CV #67(B): Trolling Sadie Hunter’s Stream, Rigged BC Provincial Election, Puppets

This might be considered a teachable moment. If you are running as a candidate, and there is an all-party agreement to abdicate governing to BC Public Health, it shouldn’t be advertised. Therefore, sending unsolicited invitations to investigative journalists may not be the best option.

Another learning moment: There’s not much point in voting for your party if NOT governing is part of the agenda.

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. The Gates Foundation finances: the World Health Organization, the Center for Disease Control, GAVI, ID2020, John Hopkins University, Imperial College London, the Pirbright Institute, the British Broadcasting Corporation, 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.

2. BC Provincial Election Rigged In Advance

MILOBAR: BC Liberals (Monday, October 5th)

HUNTER: BC NDP (Wednesday, October 7th)

MARTIN: BC GREENS (Thursday, October 15th)

As was previously covered in this piece, the BC Liberals, BC NDP, and BC Greens all have an agreement to hand over control of the “pandemic measures” to Bonnie Henry. The BC Conservatives, whether by design, or just being disorganized, never returned multiple messages for information.

3. Sadie Hunter Won’t Answer Hard Questions

Asking difficult questions (even if done in a respectful way), is apparently grounds to boot people out of a Zoom call. Just a tip, if you want to run for public office, difficult questions are going to come up.

4. Opening BC Better Option Than Welfare

Just an opinion, but perhaps reopening BC is a good option. Certainly it’s a better long term one than simply pumping up the welfare, which is what this person suggested.

5. BCPHO Bonnie No-Science-Behind-It Henry

This was covered in Part 56. BC Provincial Health Officer Bonnie Henry admits there’s no science behind a lot of what she does. Remember, all parties support leaving the “pandemic measures” to her. BC MLA Peter Milobar refers to her as “an expert”.

6. BCPHO Bonnie Henry Lowballs True Error Rate

Bonnie Henry Previously said that there can be a 30% error rate when it comes to testing, but the truth is actually much worse than that.

Queue a partial response on an access to information request, and we are told the following information. This confirms what had previously been published on the site.

Good afternoon,
.
Please see the Ministry’s response below-
.
The sensitivity/specificity (false positive/false negative) of:
.
Nucleic acid amplification testing (NAT): http://www.bccdc.ca/Health-Professionals-Site/Documents/COVID19_InterpretingTesting_Results_NAT_PCR.pdf
.
“A statistic commonly quoted is that there is a 30% chance of a false negative result for a NAT test in a patient with COVID-19 infection (i.e., a 70% sensitivity)… Ultimately, for COVID-19 testing, there is currently no gold standard, and the overall clinical sensitivity and specificity of NAT in patients with COVID-19 infection is unknown (i.e., how well NAT results correlate with clinical infection, “true positivity” or “true negativity” rate).”
.
Antibody testing:
.
http://www.bccdc.ca/health-professionals/clinical-resources/covid-19-care/covid-19-testing/antibody-testing-(serology)
http://www.bccdc.ca/Health-Professionals-Site/Documents/COVID19_SerologyTestingGuidelines.pdf
.
Based on the published literature, commercial laboratory-based assays are about 95% sensitive at ~30 days post symptom onset and the specificity is approximately 99.5%.”
.
Please advise if these publicly available links suffice the specific portion of request discussed in the below email.
.
Thank you!

http://www.bccdc.ca/Health-Professionals-Site/Documents/COVID19_InterpretingTesting_Results_NAT_PCR.pdf

http://www.bccdc.ca/health-professionals/clinical-resources/covid-19-care/covid-19-testing/antibody-testing-(serology)

http://www.bccdc.ca/Health-Professionals-Site/Documents/COVID19_SerologyTestingGuidelines.pdf

Despite there being quotes thrown around that there is a 30% false negative rate, the fact is that BC Health really has no idea what the error rate is.

This is a little confusing. Although the error rate for the virus tests themselves is completely unknown, the success rate for anti-body testing is supposed to be 95%? Really? Are we sure that this number isn’t just completely made up as well?

7. Bonnie’s 2015 Testimony On Vaxx/Masks

Sault Area Hospital and Ontario Nurses’ Association, 2015 CanLII 55643 (ON LA)

This came from a labour arbitration hearing in 2015. Bonnie Henry (yes, that Bonnie Henry), testified as an expert. She said there was little evidence to support either the vaccination or mask mandate that the Sault Area Hospital demanded. Her testimony also helped influence proceedings in 2016, and 2018. Now, 5 years later, she says something completely different. It seems incomprehensible that BC health care workers “wouldn’t” know about this. Unless of course, they do know, and are remaining silent for some reason.

8. WHO’s International Health Regulations

This has been addressed before. As part of its membership with the World Health Organization, Canada is forced to comply with the legally binding “International Health Regulations”.

For some perspective, IHR (and the 2005 Quarantine Act), came from the WHO. Unelected bureaucrats (Bonnie Henry, Deena Hinshaw, Barbara Yaffe, Theresa Tam, etc….), are then put in charge of implementing those supra-national dictates.

