(December 14 Parliament convenes to discuss what they will impose to those who DO NOTVACCINATE

December 14, Parliament gathers to decide what to do with those who CHOOSE not to vaccinate. "You don't have to take it, but if you do not, you cannot go to the movies, Aruba, or a Restaurant..." Really? If you are not OK with that, let them know. We are for Choice, no matter what I believe on any given issue, I wish to fight to maintain your CHOICE - YOUR VOICE, your children's choice and voice. I am sending them a message, and if you will join me and many others, here below is a list of ALL MPs to e-mail before Monday 9am. I made it easy for you ;-) I will share with you a DRAFT email following; you can use it AS IT IS OR CHOOSE TO CHANGE IT - whatever you wish. I only encourage you to be a voice of reason among many, send them a message Keep these on file for the future... Share these with others who I cannot reach and who may wish to be a part of positive change. Doing nothing is far worse... I suggest you Draft 4 or 5 emails, splitting the below addresses in the BCC field only, the draft text for the body of the email will come shortly Canadian MPs - batch 1 (50 - Liberals):;,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Canadian MPs - batch 2 (50 - more Liberals):,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Canadian MPs - batch 3 (50 - still more Liberals):,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Canadian MPs - batch 4 (last batch of Liberals - 27):,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Canadian MPs - batch 5 (50 - Conservatives):,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Canadian MPs - batch 6 (47 - more Conservatives):,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Canadian MPs - batch 7 (50 - NDP - very left):,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Canadian MPs - batch 8 (4 - NDP - very left):,,, Canadian MPs - batch 9 (10 - Bloc Quebecois),,,,,,,,, Canadian MPs - batch 10 (2 - Independent and Green):,

Be well, be strong and free!



[ Copy or Modify to reflect YOUR VIEWS! ]

(Copy - Paste - Sign - Send!)

Attention Parliamentary Representative; As a resident and constituent, I am writing to express my deep concerns about the issues surrounding Vaccinations of a yet to be Isolated Virus called Covid-19.

AND WHEREAS it is clear that the risk of Covid-19 for Ontarians is significantly smaller than thought to be in March 2020. Per https// period ending November 30, 2020, if measured "cases" prove to be scientifically worthy (which by Ford's admissions on July 24, 2020, over 50% of teachers reported false positives and globally scientists concur with this, and in an interview Fauci in July 16, 2020 reported the tests as "meaningless") this dubious data still shows population case rate of 0.78% and a mortality of 0.02% in Ontario which is consistent with the findings of the W.H.O. accepted the peer reviewed study by PREEMINENT Professor and leading global scientist of Stamford, John P Iaonnidis stating the GLOBAL mortality of Sars-cov2 is merely 0.02% ;

AND WHEREAS According one of MANY global scientists and well established acquired data, Darrell Ricke, a researcher with the MIT Lincoln Laboratory's Bioengineering Systems and Technologies Group in Lexington, MA, USA states in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of America (PNAS) as follows; “The immune system fights off the virus and people might hardly notice, Upwards of 80% of patients who contract COVID-19 develop only mild flu-like symptoms (if any at all).” ;

AND WHEREAS The average time for a vaccine to go from inception and funding to market is 10.7 years. The Covid vaccine has achieved this in 7 months. The previous record for a vaccine being developed was 4 years for the mumps vaccine. Mumps was a well studied and understood medical condition long before vaccine research even began. It was not a new, novel virus with unknown origins.

AND WHEREAS according to Professor William A Hasteline, Harvard Medical School and Harvard School of Public Health founder of Division of Biochemical Pharmacology and the Division of Human Retrovirology, HIV/AIDS, Genomics and COVID-19. He states that the speed at which this has be brought to market does not Guarantee Safety through lessons of harm witnessed in the past. "While vaccines may be one of the most successful scientific technologies ever invented, the authors acknowledge, throughout history several have failed us. Many of the vaccine regulations we have today were borne of lessons learned the hard way—a contaminated batch that went on to infect thousands, or a rare side effect far more prevalent than initially perceived." Therefore, these trials have omitted animal safety studies and furthermore, have no Stage 4 data available for review.

AND WHEREAS The average rate of a vaccine ever successfully reaching market is 7%!

