NZ Doctors Receive ‘Perverse’ Monetary Incentives to Vaccinate, ‘Hush Money’ Paid to Victims’ Families
By Amy Mek | RAIR Foundation | December 21, 2021
Veteran New Zealand doctor René de Monchy’s career came to an abrupt halt after refusing to be vaccinated. Wanting to remain “vaccine-free,” the physician of over 48 years was fired, banned from his hospital, and not allowed to say goodbye to his patients.
The general practitioner and psychiatrist is shining a spotlight on the Globalist forces using Covid to help them seize control of New Zealand. The brave doctor questioned why doctors and patients receive monetary “vaccine” incentives. Furthermore, Dr. Monchy believes the actual number of people who have died from the vaccines is not reported, and relatives of those killed from the injection are receiving “hush money.”
Critical From The Begining
From their inception, Dr. Monchy was very critical of the “experimental, never-before-used mRNA vaccines.” The Doctor disagreed with the vaccine’s “lack of a control group and long-term outcomes,” reports the Doctors Collective. Even more so, the Doctor is outraged that the injection is being promoted to children and pregnant women,
… what closed the door for me was when the vaccines were also given to children, who are absolutely not at risk with corona infection. In addition, the mRNA vaccines were also promoted for pregnant women, which is completely contrary to any medical and scientific tradition of carefully weighing the pros and cons. The immune system, especially of a child, is a delicate interplay. It is like a symphony orchestra with several sections; the winds, strings, and percussion, all of which must fill in at just the right time. By administering vaccines whose effects are still largely unknown, you are going to disrupt this interplay. We have every reason to be cautious.
“Peverse”Monetary Incentives
Since the arrival of the gene-therapy injections, New Zealand has pushed to have 90% of its population receive two injections. In December, the country successfully reached its milestone. To achieve its 90% “vaccination” goal, Dr. Monchy explained that every citizen who received the injection was bribed with a voucher of 20 NZD (12 euros). At the same time, doctors have been given 359 NZD (216 euros) per vaccine.
Just five weeks ago, New Zealand had a so-called “vaxxathon,” a kind of festive campaign, with the sole purpose of giving as many people as possible a shot. Dr. Monchy reported that one health center made 175,000 NZD (105,000 euros) during that vaxxathon. “There is a perverse incentive for doctors to participate in this kind of campaign,” stated the Doctor.
No Vaccine Exemption
Vaccine exceptions were initially allowed in New Zealand, but were soon withdrawn by the government. The only exception now is if someone has suffered anaphylactic shock or a pulmonary embolism after the injection, explains the doctor. “I have had patients who suffered a stroke or Guillaume Barré after the first injection. But what do you think? No exception was given for a second vaccination.”
Similarly, in Australia, Senator Gerard Rennick condemned his government for forcing citizens to take a second shot if they suffered an adverse event from the first.
Chance Of Fine Or Jail
Those who don’t get pricked are demonized as anti-vaxxers and increasingly socially excluded. Since November 18, an unvaccinated person is no longer allowed to work in health care, education, or air and sea transport. Following the introduction of the Corona Pass on December 3, the unvaccinated are no longer welcome in hospitality, sports, cultural events, and non-essential stores. Those who fail to comply risk a fine of NZD 12,000 (€7210) or six months in prison. We have become a segregated society, explains Dr. Monchy.
Because the Doctor works in healthcare, he was also required to get vaccinated. On the day the deadline passed, the manager called him in her office. She asked if he had been vaccinated. He replied, “no.” Immediately his computer account and swipe card were blocked. He was unable to say goodbye to patients and colleagues. He received a restraining order from the hospital, “like a hooligan receiving a stadium ban,” stated Dr. Monchy.
One of the doctor’s closest colleagues told him that there is no talk about the people forced to leave the hospital. The doctor’s co-workers are afraid of losing their livelihoods. The rumor is that doctor’s medical licenses will be revoked, which has already happened to three colleagues.
The doctor is sporadically working under the radar. He sees patients through teleconsultations. His only hope is to continue doing the work he loves.