Why aren’t candidates being forthcoming about this? Why isn’t this obligation to the WHO being openly and honestly discussed by the mainstream media in Canada? Here is one theory:

9. BC NDP, HC Workers, A Bit Cozy?

Barb Nederpel, Vice President of Kamloops North NDP, President of Hospital Employees Union

This may be nothing, but it did seem rather strange that at least 3 people in the very small stream (15 people) all had ties to the health care field. Health care workers should be outraged at the lies and deception that NDP Premier John Horgan has perpetuated in the Province.

Then again, considering the NDP, Greens and Liberals have a pact to hand off everything to Bonnie Henry, there really isn’t much of a choice in voting. Sadie herself has said that she supports keeping these restrictions in place in BC until people are vaccinated. Never mind all the shoddy “science” behind it.

As for all of the “models” which predict death waves to come: predictions aren’t evidence of anything. They are guesses. And we need to address Neil Ferguson and Imperial College London.

It’s upsetting just how little people are speaking out about what is happening in BC (among other Provinces). It’s not like any of this is difficult to find.

CV #67: The B.C. Election Just An Illusion Of Choice, All Parties Compromised

BC Provincial Health Officer Bonnie Henry wields great power in the Province. All parties are content to abdicate their duty to govern. Despite there being a Provincial election, none of them seem to have any interest in changing this. BC is run by an unelected bureaucrat. There’s no science in limiting group size to 50 people (see 1:00 in video), but she does it anyway.

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. The Gates Foundation finances: the World Health Organization, the Center for Disease Control, GAVI, ID2020, John Hopkins University, Imperial College London, the Pirbright Institute, the British Broadcasting Corporation, 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.

2. Ethical Concerns Over Recordings? Nope

Would it have been proper to let the people know ahead of time that this was being recorded, and would be posted later? Probably, but the public is best served by knowing the truth. And the truth is that the major parties play along with the “pandemic” scare, and don’t differ on these human rights violations. It is just the illusion of choice.

3. Peter Milobar: BC Liberals (Incumbent)

MILOBAR: BC Liberals

BCPHO Bonnie Henry was actually appointed when the BC Liberals were still in power. There is no intention to replace her, or even override her orders. Milobar says that the rules allow her to make orders, but who was it who wrote the rules in the first place?
https://www.bcliberals.com/clearchoice/

4. Sadie Hunter: BC NDP (Challenger)

HUNTER: BC NDP

Apparently, all parties agreed to let BC Public Health make all the decisions. However, this is an abdication of their duty to govern. Hunter says that the measures will remain in place until there is a vaccine.
NDP 2020 Platform

5. Thomas Martin: BC Greens (Challenger)

MARTIN: BC GREENS

Again, all of the parties are on board with letting Public Health (Bonnie) run the affairs of the province. The only real difference seemed to be on some of the spending details.
2020_BC_Greens_platform_(1)

6. BC Conservative Party

At the time of publication, the BC Conservatives haven’t responded to numerous attempts to talk about what their policies were regarding these “pandemic” measures. However, their platform doesn’t mention it, so it’s unlikely to be a serious concern. Also, consider what Premiers like Ford, Kenney and LeGault are currently doing. CPC Leader Erin O’Toole previously criticized Trudeau for not being authoritarian enough.

7. BC’s Dictator-In-Chief: Bonnie Henry

This is too long to address in even a single article, but Bonnie Henry lets it leak out over time that there is no real science behind anything that she does. See the link for some of the more obvious problems. This is who really runs the Province of BC.

To those saying “get out and go vote”, I would have to ask: why?

CV #62(C): The 2005 Quarantine Act (Bill C-12), Was Actually Written By WHO

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. The Gates Foundation finances many things, including, the World Health Organization, the Center for Disease Control, GAVI, ID2020, John Hopkins University, Imperial College London, the Pirbright Institute, the British Broadcasting Corporation, and individual pharmaceutical companies. Worth mentioning: 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, and here.

2. Parliamentary Hearing Transcripts

CLICK HERE, for HESA, Bill C-12, 38th Parliament.
CLICK HERE, for HESA’s report back to Parliament.

Canada Quarantine Act Oct 28 Hearing
Canada Quarantine Act Nov 4 Hearing
Canada Quarantine Act Nov 18 Hearing
Canada Quarantine Act Nov 23 Hearing
Canada Quarantine Act Nov 25 Hearing
Canada Quarantine Act Dec 7 First Hearing
Canada Quarantine Act Dec 7 Second Hearing
Canada Quarantine Act Dec 8 Hearing

WHO Constitution Full Document
ihr.2005.areas.for.implementation

3. Quotes From November 4, 2004 Hearing

(11:35)
Dr. Paul Gully: During an outbreak we certainly would communicate with the countries involved. During SARS we had close collaboration with the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia, for example, as required, to share intelligence.
.
In terms of utilization of their legislation, such as quarantine acts, we feel that our relationship with WHO, which is closer, and also clarification of WHO’s powers under the international health regulations will, I think, further ensure there is consistency in terms of response from individual member states as a result of that.
.
Does that answer your question?
.
Mr. Colin Carrie: Yes.
.
Are you aware of international standards for quarantine?
.
Dr. Paul Gully: The international health regulations would be the regulations that individual states would then use to design their quarantine acts. I don’t know of any other standards out there or best practices to look at quarantine acts, but the IHRs really have been used over the years as the starting point.
.
Now, with the improvement of the international health regulations, maybe, as is the case in Canada, changes will occur to quarantine acts in other countries in order to better comply with the international health regulations.

