Sandra Finley

Sep 192021

Subject: Thousands at Toronto Rally yesterday.

Here is report from friend on yesterday’s rally in Toronto

Followed by a shortish video from RFK.   Calling for – – in the streets.


p.s. FABULOUS rally & speeches & march in Toronto yesterday. Best ever!!!

Rocco Galati spoke. Byram Bridle. Police officers. Nurses. An MD (or 2).

Great crowd – tons of information being shared, eg. by Take Action Canada & Vaccine Choice Canada.

Great placards.

A truly energizing, inspiring day, all around!


p.p.s. as I headed out of the Dundas Square area where I’d parked my car, saw a City TV news truck. Signalled to the guy to open his window. Asked him if he’d covered the amazing event up at Queen’s Park. He said no, but a colleague had. Then a guy w. a big camera came around the side of the vehicle & I said to the 2 of them “Sure hope you won’t be reporting there were 300 people there.” And drove off.

There were thousands of people there! I expect MSM will either report small #’s, or big #’s & that it was a rally for fascist, gun-toting Trump supporter types.

You know.

The usual.

== = = =

The above was attached to:

Please watch!

RFK is addressing those he spoke to in Berlin on Aug. 29th (?) last year.


Not too long.

He’s calling for civil disobedience.


Lawyers don’t often do that…..

& we know RFK is a very fact-based, science-driven kind of a guy who does not go off on weird tangents or anything like that.

Always a very measured approach with him….,-Jr.—-One-Year-After-the-Historic-Rally-in-Berlin—It%E2%80%99s-Time-for-(Peaceful)-Civil-Disobedience!:6


From: Dan

The recent media attention to Nicki Minaj seems to have mainstream media in a flap. Unusual for someone with such a monstrous following to speak against the narrative, and I guess that is why the Whitehouse wants her to drop by so they can discuss her ‘misinformation.’

I was wondering about the recent top FDA officials quitting and then sending a report to the Lancet around boosters. Seems Trudeau has ordered 400,000,000 boosters for Canada and Biden announced as a foregone conclusion the boosters would be rolling out … but now the FDA is saying ‘not so fast’. So my cynical side feels like the FDA will approve regardless of the overwhelming recommendation against that from it’s own advisors. The endgame seems to already be part of the infrastructure and science no longer drives this.

And Ivermectin … that has been one of the most disgusting examples of dangerous censorship by big pharma and their big tech collaborators … India is all but deleted from the headlines now that Delta has come and gone. And the evidence that Ivermectin helped has gone unreported completely. It was good to see that mainstream was caught red handed spreading the lie about poison control centres dealing with a rash of IVM poisoning calls, and the story of the hospital that had so many IVM poisoning cases that people with gunshot wounds were being turned away. That wire story went all around the world instantly, in every mainstream media source. And since it has been proven to be a blatant lie, a few have added retractions … but the damage is done and I doubt very much the puny retraction is even being viewed since the story is now buried. Here is a decent recap … Hope full that the case against the WHO doctor moves forward.

All in all, with all the evidence to support freedom of choice, the dangers of the vaccine for young people and the fantastic immunity of those previously infected there seems to be no interest in halting this steam roller. Perhaps the passports were already preordained and science and reason is not of interest to those that control the narrative.

I have sent letters to my constituents outlining why I think that these passports are a bad idea … but probably all the people I sent them to are under orders from some greater power and likely they have no choice in what they are doing. (Other than stepping down or publicly going counter to their orders … but that might result in other problems for them.) Such a crazy clown show!

Sep 172021
The interview of Eric Clapton is very good.  No wonder, 2,364,640 views as of Sept 17th/21!

Eric Clapton discusses how the Pandemic has affected him and caused a loss of free speech and freedom of choice in the United Kingdom. He describes how he felt coerced. See mark 12:40. He explains what he sees as government-sponsored psychological propaganda that relies upon guilt, fear, and suffering. 

See mark 13:30 and 18:30.

Link to Eric Clapton’s release, This Has Gotta to Stop

 Premiered Aug 27, 2021      2,194,879 views         


The interview (link) is with thanks to:

Marcus Singletary Dot Com

14.4K subscribers
GOD on COVID: Eric Clapton discusses his “Disastrous” Vaccine Experience. #Guitar Legend #EricClapton performed with the Yardbirds, John Mayall, Cream, Blind Faith, and Derek and the Dominos before embarking on a successful solo career. Here’s why he never thought he would play the instrument again after receiving the AstraZeneca Vaccine.



Sep 172021


On September 10, 2021, journalist Siddhant Pandey reported that 75% of India’s nearly 35,000 new COVID cases arose from the tiny resort state of Kerala. Kerala, one of the world’s top travel destinations, is also one of the world’s worst COVID disasters.

Kerala’s failed pandemic policy has been going from bad to worse. For example, on July 29 Kerala represented half of India’s new cases, while on August 27, they had risen to two-thirds, and now they account for three-fourths.

President Kennedy famously said, “An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it.”

Kerala has been a slow-motion train wreck. But, as we watch in horror as the locomotive jumps the track and carries the rest of the boxcars with it, we notice the other Indian states enjoy complete safety as their pandemic has ended. They chose a different strategy, one that did not lead them off a cliff.—part-iii-the-lesson-of-kerala/article_ccecb97e-044e-11ec-9112-2b31ae87887a.html—part-iv-keralas-vaccinated-surge/article_8a8c481c-09d3-11ec-a51c-fb063e1a3e3b.html

What strategy, you may ask?

Reuters reported this on May 13, 2021.

“At least two Indian states have said they plan to dose their populations with the anti-parasitic drug Ivermectin to protect against severe COVID-19 infections as their hospitals are overrun with patients in critical condition. The move by the coastal state of Goa and northern state of Uttarakhand, come despite the World Health Organization and others warning against such measures.”

Today, Uttarakhand and Goa are free from their pandemic because of their bold choice to use Ivermectin, and today Kerala is a train wreck because of their choice to abandon it. Kerala, who chose to minimize their Ivermectin use in April 2021, deleted it from their protocol on August 5, 2021.—part-iii-the-lesson-of-kerala/article_ccecb97e-044e-11ec-9112-2b31ae87887a.html

On September 10, 2021, Uttarakhand had just 20 new cases in a population of 11.4 million, or about two cases for every million people. They had ZERO new deaths.  Goa had 45 cases and two deaths, while Kerala had 25,010 new cases and 177 new deaths.

Other Indian states also decided to go “all-in” on Ivermectin, and they did exceedingly well. So, on September 10, these are the numbers of the other Ivermectin-using Indian states.

This data was compiled by the Johns Hopkins University Center for Systems Science and Engineering – the JHU CSSE.

On September 10, 2021, Uttar Pradesh, a population of 240 million, saw nine new cases, or about one for every 24 million people. One death. Delhi saw only 36 new cases and ZERO deaths. Bihar, a population of 127 million, saw 12 new cases, or one per 10 million population. ZERO deaths.

In stark contrast, we see Kerala, a population of 34 million people, with 25,010 new cases on September 10, or nearly one per thousand. Deaths are 177 out of the entire country’s total of 308. Thus, more than half of all of India’s September 10 COVID deaths occurred in Kerala.

This debacle occurred despite Kerala being among the most vaccinated states in all of India. The Chief Minister proudly reports that 93 percent of Kerala’s residents over 45 have one vaccination while 50 percent are fully vaccinated.

Like Kerala, the United Kingdom is “all-in” on vaccines and “all-out” against Ivermectin. Notice the remarkable similarity of the United Kingdom COVID graph when compared with Kerala’s.

There is a double rise in the graph of the Delta Surge. The United Kingdom, a country of 68 million, had 36,734 new cases on September 10. That works out to about one case per two thousand population. They could be Kerala’s twin in more ways than one. Similar cases per thousand, and similar policy against Ivermectin, only the United Kingdom has more vaccinations with over 60% of their population fully vaccinated.

It makes one wonder why both the UK and Kerala are failing so miserably despite high vaccination rates.