Posthumous PCR Positive
At the onset of the corona crisis in early 2020, the doctors were initially shocked by the extreme outlook we were presented with, states Dr.Monchy. However, it soon became apparent that the mortality rate was much lower than predicted; in New Zealand, exactly 46 people have died from Covid-19 from January 2020 to date, according to official statistics. Anyone who dies within 28 days of a positive PCR test is counted as a corona death, regardless of other circumstances. Recently, the police in New Zealand shot and killed a criminal. Posthumously, the PCR test turned out to be positive. As a result, he, too, went down in the books as a corona death explains the Doctor.
Leaders Do Not Care About People’s Health
Standard ways of improving health are not encouraged, such as diet, exercise, and fresh air, but rather suppressed. Moreover, any dissent by doctors is being dealt with harshly, either in the media or through the Medical Councils (professional organizations), states Dr. Monchy. “At some point, it dawned on me: this is not so much about health, but more about politics, money, power, and social manipulation.”
Globalists Have Seized Control Of New Zealand
New Zealand is a testing ground for international organizations wanting to roll out systems worldwide, explains Dr. Monchy. For example, credit cards and PIN payment (EFTPOS) were first introduced in New Zealand. In addition, the country is remote and easy to manage, as the population is generally accommodating.
The Doctor slammed the country’s globalist Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern,
She is intelligent, but also shrewd woman, who has mastered political maneuvering to her fingertips. After the attack in Christchurch, she was able to count on much goodwill among the population. Ardern has a degree in communications which you can see, she knows how to play to the masses. What has also helped her is that the press was completely in her hands, and still is by the way.
Jacinda Ardern is closely connected with World Economic Forum (WEF) and was its selected Young Global Leader. RAIR Foundation USA recently reported on her and the Young Global Leaders school, which was established and managed by Klaus Schwab of the WEF. Arden, like many of the school’s famous for Covid dictator attendees are exploiting the pandemic with the aim of crashing national economies and introducing a global digital currency.
Arden’s Labour party has an absolute majority in parliament. The Doctor explains that this allows Arden’s party to publish laws on Thursday, and her government will quickly and quietly push them through on Monday. The leader operates at a pace that the public is supposed to struggle to keep up with.
The Prime Minister has already said that there will be no end to vaccines. The latest Covid-19 law is far-reaching: the Minister of Health can declare a location an emergency area, after which agencies have the right to enter a home, test the people present, and provide mandatory “treatment.” All court cases brought against this type of measure, up to the Supreme Court, have been lost.
“It would be a mistake to think that this system is unique to New Zealand or that only here will it be so extreme.” I think the system is only being perfected here before it is introduced in other places, explains the Doctor.
Powerful international organizations, such as the WEF are out to bring about an overall social transformation. A new plan is launched almost every week in our area, such as a general smoking ban. So much is unknown, but what the Doctor feels sure about is, “so much power should never be in the hands of a government.”
“It is fascinating but creepy to see how a small group of people around Jacinda Ardern have taken control of this country,” states the Doctor. He questions why a majority of the population goes along with this?
Why do we allow ourselves to be split into “good citizens” and the “anti-vaxxers” or “outcasts”? I have noticed that it is precisely the more intellectual people who fall for it. That includes, unfortunately, many fellow physicians, when you cannot possibly maintain that this regime of vaccines and measures is good for public health. I think the scale of the deception certainly has something to do with it. It is simply too big to grasp. The moment you see through it, you lose much of what you have assumed to be valid up to that point. Intellectuals have more invested in the system; they, therefore, have more to lose. Perhaps our greatest fear is that we will lose our minds. To give up confidence in this corona system is maddening; many people do not yet dare to do so.
Sums Of Hush Money
According to official figures, 117 deaths have been reported as “possibly associated” with the Pfizer vaccine, of which only one case has been assessed as “probable.” The rest are still under investigation, or the deaths were dismissed as “not related to the vaccine.”
