Covid-19 came to Saskatchewan (pop 1,179,906) on March 12, 2020. This highly infectious, deadly disease devastated 0.05 percent of the population; miraculously sparing 99.95 percent.
Officially, Covid killed 658 Saskatchewanians. Persons aged 80-and-over account for 298 (45 percent) of fatalities. 60-and-overs account for 85 percent.
304,000 Saskatchewanians are aged 19-and-under.
Covid allegedly killed three of them.
Annually, Covid culls 0.00049 percent of Saskatchewan youth. Accidental drownings kill more kids than Covid.
In the year ending December 31, 2021, a total of 10,107 Saskatchewanians died (up slightly from 2019). Typically, 0.8 percent of Saskatchewanians die annually.
Year-to-year fluctuations render Covid’s signal undecipherable.
Tens of thousands of Saskatchewanians suffer chronic respiratory and/or immune malfunction.
Chest infections finish-off many of these people. Most Covid fatalities rested on death’s brink, pre-Covid.
Still, Covid killed only a tiny percentage, even of this frail cohort.
Covid cases to date: 63,875.
Active cases: 4,715.
Resolved cases (dead or recovered): 59,160.
Covid’s official survival rate: 98.9 percent.
Testing programs undercount cases.
15 percent of Saskatchewanians have had Covid.
Covid’s real survival rate: 99+ percent.
Of 4,715 active cases, 273 are hospitalised.
94 percent of Covid cases self-medicate and self-police their quarantine.
They’re clearly not in distress.
Furthermore, letting 4,442 infected patients roam free means authorities don’t believe their own hype about Covid’s contagiousness and lethality.
The shocking revelation that the armed forces implemented a secret information campaign in 2020 to brainwash people over the pandemic is proof of deliberate intent to quash critical and independent thought and freedoms.
As a Canadian citizen who recovered from Covid and acquired natural immunity and antibodies without the anti-Covid vaccine, the government doesn’t much appreciate my narrative.
Proof lies in the fact that when I arrived back home in Vancouver from my work base in Europe in August, the federal government demanded that I pay for my own three-day imprisonment in a government mandated facility at a cost of up to $2,000. Refusal resulted in being ordered in writing to immediately get back on a plane and leave my own country under threat of penalties up to and including imprisonment. All because my acquired immunity didn’t jibe with the government’s “one size fits all” two-jab narrative.
Now I’ve learned that the Canadian military was deployed against unconventional and inconvenient narratives like mine in favor of lockstep groupthink. Does that make me an enemy of the state?
The Canadian military’s Joint Operations Command implemented a propaganda campaign in April 2020 with the intent to manipulate unsuspecting Canadians into falling in line with the federal government’s official positions on Covid-19. The brainwashing operation’s termination was ordered a month later, but in the meantime, it “relied on propaganda techniques similar to those employed during the Afghanistan war,” according to the Ottawa Citizen’s exclusive report on documents obtained under Access to Information.
The operation’s aim, according to the military, was to “head off civil disobedience by Canadians during the coronavirus pandemic and to bolster government messages about the pandemic.”
Generally, government intelligence operations rely on ear-bending friendly journalists and think-tank analysts to publish the state’s talking points in mainstream publications or online. Washington Post journalist Carl Bernstein, best-known for breaking the Watergate scandal, wrote in a Rolling Stone magazine article titled “The CIA and the Media,” back in 1977, how the CIA used “journalist-operatives” to “plant subtly concocted pieces of misinformation.”
He further noted: “There are perhaps a dozen well known columnists and broadcast commentators whose relationships with the CIA go far beyond those normally maintained between reporters and their sources. They are referred to at the Agency as ‘known assets’ and can be counted on to perform a variety of undercover tasks; they are considered receptive to the Agency’s point of view on various subjects.”
Another known tactic used by military intelligence to manipulate its own country’s citizens is to send out retired generals to spew talking points on various media platforms. In 2008, the Los Angeles Times wrote of the Pentagon’s Iraq War era “message multipliers” program. At the time, Democratic Congressman Paul Hodes had introduced an amendment – overwhelmingly adopted – to investigate the Pentagon’s public opinion manipulation program, unveiled by the New York Times as “cultivating former military officers who became regulars on Fox News, CNN and the broadcast networks.”
“They were fed administration talking points, believing they were getting independent military analysis,” Hodes said at the time of the public manipulation campaign.
So despite the Ottawa Citizen’s reporting that the program was officially quashed one month after its deployment, we really don’t know how much damage was done and to what extent the propaganda distribution it sparked may have since become autonomous and taken on a life of its own.
Canadians now need to know exactly what “government messages” were propagandized and where, and what “enemy narratives” were targeted for smears. Only then is it possible for the public to assess how much of the current conventional wisdom is the result of deliberate boosting or suppressing.
It’s a sad fact that the Canadian military has seen fit to use similar techniques to those that US intelligence has long deployed on foreign opponents. Declassified US intelligence manuals drafted in 1987 show that both the Pentagon and the CIA used similar propaganda techniques in Latin America, with the aim of indiscriminately brainwashing both civilians and guerrillas to support the US-backed movements. And like with the Canadian military campaign, it involved monitoring innocent people for their thoughts and beliefs while minimizing consideration of both basic human rights and the rule of law.
Lest we forget that Canadians were also victims of some of the most egregious brainwashing experimentation under the CIA-led MK-Ultra program to test various mind control methods, including LSD, sensory deprivation, and electroshock therapy, on unwitting Canadians at the Allan Memorial Institute in Montreal between 1957 and 1964.
We really have no idea how deep the rabbit hole goes with this recent revelation that Canadians were once again treated as experimental guinea pigs – this time in the interest of quashing critical thinking or dissent amid the pandemic. What we do see, however, it’s probably just the tip of the iceberg, and that its aim of creating a compliant citizenry has been successful.