Dr. Peter McCullough explains why. He notes that the Delta variant is a heavily mutated version of the original SARS-CoV-2. Because the vaccines were designed and tested against the original virus, not the Delta variant, the vaccines perform poorly against the current strain. Cases in the UK and Kerala are all Delta; thus, their poor performance against Delta is no surprise.

In this interview with Dr. Al Johnson, Dr. McCullough reports that the studies show that within highly vaccinated countries like Iceland, Israel, and Singapore, up to 65% of hospitalized cases are fully vaccinated. Up to 75% of all breakthrough infections occur in the fully vaccinated. See mark 4:00.

Dr. McCullough explains that because of this, early outpatient treatment with a cocktail of Ivermectin, HCQ, and nutraceuticals is essential.

Any review on this subject would be incomplete without mentioning the most influential peer-reviewed analyses. These were published independently by Dr. Pierre Kory, Dr. Tess Lawrie, and Dr. Andrew Hill, all highly credible experts in their fields. The data reflect massive and reproducible reductions in infections and deaths in COVID-19 using Ivermectin.

In addition, Dr. Kory and the FLCCC have updated their Ivermectin data as of August 29, 2021.

So, could the obvious be true? Perhaps Ivermectin has made the difference between Kerala and the rest of India. Maybe the lack of Ivermectin treatment is why the UK, the USA, and Kerala have failed to control their pandemics. Perhaps what you have heard from the WHO, the FDA, and the CDC is incorrect. And, perhaps against all the informational flooding propaganda, against President Biden’s vaccine mandate, maybe the truth of the matter is the obvious: the vaccines are failing while Ivermectin is working.

Perhaps, we have made an error by not widely adopting Ivermectin in America against COVID-19. However, let us NOT transform this temporary error into the huge blunder of Kerala.

But is Ivermectin merely the tip of an even greater iceberg? Dr. Tess Lawrie, an evidence synthesis expert and WHO consultant, reminds us that choosing to take Ivermectin is “everyone’s right.”

And it is not just any legal right; it is one of the most fundamental human rights recognized throughout history; it is considered one of the sacred few God-given rights, the right to an individual’s liberty.

In 1776, Thomas Jefferson penned these words, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Regardless of how the FDA or NIH wishes to construct their policies, the government MAY NOT tell patients what their doctor can or cannot prescribe regarding FDA-approved repurposed drugs – whether for cancer, COVID-19, or scabies. Again, it is a matter of fundamental human Liberty.

That is the law, and it involves an individual’s essential human right to choose medical treatment. In addition, should an individual decide NOT to take the vaccine after a thorough medical review with their doctor, the government has no right to mandate or require it.

Eric Clapton discusses how the Pandemic has affected him and caused a loss of free speech and freedom of choice in the United Kingdom. He describes how he felt coerced. See mark 12:40. He explains what he sees as government-sponsored psychological propaganda that relies upon guilt, fear, and suffering. See m

See mark 13:30 and 18:30.

Today pharmacies have been pressured NOT to fill valid Ivermectin prescriptions. While they will fill them for scabies, insurers have threatened pharmacists with loss of contracts and other sanctions if they do so for COVID.

Military service members have been threatened with dishonorable discharge if they refuse to submit to vaccination.

Today, doctors are being threatened with loss of job and license if they do not support the vaccination program for everyone.

Indeed, an individual’s sacred liberty, the right to receive and decline medical care is contained in the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution. The Declaration holds that all individuals possess God-given human rights, and among them include our fundamental rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.  The 5th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution forbid the infringement of these human rights absent due process of law. A mandate by the CDC, FDA, or the President is NOT due process of law.

Government exists to serve the people and protect these fundamental human rights. As Jefferson put it, “Government exists for the interests of the governed, not for the governors.”

If a governor or president told you his patience is wearing thin because you are not surrendering a Liberty right, Jefferson and Kennedy would both advise you to replace that governor or president. Likewise, if a government agency does that, Jefferson and Kennedy would recommend reforming that agency.

In addition, such edicts MUST be challenged in the courts immediately. Control of overbearing government is the essence of Jefferson’s and the other Founder’s separation of powers. These built-in checks and balances were designed to prevent and challenge such abuses of power – those occasions when government acts against the people.

Indeed Robert Frances Kennedy, President Kennedy’s late brother, spoke about the duty of governments to preserve the individual’s liberty. He uttered the following words in his historic Ripple of Hope speech delivered in South Africa on June 6, 1966,

“At the heart of that western freedom and democracy is the belief that the individual man, the child of God, is the touchstone of value, and all society, all groups, and states exist for that person’s benefit. Therefore the enlargement of Liberty for individual human beings must be the supreme goal and the abiding practice of any western society.”

Senator Robert Kennedy was 40 years of age in 1966 and identified with the “younger generation.” He expounded on the meaning of Liberty in the context of human rights,

“The first element of this individual Liberty is the freedom of speech; the right to express and communicate ideas, to set oneself apart from the dumb beasts of field and forest; the right to recall governments to their duties and obligations…”

In his 1966 Ripple of Hope speech, Senator Kennedy warned of what could happen if the government ceased to protect these rights.

“Hand in hand with freedom of speech goes the power to be heard – to share in the decisions of government which shape men’s lives. Everything that makes man’s lives worthwhile – family, work, education, a place to rear one’s children and a place to rest one’s head – all this depends on the decisions of government; all can be swept away by a government which does not heed the demands of its people, and I mean all of its people.”

Kennedy warned that a government must be limited in its power to act against the people.

He explained this to the students at The University of Capetown, “These are the sacred rights of western society. These were the essential differences between us and Nazi Germany as they were between Athens and Persia. They are the essences of our differences with communism today. I am unalterably opposed to communism because it exalts the state over the individual and over the family and because its system contains a lack of freedom of speech, of protest, of religion, and of the press, which is characteristic of a totalitarian regime.”

Today, I have a difficult time recognizing America. Our leaders no longer stand for freedom, liberty, and human rights. Instead, they champion censorship, propaganda, and totalitarian dictates. As a result, we no longer have a free press.

When Senators and Congressmen attempt to stifle booksellers under the color of government authority, these are alarming signs that book banning is next.

In my last article, I reviewed how informational flooding propaganda is being used to demonize Ivermectin.

This technique has been frequently used by the Chinese Communist Party, as described in the following Harvard article. As it turns out, this type of internet propaganda is now a weapon of choice that our American government is using against us.

I often wonder how different the world would have become had Robert Kennedy lived if he could have avoided the assassin’s bullet in 1968, which ended his run for president. Yet, in direct contradiction, members of his party today are against the very freedoms he supported, such as freedom of speech, freedom of medical choice, freedom of the press, and essential liberties – those principles that have successfully protected and guided and anchored our nation for centuries.

However, Robert Francis Kennedy and Thomas Jefferson are not our only authoritative past voices on these current issues.

They would say that we must object to today’s attack on freedom and human rights – WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW – by an oppressive and corrupt government. We must object to censorship in all of its forms. After all, our nation has existed free for the past 245 years, an entire 22 generations, and we should not let it fall to communism on our watch.

Eric Clapton’s voice is representative of millions. He astutely observed that the assault on freedom is often lost on our youth who willingly submit to vaccine passports. Youth have always felt invincible, but they cared about freedom in 1966 – because the Holocaust and Hitler were still vivid memories – and because of the recent assassination of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy in 1963. 

Today losing freedom is not what most youths consider; they are far more fixated on police brutality or racial and gender inequality. Although these issues are essential, if we fall to a totalitarian regime through pandemic “emergency measures,” these concerns will be rendered moot as such a regime prohibits protest, free speech, and reform. 

Therefore, our moral imperative must be that EXTREME VIGILANCE is required at this crucial inflection point in history. Now is not the time to lower one’s guard. On the contrary, with advanced surveillance technologies, recombinant genetic engineering, military vaccine-related mind-control technology, and ever more corrupt governments and scientists, now is the time to question everything and accept nothing without PROOF.

