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“.

CV #10(C): Active Federal Pharma Lobbying Registrations, Vaccine Injury Compensation Program

According to the Federal Lobbying Registry, there are 69 ACTIVE registrations that are flagged under the search word of “vaccine”. This includes multiple registrations from the same company, and a few irrelevant hits. Lobbyists aren’t cheap, and there is considerable money tied up in all of this.

Also, what exactly is going on with that proposed vaccine injury compensation program?

1. No Details In Vaccine Injury Program

News release
December 10, 2020 – Ottawa, ON – Public Health Agency of Canada
.
We as Canadians pride ourselves on our commitment to each other. By getting vaccinated, we protect one another and our way of life. Vaccines are safe, effective and one of the best ways to prevent serious illness like COVID-19.

Vaccines are only approved in Canada after thorough and independent review of the scientific evidence. They are also closely monitored once on the market and can quickly be removed from market if safety concerns are identified. Notwithstanding the rigour of clinical trials and excellence in vaccine delivery, a small number of Canadians may experience an adverse event following immunization, caused by vaccines or their administration.

Like any medication, vaccines can cause side effects and reactions. After being vaccinated, it’s common to have mild and harmless side effects — this is the body’s natural response, as it’s working to build immunity against a disease. However, it is also possible for someone to have a serious adverse reaction to a vaccine. The chances of this are extremely rare — less than one in a million — and we have a duty to help if this occurs.

It is for this reason that the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) is implementing a pan-Canadian no-fault vaccine injury support program for all Health Canada approved vaccines, in collaboration with provinces and territories. Building on the model in place in Québec for over 30 years, the program will ensure that all Canadians have to have fair access to support in the rare event that they experience an adverse reaction to a vaccine. This program will also bring Canada in line with its G7 counterparts with similar programs, and ensure the country remains competitive in accessing new vaccines as they become available.

Quick facts
Serious adverse reactions to vaccines are extremely rare. They happen less than one time in a million.

It was announced on December 10, 2020, that a vaccine injury program would be launched in cooperation with the Provinces. That was 2 1/2 months ago, and no details have emerged. Considering that mass vaccination is going on NOW, this is pretty urgent.

In “collaboration with the Provinces” implies that they will have to go along with it as well. If history is any indictation, Federal-Provincial talks go very slowly.

While it’s claimed that vaccines undergo serious testing PRIOR to their approval, that isn’t really the case. Details will be provided in the next section.

2. Vaccines Approved While Still In Testing

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.

People naturally assume that a medical product (such as a vaccine), is thoroughly tested prior to being approved. Actually, the Section 30.1 of the Food & Drug Act allows the Health Minister to sign an Interim Order and approve almost anything. And yes, such an Order was signed by Patty Hajdu.

3. Active Lobbying Registrations On “Vaccines”

COMPANY LOBBYIST/POSITION/FIRM
AstraZeneca Canada Inc. Jane Chung, President
Bayer, Inc. *Sheamus Murphy, Counsel Public Affairs Inc.
Bayer, Inc. *David Murray, Counsel Public Affairs Inc.
Best Medicines Coalition *William Dempster, 3Sixty Public Affairs Inc.
Best Medicines Coalition Paulette Eddy, Consultant
Best Medicines Coalition Jay Strauss, Consultant
Biotecanada Andrew Casey, President & CEO
Canadian Animal Health Institute Kevin Bosch, Hill+Knowlton Strategies
Canadian Medical Association E. Ann Collins
Canadian Medical Association Timothy Smith, Chief Executive Officer
Canadian Pharmacists Association Annette Robinson, Director
Canadian Pharmacists Association Glen Doucet, Chief Executive Officer
Entos Pharmaceuticals Farid, Faroud, Global Public Affairs Inc.
Entos Pharmaceuticals Conor Mahoney, Global Public Affairs Inc.
Entos Pharmaceuticals *Andrew Retfalvi, Global Public Affairs Inc.
Entos Pharmaceuticals Jay Strauss, Consultant
Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance Ashton Arsenault, Crestview Strategy
Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance Jason Clark, Crestview Strategy
GlaxoSmithKline Faris El-Refaie, President
GlaxoSmithKline Inc. *Bridget Howe, Counsel Public Affairs Inc.
GlaxoSmithKline Inc. *Sheamus Murphy, Counsel Public Affairs Inc.
GlaxoSmithKline Inc. *Ben Parsons, Counsel Public Affairs Inc.
GlaxoSmithKline Inc. *Amber Ruddy, Counsel Public Affairs Inc.
Immune Biosolutions Frédéric Leduc, Président
Innovative Medicines Canada Andrew Balfour, Rubicon Strategy Inc.
Innovative Medicines Canada Pamela Fralick, President
Intervac Int’l Vaccine Centre *Douglas Richardson, McKercher LLP
Janssen Inc. (Pharmaceutical Companies of Johnson & Johnson Jorge Bartolome, President
Malaika Vaccine idee Inyangudor, Wellington Advocacy
Medicago Inc. Ashton Arsenault, Crestview Strategy
Medicago Inc. Jason Clark, Crestview Strategy
Medicago Inc. Danielle Peters, Magnet Strategy Group
Medicago Inc. Patricia Sibal, Crestview Strategy
Merck Canada Inc. Anna Van Acker, President
Moderna Therapeutics Paul Monlezun, Public Affairs Advisors
National Ethnic Press and Media Council of Canada David Valentin, Liaison Strategies
Particle Vaccine Canada Ltd. *Dylan McGuinty, Director
*Pfizer Canada ULC Cole C. Pinnow, President
PlantEXT Inc. *Andre Albinati, Earnscliffe Strategy Group
PlantEXT Inc. *Charles Bird, Earnscliffe Strategy Group
PlantEXT Inc. Craig Robinson, Earnscliffe Strategy Group
Sanofi Pasteur Limited Fabien Marino, Vice President
Sanofi Pasteur Limited *David Angus, Capital Hill Group
University of Saskatchewan *Douglas Richardson, McKercher LLP
*University of Saskatchewan Peter Stoicheff, President and Vice-Chancellor
Variation Biotechnologies, Inc. Francisco Diaz-Mitoma, Consultant
Vaxil Biotherapeutics Lester Scheininger, Barrister and Solicitor
Zebra Technologies *Adria Minsky, Cumberland Strategies
Zebra Technologies Alec Newton, Cumberland Strategies

* means person has held public office, or organization has former public office holders currently on staff.