More than three in four double-jabbed Canadians consider their unjabbed fellow citizens selfish and irresponsible, according to a new Leger poll. If they’re jabbed, and they have so much confidence in the jab preventing them getting ill, then what do they care what anyone else does? How much has the Canadian military and government propaganda played a role in shaping their views?
The whole truth about the extent of this psychological abuse of innocent Canadian civilians needs to come out – if only so the manipulated can see to what extent they were coerced into turning against their fellow citizens for simply making a different personal choice in what, after all, is supposed to still be a free and democratic country.
Rachel Marsden is a columnist, political strategist and host of an independently produced French-language program that airs on Sputnik France. Her website can be found at rachelmarsden.com
A listener writes in with a straightforward (but important) question: why do I use the term “scamdemic”? Here’s my (equally important and meticulously documented) answer!
The plan, devised by the Canadian Joint Operations Command, relied on propaganda techniques like those used during the Afghan war. What on earth is going on in the upper echelons of Ottawa?
High-up elements of the Canadian Forces have been waging psychological operations on the public over Covid-19 to manipulate their emotions and thoughts, and to gauge their reactions. While this is not uncommon around the world, getting caught is.
A new article in Canada’s National Post states that the Canadian Joint Operations Command used “propaganda techniques similar to those employed during the Afghanistan war” on the Canadian public.
The Post cites a December 2020 investigation by retired Major-General Daniel Gosselin, who was asked to look into it by then-Chief of the Defence Staff General Jon Vance.
According to the article, the federal government was innocent and not aware of the plan – a claim I find unbelievable, considering the amount of gaslighting and knowingly pointless regulations the government has subjected Canadians to since the start of the pandemic scare.
The plan involved “shaping” and “exploiting” information, the Post noted, to “head off civil disobedience by Canadians” and “bolster government messages about the pandemic.”
Among the stranger aspects was scaring Canadians with stories of a wolf invasion.
This, according to the Post, involved Canadian Forces’ military information operations staff forging a letter from the Nova Scotia government warning about wolves on the loose, in September 2020.
The Post claims the letter’s release was inadvertent, and basically ran with the Canadian Forces’ claim that this was down to a few bad apples, reservists who “lacked formal training and policies governing the use of propaganda techniques.”
Canadian journalist Dan Dicks, who was among the first to report on and analyze the wolves story, noted at the time that it was a classic example of a psychological operation.
Dicks has also pointed out what the National Post omitted, highlighting:
“They created a fake letter from the government saying there are dangerous wolves, and they set up loudspeakers in the area, projecting out wolf noises. This isn’t just research, this isn’t just a training exercise, they’re actively engaging in this psychological operation to scare people using loudspeakers.
‘Psyops’, he noted, is a term used “to denote any action which is practiced mainly by psychological methods with the aim of evoking a planned psychological reaction in other people,” and they are “aimed at influencing a target audience’s value system, belief system, emotions, motives, reasoning, or behaviour.”
Canadian journalist James Corbett likewise commented on this at the time, pointing out how a rumour is floated to see how the public reacts:
“This entire coordinated campaign to convince an entire public of a threat that doesn’t exist, in order to test how they will react to that, what will the public respond to and how will they respond? That really speaks volumes to the world we are living in. And you really think they are going to do all of that, but they are never going to use that for any nefarious purposes?”
An article in the Ottawa Citizen noted at the time that Canada’s Department of National Defence claimed: “The fake letter wasn’t meant to be released to the public and an investigation is underway to determine how that happened. The letter was an aid for the propaganda training.”
The department also claimed to not know why the loudspeaker was set up to transmit wolf sounds.
I guess a member of the public who read the letter must have taken it upon themselves to set up the loudspeaker then, hey?
The same Ottawa Citizen article cites Bard College professor Emma Briant, who specializes in researching military propaganda, calling the stunt a “major violation of ethics.”
UK “anti-masker” razor-blade poster hoax
The “shaping” and “exploiting” of information on Covid-19 to gauge and shape the public mood is, of course, not unique to Canada. To give another example, in May 2020, the UK Column obtained a leaked internal document of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) from March 26, 2020, which advised:
“Use the media to increase the sense of personal threat. Use the media to increase the sense of responsibility of others. Use the media to promote positive messaging around actions. Tailor the messaging and use and promote social approval for desired behaviours.”
I recently spoke to UK-based journalist Iain Davis on a variety of issues pertaining to fear porn and media hype around the issue of Covid-19.
In our interview, Davis spoke of another hoax that appeared on the BBC last July: a Cardiff woman who claimed she had been cut by a razor blade allegedly stuck on the back of an ‘anti-mask’ poster.
What the BBC did not bother investigating was that the poster in question was laminated, thus stiff, and the razor blade stuck flat to the back of it, making it virtually impossible that the woman had actually cut herself.
“When you took it off the wall, it would have been like a card, not a piece of paper you could scrunch up, it would have been a stiff card,” David said.
Nor did the BBC question why she threw away the ‘evidence’ instead of turning it over to the police she had contacted. They didn’t look into her apparent history of outlandish and improbable claims, like being disemboweled and walking to hospital holding her intestines in, nor her admitted history of self-harming, lending credence to the likelihood she staged the sliced-hand photo.
While this story seemingly originated from an unstable individual, it was pushed unquestioningly by British state-owned media.
Further, as Davis noted, the nonsensical razor poster story re-emerged two months later, this time with London transport warning of “anti-mask posters with razor blades.”
In this story, the Rail, Maritime and Transport (RMT) union cited by the BBC actually said it wasn’t aware of any razor-blade incidents. Yet the BBC ran with the claims nonetheless (using the previous unstable person’s photo to support the claims).
