The Reality of Our Times (Public Messaging)

Aside from war-time propaganda, we have witnessed since March of 2020 an unprecedented media and advertising campaign to create fear and to convince people to take an action. That action being getting multiple injections of experimental Covid-19 Vaccines.

Short of the army going door to door and forcing injections upon the populace, it is difficult to conceive of what other coercive methods could have been used to force people to get vaccinated.

Public messaging such as “follow the science” were used so often as to enter the public discourse when speaking of the experimental Vaccines. Still Health Canada has messages on its Covid-19 Vaccine pages. For example, on a page giving information about the Pfizer Vaccine (https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-health-products/covid19-industry/drugs-vaccines-treatments/vaccines/pfizer-biontech.html), Health Canada writes:

Vaccine review, approval and monitoring

Health Canada’s independent drug review process is recognized around the world for its high standards and rigor. Our decisions are based only on scientific and medical evidence showing that vaccines are safe and effective. The benefits must also outweigh any risks.

This communicates to the public that the Pfizer Vaccine has been proven to be “safe and effective”. This done by “Health Canada’s independent drug review process” which “is recognized around the world for its high standards and rigor.” This text is intended to convey that the Pfizer Vaccine was proven to be safe and effective after an independent world class review. Health Canada has not released the Pfizer submission making an independent review impossible. However, unless there has been a regulatory failure at Health Canada, likely Health Canada received the same information that the FDA was given, and which is being released under a Court Order (the Pfizer dump documents). Those documents are not showing proof of safety or efficacy. Indeed, the Health Canada text above is most likely fraudulent as the Pfizer vaccine was approved under an emergency test which did not require proof of safety or efficacy.

The Interim Order the Pfizer Vaccine was approved under requires the Minister to grant approval for Covid-19 Vaccines in the absence of detailed evidence of safety and substantial evidence of efficacy. This is found in s. 5 of the Interim Order which provides:

5 The Minister must issue an authorization in respect of a COVID-19 drug if the following requirements are met:

(a) the applicant has submitted an application to the Minister that meets the requirements set out in subsection 3(1) or 4(2);

(b) the applicant has provided the Minister with all information or material, including samples, requested under subsection 13(1) in the time, form and manner specified under subsection 13(2); and

(c) the Minister has sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that the benefits associated with the drug outweigh the risks, having regard to the uncertainties relating to the benefits and risks and the necessity of addressing the urgent public health need related to COVID-19.

The approval test in s. 5(c) is a fear-based test. Please note:

(I) rather than requiring evidence proving both safety and efficacy, there only needs to be evidence to support the conclusion the benefits outweigh the risk. Evidence “to support” a conclusion is much different than evidence proving the conclusion, let alone evidence proving safety and efficacy. For greater clarity, there only has to be evidence to support an argument that the benefits outweigh the risk. Under this test, inconclusive evidence can be used to obtain approval. Indeed, under this test, even if the preponderance of the evidence showed the risks outweighed the benefits, the vaccine would have to be approved as long as there was sufficient evidence to support the argument/conclusion that the benefits outweighed the risks;

(ii) even the evidence “to support the conclusion” concerning benefits and risks is to be considered “having regard to the uncertainties relating to the benefits and risks”. In short, the Minister must approve the Vaccine even if uncertain about whether the evidence supports the conclusion/argument;

(iii) the Interim Order contains the conclusion that there is an “urgent public health need related to COVID-19″. This conclusion is made a mandatory factor to consider. The Minister must have regard to “the necessity of addressing the urgent public health need related to COVID-19″. In other words, an “urgent” risk of not approving the Vaccines is presumed, and must be used in determining if the “benefits outweigh the risks”;

(iv) evidence to support a conclusion that “benefits outweigh the risks” does not actually require evidence of safety, let alone robust evidence of safety. The fear-based test only requires evidence to support the conclusion that “benefits outweigh the risks”. The test includes the presumption of an “urgent” public health need. This permits approval in the face of evidence of extreme danger, as long as there is evidence to support an argument that the benefits, outweigh the risks, and

(v) approval by the Minister is mandatory, even in the absence of safety and efficacy. Section 5 begins with the “Minister must issue an authorization” if the three conditions listed above in s. 5 are met. So not only does the Interim Order abandon the need for proof of safety and of efficacy, but it mandates approval even in the absence of such evidence.

It is difficult to conceive of a less-scientific test for drug approval than that found in the Interim Order.

