A constitutional challenge has been filed in BC Supreme Court challenging the province’s COVID-19 vaccine passport system by two women claiming they cannot receive any vaccines.
The vaccine card orders “ require the petitioners to choose between their own physical health and well being and their civil liberties,” the suit said. “Either choice has negative consequences on their families as well as themselves. The vaccine card orders actively deprive the petitioners of their Charter protected rights and freedoms.”
The suit names B.C.’s attorney general and minister of health as respondents.
Sarah Webb, of both Calgary and Victoria, and Maple Ridge’s Leigh Anne Eliason filed the challenge, saying they have physical disabilities which require a medical exemption from receiving further vaccines.
Webb, 39, works in hotel management, dividing her time between Victoria and Calgary.
The suit said she received the Moderna vaccine on May 2. Six days later, the suit said, she experienced fatigue, cramping, heart arrhythmias, swollen lymph nodes, severe pain, and a rash that engulfed her arm. She went to the hospital and received antibiotics. She returned the next day with complications and was advised she should not receive the second vaccination shot.
“Since receiving the COVID-19 vaccine, Sarah has, on average, multiple times per week, experienced significant and ongoing side-effects of the COVID-19 Vaccine including, without limitation, rashes, hives, fatigue, cramping, tachycardia, and other heart arrhythmias,” the suit said.
On September 3, 2021, Sarah’s physician told her to avoid further COVID-19 vaccination no matter the brand or manufacturer
The suit said Webb, 41, has a difficult medical history including a neuro-vestibular disorder, atrial fibrillation, and Wenckebach Syndrome, a heart condition.
She was eligible for vaccination in April but was advised by her doctor in May that the potential for side effects was significant.
“Leigh was expressly advised by her physician not to receive the COVID-19 Vaccine, no matter the brand or manufacturer,” the suit said.
The suit asserts both women have medical exemptions from receiving further vaccine injections.
The development of a diagnostic test to detect the virus that doesn’t exist.
Based on the test, the publishing of sky-high case numbers, all of which are obviously meaningless.
Based on the false case numbers, and absurd computer projections of cases and deaths to come, the imprisoning of people in their homes, the closure and destruction of businesses, the torpedoing of economies, and then…
The introduction of a highly destructive vaccine as the solution.
These are the consequences that flowed from the fake “discovery” of a new virus.
Lately, there has been a resurgence of interest in one or two documents I cited months ago. These documents reveal the hoax at the bottom of the test for a virus that doesn’t exist. The documents, written by the builders of the test, admit an isolated specimen of the virus is NOT AVAILABLE. But they’re going to devise a test for it anyway.
This is on the order of a doctor telling a patient, “I’m going to test you for Disease XQ.”
The patient asks, “What is disease XQ?”
The doctor answers, “We have NO IDEA. But we want to find out whether you have it.”
Buried deep in the document, in a section titled, “Performance Characteristics,” we have this: “Since no quantified virus isolates of the 2019-nCoV [SARS-CoV-2] are currently available, assays [diagnostic tests] designed for detection of the 2019-nCoV RNA were tested with characterized stocks of in vitro transcribed full length RNA…” (document page 40, pdf page 41)
The key phrase there is: “Since no quantified virus isolates of the 2019-nCoV [virus] are currently available…”
Every object that exists can be quantified, which is to say, measured. The use of the term “quantified” in that phrase means: the CDC has no virus, because it is unavailable. THE CDC HAS NO VIRUS.
One of the two most powerful public health agencies in the world can’t obtain the virus from anywhere. Why? Obviously, because no one has it.
A further tip-off is the use of the word ‘isolates.” This means NO ISOLATED VIRUS IS AVAILABLE.
Another way to put it: NO ONE HAS AN ISOLATED SPECIMEN OF THE COVID-19 VIRUS.
NO ONE HAS ISOLATED THE COVID-19 VIRUS.
THEREFORE, NO ONE HAS PROVED THAT IT EXISTS.
As if this were not a revelation to shock the world, the CDC goes on to say they are presenting a diagnostic PCR test, in that very paper I’m citing, to detect the virus-that-hasn’t-been-isolated…and the test is looking for RNA which is PRESUMED to come from the virus that hasn’t been proved to exist.
And using this test, the CDC and every other public health agency in the world would go on to count COVID cases and deaths…and governments instituted lockdowns and economic devastation using those case and death numbers as justification.
The pandemic is a fraud, down to the root of the poisonous tree.
And now, let’s move on to a second key document. This one formed the basis for the first PCR test aimed at detecting the COVID virus all over the world.
READ WHAT THIS STUDY SAYS. These quotes should be engraved in stone above the entrance to a museum dedicated to the history of medical fraud.
“We aimed to develop and deploy robust diagnostic methodology [a test for a virus] for use in public health laboratory settings without having virus material available.”
TRANSLATION: We want to develop a test to detect the new COVID virus without having the virus.
“Here we present a validated diagnostic workflow for 2019-nCoV [SARS-CoV-2] its design relying on close genetic relatedness of 2019-nCoV with [the older 2003] SARS coronavirus, making use of synthetic nucleic acid technology.”
