Duty Based Liability and Consent

Many of us have duties placed on us by law. Some of our legal duties are entrenched in our common law tradition, such as the duty parents have to protect their children from harm. Other duties are imposed by law, such as the duty of persons with authority to direct how work is done, to ensure the work is done in such a way as to protect others from harm (this is a duty highly relevant to colleges that manage doctors, pharmacists, nurses and other health care professionals).

If a failure to perform a duty is serious, especially if it causes harm or death to another, the failure may be criminal under both international and national law.

The duties listed below are heightened because the vaccines are medical experiments governed by the Nuremberg Code

Using the Pfizer vaccine as an example, the Covid-19 vaccines are clearly medical experiments. Normally, vaccines are approved under Division 8 of the Food and Drug Regulations, C.R.C., c. 87 (the "New Drug Regulations"). The New Drug Regulations have always required substantial evidence of both safety and efficacy. Currently the safety and efficacy requirements are found in s. C.08.002(2) which reads in part:

C.08.002(2) A new drug submission shall contain sufficient information and material to enable the Minister to assess the safety and effectiveness of the new drug, including the following:

---

(g) detailed reports of the tests made to establish the safety of the new drug for the purpose and under the conditions of use recommended;

(h) substantial evidence of the clinical effectiveness of the new drug for the purpose and under the conditions of use recommended[.]

Normally, years of human safety and efficacy testing is required before a vaccine is eligible for approval. First there several types of animal trials. The human trials are typically run for years with the participants being fully informed of the experimental nature of drug.

Adding to the experimental nature of the Pfizer vaccine is that it is novel gene therapy. Never before have we attempted to insert novel mRNA, permanently changing a person’s DNA. Likely, this type of novel technology would need safety and efficacy testing of at least a decade before approval, not a matter of months. The short and the long-term effects of this novel technology are completely and utterly unknown. The current vaccination program is a medical experiment in which the population are the tests subjects.

The novel mRNA is not the only novel ingredient. The public has been told there is nanotechnology in the vaccine, which is not in the injection to prevent or treat Covid-19. It’s purpose is not disclosed, which in itself vitiates consent. The short and long-term safety of the nanotechnology is unknown, as injecting it into humans is experimental.

In the case of the Pfizer vaccine, there were not complete animal studies. Nor were they of any significant duration. The human trials for safety and efficacy were only a few months long, instead of a number of years long. Most significant of all, is that the typical safety and efficacy requirements found in C.08.002(2)(g) and (h) were abandoned for the Covid-19 vaccines. Rather than requiring substantial evidence of safety and efficacy, approval was permitted under what can properly be described as a "fear based" test, as follows:

C.08.002(2.1)(b) sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that the benefits associated with the designated COVID-19 drug outweigh the risks for the purpose and under the conditions of use recommended, with consideration given to the uncertainties relating to those benefits and risks as well as the public health need related to COVID-19.

This is a “fear based” test which abandons the need for significant evidence of safety and efficacy. This fear based test is experimental in all respects.

There are credible reports and studies of other novel ingredients in the vaccines. It is likely that most people injecting the vaccines into persons do not know themselves, all of the ingredients.

Never in the history we are taught have so many been subjected to an experimental treatment.

The Nuremberg Code

Most of us are familiar with the Nuremberg Code which came from war-crimes trials following World War 2. It has become an accepted code of conduct concerning medical experimentation on humans. It forms a minimum international law standard for human medical experiments. Parts of the Code, such as informed consent, are incorporated into most codes of ethics governing medical professionals. As a minimum international standard of conduct, it is useful for determining if a duty to protect others has been violated. The Nuremberg Code includes:

Consent - 1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment.

The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs, or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity.

Consent must be free from coercion

As set out above, part of the consent requirement of the Nuremberg Code requires that a person:

should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the

intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion[.]

