Sandra Finley

2024-02-27 Letter to Editor, what it’s like living in Cape Breton with an electric vehicle. (Tell Trudeau and the RCMP!) From the Inverness Oran.

 Climate  No Responses »
May 312024
 
Government narrative versus reality
The last thing we should be pushing for is to phase out internal combustion engine vehicles by 2035 in Canada. Yes, we absolutely have to take better care of our planet, but EVs make zero sense in the real world.
Letter: First-hand EV owner’s experience

Dear Editor,

I am writing in response to a letter in the February 14th publication entitled, “Benefits of Electric Vehicles.”  My husband and I drive a 2021 Long Range Tesla Model 3. My hope is to shed some light on what it is like living in Inverness County with an electric vehicle.

For a bit of context, I am not your run-of-the-mill naysayer. We’ve been driving an EV for the last three years, we are organic farmers, we lived in a fully off-grid, solar powered home for eight years, and we attended that big Greta Thunberg inspired climate change march in Halifax back in 2019.

I feel slightly embarrassed about sharing this so publicly because I truly feel that we got duped by clever and persuasive EV/doomsday marketing.

After reading Paul Strome’s letter, featuring all those key marketing points, I felt compelled to write in. Here is our electric car experience:

2021 – Rosy new car: Wow! This is great!
– The car was more expensive up front, but it only costs about $14 to “fill the tank” and we can conveniently charge with our Level 2 charger at home whenever we want. That will more than make up for the initial cost over time, considering the price of gas!
– No pesky oil changes and Tesla’s titanium shield under the car means no repairs due to rust! Great – more savings!
– When going to Halifax, we need to recharge at the Enfield Supercharger. Recharging takes 18 minutes, but no big deal: bathroom break, stretch your legs, get a coffee; just minor adjustments to how we drove with a gas car.
Not-so-nice realizations from year one:
– The undulating, electric hum while the car charges for seven hours permeates our entire home and yard. Is that healthy?
– Needing to exit the vehicle for 20 minutes at the Supercharger because it feels very unhealthy to be in such a high voltage environment while it’s charging. Rain, shine, snow or sleet – Everybody out!
– Learning that every time you recharge the battery, the battery life decreases. It actually can damage the battery to charge to 100 per cent and it is advised that you don’t charge more than 80 per cent for day-to-day use.
2022 – One-year-old car:
– Can still make it to Sydney and back, but we shouldn’t make many detours if we want to make it home again. Having to stop in Baddeck for two hours to “juice up” just to make the 40-minute journey home doesn’t make much sense…
– Can still make it to the Enfield Supercharger when going to Halifax, but no detours. Stick to the highway or else.
Christmas 2023 – 2.5-year-old car:
Heading to the Valley Christmas Eve (outside temperature is -5oC).
– “I don’t think we’re going to make it to the Supercharger…” “What the heck! We’re definitely not going to make it!” The whole family, plus two dogs, wandered around Truro for 1.5 hours, in the cold twilight while charging just enough to make it to the Enfield Supercharger.
– With everyone’s spirits low, we wander around the Enfield Big Stop parking lot in the cold while the car charges for 35 minutes. Can’t bring the dogs into Timmy’s and staying in the car while it’s charging feels like every hair on your body is getting charged up too.
– Charge up again at the New Minas Supercharger, just in case, because the wall plug at Grandma’s takes days to charge the car and we can’t believe how poorly the car is performing.
Coming home after Christmas:
– Leave Middleton. Stop at the Supercharger in New Minas for 10 minutes to add some charge. Everyone out into the cold!
– Leave New Minas. Stop in Enfield to fully recharge for 35 minutes. Everybody out into the cold: Kids, dogs; everyone. It’s windy and half raining/half snowing. How wonderfully modern and convenient it is to drive an EV!
– Make it back home with six per cent. Phew!
January 2024 – 2.5-year-old car:
– 10oC, but dropping, so range is dropping too.
– Husband arrives at Enfield Supercharger. Relief!
– Enfield supercharger is down. Neither the car nor Telsa phone app notified him; 9:00 p.m. on a Sunday. No indication of when/if the charger will turn on again. Car is at three per cent. Not enough power to keep the heat on, let alone drive to a motel. Other EV drivers there are all cursing their cars and their decisions…
– After an hour of being stranded, the chargers come online again.
– 60 minutes to recharge after going so low and it being so cold out. Two hours, stuck at the Enfield Big Stop!
February 2024 (last week) – 2.5-year-old car
– We are driving home from the airport. I’m driving my 2012 Toyota Matrix (680 km/tank). I have to go pick up the dogs from the boarder, just outside Antigonish. It’s too big of a detour for the “Long Range” Tesla to handle.
– Even with that detour, I make it home first. The Tesla took 60 minutes to charge in Enfield. It takes longer to charge a cold battery, but surely they should be home by now…
– My husband finally made it home. He crawled home, with the heat turned off, because he was trying to conserve power. Made it home with six per cent.
We’ve looked into it: There is nothing wrong with our car. This is just the natural diminishing of an EV battery over time, combined with fairly mild NS winter driving.

This is what range anxiety looks like! It is not, as Paul Strome so kindly put it, “for those drivers who have trouble paying attention to their fuel gauge.” Range anxiety means constantly paying attention to your fuel gauge and crossing your fingers and toes, hoping you’re going to make it! It’s leaving home with a “full tank” to go 290 km and worrying about not arriving!

The February 14th letter features all of the dealership, government, and activist talking points. None of it is based on the real life experience of a rural EV owner. The “official range” of EVs is not based in reality. Only on the first day out of the factory (if it’s sunny, with no wind, temps between 15-20oC, on a straight stretch road with no hills) would our car ever live up to its range expectations.

Speaking as a former climate change activist and current EV driver, I can only see EVs working if you live in a big city and never plan on leaving that big city.

