Fraser Health - One of the Largest Canadian Health Authorities Violates The Canadian Constitution Enforcing Vaccine Policy On Its Employees
On Dec 5th, 2013, Dr. Paul Van Buyender, VP Public Health and Chief Medical Health Officer distributed a memo to all public health staff with the subject "update on influenza control policy".
A quick look at Fraser Health's facebook page is all you need to be convinced of the strong pro-vaccine stance as the header reads "Miss your flu shot and you could miss a lot," or the usual blabber about flu shots on the first post "Flu shots: Your family's best defense for preventing the flu."
Misinformation Directed At Pregnant Women
Buyender's memo of deliberate misinformation first targets pregnant women:
"The National Advisory Committee on Immunization strongly recommends vaccine for all pregnant women and recently The World Health Organization made vaccinating pregnant women against influenza the number one priority of influenza control programs, above even the elderly and other high risk groups."
Past research in Environment International Journal showed that women with higher levels of mercury exposure are more than twice as likely to have elevated levels of antibodies that are associated with autoimmune disorders such as arthritis and lupus. The antibodies may also affect women during pregnancy.
A study in Toxicological & Environmental Chemistry examined mercury exposure in the context of primary exposure to pregnant women and secondary exposure experienced by their unborn babies.
Babies in utero are particularly at risk of higher Hg exposure than adults (on a dose/weight basis through maternal Hg transfer via the placenta), and are more susceptible to adverse effects from mercury and its biologically active compounds. It is, therefore, critical that regulatory advisories around maximum safe Hg exposures account for pregnant women and secondary exposure that children in utero experience.
Some pregnant staff in Fraser Health were advised by practitioners not to be vaccinated and are thus facing many months of mask wearing.
An overwhelming majority of pregnant women who visit the doctor's office are now refusing the flu vaccine over fears it will harm their fetus and their fears are now scientifically justified. More than 90% of all expecting mothers will now say no to the flu vaccine due to fear of miscarriage and delivery of toxic byproducts to their unborn child.
A comparison of fetal-loss reports in the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) during three consecutive influenza seasons shows there was a synergistic toxicity causing spontaneous abortions(SAB) and stiillbirths (SB) following the Center for Disease Control (CDC) recommendations of pandemic and influenza vaccines administered to pregnant women.
This research is now published in the journal Human & Experimental Toxicology showing a 4,250% increase in fetal deaths according to Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) data when comparing three consecutive influenza seasons.
Yet, despite all the evidence above, Buyender's memo continues with the following:
"Influenza infection in pregnancy leads to many more consequences for not just the mother but also the unborn child. Additionally, if the mother has a vaccine in pregnancy it subsequently protects the newborn baby against influenza for the first six months of life when they are too young to receive vaccine themselves."
The reality is that the flu in pregnany is far less of a risk to both the mother and fetus than the vaccine itself.
No flu vaccine is ever tested for carcinogenic or mutagenic potential, or for impairment of fertility. . This means that none of the carcinogenic excipients (inside every vaccine) are ever studied and their effects on the human body are unknown. This declaration also indicates that there is no responsible authority that can state to a parent, that their son or daughter will not become infertile as a consequence of receiving the influenza vaccine.
Another remarkable fact is that although all pregnant women are encouraged to receive the flu vaccine by health and medical authorities, the safety and effectiveness for pregnant women or nursing mothers has also not been established. Any vaccine insert will clearly specify these warnings.
Health Officials Suppress Basic Facts
Health officials suppress basic facts about seasonal influenza-like-illnesses (ILI) with the result that the public at large is disempowered from making informed vaccine choices. What is never revealed by health officials nor reported in the media, is the fact that most cases (80-90%) of ‘the flu’ are NOT caused by influenza virus types A or B, but are associated with many other viruses known to cause identical symptoms as influenza and against which the vaccine is completely ineffective.
After decades as an influenza expert, Dr. Tom Jefferson sums it up: “Over 200 viruses cause influenza and influenza-like illness which produce the same symptoms (fever, headache, aches and pains, cough and runny noses). Without laboratory tests, doctors cannot tell the two illnesses apart. Both last for days and rarely lead to death or serious illness. At best, vaccines might be effective against only influenza A and B, which represent about 10% of all circulating viruses.”
When your doctor takes a ‘swab’ from your nose & throat for laboratory analysis to identify the bug you’ve picked up, chances are 85%-90% of the time, the lab will confirm that you do NOT have influenza, but picked up one of the many other viruses associated with “the flu”.
According to CDC data, in the past 11 years, 86% of all influenza-type illnesses were NOT caused by the influenza virus, thus influenza viruses are ONLY active 14% of the time.
The proportion of ILI caused by influenza viruses varies by year, and even varies within a specific year over the course of the winter.
Therefore, under a hypothetical scenario that influenza vaccines work 25% of the time (which is marginally high percentage for flu vaccine effectiveness), that means the maximum effectiveness of the flu vaccine would be 3.5% on influenza viral strains and nil for ILI.
Health officials prefer to remain silent about these basic facts. Complicit in the deceit is mainstream media who prefer to parrot flu vaccine propaganda, rather than report truthfully about the highly profitable industry that has evolved around annual flu vaccines involving a lot of money, influence, careers and entire institutions such as the World Health Organization (WHO) and Health Agencies charged with protecting the public health.