Watch this Pentagon briefing where the scientist reports, “By vaccinating them against this, we will eliminate this behavior.” See mark 00:55.

If we have learned nothing from the lessons of history, we should know that human nature is predictable and dark.

This is not to say people are inherently evil, and it is not to say our current leaders are. The truth is more complicated than black and white. People, even Hitler, will rationalize that what they are doing is morally correct. They believe they are protecting the larger population from a smaller suspect group. In the 1800s, that suspect group was black slaves. In the early 1900s, it became Jews, and then it became Japanese living in America during World War II.

Today the suspect group is the unvaccinated. We are told these people, the vaccine-hesitant, are objects of hate for preventing the nation from reaching herd immunity – which is patently false, as these emergency vaccines FAIL to prevent infection and transmission; therefore, getting to herd immunity through current vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 is a fiction. We are NOT going to reach herd immunity, according to Dr. John Campbell. See mark 1:22

Andrea Pitzer, author of One Long Night: A Global History of Concentration Camps, is quoted in The New Yorker:

“A concentration camp exists, she says, whenever a government holds groups of civilians outside the normal legal process, and nearly all nations have had them. They can be the most savage places on earth, but this isn’t an essential feature… When concentration camps are established, they are usually said to exist to protect the larger population from some suspect group, or to be part of a civilizing message, or to be a way to restrain some group of civilians from supporting hostile forces.”

In addition to the vaccine-hesitant being the suspect group, all who speak in opposition to the government’s Pandemic narrative are also suspect. They are marginalized as conspiracists, misinformation spreaders, or kooks. And somehow, this justifies totalitarian tactics by the state.

Eric Clapton explains how this message is given in the United Kingdom through billboards, advertisements, and various propaganda. He explains that fear is keeping people from speaking out or questioning authority. Fear of reprisal by the government is why many remain silent. See mark 16:30.

When this happens, it is not time to remain silent; it is precisely the moment to speak out. When we fear our government more than we treasure our human rights, the time has come to act.

We must reel our government(s) back in, which is exactly what is required when a government gets out of control, and resorts to censorship, propaganda, and totalitarian directives. Once we allow the government to get away with this, those precious liberties will be lost forever regardless of the excuse. In short, we owe it to those soldiers who fought before us in wars, and we owe it to our descendants, to all those generations who are to follow.

It is not far-fetched to envision our future generations who have lost the freedoms we enjoyed. We should anticipate future generations who serve the needs of a state-sponsored technology-driven and dystopian society ruled by fear. We MUST imagine future generations where the rights of liberty and freedom of speech are only a memory. It is only by confronting this horrific nightmare that we can muster the courage to prevent it.

The youth may not see this coming; however, we are the older and wiser generation(s); we represent the Eric Claptons of this world; we see the warning signs, and we alone have the experience and the responsibility to prevent this.

President Abraham Lincoln said it best on the Gettysburg Battlefield when he vowed to honor the sacrifice of brave soldiers,

“From these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

We have allowed our government to restrict our mobility, and we have watched helplessly as the government colluded with social media in censorship and propaganda. While we have sadly allowed our government to intimidate us with vaccine mandates and medical care restrictions, it is not too late to correct these errors.

These are minor compared to what may yet come. There is still ample time if we all awaken. But we must act now if we are to avoid the worst mistake of our nation’s – indeed the world’s – history. We must now insist on preserving our sacred rights to Life, Liberty, and Freedom or risk losing them forever. We must ensure that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall never perish from the earth.

Link to Eric Clapton’s release, This Has Gotta to Stop

Sep 172021

by Justus R. Hope, MD

World Health Organization
The Indian Bar Association (IBA) sued WHO Chief Scientist Dr. Soumya Swaminathan on May 25, accusing her in a 71-point brief of causing the deaths of Indian citizens by misleading them about Ivermectin.

Point 56 states, “That your misleading tweet on May 10, 2021, against the use of Ivermectin had the effect of the State of Tamil Nadu withdrawing Ivermectin from the protocol on May 11, 2021, just a day after the Tamil Nadu government had indicated the same for the treatment of COVID-19 patients.”

Advocate Dipali Ojha, lead attorney for the Indian Bar Association, threatened criminal prosecution against Dr.  Swaminathan “for each death” caused by her acts of commission and omission. The brief accused Swaminathan of misconduct by using her position as a health authority to further the agenda of special interests to maintain an EUA for the lucrative vaccine industry.

Specific charges included the running of a disinformation campaign against Ivermectin and issuing statements in social and mainstream media to wrongfully influence the public against the use of Ivermectin despite the existence of large amounts of clinical data showing its profound effectiveness in both prevention and treatment of COVID-19.

In particular, the Indian Bar brief referenced the peer-reviewed publications and evidence compiled by the ten-member Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) group and the 65-member British Ivermectin Recommendation Development (BIRD) panel headed by WHO consultant and meta-analysis expert Dr. Tess Lawrie.

The brief cited US Attorney Ralph C. Lorigo’s hospital cases in New York where court orders were required for dying COVID patients to receive the Ivermectin. In multiple instances of such comatose patients, following the court-ordered Ivermectin, the patients recovered. In addition, the Indian Bar Association cited previous articles published in this forum, The Desert Review.

Advocate Ojha accused the WHO and Dr. Swaminathan in Points 60 and 61 as having misled and misguided the Indian people throughout the pandemic from mask wear to exonerating China as to the virus’s origins.

“The world is gradually waking up to your absurd, arbitrary and fallacious approach in presenting concocted facts as ‘scientific approach.’ While the WHO flaunts itself like a ‘know it all,’ it is akin to the vain Emperor in new clothes while the entire world has realized by now, the Emperor has no clothes at all.”

The brief accused the WHO of being complicit in a vast disinformation campaign. Point 61 states, “The FLCCC and the BIRD have shown exemplary courage in building a formidable force to tackle the challenge of disinformation, resistance, and rebuke from pharma lobbies and powerful health interests like WHO, NIH, CDC, and regulators like the US FDA.”

Dr. Swaminathan was called out for her malfeasance in discrediting Ivermectin to preserve the EUA for the vaccine and pharmaceutical industry. Point 52 reads,  “It seems you have deliberately opted for deaths of people to achieve your ulterior goals, and this is sufficient grounds for criminal prosecution against you.”

The Indian Bar Association posted an update on their website June 5, 2021, noting that Dr. Swaminathan had deleted her now-infamous tweet. They wrote, “However, deleting the tweet will not save Dr. Soumya Swaminathan and her associates from the criminal prosecution which is to be launched by the citizens with active support from the Indian Bar Association.”

In this update, Advocate Dipali Ojha clarified the nature of the planned action,

“The Indian Bar Association has warned action under section 302 etc. of the Indian Penal Code against Dr. Soumya Swaminathan and others, for murder of each person dying due to obstruction in treatment of COVID-19 patient effectively by Ivermectin. Punishment under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is death penalty or life imprisonment.”

He further wrote, “After receiving the said notice, Dr. Soumya Swaminathan went on the back foot and deleted her tweet. This has proved the hollowness of the WHO’s recommendation against Ivermectin for COVID-19. The dishonesty of  WHO and the act of Dr. Soumya Swaminathan in deleting her contentious tweet was witnessed by citizens across the world, as the news got a wide coverage on social media. By deleting the tweet, Dr. Soumya Swaminathan has proved her mala fide intentions.”

The entire world witnessed the effectiveness of Ivermectin against India’s deadly second surge as the locations that adopted it saw their outbreaks quickly extinguished in stark contrast to those states that did not.

Among the most prominent examples include the Ivermectin areas of Delhi, Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, and Goa where cases dropped 98%, 97%, 94%, and 86%, respectively. By contrast, Tamil Nadu opted out of Ivermectin. As a result, their cases skyrocketed and rose to the highest in India. Tamil Nadu deaths increased ten-fold.

