In mid-March of 2020 a strange phenomenon took over our country and most of the world. I call it the Covid Fear-storm. A heretofore unknown viral pathogen was sweeping the world and we were being told by all of our standard news sources and our politicians to be afraid! Be very afraid!
For weeks every family in our province (and I suspect most other provinces) were what can only be described with military terminology as “confined to quarters” unless we worked in “essential” services. After this, for months, we were only “allowed” to have one visitor in our own homes at a time, and only on condition that that single visitor be someone who normally lived alone. In my circumstance my circle included only one such individual.
I am a pastor of a small congregation that met in a rented room at a seniors’ recreation facility. This facility was now off-limits. Initially it was shut down, like every other place of gathering. Our congregation was small enough to meet in our apartment, but we were not allowed to meet there, either. Then another strange phenomenon began to occur. Somehow it was ok to have liquor stores open, but churches must remain closed. Even stranger, outdoor services with people spread apart in their own vehicles were shut down. Really???
Stranger still, the only treatments available for almost a year revolved around ventilation of people who had been forced to forego hospital treatment until they could hardly breathe any more, a treatment requiring sedation of said patients because of the discomfort of shoving a tube down their throats to force pressurized air into lungs. Added to this was the highly toxic drug Remdesivir that has the nasty tendency to shut down kidneys in many patients.
And then came the miracle! A “vaccine” that uses a lipid nanoparticle envelope to deliver a messenger RNA code into cells. This code hijacks the protein building machinery of the cellular ribosome structures. The mRNA forces the body’s own cells to produce a foreign protein that sticks to the cell membrane, signaling the body’s immune system to produce antibodies against this foreign protein.
Now I am not a doctor or a scientist, but I do remember enough high school biology to notice that foreign proteins are targets that the body attacks, and any cell that has these sticking to them are attacked, along with the protein itself, as foreign invaders or pathogenic cells.
This process struck me as a really good way to produce autoimmune disease in the long run. I chose to let science, rather than “the science” to be my guide, and refused the injection.
I am also aware that “Emergency Use Authorization” is an expression semantically equivalent to “experimental treatment.”
Along with the experimental treatment came a highly coordinated propaganda campaign. Yes, propaganda is exactly what it was! (Check out the Britannica article to see why at https://www.britannica.com/topic/propaganda). It certainly emphasized the emotional response over the scientific reasoning. Among other things, calling those with reasonable concerns “anti-vaxxers” and “grandma-killers” took the propaganda to new lows. From my perspective there seemed to be a deliberate attempt to shame and isolate those who did not trust the official narrative.
Eventually we were simply shut out of our seniors’ facility because our congregation had a mixture of Covid vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals. For some unfathomable reason it was considered unsafe for the vaccinated individuals to be in the presence of unvaccinated individuals. The logic of that still escapes me. If the vaccinated were incapable of acquiring or spreading the disease, they should have been the safest people there, and the safest people for the unvaccinated to be around.
Unless, of course, the “powers that be” knew something that we were not being told.
The propaganda push and shaming were bad enough, but for the Federal Government to mandate its employees as well as all contractors to federal departments to participate in an experimental therapy was the absolute limit for me. When the idea was being floated I informed my supervisor that I would quit if that became the rule.
And I did.
Coercing people (threatening their livelihood) to participate in a medical experiment violates many sections of the Nuremburg Code and international human rights codes. I have bolded areas in which I believe the Nuremburg code has been violated. In [italicized square brackets] I add what were my thoughts at the time they were inititially being promoted as “safe and effective.”
Remember that “emergency use authorization” is an acknowledgement that the treatment has not passed all of the requirements of testing for licensing and must therefore be considered as experimental.
The Nuremburg Code:
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, over-reaching, 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. [Workplace mandates are a clear violation of the constraint/coercion clause. I would have refused on this ground alone. Nor were we given any actual safety data to base a decision on.]
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. [Did pharmacists, for example, explain that there might be a possibility of long-term health problems?][Any doctor or pharmacist who claimed that the treatment was “safe and effective” when it had not been subjected to long-term safety evaluation was simply lying.]
2. The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature. [There are other possible treatments that are less expensive and have established safety profiles, such as hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, that somehow have become taboo to discuss. Doctors here and in the U.S. can no longer prescribe these without licencing issues. Pharmacists also ensure that they are no longer available. Those early treatments were being promoted by world-renowned experts in their fields who have now become personna non grata in the medical community. Very odd, to say the least. ][How does Ivermectin, a Nobel Prize winning medication that heals human diseases and is being researched for possible cancer treatment become “horse paste?”]
3. The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation and a knowledge of the natural history of the disease or other problem under study, that the anticipated results will justify the performance of the experiment. [Did the animals remain in good health for the rest of their natural lives? We need results (the raw data, not just a whitewashed summary.)]
4. The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury. [How can preventing early hospital treatment be considered avoiding unnecessary suffering and injury? How can treatment with Remdesivir be considered avoiding unnecessary injury? How can threatening one’s livelihood not be considered mental suffering?]
5. No experiment should be conducted, where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects. [The body’s own cells were being foced to produce a foreign protein. What could possibly go wrong? How about inflammation, possible autoimmune problems, or other unforeseen negative effects? These may take a long time to develop.]
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. [Two factors make the degree of risk impossible to determine. 1) Lack of long-term safety data, 2) Effectiveness, as described by the manufacturer, was relative, not absolute, making the data meaningless for risk/benefit analysis. A third factor making risk/benefit analysis impossible is the way deaths are attributed to Covid-19. Anyone who dies with a positive test is considered a “covid death,” no matter what the proximate cause of death was, including blunt force trauma, for instance.]
7. Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability, or death. [Are pharmacies really adequate facilities for protection of experimental subjects?]
8. The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons. The highest degree of skill and care should be required through all stages of the experiment of those who conduct or engage in the experiment. [Are pharmacists scientifically qualified to conduct this experiment?]
9. During the course of the experiment, the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end, if he has reached the physical or mental state, where continuation of the experiment seemed to him to be impossible. [Are you really at liberty to end the experiment when your job is at stake? ]
10. During the course of the experiment, the scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probable cause to believe, in the exercise of the good faith, superior skill and careful judgement required of him, that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject. [Nobody seems prepared to end this experiment under any circumstances.]
UNESCO’s Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights contains very similar language, particularly (though not exclusively) in Articles 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11 and 16. You can find it at the link below.
Universal Declaration on Bioethics andHuman Rights
To conclude, I understood early on that we were being sold a bill of goods that required patently false propaganda, coercion and information control to be implemented. Citizens were being conditioned to accept a massive loss of human rights and civic rights for what seemed to me to be nefarious reasons of autocratic control over our lives, with potentially very negative consequences for our health.
That is why I chose to walk away from my employment at that time and suffer the ridicule and discrimination of my government rather than submit to a very problematic medical experiment masquerading as a public health pandemic vaccination programme.
Nothing that I have seen since then has done anything other than reinforce my reservations about participating in this dangerous experiment. I refuse to consent to anything in the future that resembles how this pandemic was handled. I value my health and the health of those around me far too much for that.
John Valade 
Leave a comment