(11:55)
Mrs. Carol Skelton: When did these consultations begin, and how long do you expect they will go on?
.
Dr. Paul Gully: We had a meeting in September with the provinces and territories in Edmonton about the Quarantine Act as it stood at that time. We got input. We’re having another teleconference with the Council of Chief Medical Officers next week to talk about a number of issues that were raised and to further clarify what they would like to see as changes to the bill as it stands at the present time.
.
Mrs. Carol Skelton: Why did Health Canada proceed with a separate Quarantine Act at this time?
.
Dr. Paul Gully: Those of us who administered the Quarantine Act over the years always knew there were deficiencies in the old act, and because it was rarely used there wasn’t the inclination to update it. As a result of SARS and utilization of the act, which certainly put it under close scrutiny, and the requirement for the Government of Canada to respond to the various reports on SARS, it was felt that updating the act sooner rather than later was appropriate.
.
In addition, during discussions about the international health regulations of the World Health Organization, it was felt that it was appropriate to do it and to spend time and energy, which it obviously does require, to do it now, before other parts of legislative renewal, of which Mr. Simard is well aware, were further implemented or further discussion was carried out.

(12:05)
Ms. Ruby Dhalla: I have one question. In terms of the Quarantine Act for our country, where are we at in terms of best practices models when we look at the international spectrum?
.
Dr. Paul Gully: I don’t know the acts in other countries, but because we are updating our act right now and we’re taking into account the probable revisions to the international health regulations, I believe we would be well in the forefront in terms of having modern legislation.

Canada Quarantine Act Nov 4 Hearing

Of course, the other transcripts are worth a read, but this one explicitly states that the 2005 Quarantine Act was drafted in order to comply with International Health Regulations.

Bill C-12, the 2005 Quarantine Act, was written in anticipation of changes to the International Health Regulations that the World Health Organization would make. Let’s take a look.

4. Quarantine Facilities Discussed Dec 7

Mr. Réal Ménard: However, Mr. Thibault, you cannot behave as though this were a war measures act. You cannot take over a facility without the province giving it consent in some fashion.
.
You acknowledge that the bill says that the minister can establish quarantine stations throughout Canada. So that could be done in areas that come under provincial jurisdiction.
.
Hon. Robert Thibault: The bill will apply to people coming into the country and people leaving the country.
.
Mr. Réal Ménard: Or who are in the country.
.
Hon. Robert Thibault: When they are in the country, they will be covered by provincial legislation. If people attending a conference in Montreal become ill, this is the responsibility of the Quebec government. The Quebec Quarantine Act would apply. The bill before us will apply only when these individuals seek to leave Canada. The expert could give us more details on this matter.
.
Mr. Réal Ménard: Yes, I would appreciate that.
.
Dr. Jean-Pierre Legault: There seems to be some confusion between a quarantine station and a quarantine facility.
.
A quarantine station is a permanent infrastructure. It is somewhat like the customs stations in airports and ports, at entry and exit points. In order to manage the program, we must locate our permanent infrastructures in the highest risk areas and manage a national program. Normally, that is done on a federal lands or at federal entry points.
.
Quarantine facilities are established when the permanent infrastructure is inadequate to meet the demand. This could be done in isolated cases. Let us say, for example, that a traveller is very ill. We must remember that the role of quarantine is to identify, intercept and take the person to the hospital according to isolation procedures. This is one of the roles of the front line authority. The federal government does not have the infrastructure required to hospitalize people.
.
Quarantining people means putting them into medical isolation in order to protect the public. Clearly, we will be working in cooperation with the provincial authorities and with the hospitals. When we bring them a sick person, the room this person goes to will become a temporary facility, while the person is there. We have to be able to act quickly. We can talk about cost recovery and all those other things later, but we have to put these people somewhere.
.
In the case of much larger groups, we have to be able to mobilize quite quickly in order to respond. If we are talking about managing a crisis involving 1,000 people, for example, we have to be able to act very quickly. Negotiations are a problem at such a time.
.
Mr. Réal Ménard: However, your officials did make a distinction. First of all, we heard from witnesses. Representatives from national carriers came in and told us that there should be permanent quarantine stations in the eight largest airports.
.
Our concern has to do with the fact that temporary quarantine stations maybe established anywhere in the country. Obviously, we understand that we are talking about people in transit, who are entering or leaving Canada. We intercept them when they are on Canadian soil. As clause 8 states, the quarantine facility can be located anywhere in the country. As a result, it is not out of the question that there may be cases where the cooperation of provincial health authorities is required. However, according to the bill in its present form, the minister could establish a temporary quarantine facility in a place that comes under provincial jurisdiction without obtaining the province’s approval.

Mass quarantine stations were discussed even back in 2004. Remember, WHO’s International Health Regulations are legally binding, and were the basis for Bill C-12.

5. WHO’s Constitution Gives Binding Authority

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.

Articles 21 and 22 of the World Health Organization Constitution make it pretty clear that they will have power to adopt measures over member states. And those areas specify quarantines.

6. Int’l Health Regulations Legally Binding

Article 3(2). The implementation of these Regulations shall be guided by the Charter of the United Nations and the Constitution of the World Health Organization.

