimes against humanity. The CV hoax is extensively outlined in this series. However, all problems need to be called out.

There are of course other issues, such as missing service addresses, and no defenses filed, but they have been addressed elsewhere.

The Statement of Claim was released publicly, but with most Plaintiff names redacted. Anyone who wants the unedited version can get a copy for free from the Ontario Superior Court (Civil Division) in Toronto.

Posted on

CV #35(C): Health Canada Refuses To Answer Questions About Indemnification For Vaccines

The public is understandably anxious about whether vaccine manufacturers will be indemnified (legally immune), for the products they sell. It’s a valid question, from a patient perspective, and as a taxpayer.

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

The rest of the series is here. Many lies, lobbying, conflicts of interest, and various globalist agendas operating behind the scenes, obscuring the vile agenda called the “Great Reset“. The Gates Foundation finances: the WHO, the US CDC, GAVI, ID2020, John Hopkins University, Imperial College London, the Pirbright Institute, the BBC, and individual pharmaceutical companies. Also: there is little to no science behind what our officials are doing; they promote degenerate behaviour; and the International Health Regulations are legally binding. See here, here, and here. The media is paid off, and our democracy compromised, shown: here, here, here, and here.

2. Email Exchange With Health Canada

Health Canada was contact specifically about the indemnification of vaccine manufacturers. Above are the responses. However, it’s a bit misleading to say that they can’t release information due to ongoing negotiating. Health Canada wouldn’t even discuss indemnification for Eli Lilly Canada and Gilead Sciences Canada. Both had been settled long ago.

3. Health Canada And Vaccine Regulation

Vaccination is one of the world’s greatest public health achievements. For over 50 years, vaccines have helped prevent and control the spread of deadly diseases and saved the lives of millions of infants, children and adults. For example, there are vaccines for:

-epidemics, such as Ebola
-childhood diseases and debilitating diseases, such as polio
-diseases, such as Yellow Fever, that are common in some travel destinations
-influenza strains that change every year
-preventing or treating cancer
Many vaccines are recommended as part of Canadian public health programs to prevent people from getting diseases. This means that they are given to large numbers of healthy people.

This is why regulating the safety, efficacy and quality of vaccines is of particular importance. There are also reporting systems in place to monitor vaccine safety.

https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-health-products/biologics-radiopharmaceuticals-genetic-therapies/activities/fact-sheets/regulation-vaccines-human-canada.html

Emergency access to vaccines
In some cases, such as public health emergencies like flu pandemics, special authorizations are used to give emergency access to a vaccine. For example, Health Canada issued an Interim Order in 2009 for the H1N1 pandemic vaccine. The vaccine was developed to protect against the H1N1 pandemic virus. The vaccine contained an inactivated (non-live) version of the H1N1 virus strain recommended by WHO for the manufacture of vaccines during the 2009 flu pandemic.

Worth addressing: in that 2009 Interim Order to approve vaccines for H1N1, Health Canada allowed drugs made by GlaxoSmithKline, (GSK), onto the market that hadn’t been fully tested. GSK was indemnified by the Government. Would it happen here?

Why is it so hard to get a straight answer with this case? Will they be indemnified or not?

Posted on

Psychological Manipulation And Techniques To Overcome “Vaccine Hesitancy”

One way to “persuade” people to get vaccinated is to simply strip them of their rights. Sure, the Government won’t tie you down to get it, but good luck enjoying your life otherwise. This is David Williams, the Chief Medical Officer of Ontario.

A point of clarification: the research into “vaccine hesitancy” isn’t about CREATING safe vaccines. Instead, it’s about CONVINCING people that they already are. Big difference.

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

The rest of the series is here. Many lies, lobbying, conflicts of interest, and various globalist agendas operating behind the scenes, obscuring the vile agenda called the “Great Reset“. The Gates Foundation finances: the WHO, the US CDC, GAVI, ID2020, John Hopkins University, Imperial College London, the Pirbright Institute, the BBC, and individual pharmaceutical companies. Also: there is little to no science behind what our officials are doing; they promote degenerate behaviour; and the International Health Regulations are legally binding. See here, here, and here. The media is paid off, and our democracy compromised, shown: here, here, here, and here.