These are entirely different figures reaching us through the unofficial route, explains the doctor. We have collected 220 cases via next of kin in which the vaccine is most likely the cause of death. For example, a healthy 50-year-old man or a 15-year-old youth died a day after their shot. He reports that “there are indications that relatives are being offered sums of hush money.”
History Repeating Itself
The doctor grew up in the Netherlands and was conceived around the liberation. His father was active in the underground, helping Allied pilots to escape. But, of course, this was dangerous, so his family lived in a certain tension.
During his childhood, the war was never far away. He grew up playing in the bomb craters in the street. His family regularly discussed the war in their home; it was not taboo. Dr. Monchy’s father described how the occupying forces gradually tightened the thumbscrews: “identification requirements, more and more restrictions, then excluding entire groups.” Exactly as is happening now in New Zealand and elsewhere worldwide, explained the doctor. Unfortunately, it is the known way to take control, as history has repeatedly shown.
Hope For New Zealand
The doctor has not lost hope and praised activist organizations like Voices for Freedom for doing fantastic work in New Zealand. Demonstrations are held in many cities almost every week and attract hundreds or even thousands of people. The Globalists can only suppress human beings for so long stressed the doctor,
You have to remember that our “opponents” see us as interchangeable, as expendable units. For everyone the same vaccine. For all the world the same QR system. There is no place for our sense of self in their human vision. But this clashes with the uniqueness of the human being. You can suppress the sense of self for a while, but not for very long. Once people have rediscovered themselves, they start to see the seriousness of the current situation and the turnaround comes.
In April 2021, doctors, dentists, pharmacists and veterinarians set up an organization, New Zealand Doctors Speaking Out with Science. Their group objected to pharma companies actions and the harsh consequences they faced for voicing their concerns,
Our group formed around an open letter to the New Zealand government that expressed our concerns with the Pfizer Comirnaty Covid-19 injection, as well as the implication from our regulatory bodies that we would be considered incompetent in our duties if we provided fully informed consent about this procedure.
The organization is growing quickly as hundreds of doctors, nurses, and other paramedics have been fired for being vaccine-free – they deliberately do not call them “unvaccinated.” When the first side effects of the gene therapy injections appeared, people noticed that their complaints were brushed aside, as was the personal experience of nurses in hospitals. Their organization tries its best to help these brave individuals.
Seeking Connection
Many colleagues Dr. Monchy speaks to express open doubts about the harsh corona policy in private. They wonder whether the measures still have to do with public health. The doctor is glad that they are expressing their doubts and seeking a connection with other medics. “For myself, I will remain true to my principles. I stand for individual freedom and responsibility, for ‘Respect for Life.’ No one can judge me on that.”
Victoria government lied about who had access to Covid contact tracing data

By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | December 28, 2021
The government of the Australian state of Victoria not only decided to deliberately keep citizens in the dark about court rulings exposing the fact the privacy of their data collected by contact tracing apps can be compromised – but is now doubling down.
And the way the state’s Acting Premier Jacinta Allan, who has currently taken over while Premier Dan Andrews is being investigated for “concealing treason and fraud,” chose to defend the failure to inform people about matters pertaining to sensitive private information about them was to say the government was – shielding them from misinformation.
Australian media say the attempts to hide the truth have been made repeatedly, and Allan’s logic in defending the move is that if revealed, the Supreme Court’s secret ruling that said the data was not “absolutely protected” would have given rise to a “baseless scare campaign” as media reporting the facts would have caused “fear and misinformation.”
She did not clarify what type of “misinformation and fear” was expected to arise from the truth.
“The decision was taken in the balance of providing confidence in the Victorian community that this wasn’t a matter that needed to have that level of misinformation spread about it,” Allan said on Tuesday of the way the multiple levels of deceit had been handled.
This Supreme Court finding came to light after the Herald Sun reported that despite explicit promises of information safety, and its use only for health purposes, this was a lie – and one ongoing for two years.
Instead of making contact tracing data available only in order to fight the epidemic, it was also available to law enforcement, and authorities like the WorkCover agency.
