The Pfizer contract is a circular Fraud

What does the Liberal government owe us

In October 2020 the Canadian Liberal government signs the Pfizer agreement. 

AT THE TIME the mantra was 2 doses aka safe and effective. Done at 2.

Yet the contract itself foresaw the purchase of vaccine into 2023. 

The Canadian population is 38 to 40 million. Depending what time period  you pick.  

At 2 doses we would only need 89 million. For complete saturation at 100 per cent uptake of every man woman and child.

The contract provided for 250 million doses and the option for an extra 60 million.  So 310 million doses. (if I am reading the quote below right)

That's roughly 8 vaccines a person. Including infants.  That's only Pfizer.

So while they were doing the 100 per cent effective and then 2 doses and your done,  the purchase agreement was for vastly more than that.

Option 1. the public statements on efficacy were fraudulent and the proof that they knew that was the amount of doses baked into the contract;

Option 2. They believed the efficacy was 100% only two doses and this was not a fraud BUT they committed a financial fraud on the Canadian people by ordering substantially more than was needed.

Option 3. Both the public statements on efficacy (and safety) were a complete fraud AND the amount of doses nevertheless still constituted a financial fraud on the Canadian people

Option 4. Conspiracy to commit fraud by those participation in the safe and effective mantra by those in a position to know their statements were false, or were willfully blind to the fact their statements were false.

The conspiracy to commit the fraud goes where: to those making the statements with the knowledge they were fraudulent, or sat in silence with the knowledge that the statements were false while in a position of authority and with a fiduciary duty to protect the public, and the public purse.

“During the pandemic, the Department of Health signed contracts with a total of seven vaccine manufacturers: Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca, Johnson & Johnson, Medicago, Novavax, and Sanofi. An agreement between the federal government and Pfizer Canada stated the pharmaceutical firm would supply up to 125 million doses of COVID-19 vaccine in 2022 and 2023, with the option to supply up to 60 million additional doses in 2024.

An auditor general report from December 2022 found the Public Health Agency of Canada ended up with a large surplus of doses, with many expiring before they could be used by Canadians or donated to other countries. A total of 32.5 million doses sat in federal and provincial inventories at the time of the report, with many set to expire by the year's end.”

Pfizer Vaccine Contract Shows Ottawa Accepted Unknown 'Efficacy' of COVID Vaccines: https://www.theepochtimes.com/world/pfizer-vaccine-contract-shows-ottawa-accepted-unknown-efficacy-of-covid-vaccines-5531066?utm_campaign=socialshare_email&utm_source=email 

Were the statements made to the public, the tax payers, to the government. How do we differentiate? The statements on safety and efficacy were meant to induce uptake by the citizen and public of the widget. But we presume they were also made to the government and if the government is acting in a bone fide way towards the citizen, we must presume it is those statements of safety and efficacy that they relied upon to negotiate the contract. Otherwise… if they believed the product was neither safe nor effective we go someplace else. Here is another decision tree.

1. the government relied upon the statements of safety and efficacy to enter into the contract:

   1. then if the statements would be proven false (have been) instead of punting the ball down the field they would stand up offended and say they relied on fraudulent statements and exercise their contractual, and tortious remedies on behalf of their citizens;

   2. one would hope that the government was not the one committing the fraud on the Canadian people; either on the sincerity of their belief it was a safe and effective product, or on the absurd total quantum paid for the widget.

   3. a government acting in the best interest of its citizens would sense that there is an accountability for the quantum paid for the widgets and for the health of Canadians who may be taking a product neither safe nor effective. Then in a perfectly normal world the government would press its counterpart in the contract on behalf of the Canadian people for the discrepancies in the ‘effectiveness’ and the massive concerns in peer reviewed articles about the safety.

   4. since we are not seeing that there is a doubt as to the innocence of the government;

2. The government had prior knowledge that the vaccines were shit products and were neither safe nor efficacious;

   1. then the statements of safety and efficacy were made in collusion between two parties to the contract. The Canadian people are parties to the contract effectively negotiated on their behalf.

      1. they are the recipient of the widgets;

      2. they foot the bill;

      3. they rely on the statements of Pfizer as bolstered by their goverment’s’ silence in order to be induced to take the product.