2. Important Links

Ontario Medical Officer David Williams: Boot To Neck
Health Canada On Addressing Vaccine Hesitancy
Canada On Improving Vaccination Rates
Canadian Family Physician Publication
Vaccine Hesitancy Clinic
CBC Smearing Skeptics Of Masks/Vaccines
May 2019 Statement On Canada And Vaccine Hesitancy

Vaccine Hesitancy: Part A; Part B; Part C

3. Be Vague, Avoid Giving Specifics

This infographic uses autism as an example. The trick is to be conclusive (but vague), in stating that there are no harmful effects. It recommends not saying anything meaningful or specific, in order to make it harder to pin down.

4. Only Be “Honest” With Vaccine Accepters

This chart gives different techniques depending how willing to the person is to accept vaccines at all. It suggests being somewhat open about the risks, but emphasizing that they are rare. For the reluctant people, the guidelines say to focus on “building rapport” to get them to take it, but doesn’t specify to list what’s actually in the vaccines. As for the “refusers”, the recommendation is a mild form of gaslighting. Avoid giving direct answers, and focus on the risks of not being vaccinated.

5. Have A Script/Technique Already Prepared

Start early:
Take advantage of prenatal appointments and the first few postnatal appointments. A mixed-methods study showed that parents who delayed or refused vaccines were twice as likely to start thinking about vaccines before their children’s births. A randomized controlled trial showed that adherence to the immunization schedule improved with a single prenatal education session, and another showed benefit from stepwise education interventions prenatally, postnatally, and 1 month after birth. At these appointments, parents can be provided with opportunities to ask questions and with credible take-home materials, websites, or tools.

Present vaccination as the default approach:
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends a presumptive approach to discussions about vaccinations and restating the recommendation after addressing parents’ concerns. A cross-sectional study found that parents were significantly more likely to resist vaccine recommendations if the provider used a participatory rather than a presumptive initiation format (odds ratio of 17.5, 95% CI 1.2 to 253.5) and that when providers pursued the original recommendations, almost half of initially resistant parents subsequently accepted the recommendations. While a follow-up cross-sectional study showed that the presumptive initiation format had a lower-rated visit experience, it was still associated with higher parental vaccine acceptance at the end of the visit.

Be honest about side effects when asked, and reassure parents of a robust vaccine safety system:
A 2014 systematic review showed that serious adverse events associated with vaccines are extremely rare. Perceived risk might be lowered by acknowledging that vaccines might result in mild side effects and very rarely serious adverse events. The Canadian vaccine safety system has 8 components, including an evidence-based approval process, manufacturer regulations, independent recommendations for vaccine use, and ongoing monitoring of adverse events. It has been shown in a randomized controlled trial that providing general information on the adverse event reporting system might increase trust and vaccine acceptance among adults. However, no similar study was found for childhood immunization.

Tell stories in addition to providing scientific facts:
According to a survey of primary care physicians in the United States, the most common communication practices deemed very effective for convincing skeptical parents were personal statements by physicians about what they would do for their own children and about their personal experiences with vaccine safety among their patients. Stories and images highlighting the effects of VPDs improved attitudes toward vaccination according to a randomized controlled trial, especially for individuals who had lower confidence in vaccines. However, another randomized controlled trial showed that dramatic narratives and images resulted in no significant change in intention to vaccinate and even decreased intention among those who had the least favourable perception. However, this study tested Web-based messages only. Although more evidence is needed on the topic, storytelling, which has commonly been used by the antivaccine movement, has been proposed as a possible messaging technique to supplement evidence-based information.

Build trust with parents:
A recent review found that parental trust in a provider helps ensure vaccine compliance. A qualitative study reported that a mother’s trust is obtained when a provider spends time discussing vaccines, does not deride her concerns, is knowledgeable, and provides satisfactory answers. Other qualitative studies identified respect, empathy, and tailored information as aspects of communication competence.

Address pain:
Pain associated with vaccination is a concern for many parents and children. Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines have been developed to reduce vaccination-associated.

Focus on protection for the child and community:
Necessity of vaccines is the top concern from Canadian parents, and a study conducted in Quebec found that one of the strongest factors associated with parental vaccine hesitancy was the belief that VPDs were not serious. A study conducted in the United States had similar findings. To highlight the importance of individual protection, the use of motivational interviewing could be considered. A recent Canadian randomized controlled trial showed that motivational interviewing on maternity wards increased the intention to vaccinate by 20% and the likelihood of complete vaccination status by 9%. A systematic review concluded that there might be some parental willingness to vaccinate children for the benefit of others; however, its relative importance as a motivating tool is uncertain.