4. GSK Lobbyists Worked In Public Offices

The 4 lobbyists registered to advocate on behalf of GSK, (GlaxoSmithKline), have all held public office in some capacity. But don’t worry, they are probably neutral actors here, and nothing improper will happen.

5. Other Lobbyists Worked In Public Offices

Of course, Crestview Strategy, Ashton Arsenault, Zakery Blais & Jason Clark have all been addressed in previous pieces. Please check them out for more information.

This might also be a good time to bring up the people that have Doug Ford’s attention, Bill 160, Alberta and Quebec lobbying as well.

6. National Ethnic Press and Media Council

As an aside, some $750,000 of taxpayer money was handed out as “Covid relief” for the visible minority press. Surely, they won’t be too critical of Trudeau.

7. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

The rest of the series is here. Many lies, lobbying, conflicts of interest, and various globalist agendas operating behind the scenes, obscuring the vile agenda called the GREAT RESET. The Gates Foundation finances: the WHO, the US CDC, GAVI, ID2020, John Hopkins University, Imperial College London, the Pirbright Institute, the BBC, and individual pharmaceutical companies. The International Health Regulations are legally binding. The Postmedia empire and the “independent” media are paid off, as are the fact-checkers. The virus was never isolated, PCR tests are a fraud, as are forced masks, social bubbles, and 2m distancing.

CV #35: Vaccine Indemnification Rulings In The Canadian Courts

If vaccines work as advertised, then why is it necessary to immunize (no pun intended), the manufacturers from potential legal action?

Bill Gates believes that Governments will have to be involved in the process of vaccine development and distribution, in order to indemnify (make immune), manufacturers for the harm their products will cause. However, Gates seems far less concerned about the potential harms from the vaccines. His worry appears to be potential lawsuits resulting from those harms. By the way, you don’t have a choice about being vaccinated.

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

The rest of the series is here. Many lies, lobbying, conflicts of interest, and various globalist agendas operating behind the scenes, obscuring the “Great Reset“. The Gates Foundation finances: the WHO, the US CDC, GAVI, ID2020, John Hopkins University, Imperial College London, the Pirbright Institute, the BBC, and individual pharmaceutical companies. Also: there is little to no science behind what our officials are doing; they promote degenerate behaviour; the Australian Department of Health admits the PCR tests don’t work; the US CDC admits testing is heavily flawed; and The International Health Regulations are legally binding. See here, here, and here. The media is paid off, and our democracy is thoroughly compromised, as shown: here, here, here, and here.

2. Important Links

Quebec (Attorney-General) v. Lapierre, 1983 CanLII 2860 (QC CA)
QC Court Of Appeal Ruling
Lapierre v. A.G. (Que.), 1985 CanLII 66 (SCC), [1985] 1 SCR 241
Supreme Court Of Canada Ruling

Rothwell v. Raes (Ont. H.C.J.), 1988 CanLII 4636 (ON SC)
Rothwell 1988 Ruling
Rothwell Ruling 1988 Vaccine Injury

Frank v Alberta Health Services, 2019 ABCA 332 (CanLII)
Frank V. AHS Trial Court Ruling
Frank V. AHS Appellate Ruling

Interim Order For Temporary Vaccine Approval
Product Information For H1N1 Approved Vaccine
Adam, Abudu v. Ledesma-Cadhit et al, 2014 ONSC 5726 (CanLII)
2014 Ruling On Indemnification of Manufacturer
Adam v. GlaxoSmithKline Inc., 2019 ONSC 7066 (CanLII)
Adam V. GSK Ruling (ONSC)
ONSC 2014 Ruling
Adam V GlaxoSmithKline 2019

WHO On Vaccine Injury Compensation Programs

3. LaPierre V. Attorney General Of Quebec

Appellant’s daughter was vaccinated against measles as part of a vaccination program established by the Government of Quebec. A few days after receiving the vaccine, she was the victim of acute viral encephalitis which ultimately resulted in the permanent almost total disablement of the child. Appellant brought an action for damages against the Government. The Superior Court allowed the action and decided against the Government on the basis of no‑fault liability resulting from necessity and grounded on art. 1057 C.C. The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment on the ground that Quebec civil law does not recognize no‑fault liability. In this Court, the causal link between the vaccine and the encephalitis was no longer disputed and fault was no longer alleged against anyone. Appellant based his claim against the Government on no‑fault or “objective” liability. He relied on a legal principle derived from the theory of necessity, that damages suffered or costs incurred by an individual for the benefit of the community must be borne by the latter. The question was therefore whether the principle on which appellant’s entire case rested has any support in the law of Quebec.

Held: The appeal should be dismissed.
.
The Government of Quebec cannot be held liable for the harm caused to the child by administration of the vaccine. Although in the case at bar recognition of the existence of an obligation independent of any fault would be an excellent thing, no such obligation exists in Quebec civil law. Extrapolation of several provisions of the Civil Code and the ancient law provide no basis for a general principle of the civil law that damages suffered or costs incurred by an individual for the benefit of the community must be borne by the latter. Article 1057 C.C. also provides no legislative support for this principle. That article exists only to explain art. 983 C.C. by giving examples of obligations resulting solely from the operation of law. It does not have the effect of making fortuitous events ‑‑ the danger of an epidemic in the case at bar ‑‑ a sixth and new source of obligations.

The Supreme Court ultimately decided that just because someone may be harmed (by a vaccine), which was taken to protect the community, the community itself owes no obligation to the person. It seems no good deed goes unpunished.

Following this case, however, Quebec did end up introducing a plan to compensate victims of vaccine injury. It remains the only such program in Canada.

4. Rothwell V. Raes, Ontario, Et Al

Even the plaintiffs’ expert witnesses agreed that if a causal connection existed between pertussis vaccine and brain damage — encephalopathy — it was extremely rare. Thus the personal experience of such cases, even on the part of the most specialized consultants, was necessarily limited. The witnesses referred to many scientific publications in giving testimony and annexed them to their reports. The decision had to be based on the evidence of the witnesses including their reports, but articles and studies referred to could be used to assess the evidence where there was conflict. The question was difficult and complex.

The defendant physician was not negligent either in recommending the vaccination or in failing to warn of possible damaging effects. It was at the time the practice to recommend vaccination without reference to the rare possibility of harmful consequences. Three doses of the vaccine were administered, two of them by the locum, and no reaction which would have caused alarm occurred after either of the first two. Nor was the physician negligent in his choice of physicians to serve as locum tenens. No evidence of negligence on her part was offered.