It may be that a Court would find that there is not valid consent when a person is influenced by one of the following:

• a restriction of basic freedoms, such as the right of peaceful assembly or the right to worship, unless vaccinated;

• a restriction on the basic right to travel unless vaccinated;

• a restriction on the right to participate in society such as eating at a restaurant, or attending a child’s sports event unless vaccinated;

• a restriction on the ability to access basic services, such as elementary school, or university unless vaccinated;

• a restriction on the ability to work unless vaccinated;

• being subjected to unprecedented government advertising to “convince” persons to be vaccinated;

• being subjected to unprecedented government advertising that was deceitful and/or outright fraudulent to “convince” persons to be vaccinated;

• being subjected to a fear campaign in the legacy media presented as balanced and fair reporting rather than a fear campaign meant to “convince” persons to be vaccinated.

Consent requires a true understanding of the benefits and the risks

As set out above the Nuremberg Code requires that a person freely consents to an experimental treatment. Our Criminal Code also requires informed consent. It would be an assault to inject a person with any treatment, let alone an experimental one, without valid consent (see s. 265(1)(a)). The Criminal Code also makes it clear that there is no valid consent if the consent is obtained by either fraud (i.e. not being told the truth of both the benefits and the risks) or the exercise of authority (by either government or private parties such as employers)(see s. 265(1)(c) and (d)). It is most likely that a Court would find there is no consent when a person is influenced by one of the following:

• a restriction of basic freedoms, such as the right of peaceful assembly or the right to worship, unless vaccinated;

• a restriction on the basic right to travel unless vaccinated;

• a restriction on the right to participate in society such as eating at a restaurant, or attending a child’s sports event unless vaccinated;

• a restriction on the ability to access basic services, such as elementary school, or university unless vaccinated;

• a restriction on the ability to work unless vaccinated;

• being subjected to unprecedented government advertising to “convince” persons to be vaccinated;

• being subjected to unprecedented government advertising that was deceitful and/or outright fraudulent to “convince” persons to be vaccinated;

• being subjected to a fear campaign in the legacy media presented as balanced and fair reporting rather than a fear campaign meant to “convince” persons to be vaccinated.

The actual benefits needed to be communicated for valid consent

It is not just the risk of a treatment which needs to be explained for there to be valid consent. The benefits also have to be properly explained so that a person can fairly evaluate the benefits and the risks to make an informed decision. In the case of the Pfizer vaccine, there is a concern that government advertising gave fraudulent and misleading information concerning the benefits.

Historically, a vaccine was a drug which created an immune response to protect a person from a specific disease. Persons choosing to get a “vaccine” do so believing that the vaccine will likely prevent them from getting the condition for which the vaccine is given, in this case Covid-19. It is because of this belief of benefit, that some will accept the risks with a vaccine.

In the case of the Pfizer vaccine, we were told based on the initial data submitted to Health Canada, the vaccine was 95% effective. This was repeated in the relentless government media campaigns. Every person in Canada heard this repeated so many times in the legacy media that it became repeated by average people as a fact. People attending to get the injection would have believed that the vaccine would give them a 95% chance of not catching Covid-19. This was false. The advertising was based upon relative risk, not absolute risk. Based on the initial Pfizer information, there was less than a 1% chance that the injection would prevent you from catching Covid-19. Likely most persons would not assume the risk of an experimental treatment for only a 1% chance of not catching Covid-19.

There is mounting evidence that repeated injections increase a person’s chance of catching Covid-19. If true, then the “benefit” of not catching Covid-19 would not exist. Indeed, there would be no benefit at all. For there to be informed consent, persons must be aware that there may be no benefit at all.

When fairly assessing risk, it is important to have context. Parents have been informed by the government and private media campaigns that they should get their children injected with the experimental treatment to protect their children from Covid-19. Faced with this “fear” campaign, parents cannot fairly consent without appreciating the actual risk. For example, a child in Canada is dramatically more likely to be murdered, than to die of Covid-19. No parent in their right mind would inject their child with an experimental treatment for the hope that their child would be less likely to be murdered. No parent would do this as the actual risk of their child being murdered is so small, that the risk of an experimental treatment is not justified. A fortiori, no parent in their right mind would inject a child with an experimental treatment for the hope that it might prevent their child from dying of Covid-19. Legitimate consent requires an actual understanding of the actual risk of Covid-19 to their child (which is much less than the risk of their child being murdered).