Tamil Nadu publicly relied upon Dr. Swaminathan’s advice in revoking their initial choice of Ivermectin the day after she recommended against it in her May 10 tweet on social media. As a direct result, Tamil Nadu experienced a surge in COVID death and sickness that continues to this day.

The Indian Bar Association dared to initiate a landmark court case against a Public Health Authority (PHA) to call out corruption and to save lives. As the courts in the United States proved to be the life-saving force to ensure a patient’s right to receive Ivermectin, a court in India is now doing the same.

Criminal prosecution of public health officials will send a powerful signal that disinformation campaigns resulting in death carry consequences. Perhaps this pathway will ultimately break the disinformation and censorship stranglehold around repurposed drug use to save lives. Maybe we will witness other countries following India’s example, both in medicine and in law.


Justus R. Hope, MD

Sep 172021

Vandana Shiva (born 5 November 1952) is an Indian scholar, environmental activist, physicist, food sovereignty advocate, and anti-globalization author. Based in Delhi, Shiva has written more than 20 books. Shiva founded the Research Foundation for Science, Technology, and Natural Resource Policy (RFSTN), an organization devoted to developing sustainable methods of agriculture, in 1982. She has traveled the world spreading a powerful message of oneness and interconnectedness.

An animated video from After School

Sep 142021


Open Letter to Dr. Bonnie Henry, Adrian Dix, and Premier John Horgan 


We are a group of extremely concerned health professionals in the Okanagan Valley, B.C. We have some critical questions regarding COVID-19, specifically about the current reporting of case numbers, statistics, and testing, and the restrictions imposed by your health orders. While discussion of adjunctive and alternative safe and effective treatments is being stifled, the policies of mandatory experimental vaccines and vaccine passports are being forced upon our province, our country, and many other countries worldwide.


Addressing Dr. Henry, Mr. Dix and Mr. Horgan: We—as healthcare practitioners and citizens—expect and deserve answers that address these concerns directly. Proclaiming that vaccine therapies are “safe and effective” is misleading and sloganistic. The reports of vaccine injuries are increasing every day, yet are being ignored. We are witnessing an increase in Covid illness occurring in fully vaccinated individuals and, irrationally, that is being followed by a promise of mandated boosters.1  The lack of answers and the vague information being provided over the past 18+ months do not instill confidence in British Columbians.


This lack of transparency has resulted in unprecedented divisiveness amongst citizens, families and friends. There are individuals who are angry that some concerned citizens are not complying and are comparing our current circumstances to the Holocaust. While this may seem extreme, the Holocaust also began with the small removal of freedoms2, just as we are seeing today. This historical atrocity started out as a slow and seemingly innocent removal of rights by the government, but quickly morphed into media control, divisiveness between groups of people, and limitations to what one select section of society could do. In this way, the ordinary citizen easily became an enemy of the state. Today a one-sided, politically-driven narrative, which is being fuelled by politicians and the media, is causing a similar divisiveness. When only one side of the story is made available to the public, it is easy to understand how individuals can become disgruntled toward other citizens who are fighting to maintain their freedom and bodily autonomy. A political agenda is clearly being pushed here, and the refusal to address questions and concerns of healthcare practitioners and citizens of B.C. speaks volumes. We hope all of B.C. and Canada will carefully consider the information included in this document and join us in demanding clear, direct and truthful answers.


You must recognize and acknowledge the problems our country faces with our media and with our supposed leaders. We are on a dangerous trajectory and we must STOP —NOW! The media’s control of information and the censorship of knowledgeable and experienced physicians, scientists, and lawyers are preventing access to the two sides of the story. The introduction of “Fact checkers”—who are wholly owned by Big Tech, Big Pharma, and Big Media — being paid to censor anyone who does not support the government narrative. The tools of intimidation, coercion, and bribery are being used to divide our society, and all of this is happening right in front of us. Obviously, this type of behaviour is not a reflection of good people with good ideas; to the contrary, it is criminal activity.


Groups of doctors are forming international networks to investigate public health measures and to raise questions and concerns.[1]  We call on all Canadians to join the rapidly growing movement of ordinary citizens who are standing up against tyranny and violation of our human rights and freedoms!


Please answer the 12 questions below directly, clearly and truthfully, with references to the data from the scientific research on which you are basing your decisions and policies:


1.)DEATH PERSPECTIVE – There are currently ZERO deaths from COVID-19 for ages 12-19 in B.C., and 12 deaths in ALL children aged 0-19 in ALL of Canada


Question: Why are you aggressively pressuring 12 through 19-year-old children to get the experimental COVID-19 vaccine when NO DEATHS have occurred in this age group due to COVID-19 in B.C. to date, according to the B.C. Centre for Disease Control? 4




In general, we have observed extremely low mortality in B.C. and across Canada from COVID-19. As identified in the preceding link, only two COVID-19-related deaths have occurred in the past 18 months in the 0 to 11 age range in BC.


No deaths have occurred in the age range of 12 through 19. In these childhood deaths, the influence of comorbidities was not revealed.


On the BCCDC website[2], in the Situation Report listed below in the footnotes, these statistics can be viewed on page 9.


With only 2 deaths occurring in the 1 million children and adolescents aged 0 to 19 that reside in B.C., why are we even considering mandating vaccinations, masks, isolation, and restrictions at school?


B.C. has a population of 5.17M people. As of August 21, 2021, there have been a total of 1,804 deaths due to—or related to—COVID-19. These deaths occurred over the span of 18+ months dealing with COVID-19 in our province. Further calculation demonstrates that this represents a 0.023% COVID-19 yearly mortality rate for our entire B.C. population.  Does an annual 0.023% risk of death, heavily skewed towards the elderly with comorbidities, justify a mandatory vaccine policy and a vaccine passport?


Moreover, in the age range of 0 to 59, there have been 127 deaths related to or from COVID-19 in the entirety of B.C across an 18+ month duration. Why is this information not being openly shared? Does this data not represent a very different reality than we are being led to believe in the media and in your press conferences?


The total number of people that the Government of Canada says died WITH COVID-19 (not necessarily FROM Covid19) since the beginning of the pandemic, is 26,873 as of September 3, 2021. You can view these numbers directly on the Government of Canada InfoBase website[3], using the link in the footnote (find Figure 7, and change the drop down to “deceased”). There you will find the breakdown of the 26,873 of total COVID-19 deaths by age group in Canada. To see these numbers here, we show both the BC and CANADA total deaths, said to be WITH Covid-19, broken down by age, and the percentage of those deaths by age, over the past 18+ months:

●   Age 0-19 =                   2 (0%)    BC                  12 (0%)        Canada

●     Age 20-29 =                 0 (0%)    BC                  68 (0.3%)     Canada

●    Age 30-39 =                 2 (0%)    BC                152 (0.6%)     Canada

● Age 40-49 =              16 (0.8%)  BC                354 (1.3%)     Canada

● Age 50-59 =              30 (0.16%)BC             1,033 (3.8%)     Canada

● Age 60-69 =              77 (0.4%)  BC             2,620 (9.7%)     Canada

●      Age 70-79 =            178 (9.8%)  BC              5,747 (20.5%)  Canada

● Age 80+ =            1,117 (62%)   BC            17,160 (63.9%)  Canada

Total Deaths =            1,804 (100%) BC            26,872 (100%)   Canada

Total Population = 5,145,851               BC     38,067,903                Canada


It should surprise all Canadians that there has been a total of 12 children between the ages of 0 and 19 across the entire nation that have died WITH (not necessarily FROM) COVID-19 in 18+ months. Co-morbidities have not been made public. With this data, it is reasonable to ask why the government seeks to vaccinate all children to “protect” them? It is obvious that they do not need protection.


If we compare this to the number of 0-19 year olds in Canada who typically die from influenza (the flu) each year, the public health pressure on children to get vaccinated becomes even more troubling.  The only breakdown shown for pediatrics (assuming age 0-16) in Canada showed that 10 children died of the flu in 2018 over a 12 month period.[4]  Data for deaths of children from the flu between the ages of 0 and 19 was not shown, which makes it difficult to precisely compare, but the figures are still telling. According to the Government of Canada, ten children 0-16 years old died from the flu in 12 months versus 12 children who died with COVID-19 over the last 18+ months (proportionately 8 children per 12 months). This means that COVID-19 is less dangerous than the flu for this age group. Why then is the Government pressuring children to get vaccinated?