TRANSLATION: We HAVE developed a diagnostic test to detect the new COVID virus. We ASSUME this new virus exists and is closely related to an older coronavirus. We ASSUME we know HOW it is related. We ASSUME, because we don’t have the new COVID virus. Therefore, all our assumptions are made out of nothing. Actually, we have no proof there is a new coronavirus.
“The workflow reliably detects 2019-nCoV, and further discriminates 2019-nCoV from [the older 2003] SARS-CoV.”
TRANSLATION: Our new test to detect the new virus? We don’t have the new virus. We’ve never observed it. We can’t study it directly. There is no proof it exists. But we will create and use a test to detect it.
Those quotes from the study are astounding. A diagnostic test for the virus, but there is no virus. No standard against which to compare the reliability of the test.
The authors blithely assume they can somehow infer that the virus exists in the first place, without having an isolated specimen.
Then they assume they can understand the structure of the virus that isn’t there.
The virus isn’t there. It has NOT been isolated. It has NOT been separated out from other material. Therefore, it has not been observed and its existence has not been proved.
And yet, the test which these authors have developed is launched, all over the world, to detect that virus; to promote the unproven notion that there is a pandemic; to form the basis for counting COVID case numbers; and ultimately to justify all the lockdowns which have crashed the global economy and destroyed millions upon millions of lives.
A great deal of confusion has been created, because scientists talk about the “new virus” as if they understand its structure and genetic sequence. No. They’ve built a hypothetical structure, AS DATA. Nothing more. And then they gibber about what it means.
As far as what is actually going on in labs where researchers are making vast assumptions and proclamations; don’t talk to me about science. Talk to me about liability and prison.
At the site, fluoridefreepeel.ca, you will find roughly a hundred FOIA requests to public health agencies. These requests are asking for records showing that SARS-CoV-2 has been isolated. The repetitive and routine reply is: “We have no records.” Taken together, they paint a picture of egregious fraud.
Mainstream scientists will make two claims: one, we have isolated the virus; and two, it is not necessary to isolate the virus, because we’ve discovered its genetic sequence. Both claims are false.
From reading the arcane language surrounding claims of having sequenced the virus—there is a multi-layered scam composed of leaps of unwarranted assumptions. The researchers say they are using tools that allow them to closely approximate the structure of SARS-CoV-2, even though they don’t have that virus in hand. This is absurd.
It’s like saying: There is a new planet in the solar system. We don’t know where it is or what it looks like. We don’t know what processes are at work on this new planet. But we do know the moon is a very close approximation of the planet. Therefore, we can know everything we need to know about the new planet from our knowledge of the moon.
And a rabbit is spaceship. And there are condos for sale on Jupiter. And new element #267587, in the Periodic Table, which no one has ever seen, is almost an exact copy of Philadelphia Cream Cheese.
And now we come to a third document, which bulges with devastating admissions. It was issued by the CDC.
“After December 31, 2021, CDC will withdraw the request to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) of the CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel, the assay first introduced in February 2020 for detection of SARS-CoV-2 only. CDC is providing this advance notice for clinical laboratories to have adequate time to select and implement one of the many FDA-authorized alternatives.”
Many people believe this means the CDC is giving up on the PCR test as a means of “detecting the virus.” The CDC isn’t saying that at all.
They’re saying the PCR technology will continue to be used, but they’re replacing what the test is looking FOR with a better “reference sample.” A better marker. A better target. A better piece of RNA supposedly derived from SARS-CoV-2.
CDC/FDA are confessing there has been a PROBLEM with the PCR test which has been used to detect the virus, starting in February of 2020—right up to July 21, 2021.
In other words, the millions and millions of “COVID cases” based on the PCR test in use are all suspect. Actually, that statement is too generous. Every test result of every PCR test should be thrown out.
“During the early months of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, clinical specimens [of the virus] were not readily available to developers of IVDs [in vitro diagnostics, the PCR test] to detect SARS-CoV-2. Therefore, the FDA authorized IVDs [tests] based on available data from contrived samples generated from a range of SARS-CoV-2 material sources (for example, gene specific RNA, synthetic RNA, or whole genome viral RNA) for analytical and clinical performance evaluation. While validation using these contrived specimens provided a measure of confidence in test performance at the beginning of the pandemic, it is not feasible to precisely compare the performance of various tests that used contrived specimens because each test validated performance using samples derived from different gene specific, synthetic, or genomic nucleic acid sources.”
Translation: We, at the CDC, did not have a specimen of the SARS-CoV-2 virus when we concocted the PCR test for SARS-CoV-2. Yes, and that’s the test we’ve been using all along. So we CONTRIVED samples of ‘the virus’. We fabricated. We lied. We made up [invented] synthetic gene sequences and we SAID these sequences HAD TO BE close to the sequence of SARS-CoV-2, without having the faintest idea of what we were doing, because, again, we didn’t have an actual specimen of the virus. We had no proof THERE WAS something called SARS-CoV-2.
This amazing FDA document goes to say the Agency has granted emergency approval to 59 different PCR tests since the beginning of the (fake) pandemic. 59. And, “…it is not feasible to precisely compare the performance of various tests that used contrived specimens because each test validated performance using samples derived from different gene specific, synthetic, or genomic nucleic acid sources.”