These were not the first razor-blade poster stories, though. In 2020, the BBC and other media ran stories claiming razor blades (and needles) had been put behind anti-5G posters, again not providing any actual evidence to back the claims.
Anti-mask, anti-5G… and ‘razor-blade posters’. Clearly, this looks like another psyop to indoctrinate the public into equating people who have legitimate and science-based concerns about particular issues as being not only bat-s**t crazy, but dangerous, a menace to society.
But these stories are being cooked up in underhand ways by some powerful forces that shouldn’t be engaged in these matters, while the masses actually concerned about these issues are raising their concerns in peaceful manners: petitions, peaceful demonstrations, scientific papers… All that is easily obscured by a few tabloid stories with screaming headlines.
According to Davis, the point is “to seed the idea into the public imagination to associate people that question vaccines with extremism, ultimately with terrorism. There is a lineage going back quite a few years where you can see this narrative being seeded into the public consciousness. It has really ramped up in the last couple of months.”
Indeed, in November 2020, the Ottawa Citizenrevealed the Canadian Forces’ desire to “establish a new organization that will use propaganda and other techniques to try to influence the attitudes, beliefs and behaviours of Canadians,” noting they’ve already spent over $1 million to “train public affairs officers on behaviour modification techniques of the same sort used by the parent firm of Cambridge Analytica.”
While noting nominal opposition and concern by the defence minister, the Citizen reported that “work is already underway on some aspects of the plan and some techniques have been already tested on the Canadian public,” as well as that “a series of town halls were already conducted last week for a number of military personnel on the strategies contained in the draft plan.”
Dan Dicks, in his commentary on the wolves scare story, aptly opined, “It frustrates me so much that the government is actively trying to silence me as being ‘fake news’ or putting out ‘false information’, when they are actively engaged in propaganda campaigns to distribute false information designed to scare Canadians.”
Indeed, we who speak out on uncomfortable issues are censored, ostracized, and labeled as ‘conspiracy theorists’, while governments are actively spewing misinformation and manipulating the masses.
This week, the Australian Federal Health Minister announced a commitment to COVID-19 vaccines for kids aged 5 to 11 years pending TGA-approval, after Pfizer claimed, in a press release, that it had obtained “favourable” results.
Pfizer’s ongoing Phase 2/3 trial apparently showed the vaccine “was safe, well tolerated and showed robust neutralising antibody responses”. However, the results were not submitted to the drug regulator, nor were they published in a medical journal, so for now, we must take their word for it.
Pfizer registered the trial plan, showing that it tested a lower dose (10µg) as well as two higher doses (20µg and 30µg) in 5- to 11-year-olds. Whether the vaccine can provide protection against symptomatic disease or severe COVID-19 remains to be seen.
The manufacturer also claimed that the vaccine had a “favourable safety profile”, however, it is important to note that the trial has not enrolled enough children (2,268) to detect any rare but serious harms that might arise from the vaccine
Only healthy kids were recruited in the trial – children with known or suspected immunodeficiency, a history of autoimmune disease, any condition associated with prolonged bleeding, anyone receiving treatment with immunosuppressive therapy or corticosteroids were excluded from the trial.
Notably, these are the same cohort of children who have been prioritised for the vaccine.
Despite little to no data available for its safety and efficacy, the Israeli Ministry of Health gave the green light to start vaccinating high risk 5- to 11-year olds with the lower-dose (10µg) of the vaccine.
Pfizer senior vice-president Dr Bill Gruber said he felt “a great sense of urgency” in the process, and Pfizer’s CEO Albert Bourla said trial data would be submitted to the various international drug regulators for “immediate authorisation.”
The language of Pfizer executives, the frenzied press coverage, and the political will of Governments, is all designed to pressure drug agencies to fast-track authorisations.
Younger than 5 years old?
Pfizer announced that trial data involving children under 5 are expected later this year.
Last week, Cuba began vaccinating toddlers as young as 2, using its homegrown vaccine, the Soberana 02, from the Finlay Vaccine Institute administered at adult doses. To my knowledge, there has been no data from Phase III trials published in the peer-reviewed literature in children as young as 2 with this vaccine.
China’s drug agency has cleared three COVID-19 vaccines produced by Sinopharm and Sinovac and is vaccinating children aged 3 years and older, under emergency use authorisation.
12- to 15-year-olds
Most major western nations have authorised COVID-19 vaccines for those aged 12 years and older.
In Australia for example, children aged 12 to 15 years began receiving the mRNA vaccines last week. According to the NSW Premier, 20% of children in the state of NSW have already had their first jab.
They require a two-dose regimen, the same dose given to adults, which aligns with the US FDA and Health Canada advisories on vaccines for this age group. (See my previous analysis for 12-15yr olds)
This does not align with the UK’s more cautious approach. After significant political and media pressure, UK chief medical officers recommended a single dose of the Pfizer vaccine, because of concerns about rare side effects such as heart inflammation.
Brazil appears to be an outlier at the moment. It was reported that the Minister for Health called for the suspension of the COVID-19 immunisation of people aged 12 to 17 after the death of a 16-year old girl named Isabelli Borges Valentim, eight days after she received the Pfizer shot. Authorities are still investigating the incident but the drug regulator denies any link to the vaccine.
Myocarditis/Pericarditis
This issue has stirred up some heated debate.
Now that real world data is becoming widely available, myocarditis (inflammation of the heart muscle) and pericarditis (inflammation of the membrane surrounding the heart) are being reported as rare harms related to the Pfizer & Moderna mRNA vaccines.
Israel, because of its fast vaccine roll-out, was first to raise the alarm – 148 cases of myocarditis were reported within 30 days of immunisation, more commonly after the second jab. It prompted the Israeli Ministry of Health to launch an investigation into any possible link between these cases of myocarditis and vaccination.