Note that throughout this, there is no suggestion that the doctor have a frank and open discussion about what is actually in vaccines, the gaps in knowledge, or the long term effects. The recommendation is to build trust, so that the patient will not ask difficult questions and just take it. The entire approach can be described as “shut up and trust me”. Again, doctors are guided to be vague when answering questions.

6. Set Up Actual Vaccine Hesitancy Clinic

Again, the focus is on “building trust” and “forming a relationship”, but never a focus on educating the patient on what is in the vaccines, and the long term effects. Also, guilt trip the people by implying that it’s necessary in order for life to return to normal.

7. Social Media Manipulation, Censorship

There are many ways to “put one’s thumb on the scale” to ensure that the right, pro-vaccination messages are what is seen and heard online. Some techniques include:

(a) Flood social media with pro-vaxx content
(b) Automatically direct people to Government sites
(c) Take down sites which contradict the Government
(d) Get certain accounts demonetized
(e) Manipulate search algorithms

8. Deliberate Gaslighting Of Critics, Skeptics

There is the option of intentionally smearing people as emotional and bigoted for asking legitimate questions about masks and vaccines. While this CBC video explicitly claims to oppose shaming and humiliation, it’s tone seems to support exactly that.

9. Not Limited To Current “Pandemic”

No, this situation isn’t unique to 2020. Governments and NGOs have for many years been looking at ways to get more people vaccinated.

10. Patients Not Provided Real Information

Much of the research involves techniques of “building a relationship”, or of “building a rapport”, or of “being sympathetic”. This does nothing to address the litany of legitimate concerns and questions that many have about the chemicals being injected into their bodies.

Even more disturbingly, there aren’t recommendations that physicians and nurses take the time and effort to research and understand exactly what the chemicals are.

In fact, much of the published research explicitly recommends avoiding real discussion, especially with people who have done their homework — so called “vaccine refusers”. In effect, it encourages health care workers to betray their oath and obligations regarding informed consent.

If this is health care, then the entire system is broken beyond repair.

A telltale sign of deception is when a person is asked increasingly direct questions, but remains vague about the answers. That is exactly what is implied with these techniques to overcome “vaccine hesitancy”.

Posted on

CV #24(C): Vaccine Impact Modelling Consortium, More Bogus Science

The Vaccine Impact Modelling Consortium: just another group involved in the junk science of computer modelling for epidemics. It in under the umbrella of Imperial College London, and is heavily funded by Gates and GAVI. Of course, GAVI is heavily funded by Gates.

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

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

2. VIMC Key Partners

https://www.vaccineimpact.org/partners/

About us
The Vaccine Impact Modelling Consortium coordinates the work of several research groups modelling the impact of vaccination programmes worldwide.

The Consortium was established at the end of 2016 for a period of five years, and is currently coordinated by secretariat based at Imperial College London.

As its core objective, the Consortium aims to deliver more sustainable, efficient, and transparent approach to generating disease burden and vaccine impact estimates. Furthermore, the Consortium will work on aggregating the estimates across a portfolio of twelve vaccine-preventable diseases and further advancing the research agenda in the field of vaccine impact modelling.

The Consortium is funded by Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and the data generated by the Consortium will support the evaluation of the two organisations’ existing vaccination programmes, and inform potential future investments and vaccine scale-up opportunities.

https://www.vaccineimpact.org/aboutus/

Strange that the coronavirus isn’t listed. After all, this group is closely tied to Gates and GAVI. However, it seems to be involved in everything else under the sun.

3. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

In 2016, a donation of $5.6 million was awarded to Imperial College London to establish the Vaccine Impact Modelling Consortium. As the name implies, it would work on computer models to predict viruses and vaccine treatments. Of course, models are just predictions, and are not evidence of anything.

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

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

The tax records are worth going through. The Gates Foundation donates to many universities across the globe. It’s difficult to comprehend without seeing the full list.

4. Know Who This Group Works For

The takeaway here is simple: when research is released, always know who is funding it, and where their allegiances lie. Vaccine Impact Modelling Consortium is no different.