The last thing we should be pushing for is to phase out internal combustion engine vehicles by 2035 in Canada. Yes, we absolutely have to take better care of our planet, but EVs make zero sense in the real world.

Hilary Mueller
Mabou

2024-05-29 Lawsuit alleges feds, Alberta government used ‘illegal practices’ to push COVID-19 vaccines, By Linda Slobodian, Western Standard

 Vaccinations (incl corruption of science & govt)  No Responses »
May 312024
 
Slobodian provides details of the allegations made in the court documents.   Damning.

Linda Slobodian

Millions of taxpayer dollars were spent on a relentless barrage of pro-COVID-19 vaccine campaigns and messages devised to build a “relationship of trust” between governments and a “vulnerable and afraid” public facing a global pandemic.

The vaccines are safe and effective. They’ll reduce transmission. Mix and match ‘em. Trust the science. We are in it together. This is our Shot of Hope. Or so they said, over and over to convince the public to take the jabs.

Coercion accompanied fear and guilt tactics to force the hesitant to take the jab and booster shots.

People complied for fear of getting or spreading COVID-19 or being “stripped of their rights” for refusing. Bodily autonomy, informed consent, and alternate treatments were cast aside. Sinister threats of punitive fines, jail, and lost jobs contributed to the fear.

The pandemic — the jury’s still out if it in fact it was that — ended, but different fears torment many now.

They’re the crippling kind associated with dealing with COVID-19 vaccine injuries, many severe, debilitating, and permanent.

That relationship of trust is permanently shattered. The jabs pushed on the public proved not to be safe and effective for many, after all. How did this happen?

Illegal practices were used to enforce the experimental vaccines, alleges a class action lawsuit targeting the Alberta and federal governments by Rath & Company law firm on behalf of Albertans.

It seeks justice and compensation for Albertans who “suffered physical and psychological injuries or death” due to alleged negligence and misconduct by the defendants it aims to hold accountable over the COVID-19 vaccines.

Most of the vaccine pushers still hold their positions of power and jobs — while countless vaccine-injured can never work again.

Lead counsel Jeffrey Rath wants them hauled into court. The onus is on them to disprove the lawsuit’s allegations of unlawful, inadequate, improper, unfair, and deceptive practices in relation to the warning, marketing, promotion, and distribution of the COVID-19 vaccine injection products. And to prove the pro-vax campaigns weren’t “false, misleading and deceptive.”

A claim filed by Rath’s firm in Court of King’s Bench in Lethbridge a year ago on behalf of permanently “horribly vaccine-injured” mother Carrie Sakamoto named several defendants. It was amended on February 29 to name only the Alberta and federal governments “to move it forward quickly,” said Rath.

“What’s unique in these amendments and what we’re focussing on is the degree to which the Government of Canada and the Government of Alberta jointly conspired to keep information from the public with regard to the safety of these COVID injections and COVID injection products.”

“It’s now going to proceed as a class action lawsuit on behalf of every vaccine injured person in Alberta.”

Sakamoto is listed as the class representative for the lawsuit. More than 150 people qualify to join, but “the number changes every day as more people contact us.”

“We’ve been contacted by hundreds of Albertans who are vaccine injured.”

The “rushed changes” to COVID-19 vaccines safety standards removing the requirement for the vaccines to be safe and effective will shock Canadians, said Rath.

“The defendants didn’t stop there — they went further by coercion of the public to take the COVID vaccines by stripping rights from them or providing financial incentives for taking the COVID vaccines,” the suit reads.

The lawsuit claims both governments provided false, incomplete information and censored truthful, reliable information about injuries. The applicants allege they were denied informed consent and experienced harm.

Therefore, the lawsuit alleges “misfeasance in public office and conspiracy to commit assault and battery on the public.”

Allegations lead to one pressing question. Who was the government looking out for? Vaccine manufacturers or Canadians?

Co-counsel Eva Chipiuk noted the Canadian government conceded the contracts with the vaccine manufacturers were rushed, didn’t contain normal standards, and provided additional indemnities favouring them.

“The defendants held themselves out as public health experts and gave medical advice to the public at large,” said Chipiuk.

“They intentionally set out to build a relationship of trust between themselves and the public during the pandemic at a time when they knew the public was vulnerable and afraid.”

They “knew or ought to have known that the public would be relying on their information for their health, safety and protection” when the vaccines rolled out.

Rath said the lawsuit is specifically based on information Liberal MP Anthony Housefather provided to the House of Commons health committee. That being the vaccine supply contracts specifically stated the manufacturers “do not guarantee the vaccine products for safety because they were rushed to market on an emergency basis,” said Rath.

And that government would have a hard time getting Canadians to take the vaccines if they knew they weren’t warranted for safety by manufacturers who “insisted that the Canadian government provide them an indemnity in the event that they were sued by any Canadian injured by these vaccines.”

Rath’s position is that withholding information that would have informed any rational person’s decision — including any rational parent to have their child vaccinated — amounts to the Alberta and federal government “conspiring to hide safety information from the public.” Therefore, in the “classical sense of medical malpractice law” they were made victim of assault and battery or conspiracy to commit assault and battery.

According to the statement of claim Health Canada negligently approved the vaccines under an expedited process allowing manufacturers to apply for authorization for their sale and distribution without the completion of all long-term safety studies or commitment to review new evidence as it become available.

The suit says defendants knew, or ought to have known, the vaccines were neither safe or effective because of reports of injury and harms and access to information from the manufacturers. Yet they never disclosed the information to the public or physicians; censored and suppressed information relating to adverse events and injuries; and continued to market, promote, and distribute them as a “safe and effective.”

The defendants “collective conduct” to suppress this information “interfered with the public’s ability to exercise their right to informed consent to medical treatment,” it says.

