Millions of taxpayer dollars were spent on a relentless barrage of pro-COVID-19 vaccine campaigns and messages devised to build a “relationship of trust” between governments and a “vulnerable and afraid” public facing a global pandemic.The vaccines are safe and effective. They’ll reduce transmission. Mix and match ‘em. Trust the science. We are in it together. This is our Shot of Hope. Or so they said, over and over to convince the public to take the jabs.Coercion accompanied fear and guilt tactics to force the hesitant to take the jab and booster shots. People complied for fear of getting or spreading COVID-19 or being “stripped of their rights” for refusing. Bodily autonomy, informed consent, and alternate treatments were cast aside. Sinister threats of punitive fines, jail, and lost jobs contributed to the fear.The pandemic — the jury’s still out if it in fact it was that — ended, but different fears torment many now. They’re the crippling kind associated with dealing with COVID-19 vaccine injuries, many severe, debilitating, and permanent. That relationship of trust is permanently shattered. The jabs pushed on the public proved not to be safe and effective for many, after all. How did this happen?Illegal practices were used to enforce the experimental vaccines, alleges a class action lawsuit targeting the Alberta and federal governments by Rath & Company law firm on behalf of Albertans.It seeks justice and compensation for Albertans who “suffered physical and psychological injuries or death” due to alleged negligence and misconduct by the defendants it aims to hold accountable over the COVID-19 vaccines.Most of the vaccine pushers still hold their positions of power and jobs — while countless vaccine-injured can never work again.Lead counsel Jeffrey Rath wants them hauled into court. The onus is on them to disprove the lawsuit’s allegations of unlawful, inadequate, improper, unfair, and deceptive practices in relation to the warning, marketing, promotion, and distribution of the COVID-19 vaccine injection products. And to prove the pro-vax campaigns weren’t “false, misleading and deceptive.” A claim filed by Rath’s firm in Court of King’s Bench in Lethbridge a year ago on behalf of permanently “horribly vaccine-injured” mother Carrie Sakamoto named several defendants. It was amended on February 29 to name only the Alberta and federal governments “to move it forward quickly,” said Rath.“What’s unique in these amendments and what we’re focussing on is the degree to which the Government of Canada and the Government of Alberta jointly conspired to keep information from the public with regard to the safety of these COVID injections and COVID injection products.” “It’s now going to proceed as a class action lawsuit on behalf of every vaccine injured person in Alberta.” Sakamoto is listed as the class representative for the lawsuit. More than 150 people qualify to join, but “the number changes every day as more people contact us.”“We’ve been contacted by hundreds of Albertans who are vaccine injured.” The “rushed changes” to COVID-19 vaccines safety standards removing the requirement for the vaccines to be safe and effective will shock Canadians, said Rath.“The defendants didn’t stop there — they went further by coercion of the public to take the COVID vaccines by stripping rights from them or providing financial incentives for taking the COVID vaccines," the suit reads.The lawsuit claims both governments provided false, incomplete information and censored truthful, reliable information about injuries. The applicants allege they were denied informed consent and experienced harm. Therefore, the lawsuit alleges “misfeasance in public office and conspiracy to commit assault and battery on the public.” Allegations lead to one pressing question. Who was the government looking out for? Vaccine manufacturers or Canadians?Co-counsel Eva Chipiuk noted the Canadian government conceded the contracts with the vaccine manufacturers were rushed, didn’t contain normal standards, and provided additional indemnities favouring them. “The defendants held themselves out as public health experts and gave medical advice to the public at large,” said Chipiuk. “They intentionally set out to build a relationship of trust between themselves and the public during the pandemic at a time when they knew the public was vulnerable and afraid.”They “knew or ought to have known that the public would be relying on their information for their health, safety and protection” when the vaccines rolled out.Rath said the lawsuit is specifically based on information Liberal MP Anthony Housefather provided to the House of Commons health committee. That being the vaccine supply contracts specifically stated the manufacturers “do not guarantee the vaccine products for safety because they were rushed to market on an emergency basis,” said Rath.And that government would have a hard time getting Canadians to take the vaccines if they knew they weren’t warranted for safety by manufacturers who “insisted that the Canadian government provide them an indemnity in the event that they were sued by any Canadian injured by these vaccines.”Rath’s position is that withholding information that would have informed any rational person’s decision — including any rational parent to have their child vaccinated — amounts to the Alberta and federal government “conspiring to hide safety information from the public.” Therefore, in the “classical sense of medical malpractice law” they were made victim of assault and battery or conspiracy to commit assault and battery.According to the statement of claim Health Canada negligently approved the vaccines under an expedited process allowing manufacturers to apply for authorization for their sale and distribution without the completion of all long-term safety studies or commitment to review new evidence as it become