Article 3(3). The implementation of these Regulations shall be guided by the goal of their universal application for the protection of all people of the world from the international spread of disease.

Article 3(4). States have, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of international law, the sovereign right to legislate and to implement legislation in pursuance of their health policies. In doing so they should uphold the purpose of these Regulations.

Article 4(1). Each State Party shall designate or establish a National IHR Focal Point and the authorities responsible within its respective jurisdiction for the implementation of health measures under these Regulations

Article 4(3). WHO shall designate IHR Contact Points, which shall be accessible at all times for communications with National IHR Focal Points. WHO IHR Contact Points shall send urgent communications concerning the implementation of these Regulations, in particular under Articles 6 to 12, to the National IHR Focal Point of the States Parties concerned. WHO IHR Contact Points may be designated by WHO at the headquarters or at the regional level of the Organization.

Article 4(4). States Parties shall provide WHO with contact details of their National IHR Focal Point and WHO shall provide States Parties with contact details of WHO IHR Contact Points. These contact details shall be continuously updated and annually confirmed. WHO shall make available to all States Parties the contact details of National IHR Focal Points it receives pursuant to this Article.

Article 12(1). The Director-General shall determine, on the basis of the information received, in particular from the State Party within whose territory an event is occurring, whether an event constitutes a public health emergency of international concern in accordance with the criteria and the procedure set out in these Regulations.

Article 18(1). Recommendations issued by WHO to States Parties with respect to persons may include the following advice:
– no specific health measures are advised;
– review travel history in affected areas;
– review proof of medical examination and any laboratory analysis;
require medical examinations;
review proof of vaccination or other prophylaxis;
require vaccination or other prophylaxis;
– place suspect persons under public health observation;
implement quarantine or other health measures for suspect persons;
implement isolation and treatment where necessary of affected persons;
– implement tracing of contacts of suspect or affected persons;
– refuse entry of suspect and affected persons;
refuse entry of unaffected persons to affected areas; and
– implement exit screening and/or restrictions on persons from affected areas.

Article 57(1). States Parties recognize that the IHR and other relevant international agreements should be interpreted so as to be compatible. The provisions of the IHR shall not affect the rights and obligations of any State Party deriving from other international agreements

Except as otherwise indicated, the International Health Regulations (2005) entered into force on 15 June 2007 for the following States:
Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia (Plurinational State of), Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cabo Verde, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Cook Islands, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Holy See, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India (8 August 2007), Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kiribati, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein (28 March 2012), Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Micronesia (Federated States of), Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro (5 February 2008), Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Niue, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, South Sudan (16 April 2013), Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syrian Arab Republic, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United Republic of Tanzania, United States of America (18 July 2007), Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of), Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe

Canada is on the list of countries who joined. And the above articles are just a small sample of what has been agreed to.

7. Again, IHR Are Legally Binding On Us All

he IHR are an instrument of international law that is legally-binding on 196 countries, including the 194 WHO Member States. The IHR grew out of the response to deadly epidemics that once overran Europe. They create rights and obligations for countries, including the requirement to report public health events. The Regulations also outline the criteria to determine whether or not a particular event constitutes a “public health emergency of international concern”.

Once more, the IHR are binding on all member states.

Sure, it was Ottawa that passed Bill C-12, the Quarantine Act in Canada. But the real authors were at the World Health Organization, who were drafting the latest version of the International Health Regulations.

Int’l Banking Cartel #10(B): Bank For International Settlements And Green Bonds

The Bank for International Settlements in Switzerland is supposed to concern itself with fiscal policies. However, it has branched off into the climate change agenda and green bonds. This has nothing to do with its stated mandate, and is a serious concern for people who want sovereignty. Not a lot of evidence this even works, but who cares?

1. More On The International Banking Cartel

For more on the banking cartel, check this page. The Canadian Government, like so many others, has sold out the independence and sovereignty of its monetary system to foreign interests. BIS, like its central banks, exceed their agenda and try to influence other social agendas. See who is really controlling things, and the common lies that politicians and media figures tell. And go check out the climate change hoax as well.

2. Green Bonds First Launched By World Bank

10 years ago, The World Bank issued the first-ever green bond then laid out the first blueprint for sustainable fixed income investing, transforming development finance and sparking a sustainability revolution in the capital markets. Green bonds have become a strategic priority for The World Bank as they support all Sustainable Development Goals. Watch this video to learn about the investors, evaluator, and Treasury behind the first green bond and how it turned into a $12 billion World Bank program 10 years later.

The green bonds industry was the first organized by the World Bank. It has expanded greatly over the last decade.

3. Green Bonds Potentially $100T Industry

In the Summer of 2019, the International Economic Forum of the Americas was held in Montreal. Several speakers discussed the rapid growth of the climate bonds, or green bonds industry. One predicted to be eventually become a $100 trillion industry.

4. World Bank And IFFIm Selling “Vaccine Bonds”

This is a little off topic, but worth a reminder. In Part 18 of the vaccine series, it was covered how the World Bank was selling “Vaccine Bonds”. These were derived from pledges that individual nations had pledged to IFFIm. Now, there is no real reason for any of this to exist, other than to enrich a relatively small number of people.

