➡ The Corbett Report discusses the Nuremberg Code and the principle of informed consent in relation to vaccines. It also delves into the role of government behavioral science units in public manipulation, specifically the UK’s SPY B and Canada’s Impact and Innovation Unit. These units have been accused of using fear and manipulation to encourage public compliance during the pandemic, rather than providing balanced information for informed consent. The report criticizes the use of tax dollars for such manipulation and the violation of citizens’ rights and freedoms.
➡ The text discusses the impact of government decisions and actions on public health, particularly regarding the COVID-19 vaccine and its effectiveness. It criticizes the government’s use of behavioral science to manipulate public opinion instead of transparent dialogue, which erodes trust in institutions. The text also warns of potential future threats to human rights and freedoms under the guise of climate change. Lastly, it encourages the public to support independent media and hold their government accountable.
➡ The Justice Center, a charity with a team of lawyers across Canada, is challenging the government on violations of freedom rights. They’re urging Canadians to oppose Bill C9, the Combating Hate Act, which they believe could lead to a police state similar to the UK where people are arrested for their social media posts. They believe supporting independent media and organizations like theirs is crucial for maintaining freedom of speech and questioning government narratives.

So we have the Nuremberg Code which lays out the principle of fully informed consent. So when you’ve got a vaccine that’s coming out, I mean, it’s okay, I guess for a government to believe that a particular vaccine is a really good idea. But that can’t be an excuse for violating informed consent by manipulating people. You’re listening to the Corbett Report. Welcome back, friends. Welcome back to the Corbett Report. I’m James Corbett of CorbettReport.com coming to you in a conversation that is being recorded in November of 2025 on a topic that I know will be interesting to the Corporate Report audience, namely the public manipulation that has been enabled by government behavioral science units.

And my well informed audience will know something about SPY B, the UK version of the Perceptual Public Manipulation unit that the UK Government employed during the scamdemic to try to manipulate the public with fear. Well, guess what? Yes, you know all about SPY B, but do you know about the Canadian equivalent of that unit and what it was doing during the aforesaid scamdemic? Maybe not. But if you don’t, well, I have a document for you. It is called Manufacturing Consent Government Behavioral Engineering of Canadians. It is a fascinating and relatively short 24 page read. So I will commend it to your attention.

The link to that will be in the show notes as well as the link to the organization which published this little pamphlet. It is the justice center for Constitutional Freedom, JCCF ca which again my viewers will be familiar with because you will remember interview which was it? The Solutions Watch interview that I did with JCCF President John Carpe nearly five years ago back in February of 2021 when we were talking about the Canadian government delaying mandatory traveler quarantine. Well, here we are five nearly five years later and we’re still talking about the ways that the Canadian government was trying to manipulate the Canadian public.

So let’s dive right into this conversation. John Carpe, thank you very much for taking the time to talk with us today. I’m glad to be with you and with your viewers and listeners. All right, let’s dive right into this. So tell us a little bit about manufacturing consent, government behavioral engineering of Canadians and specifically the iiu, the Impact and Innovation Unit, which I doubt one in a thousand Canadians will have even heard of. The Impact and Innovation Unit is part of the Privy Council Office, which is the bureaucracy equivalent to the Prime Minister. So we got the Prime Minister’s office, Prime Minister elected to run the country.

And then we have the Privy Council Office which Is the bureaucratic side of this massive Canadian federal bureaucracy employing hundreds of thousands of people. And so within the Privy Council Office we have this Impact and Innovation Unit which are behavioral psychologists which before the vaccine was even available to the public, before the testing was concluded and of course clinical testing continued right on through to 2023 as you know. But before the public even had voluntary access to the new COVID vaccine, the Impact and Innovation unit had already crafted the message safe and effective, so get vaccinated.

And this message did not change when many reports emerged about people dying shortly after receiving the vaccine. Children dropping dead of a heart attack, top athletes in fantastic health being found dead in their beds in the morning, all this stuff. The Impact and Innovation Unit was crafting messages, testing different messages to see what is the best way to get Canadians to relax and continue to roll up their sleeves and get injected. There is no balance here. Nothing about informed consent. It was all about manipulating people into getting the jab. Let’s talk about how they did that.

And specifically this report cites the fact that the, the IIU was modeled after the United Kingdom’s so called nudge unit. And I did allude to that in the intro there. The SPY B that I’ve talked about before. For example, we had a report from the Telegr 2021 use of fear to control behavior in Covid crisis was totalitarian. Admit scientists talking about the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies SAGE and specifically their SPY B unit, which I’m not going to find what that acronym stands. Oh, Scientific Pandemic Influenza Group on Behavior. So tell us about this nudge unit, what this concept of nudge is about and why and how governments around the world are starting to employ it to manipulate their own citizens.