available.The suit says defendants knew, or ought to have known, the vaccines were neither safe or effective because of reports of injury and harms and access to information from the manufacturers. Yet they never disclosed the information to the public or physicians; censored and suppressed information relating to adverse events and injuries; and continued to market, promote, and distribute them as a “safe and effective.”The defendants “collective conduct” to suppress this information “interfered with the public’s ability to exercise their right to informed consent to medical treatment," it says.The lawsuit also states that as data about adverse events became available the “defendants, collectively or individually, should have taken steps to withdraw the COVID vaccines from public use or advise the public of the risk of injury and death associated with these products.”The Federal defendant’s “lack of action in not recalling or pausing” the vaccines or releasing supply contracts when manufacturers stated the products were not warranted for safety was negligence and in bad faith — especially considering it acknowledged vaccine injury and “patterns of excess unknown deaths emerging in Canada and around the world.” A February global study of 99 million COVID-19 vaccinated individuals identified shocking increases in numerous neurological, heart-related and blood conditions.Yet, even now, federal and provincial health sites still promote vaccinations for children six months and older.The defendants either “negligently” or “intentionally” advised the public that they could mix-and-match” vaccines without scientific basis or evidence that this immunization strategy was “safe, effective or appropriate.” The World Health Organization (WHO) warned this approach was a “dangerous trend.” Both Canadian and global data showed a “concerning trend in excess deaths” after the vaccines were rolled out. By February 2021 the defendants “knew or ought to have known” the vaccines were the cause of substantial increased serious adverse events and deaths. “The leading cause of death in Alberta was ‘unknown’ following the rollout of the vaccines. Yet public health authorities and regulatory bodies in Canada or Alberta have not been able to explain this increase in ‘unknown’ deaths. It's time they explained.The allegations are potentially damning. One would think the defendants would stampede into court to clear things up. Well, no.“Lawyers for the Government of Canada have pulled out their playbook and are taking all of the normal steps taken to delay the proceedings,” said Rath.They must answer for the “many Albertans inoculated with the COVID vaccines” that suffered “serious, life-threatening and even fatal consequences.” This is just one class action lawsuit filed across Canada. That barrage of pro-vaccine propaganda has been replaced by a barrage of demands for accountability.Lives have been left in painful ruins.
Millions of taxpayer dollars were spent on a relentless barrage of pro-COVID-19 vaccine campaigns and messages devised to build a “relationship of trust” between governments and a “vulnerable and afraid” public facing a global pandemic.The vaccines are safe and effective. They’ll reduce transmission. Mix and match ‘em. Trust the science. We are in it together. This is our Shot of Hope. Or so they said, over and over to convince the public to take the jabs.Coercion accompanied fear and guilt tactics to force the hesitant to take the jab and booster shots. People complied for fear of getting or spreading COVID-19 or being “stripped of their rights” for refusing. Bodily autonomy, informed consent, and alternate treatments were cast aside. Sinister threats of punitive fines, jail, and lost jobs contributed to the fear.The pandemic — the jury’s still out if it in fact it was that — ended, but different fears torment many now. They’re the crippling kind associated with dealing with COVID-19 vaccine injuries, many severe, debilitating, and permanent. That relationship of trust is permanently shattered. The jabs pushed on the public proved not to be safe and effective for many, after all. How did this happen?Illegal practices were used to enforce the experimental vaccines, alleges a class action lawsuit targeting the Alberta and federal governments by Rath & Company law firm on behalf of Albertans.It seeks justice and compensation for Albertans who “suffered physical and psychological injuries or death” due to alleged negligence and misconduct by the defendants it aims to hold accountable over the COVID-19 vaccines.Most of the vaccine pushers still hold their positions of power and jobs — while countless vaccine-injured can never work again.Lead counsel Jeffrey Rath wants them hauled into court. The onus is on them to disprove the lawsuit’s allegations of unlawful, inadequate, improper, unfair, and deceptive practices in relation to the warning, marketing, promotion, and distribution of the COVID-19 vaccine injection products. And to prove the pro-vax campaigns weren’t “false, misleading and deceptive.” A claim filed by Rath’s firm in Court of King’s Bench in Lethbridge a year ago on behalf of permanently “horribly vaccine-injured” mother Carrie Sakamoto named several defendants. It was amended on February 29 to name only the Alberta and federal governments “to move it forward quickly,” said Rath.“What’s unique in these amendments and what we’re focussing on is the degree to which the Government of Canada and the Government of Alberta jointly conspired to keep information from the public with regard to the safety of these COVID injections and COVID injection products.” “It’s now going to proceed as a class action lawsuit on behalf of every vaccine injured person in Alberta.” Sakamoto is listed as the class representative for the lawsuit. More than 150 people qualify to join, but “the number changes every day as more people contact us.”