5. BIS Mission Statement Excludes Green Agenda

BIS mission statement
Excellence in service to central banks and financial authorities
.
The BIS
.
-aims at promoting monetary and financial stability;
-acts as a forum for discussion and cooperation among central banks and the financial community; and
-acts as a bank to central banks and international organisations,

Strange, there seems to be no mention of using its power and influence to enact social change, and to facilitate the climate change agenda. Perhaps an oversight.

6. Green Bonds Already 3.5% Of Bond Market

Interest in green bonds and green finance – commonly defined as the financing of investments that provide environmental benefits (G20 GFSG (2016)) – has been increasing rapidly. Financial instruments that contribute to environmental sustainability have become a priority for many issuers, asset managers and governments alike. In particular, the market for green bonds has been growing fast. Global issuance surpassed $250 billion in 2019 – about 3.5% of total global bond issuance ($7.15 trillion).

Private institutions have developed green bond certifications and standards that grant issuers a green label if individual projects are deemed sufficiently in line with the Green Bond Principles (GBPs) of the International Capital Market Association (ICMA), and the use of proceeds can be ascertained.

A key issue for both policymakers and investors is whether existing certifications and standards result in the desired environmental impact (The Economist (2020)). While the GBPs define a broader range of environmental benefits, this special feature focuses on one particular aim: low and decreasing carbon emissions.

According to the Bank for International Settlements, so-called green bonds are exploding in popularity, and already make up over $250 billion of the total bond market, or about 3.5% overall. An astute person will wonder how any of this actually contributes to a cleaner environment, or combats climate change. It doesn’t, but it certainly makes people rich.

It’s disturbing how much money can be generated (or lost) on an industry that is in reality, built on lies.

7. BIS: Climate Change Threatens Finances

Climate change poses new challenges to central banks, regulators and supervisors. This book reviews ways of addressing these new risks within central banks’ financial stability mandate. However, integrating climate-related risk analysis into financial stability monitoring is particularly challenging because of the radical uncertainty associated with a physical, social and economic phenomenon that is constantly changing and involves complex dynamics and chain reactions. Traditional backward-looking risk assessments and existing climate-economic models cannot anticipate accurately enough the form that climate-related risks will take. These include what we call “green swan” risks: potentially extremely financially disruptive events that could be behind the next systemic financial crisis. Central banks have a role to play in avoiding such an outcome, including by seeking to improve their understanding of climate-related risks through the development of forward-looking scenario-based analysis. But central banks alone cannot mitigate climate change. This complex collective action problem requires coordinating actions among many players including governments, the private sector, civil society and the international community. Central banks can therefore have an additional role to play in helping coordinate the measures to fight climate change. Those include climate mitigation policies such as carbon pricing, the integration of sustainability into financial practices and accounting frameworks, the search for appropriate policy mixes, and the development of new financial mechanisms at the international level. All these actions will be complex to coordinate and could have significant redistributive consequences that should be adequately handled, yet they are essential to preserve long-term financial (and price) stability in the age of climate change.

In a nutshell, this is BIS’ official reason for getting involved in the climate change industry, and into gree bonds: it threatens fiscal stability. But they have certainly found a profitable way to “stave off” this oncoming disaster. Very convenient.

8. Scaling Up: The Green/Banking Marriage

The four recommendations addressed to central banks and supervisors are:
.
(1) Integrating climate-related risks into financial stability monitoring and micro-supervision. This includes assessing climate-related risks in the financial system and integrating them into prudential supervision.
(2) Integrating sustainability factors into own portfolio management. The NGFS encourages central banks to lead by example in their own operations.
(3) Bridging data gaps. Public authorities are asked to share data relevant to Climate Risk Assessment and make these data publicly available.
(4) Building awareness and intellectual capacity and encouraging technical assistance and knowledge-sharing. The NGFS encourages all financial institutions to build in-house capacity and to collaborate to improve their understanding of how climate-related factors translate into financial risks and opportunities.

What is suggested here is nothing short of a full fledged marriage of the banking cartel and the climate cartel. Elements of the green agenda are to be embedded in every aspect of fiscal policies. This (shouldn’t) be what banks and bankers are involved with.

9. Bonds A Ponzi Scheme, No Real Product

It was interesting to see this “explanation” of climate bonds, which included vague references to “green industries”. No concrete examples were provided, nor was there any mention of the industries that would be lost as a result of this agenda.

This bonds scheme (like a Ponzi Scheme) only works as long as it is able to continuously get new funding. That won’t work, as eventually people realize this is a scam, and pulls their funds.

At 9:50, there is the not so subtle threat: change your business model, or go out of business. Former Bank of Canada Head Mark Carney (currently doing UN Climate Finance), said exactly the same thing. This isn’t opportunity, but the FORCED transition or shut down of many industries.

10. Green Bonds Already In Canada A While

If you thought this nonsense would never become a reality in Canada, you would be mistaken. Ontario has been issuing green bonds for several years, and it has continued under “populist” Doug Ford. It’s been happening Federally since at least 2014, when “conservative” Stephen Harper ran Canada. TD Canada appears to also have gotten in on the action.

Ontario and Canada aren’t doing anything revolutionary. They are just implementing what the World Bank started, and what the Bank for International Settlements is upscaling.

