CV #66(D): Call-In Centers Are Wrongly Telling People “Vaccines” Were Approved

Mass vaccination centers have opened across Canada. The goal is to inject largely untested substances into people, under the pretense of a public health emergency. Now, these aren’t really “vaccines”, but are gene-replacement therapy, and 99% of people don’t need them, but that’s another story. This is to get into the misrepresentation that is going on with the call in centers set up.

1. “Vaccines” Not Health Canada Approved

Before going any further, it is time to distinguish between 2 completely different ways medical devices and substances can be advanced.

  • INTERIM AUTHORIZATION — deemed to be “worth the risk” under the circumstances, doesn’t have to be fully tested. Allowed under Section 30.1 of the Canada Food & Drug Act. Also known as emergency authorization.
  • APPROVED — Health Canada has fully reviewed all the testing, and steps have been done, with the final determination that it can be used for the general population.

To be approved means that this thing has been rigorously tested, and has passed all safety measures, and that it has rigorously been examined. This is not what happened here.

Instead, these “vaccines” were given interim authorization, because the Government has decided that it’s worth releasing it to the general public, and finishing the testing later. This is allowed under Section 30.1 of the Canada Food & Drug Act, and an Interim Order was signed by Patty Hajdu.

https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/astrazeneca-covid-19-vaccine-pm-en.pdf
https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/janssen-covid-19-vaccine-pm-en.pdf
https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/covid-19-vaccine-moderna-pm-en.pdf
https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/pfizer-biontech-covid-19-vaccine-pm1-en.pdf

Think this is an exaggeration? Take a look at the paperwork available from Health Canada. Not once do they refer to them as approved. Instead, they are “authorized under an Interim Order”. These are not the same thing, and cannot be used interchangeably.

2. Recordings From Booking Centers

Fraser Health Booking

Interior Health Booking

Island Health Booking

Northern Health Booking

Vancouver Health Booking

Saskatchewan Booking

Manitoba Booking

Ontario Booking

In each inquiry made, the person on the other end conflated “approved” with an “interim or temporary authorization”. Now, it possible — even likely — that they don’t know the difference and are not attempting to deceive. But the result is the same. Average citizens call in, and won’t know the difference.

Pardon the less than stellar quality. Speaker phones aren’t the best for this sort of thing.

The 5 recordings here are from each of the 5 health zones in BC. But surely, this is going on elsewhere as well. People don’t ask the necessary questions.

3. Calls To Various Government Lines

Health Canada

Public Health Agency of Canada (Their # anyway)

811 Phone Support In BC

Manitoba Health Services

The people booking not seem to know. Not only that, various Government bodies apparently don’t have a clue either. Not very reassuring.

4. Trudeau’s Two-Faced Claims

Here, we get the standard answer of “Health Canada tests and insures the safety of all vaccines that are APPROVED”. While this sounds fine on the surface, these were never approved, they were given interim authorization. The Government hopes you won’t know the difference.

CV #66(C): Trudeau Lies, Covid “Vaccines” Being Injected Were Never Approved By Health Canada

Justin Trudeau, Theresa Tam, Patty Hajdu and others are misrepresenting when they claim that these vaccines have been approved for use. Aside from not really being vaccines, we need to distinguish between 2 things:

(a) Emergency use authorization — deemed to be “worth the risk” under the circumstances, doesn’t have to be fully tested. Allowed under Section 30.1 of the Canada Food & Drug Act.
(b) Approved — Health Canada has fully reviewed all the testing, and steps have been done, with the final determination that it can be used for the general population.

The substances being injected have been authorized for use, because of an Interim Order.

1. Canada Food & Drug Act, Section 30.1

Interim orders
.
30.1 (1) The Minister may make an interim order that contains any provision that may be contained in a regulation made under this Act if the Minister believes that immediate action is required to deal with a significant risk, direct or indirect, to health, safety or the environment.
.
Marginal note: Cessation of effect
(2) An interim order has effect from the time that it is made but ceases to have effect on the earliest of
(a) 14 days after it is made, unless it is approved by the Governor in Council,
(b) the day on which it is repealed,
(c) the day on which a regulation made under this Act, that has the same effect as the interim order, comes into force, and
(d) one year after the interim order is made or any shorter period that may be specified in the interim order.

Section 30.1 of the Canada Food & Drug Act. Here is the Interim Order signed September 16, 2020 by Health Minister Patty Hajdu. This is quite different from having drugs or medical devices being approved through the formal channels. Now, what does that document actually say?