There’s a big problem there in not having informed consent. I mean we can, you and I and everybody else, we could choose. We can get invited to participate in an experiment and get told about it and we might sign up for it. Maybe it’s fun, maybe it’s interesting, but this is quite different when you’re using tax dollars not to provide information to people. And frankly with, in this age of the, of the Internet when there are so many different sources of information that are freely available. I, I don’t know what the big need would be for any government to advertise to provide information.

But, but you know, maybe there’s some, there’s a real need for it in some situations, but this is not providing citizens with information which could be valid use of tax dollars. This is to manipulate citizens and get them to change their attitudes and their beliefs and their behaviors. And. Which would be okay in a democracy if a political party did that. Okay, if the, the Conservatives and the Liberals and the NDP and they, I’m sure they, they are spending party funds on what is the best way to sell our message to Canadians? And how can we, you know, get people to agree with us and vote for us? Okay, fine.

But this is part of the government. This is the impact and innovation unit that is using tax dollars to manipulate people to have a pro COVID vaccine attitude and to roll up their sleeves and to not be upset about the blatant violation of their charter rights and freedoms, like your basic mobility rights, your freedom to move and travel, freedoms of conscience, religion, expression, association, peaceful assembly. So that. That’s very creepy. That is totalitarian, where the government is using tax dollars to manipulate citizens and get them to have certain attitudes as opposed to. In a democracy, yes, political parties will do that, but you don’t have.

The government is neutral and is not manipulating citizens in a certain direction. You would certainly hope not, but unfortunately, it seems that they are. So let’s talk specifically. What did this unit do? What kinds of experiments and things was it performing on the Canadian public without their informed consent? Well, there was one. One of the experiments that was done, and I, I can’t tell you the, I don’t know the degree of consent or lack of consent, whether it was a focus group where they told people, you know, we’re going to pay you $20 an hour to take part in this, or if it was just, you know, on the Internet.

But the participants in one of the tests were shown fictional news stories about someone dying after vaccination. And so they tested different framing responses to see which ones generated the most relaxation or the people being less uptight after having been shown a news story about somebody died after vaccination. What is the best way to get people to relax and chill and still be willing to roll up their sleeves and get their own injection? So that’s one example. They decided. They decided that combining multiple messages was the most effective. So this experiment resulted in a conclusion that they should run all kinds of different ads for maximum effect to get people to relax about deaths after vaccination.

And did they call that the kitchen sink approach? Yes. Yeah, kitchen sink. Yeah, exactly. So interesting. Well, the report does list a number of things that the IIU was drawing on for its primary data sources. For example, the WHO’s COVID 19 snapshot monitoring study, Cosmo Rapid Online Studies and experiments and Partnerships with essential service providers, for example, the Sobeys grocery chain, in which it notes that through these partnerships, researchers tested ways to encourage healthy behaviors like physical distancing and masking in real world settings. And as the report notes, the problem is that the government took policy approaches despite having no actual evidence of their effect efficacy, which seems to be a pretty major glaring problem with this entire approach.

Because as the report notes, time and again, at the time that they were putting out their messaging and figuring out the best way to encourage citizens to take as many booster shots as they possibly could, they of course, did not have the data on the safety or efficacy of these so called vaccines. Well, this is radically different from, for example, you may have seen posters in, in a washroom, in a pub or a bar, and it’s discouraging alcohol consumption during pregnancy. Or you might see these in, in subways or buses. You know, there’s, there’s a poster, you know, don’t drink when you’re pregnant.

I mean, there, there is such abundant evidence to show that excessive alcohol usage can, can damage the unborn child. And you have kids born with fetal alcohol syndrome that that has a horrific, terrible impact on them for the rest of their lives. So when I see a poster in, in a bar, you know, don’t drink when you’re pregnant. I mean, you know, as a libertarian, I, I tend to be against all government advertising. But you know, here I, I don’t mind making an exception because you’ve got something where there’s a very clear harm and this is researched.

And I don’t think anybody disputes that alcohol during pregnancy is going to damage the baby. But with this COVID vaccine, I mean, we knew six months after it was out that it certainly was not effective in preventing Covid disease or preventing death by Covid. It certainly didn’t stop transmission. The vaccine was made mandatory in September, October 2021. By Christmas 2021, more than 80% of Canadians had taken it. And all over the world, countries with super high vaccination rates, like Gibraltar, like Israel. In Gibraltar, they told people, Christmas 2021, do not gather together at Christmas because Covid is spreading everywhere.