The lawsuit also states that as data about adverse events became available the “defendants, collectively or individually, should have taken steps to withdraw the COVID vaccines from public use or advise the public of the risk of injury and death associated with these products.”

The Federal defendant’s “lack of action in not recalling or pausing” the vaccines or releasing supply contracts when manufacturers stated the products were not warranted for safety was negligence and in bad faith — especially considering it acknowledged vaccine injury and “patterns of excess unknown deaths emerging in Canada and around the world.”

A February global study of 99 million COVID-19 vaccinated individuals identified shocking increases in numerous neurological, heart-related and blood conditions.

Yet, even now, federal and provincial health sites still promote vaccinations for children six months and older.

The defendants either “negligently” or “intentionally” advised the public that they could mix-and-match” vaccines without scientific basis or evidence that this immunization strategy was “safe, effective or appropriate.” The World Health Organization (WHO) warned this approach was a “dangerous trend.”

Both Canadian and global data showed a “concerning trend in excess deaths” after the vaccines were rolled out. By February 2021 the defendants “knew or ought to have known” the vaccines were the cause of substantial increased serious adverse events and deaths.

“The leading cause of death in Alberta was ‘unknown’ following the rollout of the vaccines. Yet public health authorities and regulatory bodies in Canada or Alberta have not been able to explain this increase in ‘unknown’ deaths.

It’s time they explained.

The allegations are potentially damning. One would think the defendants would stampede into court to clear things up.

Well, no.

“Lawyers for the Government of Canada have pulled out their playbook and are taking all of the normal steps taken to delay the proceedings,” said Rath.

They must answer for the “many Albertans inoculated with the COVID vaccines” that suffered “serious, life-threatening and even fatal consequences.”

This is just one class action lawsuit filed across Canada. That barrage of pro-vaccine propaganda has been replaced by a barrage of demands for accountability.

Lives have been left in painful ruins.

– – – – – – – – – –

RELATED POSTINGS

2021-10-05 Lawyer Jeffrey Rath, letter to College of Physicians and Surgeons demanding resignations over mandated vaccines, Melanie Risdon, Western Standard

2024-03-07 Covid. Law firm confronts government over vaccine misinformation in landmark legal case. Tamara Ugolini, Rebel News

2023-09-18 Class action lawsuit launched against the Government of Alberta, COVID restrictions

2024-05-29 World Health Organization’s global health expansion sparks sovereignty concerns in Geneva, by Tamara Ugolini, Rebel News

 Vaccinations (incl corruption of science & govt)  No Responses »
May 312024
 

NOTE:

2023-04-27   NCI: Lt. Col. David Redman, testimony. Retired Colonel chronicles the deliberate disregard of a long established plan for government to manage and mitigate a pandemic.

World Health Organization’s global health expansion sparks sovereignty concerns in Geneva

Unelected health necromancers are meeting at the World Health Assembly in Geneva, Switzerland this week to strengthen the World Health Organization’s global health powers through amendments to international law and the formalization of a new pandemic agreement.

The global gathering of unelected health dictators began this week in Geneva, Switzerland at the 77th annual World Health Assembly (WHA), the World Health Organization’s (WHO) decision-making body.

This year’s theme is All for Health, Health for All. Some “pivotal moments are anticipated” from this year’s gathering, described as “the Pandemic prevention, preparedness and response accord and the amendments to the International Health Regulations.” It’s an apparent “concerted effort by member states to bolster global preparedness and response mechanisms.”

As Canadian MP Leslyn Lewis previously pointed out in a letter to Liberal Minister of Health Mark Holland, doing so would cede health authority to the WHO and erode national health sovereignty in times of emergency. Those emergencies are declared at the whim of WHO Director-General Tedros Ghebreyesus anytime he believes there to be a “public health emergency of international concern.”

With the development of the elusive “Disease X” as a “placeholder” for future pandemics, it’s anything goes.

Lewis notes that things like the pandemic treaty, or accord, would require Canada to adopt pandemic response measures as prescribed by the WHO – something that we did during the COVID-19 response, disregarding previously well-established and evidence-based pandemic response plans implemented by various EMOs, or emergency management organizations:

Lewis also notes that any voting on changes to existing international law, through the WHO’s proposed amendments to established International Health Regulations (IHR), would be done without due process. Member states are required to have four months to consider any changes, according to Article 55 of the IHR itself. She also rightfully points out that the Canadian delegates present at the WHA would be acting outside their scope even to consider these changes to legally binding international law.

With approximately 300 sweeping proposed changes, the amendments would see a strengthening of the WHO’s health emergency powers and as Bill Gates – the 2nd largest funder of the WHO – previously put it, countries will comply and be graded, or risk being blamed for future pandemics.

 

 

In a leaked meeting between Canadian health overlords discussing the latest pandemic potential H5N1 avian flu, Chief Public Health Officer of Canada Theresa Tam can be heard saying that the response already adheres to the WHO’s One Health strategy rhetoric.

 

 

As the WHO approves a four-year, $USD 11.1 billion strategy, with an “emphasis on climate change, aging, migration, pandemic threats, and equity,” they call the next few years “an exceptional window of opportunity to build resilient, fit-for-future health systems… to get back on track to reach the health-related Sustainable Development Goals.”

2024-05 Covid: The WHO’s Pandemic Preparedness Plan is OVER! Don’t be fooled. WE WON THE FIRST ROUND IN THE WAR OF DEMOCRACY VERSUS ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT. IT’S TIME TO CELEBRATE! from Dr Meryl Nass

 Vaccinations (incl corruption of science & govt)  No Responses »
May 302024
 

(APPENDED:  some “NASS” postings from my blog.  The woman is an intrepid powerhouse./Sandra)

https://x.com/NassMeryl/status/1795151440182218878

https://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/WHA77/A77_9-en.pdf

MERYL NASS, MD     @NassMeryl

MERYL WRITES: 

The WHO’s Pandemic Preparedness Plan is OVER!!!