2. September 16 Order From Patty Hajdu

Application for authorization
.
3 (1) Subject to section 4, an application for an authorization in respect of a COVID-19 drug must be in a form established by the Minister and contain sufficient information and material to enable the Minister to determine whether to issue the authorization, including
.
(a) the applicant’s name and contact information and, in the case of a foreign applicant, the name and contact information of their representative in Canada;
(b) a description of the drug and a statement of its proper name or its common name if there is no proper name;
(c) a statement of the brand name of the drug or the identifying name or code proposed for the drug;
(d) a list of the ingredients of the drug, stated quantitatively;
(e) the specifications for each of the drug’s ingredients;
(f) a description of the facilities and equipment to be used in the manufacture, preparation and packaging of the drug;
(g) details of the method of manufacture and the controls to be used in the manufacture, preparation and packaging of the drug;
(h) details of the tests to be applied to control the potency, purity, stability and safety of the drug;
(i) the names and qualifications of all the investigators to whom the drug has been sold;
(j) a draft of every label to be used in connection with the drug, including any package insert and any document that is provided on request and that sets out supplementary information on the use of the drug;
(k) a statement of all the representations to be made for the promotion of the drug respecting
(i) the recommended route of administration of the drug,
(ii) the proposed dosage of the drug,
(iii) the drug’s indications, and
(iv) the contra-indications and side effects of the drug;
(l) a description of the dosage form that is proposed for the sale of the drug;
(m) evidence that all test batches of the drug used in any studies conducted in connection with the application were manufactured and controlled in a manner that is representative of market production;
(n) in the case of a drug intended for administration to food-producing animals, the withdrawal period of the drug; and
(o) the known information in relation to the quality, safety and effectiveness of the drug.

This may be nitpicking, but notice that the Order doesn’t say that the drug has to be safe. It only states that the “unknown information” has to be provided.

It also doesn’t specify that the testing has to be completed, or anywhere close to done. In fact, these authorizations can be issued with next to no testing being done.

Yes, a considerable amount of information needs to be provided. But it doesn’t mean that safety — the biggest issue — has to be conclusively established. The standard is much lower.

4 Content
.
4(2) The application must be in a form established by the Minister and contain the following information and material:
(a) the information and material described in paragraphs 3‍(1)‍(a) to (d), (f), (j) to (l) and, if applicable, (n);
(b) an attestation, signed and dated by an individual who has authority to bind the applicant in Canada, certifying that the applicant has access to the information referred to in paragraph 3‍(1)‍(o) that was submitted to the relevant foreign regulatory authority in order for the foreign drug to be authorized to be sold;
(c) information that demonstrates that the drug is identical to, and is manufactured, prepared and packaged in the same manner as, the foreign drug;
(d) information that demonstrates that the sale of the foreign drug is authorized by the foreign regulatory authority referred to in paragraph (b); and
(e) any labels that are approved by the foreign regulatory authority referred to in paragraph (b) for use in connection with the foreign drug.

Issuance
.
5 The Minister must issue an authorization in respect of a COVID-19 drug if the following requirements are met:
-the applicant has submitted an application to the Minister that meets the requirements set out in subsection 3‍(1) or 4‍(2);
-the applicant has provided the Minister with all information or material, including samples, requested under subsection 13‍(1) in the time, form and manner specified under subsection 13‍(2); and
-the Minister has sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that the benefits associated with the drug outweigh the risks, having regard to the uncertainties relating to the benefits and risks and the necessity of addressing the urgent public health need related to COVID-19.

If the above criteria are met, then the authorization MUST be approved, according to Section 5 of the Order.

To be clear, getting an authorization under this Interim Order isn’t the same thing as having a drug of vaccine getting approved. This authorization is a sort of temporary emergency measure. These are not the same thing, and should not be conflated in any way.

Prohibition – significant difference
.
6 (1) It is prohibited to sell a COVID-19 drug to which an authorization relates if any of the matters referred to in subsection 3‍(1) or subsection 4‍(2) — other than in paragraph 3‍(1)‍(i) or 4‍(2)‍(e), as the case may be — are significantly different from the information or material contained in the application, unless the Minister amends the authorization.

Amendment
(2) The Minister must amend the authorization if the following requirements are met:
.
(a) the holder of the authorization has submitted an application to the Minister to amend it;
(b) the holder has provided the Minister with all information or material, including samples, requested under subsection 13‍(1) in the time, form and manner specified under subsection 13‍(2); and
(c) the Minister has sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that the benefits associated with the drug outweigh the risks, having regard to the uncertainties relating to the benefits and risks and the necessity of addressing the urgent public health need related to COVID-19.