It was precisely that agency’s demands to be given access to tracing app data that launched the legal case, when the Department of Health asked the court to order WorkCover to stop.
Another revelation is that the state’s Covid commander Jeroen Weimar petitioned the court to keep the case secret for five years. He tried to persuade the court that maintaining Victorians’ trust in the tracing system was what really matters – at the same time downplaying the importance of the citizens’ right to know their data can be shared, despite assurances from Covid tracers that this was not possible.
Asked if it was right to hide from the public the truth about the safety of their data – and the fact a court case was unfolding financed by their tax money, Allan said, “They don’t deserve a fear campaign, they don’t deserve misinformation,” and added that their data “will be protected.”
Shadow Attorney-General Matt Bach sees the scandal differently:
“People should be shocked and appalled. We should never become accustomed to this level of dishonesty.”
Israel refuses to provide evidence for banning Palestinian rights groups
MEMO | December 28, 2021
The Israeli occupation authorities have failed to provide evidence for outlawing six Palestinian human rights and civil society groups, the Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel (Adalah) said on Tuesday.
“The organisations have not received any of the evidentiary materials that the Israeli authorities purport to justify this draconian and sweeping measure,” Adalah said in a statement.
Adalah pointed out that it had sent a letter to the Israeli security authorities, demanding that they reveal all of the evidence forming the bases of the designations.
“There is no justice, fairness or due process for the organisations, without access to these materials in their entirety in order to defend themselves,” Adalah stressed.
On 19 October 2021, Israeli Defence Minister Benny Gantz designated six leading Palestinian human rights and civil society groups as “terrorist organisations” under Israel’s domestic Counter-Terrorism Law which was ratified in 2016.
The Israeli military commander in the occupied West Bank also outlawed all the six groups, declaring them “unlawful associations.”
Adalah’s legal team said that “the designations constitute a blatant political decision aimed at destroying Palestinian civil society, based on arbitrary law and emergency measures.”
In its statement, Adalah described the six groups as “the most vocal against Israel’s occupation and apartheid policies locally and internationally and provide needed services to a wide range of Palestinian communities,” hinting that this is the real reason behind banning them.
“These baseless designations aim to delegitimise and discredit the work of these groups, placing the organisations, their staff and their supporters in danger of criminal charges,” the statement said.
Adalah reiterated that the six groups did not have any information about the reason for their designation. “To date, they have had no meaningful opportunity to review and challenge the bases of the designations, as no evidence has been provided to them,” Adalah said.
Why is Israel Amending Its Open-Fire Policy: Three Possible Answers
By Ramzy Baroud | MEMO | December 28, 2021
At the outset, the Israeli military decision to revise its open-fire policies in the occupied West Bank seems puzzling. What would be the logic of giving Israeli soldiers the space to shoot more Palestinians when existing army manuals had already granted them near-total immunity and little legal accountability?
The military’s new rules now allow Israeli soldiers to shoot, even kill, fleeing Palestinian youngsters with live ammunition for allegedly throwing rocks at Israeli ‘civilian’ cars. This also applies to situations where the alleged Palestinian ‘attackers’ are not holding rocks at the time of the shooting.
The reference to ‘civilians’ in the revised army manual applies to armed Israeli Jewish settlers who have colonised the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem in defiance of international law and Palestinian sovereignty. These settlers, who often operate as paramilitary forces in direct coordination with the Israeli army, endanger the lives of their own families by residing on occupied Palestinian land. Per Israel’s twisted standards, these violent Israelis, who have killed and wounded numerous Palestinians throughout the years, are ‘civilians’ in need of protection from rock-throwing Palestinian ‘assailants.’
In Israel, throwing rocks is a “serious crime” and Palestinians who throw rocks are “criminals”, according to Liron Libman, Israel’s former chief military prosecutor, commenting on the new rules. For Israelis, there is little disagreement on these assertions, even by those who are questioning the legality of the new rules. The point of contention, according to Libman and others, is that “a person who is fleeing does not present a threat,” though, according to Libman himself, “the new policy could potentially be justified,” The Times of Israel reported.