Sumit Majumdar, a physician and researcher at the University of Alberta, offered this historical perspective in an interview with Atlantic Magazine: “rising rates of vaccination of the elderly over the past two decades have not coincided with a lower overall mortality rate. In 1989, only 15 percent of people over age 65 in the U.S. and Canada were vaccinated against flu. Today, more than 65 percent are immunized. Yet death rates among the elderly during flu season have increased rather than decreased."
A 2007 study by influenza expert Lone Simonsen, PhD offers this:
“The remaining evidence base is currently insufficient to indicate the magnitude of the mortality benefit, if any, that elderly people derive from the vaccination programme...We conclude that frailty selection bias and use of non-specific endpoints such as all-cause mortality have led cohort studies to greatly exaggerate vaccine benefits. Recent excess mortality studies were unable to confirm a decline in influenza-related mortality since 1980, even as vaccination coverage increased from 15% to 65%.”
Human Rights Violations
Healthcare workers object to flu vaccine mandates because forced medication violates their basic human rights as articulated in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Charter guarantees the right to life, liberty and security of the person. This implies the freedom to make health care choices that could profoundly affect one’s health and wellbeing and the right to protect oneself from elements that threaten one’s security, such as forced medication. Furthermore the Charter guarantee of the right to freedom of conscience and religion upholds the individual’s right to practice one’s deeply held convictions and is certainly violated by forced medication policies.
A 1991 decision by the Ontario Court of Appeal, stated the following:
The common law right to bodily integrity and personal autonomy is so entrenched in the traditions of our law as to be ranked as fundamental and deserving of the highest order of protection. This right forms an essential part of an individual’s security of the person and must be included in the liberty interests protected by s. 7. Indeed, in my view, the common law right to determine what shall be done with one’s own body and the constitutional right to security of the person, both of which are founded on the belief in the dignity and autonomy of each individual, can be treated as co-extensive.
(Fleming v. Reid, a Canadian Charter, section 7 challenge to involuntary mental health treatment)
Buyender's memo concluded:
"I have received a number of complaints from staff saying that they were vaccinated because of the policy despite preferring not to have vaccine."
This statement alone is worthy is worthy of investigation for constitutional lawyers wishing to seek action against Fraser Health for human rights violations.
Forced medication violates the most fundamental medical ethics rooted in the common law right to “bodily integrity and personal autonomy” on which the Informed Consent principle is founded. Canadian Medical Law stipulates that forcing a medical procedure on a person against their will violates the Informed Consent principle, is not only fraudulent, but constitutes a “battery” against that person. Ontario’s Health Care Consent Act
is a good example of provincial legislation that clarifies and upholds the basic tenets of Informed Consent:
- The consent must be informed
- The consent must be given voluntarily
- The consent must not be obtained through misrepresentation or fraud
Since Fraser Health is not providing its employees with sufficient information on the risks of vaccination and misrepresenting informed consent through forced policies, the health authority could be challenged in Supreme Court for its directive.
The common law right against forced medical treatment is a form of assault and Fraser Health should be questioning the validity of a statutory or regulatory authority for the policy, and if so, why is it that patients and visitors do not have to be vaccinated.
Virtually all the court cases, including the Supreme Court of Canada and Court of Appeals, find that enforced medical treatment is an assault if there is no consent, and judgements are always in this favour.
Another statement by Buynder emphasizes:
"Some pregnant staff in Fraser Health were advised by practitioners not to be vaccinated and are thus facing many months of mask wearing."
An outraged Registered Nurse in British Columbia commented on the option of wearing masks during flu season: “In that way they are apparently giving us an “alternative’. Meanwhile, we see it for what it is, a shaming tactic to manipulate us to receive the vaccine. The act of injecting a vaccine against our will naturally violates consent but I don’t see how a consent obtained under duress and manipulation of a public “outing” is legal either. Imagine if we went around shaming patients into consent for procedures under threat of exposure of “bad” behaviour. Disgusting!
Labour unions in the U.S. oppose influenza vaccine mandates for health professionals. They view such coercion as a human rights violation and fear that, “if health care professionals can be bullied and coerced into vaccination against their will, then what profession is next? Teachers, daycare workers, government employees and public transit employees?” One labour union stated, “it is not consisted with our national values -- openness, respect, and informed consent around medical treatments we receive.”
The American Association of Physicians & Surgeons (AAPS), a large group of medical professionals from all specialties objects strenuously to any coercion of healthcare personnel to receive influenza immunization: “It is a fundamental human right not to be subjected to medical interventions without fully informed consent”.
Healthcare workers like every other citizen, have the right to accurate information about influenza and its vaccines. As citizens of Canada, they have a right to exercise voluntary, informed consent to vaccination and not be subjected to harassment, coercion, intimidation or threats of job suspension for refusing flu shots. Employment contracts should include flexible medical, religious and conscientious belief exemption to vaccine requirements.
Fraser Health has overstepped their boundaries regarding fundamental human rights and I personally would fully support any type of legal action taken against them for violating the Canadian Constitution by forcing vaccination
contrary to fundamental common law and medical ethics with substantial evidence against their claims regarding flu vaccine effectiveness.
Dave Mihalovic is a Naturopathic Doctor who specializes in vaccine research, cancer prevention and a natural approach to treatment.