Another theme of messaging that is likely a complete fraud, is the messaging that Covid-19 Vaccines, such as the Pfizer Vaccine, is safe during pregnancy. To counter now proven concerns about side effects during pregnancy, there was public messaging to say the Covid-19 Vaccines are safe during pregnancy. Using the Pfizer Vaccine as an example, the data dump appears to show that there simply was not evidence of the Vaccine being safe during pregnancy in the initial data. It also appears that in the initial data, and continuing after drug approval, evidence mounted of miscarriages, baby deaths, and other side effects.

The messaging and reporting concerning the use of Covid-19 Vaccines on children may also attract criminal liability. Our understanding is that a child in Canada is much more likely to be murdered than to die of Covid-19. Indeed, the risk of death to a child by Covid-19 is almost non-existent. In the short time children around the world have been injected with Covid-19 Vaccines, there have been deaths, injuries that may lead to death, disablements, and other side effects. In other words, the risks of the Covid-19 Vaccines exceed the benefits for children. This violates section 6 of the Nuremberg Code which reads:

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.

The messaging by government, private bodies, and the media in reporting, can only be described as shameless in trying to convince and coerce persons into getting vaccinated. It cannot be described as balanced or fair. In many cases it was likely outright fraud.

It is as if the persons crafting and broadcasting the messaging did not understand that if their messaging is deceitful and it leads to death, that is culpable homicide.

Section 222 of the Criminal Code includes:

Homicide

222 (1) A person commits homicide when, directly or indirectly, by any means, he causes the death of a human being.

222(2) Homicide is culpable or not culpable.

222(3) Homicide that is not culpable is not an offence.

222(4) Culpable homicide is murder or manslaughter or infanticide.

222(5) A person commits culpable homicide when he causes the death of a human being,

—

(b) by criminal negligence;

(c) by causing that human being, by threats or fear of violence or by deception, to do anything that causes his death; or

(d) by wilfully frightening that human being, in the case of a child or sick person.

Culpable homicide includes causing a person by deception to take an action that leads to death. If a person takes a Covid-19 Vaccine due to deception by messaging or deceptive reporting, and that person dies, a culpable homicide has occurred. Depending on the state of mind of the perpetrators and the age of the victim, this could be manslaughter, murder or infanticide.

Persons engaged in deceptive messaging or reporting that led to Covid-19 deaths or injury, may also be liable for Criminal Negligence. The following sections of the Criminal Code apply:

Criminal Negligence

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.

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.

Persons responsible for crafting public messaging and reporting on Covid-19 Vaccine issues (including consistently not reporting on risk) concerning children are at a high risk of criminal liability.

Fraudulent and misleading messaging/advertising can also attract criminal liability without proof of harm or death. For government employees, it may be a breach of trust under Criminal Code section 122. Section 122 reads:

122 Every official who, in connection with the duties of their office, commits fraud or a breach of trust, whether or not the fraud or breach of trust would be an offence if it were committed in relation to a private person, is guilty of

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

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

The word “official” is defined in section 118 to include all civil servants. Section 118 includes:

118 In this Part…

“office” includes

(a)an office or appointment under the government,

(b)a civil or military commission, and

(c)a position or an employment in a public department;

“official” means a person who

(a)holds an office, or

(b)is appointed or elected to discharge a public duty[.]

Public employees, and those directing them, are guilty of breach of trust if they engage in misleading/fraudulent advertising for a purpose other than the public good, such as a coercive purpose.

Another Criminal Code section that applies is s. 319 concerning promoting hatred. Section 319 includes:

319(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Public messaging has been relentless in trying to divide and create hatred between vaccinated and unvaccinated persons. Unvaccinated people have been demonized as a type of leper that pose a significant health risk to the vaccinated. This is classic promotion of hatred.

The offence of intimidation also applies. Section 423 of the Criminal Code includes:

423 (1) Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction who, wrongfully and without lawful authority, for the purpose of compelling another person to abstain from doing anything that he or she has a lawful right to do, or to do anything that he or she has a lawful right to abstain from doing,…

(b) intimidates or attempts to intimidate that person or a relative of that person by threats that, in Canada or elsewhere, violence or other injury will be done to or punishment inflicted on him or her or a relative of his or hers, or that the property of any of them will be damaged;

The offence of intimidation is committed if a person:

1. wrongfully and without lawful authority;

• the purpose of compelling another person to do anything that he or she has a lawful right to abstain from doing;

• intimidates or attempts to intimidate by threats that punishment will be inflicted on him or her if they do not do what they have a legal right to abstain from doing.

The media did not initiate the threats to inflict punishment. But the media was a party in relentlessly broadcasting the threats and fabricating messages and reporting to support the threats for the purpose of coercing persons into being vaccinated.