The entire pandemic preparedness project has been rolled out through lies and stealth. Globalists created legal documents that are replete with euphemisms and flowery language, always disguised to hide the documents’ true intentions.

But we saw through them and didn’t let them get away with it! And that is what they are doing today, attempting to make people think they can still pull it together. They don’t want you to savor this sweet victory.

But they are not stopping me from pulling out the corks and dancing. The treaty cannot be resurrected from the ashes. It is not a Phoenix, despite what some want you to think. This was the foundational agreement for the Treaty:

[A]s negotiators are fond of stressing: “nothing is decided until everything is decided.” I heard this over and over and over as I watched the proceedings and read about the negotiations. Yet the phrase is hard to find today wrt the WHO.

I suspect the thought police have scrubbed it from the search engines. So NOTHING in the treaty can rise from the ashes of the negotiations to be voted on this week. The treaty is done. People now understand what it was about, what was in it, and how it was the first step to a One World Government.

They have said NO to all that. What about the IHR (INSERT:  International Health Regs) amendments? While it is true that some articles in the amendments had the agreement of negotiators, and could be voted on, the agreed-upon items were not the dangerous ones. They tended to be the flowery language ones, not the meaningful ones.

With a single exception: interestingly, the negotiators were fine telling nations to surveil their citizens and combat misinformation and disinformation, i.e., they were fine with censorship and propaganda. This, however, should not surprise us, since nearly all our governments are already surveilling and propagandizing us. So while this provision is odious, it really doesn’t change anything. Nations are trying to legalize surveillance and censorship, using linguistic tricks like calling truth “hate speech.” The US government hopes to overturn the First Amendment (Freedom of Speech) in the Supreme Court, where Missouri v Biden is headed. This is another battle we need to win. Soon, I hope—it is a major one, because control of information is the absolutely essential piece the globalists must hang onto in order to succeed. Here, you can read them for yourself and see what was agreed and what was not agreed. apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_f

Don’t be fooled. WE WON THE FIRST ROUND IN THE WAR OF DEMOCRACY VERSUS ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT. IT’S TIME TO CELEBRATE!!!

= = = = = = = = = = =

some of the POSTINGS ON MY BLOG that contain the name “NASS” (Dr. Meryl). 

2024-05-09 Covid/WHO: We did it!!!   22 Attorneys-General in the US have told Joe Biden that the WHO will not be making public policy in their states! From merylnass.substack.com

2022-10-11 Meryl Nass, M.D. Testifies Against Maine Medical Board that charged Nass with Covid misinformation and suspended her license to practice medicine. Below is with thanks to CHD

2024-02-13 Important info. WHO Exhibiting Signs of ‘Desperation’ as New Zealand, Iran Reject Amendments to International Health Regulations, CHD

2023-12-15 Lawmakers Dodge U.S. Sovereignty Question During House Hearing on WHO Reform  (connection to Bill 36 in Canada).

2024-05- Why is B.C. still persecuting Christian churches for worshipping during COVID lockdowns?, Drea Humphrey, Rebel News

 Vaccinations (incl corruption of science & govt)  No Responses »
May 302024
 

NOTE:  in the article,  the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF)  filed an abuse of process application on behalf of the churches, in response to  the ongoing prosecution.  12 days of proceedings are set aside in provincial court (for June).

= = = = = = = = = = = =

https://www.rebelnews.com/why_is_bc_still_prosecuting_christian_churches_for_worshipping_during_covid

Drea Humphrey interviews B.C. MLA Michael de Jong, who questioned the NDP government on why it’s still prosecuting churches that safely opened during biased COVID restrictions instead of reconciling with them.

For over three years, the province of British Columbia has engaged in a legal battle with three Fraser Valley churches who served their community with in-person worship, despite COVID public health orders that forbid them from doing so.

Despite pubs, fitness classes and even indoor theme parks receiving accommodations to remain open during the declared COVID-19 pandemic, Abbotsford’s Immanuel Covenant Reformed Church, Langley’s Riverside Calvary Chapel and Chilliwack’s Free Reformed Church, were collectively slapped with over 40 fines, each costing $2,300, for practicing their religion.

“Isn’t it time that the government tried to reconcile with the law-abiding and yes, by definition, God-fearing folks who drew on their faith during a very difficult time and couldn’t understand why they could go to a Pilates class but couldn’t go to church,” MLA Mike de Jong, asked of the governing NDP during question period in the legislature last week.

 

 

While NDP Attorney General Niki Sharma declined to comment on the matter, the reality Premier David Eby’s government is still hammering down on the churches. Next month, 12 days of proceedings are set aside in provincial court for an abuse of process application the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms filed on behalf of the churches in response the ongoing prosecution.

In today’s report, I sit down and interview de Jong, who, while serving as a member of the legislative assembly with the B.C. United, was one of the very few politicians to speak out about the biased restrictions on Christian places of worship during mass COVID hysteria.

2024-05-03 Crown appeal against acquitted peaceful protestor Evan Blackman back in court June 19, from JCCF

 Vaccinations (incl corruption of science & govt)  No Responses »
May 242024
 
“The Crown”  must in a conspiracy against Itself?  How else can these actions be explained?
= = =  = =  = = = =
Photo credit: Valmedia

OTTAWA, ON: The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms announces that a hearing date for Evan Blackman’s summary conviction appeal has been set for June 19, 2024. The hearing will take place at the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Ottawa.