11. Bonds To Stabilize Financial System?

Although the idea of Green Bonds is not specifically mentioned in this BIS video, read between the lines. They talk about “alternative means” to stabilize economies after the 2008 collapse. BIS also refers to Green Bonds as necessary for fiscal stability. Two problems, one solution?

12. Cartel Marriage Shouldn’t Happen

The Bank for International Settlements offers the flimsiest of rationales for getting involved in the climate change and green bonds agendas.

While the idea that this aids fiscal stability, BIS never explains “how” exactly that is. It doesn’t delve into any of the many climate questions that need answered, nor does it explain how these bonds prevent climate change. BIS also won’t discuss how enriching a very few leads to overall equality.

It comes across as an attempt to (further) monetize the climate agenda, and to embed elements of it within national banking policies. As if national finances weren’t corrupt enough.

Canadians, and others, need to wake up to the collusion that continues to erode sovereignty. Do some research. The information presented above is just the tip of the iceberg.

CV #24(B): London School Of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, More Modelling Financed By Gates

The London School Of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine gets substantial funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, as does Imperial College London. And both have been funded to conduct computer modelling. Let’s dive in a bit deeper.

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. The Gates Foundation finances many things, including, the World Health Organization, the Center for Disease Control, GAVI, ID2020, John Hopkins University, Imperial College London, the Pirbright Institute, the British Broadcasting Corporation, Sick Kids Hospital, and individual pharmaceutical companies. Worth mentioning: 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 (IHR), that the WHO imposes are legally binding on all members.

2. Tax Filings Of B&M Gates Foundation

(Note: these are just a portion of the 2018 filings)

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

3. Still Getting Money For Modelling

London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine
Date: September 2020
Purpose: to model the direct and indirect health and economic impacts of COVID-19 in LMICs
Amount: $166,059
Term: 11
Topic: Delivery of Solutions to Improve Global Health

Program: Global Development
Grantee Location: London
Grantee Website: http://www.lshtm.ac.uk/

Granted, the School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine isn’t nearly as notorious as Imperial College London is at this point. However, Gates is still paying for computer modelling, so one has to wonder if the results are preplanned.

4. Earlier Gates Money For Modelling

London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine
Date: October 2016
Purpose: to maximize impact and accelerate development of new TB vaccines by creating and applying novel mathematical models to estimate the main target product profiles drivers for epidemiological impact of new TB vaccines
Amount: $193,437
Term: 39
Topic: Tuberculosis
Program: Global Health
Grantee Location: London
Grantee Website: http://www.lshtm.ac.uk/

The Gates Foundation also donated to some 2016 computer modelling. There are of course other grants over the years.

5. Centre for the Modelling of Infectious Diseases

The Centre for the Mathematical Modelling of Infectious Diseases (CMMID) at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine is a multidisciplinary grouping of epidemiologists, mathematicians, economists, statisticians and clinicians from across all three faculties of LSHTM.

That is the main team of researchers who are involved in the computer modelling (or guesswork), trying to determine how much viruses will spread.

6. Online Course: Intro To Modelling

Infectious diseases remain a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide, with HIV, tuberculosis and malaria estimated to cause 10% of all deaths each year. New pathogens continue to emerge, as demonstrated by the SARS epidemic in 2003, the swine flu pandemic in 2009, MERS CoV in 2013, Zika in 2016 and recently, SARS-CoV-2.

Mathematical models are being increasingly used to understand the transmission of infections and to evaluate the potential impact of control programmes in reducing morbidity and mortality. Applications include determining optimal control strategies against new or emergent infections, such as SARS-CoV-2, Zika or Ebola, or against HIV, tuberculosis and malaria, and predicting the impact of vaccination strategies against common infections such as measles and rubella. Modelling was used extensively in the UK during the recent swine flu pandemic to monitor the extent of ongoing transmission and the potential impact of control such as school closures and vaccination. It is currently being used in many countries to predict the impact of interventions against COVID-19.

This two week online course, organised jointly between the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine and Public Health England is intended to introduce professionals working on infectious diseases in either developing or developed countries to this exciting and expanding area. The emphasis will be on developing a conceptual understanding of the basic methods and on their practical application, rather than the manipulation of mathematical equations. The methods will be illustrated by “hands-on” experience of setting up models in spreadsheets as well as other specialist modelling packages, and seminars in which the applications of modelling will be discussed.

If you have 1,700 pounds to spare, then this modelling course may be for you. It’s an introduction into how computer modelling works to estimate growth and decay.

While it is true that computer modelling was used in Zika, Ebola and Swine Flu, that’s not really something to brag about. Just search “Neil Ferguson Imperial College London”.

The focus won’t be on manipulating mathematical equations? That’s good I guess.

7. Gates Very Well Known In LSHTM

A quick search of Bill Gates on the school’s website flags 143 articles. Gates, and his foundation, are well known and written about.

8. Models Aren’t Evidence Of Anything

This should be abundantly clear to all, but it is worth repeating. Models are just predictions, and limited by:

[1] The quality of the data coming in
[2] The understanding of how nature actually works
[3] The political agenda of the modeler

They are not proof or evidence, and should be given no weight when it comes to making complicated and expensive policy decisions.

We see time and time again that the information going in is garbage, and that the people doing the work have little to no grasp of what they are estimating. We also see too many politicians, bureaucrats, academics, and people in business who have their own agenda.