Notice that the September 16, 2020 Order keeps referring to this as an “authorization” for drugs. It never says the term “approval”. Why is this? It’s because a temporary authorization and an approval are 2 entirely different animals.

True, both lead to “vaccines” getting put into people’s arms. But they are not the same in terms of standards, testing, length of study, and review.

3. Authorized Despite Testing Deficiencies

https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/astrazeneca-covid-19-vaccine-pm-en.pdf
https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/janssen-covid-19-vaccine-pm-en.pdf
https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/covid-19-vaccine-moderna-pm-en.pdf
https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/pfizer-biontech-covid-19-vaccine-pm1-en.pdf

Want to know the shortcomings in these “thoroughly tested” vaccines? This page contains information directly from the product information. Why aren’t our so-called opposition parties addressing any of this?

Think that suing the manufacturer will be an option if these “vaccines” harm you? Think again. They are exempt from liability. While an injury compensation program was announced back in December, there have been no details or updates since.

4. Same Deception Problem With Fauci

In this recent interview, Anthony Fauci gets called out by Eugenio Derbez for repeatedly distorting the truth. Fauci tries to conflate vaccines being “approved by the FDA”, and an “Emergency Use Authorization”. They are not the same thing. See here for the full conversation.

NSERC/CIHR/SSHRC Offering Money To Those Willing To Target Minorities For Vaccination

On Tuesday, March 9, 2021, these 4 bodies held a joint conference to discuss funding opportunities for targeting minority groups in Canada for vaccination. This isn’t limited to these CV “vaccines”, but is aimed at vaccination in general. In case anyone wonders that the videos are taken out of context, the entire videos and power-points (both English and French), are included in the following links.

Encouraging vaccine confidence in Canada.ppt_
Renforcer la confiance a l’egard des vaccins au Canada

CIHR/NSERC/SSHRC Vaccine Confidence Full Conference (English)
CIHR/NSERC/SSHRC Vaccine Confidence Full Conference (French)

NSERC Page Announcing Grant Program

This is a continuation from this previous article. The Canadian Institutes for Health Research (CIHR), Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC), and Social Studies and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC), are launching this joint program. $2.25 million is to be spent. Grants are to be up to $50,000 each. In theory, 45 organizations could receive this money.

To be clear, this isn’t about financing research into the causes and details of “vaccine hesitancy”. Instead, this is about employing institutions (who present as scientific) to push the narrative that vaccination is a good thing. This is paying organizations to promote the push the narrative. In short, this is glorified advertising. It is made clear throughout that this is not about employing research.

If you want this money, you need to figure out how to target a minority community in Canada, getting them more accepting of mass vaccination. Having a science background is not important, provided you are good at selling things. Is your integrity worth just $50,000?

You may be forgiven for thinking that CIHR, NSERC, and SSHRC were about providing grants for scientific research. That is supposed to be their agenda. But not today.

RE: CANUCK LAW ON “VACCINE HESITANCY”
(A) Canada’s National Vaccination Strategy
(B) The Vaccine Confidence Project
(C) More Research Into Overcoming “Vaccine Hesitancy”
(D) Psychological Manipulation Over “Vaccine Hesitancy”
(E) World Economic Forum Promoting More Vaccinations
(F) CIHR/NSERC/SSHRC On Grants To Raise Vaccine Uptake

RE: CANUCK LAW ON MEDIA SUBSIDIES, DONATIONS
(a) Subsidization Programs Available For Media Outlets (QCJO)
(b) Political Operatives Behind Many “Fact-Checking” Groups
(c) DisinfoWatch, MacDonald-Laurier, Journalists For Human Rights
(d) Taxpayer Subsidies To Combat CV “Misinformation”
(e) Postmedia Periodicals Getting Covid Subsidies
(f) Aberdeen Publishing (BC, AB) Getting Grants To Operate
(g) Other Periodicals Receiving Subsidies
(h) Still More Media Subsidies Taxpayers Are Supporting
(i) Media Outlets, Banks, Credit Unions, All Getting CEWS

Other articles are available above. They concern both the corruption of the media in Canada, and the “vaccine hesitancy” research that has been underway for a long time. Take the deep dive.

While so much of the Canadian media is compromised, this site never will be. Truth matters much more than money.

IBC #11(B): World Economic Forum Partnering With Major Banks, Pension Funds

This may be nothing, but should we be worried that the World Economic Forum has partnered with the banking industry, asset management groups, pharmaceutical companies, and other major corporations?