Given 84.3% of all people who are said to have died with COVID-19 are age 70 and over, and 94% of all people who are said to have died with COVID-19 are age 60 and over, how do you justify applying public health restrictions on the rest of the population?




2.) PCR TESTING – Invalid test used to create fear based on 90%+ false positives

Question: Why are we still using polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests to detect COVID-19 cases in B.C.?



The World Health Organization (WHO) originally stated that PCR tests were the “gold standard” for COVID-19 testing, recommending it as the universal test (as of March 21, 2020 laboratory testing strategy recommendations for COVID-19 interim guidance). Now the WHO admits what scientists have been saying since the beginning of the pandemic, that the PCR test is not an accurate diagnostic tool, and is in fact recommending a completely different testing protocol[5].  Also, the U.S. Centre for Disease Control (CDC) has said that it will ask the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to withdraw its emergency use authorization (EUA) of the PCR test as of December 31, 2021[6].


The entire pandemic and associated restrictions are based upon the number of “cases”; however, the number of “cases” is based upon a positive PCR test result. These PCR tests are falsely inflating the “case” numbers of people who are sick with COVID-19. This creates fear and misleading statistics.


It is important to note that the inventor of the PCR test, Kary Mullis, stated many times that “PCR tests cannot be used to detect viruses”[7].  It is now admitted that the PCR cannot tell the difference between a common cold, the flu, or any virus or variant. Also, the PCR cannot differentiate between live and dead matter meaning whether something is infectious or not.


Additionally, former Pfizer Vice President and Chief Science Officer, Dr. Michael Yeadon announced “…this is nothing but fear-mongering based on junk science and fraud.”[8] He too claims that “almost all” of the tests being conducted for the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) are “false positives”, a phenomenon that has been observed in Florida and around the world.  Yet, we still continue to use PCR tests to manufacture fear and compliance.


Since speaking out, Dr. Yeadon has been censored and smeared in order to prevent the distribution of, and to discredit, the critical information he is sharing. He has risked his reputation, career, and his life to share this information. Dr. Yeadon has joined forces with a group of 160 doctors, who are in agreement with issues of regarding the COVID-19 narrative. [9]  Why would these highly credentialed professionals willingly put themselves in this position, where there is so much to lose, and nothing to gain, other than trying to save people from harm?


Dr. Yeadon’s credentials are impressive and include: BSc (Joint Honours in Biochemistry and Toxicology) PhD (Pharmacology), Formerly Vice President & Chief Scientific Officer Allergy & Respiratory, Pfizer Global R&D; Cofounder & CEO, Ziarco Pharma Ltd.; Independent Consultant (Scientist) (United Kingdom).


It is prohibited under the Genetic Non-Discrimination Act of Canada[10] to require someone to take a genetic test such as the PCR test as a condition of their employment or as condition of providing goods or services to that individual. It is also prohibited for any person to collect, use or disclose the results of a genetic test of an individual without the individual’s written consent. Anyone involved in contravening this law is liable to a fine of up to 5 years in jail and up to a $1,000,000 fine.


We note that all of your health orders contravene this law and that you are encouraging employers and business owners to do the same.  Why aren’t you advising the public of the legal responsibility and consequences under the GNDA?


3.)CASES – An overused term and count that means nothing in the actual diagnosis of disease


Question: What actually constitutes a legitimate COVID-19 case?  



You state a case is confirmed based on a positive PCR test; however, as per Question #2, we know these tests are shown to be inaccurate (90% false positives). Moreover, cycling of PCR tests (often in excess of 35+ amplifications) is being


used incorrectly for the detection of this virus. With the knowledge of these inflated false positives, we absolutely should not be counting these as “cases”.[11]  


4.)SPREAD – Vaccinated individuals spread COVID-19 just as much—or more—than unvaccinated individuals


Question: What science or information are you relying upon when you say in your health orders that unvaccinated individuals are at higher risk than vaccinated persons of being infected with and transmitting COVID-19, or that the presence of an unvaccinated staff member constitutes a health hazard under the Public Health Act?




Several studies as well as CDC data demonstrate evidence that vaccinated persons have high potential to spread the COVID-19 Delta variant [12].  It has been well documented that vaccinated people can—and do—spread the virus.[13]


A recently published medical study found that infection from COVID-19 confers considerably longer lasting and stronger protection against the delta variant than the current vaccines do.[14]  Vaccinated individuals were found to be 27 times more likely to experience a symptomatic COVID-19 infection than those with natural immunity from COVID19.[15]  Why are we discriminating against unvaccinated people, when the spread is clearly happening also amongst vaccinated individuals. Furthermore, those that have had a natural COVID-19 infection have been proven to have longer-term and more robust protection compared to those with the vaccine.[16]


5.)VARIANTS – Vaccines are causing the variants, and the vaccinated are more affected by variant strains than those with naturally conferred immunity


Question: What source are you looking at when you declare that the variant(s) are being caused by unvaccinated individuals?  




Dr. Byram W. Bridle (Professor of Viral Immunology at University of Guelph) explains that similarly to antibiotic resistance, COVID-19 variants are caused by not fully killing the virus, allowing for mutation.[17] Therefore, only individuals who are vaccinated can be creating the variants. As with any variant, as the CDC and WHO also state, mutations lead to a weaker and more transmittable viral strain. That is why the Delta will not have the same potential for causing deaths as the original COVID-19 strain.  As evidenced by Dr. Bridle, the continual application of COVID19 vaccinations, and furthermore boosters, will exacerbate the development of more variants.  Finally, there is no current evidence that suggests that unvaccinated individuals are causing a rise in cases. [18]


6.)VACCINE EFFECTIVENESS – Exposing the true effectiveness rate of vaccines and approval concerns


Question: Why is the inflated Relative Risk Reduction (RRR) of 94.0% utilized in reporting of vaccine effectiveness instead of the Absolute Risk Reduction (ARR) of less than 1.0%?  What information are you relying upon when you say vaccines prevent or reduce the risk of infection with covid-19?



Promoting the RRR instead of the ARR misleads the general population, exacerbating the non-factual concept that these vaccines prevent getting and spreading COVID-19.  The National Library of Medicine website linked below states “… the absence of the ARR in COVID-19 trials can lead to outcome reporting bias that affects the interpretation


of vaccine efficacy.”[19]  Saying that vaccinations are 94.0-95.0% effective is very misleading,[20] as people often assume this means they have a 94.0% chance that they will not become sick from COVID-19. This is not true.


To explain how RRR and ARR works in layman’s terms requires much detail. Simplifying this information, RRR signifies the risk of a health event occurring in a group of vaccinated individuals versus a group of unvaccinated individuals. This number is incorrectly interpreted to represent that 94 out of every 100 people vaccinated will be protected from COVID-19. Although this number is compelling, this is an incorrect statement regarding what that 94% means. This number does not tell you what your chances are of becoming sick if you get vaccinated.


The more valuable and accurate value that needs to be used is that of the ARR. The ARR represents the ACTUAL likelihood of disease risk between the placebo (non-vaccinated individuals) and treatment (vaccinated individuals) groups.


The ARR data directly from Pfizer and Moderna was calculated as 0.7% and 1.1% respectively.  In contrast, the RRR calculated as 95.0% and 94.0% for Pfizer and Moderna, respectively.  See the Abstract in this NIH document that presents the vaccine RRR/ARR data direct from Pfizer and Moderna.[21]


If individuals knew that the current vaccinations only confer a 0.7% to 1.1% reduction in chances of getting ill with COVID-19, would they have still have taken the vaccine given its risks?