The Crown’s evidence against Blackman at his trial consisted of a 14-minute drone video, with no sound, and the testimony of one officer from the scene. For nine minutes of that video, Blackman is seen as part of a group of protestors standing across from a line of police officers on Rideau Street in downtown Ottawa. Blackman is shown de-escalating the situation by holding other protestors back and putting his hand up to stop them from confronting the officers. He is then seen kneeling in front of police for the five minutes prior to his arrest. At one point, while on his knees, he takes off his hat, puts his hands on his chest, and starts singing Canada’s national anthem.

The Ottawa Crown Attorney’s Office is appealing Blackman’s acquittal on charges of mischief and obstructing the police relating to his participation in the Freedom Convoy protests, specifically on February 18, 2022, the day police conducted an “enforcement action” – clearing Ottawa city streets following the invocation of the Emergencies Act by the federal government four days prior.

Blackman was acquitted after a one-day trial on October 23, 2023. The Justice Centre provided lawyers for Blackman’s defence at that trial and continues to support him throughout this appeal.

At trial, Mr. Blackman pled “not guilty” to all charges. The judge dismissed the case against him due to limited evidence and the poor memory of a police witness on key elements of the criminal offenses.

After his February 18, 2022 arrest and release the same day, Blackman discovered his three bank accounts had been frozen pursuant to the Emergency Economic Measures Order.

Chris Fleury, lawyer for Blackman, notes that if his client had been convicted, his intention was to bring an application for a stay of proceedings under section 24(1) of the Charter, seeking a remedy for the freezing of Mr. Blackman’s bank account. If Mr. Blackman’s acquittal is overturned on appeal, he intends to file this application.

Chris Fleury says, “The limited evidence available at Mr. Blackman’s trial showed Mr. Blackman attempting to de-escalate a volatile situation between police and protestors on February 18. He pled not guilty to the criminal offences that he was charged with, and the trial judge ultimately agreed and found him not guilty. This appeal is an attempt by the Crown to reframe findings of fact that they disagree with as legal errors. Mr. Blackman and I are looking forward to our day in Court at the appeal hearing.”

2024-05-21 Do you trust the WHO? Your prime minister sure does. Western Standard, opinion by Hannaford

 Vaccinations (incl corruption of science & govt)  No Responses »
May 222024
 
The WHO got a lot wrong during the COVID and is now playing for more authority and controlTedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Director-General of the World Health Organization. The WHO got a lot wrong during the COVID and is now playing for more authority and control.
Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Director-General of the World Health Organization. The WHO got a lot wrong during the COVID and is now playing for more authority and control.file photo

As you read this, the Trudeau Liberals — the Government of Canada — are getting ready to sign, on your behalf, the World Health Organization’s Convention on Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness and Response.

This is a big deal.

If they do — and the Government of Canada has been all in from the start in 2021 — the next time there’s a worldwide pandemic, the public health orders will not be originating in Ottawa or the capital of your province. They will come from the World Health Organization headquarters in Geneva and will be the work of their bureaucrats guided, one is invited to believe, by experts.

The role of Canadian officials will be reduced to conveying these orders. To you.

The convention is due to be signed by the end of this month. Here’s what they’re signing up for, on your behalf.

As a signatory to the agreement, Canada must ‘… undertake to follow WHO’s recommendations in their international public health response.’

Canada must also promise to follow directions quickly: “Health measures taken pursuant to these Regulations … shall be initiated and completed without delay by all State Parties… State Parties shall also take measures to ensure Non-State Actors operating in their respective territories comply with such measures.”

And they must darn well silence any opposition. For, the UN has contrapted a neologism… infodemic.

That means “too much information, false or misleading information, in digital and physical environments during a disease outbreak. It causes confusion and risk-taking behaviours that can harm health. It also leads to mistrust in health authorities and undermines public health and social measures.”

Not surprisingly then, Article 18 of the agreement/convention/treaty or whatever it’s going to be, obliges signatories to stifle public discussion: “The Parties shall … combat false, misleading, misinformation or disinformation, including through effective international collaboration and cooperation… etc.”

The authors of Canada’s Online Harms Act , who love the idea of controlling speech and opinion, will have no trouble with that idea. Bill C-63 already provides that any citizen can approach any magistrate and file a restraining order against any other citizen, who they believe will say something hateful.

That doesn’t mean the magistrate will accept every assertion, but how exactly might that theory of pre-emptive justice have been adapted to stifle the voices of those who questioned COVID orthodoxy?

It is not commonly known but the WHO is already ‘on this.’ In May 2020, its parent body, the UN, issued a Guidance Note on Addressing and Countering COVID-19 related Hate Speech.

It is not that international cooperation is a bad thing. Actually, properly negotiated, it can make Canada better able to handle the next lab break when it happens.

However, we don’t need to be signing up for any kind of thought/speech control dicta from an organization that in the first place is dominated by countries with no free-speech tradition… and secondly, gets it wrong so often.

For, the World Health Organization did not do well during the COVID crisis. It has not earned the right to issue directions.

For example, it was justly criticised in early 2020 for minimising the epidemic, for fear of embarrassing China. (The PRC is a significant funder of the WHO.)

Part of that minimization was a bizarre tweet that “Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel #coronavirus (2019-nCoV) identified in #Wuhan, #China.”

Not infectious, huh? Later came their idea that it was so infectious that everybody needed to be injected with something that wasn’t a vaccine, but was allegedly effective and… turned out to be less than completely so.

It was also two years before the WHO would admit the obvious, that the COVID virus was airborne. See here the WHO’s confident assertion that the droplets were too heavy to be passed along that way.

And so on.

Other countries — notably Great Britain — are now backing away. Cabinet Minister Esther McVey wrote recently in London’s Daily Telegraph, “People might be concerned that international organisations, like the World Health Organization, could acquire powers to force countries to adopt measures and restrictions. However, my ministerial colleagues and I would never give over any such powers to any organization, including the World Health Organization. Our red lines in the negotiations include not agreeing to anything that cedes sovereignty, protecting our ability to make all of our own domestic decisions on national public health measures, including whether to introduce any lockdowns or restrictions, require vaccinations and mask wearing, and decisions on travel into and out of the country.”