1. More On The International Banking Cartel

For more on the banking cartel, check this page. The Canadian Government, like so many others, has sold out the independence and sovereignty of its monetary system to foreign interests. BIS, like its central banks, exceed their agenda and try to influence other social agendas. See who is really controlling things, and the common lies that politicians and media figures tell. The bankers work with the climate mafia and pandemic pushers to promote mutual goals of control and debt slavery.

2. WEF Partners: Banks, Finance, Pensions

  • African Development Bank Group
  • Algebris Investments
  • Al Nowais Investments
  • Banco Bradesco
  • Banco BTG Pactual
  • Banco Safra Brasil
  • Banco Santander
  • Bangchak
  • Bank Julius Baer
  • Bank Leumi Le-Israel
  • Bank Lombard Odier & Co.
  • Bank Mandiri (Persero)
  • Bank of America
  • BlackRock
  • Blackstone Group
  • BMO Financial Group
  • Brightstar Capital Partners
  • Broadridge Financial Solutions
  • Brookfield Asset Management
  • Caisse de dĂ©pĂ´t et placement du QuĂ©bec (CDPQ)
  • Capricorn Investment Group
  • Cassa Depositi e Prestiti
  • Cathay Capital Private Equity
  • Cedar Holdings Group
  • China Construction Bank
  • Citibank
  • CLS Bank International
  • CPP Investments
  • Credit Suisse
  • CVC Capital Partners (Luxembourg)
  • Deloitte
  • Depository Trust & Clearing (DTCC)
  • Deutsche Bank
  • Development Bank of Japan (DBJ)
  • Development Bank of Southern Africa
  • Discovery
  • European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD)
  • European Investment Bank
  • Fidelity International
  • Fubon Financial Holding
  • Giti Group
  • Glencore International
  • Global Asset Capital
  • Goldman Sachs
  • Grupo Mega
  • HPS Investment Partners
  • HSBC Holdings
  • Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (ICBC)
  • Industrial Development Corporation of South Africa
  • ING Group
  • Inter-American Development Bank
  • Islamic Development Bank
  • ItaĂş Unibanco
  • Japan Bank for International Cooperation (JBIC)
  • John Keells Holdings
  • JPMorgan Chase & Co.
  • Kcap Holdings
  • Kirin Holdings
  • KPMG
  • Lloyds Banking Group
  • Manulife
  • Mastercard
  • McKinsey & Company
  • Mizuho Financial Group
  • Morgan Stanley
  • MUFG Bank
  • Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA)
  • Nasdaq
  • Nedbank Group
  • NYSE
  • Olayan Financing Group
  • Old Mutual
  • OMINVEST
  • Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan
  • Pension Danmark
  • Public Institution for Social Security (PIFSS)
  • Qatar Financial Centre (QFC)
  • Qatar Investment Authority
  • Qatar National Bank
  • Rabobank
  • RBC (Royal Bank of Canada)
  • Russian Direct Investment Fund
  • S&P Global
  • S4Capita
  • Saudi Industrial Development Fund
  • Sberbank
  • Scotiabank
  • Sequoia Capital
  • Softbank Group
  • Standard Bank Group
  • Standard Chartered Bank
  • Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group (SMFG)
  • Takeda Pharmaceutical
  • TD Bank Group
  • Turkey Wealth Fund
  • Unison Capital
  • Visa
  • Vista Equity Partners
  • Vital Capital Fund
  • VTB Bank
  • Zenith Bank
  • Zurich Insurance Group

3. WEF Partners With Major Corporations

  • Alshaya Group
  • Amazon Web Services
  • CVS Health
  • Honda
  • Huawei Technologies
  • Hyundai Motor
  • Lockheed Martin
  • SNC-Lavalin Group
  • The Coca-Cola Company
  • Uber Technologies
  • Walmart
  • Western Union
  • Zoom

4. WEF Partners With Vaccine Pushers

  • AstraZeneca
  • Bayer
  • Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
  • Facebook
  • Gilead Sciences
  • Google
  • Guangzhou Baiyunshan Pharmaceutical
  • Hikma Pharmaceuticals
  • Johnson & Johnson
  • Jubilant Bhartia Group
  • LinkedIn
  • Microsoft
  • Merck
  • Moderna
  • Novartis
  • Open Society Foundations
  • Pfizer
  • Takeda Pharmaceutical
  • These lists are not exhaustive, and the World Economic Forum does have more partners from these groups. However, it should demonstrate the “types” of organizations who ideologically support this.

    4. WEF’s Plants In Canadian Politics

    Any familiar faces?