Since then, other countries such as the UK, the US and Canada have corroborating data.
In June, the US FDA decided that the link between the mRNA vaccines and myocarditis, particularly in young males, was sufficiently clear that it revised its vaccine fact sheets to include a warning.
The CDC released data showing the incidence of “expected” versus “observed” incidences of myocarditis and pericarditis and found a significant increase in the observed rates. The graph shows the higher rates in red (see table numbers circled in red).
Another study, published in JAMA which looked at data from 40 hospitals in the US showed a similar pattern to the CDC, although at higher incidences, suggesting that the vaccine’s adverse events were being underreported.
Researchers then took a more granular look at the database for reported adverse events (VAERS database) between 1 January and 18 June, and found boys aged 12-15 years vaccinated with their second shot of the mRNA vaccine, with no underlying medical conditions were 4 to 6 times more likely to develop a cardiac adverse event, than ending up in hospital with COVID-19.
The study was published as a pre-print online but it ignited a twitter storm, with critics claiming the study ‘over-estimated’ the risk and it was biased because one of the authors belonged to a group that did not support making vaccines compulsory.
Sceptics say that most of the myocarditis cases are mild, and that children recover quickly from hospitalisation. Others are not so quick to dismiss the potential risk of ‘sub-clinical disease’ (myocarditis without symptoms) in children.
Notably, a retrospective multi-centre study across 16 US hospitals including patients <21 years of age with a diagnosis of myocarditis following COVID-19 vaccination, found concerning abnormalities in heart tissue (the left ventricle) (See image with yellow arrows).
Jain SS, et al doi: 10.1542/peds.2021-053427.
Careful monitoring is required to see if these abnormalities lead to fibrosis, which can have long-term implications for young patients.
Early findings suggest that post-vaccination myocarditis could be mediated by the toxicity of ‘spike protein’ on heart muscle cells or from circulating spike proteins in plasma after vaccination.
The risk of myocarditis associated with contracting COVID-19 infection may be higher than that after vaccination, but more research is needed to weigh harms against benefit.
If we don’t vaccinate kids, what about long COVID?
The fear of long-COVID has been a major impetus behind vaccinating kids.
A recent review by Monash University, analysing 14 international studies on long COVID in children and adolescents, found no difference in the symptoms reported by those who had experienced COVID-19 and those who had not.
Lead researcher on the study, Professor Nigel Curtis told newsGP the review’s findings should be reassuring for parents and carers.
Similarly, a webinar hosted by The BMJ revealed the results of the largest citizen-scientist participation study to date in young children. It used a smartphone app to monitor the illness and symptoms of children after testing positive to COVID-19.
The researchers found that the median duration of illness was 6 days. Only 4.4% of children had illness duration >28 days and 1.8% had symptoms >56 days. Encouragingly, their symptom ‘burden’ was greatly reduced by this time (none became worse) with the most common symptoms being headache and fatigue.
The researchers looked at neurological symptoms such as epileptic seizures, convulsions, impaired attention and concentration, but none were reported.
Lead investigator on the study, Prof Emma Duncan from Kings College in London concluded “Long illness duration of COVID-19 in children is uncommon.”
Vaccine Mandates for kids
Despite COVID-19 vaccine mandates for teachers in places such as New York and Australia (Victoria and New South Wales), no Federal government has announced plans to make the vaccines compulsory for children (yet).
Canadian and English professors have argued that making COVID-19 vaccines mandatory for children, will “encourage uptake”.
U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy has also suggested that COVID-19 vaccine mandates for students could happen at the state and local level in the US, once they have been approved for paediatric use by the US FDA.
In a surprise announcement this week, the Los Angeles public school system said students aged 12 and older will now have to be double-vaccinated by the end of the year, to attend classes on campus or take part in sports and other extracurricular activities. It remains to be seen whether other school districts will follow.
Consent from kids
Before the age of 14, minors are generally thought to lack the cognitive capacity and maturity to make rational judgments about their health.
In fact, most US state laws presume that minors lack medical decision-making capacity and therefore require parental consent for most health care decisions, including vaccination, with some exceptions.
However, in the case of COVID-19, under what is termed ‘Gillick competency’, those under 16 years can make independent decisions about a medical treatment if they can demonstrate they have the capacity to consent, even if their parent withholds consent.
This applies to every Australian state and territory as part of the ‘common law’ and in the UK.
The Victorian government has produced ‘communication packs’ for teachers and educators on how to ‘promote’ COVID-19 vaccines to minors.
Hopefully, the conversations about COVID-19 vaccines, between health professionals and minors, are conducted without coercion, pressure or judgment.
Not surprisingly, this has raised the age-old question about who is better placed to determine the best medical treatment for a child – a parent or a Government minister?
The debate will continue and experts will need to wade through muddy waters to find a balance between protecting children’s health and the uncertainty over the long-term harms of the vaccine.
Between 29 November and 1 December 2021, member states are meeting in a special session with the World Health Organisation to discuss, possibly sign, a new treaty on pandemic preparedness and response.
This decision was taken in March 2021 and backed by 26 nations, among which Australia, Canada, Iceland, Norway, Republic of Korea, South Africa, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay and Member States of the European Union.1
To be noted is the absence of Russia, China, and India among these 26.
The International Health Regulations (2005)[i] signed by 196 countries already provide States the legal right to:
“– review travel history in affected areas;
– review proof of medical examination and any laboratory analysis;
– require medical examinations;
– review proof of vaccination or other prophylaxis;
– require vaccination or other prophylaxis;
– place suspect persons under public health observation;
– implement quarantine or other health measures for suspect persons;
– implement isolation and treatment where necessary of affected persons;
– implement tracing of contacts of suspect or affected persons;
– refuse entry of suspect and affected persons;
– refuse entry of unaffected persons to affected areas; and
– implement exit screening and/or restrictions on persons from affected areas.”