It is imperative to clarify that the COVID-19 vaccines do NOT prevent COVID-19, nor do they stop the transmission of COVID-19. The vaccines have only been designed to reduce severity of symptoms in the individual who receives the vaccine.  As previously discussed, the virus is still transmissible by both vaccinated and non-vaccinated individuals. Breakthrough cases are occurring regularly in fully vaccinated individuals at an increasing rate, which is pushing the requirement for booster vaccinations.  The push by Government to require booster vaccinations at this early stage only serves to confirm that the original vaccine program being pushed is failing.[22]


7.) VACCINE SAFETY/INJURY STATS – Missing full details of the magnitude of Vaccine injuries and deaths


Question: Where is the transparency for the current statistics and details regarding counts of B.C. vaccine-related injuries and deaths?




Adverse reaction statistics and data is imperative to ensure that British Columbians can exercise their constitutional right to free and voluntary informed consent. This information should be presented daily, alongside the Covid-19 “case” numbers, so people can decide whether they want to freely accept the experimental vaccinations.  


The Government of Canada Vaccine Injury website states as of September 3, 2021 that 14,101 adverse reactions have been reported. Of those 14,101 reports of adverse reactions there are currently 3,768 reported as serious. “Serious” adverse reactions include death; however, death counts are not separately recorded on this database. [23] Why is there this lack of transparency?


Specifically, on Sept 3rd, a report quietly released by Public Health Ontario reported 106 youth, under the age of 25, were hospitalized with heart inflammation following mRNA vaccination. [24]


These vaccine injuries and deaths are not just in Canada, but all over the world:

  • (EU Vaccine injury:1.9 Million, Vaccine deaths: 20,595)[25]
  • (US Vaccine injury reported in VAERS: 650,075, Vaccine deaths: 13,911)[26]


yet the true numbers are not being disclosed accurately—if at all. Investigations show that very few vaccine injuries and deaths are actually approved and reported to government reporting agencies.29  An article from Harvard states

“manufacturers of vaccines must comply with the more expansive requirements of §600.80 of the C.F.R. Because VAERS is a passive reporting system, many adverse reactions to vaccines may not be reported.” 30


Lastly, the Harvard Pilgrim Study31 states “Likewise, fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported.  Low reporting rates preclude or slow the identification of “problem” drugs and vaccines that endanger public health.”


Dr. Patrick Phillips, an emergency room physician in Ontario stated that the forms are not easy to fill out, and that they are very cumbersome. Dr. Phillips also had a few reports returned to him marked as ‘invalid’.32 It is critical to properly compare the risk of COVID-19 to the risk of vaccine injury knowing they are not fully disclosed.  This is even more important when we see the pharmacies including more warnings on the Vaccines.[27]


A true clinical trial of this vaccine would include transparency where health officers would clearly provide vaccine injury details and fully track these occurrences without hesitation. Without this information and data, proper free and full informed consent cannot occur. The above included links are just some of the reporting systems, but the numbers are still very high and show much more injury than should be acceptable to any PHO or Government.



8.) PASSPORTS –Will NOT be temporary and soon the 2 shots will NOT be sufficient to obtain a valid passport


Question: You have recently stated that vaccine passports will be temporary, expiring at the end of January 2022.  However, with 1 billion dollars being offered as an incentive by the Government of Canada[28] for provinces who implement this system, it is hard to imagine this system will be scrapped by January 31, 2022, after only 5 months of use.  It is difficult to rely on your statement given what you said on May 25, 2021on television (see 2:52 into the video):


…there is no way that we will recommend inequities be increased by use of things like vaccine passports for services, for public access here in British Columbia, and that’s my advice and I’ve got support from the Premier and I have talked about this Minister Dix and others.” [29]


Prime Minister Trudeau made a similar commitment to Canadians on January 14, 2021 (see 3:30 into the same video).


Current studies (footnoted earlier) show that vaccinated individuals spread COVID-19 as well.  This begs the question, if all people spread the virus why are we segregating people?


While it is understandable that fully vaccinated individuals are looking forward to getting their passport so life “can go back to normal” or so they “can travel”, they should be made aware that once a booster is mandated, their passport will no longer be considered valid until they are post 7 days after receiving a booster.  Countries around that world that are implementing booster programs are already indicating that boosters will be needed to maintain a valid and up-to-date vaccine passport. [30] The booster system will ensure that this vicious cycle never ends and one will need regular boosters of the vaccine to keep their passport valid.


9.)TREATMENTS – There are better inpatient and at home treatments that can reduce illness severity and death


Question: Why are we not using approved and well-researched antivirals like FDA approved Ivermectin? 26 Why are we providing no out-patient treatment for at home use when other doctors in many countries are successfully doing so?




Doctors are avoiding or being prohibited from prescribing pharmaceuticals that are known to help with COVID-19 symptoms that are safe, such as Ivermectin. The negative spin being put on Ivermectin by mainstream media, that it is


only used in horses, is not true. These statements being made about Ivermectin are malicious and false as it has been safely and effectively used for years in humans.37  In 2015 William C. Campbell, emeritus research fellow at Drew University in Madison, New Jersey and Satoshi Omura, professor emeritus at Kitasato University in Japan, jointly received one half of the Nobel Prize for their work with Ivermectin that was discovered in 1975 and approved for safe use in humans in 1987.  In delivering his Nobel Prize lecture on December 7, 2015, Dr. Campbell confirmed the safety and effectiveness of using Ivermectin in humans, and noted that part of the ground breaking research was done in partnership with the WHO, the World Bank, and others.38   It was noted that because of its excellent safety profile and broad spectrum of activity, Ivermectin was catalogued by the World Health Organization as an essential medicine and is regarded by many as a “magic bullet” for global health. 39


On February 9, 2021, the chairman of the Tokyo Medical Association, Haruo Ozaki, announced that Ivermectin seemed to be effective at stopping Covid 19 and publicly recommended that all doctors in Japan immediately begin using Ivermectin to treat Covid 19.40


It is interesting to note that only since the covid-19 pandemic began has the WHO changed its stance on the effectiveness of Ivermectin. While the WHO still admits that Ivermectin is on its essential medicines list (and therefore safe), the WHO now simply says that the evidence to support using Ivermectin as an effective treatment for Covid 19 is inconclusive, and that the guideline development group that they convened did not look at the use of Ivermectin to prevent Covid 19. One can only speculate as to why this group was not asked to look at that essential question. The WHO only says that this question was outside the scope of the current guidelines.41 It would seem that these much more expensive, experimental vaccines that were rushed to market under an emergency use authorization only, without proper testing and scrutiny, would be at least as inconclusive as the safe, tried and tested Ivermectin.


Additionally, Hydroxychloroquine is an approved and well-known treatment.  Medical professionals have been coerced and forced to prescribe less efficacious, and even harmful, drugs. Deaths associated with adverse drug events (i.e. related to the use of Remdesivir[31]) should be considered as a separate count from COVID-19 deaths, as those deaths could have been avoided if these effective pharmaceuticals were implemented in a timely manner.


Simple home remedies such as zinc, vitamin D, vitamin C, N-acetylcysteine, and quercetin are also well known and effective at helping COVID-19 patients to recover43. Dr. Vladimir Zev Zelenko has led the way with these treatments. In contrast, many doctors are still sending patients with COVID-19 home without any of these treatment options.


Why have you not promoted other effective treatment apart from the experimental vaccines, or even healthy lifestyle choices and vitamin D, since it is clear that obesity, high blood pressure and inactivity were largely responsible for COVID-19 related deaths? The opposite has happened with your policies of lockdowns, closures of parks, gyms, and sports programs, and the creation of fear and anxiety through constant media messaging. These all lower the function of the immune system and increase blood pressure, which are undesirable outcomes.




Question: Whyhave you made the definition of vaccinated and unvaccinated in your public health orders so misleading and contrary to common understanding? Why do use different definitions of what it means to be “vaccinated” in your different health orders that are still in effect?