Liability for the locum tenens
.
Even if the locum had been negligent, she was exercising her own professional skill and judgment and the family physician could not be vicariously liable.

Manufacturer’s liability
.
The manufacturer’s leading researchers were familiar with the literature postulating encephalopathy and grave brain damage as possible consequences of administration of the vaccine. Had the manufacturer warned the physician the court could not presume that he would have failed to discuss the possibilities or at least mention them. Therefore the manufacturer was negligent in this respect. It was not negligent in failing to manufacture the Japanese version of the vaccine since no tests had been done which would have led to its acceptance by the scientific community as superior to the product used.

The ministry’s liability
.
The province reasonably relied on the federal government to license and monitor vaccines. The province’s decision not to exercise the authority it had, and had at one time used, to regulate and monitor did not subject it to liability. No other province issued warnings at the time. Only one monitored drugs used. Hence no negligence could be found on the part of the ministry.

One of the reasons cited in the dismissal was failure to prove causation. However, the ruling makes it pretty clear that there would be no finding of negligence even if it were demonstrated. The only exception would have been the manufacturer (possibly), for failing to disclose risks.

5. Frank V. AB Health Services 2019

[1] Health Services, 2018 ABQB 541. The issue on this appeal is whether Alberta Health Services and the nurse who immunized her are immune from liability even if negligence was proven.

[2] The trial judge found that the respondents are protected by the immunity provisions in s. 66.1 of the Public Health Act, RSA 2000, c. P-37:
.
66.1(1) No action for damages may be commenced against
(a) the Crown or a Minister of the Crown,
(b) a regional health authority or a member, employee or agent of a regional health authority,
(c) an employee under the administration of the Minister,
(d) the Chief Medical Officer, the Deputy Chief Medical Officer, an executive officer or a medical officer of health,
(e) a health practitioner,
(f) a teacher, a person in charge of an institution or a medical director of a facility, or
(g) repealed 2008 c. H-5.3 s. 24,
(h) a provincial health board established under the Regional Health Authorities Act
.
for anything done or not done by that person in good faith while carrying out duties or exercising powers under this or any other enactment.

(2) No action for damages may be commenced against any person or organization acting under the direction of the Crown, a Minister of the Crown, the Chief Medical Officer, the Deputy Chief Medical Officer or a medical officer of health for anything done or not done by that person or organization in good faith directly or indirectly related to a public health emergency while carrying out duties or exercising powers under this or any other enactment. [emphasis added]

[5] The trial judge wrote at para. 19 that Nurse Sykes was performing “a duty delegated to her”, which is no more than a synonym for “a duty assigned” to her. The appellant argues that immunity is not extended to those exercising “delegated duties”, but that would render the section largely redundant. It is difficult to conceive of a situation where an employee of the Health Authority (or a number of others in the protected categories, like “teachers”) would be “carrying out duties” (to use the words of s. 66.1) that are not in some sense “delegated” or “assigned” to them. The appellant also argues that the immunity does not extend to “negligence”, but that would also render the section ineffective. There is no civil liability for non-negligent health services, so the immunity clause must extend to the negligent provision of services to have any meaning.

[6] It is true that health care practitioners generally owe a private duty of care to their patients, and are liable in tort for negligent care that causes damage. But as the trial judge noted at para. 18, this statute is directed at “public” health concerns, not just “private” health concerns:

. . . The intent of the Act and the Communicable Diseases Regulation is in the protection of public health, including preventative care against communicable diseases which may affect large segments of the population. The liability immunity for health practitioners like Sykes is consistent with the purpose of the Act particularly when one considers the nature of mass vaccination clinics and the need for the Minister and regional health authorities to efficiently administer vaccinations.

There is a public benefit to having a significant level of vaccination against communicable diseases within the larger community. The Legislature has identified a public benefit in protecting professionals practicing in the public health field from liability for public health treatment administered in good faith.

[7] The appellant points to the rather complicated legislative history of this provision. The immunity clause, however, must be interpreted according to its plain words, in the context of the entire statute. On that basis there is no reviewable error in the decision under appeal.

[8] The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

In short, health practitioners (and bureaucrats), cannot be held liable in Alberta if they are acting in good faith, and are following the orders of Public Health Officials. While there may be some benefit to this, it allows practitioners to “pass the buck” in a sense, and just defer to someone else.

6. Interim Orders On H1N1 Vaccines

Adam, Abudu v. Ledesma-Cadhit et al, 2014 ONSC 5726 (CanLII)
Adam v. GlaxoSmithKline Inc., 2019 ONSC 7066 (CanLII)

There are actually 2 different rulings based on vaccine injury from GlaxoSmithKline. Here are quotes from the later ruling.

[15] In early 2009, the WHO became aware of the development of a new strain of influenza virus: H1N1, commonly known as swine flu. It had not been seen in human populations before, as a result of which humans had no built up immunity. The WHO declared H1N1 to be a pandemic.

[16] On June 11, 2009, the WHO declared a phase 6 pandemic. This is the final and most serious stage of a pandemic. It marks sustained human-to-human transmission of the virus in more than one region of the world. By early July there had been 94,512 reported cases and approximately 429 recorded deaths attributable to H1N1.

[17] In the summer of 2009, the WHO called for manufacturers to begin clinical trials for a vaccine to combat H1N1.

[18] GSK developed two vaccines to combat H1N1: Arepanrix and Pandemrix. Both are substantially similar. Pandemrix was manufactured and distributed in Europe. Arepanrix was manufactured and distributed in Canada. Clinical trials for Arepanrix began in 2008 but had not been completed when the pandemic was declared.

[19] The federal Minister of Health authorized the sale of the Arepanrix vaccine pursuant to an interim order dated October 13, 2009. Human trials of the vaccine were still underway. The Minister of Health is empowered to make interim orders if immediate action is required because of a danger to health, safety or the environment. In issuing the interim order, Health Canada deemed the risk profile of Arepanrix to be favourable for an interim order. The authorization was based on the risk caused by the current pandemic threat and its danger to human health. As part of the interim order process, Health Canada agreed to indemnify GSK for any claims brought against it in relation to the administration of the Arepanrix vaccine.

[20] Although human trials of Arepanrix were not finished by the time Health Canada authorized its use, the vaccine was not without clinical history.

