Updated: Nov 14
Good afternoon Ms. Proulx,
I understand that you are the Registration Coordinator for Tim Hortons Camps, and as such have been tasked with notifying underprivileged youth that they are ineligible for the camp unless they subject themselves to the dangerous, ineffective and experimental COVID-19 vaccine. I wanted to voice my disgust with Tim Hortons’ coercive diktat, and to also remind you of your liability under the Nuremberg Code (as implemented by Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and Article 6 of the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights), and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Please humour me as I run through the various ways in which you, personally, as well as Tim Hortons, are in violation of both Canadian and international laws, and may face prosecution in the future.
As you are aware, the Nuremberg Code originated the Weimar Republic in Germany, and became world famous when Nazi physicians were prosecuted in accordance with this code after WWII; Nazi doctors, of course, were involved in unethical medical procedures during the war including, but certainly not limited to mass sterilization, hypothermia experiments and vaccine and other drug experimentation. The Nuremberg Code has ten basic principles which must be observed in order to satisfy moral, ethical and legal concepts:
The voluntary consent of the human subject is essential. This means that the person should have legal capacity to give consent, without the intervention of force, fraud or coercion; the subject must also have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the subject matter involved to enable him or her to make an understanding and enlightened decision. I don’t think we need to discuss any further the problems of (a) coercing a minor child who has no capacity to consent or contract, and (b) threatening an impoverished child with deprivation of the one activity that may provide him or her some enjoyment and feeling of normalcy over the summer holidays.
The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, and not be random and unnecessary in nature. Tim Hortons is aware that a healthy child has a chance that approaches nil of dying from COVID-19, correct? Since you now seem to be in the business of practicing medicine without a license, I trust you have performed a detailed risk/benefit analysis of the “vaccine” for each camper and employee you have mandated.
The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation. This one is awkward: you know the ferrets all died, right? And of course, you are also aware that more trial participants in the vaccine arm of Pfizer’s study died than in the control group?
The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury. As you are aware, the COVID-19 vaccine is associated with neurological issues, liver damage, sterility, myocarditis and blood clotting in vaccinees. I presume you are comfortable with inflicting a lifetime of medical issues on a minor child, rather than rolling the dice that they will have the flu for a week? (This, of course, assumes that the vaccine is a sterilizing vaccine that prevents transmission, which is not the case.) This doesn’t even touch on the mental anguish that one feels to be forced to accept a gene-altering treatment in order to participate in society, and to be ostracized for one’s beliefs.
No experiment should be conducted where there is a reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur. Do me a favour, please, and google “Maddie de Garay”, “Sean Hartman”, or “Ole Heie”, and then let’s circle back on this one.
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. As Tim Hortons should be aware, COVID-19 has lower infection and case fatality rates than the flu.
Proper preparations should be made, and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability, or death. This may be the one item for which Tim Hortons can disclaim liability. I assume that you have placed your trust in Pfizer, the company with the dubious honour of being the defendant in the largest fraud settlement in the history of the US (for making false claims about its medications, no less)? (Nevertheless – might not hurt to have a defibrillator on hand, and teach your staff how to identify strokes in young people.)
The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons. I trust Tim Hortons has a resident virologist or epidemiologist on staff?
During the course of the experiment the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end. Well, unfortunately for vaccinees, spike proteins and dysfunctional immune systems are, like diamonds, forever.
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 that continuation is likely to result in injury, disability or death. I refer you back to item 5, and the Pfizer data dump available at https://phmpt.org/.
If the thought of being prosecuted under international law doesn’t bother you, let’s analyze your violations of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Mandating a medical treatment is an egregious violation of one’s fundamental right to bodily autonomy, and violates the Charter’s rights to security of the person and the exercise of freedom of religion and conscience. Pursuant to the Canadian Human Rights Act, it is also illegal to discriminate against members of society based on religion, genetic characteristics or disability. To the extent you are prohibiting children from your camps based on their religious beliefs or medical inability to accept this “vaccine”, there is no question you will be subject to a human rights claim. Of course, since the vaccines have now been shown to alter one’s DNA, you are discriminating against all unvaccinated children in violation of the Charter.
I assume your argument regarding all of the above is that Canada is currently in the midst of a deadly pandemic, and therefore a few human rights violations are acceptable. Please let me remind you that no province is currently in a state of emergency, such that any restrictions of rights could even be a possible defense. You will also note that, since the vaccine rollout, the number of both COVID-19 cases and deaths have risen. The “vaccines” have done nothing to either prevent transmission of this illness, nor have they reduced the severity of illness in those most affected by COVID-19: the elderly and infirm. Many scholars have noted that the “real” danger at present actually stems from the vaccinated population, in that people may be asymptomatic but infectious, and therefore unaware they are spreading this disease.
I also point you to this article, which summarizes the mental health issues Canadian youth have faced during COVID-19: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/pandemic-safety-measures-children-teen-health-impact-1.5953326. I’m really not sure why Tim Hortons is ostensibly trying to protect already disadvantaged youth from a disease that won’t kill them, by fueling mental health disorders and addictions with a much better fatality track record?
I really hope Tim Hortons reconsiders its position on this issue: So many brilliant virologists and other experts have debunked the safety and efficacy claims of these jabs, and I would be happy to refer you to further data, studies and models if you require assistance. I also point you to the fact that Tim Hortons doesn’t require its customers to be vaccinated; if it is Tim Hortons’ assertion that this medical treatment is necessary to the safety of society, why are you accepting money from the unvaccinated (which, of course, includes everyone who is more than five months post-jab due to the limited duration of this treatment)? (As an unvaccinated person, I will volunteer to avoid your restaurants, like the plague, until you resolve this blatant double standard.)
I thank you for rethinking your position on this matter, and deciding to be an advocate for all Canadian children, regardless of their medical status.