In other words, all the measures applied round the world since 2020, including mandatory vaccination, are in effect legal under this former treaty.
In particular, it critically changes the definition of “quarantine” from that in the 1969 IHR. There, it is used only in the expression “in quarantine” defined to be a “state or condition during which measures are applied by a health authority to a … means of transport or container, to prevent the spread of disease, reservoirs of disease or vectors of disease from the object of quarantine”.[i]
The 2005 revised IHR use the term by itself, and define it as “the restriction of activities and/or separation from others of suspect persons who are not ill or of suspect baggage, containers, conveyances or goods in such a manner as to prevent the possible spread of infection or contamination”.
This represents a subtle but critical shift from protection of the community to restriction of individual liberties.
The implementation of quarantine and other coercive measures on all, including surveillance and vaccination, is legalized: the expression “suspect persons” criminalizes every individual, both healthy and unhealthy.
Indeed, it covers anyone “considered by a State Party as having been exposed, or possibly exposed, to a public health risk and that could be a possible source of spread of disease”. Of significance is the use of “possibly” and “possible”, hence not just anyone definitely known to be a risk factor.
So Why The Need For A New Treaty?
The answer was given by WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus. “It’s the one major change, Tedros said, that would do the most to boost global health security and also empower the World Health Organization.”[i]
The 2005 revised IHR still leave some authority to States and require certain conditions for a health event in a particular State to be considered sufficiently serious globally for the State to be forced to communicate it to WHO. Once communicated, it becomes the prerogative of the director general of WHO to determine whether it “constitutes a public health emergency”, but in collaboration with that particular State.
Although it should be added that in case of disagreement, the director general decides after consultation with the emergency committee of WHO, and passed a certain period no State can reject or emit reservations about the IHR or any later amendments. Still, to some extent, measures implemented remain the result of a dialogue between “IHR focal points” in each country and “WHO IHR contact points”.
What is particularly important is that the above listed measures, although rendered legal by the IHR, can under this treaty, only be recommended by the WHO, not imposed, and that it is up to the States to proceed towards their imposition, and to verify they are followed by means already existing in their respective countries.[ii]
The new treaty would address the above “weaknesses” of the IHR as they are considered to be, by ensuring “independent verification, monitoring, and compliance”. Given the clearly expressed end of empowering the WHO, should one conclude that “independent” means under the authority of WHO rather than the States themselves?[i]
Further the IHR cover “public health hazards and public health emergencies of international concern”, whereas the treaty will concern “all hazards”, not just pandemics. In the latter case, it would take over from the IHR once a pandemic is officially declared by the WHO.[ii]
This said, the treaty would presumably also make clear the idea expressed in the 2007 CDC “Interim Pre-pandemic planning guidance”,[i] namely overruling the need of a pandemic to implement restrictive measures. All that would be needed would be for an event to be declared a “public health emergency of pandemic potential”.
Given that any future event is always hypothetical, does this enable the maintenance of the measures for an indeterminate period? For it can always be claimed that a pandemic will occur especially were the measures lifted. This raises many questions, all the more so as the event would no long need to be of “international concern as in the current IHR”. “Measures”, as advised, should also go beyond the current scope of IHR”, in particular to cover the production and supply of vaccines, diagnostics, and treatments”.[ii]
The treaty would unlike the IHR also go beyond sanitary issues and allow the implementation of measures against “social and economic disruptions” as well as “broader disaster risk”.[i]
Would this in effect not only make it legal to put an end to criticisms, and thus to the freedom of expression, and make it possible to control any public antagonism against restrictive measures through “urgent international assistance”,[ii] namely not just by national police or military forces, but international ones?
In short, would the treaty not provide the international legal framework for derogation from the civil and political rights guaranteed “even in time of emergency threatening the life of the nation” by The Syracuse Principles on the Limitation and Derogation Provisions in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights drafted in 1984,[iii] namely:
“the right to life; freedom from torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and from medical or scientific experimentation without free consent; freedom from slavery or involuntary servitude; the right not be be imprisoned for contractual debt; the right not to be convicted or sentenced to a heavier penalty by virtue of retroactive criminal legislation; the right to recognition as a person before the law; and freedom of thought, conscience and religion. These rights are not derogable under any conditions even for the asserted purpose of preserving the life of the nation”?
For the Syracuse Principles only ensure that “No state party shall” in any circumstance “derogate from the Covenant’s” above guarantees”. However, according to the new treaty, would the WHO, possibly together with the help of other international bodies, not become an occupying planetary power, with each State a collaborating subservient unit, like France in 1940, and hence without any power to ensure that non-derogable rights are protected?
Last but not least, “[t]rying to revise the IHR would be a long process and take several years. … In addition, any amendment made to the IHR will enter into force only two years after its adoption. A world in crisis cannot afford to wait this long.”[i] Why such a rush to get the treaty ratified?
It should not be forgotten that among the main contributors of WHO are the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation and the vaccine alliance (GAVI). It established in 2000 and whose initial funding it essentially provided – a “unique public-private partnership … bring[ing] together key UN agencies, governments, the vaccine industry, private sector and civil society”.[i]
Through the introduction of the ICU and Critical Care Ward, hospitals have been subverted by cold, calculating technicians who do not care about individual patients. **TO SUPPORT MY WORK PLEASE CLICK HERE: https://amazingpolly.net/contact-support.php THANK YOU ** read more…
Video is in 4 parts;
Part 1: My takedown of “Trusted Voice” of the Pandemic, Michael Warner.
