FLUVID 19

Memorandum

1000-1 (XXX)

13 November 2021

CO (CoC)

REQUEST FOR EXEMPTION FROM CURRENT COVID 19 MANDATES
XXX XXX XXX CPL X – MOSID INF 0023

References: A. Revelations of poor practices at a contract research company helping to carry out Pfizer’s pivotal covid-19 vaccine trial raise questions about data integrity and regulatory oversight. https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2635
B. Increases in COVID 19 are unrelated to levels of vaccination across 68 countries and 2947 counties in the United States. https://link.springer.com/epdf/10.1007/s10654-021-00808-7?sharing_token=c2Nbwifv2IAEe2HgQOL5C_e4RwlQNchNByi7wbcMAY5Au-KJ7ckDZ1vj0UaHY7uU-dmYRPRkFckRxLKyCKFzbgO8BtrC8CVnazY1ZaiwBEWL9UpvlkV5lgv-2TlDWh3S3y38l_I84__wW9Q2Ewj92fXSNK9bNM-AFPhyGjB6r-w%3D&s=09

C. 71percent of COVID 19 deaths are in the Vaccinated as of 7 September government briefing. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1018547/Technical_Briefing_23_21_09_16.pdf
D. Spontaneous Abortion Following COVID-19 Vaccination During Pregnancy
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fjamanetwork.com%2Fjournals%2Fjama%2Ffullarticle%2F2784193%3FguestAccessKey%3De0e26528-2368-4750-aed5-6c23b7a26120%26utm_source%3Dsilverchair%26utm_medium%3Demail%26utm_campaign%3Darticle_alert-jama%26utm_term%3Dmostread%26utm_content%3Dolf-widget_09292021%26s%3D09&data=04%7C01%7C%7C70e0d5f7b1dc4d40e7d008d99ca6837b%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637713061244131395%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=%2BH7Lk6z7c%2FmfAXWKdSxYzke0r9oexxfIDsGEW4NYfAo%3D&reserved=0
E. Natural Immunity is superior to covid vaccines with Dr Campbell. https://youtu.be/9bamaEMftg4
F. Aspirating needles, by not doing this, causing significant side effects and heart inflammation https://youtu.be/KgVsd6qoyU4
G. Waning immunity from all covid vaccines. They Don’t last https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2114583?query=featured_home
H. ONTARIO policy on inflating numbers by 66 to over 80 percent.
https://www.publichealthontario.ca/-/media/documents/ncov/epi/2020/06/covid19-epi-case-identification-age-only-template.pdf?la=en&fbclid=IwAR1YP7GmEWZt5etje12BkBLvWRZjD21UzLF0t540M01cMWT7sgDaKD-5wbw
I. COVID-19 is an outbreak of viral pneumonia which became a global health crisis, and the risk of morbidity and mortality of people with obesity are higher. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32645228/

J. An Overview of Adipose Tissue ACE2 Modulation by Diet and Obesity. Potential Implications in COVID-19 Infection and Severity. An Overview of Adipose Tissue ACE2 Modulation by Diet and Obesity. Potential Implications in COVID-19 Infection and Severity - PubMed (nih.gov)

k. Privacy Act, RSC 1985, c P-21

L. .https://m.theepochtimes.com/federal-vaccine-mandates-implicate-infringe-on-canadians-charter-rights-legal-experts_4038507.html

1. I would like to take this opportunity to provide the chain of command my intentions in regard to the recently announced COVID-19 ‘vaccination’ mandate announced by the Government of Canada for federal employees, which includes military personnel.

2. Right to Privacy. As a member of the Canadian Armed Forces (“CAF”), except where certain health and medical information is required to be disclosed to the CAF medical personnel in accordance with my terms of service, my medical history, health status, health choices and decisions are private and confidential. When not required to fulfil my obligations under my terms of service, this medical privacy protection is in accordance with:
a. the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, 2000 (PIPEDA);
b. the Personal Health Information Protection Act, 2004 (PHIPA); ONTARIO
c. the Ontario Occupational Health and Safety Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.1; ONTARIO and
d. the Privacy Act, RSC .1985 c P-21.