[33] The fundamental challenge with the plaintiffs’ case in this regard is that they produced no expert to testify to this effect. While I agree with the plaintiffs’ submission that expert evidence is not necessarily required to demonstrate a breach of the standard of care, the absence of such evidence when faced with complex issues beyond the day-to-day experience of the trier creates additional challenges for the plaintiffs’ case.

[34] The plaintiffs’ principal allegation with respect to the standard of care is that GSK failed to make adequate disclosure of the risks involved with Arepanrix.

[35] The plaintiffs began their challenge about disclosure with the evidence of Ms. Hyacenth who testified that she was not told that: (i) the vaccine had not been tested through the usual route, (ii) the vaccine had been subject to a hastened approval process by Health Canada, (iii) adjuvants had never been used in children, (iv) the Government of Canada was indemnifying the vaccine manufacturer; and (v) some countries refused to make the vaccine available because of safety concerns. Ms. Hyacenth says that had she been told about these things she would not have risked having her children vaccinated.

[36] Part of the challenge of the plaintiffs’ inadequate disclosure case is that Ms. Hyacenth was not the direct purchaser of the vaccine. Vaccines are administered through a “learned intermediary,” in this case, her family physician. The issue is significant because any disclosures GSK makes are made in product monographs or inserts that accompany each vial of vaccine. The patient getting the vaccine does not receive the box containing the vaccine and whatever disclosure document it contains. It is the physician who receives this.

[37] GSK did disclose in its Product Information Leaflet for the Arepanrix vaccine and in its product monograph that Health Canada had authorized the sale of the vaccine based on only limited clinical testing and no clinical experience at all with children. Dr. Ledesma-Cadhit believes she knew this from the Health Canada website. She was also aware that Arepanrix was authorized through a special process because of the pandemic.

[38] The product monograph for Arepanrix disclosed that there was limited clinical experience with an investigational formulation of another adjuvanted vaccine but no clinical experience with children. In addition, the product information leaflet and product monograph disclosed a number of risks.

In short, Health Canada approved a vaccine that in which trials were still ongoing. The doctor, despite reading the lengthy disclaimer, injected it, and this comes in spite of there being no trials on children.

The Canadian Government had agreed to indemnify the manufacturer ahead of time. Moreover, the victims didn’t buy the product from the manufacturer, but from the doctor, a “learned intermediary”. In short, GlaxoSmithKline was legally off the hook for what it sold to the public.

7. Canada To Expedite Vaccines

This admission from Theresa Tam should concern people. She openly admits that vaccine development takes over a decade, but that this will be pushed ahead.

However, if this is such a “novel” virus, then how exactly can scientists rely on all this previous research? Either it’s a similar virus, or it’s very different. It can’t simultaneously be both.

And no, it wasn’t “Covid-19” that took away people’s livelihoods. It was the dictatorial actions of power hungry politicians and bureaucrats.

8. WHO On Vaccine Injury Compensation

Arguments for schemes
Arguments supporting vaccine-injury compensation include political and economic pressures, litigation threats, increasing confidence in population-based vaccine programmes and ensuring sustainability of vaccine supply. However, compensation schemes are also based on underlying principles of fairness and justice.

A vaccine-injury compensation scheme removes the uncertainty of tort liability for manufacturers and provides a more fair, efficient and stable approach for injured parties. Litigation is an expensive and restricted avenue that is inaccessible for many vaccine recipients. Furthermore, compensation schemes avoid the polarization of drug companies against vaccine recipients through litigation and the associated negative media coverage.

Standard of proof
No-fault vaccine-injury compensation programmes are based on the premise that the adverse outcome is not attributable to a specific individual or industry but due to an unavoidable risk associated with vaccines. A problem for all compensation schemes is determining whether there is a causal relationship between a vaccine and a specific injury. The method by which causation is proven in tort law can be quite different from the accepted method of establishing causation in science and epidemiology. The most commonly accepted criteria for establishing epidemiological causation are the Bradford Hill criteria. While they do not provide a definitive checklist for assessing causality, these criteria provide a framework for separating causal and non-causal explanations of observed associations. Despite its importance, there is no single, clear consensus on the definition of causation.

Conclusion
Vaccine-injury compensation programmes are increasingly regarded as an important component of successful vaccination programmes. They have been used for the past 50 years to ensure that individuals who are adversely affected in the interests of protecting the whole community are adequately compensated and cared for. There are a variety of schemes with different structures and approaches in use throughout the world. The schemes function most efficiently when they operate alongside well established, comprehensive national social welfare systems. In these countries, vaccine-injury compensation schemes have been found to have a relatively low administrative cost, especially compared to civil litigation cases.

In the first decade of the 21st century, acceptance of vaccine-injury compensation has grown. Schemes are being enacted beyond industrialized Europe and North America. The importance of these schemes, based on ethical principles, has been stressed by parent groups, and claimants have reported satisfaction in having received compensation through a streamlined process. Apart from the reluctance of governments to move away from the adversarial approach to providing compensation, we believe there is a strong argument for widespread implementation of these programmes in other developed countries.

This is a 2011 article from the World Health Organization. Despite the claimed benefits, there are certainly drawbacks. It’s worth pointing out that they don’t actually make vaccines any safer. They are just a way to placate the public and increase confidence by offering a (tax-payer funded), way for victims to get some money.

Drug companies will still get their profits, but the losses will be socialized. This is typical of the corporatist mindset.

From their perspective, there isn’t really any downside. Pharma companies can still push their drugs onto the public, and any serious harm will be paid back by the public. While the process for collecting is certainly easier than going to court, it ensures that the full truth will never come out.

Currently, a vaccine injury compensation program exists in Quebec, but no other Canadian Province.

CV #24(B): London School Of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, More Modelling Financed By Gates

The London School Of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine gets substantial funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, as does Imperial College London. And both have been funded to conduct computer modelling. Let’s dive in a bit deeper.

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

The rest of the series is here. Many lies, lobbying, conflicts of interest, and various globalist agendas operating behind the scenes. The Gates Foundation finances many things, including, the World Health Organization, the Center for Disease Control, GAVI, ID2020, John Hopkins University, Imperial College London, the Pirbright Institute, the British Broadcasting Corporation, Sick Kids Hospital, and individual pharmaceutical companies. Worth mentioning: there is little to no science behind what our officials are doing; they promote degenerate behaviour; the Australian Department of Health admits the PCR tests don’t work; the US CDC admits testing is heavily flawed; and The International Health Regulations (IHR), that the WHO imposes are legally binding on all members.