Don’t take any of these “predictions” at face value.

CV #62(B): Canada’s Actions Were Dictated By WHO’s Legally Binding International Health Regulations

The IHR are an instrument of international law that is legally-binding on 196 countries, including the 194 WHO Member States. The IHR grew out of the response to deadly epidemics that once overran Europe. They create rights and obligations for countries, including the requirement to report public health events. The Regulations also outline the criteria to determine whether or not a particular event constitutes a “public health emergency of international concern”.

Canada has been following the legally binding dictates of the World Health Organization and their International Health Regulations. Let’s see what some of them are.

Videos are here and here.

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. The Gates Foundation finances many things, including, the World Health Organization, the Center for Disease Control, GAVI, ID2020, John Hopkins University, Imperial College London, the Pirbright Institute, the British Broadcasting Corporation, and individual pharmaceutical companies. Worth mentioning: 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 (IHR), that the WHO imposes are legally binding on all members.

2. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for International Health Regulations Archives.

CLICK HERE, for January 23 Statement from WHO.
https://archive.is/MapcO

CLICK HERE, for January 30 Statement from WHO.
https://archive.is/OjFyN

CLICK HERE, for May 1 IHR Statement from WHO.
https://archive.is/Y3pTe

CLICK HERE, for August 1 IHR Statement from WHO.
https://archive.is/JgR3A

CLICK HERE, for November 4, 2004 Quarantine Act hearings.
November 4 2004 Quarantine Act Evidence HESAEV06-E

quarantine.act.dec.8.2004.hearings

3. January 23 Statement (1st IHR Meeting)

To other countries
It is expected that further international exportation of cases may appear in any country. Thus, all countries should be prepared for containment, including active surveillance, early detection, isolation and case management, contact tracing and prevention of onward spread of 2019-nCoV infection, and to share full data with WHO.

Countries are required to share information with WHO according to the IHR.

Technical advice is available here. Countries should place particular emphasis on reducing human infection, prevention of secondary transmission and international spread and contributing to the international response though multi-sectoral communication and collaboration and active participation in increasing knowledge on the virus and the disease, as well as advancing research. Countries should also follow travel advice from WHO.

January 23, 2020 WHO/IHR Statement

4. January 30 Statement (2nd IHR Meeting)

To all countries
It is expected that further international exportation of cases may appear in any country. Thus, all countries should be prepared for containment, including active surveillance, early detection, isolation and case management, contact tracing and prevention of onward spread of 2019-nCoVinfection, and to share full data with WHO. Technical advice is available on the WHO website.

Countries are reminded that they are legally required to share information with WHO under the IHR.

Any detection of 2019-nCoV in an animal (including information about the species, diagnostic tests, and relevant epidemiological information) should be reported to the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) as an emerging disease.

Countries should place particular emphasis on reducing human infection, prevention of secondary transmission and international spread, and contributing to the international response though multi-sectoral communication and collaboration and active participation in increasing knowledge on the virus and the disease, as well as advancing research.

The Committee does not recommend any travel or trade restriction based on the current information available.

Countries must inform WHO about travel measures taken, as required by the IHR. Countries are cautioned against actions that promote stigma or discrimination, in line with the principles of Article 3 of the IHR.

Under Article 43 of the IHR, States Parties implementing additional health measures that significantly interfere with international traffic (refusal of entry or departure of international travellers, baggage, cargo, containers, conveyances, goods, and the like, or their delay, for more than 24 hours) are obliged to send to WHO the public health rationale and justification within 48 hours of their implementation. WHO will review the justification and may request countries to reconsider their measures. WHO is required to share with other States Parties the information about measures and the justification received.

January 30, 2020 WHO/IHR Statement

5. May 1 Statement (3rd IHR Meeting)

The WHO Regional Emergency Directors and the Executive Director of the WHO Health Emergencies Programme (WHE) provided regional and the global situation overview. After ensuing discussion, the Committee unanimously agreed that the outbreak still constitutes a public health emergency of international concern (PHEIC) and offered advice to the Director-General.

The Director-General declared that the outbreak of COVID-19 continues to constitute a PHEIC. He accepted the advice of the Committee to WHO and issued the Committee’s advice to States Parties as Temporary Recommendations under the IHR.

The Emergency Committee will be reconvened within three months or earlier, at the discretion of the Director-General. The Director-General thanked the Committee for its work.

Risk communication and community engagement
Continue risk communications and community engagement activities through the WHO Information Network for Epidemics (EPI-WIN) and other platforms to counter rumours and misinformation.
.
Continue to regularly communicate clear messages, guidance, and advice about the evolution of the COVID-19 pandemic, how to reduce transmission, and save lives.

Travel and Trade
Continue working with countries and partners to enable essential travel needed for pandemic response, humanitarian relief, repatriation, and cargo operations.
.
Develop strategic guidance with partners for the gradual return to normal operations of passenger travel in a coordinated manner that provides appropriate protection when physical distancing is not feasible.

May 1, 2020 WHO/IHR Statement

6. August 1 Statement (4th IHR Meeting)

After ensuing discussion, the Committee unanimously agreed that the pandemic still constitutes a public health emergency of international concern and offered advice to the Director-General.
.
The Director-General declared that the outbreak of COVID-19 continues to constitute a PHEIC. He accepted the advice of the Committee to WHO and issued the Committee’s advice to States Parties as Temporary Recommendations under the IHR (2005).