The ‘debate’ on the new open-fire policy in Israeli media, gives one the false impression that something fundamental has changed in the Israeli army’s relationship with occupied Palestinians. This is not the case at all. There are numerous, daily examples in which Palestinians, including children, are shot and killed with impunity, whether throwing rocks or not, going to school or merely protesting the illegal confiscation of their land by the Israeli military or armed settlers.
In the Palestinian village of Beita, in the northern occupied West Bank, eight unarmed Palestinians have been killed since May. This small village has been the scene of regular demonstrations against Jewish settlement expansion and against the illegal settlement outpost of Eviatar, in the Palestinian rural area of Mount Sabih. The victims include Muhammad Ali Khabisa, the 28-year-old father of an eight-month-old child, who was shot dead last September.
Though the new rules have placed much emphasis on the status of the supposed Israeli victims, labelling them ‘civilians’, in practice, the Israeli military has used the exact same standard to shoot, maim and kill Palestinian alleged rock-throwers, even when armed settlers are not present.
A famous case, in 2015, involved the killing of a 17-year-old Palestinian teenager, Mohammad Kosba, at the hands of an Israeli army colonel, Yisrael Shomer. The latter alleged that Kosba had thrown a rock at his car. Subsequently, Shomer chased down the Palestinian teenager and shot him in the back, killing him.
The Israeli officer was “censored” for his conduct, not for killing the boy, but for not stopping “in order to aim properly,” according to The Times of Israel. The Israeli military chief prosecutor at the time concluded that “Shomer’s use of deadly force under the framework of the arrest protocol was justified from the circumstances of the incident.”
Israel’s disregard of international law in its targeting of Palestinians is not a secret. Israeli and international human rights groups have repeatedly condemned the Israeli army’s inhumane and barbaric behaviour in the occupied territories.
In an extensive report as early as 2014, Amnesty International condemned Israel’s “callous disregard for human life by killing dozens of Palestinian civilians, including children, in the occupied West Bank” over the years. AI said that such killings had taken place “with near total impunity.”
“The frequency and persistence of arbitrary and abusive force against peaceful protesters in the West Bank by Israeli soldiers and police officers – and the impunity enjoyed by perpetrators – suggests that it is carried out as a matter of policy,” the Amnesty report read.
Even Israel’s own rights group, B’tselem, concurs. The organisation decried the Israeli army’s “shoot-to-kill policy”, which is also applied to “people who have already been ‘neutralized'”. Indeed, in the case of Abdel Fattah al-Sharif, a Palestinian man who was shot point-blank in Al-Khalil (Hebron), by an Israeli military medic, Elor Azaria, in 2016, was not only ‘neutralized’ but also unconscious.
According to B’tselem, Israeli “soldiers and police officers have become judge, jury and executioner”. With this tragic and sinister trajectory in mind, one is left to wonder why the Israeli army would amend its open-fire policy at this particular moment. There are three possible answers:
One, the Israeli government and army are anticipating a surge in Palestinian popular resistance in the coming months, possibly as a result of the massive expansion of illegal settlements and forced evictions in occupied East Jerusalem.
Two, by perfectly aligning the existing open-fire policy with the aggressive shoot-to-kill military practice already in place, Israeli courts would no longer have to contend with any legal repercussions for killing Palestinians, including children, regardless of the circumstances of their murders.
Finally, the revised rules would allow Israel to make a case for itself in response to the open investigation by the International Criminal Court (ICC), concerning human rights violations and war crimes in occupied Palestine. Israel’s Attorney General will now argue that no war crimes are taking place in Palestine since the killing of Palestinians is consistent with Israel’s own military conduct and judicial system. Since the ICC is investigating alleged war criminals, not the government itself, Israel hopes that it can spare its own murderers from having to contend with the legal expectations of the Court.
Though the timing of the Israeli military decision to amend its open-fire policy may appear sudden and without much context, the decision is still ominous, nonetheless. When a country’s military decides that shooting a child in the back without any proof that the alleged ‘criminal’ posed any danger whatsoever is a legal act, the international community must take notice.