Ms. Mcvey, a former broadcaster, seems to get it. (So, by the way, does Canadian MP Leslyn Lewis.)

But, it is precisely these considerations that seem of no great consequence to the Trudeau Liberals as they negotiate the same convention. As the prime minister considers Canada to be a post-national state, we should perhaps not be surprised that he is so agreeable.

The rest of us have no reason to be. The World Health Organization’s response to criticism is that it could have done a better job with more power. This convention gives it to them.

As for the Trudeau Liberals this is nothing more than an excuse to exercise control and blame their ‘obligations’ on the UN. One more reason to move these people into retirement next year. One more job for another government, getting Canada out of another dangerous international commitment.

Meanwhile, best hope for no lab leaks.

2024-05-21 Klaus Schwab to Vacate Top Post, as WEF Looks to Become Global Leader in Public-Private ‘Cooperation’, from CHD

 Corporatocracy or Democracy or Administrative State or WHAT?, Vaccinations (incl corruption of science & govt)  No Responses »
May 212024
 

Klaus Schwab, founder and executive chairman of the WEF, will step down from his leadership role, according to Semafor. Meanwhile, a WEF spokesperson said the organization is “transforming from a convening platform to the leading global institution for public-private cooperation.”

by Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D.
klaus schwab

Photo credit: World Economic Forum/flickr

Klaus Schwab, founder and executive chairman of the World Economic Forum (WEF), will step down from his leadership role, according to Semafor.

Schwab, 86, has headed the WEF since 1971. He reportedly announced his decision in an email sent today to staff. Semafor obtained the email.

At press time, there was no mention of Schwab’s decision to step down on the WEF website or social media accounts.

According to Semafor, Schwab will transition to a role as non-executive chairman, pending the Swiss government’s approval of the change, which is expected to become official by January 2025.

The WEF, based in Davos, Switzerland, hosts its annual meeting there each January.

WEF transitioning to global leader in public-private ‘cooperation’

Tim Hinchliffe, editor of The Sociable, told The Defender the change may still allow Schwab to exert considerable influence over the WEF.

“If the Semafor report is correct, Schwab will still be the non-executive chairman of the WEF, so he’ll probably remain influential behind the scenes within the organization while occasionally making public appearances,” Hinchliffe said.

In its report, Semafor cited a statement from a WEF spokesperson saying that the organization is “transforming from a convening platform to the leading global institution for public-private cooperation.”

Experts who have studied the WEF warned of the risks of such “public-private” partnerships, in remarks shared with The Defender.

Michael Rectenwald, Ph.D., author of “The Great Reset and the Struggle for Liberty: Unraveling the Global Agenda” said that despite Schwab’s decision, “the globalist organization will continue in its role as the prime mover in establishing ‘stakeholder capitalism,’ replete with its ‘public-private partnerships’ that amount to a global fascist world order.”

Rectenwald added:

“Schwab is responsible for inaugurating the ‘stakeholder’ regime with the United Nations’ attendant ‘environmental, social and governance’ index that distorts markets and establishes a climate-change cartel to control all the world’s resources while reducing the standard of living for the vast majority and curtailing, if not eliminating their freedom.”

Along similar lines, Seamus Bruner, author of “Controligarchs: Exposing the Billionaire Class, their Secret Deals, and the Globalist Plot to Dominate Your Life,” and director of research at the Government Accountability Institute, said Schwab is a “figurehead for the most powerful globalist interests — the ‘controligarchs.’”

These “controligarchs,” said Bruner, “will continue plotting ways to dominate every aspect of our lives as their new figurehead rises.” Schwab’s shift “is not the transition that should concern us most.” Instead, “it is the WEF’s transition from a ‘convening platform’ to ‘the leading global institution for public-private cooperation.’”

“That means that the WEF plans to expand its influence over our governments’ policies while remaining unelected, opaque and therefore totally unaccountable.”

WEF will continue to push for ‘technocratic takeover’ of society

According to Semafor, Schwab “is synonymous with the organization that he has managed for more than 50 years.”

The WEF’s annual meeting, originally called the European Management Forum, today “attracts dozens of high-ranking world leaders and CEOs each year,” including over 50 heads of state who attended this year’s meeting.

Business figures like Bill Gates and Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla have regularly attended the meetings.

“The WEF, though a nonprofit, is a remarkable business,” Semafor reported, citing the organization’s $500 million in revenue for the fiscal year ending March 2023 and cash reserves totaling 200 million Swiss francs ($219.5 million).

Attorney Greg Glaser, who focuses on issues related to privacy and technology, told The Defender that those attending the WEF’s annual meeting pay a high price tag — exceeding six figures — to participate. He said Schwab “built the WEF using an international pay-to-play model” akin to “a trade guild or fraternal organization.”

“WEF members contribute substantial funds to WEF and in return the WEF members enjoy a seat at the financial table, meaning they gain influence and insider information from fellow mega-corporations and government officials controlling public funds,” Glaser said.

“Schwab’s legacy of penetrating the cabinets of governments, his maniacal pursuit of unelected globalist policies — including the Great Reset, transhumanism and corporatism and fascism under the guise of public-private partnerships — will carry on through his successor, whomever that may be,” Hinchliffe said.

According to Semafor, Schwab didn’t name a successor. However, in the past year, the group’s executive board, led by WEF President Børge Brende, a former Norwegian conservative leader, has taken full executive responsibility.

Last year, Politico speculated that Brende is a possible successor to Schwab. Other names Politico cited include former U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair and Christine Lagarde, head of the European Central Bank and former head of the International Monetary Fund, who Schwab previously said “could step in” for him.