    CV #66(B): Health Authorities Fine With Vaccinating Pregnant Women, While Admitting No Testing Done

    Bad medical advice is all too common. However, several “reputable” health authorities seem content to raise the stakes even more. They recommend — or at least don’t oppose — vaccinating pregnant women, despite openly admitting a serious lack of testing and longitudinal studies.

    1. Who Are These “Reputable” Organizations?

    • World Health Organization
    • American Society of Obstetricians & Gynaecologists
    • U.S. Center for Disease Control
    • U.K. National Health Services
    • Royal College of Physicians of Ireland
    • Australian Department of Health
    • Canadian Society of Obstetricians & Gynaecologists

    A disclaimer: this is certainly not all of them. More organizations could easily be added to this list.

    2. World Health Organization

    Should pregnant women be vaccinated?
    While pregnancy puts women at higher risk of severe COVID-19, very little data are available to assess vaccine safety in pregnancy.
    .
    Nevertheless, based on what we know about this kind of vaccine, we don’t have any specific reason to believe there will be specific risks that would outweigh the benefits of vaccination for pregnant women.
    .
    For this reason, those pregnant women at high risk of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 (e.g. health workers) or who have comorbidities which add to their risk of severe disease, may be vaccinated in consultation with their health care provider.

    The World Health Organization, or WHO, has very little data (or no data), concerning pregnant women and the risks of vaccination. Nonetheless, they don’t see a problem with this going ahead.

    3. Society Of Obstetricians/Gynaecologists, US

    -ACOG recommends that COVID-19 vaccines should not be withheld from pregnant individuals.
    -COVID-19 vaccines should be offered to lactating individuals similar to non-lactating individuals.
    -While a conversation with a clinician may be helpful, it should not be required prior to vaccination, as this may cause unnecessary barriers to access.
    -Vaccines currently available under EUA have not been tested in pregnant women. Therefore, limited safety data specific to use in pregnancy is available. See details about the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) EUA process below.
    Unfounded claims linking COVID-19 vaccines to infertility have been scientifically disproven.
    -ACOG recommends vaccination for all eligible people who may consider future pregnancy.

    It’s interesting that this group claims the link between COVID-19 vaccines and infertility has been scientifically disproved, considering they admit no testing has been done.

    4. US Center For Disease Control

    There are limited data about the safety of COVID-19 vaccines for people who are pregnant
    Until findings are available from clinical trials and additional studies, only limited data are available on the safety of COVID-19 vaccines, including mRNA vaccines, administered during pregnancy:
    .
    Limited data are currently available from animal developmental and reproductive toxicity studies. No safety concerns were demonstrated in rats that received Moderna COVID-19 vaccine before or during pregnancy; studies of
    -the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine are ongoing.
    -Researchers have studies planned in people who are pregnant.
    -Both vaccine manufacturers are monitoring people in the clinical trials who became pregnant.

    Getting vaccinated is a personal choice for people who are pregnant
    .
    People who are pregnant and part of a group recommended to receive COVID-19 vaccine, such as healthcare personnel, may choose to be vaccinated. A conversation between pregnant patients and their clinicians may help them decide whether to get vaccinated with a vaccine that has been authorized for use under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA). While a conversation with a healthcare provider may be helpful, it is not required prior to vaccination.

    The U.S. Center for Disease Control (USCDC) shrugs off the vaccinating of pregnant women as a “personal choice”, despite there being no studies done on it. When they say “limited data”, it actually means that they have no data.

    5. UK, National Health Services

    COVID-19 vaccine in pregnancy
    There is no known risk with giving inactivated virus or bacterial vaccines or toxoids during pregnancy or whilst breast-feeding. However, the COVID-19 vaccines have not yet been tested in pregnancy, so it has been advised that until more information is available, pregnant women should not routinely have these vaccines. As a matter of caution, COVID-19 vaccine is therefore not routinely advised in pregnancy but there are some circumstances in which the potential benefits of vaccination are particularly important for pregnant women. This may include women who are at very high risk of catching the infection or those with certain medical conditions that put them at high risk of suffering serious complications from COVID-19 infection. In such circumstances, a woman may choose to have COVID-19 vaccine in pregnancy following a discussion with her doctor or nurse.

    Evidence so far reviewed by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), the UK regulatory agency responsible for licencing medicines including vaccines, has raised no concerns for safety in pregnancy.

    The data for each licensed COVID-19 vaccine in pregnancy is limited because pregnant women are not included in vaccine trials. This is not because of any specific safety concerns but as a matter of caution, like that applied to trials of most other medicines.