3. Right to Provide Consent for Medical Treatment. In deciding which medical treatment to undergo, ultimately it is through the doctrine of informed consent which has developed in law as the primary means of protecting a patient’s right to control their medical treatment. Under the doctrine, no medical procedure may be undertaken without the patient’s consent obtained after the patient has been provided with sufficient information to evaluate the risks and benefits of the proposed treatment and other available options. Coupled with this doctrine, the right of self-determination encompasses the right to refuse medical treatment. There are two Supreme Court of Canada rulings which were decided in favour of the patient (see Supreme Court of Canada Reibl v. Hughes, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 880; and Hopp v Lepp (1980) 2 SCR 1920) and numerous legal opinions (see Prosser & Keeton, op. cit., p. 112 et seq.; Harper, James & Gray, The Law of Torts, 2nd ed. (1986), c. III; and Linden, op. cit., p.64 et seq), all of which have ruled or advised that the individual has the freedom to make choices concerning their medical care. For this freedom to be meaningful, people must have the right to make choices that accord with their own values regardless of how unwise or foolish those choices may appear to others.
4. Applicability To The COVID-19 Vaccine. I have been following the accelerated development of the COVID-19 ‘vaccines’ that Canada has approved under the “Interim Order Respecting the Importation, Sale and Advertising of Drugs for Use in Relation to COVID-19” (hereinafter referred to as the Interim Order) and I do not have the confidence in the government’s declaration that they are ‘safe and effective’. More specifically, I do not believe the trials have accurately discovered and assessed all potential long term effects of the vaccines. Currently, the majority of COVID-19 vaccines remain in the trial phase which are scheduled to continue until 2022/2023 (https://pharmacologycanada.org/COVID-19-clinical-trials).
5. That they continue to be referred to as vaccines is also a point which I disagree with. According to the Mayo Clinic, gene therapy is defined as “Making diseased cells more evident to the immune system. In some cases, your immune system doesn't attack diseased cells because it doesn't recognize them as intruders. Doctors could use gene therapy to train your immune system to recognize the cells that are a threat. (https://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/gene-therapy/about/pac-20384619)”. I am not a doctor, but this sounds exactly like what the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines are designed to do, and is similar to the descriptions of experimental biotechnology that has been used to treat cancer and HIV, with the exception that they are referred to as experimental gene therapy or experimental treatment, and not vaccines.
6. If one takes the time to research previous attempts at coronavirus vaccine development, one will note that no other coronavirus vaccine (ie MERS, SARS-1) was approved for market, largely due to antibody-dependent enhancement which resulted in severe illness and deaths in animal models, such as the attempt for the MERS vaccine (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21645515.2016.1177688).

7. Along the lines of not having fulsome knowledge of potential short and long term effects, one needs only to access Health Canada’s Summary Basis of Decision (updated May 20, 2021) where it is stated that Moderna and Pfizer still have six areas of missing (limited/no clinical data) information:
a. use in paediatric (age 0-18);
b. use in pregnant and breastfeeding women;
c. long term safety;
d. long term efficacy;
e. safety immunogenicity in subjects with immune-suppression; and
f. concomitant administration of non-COVID vaccines.
8. Previously, I referred to a Supreme Court of Canada ruling, that of Hopp v Lepp. This ruling stated that “A reasonable person would want to know the serious risks, even if remote.” I believe this to important because it is in support of an individual’s right to bodily integrity and respect for patient autonomy.
9. The above has, in my opinion, clearly shown that I am justified to retain the right to either consent to, or not consent to, take the COVID-19 vaccine. Furthermore, the fact the vaccines are still in their testing phase and the incomplete summary of potential long term effects are all factors which must be considered when we exercise informed consent.
10. Coercion, Consent and Right of Refusal. This now leads us to the right of refusal, coercion and my right to not be discriminated against for employment based on medical choices. All these are covered under the Criminal Code of Canada (“CCC”) under the general title of Consent.
11. According to the CCC, there are several elements to consent: your expressed, informed and explicit consent (voluntary) must be obtained prior to treatment. Without consent it is considered assault under the CCC. Consent given under fear or duress is not consent. Section 265(3) of the CCC defines consent in relation to assault as:

Consent
(3) For the purposes of this section, no consent is obtained where the complainant submits or does not resist by reason of
• (a) the application of force to the complainant or to a person other than the complainant;
• (b) threats or fear of the application of force to the complainant or to a person other than the complainant;
• (c) fraud; or
• (d) the exercise of authority.

12. The Ontario Health Care Consent Act, 1996, it defines “consent” as:

CONSENT TO TREATMENT
No treatment without consent

10 (1) A health practitioner who proposes a treatment for a person shall not administer the treatment, and shall take reasonable steps to ensure that it is not administered, unless,

(a) he or she is of the opinion that the person is capable with respect to the treatment, and the person has given consent; or
(b) he or she is of the opinion that the person is incapable with respect to the treatment, and the person’s substitute decision-maker has given consent on the person’s behalf in accordance with this Act. 1996, c. 2, Sched. A,
s. 10 (1).