Semafor reported that the WEF “operates much like a family business,” with his children and wife holding high-level positions within the organization.

Hinchliffe said that regardless of who succeeds Schwab, the WEF is unlikely to shift its policy agenda significantly. He said:

“If current WEF president Børge Brende were to become Schwab’s successor, we would still get the same tyrannical policies that have always been pushed.

“The WEF will continue to push for the total technocratic takeover of society through the merger of corporation and state, the fusion of humans and machines, and the Orwellian use of technologies emerging from the so-called Fourth Industrial Revolution that blurs our physical, biological and digital identities.”

Last month, mainstream media fact-checkers, including from Reuters and Euronews, refuted rumors that Schwab was seriously ill, hospitalized or deceased.

“I can confirm that Professor Schwab is in excellent health and that he has not been to hospital recently,” a WEF spokesperson told Reuters on April 23.

WEF has promoted Great Reset, digital ID, metaverse, consumption of insects

The WEF has generated controversy with its public proclamations, and those made by several participants at its annual meetings, regarding the future of humanity.

A 2016 WEF video predicted that by 2030, “You’re going to own nothing [and] you’ll be happy.”

That year, the WEF also introduced its vision for the Fourth Industrial Revolution, which it claimed is “characterized by a fusion of technologies that is blurring the lines between the physical, digital, and biological spheres.”

In 2017, Gates and Jeremy Farrar, former director of the Wellcome Trust and now chief scientist of the World Health Organization (WHO), launched the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) at that year’s WEF meeting. CEPI is attempting to develop a platform allowing vaccine development within 100 days.

In June 2020, amid the COVID-19 pandemic, the WEF introduced the “Great Reset,” claiming the pandemic was an opportunity for all countries to “act jointly and swiftly to revamp all aspects of our societies and economies” and was our “best chance to instigate stakeholder capitalism.”

At the WEF’s annual meeting last year, Schwab opined the importance of “mastering the future.” At this year’s meeting, he referred to participants as “trustees of the future.”

This year’s meeting also cited “misinformation” — not war or poverty — as the top threat facing humanity over the next two years.

Participants at this year’s meeting also warned of the dangers of “the wrong leaders” being elected in key national electoral contests this year. They suggested that digital ID could be used to track the unvaccinated. WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus warned of the pandemic risk posed by a yet-unknown “Disease X.”

The WEF also helped promote or support a range of initiatives, including the metaverse, national digital ID programs, gene-editing technology, the censorship of online content using artificial intelligence (AI), AI-generated clinical trial “participants” and has said there are “solid, rational reasons” to implant microchips in children.

Glaser said these initiatives, which he called “bizarre,” resulted in “public relations damage” for the WEF that is irreversible — but the initiatives will continue to influence global policy.

“Schwab will forever be known as that ‘eat ze bugs‘ guy. Terrible public relations is a likely reason he is ‘stepping back.’ But Schwab has effectively accomplished what he intended decades ago,” Glaser said, citing the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, which he said “are speeding ahead” toward their target date of 2030.

“I don’t think there will be a successor who will ever come as close to a Bond villain-like character as Schwab,” Hinchliffe said.

“His plans for world domination spoken through a thick German accent would make him an almost laughable caricature if it weren’t for how powerful and influential he’s become ever since Henry Kissinger took him under his wing at Harvard in the 1960s.”

Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D.

Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D.

Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D., based in Athens, Greece, is a senior reporter for The Defender and part of the rotation of hosts for CHD.TV’s “Good Morning CHD.”

2024-05-20 Wikileaks founder Julian Assange wins bid to appeal extradition to US, Al Jazeera

 Julian Assange, Wikileaks, Chelsea (Bradley) Manning, Arjen Kamphuis  No Responses »
May 212024
 

Judges in the UK will hear WikiLeaks founder’s argument against being extradited to face trial in a US court.

Asange

Asange
Advocates for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange hold banners and placards as they protest in support of him, outside the Royal Courts of Justice, Britain’s High Court, in central London [Henry Nicholls/AFP]WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has been given permission to have a full appeal over his extradition to the United States after arguing at London’s High Court that he might not be able to rely on his right to free speech at a US trial.Two judges at the High Court said they have given him leave to have a full appeal to hear his argument that he might be discriminated against on the basis the Australian-born Assange is a foreign national.

Hundreds of protesters had gathered outside the court on Monday ahead of what was a key ruling after 13 years of legal battles, with two judges asked to declare whether they were satisfied by US assurances that Assange, 52, could rely on the US First Amendment right to free speech if he is tried for spying in the US.

Assange’s wife Stella said outside court that the ruling “marks a turning point” and that “we are relieved as a family that the court took the right decision.

“Everyone can see what should be done here. Julian must be freed,” she said.

The decision was met outside court by an eruption of cheering and singing. Assange’s legal team has said if he lost he could be on a plane across the Atlantic within 24 hours.

His lawyer Edward Fitzgerald had told the judges they should not accept the assurance given by US prosecutors that Assange could seek to rely upon the rights and protections given under the First Amendment, as a US court would not be bound by this.

“We say this is a blatantly inadequate assurance,” he told the court.

Fitzgerald had accepted a separate assurance that Assange would not face the death penalty, saying the US had provided an “unambiguous promise not to charge any capital offence”.

Human rights monitor Amnesty International called the ruling “a rare piece of positive news for Julian Assange and all defenders of press freedom”.

“The USA’s ongoing attempt to prosecute Assange puts media freedom at risk worldwide. It ridicules the USA’s obligations under international law, and their stated commitment to freedom of expression,” said Simon Crowther, legal adviser at Amnesty. “It is vital that journalists and whistleblowers are able to participate in critical reporting in the public interest without fear of persecution.”