And this is in a, in a territory where there’s a 99, 97 vaccination rate and the government saying, don’t connect with other people over Christmas because Covid is spreading. So it’s decidedly ineffective. And then the safety thing, I mean, we’ll be debating that for a long time. In a different justice center report, we go through the very different standards used to declare A COVID death, which is if you had any symptom, flu like symptom and PCR test, found Covid in your body, even if you were terminally ill with cancer, if they did a PCR test and there’s Covid in your body, you’re a COVID death.

So very, very low bars, you get very, very high numbers of COVID deaths for the vaccine. It’s the opposite. You have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you know, there could be no other explanation for it. Only then so you get very low numbers of vaccine deaths, very high numbers of COVID deaths. As disturbing as this particular instance of the IAU and its, its, his efforts here are, I think it provides an even more disturbing insight into the window of the psychology of the people who presume to rule over the Canadian public and people in positions of power generally.

And some, some inclination, some indication of that comes from, for example, where this, this concept is coming from and the, the idea of a nudge unit. What is nudge? It is a reference to a 2008 book that was co authored by Richard H. Thaler and Cass Sunstein, a name that should be familiar to people in my audience. And as you note in the report, the nudge paradigm as articulated by Thaler and Sunstein assumes that individuals are not fully rational and require guidance from choice architects. And yes, that is a phrase that they employ, choice architects because the idea is you don’t give people the choice and the freedom to do what they want.

No, you give them a few carefully selected and curated choices and you let them choose from that and they feel like they, they’re choosing their own destiny in such a way. Tell us about what this shows us about the psychology of the people in these positions of power who are not trusting the public to be rational actors. It’s a lack of respect for basic human rights. If I respect you, part of that respect is that I allow you to make decisions about your life and I don’t coerce you one way or the other. I don’t manipulate you.

I would be sympathetic to the idea that many people, perhaps most people, are sometimes not rational. But I think that’s no excuse to manipulate them and to use their tax dollars to coerce them and treat them kind of like farm animals. You know, we don’t feel guilty about what do we do with the farm animals. I mean, we castrate them. If we do allow them to reproduce, we determine which ones and with whom and what times we feed them, we inoculate them, we sort of look after them to keep them healthy, but ultimately it’s for our interest because we want to eat them.

And you know, most people are okay with this. That’s how you treat animals, but you don’t treat human beings that way. Even if many or most people are sometimes irrational or irrational most of the time, you still respect people’s rights to, to run their lives, to make individual choices. Hence you have the principles set out in the Nuremberg Code after the Second World War when Nazi doctors were tried and convicted, in some cases executed over conducting medical experiments on patients without their informed consent. So we have the Nuremberg Code which lays out the principle of fully informed consent.

So when you’ve got a vaccine that’s coming out, I mean, it’s okay, I guess, for a government to believe that a particular vaccine is a really good idea, but that can’t be an excuse for violating informed consent by manipulating people. You know, that’s. You raise an interesting point because to me it does suggest that the mindset of at least some people in positions of power is that they are ranchers on the neo feudal plantation and the tax cattle are there to be manipulated as they fit. And that is the fundamental underlying part of this that I find so, so creepy.

And the funny thing is it in a way, even if your ultimate goal is to get people to obey the government, it backfires even on that level. Because as, as this report concludes, the government’s reliance on behavioral science to overcome this skepticism of various Covid mandates, rather than addressing it through transparent dialogue, further erodes trust in institutions. So yes, once it’s. Once the public realizes, oh, this was a psychological operation and they were employing these experiments to try to manipulate and better manipulate the public, doesn’t that exactly undermine what they’re attempting to do here? Because now fewer people will listen to the government in the event of the next emergency, which in my view is just as well, because there’s going to be more waves, I predict, of assaults against our fundamental human rights and our charter freedoms.

I suspect they’re going to come under the guise of saving us all from the climate holocaust which is being caused by us, because mankind controls the weather and so on and so forth. And the Impact and Innovation Unit, like the rest of the federal bureaucracy, they are firm believers in the idea that people control the climate. And so we have to give up our charter rights and freedoms and give up our prosperity so that we don’t all burn to a crisp. So I hope that this report will illuminate things. We’re gonna. We’re looking at Taking further steps as to how to get more parliamentary oversight and, and we haven’t gotten there yet.