Elements of consent

11 (1) The following are the elements required for consent to treatment:

1. The consent must relate to the treatment.
2. The consent must be informed.
3. The consent must be given voluntarily.
4. The consent must not be obtained through misrepresentation or fraud. 1996, c. 2, Sched. A, s. 11 (1).
13. The above made reference to the term ‘treatment’, which is defined in the Ontario Health Care Consent Act, 1996 as follows:
“means anything that is done for a therapeutic, preventive, palliative, diagnostic, cosmetic or other health-related purpose, and includes a course of treatment, plan of treatment or community treatment plan”.
14. I believe it is fair to say this definition would include any vaccination or any COVID-19 test, as they are both, allegedly, “preventive”, “diagnostic” and for a “health- related purpose”.
15. I am unsure whether the The Nuremberg Code, to which Canada is a signatory, is legally binding in a domestic sense, but it has been used to assist with framing references and perspectives, and The Nuremberg Code does state that it is essential, before performing a medical procedure on human beings, that there is voluntary informed consent. It is my understanding that it is this reason that those taking the vaccine are asked to sign a form of consent, thereby ensuring compliance not only with domestic law, but international law. The Nuremberg Code also confirms a person involved should have legal capacity to give consent, 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/her to make an informed decision.
16. This is stated in the Nuremberg Code: Article 6, Section 1:
“Any preventative, diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention is only to be carried out with the prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned, based on adequate information. The consent should, where appropriate, be expressed and may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without disadvantage or prejudice.”
17. Furthermore, Nuremberg Code: Article 6: Section 3 states:
“In no case should a collective community agreement or the consent of a community leader or other authority substitute for an individual’s informed consent.”
18. One could make the deduction that by forcing members to submit to a COVID-19 vaccine or test (including the rapid antigen test), the government has breached the aforementioned articles. The Supreme Court of Canada has well established case law that deals with medical treatment without the informed consent. It is simply unconstitutional to mandate medical treatment of any kind.
19. As a citizen of Canada, I am of the opinion I am protected under the medical and legal ethics of express informed consent and am entitled to the full protections guaranteed under:
a. Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1982) Section 2a, 2b, 7, 8, 9, 15;
b. Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights (2005);
c. Nuremburg Code (1947); and
d. Helsinki Declaration (1964, revised 2013), Article 25, 26.
20. With all of this background, and at this point in time, I am stating that I meet the criteria of being a reasonable person and given the lack of essential elements required for informed consent and that the vaccines are still in the trial phase, I am justified to declare that I do not give my informed consent to taking the COVID-19 vaccine. I further assert that any mandate which makes taking the vaccine a condition for employment falls under the definition of coercion, which is not permitted under law today.
21. I am deeply concerned that my employment with CAF is contingent to take a vaccine which I do not believe has met the criteria to be safe, effective and required. I will not waste your time with data in regard to the COVID-19, but I have attached a letter recently penned by Dr. Eric Payne, a pediatric neurologist at the Alberta Children’s Hospital. I share the views of Dr. Payne and appreciate the fact his letter also provides a wealth of authoritative references and citations. There is emerging data which shows that the vaccines are being linked to the cause of several severe unanticipated conditions. To say the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few is simply a hedonistic utilitarian perspective which does not recognize the rights of all individuals and more importantly and ignores the fact that vaccines are not the only tool available to combat this virus. I contend we need to look at all impacts associated with our efforts to beat COVID-19, and not exclude second, third and associated orders of effect.
22. All this being stated, should my employment as a member of CAF be contingent on taking a COVID-19 vaccine, and if the CAF remains convinced of its importance, I will redress this direction and submit a grievance. Should the grievance not be supported, I will request that prior to taking the vaccine, the CAF promulgate a policy or letter of acknowledgement by the Minister of National Defence which states that the CAF is aware there are members who are taking this vaccine completely against their will and under duress. Furthermore, members such as myself are more than willing to be accommodated, but that this option has been removed by the Government of Canada for federal employees. Failing the provision of a policy or letter of acknowledgement, I will ask that my chain of command acknowledge, in writing, that they are aware I am taking the vaccine solely for employment reasons, and against my free will.
23. The least the CAF can do is accept that they obligated me to take the vaccine against my will and refused to provide accommodation which would respect established public health measures. Accordingly, the CAF (meaning the Government of Canada and the Department of National Defence) must then accept liability and will look after any and all costs associated with injuries which come from taking this vaccine, given this vaccine was a condition for employment.
24. After over X years as a member and leader in the CAF, I pride myself in following rules, upholding policies and also being that voice in the crowd who was not afraid to raise their concern when there was a legitimate concern. This mandate has caused me to raise my voice, I am concerned. I wish to continue to serve as a loyal member in the CAF and I want to ensure the well-being of my subordinates, while at the same time holding true to the values and rights within the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Writing this letter has not been without significant personal stress, but it is that important to me that I ensure my concerns are understood and that if the CAF continue to pursue a policy of mandatory COVID-19 vaccination as a condition of employment, it is officially documented that I am doing so completely against my free will.
25. For your consideration.