2. Tax Filings Of B&M Gates Foundation

(Note: these are just a portion of the 2018 filings)

BILL & MELINDA GATES FOUNDATION
EIN: 56-2618866
gates.foundation.taxes.2016
gates.foundation.taxes.2017
gates.foundation.taxes.2018

3. Still Getting Money For Modelling

London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine
Date: September 2020
Purpose: to model the direct and indirect health and economic impacts of COVID-19 in LMICs
Amount: $166,059
Term: 11
Topic: Delivery of Solutions to Improve Global Health

Program: Global Development
Grantee Location: London
Grantee Website: http://www.lshtm.ac.uk/

Granted, the School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine isn’t nearly as notorious as Imperial College London is at this point. However, Gates is still paying for computer modelling, so one has to wonder if the results are preplanned.

4. Earlier Gates Money For Modelling

London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine
Date: October 2016
Purpose: to maximize impact and accelerate development of new TB vaccines by creating and applying novel mathematical models to estimate the main target product profiles drivers for epidemiological impact of new TB vaccines
Amount: $193,437
Term: 39
Topic: Tuberculosis
Program: Global Health
Grantee Location: London
Grantee Website: http://www.lshtm.ac.uk/

The Gates Foundation also donated to some 2016 computer modelling. There are of course other grants over the years.

5. Centre for the Modelling of Infectious Diseases

The Centre for the Mathematical Modelling of Infectious Diseases (CMMID) at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine is a multidisciplinary grouping of epidemiologists, mathematicians, economists, statisticians and clinicians from across all three faculties of LSHTM.

That is the main team of researchers who are involved in the computer modelling (or guesswork), trying to determine how much viruses will spread.

6. Online Course: Intro To Modelling

Infectious diseases remain a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide, with HIV, tuberculosis and malaria estimated to cause 10% of all deaths each year. New pathogens continue to emerge, as demonstrated by the SARS epidemic in 2003, the swine flu pandemic in 2009, MERS CoV in 2013, Zika in 2016 and recently, SARS-CoV-2.

Mathematical models are being increasingly used to understand the transmission of infections and to evaluate the potential impact of control programmes in reducing morbidity and mortality. Applications include determining optimal control strategies against new or emergent infections, such as SARS-CoV-2, Zika or Ebola, or against HIV, tuberculosis and malaria, and predicting the impact of vaccination strategies against common infections such as measles and rubella. Modelling was used extensively in the UK during the recent swine flu pandemic to monitor the extent of ongoing transmission and the potential impact of control such as school closures and vaccination. It is currently being used in many countries to predict the impact of interventions against COVID-19.

This two week online course, organised jointly between the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine and Public Health England is intended to introduce professionals working on infectious diseases in either developing or developed countries to this exciting and expanding area. The emphasis will be on developing a conceptual understanding of the basic methods and on their practical application, rather than the manipulation of mathematical equations. The methods will be illustrated by “hands-on” experience of setting up models in spreadsheets as well as other specialist modelling packages, and seminars in which the applications of modelling will be discussed.

If you have 1,700 pounds to spare, then this modelling course may be for you. It’s an introduction into how computer modelling works to estimate growth and decay.

While it is true that computer modelling was used in Zika, Ebola and Swine Flu, that’s not really something to brag about. Just search “Neil Ferguson Imperial College London”.

The focus won’t be on manipulating mathematical equations? That’s good I guess.

7. Gates Very Well Known In LSHTM

A quick search of Bill Gates on the school’s website flags 143 articles. Gates, and his foundation, are well known and written about.

8. Models Aren’t Evidence Of Anything

This should be abundantly clear to all, but it is worth repeating. Models are just predictions, and limited by:

[1] The quality of the data coming in
[2] The understanding of how nature actually works
[3] The political agenda of the modeler

They are not proof or evidence, and should be given no weight when it comes to making complicated and expensive policy decisions.

We see time and time again that the information going in is garbage, and that the people doing the work have little to no grasp of what they are estimating. We also see too many politicians, bureaucrats, academics, and people in business who have their own agenda.

Don’t take any of these “predictions” at face value.

CV #29: The Financial Ties Between Sick Kids Hospital And The Gates Foundation

Zulfiqar A. Bhutta is the Co-Director, and Director of Research at Sick Kids Hospital. He has also held positions with: Aga Khan University, as the Founding Director of the Center of Excellence in Women and Child Health; GAVI, as a Global Academic Research Member; Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Scientific Advisory Board; and more.

Time to explore another uncomfortable topic in the vaccine industry: the ties between Sick Kids Hospital in Toronto, and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

The rest of the series is here. Many lies, lobbying, conflicts of interest, and various globalist agendas operating behind the scenes. The Gates Foundation finances many things, including, the World Health Organization, the Center for Disease Control, GAVI, ID2020, John Hopkins University, Imperial College London, the Pirbright Institute, the British Broadcasting Corporation, and individual pharmaceutical companies. Worth mentioning: there is little to no science behind what our officials are doing; they promote degenerate behaviour; the Australian Department of Health admits the PCR tests don’t work; the US CDC admits testing is heavily flawed; and The International Health Regulations (IHR), that the WHO imposes are legally binding on all members.

2. Zulfiqar A. Bhutta, His Many Roles

Zulfiqar A. Bhutta, M.B.B.S., D.C.H., F.R.C.P., F.R.C.P.C.H., F.C.P.S., F.A.A.P., Ph.D.
Zulfiqar A. Bhutta is the Robert Harding Inaugural Chair in Global Child Health at Toronto’s Hospital for Sick Children, co-director of the SickKids Centre for Global Child Health, and the founding director of the Centre of Excellence in Women and Child Health at the Aga Khan University. He also holds adjunct professorships at several leading universities, including the School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins University, Tufts University, Boston University School of Public Health, University of Alberta, and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. He is Distinguished National Professor of the Government of Pakistan and was the founding chair of Pakistan’s National Research Ethics Committee from 2003 to 2014.

[1] Sick Kids Hospital Directory
[2] Gates Foundation Scientific Advisory Committee
[3] World Health Organization
[4] Aga Khan University
[5] John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health

Quite the busy man. An interesting side note: Anthony Fauci used to be on the Gates Foundation Scientific Advisory Committee as well.