(6) Continue to work with partners to counter mis/disinformation and infodemics by developing and disseminating clear, tailored messaging on the COVID-19 pandemic and its effects; encourage and support individuals and communities to follow recommended public health and social measures.

(7) Support diagnostics, safe and effective therapeutics and vaccines’ rapid and transparent development (including in developing countries) and equitable access through the Access to COVID-19 Tools (ACT) Accelerator; support all countries to implement the necessary clinical trials and to prepare for the rollout of therapeutics and vaccines.

(8) Work with partners to revise WHO’s travel health guidance to reinforce evidence-informed measures consistent with the provisions of the IHR (2005) to avoid unnecessary interference with international travel; proactively and regularly share information on travel measures to support State Parties’ decision-making for resuming international travel.

August 1, 2020 WHO/IHR Statement

7. Quarantine Act Is Domestic IHR Implementation

Mr. Colin Carrie: Yes.
.
Are you aware of international standards for quarantine?
.
Dr. Paul Gully: The international health regulations would be the regulations that individual states would then use to design their quarantine acts. I don’t know of any other standards out there or best practices to look at quarantine acts, but the IHRs really have been used over the years as the starting point.
.
Now, with the improvement of the international health regulations, maybe, as is the case in Canada, changes will occur to quarantine acts in other countries in order to better comply with the international health regulations.
.
Mr. Colin Carrie: How is the communication now between different levels of government–for example, the federal government and the provinces–when something occurs?
.
(1140)
.
Dr. Paul Gully: The communication between the agency and the chief medical officers, for example, has always been good. The challenge during SARS was not necessarily the communication, but the information that was available to communicate.
.
The ability of Ontario to collect information, for example, to analyse it, and then for us to get it and to share it internationally was a challenge. That’s certainly something that Ontario and the Government of Canada have recognized, and as a result of that, other jurisdictions have recognized that as well.
.
We’ve certainly taken note of the lessons from SARS and the Naylor report. We’re always trying to improve that communication, but then, as I said, we are dependent on the abilities of other jurisdictions.
.
Mr. Colin Carrie: All right. I thought that was important, to see the different communications between each level, provincial and federal, but also international, because it seems that this is such a global thing right now.

Dr. Paul Gully: We had a meeting in September with the provinces and territories in Edmonton about the Quarantine Act as it stood at that time. We got input. We’re having another teleconference with the Council of Chief Medical Officers next week to talk about a number of issues that were raised and to further clarify what they would like to see as changes to the bill as it stands at the present time.
.
Mrs. Carol Skelton: Why did Health Canada proceed with a separate Quarantine Act at this time?
.
Dr. Paul Gully: Those of us who administered the Quarantine Act over the years always knew there were deficiencies in the old act, and because it was rarely used there wasn’t the inclination to update it. As a result of SARS and utilization of the act, which certainly put it under close scrutiny, and the requirement for the Government of Canada to respond to the various reports on SARS, it was felt that updating the act sooner rather than later was appropriate.
.
In addition, during discussions about the international health regulations of the World Health Organization, it was felt that it was appropriate to do it and to spend time and energy, which it obviously does require, to do it now, before other parts of legislative renewal, of which Mr. Simard is well aware, were further implemented or further discussion was carried out.
.
(1200)

Ms. Ruby Dhalla: I have one question. In terms of the Quarantine Act for our country, where are we at in terms of best practices models when we look at the international spectrum?
.
Dr. Paul Gully: I don’t know the acts in other countries, but because we are updating our act right now and we’re taking into account the probable revisions to the international health regulations, I believe we would be well in the forefront in terms of having modern legislation.
.
The Chair: Thank you.
.
Ms. Skelton.
.
Mrs. Carol Skelton: Following up on what Mr. Merrifield and Mr. Carrie said, it says in subclause 5(1) that the minister may “designate persons, or classes of persons, as analysts, screening officers or environmental health officers”. I think we should have in the act who those people are, so that they make sure they are trained professionals.
,
(1210)
.
Dr. Paul Gully: I believe that’s defined under the quarantine officer. At least in part, the quarantine officer refers to a medical practitioner or other health practitioner.
.
The reason for distinguishing between the three is that the screening officers would not require much training as the quarantine officers, as we defined. For an environmental officer, if it’s not defined, the implication is…. The quarantine officers are in subclause 5(2). I don’t believe, in fact, we’ve defined the qualifications of an environmental health officer, and maybe we should think about that. I think the term in this country, the use of the term “environmental health officer”, does imply some training, but I take your point.

https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/38-1/HESA/meeting-6/evidence

7. WHO Actually Governs Quarantines In Canada

Get it now? The 2005 Quarantine Act was Ottawa domestically implementing the latest edition of the International Health Regulations, or at least what what the changes were anticipated to be.

Restricting international travel (or not in this case), contact tracing, and efforts to shut down what they call “misinformation” are all done at the behest of the World Health Organization.

In fact, the Federal Government doesn’t run the show, nor do the Provinces. As part of our membership with WHO, Canada is legally obligated to follow the IHR.