“We’ve been contacted by hundreds of Albertans who are vaccine injured.” The “rushed changes” to COVID-19 vaccines safety standards removing the requirement for the vaccines to be safe and effective will shock Canadians, said Rath.“The defendants didn’t stop there — they went further by coercion of the public to take the COVID vaccines by stripping rights from them or providing financial incentives for taking the COVID vaccines," the suit reads.The lawsuit claims both governments provided false, incomplete information and censored truthful, reliable information about injuries. The applicants allege they were denied informed consent and experienced harm. Therefore, the lawsuit alleges “misfeasance in public office and conspiracy to commit assault and battery on the public.” Allegations lead to one pressing question. Who was the government looking out for? Vaccine manufacturers or Canadians?Co-counsel Eva Chipiuk noted the Canadian government conceded the contracts with the vaccine manufacturers were rushed, didn’t contain normal standards, and provided additional indemnities favouring them. “The defendants held themselves out as public health experts and gave medical advice to the public at large,” said Chipiuk. “They intentionally set out to build a relationship of trust between themselves and the public during the pandemic at a time when they knew the public was vulnerable and afraid.”They “knew or ought to have known that the public would be relying on their information for their health, safety and protection” when the vaccines rolled out.Rath said the lawsuit is specifically based on information Liberal MP Anthony Housefather provided to the House of Commons health committee. That being the vaccine supply contracts specifically stated the manufacturers “do not guarantee the vaccine products for safety because they were rushed to market on an emergency basis,” said Rath.And that government would have a hard time getting Canadians to take the vaccines if they knew they weren’t warranted for safety by manufacturers who “insisted that the Canadian government provide them an indemnity in the event that they were sued by any Canadian injured by these vaccines.”Rath’s position is that withholding information that would have informed any rational person’s decision — including any rational parent to have their child vaccinated — amounts to the Alberta and federal government “conspiring to hide safety information from the public.” Therefore, in the “classical sense of medical malpractice law” they were made victim of assault and battery or conspiracy to commit assault and battery.According to the statement of claim Health Canada negligently approved the vaccines under an expedited process allowing manufacturers to apply for authorization for their sale and distribution without the completion of all long-term safety studies or commitment to review new evidence as it become available.The suit says defendants knew, or ought to have known, the vaccines were neither safe or effective because of reports of injury and harms and access to information from the manufacturers. Yet they never disclosed the information to the public or physicians; censored and suppressed information relating to adverse events and injuries; and continued to market, promote, and distribute them as a “safe and effective.”The defendants “collective conduct” to suppress this information “interfered with the public’s ability to exercise their right to informed consent to medical treatment," it says.The lawsuit also states that as data about adverse events became available the “defendants, collectively or individually, should have taken steps to withdraw the COVID vaccines from public use or advise the public of the risk of injury and death associated with these products.”The Federal defendant’s “lack of action in not recalling or pausing” the vaccines or releasing supply contracts when manufacturers stated the products were not warranted for safety was negligence and in bad faith — especially considering it acknowledged vaccine injury and “patterns of excess unknown deaths emerging in Canada and around the world.” A February global study of 99 million COVID-19 vaccinated individuals identified shocking increases in numerous neurological, heart-related and blood conditions.Yet, even now, federal and provincial health sites still promote vaccinations for children six months and older.The defendants either “negligently” or “intentionally” advised the public that they could mix-and-match” vaccines without scientific basis or evidence that this immunization strategy was “safe, effective or appropriate.” The World Health Organization (WHO) warned this approach was a “dangerous trend.” Both Canadian and global data showed a “concerning trend in excess deaths” after the vaccines were rolled out. By February 2021 the defendants “knew or ought to have known” the vaccines were the cause of substantial increased serious adverse events and deaths. “The leading cause of death in Alberta was ‘unknown’ following the rollout of the vaccines. Yet public health authorities and regulatory bodies in Canada or Alberta have not been able to explain this increase in ‘unknown’ deaths. It's time they explained.The allegations are potentially damning. One would think the defendants would stampede into court to clear things up. Well, no.“Lawyers for the Government of Canada have pulled out their playbook and are taking all of the normal steps taken to delay the proceedings,” said Rath.They must answer for the “many Albertans inoculated with the COVID vaccines” that suffered “serious, life-threatening and even fatal consequences.” This is just one class action lawsuit filed across Canada. That barrage of pro-vaccine propaganda has been replaced by a barrage of demands for accountability.Lives have been left in painful ruins.