It is true that Israel operates outside the minimum standards of international and humanitarian laws, but it is the responsibility of the international community to protect Palestinians, whose lives remain precious even if Israel disagrees.
Big Brother Watch launches legal challenge to England’s vaccine passport
By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | December 27, 2021
London-based rights group Big Brother Watch, a vocal opponent of Covid passes being introduced in England, has launched a legal challenge to the scheme it considers an example of divisive and discriminatory dystopia.
After raising nearly a quarter of a million pounds online to fund its cause (and crowdfunding campaign continues) – which Big Brother Watch said would go entirely towards fighting against Covid passes, including via costly legal challenges – the group has decided to oppose the government’s Covid passes law in court.
Big Brother Watch is challenging the law on mandatory Covid passports in England claiming that it violates privacy, and is draconian and discriminatory in nature. They are also raising concerns that the Human Rights Act and equality law may fall victim to the new Covid pass rules.
Previously, the rights group urged its supporters to speak up against the scheme as unnecessary and counterproductive, as well as introducing a checkpoint society, surveillance state, along with mission creep and detrimental measures that will become irreversible.
In a pre-action letter to launch the legal battle against the law that is proving to be highly controversial even among the ruling majority in the UK parliament, the group notes that the government failed to provide any evidence about the Covid passes benefiting public health, while a damning parliamentary report said that there was no scientific or logical justification for their introduction.
In addition, Big Brother Watch stated, the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) failed to recommend Covid passports, and for all these reasons the scheme is seen as draconian, and pointless.
Nonetheless, PM Johnson’s government recently pushed the proposal through parliament despite nearly 100 MPs from his Conservative Party voting against – the biggest rebellion of the Johnson era.
Since mid-December, those entering nightclubs, sports and other large events must show the pass that proves they have been fully vaccinated or recently tested.
In announcing the bid to reverse this policy by legal means, Big Brother Watch Director Silkie Carlo said that Covid IDs “don’t tell you that a person doesn’t have Covid or can’t spread Covid, but do make society less free, less equal and less accessible for people.”
New York Democrat introduces new social media censorship bill
The bill aims to curb people’s speech by targeting platforms
By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | December 27, 2021
If a state senator got his way, the state of New York could soon get a new law aimed at regulating what content can appear on social media. The bill is designed to circumvent existing federal-level solutions in some instances and is reportedly inspired by internal documents leaked by former Facebook employee Frances Haugen.
But many legal experts believe that the bill, if passed, would eventually be overturned as unconstitutional for preventing dissemination of protected content.
The bill sponsored by state Senator Brad Hoylman wants to tackle what’s referred to as unlawful online content such as “misinformation” (particularly around Covid/vaccines), and posts that might allegedly lead users to develop eating disorders or engage in self-harm.
Envisaged in the bill is an amendment to New York’s penal code that lets citizens, the state attorney general and city corporation councils sue tech companies behind social media networks, or individuals, if they are suspected of “contributing” to spread of misinformation in a manner that’s “knowing or reckless.”
And while the bill is worded in a way that states content seen as endangering people’s safety or health should be clamped down on if it is “promoted” – including (but not exclusively) by means of algorithms and other methods of recommendation, experts say the distinction between that and any post created by users is not clear enough to stand up to legal scrutiny.
“The distinction between ‘hosting’ and ‘amplifying’ content is incoherent,” Santa Clara University School of Law professor Eric Goldman has told the New York Post, adding that Hoylman has taken that “incoherent” idea – “and embraced its most censorial option.”
According to Goldman, content that Hoylman’s bill takes aim at, such as, but not limited to, what’s considered false or harmful information that concerns Covid or political issues is in fact protected free speech under the First Amendment.
And for that reason, this expert believes, the draft legislation is unconstitutionally overbroad.