Part 2: What is an Intensivist and how have they ruined Hospitals?
Part 3: The history of Critical Care – some shady characters emerge in the wake of WW2.
Part 4: Who benefits from this? Who forced the hiring of Intensivists in thousands of hospitals? Is this part of a darker agenda of population control and eugenics?
Citizens of Russia and Canada go to the polls over the next few days to elect new parliaments – the Duma in Russia’s case, the House of Commons in that of Canada. It’s fair to say that neither is generating a lot of international excitement. In Russia’s case, because the result is (within certain boundaries) a foregone conclusion; and in Canada’s case because nobody cares.
Insofar as the Canadian press is covering the Russian election, it’s to portray it as fundamentally flawed, if not downright corrupt – a pretence at democracy rather than the real thing. Typical is the latest by the CBC’s new Moscow correspondent Briar Stewart, which starts off by quoting the campaign manager of the liberal Yabloko party in Krasnodar, saying that, “the State Duma election is the most terrible election I have seen since my birth.” The rest of the article then hammers home the point in case any readers hadn’t got it already.
There’s an element of truth to the complaints about the Russian elections, although it’s worth noting that the authorities’ manipulation of the system occurs primarily before votes are cast rather than after. That’s to say that the ‘managed’ party of ‘managed democracy’ mainly involves making life difficult for opposition candidates, limiting their access to the media, and things like that, rather than practices like ballot stuffing or falsifying the count (not to say that these practices don’t happen, but the general feeling is that the authorities prefer to limit them so as to avoid ridiculous results that lack legitimacy).
Nevertheless, although the playing field is far from a level one, when Russian voters head into the booths to cast their ballots, they have quite a lot of choice.
It’s reckoned that four or five parties will gain seats in the Duma via the proportional representation system that assigns half the total to those parties that win over 5% (the other half are chosen by first-past-the-post constituency elections). Most of these likely winners fall, I would say, in the left-conservative bracket, but there’s a lot of variation – from the hard left Communist Party of the Russian Federation (CPRF), through the also fairly left wing Just Russia party, the centrist United Russia, the centre-right New People (the least likely to pass the 5% hurdle), and the nationalist LDPR.
If those aren’t to your liking, there’s another 9 parties on the ballot papers. Most are no-hopers, though one or two might win a constituency here or there. For instance, if you’re the kind of person who thinks that the CPRF has sold out communism, you can vote for the more hardcore Communists of Russia. Or, likewise, if you think that the LDPR are a bunch of softies and you want tougher action on issues like immigration, you can throw your support behind Rodina. Or, if you’re liberally-inclined and think that New People are Kremlin stooges, you can put your cross next to the name of Yabloko (also Kremlin stooges according to the bizarre logic of the Navalnyites) or the more free market-inclined Party of Growth.
In other words, despite all the manipulations of the authorities, even if the final result is not in doubt (United Russia will win a majority), once you’re in voting booth ready to cast your secret ballot you actually have a lot of options open to you.
Now, let’s look at Canada.
Outside of Quebec (where you also have the separatist Bloc Quebecois), there’s only three options if you want to vote for somebody who win will a seat: Liberal, Conservative, and NDP (Green might pick up one seat, but overall are somewhere around 3% in the polls). The only other party likely to get a reasonable number of votes is the People’s Party of Canada, which is enjoying a surge (6-7%), primarily, it seems, by appealing to anti-vaxxers. But it has no chance of winning any seats and is thus a wasted vote except as a protest.
In other words, in real terms you have a choice of three parties. Let’s see what distinguishes them. As far as I can see, their platforms run roughly as follows:
Party A: Money grows on trees. Spend, spend, spend. Party B: Money grows on trees. Spend, spend, spend, and spend! Party C: Money grows on trees. Spend, spend, spend, and spend some more!
Party A: Here’s the list of interest groups I want to throw money at. Party B: Here’s my list. Look it’s even longer. Party C: Hah, you think your list is long – look at mine!
Party A: Woke is good. Party B: Woke is extra good. Party C: Woke is extra, extra good.
Party A: Russia is evil. Party B: Russia is very evil. Party C: Russia is very super evil.
Party A: We’ll be tough on China. Party B: We’ll be extra tough on China. Party C: We’ll be extra, mega tough on China. (Of course, in practice, none of them will!)
By now you get the point. It doesn’t really matter who you vote for, you end up with pretty much the same thing. That’s not to say that there are no differences, but they’re not on fundamentals. Basically, it’s three variations of a theme.
So there you have it. In one country, you have lots of choice, but the system’s fixed to make sure the same guys always win. In the other, it’s a fair fight – anyone can win – it just doesn’t matter who does – they’re all the same. You might say that one is rigged at the micro level, while the other is rigged at the macro level.
Which is better? I’ll leave it to you to decide. Meanwhile, I have the difficult decision as to whether Party A, Party B, or Party C is more worthy of my vote on Monday. What a choice!
A technical report was released Monday by a multidisciplinary research team created by the Cuban Academy of Sciences (ACC) on the “unidentified health incidents” reported in Havana in which some U.S. employees complained of various symptoms when they were stationed in Havana. Similar symptoms apparently appeared in some Canadian citizens and, later, in U.S. employees in other countries.
The report debunks a narrative it calls “mystery syndrome,” which assumes that the cause of these incidents are attacks with some unidentified energy weapon. Its authors reveal that the narrative is based on the following – unverified – claims:
1) A novel syndrome with shared core symptoms and signs is present in the affected employees;
2) It is possible to detect in these employees brain damage originating during their stay in Havana;
3) A directed energy source exists that could affect people’s brains from great distances after crossing the physical barriers of homes or hotel rooms;
4) A weapon capable of generating such a physical agent is achievable and identified;
5) Evidence of an attack was discovered;
6): The available evidence rules out alternative medical explanations.