The US has said its First Amendment assurance was sufficient. James Lewis, representing the US authorities, said it made clear that Assange would not be discriminated against because of his nationality in any US trial or hearing.

US President Joe Biden has faced domestic and international pressure to drop the case, which was filed under his predecessor Donald Trump.

Biden indicated recently that the US was considering an Australian request to drop the charges.

2024-05-14 The WHO. You should know this. Swiss lawyer Philipp Kruse spells it out. The power consolidation for a global health dictatorship. (Not under my watch!)

 Vaccinations (incl corruption of science & govt)  No Responses »
May 162024
 
     Some countries have already said “NO WAY” to the WHO,  they aren’t signing the legal documents for
  1. an international  Pandemic Treaty,  nor for
  2. International Health Regulations (IHR)
(which are THE SAME THING, with one difference, as I understand the Swiss lawyer Philipp Kruse.   The International Health Regulations automatically become Law.  Anything that happens in debate and ratification procedures under the Treaty are thereby rendered irrelevant.) 
(I’ve watched Tedros lie through his teeth.  My cynical understanding of the Two Legal Documents:  you put people through the tedium of #1.  It’s a trap.  When the debate and procedures are finished, you place Document #2 in front of any delegates who might still be in the room.  They look, see that the wording is the same as for Doc #1,  and sign on.   They miss one critical clause:  Doc #2 becomes Law without further adieu.
In B.C. Canada, the NDP Govt of David Eby passed Bill 36:

Bill 36   the Health Professions & Occupations Act  (HPOA).  First class tyranny.

          1. The Cabinet and the Minister of Health can adopt as law in BC any regulations, codes, standards or rules enacted in foreign jurisdictions or international bodies.8

Tedros (WHO):  “The claim that the accord will cede power to W.H.O. is quite simply false. It’s fake news. Countries will decide . . .  “

Bill 36, the Health Professions and Occupations Act (HPOA),  is already in place in B.C.

Four of the American States have passed legislation:  “NO WAY“
The easiest way for Canada to sign on is if we keep our mouths shut.
= = = = = = = = = = = =
CLICK ON this link, and scroll down to the video of  Swiss lawyer Philipp Kruse:    Show more
    Kruse does an excellent job of identifying the issues;  he is clear.
= = = = = = = = = = = =
The following is to capture a bit of the written record, from X.
IT IS VERY IMPORTANT AND VERY CONCERNING.
Swiss lawyer Philipp Kruse at the European Parliament for the ECI citizens initiative challenges the WHO on their pandemic treaty
(Dr. Campbell shared this video from Health and Democracy Conference during 13th of September, 2023 at the EU Parliament in Strasbourg featuring Philipp Kruse’s speech outlining the concerning power consolidation for a global health dictatorship)
May 12, 2024:
15 days to the beginning of the WHO World Health Assembly. Negotiations for the pandemic treaty and amendments to IHR continue and yes they are a danger to our national sovereignty.
@ImMeme0
Here is more so people can actually understand what is at stake.
Swiss lawyer Philipp Kruse at the European Parliament for the ECI citizens initiative challenges the WHO on their pandemic treaty – opposing the imposition of a global dictatorship of WEF and Gates
The video highlights the WHO’s (an organization influenced by the egos of the WEF and Bill Gates)
corruption, lack of accountability, incompetence, insufficient qualifications, and limited experience
“We’re here today because we are all concerned by the WHO’s strong pressure to extend its powers—its structural and its financial capacities—with a permanent effect over the sovereignty of the countries and over the self-determination of the people.
In May 2024, the 194 member states of the WHO will have their final vote on both of these international agreements. This process takes place behind closed doors and at a tremendous speed. It is not reported nor discussed in our newspapers, in our national parliaments, universities, nor in society.
There is no mechanism foreseen that will allow the people or the member states to challenge the assessment of the WHO whether it is the WHO’s assessment about a public health emergency or their assessment with respect to certain measures or when it comes to the imposing of a regime for what they call vaccination as experimental as it might be.
There will be simply no stop button for none of the member states and not of course not for us the citizens.
So now, if we just look at it as a whole, this right of WHO to self declare, to auto-authorize itself, to claim a Public Health Emergency of international concern and to maintain it for as long as it wants.
# 2, to issue so-called recommendations that will be legally binding and that will be subject to a system of surveillance of the people – surveillance of the member states – then the total control and monopoly on information including the right of censorship and then the fact that there is no mechanism of control and of correction.
What do we have as a result? It is very simple to say without the possibility of open debate, without the possibility of having different opinions, different hypothesis, different methods to be discussed on and at the table there will be no science and there will be ultimately no democracy and there will be no legal Court proceedings and no justice if the result is already predefined by one sole authority on this planet.
# 3 : It’s a basic principle not only of international law, not only of national constitutional law that we have – as human beings – the right to know what we consent to. So if we ask ourselves have we been asked, have you been informed, about this process that is about to become reality the answer is “NO”! And there is one important distinction to be made between these two legal instruments.
The new pandemic treaty will be considered by WHO itself as a treaty and thereby shall be subject to a national process of debate and ratification but not so for the International Health Regulations (IHR)
(INSERT:  The Treaty and the IHRs  have precisely the same content.   EXCEPT that the IHRs automatically become Law.  Anything that happens in debate and ratification procedures under the Treaty are thereby rendered irrelevant.) 
The international Health Regulations by definition of WHO’s own writing when you read the International Health Regulations. And what does that mean as a consequence? There will be an automatic coming into force right after the vote in 2024, so far it is still 24 months but these 24 months have been reduced to 12 months only. So that means that at the end after May 2025 the international Health Regulations will become law automatically so we will not be asked.”
Continuation: post below Source: Dr. John Campbell on YouTube
 Older Entries  Newer Entries