3. Can two parties to a contract affect the rights of a third party-the Canadian citizen. Is the citizen the same as the government. Will the fraud provision in the contract be found engaged by the fraudulent statements the government is ignoring in real time. They are not acting like negotiators for citizens, they are acting like they are complicit with the Pharma company. So if neither the Pharma company nor the Canadian citizen representation in the contract is acting in the interest of the Canadian, can their be surmised that perpetuation of the fraud is actually a conspiracy to commit fraud.

4. Both in the quantum amount of widgets purchased which if we believe were purchased in good faith are an absurd amount and therefore a fraud on the Canadian purse OR, on the statements made.

5. Clearly if I acting in my interest entered into a contract in the millions or billions of dollars, and the product was defective and deficient, I would consider whether the statement that induced me to enter the contract were false and indeed fraud. Acting in my economic interest I would be pressuring my counter party for transparency and further disclosure and I would be providing notice under the contract of a suspected fraud. Once I had in my possession the proofs that the product were causing medical harms (see any of Dr. Sansone’s proofs) then I would be providing further notice and I would be protecting my citizens not acting like I was complicit in the fraud and their injury.

6. What do we know. Governments including the Canadian government are doubling down;

7. the privity of contract must be struck or we must argue that we are deemed essentially one of the contracting parties: we are a) the beneficiaries, and the ultimate b) tax payers, c) we are those who took the product and may or have suffered ill health, or at least multiple covid illness and having taken the widget and d) we are collectively the government e) we are indistinguishable from the government as the contract was negotiated by the government who are the representatives of the collection of Canadians. in the one case: in this very case: and in a real sense the contract was for every man woman and child to ingest this product, we are the collective people. We are the contracted with Pfizer. We should be able ourselves to induce the fraud provision. We should know every last bit of the contract and the knowledge as we are the government, we are the people. We are.

8. You are left with the following facts: either the statements of 2 doses safe and effective were true at the time THEN THE FRAUD IS ON THE PURSE;

9. they are not true at the time, then the fraud was on the government;

10. the government knew that the statements were not true, and they accepted this fraud and the the fraud on the purse.

    1. an action should establish who is comitting the fraud, and the nature of the fraud;

    2. a government acting like a self-interested party in a negotiation looks vastly different than our current observations;

    3. time press;

Midland Resources Holding Limited v. Shtaif

In Midland Resources Holding Limited v. Shtaif (Ont CA, 2017) the Court of Appeal commented on the elements of the tort of fraudulent misrepresentation, particularly in the face of silence by the defendant:

[162] Fraudulent misrepresentation is established where there are the following five elements: (i) a false representation of fact by the defendant to the plaintiff; (ii) knowledge the representation was false, absence of belief in its truth, or recklessness as to its truth; (iii) an intention the plaintiff act in reliance on the representation; (iv) the plaintiff acts on the representation; and (v) the plaintiff suffers a loss in doing so: Amertek Inc. v. Canadian Commercial Corp. (2005), 2005 CanLII 23220 (ON CA), 76 O.R. (3d) 241 (C.A.), at para. 63, leave to appeal refused, [2005] S.C.C.A. No. 439.

[163] A misrepresentation can involve not only an overt statement of fact, but also certain kinds of silence: the half-truth or representation that is practically false, not because of what is said, but because of what is left unsaid; or where the circumstances raise a duty on the representor to state certain matters, if they exist, and where the representee is entitled, as against the representor, to infer their non-existence from the representor’s silence as to them: Robert van Kessel & Paul Rand, The Law of Fraud in Canada (Toronto: LexisNexis Canada Inc., 2013), at §2.69 and 2.72.

[164] The significance of silence always falls to be considered in the context in which it occurs: Demagogue Pty. Ltd. v. Ramensky (1992), 39 F.C.R. 31 (Austral. F.C.), at p. 32. As explained by Professor Waddams: “Almost always something is said to induce the transaction and it is open to the court to hold that the concealment of the material facts can, when taken with general statements, true in themselves but incomplete, turn those statements into misrepresentations”: S.M. Waddams, The Law of Contracts, 6th ed. (Toronto: Canada Law Book Inc., 2010), at para. 439.