Translation: Each of the 59 different PCR tests for SARS-CoV-2 told different lies and concocted different fabrications about the genetic makeup of the virus—the virus we didn’t have. Obviously, then, these tests would give useless and meaningless results. It was all a fantasy.
BUT, don’t worry, be happy, because NOW, the CDC and the FDA say, they really do have actual isolated virus samples of SARS-CoV-2 from patients; they have better targets for the PCR test, and labs should start gearing up for the new and improved tests.
In other words, they were lying THEN, but they’re not lying NOW. They were “contriving,” but now they’re telling the truth.
If you believe that, I have Fountain of Youth water for sale, extracted from the lead-contaminated system of Flint, Michigan.
We KNOW they are lying now, because they continue to torture the meaning of the word “isolate.” Here, once again, I report virology’s version of “we possess isolated specimens of the virus”:
This soup contains human and monkey cells, toxic chemicals and drugs, and all sorts of other random genetic material. Because the cells start to die, the researchers ASSUME a bit of mucus from a patient they dropped in the soup is doing the killing, and THE VIRUS must be the killer agent in the mucus.
This assumption is entirely unwarranted. The drugs and chemicals could be doing the cell-killing, and the researchers are also starving the cells of vital nutrients, and that starvation could kill the cells.
There is no proof that SARS-CoV-2 is in the soup, or that it is doing the cell-killing, or that it exists.
Yet the researchers call cell-death “isolation of the virus.”
To say this is a non-sequitur is a vast understatement. In their universe, “We assume, without proof, we have the virus buried in a soup in a dish in the lab” equals, “We’ve separated the virus from all surrounding material.”
Virology equals “how to spread bullshit for a living and scare the world and lock it down and shoot it up with a devastating destructive vaccine.” Other than that, it’s perfect.
116 institutions (mainly health and science institutions) in >20 countries have all failed to provide or cite even 1 record describing “SARS-COV-2” purification by anyone, anywhere, or containing proof of “its” existence. Below is a list of the institutions. Also, note that from several of these institutions (i.e. the CDC, Public Health England, UK DHSC, India’s ICMR) we have multiple responses.
In a response to a request made under the Transparency Act (2013), the Ministry of Health in Spain acknowledged that “it does not have a SARS-CoV-2 culture” nor a “registry of laboratories with culture and isolation capacity for testing.” The response also discharged all responsibility for diagnoses and treatments onto health professionals and recognised that “tests, by themselves, are not usually sufficient to determine the disease.”
On 30 September, El Diestro reported: “those ‘tests’ which have been used to justify decisions made about confinements, closures, isolations, patient treatments, vaccination and dictatorial measures aimed at ending the freedoms of all, ‘are not usually enough to determine the disease’, according to the Health Ministry.”
On 15 February 2021 Kepa Ormazabal submitted a Freedom of Information request regarding isolation or purification of the phantom “virus” to the Basque Country (Spain) Office of the President and Department of Health and all dependent institutions. Months later Kepa wrote: “According to the law, they have 30 days to respond; 60 if the question is especially complex. Today is May 2nd and I have not heard from them.”
On March 30, 2021 Kepa Ormazabal submitted another FOI request re isolation/purification of the phantom “virus” to the flagship of Spanish research, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (Higher Council of Scientific Research). Months later Kepa writes: “Again, they have not responded and, therefore, their silence is refusing access to the information they may hold in regards to my question.”
“The CSIC and the Basque government are public institutions and, therefore, must comply with the law of transparency, good governance and access to public information. Article 20.4 of this law states that, if after 30 days there has been no response from the public administration, this silence is to be understood as meaning that the request to access the public information solicited has been refused.”
Since our previous article, on 22 July 2021, La Asociación Liberum (Liberum Association); Biólogos por la Verdad (Biologists for the Truth); and, an individual made a request to the Spanish Ministry of Health for public information regarding the SARS-CoV-2 virus. The request, amongst other things, asked for a sample culture of the virus that could be independently tested.
We have used Google translate to translate the Ministry of Health’s full response from Spanish into English and attached HERE.
The significant portion of the response from the Ministry of Health is on page three of the PDF document above and is quoted below (using Google translate):
“The Ministry of Health does not have a SARS-CoV-2 culture for testing, and it does not have a registry of laboratories with culture and isolation capacity for testing.
In relation to the SARS-COV-2 diagnostic tests, and in general, with issues related to the SARS-Cov-2 pandemic, the Ministry of Health works with the aforementioned documents, which are updated according to the epidemiological need, to enable decision-making in relation to the management of the pandemic, and the dissemination of information to third parties that can use it in their specific environments. In this sense, the most conceptual and definitional issues remain more in academic and teaching environments, with the Ministry of Health playing a more secondary role and not acting on these issues in its power.
Finally, the evaluation of patients in relation to their state of health, be it COVID-19 or another disease or pathology, is the responsibility of the reference health professionals. The tests, by themselves, are not usually sufficient to determine disease, requiring an expert evaluation of the person who has been tested. Either way, the case definition can be found at the following link.”