The report critically examines the plausibility of these claims and the evidence on which they are based, concluding that the “mystery syndrome” narrative is not scientifically acceptable in any of its components and has only survived because of a biased use of science.
Although the report lacks some information, it provides plausible interpretations that fit the available facts better than the “mystery syndrome” narrative, based on published reports in the United States and Canada and field studies in Havana.
The text details the arguments for these interpretations, which are that:
Possibly some U.S. employees while stationed in Havana felt ill due to a heterogeneous collection of medical conditions, some pre-existing before going to Cuba and others acquired due to simple or well-known causes.
Many diseases prevalent in the general population can explain most of the symptoms. Thus, there is no novel syndrome (something evident in the official U.S. reports). Only a minority of people have detectable brain dysfunction, most due to experiences prior to their stay in Havana and others due to well-known medical conditions.
No known form of energy can selectively cause brain damage (with spatial precision similar to a laser beam) under the conditions described for the alleged Havana incidents.
The laws of physics governing sound, ultrasound, infrasound or radio frequency waves (including microwaves) do not permit this. These forms of energy could not have damaged brains without being felt or heard by others, without disturbing electronic devices in the case of microwaves, or without producing other injuries (such as ruptured eardrums or skin burns).
The report assures that at no time was anything of the sort reported. Although there are weapons that use sound or microwaves they are large in size and there is no possibility that this type of weapon would not go unnoticed (or leave a trace) if it had been deployed in Havana. Neither the Cuban Police, nor the F.B.I., nor the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, have discovered evidence of “attacks” on diplomats in Havana despite intensive investigations.
Finally, psychogenic and toxic explanations for many symptoms in some cases were rejected by adequate research. Specifically, all the conditions for the psychogenic spread of distress were present in this episode, including probably an inadequate initial medical response, early official U.S. government endorsement of an “attack” theory, and sensationalist media coverage, among others.
The experts stand ready to revise its conclusions if new evidence emerges, inviting efforts to refute its interpretations in a climate of open scientific collaboration. However, it firmly rejects as “established truth” a narrative built on flimsy foundations and flawed scientific practice. An example is the idea that there was an “attack,” which is accepted as “established truth without critical thinking.”
Some scientific articles – and most of the news read – accept as an axiom that there were attacks in Havana, so they take it as an idea on which to build theories. However, after four years, no evidence of attacks has surfaced, making it time to rethink the narrative, the report’s authors hold.
Dr Julie Ponesse, a professor of ethics at the University of Western Ontario and a member of the Canadian Covid Care Alliance on the current vaccine mandates and passports in the context of our existing informed consent laws and commitments to privacy and bioethics.
Contrast Covid’s impact on four East Asian countries (Taiwan, Singapore, Japan and South Korea) with its impact on four US Northeastern states (New York, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Connecticut).
All eight jurisdictions host high-tech societies with market-orientated economies and democratic constitutions.
All boast ultra-modern hospitals, medical colleges and public health programs.
Two differences: a) compared to the US Northeast, the East Asian countries engage in more trade and travel with Covid’s epicentre, China; and, b) Covid toured East Asia before debuting in the US Northeast.
New York state’s population (19.5 million) is slightly smaller than Taiwan’s (23.8 million). Covid has killed 837 Taiwanese, and 54,895 New Yorkers.
Massachusetts’ population (6.9 million) is comparable to Singapore’s (5.9 million). Covid fatalities in Massachusetts – 18,272. Covid fatalities in Singapore – 55.
The combined population of our four Northeastern states (38.7 million) is well below South Korea’s (51.3 million). Covid’s death toll in our Northeastern states is 108,480. Only 2,303 South Koreans have died from Covid.
Our four East Asian countries (207 million) register a total of 19,308 Covid deaths. New Jersey (8.9 million) claims 26,919 Covid deaths.
Per capita, Covid has proven 341 times deadlier to New Jersians than Singaporeans!
Regarding Covid testing rates, Singapore is East Asia’s outlier. By conducting 17.8 million tests Singaporeans have achieved 3 tests per citizen. This still falls short of New York’s 3.3 tests per citizen and Massachusetts’ 3.8 tests per citizen. (You’ve read correctly. Certain people get tested again and again.)
Most East Asian countries, following Japan’s lead, test only patients exhibiting pneumonia-like symptoms. Japan tests 174,000 per 1 million inhabitants. Our four East Asian countries cumulatively have conducted 58 million tests. New York has conducted 66 million.
Massachusettsans test for Covid at 22 times Japan’s rate!
Medical tyranny boosters attribute East Asia’s “success” to harsh public health regimes; but Northeastern states imposed notorious lockdowns, often more Draconian than those deployed in East Asia.
Testing strategies are key. Testing only symptomatic patients is sounder than mass testing.
Asymptomatic Sars-CoV-2 carriers are extremely unlikely to be contagious.
Most people who contract Sars-CoV-2 become neither sick nor contagious.
PCR tests detect: a) miniscule infections that will not take hold; b) dead viruses from infections defeated by natural immune responses; and c) random genetic flotsam resembling Sars-CoV-2.
Mass testing yields positive results from persons who are neither sick nor contagious, and who are unlikely to become so.
By inflating case counts, mass testing makes Covid appear worse than it is.
Likewise, declaring all those who die after testing positive to be “Covid fatalities” – co-morbidities be damned – inflates death tallies; again, making Covid appear worse than it is.
Testing-based legerdemain doesn’t fully explain the whopping discrepancy between Covid’s impact in East Asia and the US Northeast.
This discrepancy also arises from the fact that the US Northeast was one of several areas following Milan’s lead i.e., during the pandemic’s early months health authorities allowed the contagion to rage unchecked through long-term care facilities.