Commenting on the bill, David Greene of the Electronic Frontier Foundation concurred that the law would face First Amendment hurdles, and noted that because of the rapidly changing official guidance regarding the pandemic, it is very hard to even define what qualifies for Covid misinformation (when so much “expert” information has turned out to be false.)
“It’s really very difficult to impose liability in an environment where the truth can be hard to grasp at any point in time,” this attorney remarked.
Children with disabilities offered ‘do not resuscitate’ orders amid pandemic
RT | December 27, 2021
The UK’s efforts to “protect the NHS” from being overwhelmed during the Covid-19 pandemic reportedly extended to asking families of disabled minors whether they should be resuscitated in the event their heart stopped beating.
The so-called “do not resuscitate” orders, known as DNACPRs, were offered to families of children with autism and other learning disabilities amid concerns about pressure on the UK’s socialized National Health Service, the Telegraph newspaper reported on Sunday.
The media outlet cited interviews with families that were presented the opt-out for resuscitation during routine medical appointments. For instance, the mother of a 16-year-old boy with Down’s syndrome said that a clinic employee offered her the option of a DNACPR for her son during a checkup.
“It is a disgusting question,” said the mother, Kent resident Karen Woollard. “The health assistant was following a form and she was very polite about it – suggesting she knew I wouldn’t want it to be ticked – but the question should not have appeared. It was very upsetting.”
The mother of a 16-year-old boy with autism said her son was offered a DNACPR during an NHS appointment and initially agreed because he didn’t understand the question. The boy is happy and healthy and has won gold medals in swimming competitions, said his mother, Debbie Corns.
“I collapsed on the floor crying when I got home,” Corns said. “I am a strong person, but I was devastated… The doctor devalued his life.”
The article follows British media reports earlier this year on patients with mental illness and learning disabilities being given DNACPRs during the pandemic. But unlike the latest report, those allegations concerned adult patients, at least one of whom reportedly died unnecessarily for lack of resuscitation.
DNACPRs are typically used for people who are too frail to be saved through cardiopulmonary resuscitation in the event their heart stops or they stop breathing. Mencap, a UK charity that advocates for people with learning disabilities, reported in January that disabled adults were being told by medics that they wouldn’t be resuscitated if they fell ill from Covid-19.
The UK’s Care Quality Commission said in March that some patients and family members had been denied the opportunity to discuss their DNACPR status or challenge NHS decisions on whether they would be resuscitated. Hundreds of elderly care home residents were written off with unlawful DNACPR decisions, the commission found.
Health agency spied on millions during Covid lockdowns
RT | December 26, 2021
Canada’s Public Health Agency has admitted to secretly tracking location data from at least 33 million mobile devices to analyze people’s movements during Covid-19 lockdowns.
The agency earlier this year collected data, including geolocation information from cell-towers, “due to the urgency of the pandemic,” a PHAC spokesperson told the National Post, essentially confirming a report by Blacklock’s Reporter. The tracking data was allegedly only used to evaluate the effectiveness of lockdown measures and identify possible links between the movement of people and the spread of Covid-19.
PHAC obtained the information, which was “de-identified and aggregated,” through an outside contractor, Canadian telecommunications giant Telus. The contract ran from last March to October, and PHAC said it no longer had access to the data after the deal expired.
However, the agency plans to similarly track the movements of citizens over the next five years toward such ends as preventing the spread of other infectious diseases and improving mental health. PHAC last week posted a notice to prospective contractors seeking anonymous mobile data dating as far back as January 2019 and running through at least May 2023.
Critics argued that government tracking of citizens is likely more extensive than has been revealed and may become more troublesome in the years ahead.
“I think that the Canadian public will find out about many other such unauthorized surveillance initiatives before the pandemic is over—and afterwards,” privacy advocate David Lyon told the Post. He noted, too, that “de-identified” data can easily be “re-identified.”
Author Julius Reuchel said the tracking initiative smacks of a surveillance state spying on citizens “for your safety.” Another author, Paul Alves, said that with its new contract, PHAC will have direct access to all mobile location data, and expressed fear that “contact tracing will no longer require permission or a warrant.”