AND WHEREAS The flu vaccine - one of the most studied and well funded in the history of science has an effective protection rate of 40-60% at BEST annually (33.33% is a saline placebo effect for comparisons). The Covid vaccines are claiming over 95% effective? This stretches the bounds of documented empirical scientific credulity. Without impartial peer reviewed data, even the most optimistic impartial scientists find this incredible.

AND WHEREAS THERE IS NO DATA AVAILABLE other than what the MANUFACTURERS WISH TO RELEASE. This can be the ONLY Data our Givernment reviewed for approval. This is not what a review for the benefit of Canadian citizens should be and we cannot accept it. According to Scientists from the British Medical Journal (BMJ), a PEER REVIEWED Journal established 180 Years ago, partnering with more than 8,000 medical organizations worldwide, and furthermore one of the world’s top four most cited medical journals, and they state in a recent publication: "..none of the phase III trials have been published in peer reviewed journals or analyzed by age group, gender and case description (asymptomatic, mild, severe), virus transmissibility after immunisation, or duration of protection. As public health professionals, we believe that the results of clinical trials, whether interim or final, should be subject to an appropriate systematic process, and then published in peer-reviewed professional journals. Reporting the covid-19 vaccine trial results in press releases before publication in journals is neither good scientific practice nor does it help to build public trust in vaccines. This could distort what should be a rigorous peer review process. [7] We believe that data and conclusions should not be released as credible before the scientific community can judge the validity of those claims by assessing a complete account of what was done."

AND WHEREAS The history of vaccines against coronaviruses has not been positive — a paradoxical effect has been seen. Rather than fighting the infection, they can actually trigger a paradoxical immune enhancement. Meaning, despite a robust antibody response when one is exposed to the actual virus, rather than protecting you, the vaccine actually enhances the virus' ability to make you sick or even kill you. This paradoxical effect means that " the most hazardous hurdle for the inoculation is … challenging participants with wild COVID infection, Past attempts at developing COVID vaccines have always faltered at this stage as both humans and animals achieved robust antibody response, then sickened and died when exposed to the wild virus." Offered here the example: "They tested it [a coronavirus vaccine] on about 35 children, and … the children developed a champion antibody response, robust, durable. It looked perfect, and then the children were exposed to the wild virus and they all became sick. Two of them died. They abandoned the vaccine."

AND WHEREAS Research published in the Journal of Translational Autoimmunity confirms that treatment with this sort vaccine may increase the risks associated with a wild type virus rather than protect against it. The researchers call the process pathogenic priming. "Similarly [research] found that ferrets previously vaccinated against SARS-CoV also developed a strong inflammatory response in liver tissue (hepatitis). Both studies suspected a 'cellular immune response.'" They go on to conclude: "The problem, highlighted in two studies, became obvious following post-vaccination challenge with the SARS virus. [They] found that recombinant SARS spike-protein-based vaccines not only failed to provide protection from SARS-CoV infection [COVID-19], but also that the mice experienced increased immunopathology with eosinophilic infiltrates in their lungs." ;

Furthermore, the Peer Reviewed Scientific Article in PNAS also supports these findings:

AND WHEREAS In a letter published in The Lancet, researchers warned that the adenovirus vector technology being used around the world to develop vaccines against SARS-Cov-2 could put populations at risk of developing HIV infections. THIS HAS ALREADY PROVEN TRUE RECENTLY IN AUSTRALIA WITH THEIR COVID VACCINE ROLL OUT AND THEY HAVE STOPPED THE BILLION DOLLAR VACCINATION PROGRAM!! According to Global Data, 38 companies are now developing adenovirus vector vaccines against SARS-Cov-2, or COVID-19. The human adenovirus vector technology was used in several failed efforts to develop a vaccine against HIV. The technology is also employed in vaccines against Anthrax and Ebola. In 2007, two trials of Merck’s adenovirus HIV vaccine were cancelled. Rather than provide immunity, the vaccine actually increased the risk of HIV infections. In 2013, Nature reported: “Overall, people who had received the vaccine were significantly more likely to be infected than those who had received the placebo.” After analyzing the data, the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center estimated that Merck’s HIV vaccine raised the HIV risk by 41 percent