3. O’Toole Campaign Chief A Sick Kids Director

OTTAWA — Conservative leadership candidate Erin O’Toole called Monday for the country to be placed on “war footing” to combat the spread of COVID-19, the latest escalation of rhetoric in the race now thrown into flux by the rapidly evolving crisis.

O’Toole said the federal government should invoke the Emergencies Act so the federal government can prohibit travel, enforce self-isolation and control assemblies, while also mobilizing the military to back up the health system.

“Now is the time to put our government and our economy on a war footing, with leadership from the top,” he said in an email to supporters.

Erin O’Toole is now leader of the CPC. At the time, he was campaigning for the position and criticized Trudeau for not being authoritarian enough. What a strange way to act as an opposition leader.

Interesting this connection: his chief of staff, Walied Soliman, is a Director of Sick Kids Hospital. Sick Kids gets large donations from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, promoting and conducting vaccine research. Could this be why O’Toole offers no real opposition to the draconian measures? Because his Chief of Staff is involved in it?

After all, Trudeau’s Chief of Staff, Katie Telford, is married to Rob Silver. Silver co-founded Crestview Strategy, which GAVI hired to lobby public officials over the last few years. One of those lobbyists is Zakery Blais, former assistant to current Attorney General, David Lametti. See Part 4 and Part 5.

4. Daniel Roth, $15M Bangladesh Research Grant

Congratulations to Dr. Daniel Roth, Clinician-Scientist at SickKids, and his team on being awarded a $15 million USD grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation for the Synbiotics for the Early Prevention of Severe Infections in Infancy (SEPSIS) project. The project will build an adaptive research platform aimed at describing the early infant microbiome and assessing the safety and efficacy of interventions to prevent severe infections and promote growth during early infancy (0-60 days of age) in Dhaka, Bangladesh. The platform will include a large phase III randomized controlled trial to test the efficacy of a specific synbiotic (probiotic-prebiotic combination) formulation to prevent newborn sepsis. The research will be conducted in collaboration with numerous partners including the International Centre for Diarrheal Disease Research, Bangladesh (icddr,b) and Child Health Research Foundation (CHRF), both based in Dhaka, Bangladesh.

This grant is listed as a 4 year project posted on the Sick Kids website, and is to cover research in Bangladesh.

5. Epidemiology, Vaccine Grant, $250,000 In 2019

Date: September 2019
Purpose: to promote sharing among scientists and public health practitioners on topics relevant to pneumococcal biology, epidemiology, treatment, and vaccines
Amount: $251,100
Term: 24
Topic: Pneumonia
Program: Global Health
Grantee Location: Toronto, Ontario
Grantee Website: http://www.sickkids.ca

Sick Kids Hospital in Toronto received a quarter million dollar grant a year ago, in September 2019.

6. Kenya Project: Aga Khan, Gates Support

The aim of the Kenya case study was to undertake a robust national and sub-national analysis (at county level) in order to evaluate progress over the last two decades on key Countdown coverage indicators as well as improvement in health financing to achieve MDGs 4 and 5. Outputs to inform both central and county governments will be invaluable in informing multi-level planning, especially considering the significant management, policy, financing, and accountability challenges associated with the recent decentralization (‘devolution’) of health services as per the new constitution. On the basis of this analysis, we will develop a model of what interventions can be effectively implemented to accelerate improvement in reproductive, maternal, newborn, child and adolescent health and reduction in mortality over the next 10 years.

Project collaborators include Aga Khan University, Nairobi, Aga Khan University, Karachi, University of Nairobi, Family Care International, Africa Population & Health Research Center, Ministry of Health, Kenya.

Supported by: US Fund for UNICEF under the Countdown to 2015 for Maternal, Newborn, and Child Survival grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. The Hospital for Sick Children (SickKids), Aga Khan University (Nairobi) and the Aga Khan University (Karachi) provided additional in-kind support.

Sick Kids hospital undertook a research project for maternal health in Kenya, with the reduction of infant mortality as a major goal. The major donors include Aga Khan and the Gates Foundation.

7. Gates Funding Maternal Health, SKH Toronto

Hospital for Sick Children
Date: July 2020
Purpose: to document county successes in the reduction of anemia among women of reproductive age, and SDG indicator
Amount: $1,399,280
Term: 24
Topic: Maternal, Neonatal and Child Health, MNCH Discovery & Tools
Program: Global Development|Global Health
Grantee Location: Toronto, Ontario
Grantee Website: http://www.sickkids.ca

Another $1.4 million grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to Sick Kids Hospital. This was in July 2020, so very recent. The two organizations seem to align ideologically, as we will see a bit later.

8. Gates Donates $5.9M Last Year To SKH

http://www.sickkids.ca/AboutSickKids/annual-report/81509-2019-2020_SickKids-Annual-Report.pdf
2019-2020_SickKids-Annual-Report

In the last year, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation donated some $5.9 million to Sick Kids Hospital.

9. Sick Kids, Gates Allied On Vaxx Rates

Acknowledgements
We thank Diego Bassani, Hospital for Sick Kids, Toronto, Canada.
.
Funding:
The Canadian Institutes for Health Research (299960) and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (OPP1067851) funded this study.
.
Competing interests:
None declared.

In 2015, Sick Kids Hospital and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation teamed up in order to conduct research into raising the vaccination rate in children.

10. More Than What Meets The Eye

To many, Sick Kids Hospital comes across as being above the politically driven agendas that plague Canadian health care. However, things are not as they seem. Those grants from the Gates Foundation can’t be ignored, especially given the vaccination agenda.

Are there other links? Yes, but this should give a good idea as to what is really going on.

It also can’t be brushed aside that Walied Soliman, is both the Chief of Staff for Conservative Party Leader, Erin O’Toole, and a long time Director at Sick Kids. No wonder O’Toole supports heavy handed measures.

TSCE #9(D): California State Senator Scott Wiener, And His Weaponized Legislation

This site doesn’t often cover U.S. politics and legislation, but this one is worth making an exception for. Scott Wiener is a California State Senator in the 11th District.
https://sd11.senate.ca.gov/
https://twitter.com/Scott_Wiener/status/1292489212751536129

1. Trafficking, Smuggling, Child Exploitation

There is a lot already covered in the TSCE series. Many of the laws politicians pass absolutely ensure this obscenity will continue. This piece will focus on the various legislation advanced by California State Senator, Scott Wiener, who has been very active. Also, for more general background information, take a look at Open Borders movement, and the NGOs who are supporting it.

2. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for Scott Wiener’s Wikipedia page.

CLICK HERE, for SB-132: trans-inmate rights.
scott.wiener.male.inmates.in.womens.prisons

CLICK HERE, for SB-145: sex offender designation.
scott.wiener.keep.gay.pedos.off.SO.registry

CLICK HERE, for SB-201: intersex surgery ban (children)
scott.wiener.intersex.child.surgeries

CLICK HERE, for SB-233: decriminalizing sex work.
scott.wiener.immunity.from.arrest.sex.workers

CLICK HERE, for SB-239: reduce penalties for spreading HIV.
scott.wiener.decriminalize.spreading.hiv

CLICK HERE, for SB-888: cash/vouchers to prevent drug use.
scott.wiener.cash.or.vouchers.for.addicts

CLICK HERE, for SB-932: LGBTQ reporting requirements.
scott.wiener.lgbtq.status.in.all.data.collection

3. Gaslighting Critics As Intolerant Bigots

Wiener has lashed out at critics to his various legislation, calling them homophobes and anti-Semites. Wiener is gay and Jewish, according to his background information, but that is not where the bulk of the hate comes from. His Bills “do” give a legitimate cause for concern, and this appears to be a way of deflecting from that.

4. SB-132: Male Inmates In Female Prisons

SB 132, as amended, Wiener. Corrections.
Existing law establishes the state prisons under the jurisdiction of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Existing law authorizes a person sentenced to imprisonment in the state prison or a county jail
for a felony to be, during the period of confinement, deprived of those rights, and only those rights, as is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests.

This bill would, commencing January 1, 2021, would require the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to, during initial intake and classification, and in a private setting, ask each individual entering into the custody of the department to specify the individual’s gender identity and sex assigned at birth, and, if the individual’s gender identity is different from their sex assigned at birth, whether the individual identifies as transgender, nonbinary, or intersex, and their gender pronoun and honorific. The bill would prohibit the department from disciplining a person for refusing to answer or not disclosing complete information in response to these questions. The bill would authorize a person under the jurisdiction of the department to update this information. The bill would prohibit staff and contractors staff, contractors, and volunteers of the department from failing to consistently use the gender pronoun and honorific an individual has specified in verbal and written communications with or regarding that individual that involve the use of a pronoun or honorific.

SB-132 would allow putting prison inmates in whichever prison they want, according to what they claim to be. Disturbingly, this would presumably cover male rapists and sex offenders being allowed into prisons with women. And yes, it also requires prison staff to use preferred pronouns.

5. SB-145: Sex Offender Registry, Gay Pedos

SB 145, Wiener. Sex offenders: registration.
Existing law, the Sex Offender Registration Act, requires a person convicted of one of certain crimes, as specified, to register with law enforcement as a sex offender while residing in California or while attending school or working in California, as specified. A willful failure to register, as required by the act, is a misdemeanor or felony, depending on the underlying offense. This bill would exempt from mandatory registration under the act a person convicted of certain offenses involving minors if the person is not more than 10 years older than the minor and if that offense is the only one requiring the person to register.

Scott Wiener claims there is a loophole, which mandates registry as a sex offender for certain acts, ones that straight couples would presumably not engage in. This Bill would remove the requirement for a Judge to designate the person as a sex offender if there is less than a 10 year age gap. In short, lower the age of the victim this would apply to. Instead of an exemption if the person is 18 years old, 15 to 17 year olds would now be included.

While Wiener may have a valid point, a far better option would be to RAISE the minimum age of the victim overall, not lower it.

Regular readers on this site will likely remember Part 17, and Part 18 of the series. This included lowering the age of consent for anal, and reducing the penalties for sex crimes against children in Canada.

Spoiler: it’s not homophobic to oppose letting adults have sex with children. It’s called being a decent person with some morals.

6. SB-201: Surgeries For Intersexed Children

SB 201, as amended, Wiener. Medical procedures: treatment or intervention: sex characteristics of a minor.
Under existing law, the Medical Practice Act, it is unprofessional conduct for a physician and surgeon to fail to comply with prescribed informed consent requirements relating to various medical procedures, including sterilization procedures, the removal of sperm or ova from a patient under specified circumstances, and the treatment of breast cancer. Any violation of the law relating to enforcement of the Medical Practice Act is a misdemeanor, as specified.

a person born with variations in their physical sex characteristics who is under 6 years of age unless the treatment or intervention is medically necessary. The bill, on or before December 1, 2021, would require the Medical Board of California, in consultation with specified persons and entities, to adopt regulations to determine which treatments and interventions on the sex characteristics of a person born with variations in their physical sex characteristics who is under 6 years of age are medically necessary, as specified. Any violation of these provisions would be subject to disciplinary action by the board, but not criminal prosecution.

SB-201 would make it much harder, if not impossible, for parents of intersex children to get them surgeries so as to better conform with 1 of the 2 genders. Interestingly, Wiener supports the rights of trans-children to do what they want to their bodies. However, parents apparently can’t be trusted to act in their best interests.

7. SB-233: Decriminalizing Sex Work (Hooking)

SB 233, Wiener. Immunity from arrest.
Existing law criminalizes various aspects of sex work, including soliciting anyone to engage in, or engaging in, lewd or dissolute conduct in a public place, loitering in a public place with the intent to commit prostitution, or maintaining a public nuisance. Existing law, the California Uniform Controlled Substances Act (CUCSA), also criminalizes various offenses relating to the possession, transportation, and sale of specified controlled substances.

This bill would prohibit the arrest of a person for a misdemeanor violation of the CUCSA or specified sex work crimes, if that person is reporting that they are a victim of, or a witness to, specified crimes. The bill would also state that possession of condoms in any amount does not provide a basis for probable cause for arrest for specified sex work crimes.

This Bill would decriminalize many minor aspects of sex work, and give immunity to prostitutes for more serious matters if they are reporting crimes to the police.