    There is some deliberate word games here. The United Kingdown (Britain) tries to reassure the public that these vaccines are safe, while admitting that testing such as on pregnant women is non-existent. If no testing has been done, how can there be “limited evidence” available?

    Also note: the UK doesn’t prohibit or recommend that pregnant women not be given this vaccine. Instead, they say that it shouldn’t COMMONLY be happening. Not the same thing.

    6. Royal College Of Physicians Of Ireland

    COVID-19 vaccines have not been studied in pregnancy and breastfeeding
    .
    You may get some side-effects from getting the vaccine.

    What are the negatives of this option?
    1. COVID-19 vaccines have not been studied in pregnant and breastfeeding people
    We do not know for sure if there are negative impacts of giving COVID-19 vaccines in pregnancy.
    However available information is reassuring and there are no current safety concerns about these vaccines in pregnancy.
    2. You may get some side-effects from getting the vaccine.
    Common side effects are reported in more than 1 in 10 people and include fatigue, headache, sore arm, fever and muscle or joint
    pains. These are more common after the second dose and usually resolve within 2 days.

    Despite not being tested on pregnant women, it is presented in Ireland as a serious option to consider. Considering all the hype about the health risks of this virus, this groups comes across indifferent as to the side effects of these injections.

    7. Australian Department Of Health

    How do I know that the COVID-19 vaccine is safe?
    All vaccines are thoroughly tested for safety before they are approved for use in Australia. This includes careful analysis of clinical trial data, ingredients, chemistry, manufacturing and other factors.

    Can I get the vaccine if I am pregnant?
    In preparation for vaccine rollout, the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation (ATAGI) is currently finalising clinical advice for health care providers on the use of COVID-19 vaccines in Australia in 2021. This is likely to include advice in relation to pregnant women. This advice will be provided as soon as it is received.
    .
    Clinical trials for new medicines do not typically include pregnant or breastfeeding participants. Each country that is or has hosted clinical trials for COVID-19 vaccine candidates has different guidance regarding use of COVID-19 vaccines in pregnancy based on the benefits, risks and uncertainties in the context of the prevailing pandemic situation.

    Australia claims it is still finalizing its guidance. Fair enough. However, the lack of testing on pregnant women should be a huge red flag for any advice that might come out in favour of this. But that isn’t really what they are saying.

    8. Society Of Obstetricians/Gynaecologists, CA

    Consensus Statement: Women who are pregnant or breastfeeding should be offered vaccination at any time during pregnancy if they are eligible and no contraindications exist.
    .
    This decision is based on the women’s personal values and an understanding that the risk of infection and/or morbidity from COVID-19 outweighs the theorized and undescribed risk of being vaccinated during pregnancy or
    while breastfeeding
    . Women should not be precluded from vaccination based on pregnancy status or breastfeeding.

    Pregnant and breastfeeding women were excluded from the available Phase II and Phase III studies for the PfizerBioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines. However, for Pfizer-BioNTech, there were 23 individuals (12 in the vaccine arm and 11 in the placebo arm) who reported pregnancies during the trial and are being followed for pregnancy outcomes with no reports of adverse effects to date. For the Moderna trials, there were 13 women (6 in the vaccine and 7 in the placebo group) who reported pregnancies during the trial without report of adverse effects to date. Recently V-safe CDC registry which includes pregnant women reported no differences in the rates of adverse events or pregnancy complications for those women who were pregnant and received either the PfizerBioNtech vaccine or the Moderna vaccine. The Developmental and Reproductive Toxicity (DART) animal studies for the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines are ongoing. According to the World Health Organization (WHO) and the American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists (ACOG), no major safety signals have been identified.

    Similarly, breastfeeding women were also excluded from the Phase III trials available at present. Therefore, there is no data on the safety of COVID-19 vaccines in lactating women or the effects of mRNA vaccines on the breastfed infant or on milk production. Because mRNA vaccines are not considered live virus vaccines, they are not hypothesized to be a risk to the breastfeeding infant.

    Pregnant and breast feeding women were not part of the AstraZeneca trials either. It seems that this piece of information should be front and center of any discussion or recommendation.