AND WHEREAS Approval and Governing Bodies have allowed the use of human fetal cells and adult human tumor cells within vaccines, despite acknowledging the many risks, including that vaccine recipients might later develop cancer FDA allows both human fetal cells and adult human tumor cells in vaccines. Both types have cancer risks. While both Pfizer and Moderna tested their mRNA vaccine using fetal cells. Johnson and Johnson (Janssen) and Altimmune’s COVID vaccines are manufactured in the human fetal cell line PER-C6, and thus the final vaccine products contain cellular debris and DNA fragments from these cells. Researchers harvested these cell lines from the eyeball of an 18-week-old human fetus aborted in 1985, and then rendered them immortal by making them cancerous. The AstraZeneca, Cansino, Gamayela, Vaxart, LongComm and Upitt vaccines are manufactured in the human fetal cell line HEK293, and thus the final vaccine products contain cellular debris and DNA fragments from the fetal HEK-293 cell line. Scientists harvested this cell line from the kidney of a female Dutch fetus legally aborted in 1973 and then immortalized the cells by rendering them cancerous. Normal primary cells, which are unable to replicate indefinitely, ultimately die. Immortalized cell lines are derived from known malignant cancer cells such as those obtained from Henrietta Lacks (HeLa) or created in the laboratory by introducing viral oncogenes or chemical exposures capable of mutating normal primary cells into immortal tumor cells. According to FDA’s "The Pink Sheet" dated Nov. 29, 1999, for two decades the agency has been acutely aware of the inherent risks of using immortalized cell lines for vaccine development. The FDA CBER Director Dr. Peter Patriarca, M.D. explained that continuous cell lines are used for their ability to self-propagate, making them an ideal substrate on which to grow viruses, “the worst thing we are concerned about is … malignancy, because some of these continuous cells have the potential for growing tumors in laboratory animals.” Patriarca further conceded that “the technology to make these vaccines actually exceeds the science and technology to understand how these vaccines work and to predict how they will work.” This dire “black box” conundrum that Patriarca described in 1999 is even more acute today with the urgent pressure to develop COVID vaccines before manufacturers have tested them in animals or subjected them to long-term safety studies.

AND WHEREAS None of the trials were designed to detect a reduction in any serious outcome such as hospital admissions, use of intensive care, or deaths. Nor are the vaccines being studied to determine whether they can interrupt transmission of the virus.

AND WHEREAS the data we now have no longer support a mass vaccination mandate, considering the lethality of COVID-19 is lower than the flu for those under the age of 60. If you’re under the age of 40, your risk of dying from COVID-19 is just 0.01%, meaning we have a 99.99% chance of surviving the infection. And we could improve that to 99.999% if one is metabolically flexible and vitamin D replete and with use of already approved safe therapeutics on the market. This begets the question: What are we protecting against with an experimental COVID-19 vaccine?

AND WHEREAS Restrictions imposed will infringe upon civil liberties and constitutes a human rights violation. Those with any exceptions ought not be damned for their medical, religious, or objection of conscience.

AND WHEREAS Given all of the above, none of which can even remotely constitute informed consent

I petition you as follows:

As an elected official, I encourage you not to follow examples lacking any lawful authority such as that which came from Ontario’s health Minister, Christine Elliott, saying that vaccines will be voluntary, but there may be restrictions on travel or other activities that could arise as a result of not being vaccinated. Ontario’s Chief Medical Officer of Health said something similar last week. This is a defacto MANDATORY vaccination by any other definition.

This is incorrect speculation about what liberties inoculation might be able to buy citizens who have already funded her seat, and what a citizen could be denied if one were refuse vaccination. As a Canadian, as an elected official representing your constituents, we expect no less than for you to uphold the civil liberties of every constituent and uphold the charter of rights and freedom by quashing any such motion to impose restrictions upon those who do not vaccinate. And furthermore, compulsory or defacto mandatory edicts also violate the Nuremberg Code (1947), and the 2005 UNESCO Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights with further established the necessity of informed consent. With all the uncertainty surrounding the transparency or lack thereof, pre-established risks know, safety and efficacy of these new and never before utilized vaccines, it’s critical to protect our right to make independent health choices and to exercise voluntary informed consent to vaccination.

In the age of information, ignorance is a choice. We will not permit you a modicum of latitude in this regard


20 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All