But this is important in the days ahead because you know, they, they talk on their website about how they were spending. It was projects worth over $725 million that the impact and Innovation Unit was involved with. So these are our tax dollars. So we’re going to watch them closely and, and see what they try in the future. You know, I hate to think about it, but I fear that you are correct that all of the insights that were gained in this experimentation on the Canadian public will be put into the, the next great Skype hype and scam which will probably be something along the lines of climate change is causing health issues.

I think they’re going to try to push that and make it a health because again that puts it under the same Rubric as the COVID 19 emergency did. And the biosecurity state is already well, being erected. So unfortunately they have lots of ways of dealing with the public and attempting to manipulate their, their perceptions and opinions. So I guess this leaves us with the question of what can the average Canadian do about this? Is there anything that the Canadian government, as Canadian public can do to actually get some sort of accountability for these actions from the Canadian government? Certainly people should, you know, be in contact with their own member Parliament, whether that person is, is a Liberal, Conservative, ndp, Green Bloc, whatever.

I think it’s so important for people to support independent media like the Corbett Report, like the Rebel, Juno News, True North Epoch Times, Western Standard, on and on and on and on. You know, the justice center got boycotted by the government funded media. So that is not just the CBC but also the other global ctv. All the media that got government funding totally boycott at the justice center because we were asking tough questions about lockdowns and you know, are, are there actual benefits and is it doing more harm than good? And you’re not supposed to ask those questions, but we did.

And when we didn’t get satisfactory answers, we called for an end to lockdowns. We were the only civil liberties group in Canada to do so. And for years it got completely boycotted. The justice center was not mentioned on any government funded media. Not radio, not television, nothing. And yet we tripled in size from 2019 to 2021 over the two year period we tripled in size. Why? Because of independent media. So I would say to anybody, you know, spend $50 a month or $20 a month or $10 a month and, and support the independent media because that is so Precious.

It is so important, it is so valuable to getting the truth out. Or even if it’s not the truth, but it’s your best stab at an alternative opinion that you know might prove to be not true in the future. But just to have that debate, because you’re not going to see any debate on the government funded side of the equation. Well, again, considering that they’re going to the lengths of creating fake news reports to test out, you know, messaging on the public, etc. You know that there is some level of collusion that is going on with the mainstream, the mainstream media that is being funded by the government.

So yes, at the very least, to have a voice that is not literally being funded by the very people who are trying to manipulate you might be a good thing. So I, I, of course, well, of course I would, but I, I do agree with that assessment. But also of course, supporting organizations like the jccf, as you say, part of this, this blackout boycott that the, the mainstream media has been pulling since obviously they do not want to question government narratives to, to, to too much. Don’t want to bite the hand that feeds. So let’s talk about the jccf, the work that you do.

I know you’ve been ringing the alarm bell on certain bills that are passing through Parliament at the moment that you know, you have warned could lead to a Canadian police state by Christmas. Tell us about the work that you’re doing right now. So the justice center is a national registered charity. We have a team of 10 lawyers all across Canada. We have dozens of court challenges. We sue governments over violations of our charter, freedoms of expression, religion, conscience, association, peaceful assembly. And we’re funded entirely by voluntary donations. And currently we’re encouraging Canadians to contact their MP to vote against Bill C9, which is the Combating Hate Act.

And if Bill C9 passes, Canada will take a step towards becoming more like the United Kingdom, where every day more than 30 people are arrested over their tweets and their Facebook posts and their WhatsApp messages. People, 30 people a day arrested over what they say. Plus how many more, you know, police warnings, police come and knock on your door and tell you that you better watch what you’re saying because it’s out of line. And you, you could be arrested in future if you don’t change your speech. And so yeah, this is, this bill is, is going to vote in the weeks ahead and so urge your Member of Parliament to vote against Bill C9, Combating Hate act, which would make us more like the United Kingdom.

Excellent. Well, maybe we’ll have to have a completely dedicated follow up conversation about that subject and some of the other threats to Canadian freedom that are on the table at the moment. But we’ll leave it there for today. We’ll direct people once again to JCCF CA where they can, for example, download this report on manufacturing consent government behavioral engineering of Canadians and see all of the other work that you’re doing there. Besides, I think, I think we’ll leave it there for today. John Carpe, thank you very much for your time today. Thanks for yours James. Have a great rest of the day.

The Corbett report is 100% listener supported. Join the Corbett Report community to become a member and log into CorbettReport.com to read the subscriber newsletter featuring my weekly editorial, recommended reading and viewing, discounts on Corbett Report merchandise, and once a month a subscriber exclusive video. Sign up today@corbettreport.com members and help support this independent.
[tr:tra].

See more of The Corbett Report on their Public Channel and the MPN The Corbett Report channel.