In your August 20, 2021 provincial health order, which has already gone missing from the B.C. government website, you define “vaccinated” as any individual who is 14 days post receipt of the full series of a WHO approved vaccine, or combination of approved WHO vaccines. This means that anyone who is sick or hospitalized with COVID-19 within 13 days of their 2nd shot is considered “unvaccinated”.  This is just like people who have had one shot, and are counted in


the statistics that you put forth. These definitions are very misleading and help promote the false narrative that the unvaccinated are driving the upward trend of “cases”.


You alluded to the fact that boosters are likely to be required in B.C., at least for certain populations. As we are witnessing the rollout in other countries, we predict that the plan will be to require everyone to have a booster, or several boosters, eventually. Once 2 shots are no longer what is recommended as a full series of COVID-19 vaccines approved by the WHO, then no British Columbian will be considered “vaccinated” until a booster vaccine is taken.


Also, it has been noted that the WHO does not approve of mixing and matching vaccines. This is contrary to your definition of “vaccinated” in your current health order wherein you do approve of this practice. The WHO says this should not be done unless supportive evidence is available. What evidence are you relying upon to tell British Columbians that mixing and matching of COVID-19 vaccines is acceptable or safe?   The WHO recommends that if someone has mixed and matched 2 different vaccines, no additional doses of either vaccine should be administered to that person.[32] Why are you ignoring this advice?  What science are you relying upon?


Finally, Dr. Bonnie Henry, you quietly issued an additional health order on August 31, 2021 [33], replacing the August 20, 2021 health order. The new order issued on August 31, 2021 removed some terms and added others which included changing the definition of “vaccinated” from 14 days post a full series of vaccination approved by the WHO, down to 7 days post-vaccination of an approved full series of WHO approved vaccines. Your September 2, 2021 Residential Care Staff Covid-19 Preventative Measures health order[34] uses the same 7 day period. What science are you relying on to justify this change, as you have previously stated that it requires 14 days for the vaccines to work?



11.)  TESTING ONLY UNVACCINATED INDIVIDUALS —August 20, 2021, August 31, 2021 and September 2, 2021 Health Orders


Question: In your public health order dated August 20, 2021—and now August 31, 2021 and September 2, 2021 —you are only requiring unvaccinated individuals to undergo rapid antigen testing and PCR testing. In light of the evidence and scientific research showing that vaccinated individuals are significantly more likely to contract the Delta variant than unvaccinated individuals[35]. You also say in your September 2, 2021 health order that you will not allow any staff member to be hired after October 11, 2021 unless they meet your definition of “vaccinated”. What science are you relying on to justify this policy of testing and discriminating against unvaccinated citizens?




You continue to state that you are following the science, however, you have yet to provide ANY reference to the science you are following despite being asked for this information numerous times over the last 18+ months. We demand that you be transparent and honest with the public you serve by posting the scientific studies and data you are relying upon to support your policies and health orders on the BC government website alongside your public health orders so we can review this information.


12.)  MASKS – under OATH Dr. Bonnie Henry admitted that there is scant evidence that masks are effective at preventing spread of the influenza virus but felt that can be an effective coercive tool when staff refuse to accept a vaccine


Question:  Where is the evidence that your mask mandates in your health orders actually work?  You define “face coverings” in your September 2, 2021 health order[36] as including a medical mask, or a non-medical mask, or a tightly woven fabric but does not include a clear plastic face shield.  Where is the evidence that a non-medical mask, or a piece of tightly woven fabric, is an effective means of preventing the spread of a virus?




Dr. Henry’s testimony under oath in 2015 [37] in an arbitration hearing in Ontario as an expert witness for the Sault Area Hospital (SAH) and the Ontario Hospital Association (OHA) against the Ontario Nurses Association (ONA) is informative. The issue in that arbitration was that the hospital required healthcare workers to wear surgical/procedure masks each year throughout the 5 to 6 month flu season if they had not received the vaccination for influenza. The Nurses Union alleged that the policy was an unreasonable exercise of management rights and a breach of employee privacy rights.  At the time that Dr. Henry advocated in favor of the policy, she was the Deputy Provincial Health Officer for British Columbia.


Dr. Henry’s testimony in that arbitration hearing is eerily similar to the narrative she has been telling British Columbians about the Covid 19 virus. Dr. Henry was a strong proponent that there was asymptomatic spread, that unvaccinated nurses and healthcare workers should wear masks, and supported mandating forcing employees to wear masks as a consequence of choosing not to get the vaccine.


On cross-examination Dr. Henry reluctantly admitted (at paragraph 161 of the arbitration decision) that there was not a lot of evidence to support the suggestion that asymptomatic shedding actually leads to effective transmission of the virus.


At paragraph 178 of the arbitration decision, the arbitrator notes that Dr. Henry concluded after admitting that “I am not a huge fan of the masking piece”, that “there is not a lot of evidence to support mask use…”


At Paragraph 219 Dr. Henry’s evidence is summarized in part as follows:


It is a challenging issue and we have wrestled with it. I am not a huge fan of the masking piece. I think it was felt to be a reasonable alternative where there was a need to do-to feel that we were doing the best we can to try and reduce risk. I tried to be quite clear in my report that the evidence to support masking is not as great and it is certainly not as good a measure.


In the arbitration, the Nurses Union submitted that Dr. Henry was instrumental in the introduction of the “vaccinate or mask” policy in British Columbia (paragraph 256) and therefore Dr. Henry’s objectivity was suspect. The arbitrator preferred the evidence of other experts over Dr. Henry and her colleagues’ evidence.


The arbitrator noted that Dr. Henry defended the vaccine or mask policies as a way of preventing transmission from unvaccinated healthcare workers to their patients before symptom onset, or in cases of asymptomatic infection (paragraph 287). However, the arbitrator also noted (at paragraph 294) that while Dr. Henry stated there was “some evidence that people shed prior to being symptomatic and some evidence of transmission” but “there is not a lot of evidence around these pieces”. Two other experts who testified on behalf of the hospital, one of whom Dr. Henry acknowledged her expertise, both admitted that the evidence of asymptomatic spread was “scant”.


The arbitrator held (at paragraph 297), while “bearing in mind the concessions made about the quality of the evidence by Dr. McGeer and Dr. Henry”, that the following opinion of another expert was more accurate:


Although symptomatic individuals may shed influenza virus, studies have not determined if such people effectively transmit influenza… Based on the available literature, we found that there is scant, if any, evidence that asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic individuals play an important role in transmission.”


The arbitrator held that the patient safety purpose and effect of masking was not established on the evidence and that the “vaccine or mask” requirement was reduced to a “coercive tool”, a situation that would be troubling if made out. The arbitrator also noted (at paragraph 326) Dr. Henry’s recognition that the wearing of a mass could be reasonably regarded as a “consequence” for failure to consent to vaccination.


The arbitrator concluded (paragraph 327) that the vaccine or mask policy did not provide a legitimate accommodative purpose for healthcare workers who conscientiously object to immunization, but rather more closely resembled an unacceptable Hobson’s choice (free choice). The arbitrator did not accept the argument that requiring unvaccinated staff to wear a mask may encourage truly voluntary immunization, nor did the arbitrator accept that the continuance of the minority employee group who choose to mask disproves the effectively coercive aspect of a vaccine or mask policy. The arbitrator noted that one of the nurses told her managers that “I felt I was being publicly put on display for choosing not to get the flu shot. I told her I felt I was being bullied into it and harassed.”


The arbitrator concluded that the vaccine or mask policy was unreasonable and contravened KVP principles. Similar findings were made by another arbitrator in 2018 involving the St. Michael’s Hospital and the Ontario Hospital Association v. The Ontario Nurses Association.50 51


The vaccine or mask policy in issue in the Ontario Nurses arbitrations is very similar to what is going on in British Columbia with covid-19. Just as the arbitrator found that a masking policy amounted to a coercive tool that was troubling, your policies requiring rapid antigen testing, PCR testing, and masking as a condition of employment, is nothing more than a coercive tool to pressure people to accept the experimental vaccine. As the arbitrator held in 2015, a policy with this purpose is “troubling”.