    Decades of experience with other vaccines administered during pregnancy would suggest that we could expect a similar efficacy for the COVID-19 vaccines in pregnant women compared to non-pregnant women. Vaccines in general are immunogenic, safe, and efficacious when delivered to pregnant women. While there have been no red flags or hypothesized mechanisms for potential harm associated with the administration of an mRNA non-replicating viral vector vaccine during pregnancy, until more data is available, the potential risks of vaccination to a pregnant woman and her fetus remain unknown and only theoretical. What is known, however, is that an unvaccinated pregnant woman remains at risk of COVID-19 infection and remains at heightened risk of severe morbidity if infected compared to non-pregnant counterparts. Severe infection with COVID-19 carries risks to both maternal, fetal and neonatal health. While pregnancy itself does not appear to increase the risk of becoming infected with SARS-CoV-2, pregnant individuals may be in work-related (e.g., health-care worker, front line workers etc.) or community situations (e.g., caregiver, indigenous communities, outbreak setting, etc.) where the risk of infection is considerable. Owing to maternal age or underlying comorbidities, some pregnant women are at high risk of severe COVID-related morbidity.

    So we don’t actually have any data on pregnant women being studied. But looking at OTHER vaccines, we assume the risk is similar.

    NACI has advised “that a complete vaccine series with a COVID-19 vaccine may be offered to pregnant individuals in the authorized age group, without contraindications to the vaccine, if a risk assessment deems that the benefits outweigh the potential risks for the individual and the fetus, and if informed consent includes discussion about the absence of evidence on the use of COVID-19 vaccine in this population (Discretionary NACI Recommendation)”.

    We recommend that pregnant and breastfeeding women who are eligible for the COVID-19 vaccine due to exposure risk, medical status, or other circumstances should be able to make an informed decision by having access to up-to-date information about the safety and efficacy of the vaccine (including clear information about the data that is not yet available) and information about the risks of COVID-19 infection for them. The concern around vaccination in the absence of evidence of safety in pregnancy has been debated in the literature. The PREVENT Working Group state, “the absence of evidence and the mere theoretical or even documented risk of fetal harm is generally not sufficient to justify denying pregnant women access to a vaccine in an outbreak or epidemic.” During an epidemic, the default should be to offer vaccines to pregnant women alongside other affected populations

    Individuals contemplating pregnancy
    For an individual planning a pregnancy, it is recommended to complete the entire COVID-19 vaccination series (where possible) to achieve maximal vaccine efficacy ahead of pregnancy. It is not known whether an individual should delay pregnancy following receipt of the vaccine and a risk-benefit discussion for those planning pregnancy should occur similar to the discussion for pregnant and breastfeeding women.

    It’s recommended that women anticipating pregnancy get vaccinated first. Interesting. It seems that studies have been done on the reproductive problems, or possible sterility.

    This entire article is filled with such nonsense. Pregnant women should be offered vaccination, however, the risks are downplayed, as is the lack of real testing. Also, it’s fair to assume that the overwhelming recovery rate of this “virus” is either minimized, or ignored entirely.

    Section 30.1 of the Canada Food & Drug Act allows for the Health Minister to sign an Interim Order allowing untested vaccines to be approved. Public officials don’t discuss this. Nor do they mention the fact that they don’t do any testing; they just review the documentation.

    In SOGC’s statement (see backup), they see nothing wrong with giving pregnant women — or nursing mothers — these “vaccines”. The reasoning behind it is convoluted and twisted.

    These examples are hardly the only ones. However, it’s disturbing to see these seemingly legitimate organizations pushing vaccines on pregnant and nursing women — when they weren’t tested on them in the first place.

    CV #9: A Look At Money Sunk Into Paying For Vaccines, Research

    On August 1, 2020, the Canadian Government, or rather taxpayers, handed out over $240,000 to conduct research which included the study of the issues surrounding MANDATORY vaccines. Yes, that was apparently worth paying for a study. Now, let’s see what else the public’s money has been spent on.