The actual risk needed to be communicated for valid consent

The advertising campaigns touting the safety of the Covid-19 Vaccines have been shamefully biased and/or outright fraudulent (see the Public messaging-advertising section on how this can be culpable homicide).

For example, in Alberta, the Government was advertising the vaccines are safe for pregnant women. This is contradicted by the evidence released in the Pfizer dumps. The Alberta advertising was either based on false evidence (which should have been identified as false), no evidence, or outright fraud (ignoring evidence of risk). Pregnant women relying on the Government messaging could not validly consent as they were being misled about the risks.

The same can be said about injecting children. With children being much more likely to be murdered or to die in a vehicle accident than to die of Covid-19, there is no justification to inject them with an experimental treatment, with unknown short, medium and long-term risks. We know the very short-term risks of the Vaccines which include death, injury likely to lead to death, and disablement. There is no credible benefit-risk analysis which could justify the use of the experimental treatments on children. Indeed, we are violating the Nuremberg Code which includes:

6. The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the

humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment.

Without parents being fairly informed of the risks, they cannot validly consent to the treatment for their children.

Statutory duties in the Criminal Code

The Criminal Code of Canada imposes several duties that may apply to potential crimes connected to Covid-19 and drugs referred to as Covid-19 vaccines. Some of these duties are discussed below.

Duties of Parents and Care givers - section 215 provides:

215 (1) Every one is under a legal duty

(a) as a parent, foster parent, guardian or head of a family, to provide necessaries of life for a child under the age of sixteen years;

(b) to provide necessaries of life to their spouse or common-law partner; and

(c) to provide necessaries of life to a person under his charge if that person

(I) is unable, by reason of detention, age, illness, mental disorder or other

cause, to withdraw himself from that charge, and

(ii) is unable to provide himself with necessaries of life.

215(2) Every person commits an offence who, being under a legal duty within the meaning of subsection (1), fails without lawful excuse to perform that duty, if

(a) with respect to a duty imposed by paragraph (1)(a) or (b),

(I) the person to whom the duty is owed is in destitute or necessitous

circumstances, or

(ii) the failure to perform the duty endangers the life of the person to whom

the duty is owed, or causes or is likely to cause the health of that person to be endangered permanently; or

(b) with respect to a duty imposed by paragraph (1)(c), the failure to perform the duty endangers the life of the person to whom the duty is owed or causes or is likely to cause the health of that person to be injured permanently.

Parents or persons who have the authority to make medical decisions for another, such as an elderly parent, have a duty to provide the necessaries of life. “Necessaries of life” have been interpreted to include the duty to protect a vulnerable person from harm, such as from an abusive person. This duty to protect a vulnerable person from harm includes a duty to avoid experimental treatments where the risk outweighs the benefits.

The risk of a child dying of Covid-19 is so minuscule it would not be misleading to call it a zero percent chance. Indeed, a child in Canada is dramatically more likely to be murdered, than to die of Covid-19. Few people would inject a child with an experimental treatment in the hope it would reduce the child's chances of being murdered. Fewer still would inject such a child knowing that the short, medium and long term risks are unknown. The very-short term risks have revealed themselves as including death, injuries that may lead to death, and permanent disablement. We are concerned that the Nuremberg Code is being violated. The Code prevents experiments where the risks are shown to outweigh the benefits. Specifically the Nuremberg Code includes:

6. The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the

humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment.

We are having difficulty understanding how any informed parent could avoid criminal liability in these circumstances, if they actually proceeded with vaccinating their child. Parents can be liable under s. 215, and also under the criminal negligence and culpable homicide provisions discussed below.

Duties of persons like medical professionals administering treatments - section 216 provides:

216 Every one who undertakes to administer surgical or medical treatment to another person or to do any other lawful act that may endanger the life of another person is, except in cases of necessity, under a legal duty to have and to use reasonable knowledge, skill and care in so doing.