8. SB-239: No Longer A Felony To Spread HIV

(1) Existing law makes it a felony punishable by imprisonment for 3, 5,or 8 years in the state prison to expose another person to the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) by engaging in unprotected sexual activity when the infected person knows at the time of the unprotected sex that he or she is infected with HIV, has not disclosed his or her HIV-positive status, and acts with the specific intent to infect the other person with HIV. Existing law makes it a felony punishable by imprisonment for 2, 4, or 6 years for any person to donate blood, tissue, or, under specified circumstances, semen or breast milk, if the person knows that he or she has acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS), or that he or she has tested reactive to HIV. Existing law provides that a person who is afflicted with a contagious, infectious, or communicable disease who willfully exposes himself or herself to another person, or any person who willfully exposes another person afflicted with the disease to someone else, is guilty of a misdemeanor

This bill would repeal those provisions. The bill would instead make the intentional transmission of an infectious or communicable disease, as defined, a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than 6 months if certain circumstances apply, including that the defendant knows he or she or a 3rd party is afflicted with the disease, that the defendant acts with the specific intent to transmit or cause an afflicted 3rd party to transmit the disease to another person, that the defendant or the afflicted 3rd party engages in conduct that poses a substantial risk of transmission, as defined, that the defendant or the afflicted 3rd party transmits the disease to the other person, and if the exposure occurs through interaction with the defendant and not a 3rd party, that the person exposed to the disease during voluntary interaction with the defendant did not know that the defendant was afflicted with the disease. The bill would also make it a misdemeanor to attempt to intentionally transmit an infectious and communicable disease, as specified, punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than 90 days. This bill would make willful exposure to an infectious or communicable disease, as defined, a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than 6 months, and would prohibit a health officer, or a health officer’s designee, from issuing a maximum of 2 instructions to a defendant that would result in a violation of this provision. The bill would impose various requirements upon the court in order to prevent the public disclosure of the identifying characteristics, as defined, of the complaining witness and the defendant. By creating new crimes, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

In the notes provided, it shows that this bill would reduce the penalties from knowingly infecting someone with HIV from a 3, 5, or 8 year sentence (and a felony conviction), to a 6 month maximum (tried as a misdemeanor). It also prevents the publication of that offender. This effectively protects such predators, by ensuring that there aren’t real penalties. Check out the full text of the bill.

9. SB-888: Cash Or Vouchers For Meth Users

SB 888, as amended, Wiener. Birth certificates. Substance use disorder services: contingency management services.
Existing law provides for the Medi-Cal program, which is administered by the State Department of Health Care Services, and under which qualified low-income individuals receive health care services, including substance use disorder services that are delivered through the Drug Medi-Cal Treatment Program and the Drug Medi-Cal organized delivery system. The Medi-Cal program is, in part, governed and funded by federal Medicaid program provisions.

This bill would, to the extent funds are made available in the annual Budget Act, expand substance use disorder services to include contingency management services, subject to utilization controls. The bill would require the department to issue guidance and training to providers on their use of contingency management services for Medi-Cal beneficiaries who access substance use disorder services under any Medi-Cal delivery system, including the Drug Medi-Cal Treatment Program and the Drug Medi-Cal organized delivery system. The bill would provide that contingency management services are not a rebate, refund, commission preference, patronage dividend, discount, or any other gratuitous consideration. The bill would authorize the department to implement these provisions by various means, including provider bulletin, without taking regulatory action, and would condition the implementation of these provisions to the extent permitted by federal law, the availability of federal financial participation, and the department securing federal approval.

There was originally provisions to issue new birth certificates indicating whatever gender the person wanted, but that seems to have been removed. As the Bill stands, it would build into the budget, sums of money to help meth users, in the hopes they will get clean.

10. SB-932: Collecting LGBTQ Data Everywhere

SB 932, Wiener. Communicable diseases: data collection.
(1) Existing law requires the State Department of Public Health to establish a list of reportable communicable and
noncommunicable diseases and conditions and to specify the requirements for a health officer, as defined, to report each listed disease and condition. Existing law requires a health officer to report the listed diseases and conditions and to take other specified measures to prevent the spread of disease. A violation of these requirements imposed on a health officer is a crime. This bill would require any electronic tool used by a health officer, as defined, for the purpose of reporting cases of communicable diseases to the department, as specified, to include the capacity to collect and report data relating to sexual orientation and gender identity, thereby imposing a state-mandated local program. The bill would also require a health care provider, as defined, that knows of or is in attendance on a case or suspected case of specified communicable diseases to report to the health officer for the jurisdiction in which the patient resides the patient’s sexual orientation and gender identity, if known. Because a violation of these requirements by a health care provider or a health officer would be a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated-local program.

(2) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

(3) This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately
as an urgency statute

It’s not entirely clear why there would be this need to ask and record everyone’s gender, and who they sleep with. Perhaps it’s to play the victim, and get extra funding at some point.

11. California Has Bigger Problems

There are other Bills that Wiener has been involved with, of course. However, the above sample should demonstrate his priorities as a California State Senator.

Surely, California has far more important issues to deal with than the topics that Scott Wiener has drafted legislation for. The State is bankrupt, and flooded with illegal aliens, a crashed economy, and the social services are near collapse, but he doesn’t seem to care.

It’s not hard to see Wiener’s legislation is deliberate efforts to uproot social norms and to create chaos. There seems to be little to no concern for the long term consequences.

Wiener may not be a pedophile himself, but he certainly seems sympathetic to those who are.

12. Remember The Trudeau Liberals

The content of Scott Wiener’s Bills is shockingly similar to some of the efforts of the Trudeau Government. See here, here, and here.

Never forget, these are some of the crimes which Bill C-75 amended. They are now eligible to be tried summarily (misdemeanor), as opposed to it being mandatory to proceed by indictment (felony).

  • Section 58: Fraudulent use of citizenship
  • Section 159: Age of consent for anal sex
  • Section 172(1): Corrupting children
  • Section 173(1): Indecent acts
  • Section 180(1): Common nuisance
  • Section 182: Indecent interference or indignity to body
  • Section 210: Keeping common bawdy house
  • Section 211: Transporting to bawdy house
  • Section 242: Not getting help for childbirth
  • Section 243: Concealing the death of a child
  • Section 279.02(1): Material benefit – trafficking
  • Section 279.03(1): Withholding/destroying docs — trafficking
  • Section 279(2): Forcible confinement
  • Section 280(1): Abduction of child under age 16
  • Section 281: Abduction of child under age 14
  • Section 291(1): Bigamy
  • Section 293: Polygamy
  • Section 293.1: Forced marriage
  • Section 293.2: Child marriage
  • Section 295: Solemnizing marriage contrary to law
  • Section 435: Arson, for fraudulent purposes
  • Section 467.11(1): Participating in organized crime