You stated numerous times in your television briefings in 2020 that masks were not effective at preventing the spread of the Covid 19 virus. [38] Now you claim that masks do work and that you never said they did not. There is a glaring discrepancy between the statements that you made under oath in 2015, and in your television briefings in 2020, compared to what you are saying now in your current health orders in 2021.


Please refer to the additional published studies confirming masks are not effective.[39] [40] Also, Dr. Byram Bridle’s video also demonstrates that wearing 5 masks do not stop droplets from escaping and certainly do not prevent the Covid-19 virus from passing through a non-medical mask or tightly woven clothing.[41]


Requiring people to wear masks harms the user by reducing availability of oxygen, increasing bacterial growth within the fabric of the masks, leads to social issues for individuals that cannot mask for medical reasons, creates waste of materials and money, and contributes to further pollution and negative environmental impact.


Please provide the evidence you are relying upon that prove masks work.


Call To Action:


Dr. Henry, Mr. Dix and Mr. Horgan, the citizens of this province call on you to answer to these questions, directly and truthfully.

British Columbians will no longer tolerate the trampling of our rights, segregation, and division amongst neighbors and families.  We respect different perspectives and opinions; however, everyone deserves to see the scientific evidence you are relying upon to justify your public health orders.  All British Columbians thank you in advance for your much-anticipated response.


To our fellow British Columbians, you are our friends and family, and we need you to carefully consider the information above and be open to what is being said. We urge you to join us in fighting for the restoration of our freedoms and putting an end to the restrictions that have no basis in science and are designed only to promote fear and division and to give the government control over our lives.


Now is the time to take a stand, before it is too late.


Please share this with all your friends, family, media and everyone you can think of.


Voices Of Silenced Okanagan Health Professionals

A concerned group of health professionals who choose to remain anonymous due to threats of discipline and termination, by our own various professional governing bodies, for all who dare to question the B.C. government narrative on COVID-19 policies.

All of the documentation and websites linked in the footnotes have been archived to preserve their contents.


50 51


children?utm_campaign=Daily%20Newsletter%3A%20130%2B%20UK%20Doctors%3A%20Failed%20COVID%20Policies%20Caused%20 %27Massive%27%20Harm%2C%20Especially%20to%20Children%20%28XumiVc%29&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Daily%20Newsl etter&_kx=PGxyCCxqAWnu4Hn6Ma46U0jfSKIocNqXrYAOgMHa4CsbyAo46hRNXEjcRJUBbL.K2vXAy












[13] s/5753908?pdf=5753908&fbclid=IwAR3oPOpu9TA8VlKGYmSyGWvUa8BHwwSnEQgDfGMPq6p2qSXBkzCyrGEbiGA



















[31] 43













Sep 142021

IN PROTECTION OF THIS WOMAN, Corporal Adrienne Gilvesy,  I say Use simple, common sense.   If we provide the ammunition to paint ourselves as far-right or crazies, we simultaneously paint her.  What she is doing is pretty incredible.  She needs all possible support from us.

2021-09-09 Julius Ruechel: Under the Shadow of Damocles’ Sword: Forcing Employers to Put Their Fingerprints on Tyranny

(an update on Constable Adrienne Gilvesy’s fight against mandatory vaccination)

The “expert”  who was on CBC Radio Cross-Country Checkup (09-12) says:  the protestors are an evolution of “the far-right” (link appended).  The effect is to dismiss us; and the Corporal.

If you speak in public, Be Strategic.  Use simple, common sense.  Do not give ammo to the Believers to use against the protestors.  But still speak up . . .

SENT TO CBC, to  Ian Hanomansing, CBC host X-Country Checkup & TV National News Anchor, Vanc.

Questioning the disruptors;  the protest messages against vaccines and vaccine passports

A.     TEST THIS HYPOTHESIS   Among the resistors, people with a central European accent are noticeable as a sub-group.  (My observation.)

If true, why might that be? . . .   People who have relatively recent, family experience with authoritarian regimes will obviously be more alert to the step-by-step erosions of democracy that bring about corporatist (fascist) governance.  

The Soviet Union occupied Hungary in World War II . . . resistance to communist authorities was met with violence. In 1945–46, some 35,000 people were arrested on political grounds and 1,000 of them executed or tortured to death. Another 55,000 were detained in concentration camps.

. . .  During the 1956 revolution, . . . At least 2,500 Hungarians died in clashes and 200,000 fled the country. Communist authorities arrested some 26,000 people and 350 were executed.

B.     You will know the Nuremberg trials and may know the sub-group of “doctors trials”.

I might join a growing group in my area (currently more than 200) who insist on the Rule of Law.

WHY might I join? 

1.     Because there are valid and IMPORTANT questions about the vaccines and the vaccine passports.

2.     It’s what we learned about LGBTQ2, Indigenous, res school survivors, Latinos, growing number of people on the wrong side of the wealth gap: they need to be included in the public debate.

THE PUBLIC DISCUSSION TODAY ABOUT VACCINES AND VACCINE PASSPORTS EXCLUDES THE PEOPLE IT DENIGRATES, like those of Central European ancestry.  You do not want to hear the valid and important questions.

It is easier to stereotype and marginalize.  Sure, there are nutcases who provide the fodder. And narcissists who only think of themselves.   (I remember the narcissists of “Wall Street”, 2007-08 meltdown. They who are let off the hook; whose fortunes once again soar.)

3.      I think there is a THIRD REASON for the UNREST:

Individuals will put up with a lot, until one day comes “the straw that breaks the camel’s back”.

Inside, there is long-standing anger because the public interest goes unattended.  Most people can rhyme off a litany of examples.  Vaccine passports are A TIPPING POINT.


Let me use water as an example, for no reason other than it’s fresh;

I put together the IMPLICATIONS FOR CANADA of

(2021-08-30)  40 Million People Rely on the Colorado River, But It’s Drying Up Fast. WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?


You should read it.  An included link speaks more directly to the deterioration of civil society.

It’s not because of a group of people who are marginalized as “vermin”.

It’s because there has been a coup d’état.  A corporatocracy, a technocracy, an oligarchy has infiltrated and taken over Governance.  They govern for THEIR benefit.  The water situation in the U.S. will be resolved when control of water is in corporate hands.  (Canadian H2O, for profit and for export).

There is lots of money to be made, as there has been in oil and gas; as there is in mandated vaccination funded by the deep pockets of the public.   

Eventually people understand what’s going on, not only in water. Serious public interest problems are not resolved.  Simply because it’s not in the interests of the oligarchy to do so.  Their resolution involves control, and violence if necessary.  The “how” of control is understood by central Europeans with memory of communist tyranny.

See:   2008-05-30   Connection between state of police and America wants our water       (

For your consideration,    Sandra Finley

APPENDED.    “The Expert”:

Protests at Trudeau rallies an evolution of far-right ideology, says expert

The statement puts me into kinks of laughter!  (Thank-you because I like to laugh!)


Sep 112021

From: Lyle

Sent: September 9, 2021

Subject: Julius Ruechel: Under the Shadow of Damocles’ Sword: Forcing Employers to Put Their Fingerprints on Tyranny (an update on Constable Adrienne Gilvesy’s fight against mandatory vaccination)

FYI …. A look at the issues around mandatory vaccination and a court challenge by a Toronto police service employee.  Just came across this Julius guy, haven’t “checked” him out?


Reply to Lyle

Thanks for sending the link Lyle.

To me, what Julius Ruechel says is right.

And Constable Adrienne Gilvesy’s actions are incredibly difficult to carry out.

She is putting herself at big risk.  UNLESS huge numbers of people speak out loud in her defence – – make her case heard.

She is otherwise at the whim of those above her in the pecking order.

Those were, and are, the ultimate betrayers of a free society – – not only in nazi Germany.


I read the “who am I?” of this blogger – – Julius Ruechel.  Interesting.

I’ll forward this to as many others as I can.




Sep 082021

With Quebec’s vaccine passport officially launching on Sept. 1, thousands took to the streets in protest against the province’s mandate this past weekend.