Administering a Covid-19 Vaccine is a medical treatment. Section 216 creates a duty on every person injecting a Covid-19 Vaccine to “have and to use reasonable knowledge”. This most likely includes having reasonable knowledge of the risks involved so that the appropriateness of the treatment is understood. For example, a doctor could not escape criminal liability under s. 216 for administering chemo-therapy to treat the flu. This would fall below the standard of knowledge required by s. 216.

Similarly, injecting a child with an experimental treatment whose very-short-term risks exceed any theoretical benefit, would fall below the standard of knowledge and care required by s. 216.

Section 216 creates a personal responsibility for the person administering the treatment. Liability cannot be avoided by following orders. Guidelines, unless there are reasons to doubt them, are relevant to assessing what is a reasonable standard of knowledge.

Duties of persons directing how others are to work, such as the regulatory boards

governing medical professionals, or editorial boards directing reporters - section 217.1 provides:

217.1 Every one who undertakes, or has the authority, to direct how another person does work or performs a task is under a legal duty to take reasonable steps to prevent bodily harm to that person, or any other person, arising from that work or task.

Section 217.1 places a duty on any person or persons who direct how work is done. This section applies to regulatory bodies that direct how medical professional are to perform their work. Such regulatory bodies have a duty to take reasonable steps to prevent bodily harm to patients when directing how medical professionals are to perform their work. This is a personal duty that cannot be avoided by following guidelines by other groups. “Reasonable steps” will depend on the circumstances. In the case of Covid-19 Vaccines, the circumstances included:

• the Vaccines were approved under an emergency Interim Order that did not require safety and efficacy to be actually proven;

• normally years of safety and efficacy testing is required for Health Canada approval. Here there was only months of data and no requirement for safety and efficacy to be proven;

• most of the Vaccines included novel mRNA technology the short, medium and long term effects of which are completely unknown;

• most of the Vaccines contain other new technology, such as nano-technology, the short, medium and long term effects of which are completely unknown;

• despite the fear-mongering, the overall death rate in Canada was not substantially different than for a bad influenza year. The actual risk to most age groups was marginal or for children practically non-existent;

• very quickly evidence of serious and numerous deaths and adverse reactions began accumulating;

• evidence of effective early treatments with drugs like Ivermectin accumulated, rendering the need for the Vaccines marginal.

In circumstances such as these, one would expect regulatory bodies, such as govern doctors, to be promoting early treatments and discouraging the use of the Vaccines, especially in children. A breach of the s. 217.1 duty, leading to death, can lead to life imprisonment (see sections 219 and 220).

The duty in s. 217.1 applies to anyone who undertakes, or has the authority, to direct how another person does work. It would apply to an editor or an editorial board of a media outlet. So for example, if a media outlet was engaged in fear-mongering to coerce persons to get vaccinated, the editor or editorial board directing the media outlet away from balanced journalism, would be in breach of s. 217.1. Deceptive media messaging causing persons to get vaccinated, can in the case of death also lead to liability for culpable homicide (section 222(5)(c) - see Public messaging-advertising).

Breaching a duty can be criminally negligent - section 219 provides:

219(1) Every one is criminally negligent who

(a) in doing anything, or

(b) in omitting to do anything that it is his duty to do,

shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons.

219(2) For the purposes of this section, duty means a duty imposed by law.

A person can be criminally negligent if in doing anything (regardless of whether it is a duty or not), or in omitting to do anything it is their duty to do, they show wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of others. The penalties for criminal negligence depend upon the consequences of the negligence. This is found as follows:

Causing death by criminal negligence

220 Every person who by criminal negligence causes death to another person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable

(a) where a firearm is used in the commission of the offence, to imprisonment for life and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of four years; and

(b) in any other case, to imprisonment for life.

Causing bodily harm by criminal negligence

221 Every person who by criminal negligence causes bodily harm to another person is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Criminal negligence causing death can also be culpable homicide (section 222).