Senior’s homes became Sars-CoV-2 incubators.
Milan, Montreal, the US Northeast et al became continental super-spreaders evidenced by supersized body counts.
Covid-19 is one matter; government response to Covid-19 is quite another.
Sources
Covid fatality and testing stats were extracted from Worldmeter’s Covid database on September 2, 2021.
With the Canadian federal election less than two weeks away, only one of the top six parties has definitively opposed COVID vaccine passports and vowed to repeal them if elected; Maxime Bernier’s People’s Party of Canada.
The other parties – Justin Trudeau’s Liberal Party of Canada, Erin O’Toole’s Conservative Party, Jagmeet Singh’s New Democrat Party, Yves-François Blanchet’s Bloc Québécois, Annamie Paul’s Green Party of Canada – have either expressed support for vaccine passports or not made a definitive statement on the issue.
The People’s Party’s COVID policy takes a strong stance against vaccine passports and includes a plan that details how the party intends to repeal and oppose vaccine passports and mandates if elected.
“Governments don’t want to admit that they were wrong and are imposing increasingly authoritarian measures on the population, including vaccine passports,” the People’s Party states in its COVID policy. “Both the vaccinated and the unvaccinated will suffer under a regime of segregation, constant control, and surveillance. It is illusory to believe that the virus can be eradicated. We have to learn to live with it, without destroying our way of life in the process.”
The People’s Party also notes that “both the vaccinated and the unvaccinated can get infected and transmit the virus, which negates the rationale for segregation and vaccine passports.”
If elected, the People’s Party has promised to:
Repeal vaccine passports for travelers
Repeal vaccine mandates and regular testing for federal civil servants and workers in federally regulated industries
Oppose vaccine mandates and passports imposed by provincial governments and support individuals and groups that challenge such measures in court
In addition to this strong stance against vaccine passports and mandates, the People’s Party has also vowed to promote an approach to the pandemic that “guarantees the freedom of Canadians to make decisions based on informed consent, and rejects coercion and discrimination.”
To achieve this, the party vows to fire the Chief Public Health Officer of Canada Theresa Tam if elected and replace her with “someone who will work with provincial agencies to implement a rational approach to the pandemic, instead of following the recommendations of the World Health Organization.”
Bernier has consistently reiterated the People’s Party’s strong stance against vaccine passports by displaying banners with a “No Vax Passports” slogan during campaign stops, speaking out against vaccine passports, and attending vaccine passport protests.
“Vaccine passports are inefficient, unconstitutional and immoral,” Bernier told True North in August. “They will not prevent the spread of the virus because we now know that vaccinated people can also spread it. They would create two types of citizens with different rights. I don’t want to live in a ’show-me-your-papers’ society. If that happens, whether you are vaccinated or not will be irrelevant. Everyone will lose their freedoms and suffer in a surveillance and police state.”
By contrast, Trudeau’s Liberals have promised a $1 billion COVID-19 proof-of-vaccination fund to assist provinces in developing and implementing their own systems. Trudeau has described provincial vaccine passports as an “interim measure, that will perhaps last a year or so” before federal vaccine passports are promised to support businesses that are sued for forcing vaccine passports.
Paul’s Green Party has yet to make a definitive statement on vaccine passports. In August, Paul questioned the Liberals’ motives in announcing a plan for mandatory vaccination two days before calling an election and called for information on “how the plan will accommodate people with legitimate reasons for not getting vaccinated.”
Local Green Party candidates have given conflicting answers on vaccine passports. Simcoe North Green Party candidate Krystal Brooks stated “I believe vaccine passports should be mandatory for essential workers to decrease the spread” while Kootenay-Columbia Green Party candidate Rana Nelson said “We, as in the Green Party, are not going to force vaccines.”
By Kit Klarenberg · The Grayzone · February 6, 2026
Half a century after the public learned that boys at a Belfast group home were sexually assaulted by senior staff, a key question remains unanswered: was British intelligence implicated in the abuse conspiracy, and did Kincora serve as a ‘honeypot’ to entrap and blackmail powerful figures?
A vast trove of declassified files on Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual, political, and intelligence escapades released by the US Department of Justice has once again thrust disgraced former Prince Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor into the spotlight. With British police reportedly reviewing Andrew’s past sexual activities and links to Epstein, questions are growing about whether Britain’s spy agencies were aware of Andrew’s alleged escapades with minors.
If the darkest rumors turn out to be true, it will not be the first time a British royal had been embroiled in a child rape conspiracy with spy agency involvement. Back in 1980, a scandal erupted when the Kincora Boys’ Home in occupied Ireland was exposed as a secret brothel run by powerful pedophiles. Chief among the alleged perpetrators was Lord Mountbatten — Andrew’s great-uncle.
From the very beginning, hints began to appear that MI5/MI6 knew of the child abuse taking place Kincora, and could have even been running the group home as part of a dastardly intelligence plot. With Britain’s domestic and foreign spies engaged in a savage dirty war in Ireland, and both services running operatives in Republican and Unionist paramilitaries, Kincora would have provided an ideal means of recruiting and compromising potential assets. Official investigations have strongly insinuated British intelligence chiefs had a close bond with many individuals who ran the Boys’ Home.
In May 2025, veteran BBC journalist Chris Moore published a forensic account of the case titled Kincora: Britain’s Shame. Featuring four and a half decades of firsthand research by the author, its groundbreaking contents have been met with general silence by British mainstream media.
In the book, Moore argues persuasively that the Boys’ Home was just one component of a more extensive child abuse network extending across British-occupied Ireland and beyond — in which London’s spying apparatus was not only aware, but likely complicit. … continue
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
Aletho News 