    1. Grants To Develop CV Vaccines In Canada

    NAME DATE AMOUNT
    Alberta Research Chemicals Inc. Jul. 1, 2020 $36,000
    Archambault, Denis Jun. 1, 2020 $622,782
    Barr, Stephen D Apr. 1, 2020 $998,840
    Bell, John C Jun. 1, 2020 $1,936,150
    Biodextris Inc. Sep. 24, 2020 $1,307,678
    BioVectra Inc. Sep. 4, 2020 $5,412,045
    Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Aug. 4, 2020 $40,000,000
    Entos Pharmaceuticals Inc. May 1, 2020 $100,000
    Entos Pharmaceuticals Inc. Sep. 1, 2020 $5,000,000
    Falzarano, Darryl Feb. 1, 2020 $999,793
    Falzarano, Darryl Jun. 1, 2020 $1,459,325
    Grant, Michael D Sep. 1, 2020 $497,175
    Halperin, Scott A Aug. 1, 2020 $240,731
    Halperin, Scott A Sep. 1, 2020 $3,516,000
    Houghton, Michael Apr. 1, 2020 $600,000
    Immunovaccine Technologies Inc. Apr. 1, 2020 $378,239
    Immunovaccine Technologies Inc. Apr. 1, 2020 $636,596
    Immunovaccine Technologies Inc. Sep. 17, 2020 $1,000,000
    Kobinger, Gary P Feb. 1, 2020 $999,356
    Leclerc, Denis Feb. 1, 2020 $717,645
    Les biotechnologies Ulysse inc Jun. 22, 2020 $30,000
    Lewis, John D Jun. 1, 2020 $4,175,000
    Liu, Jun Jun. 1, 2020 $416,483
    McGill University (Academia) Nov. 6, 2020 $160,198
    Medicago inc. Oct. 18, 2020 $173,000,000
    Novocol Pharmaceutical of Canada Sep. 8, 2020 $500,000
    PharmAchieve Corporation. Ltd. Apr. 1, 2020 $49,920
    Pharma Glycovax Inc Aug. 31, 2020 $3,978,832
    Precision NanoSystems Inc. Oct. 9, 2020 $18,203,000
    Providence Therapeutics Holdings Sep. 1, 2020 $4,700,000
    Resilience Biotechnologies Inc. Nov. 1, 2020 $2,103,150
    Richardson, Christopher D Jun. 1, 2020 $138,097
    Symvivo Corporation Sep. 4, 2020 $2,821,081
    Watts, Tania H Jun. 1, 2020 $1,329,250
    University of Saskatchewan Jul. 7, 2020 $23,000,000
    Xing, Zhou Jun. 1, 2020 $1,920,985
    Yao, Xiao-Jian Apr. 1, 2020 $326,578

    This came from a quick search of Federal donations, “Vaccine + Covid”. A lot of money was spent already, for many different parties.

    2. Other Grants Funding Vaccines/Research

    NAME DATE AMOUNT
    Adventist Development and Relief Agency Mar. 30, 2020 $3,500,000
    Brockman, Mark A Dec. 1, 2011 $1,419,901
    CARE Canada May 29, 2019 $2,000,000
    Gavi, The Vaccine Alliance Mar. 28, 2014 $20,000,000
    Gavi, The Vaccine Alliance Sep. 17, 2015 $500,000,000
    IDRC Feb. 17, 2015 $3,000,000
    Immuno Vaccine Technologies Sep. 15, 2011 $2,944,000
    Immuno Vaccine Technologies Oct. 6, 2008 $3,000,000
    Int’l Development Research Centre Sep. 29, 2015 $9,000,000
    International Rescue Committee Jun. 12, 2019 $2,600,000
    Kobinger, Gary P Apr. 1, 2017 $3,997,503
    Loeb, Mark B Oct. 1, 2012 $2,864,660
    Loeb, Mark B Jul. 1, 2016 $8,310,463
    Medicago inc. May 13, 2015 $8,000,000
    Medicago Inc. Jan. 1, 2019 $2,515,000
    Novartis Animal Health Canada Inc. Nov. 1, 2006 $1,836,921
    Novartis Animal Health Canada Inc. Nov. 7, 2008 $1,747,458
    Ogilvie, Gina S Apr. 1, 2019 $10,090,731
    Ostrowski, Mario A Dec. 1, 2011 $1,415,432
    UNICEF Sep. 4, 2020 $2,500,000
    University of Saskatchewan Feb. 16, 2018 $3,609,771
    University of Saskatchewan Mar. 23, 2018 $15,609,771
    University of Saskatchewan (VIDO) Oct. 2, 2007 $49,000,000
    WHO – World Health Organization Mar. 31, 2015 $20,000,000
    WHO – World Health Organization Nov. 13, 2019 $2,000,000
    Xing, Zhou Jul. 1, 2017 $2,462,740

    This is by no means all of them, but are some of the bigger grants flagged by searching “vaccines” on the Government of Canada website.

    3. NSERC/CIHR/SSHRC Research Grants

    NSERC, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, has also handed out hundreds of grants over the last year regarding “Covid research”. It’s available for all to see.

    CIHR, the Canadian Institutes for Health Research, has also listed the grants they they will be handing out. As of August 8, 2020, it was listed at $111 million.

    SSHRC, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, also has a website detailing information about its grants and spending.

    4. Who Needs Science-Based Policy Anyway?

    This is BC Provincial Health Officer, Bonnie Henry. Despite repeated admissions like this, the local media fawns over her, refusing to ask difficult questions. This is the unelected dictator of the Province, that all parties agreed to abdicate their responsibilities to. And this is what BC promotes as “safety“.