Ontario Pharmacists Association: Getting Handouts From Ford, As They Push Bills 160/132

Melissa Lantsman helped get Doug Ford elected in 2018. She lists her position as the “War Room Director & Spokesperson” for the campaign. She left shortly after, and began lobbying the very Government she helped install. There are others who are in similar positions, as this topic has been addressed before.

The organization of interest here is the Ontario Pharmacists Association. They were involved in 2 pieces of legislation.

The first, Bill 160, was passed by the Wynne Government but never implemented. It would have forced disclosure of financial interests of doctors who received money to push certain drugs. While passed in Parliament, it was never given Royal Proclamation, and hence, has no legal effect. This was covered previously.

The second, Bill 132, repealed annual disclosure requirements for the Health Minister concerning drug programs. These reports were to be made publicly available. More on this later.

In recent years, there have been 6 documented meetings between the Ontario Government (both Liberal and Conservative Administrations), and the Ontario Pharmacists Association. According to the Registry, the OPA has also been receiving grants from the Government. This included $190,604 in the fiscal year of 2018, and another $381,200 in 2020.

  • Jonathan Sampson
  • Melissa Lantsman
  • Katie Heelis
  • Abid Malik
  • Morvarid Rohani
  • Carly Martin

Now, who are these people?

Jonathan Sampson was a high ranking bureaucrat with the Office of the Attorney General in Ontario, under both the Wynne and Ford Governments. He then joined Sussex Strategy Group and became a lobbyist.

Melissa Lantsman is currently a Director at the Michael Garron Hospital. This is where Michael Warner, the infamous lockdown doctor, also works.

Lantsman spent 3 years as a spokeswoman for the Foreign Affairs Office of Canada, and another 2 in the Finance Ministry, before getting into Ontario politics. She helped get Doug Ford elected in 2018, and is now running to be a Federal Candidate in the next election, whenever that is.

She was also one of several lobbyists for Walmart in 2020. She was trying to keep the retail giant open while others were allowed to die.

It doesn’t appear that Lantsman’s switching between politics and lobbying will be any issue. Amber Ruddy, the Secretary of the National Council of the CPC is an active pharma lobbyist. Erin O’Toole used to be a lobbyist for Facebook.

Katie Heelis used to be the “Issues Manager” for the Ontario Minister of Health, back under the regime of Kathleen Wynne. Afterwards, she became a lobbyist, taking on clients such as Shoppers Drug Mart.

Abid Malik spent several years working for the Ministry of Health under the regimes of McGuinty and Wynne. He moved on to lobbying, and is now an official at the Ontario Medical Association.

Carly Martin sort of went the other way. She a lobbyist, and later came to work for the Ford Government. Since July 2020, she has worked in the Cabinet Office, and presumably has direct access to Ford.

Getting back to the issue of Bill 132, what were the effects of passing it?

Bill 132 was an omnibus Bill (aren’t they all?) but buried in Schedule 11 was the notice that a part of the Ontario Drug Benefit Act would be repealed. This isn’t some minor thing, but has huge implications.

Lobbying Activity
Tell us about your current lobbying activity. Complete all that apply. You must choose at least one option:

Legislative proposal Yes

Describe your lobbying goal(s) in detail. What are you attempting to influence or accomplish as a result of your communications with Ontario public office holders?

OPA will be advocating for the removal of unnecessary regulatory burden in the pharmacy sector as defined as the goal through Bill 132, Better for People, Smarter for Business Act, 2019

Going through the records of the Lobby Registry, it’s explicitly stated that this was a reason for speaking to Public Officials. There’s no guesswork involved.

Executive officer
.
1.1 (1) The Lieutenant Governor in Council shall appoint an executive officer for the Ontario public drug programs. 2006, c. 14, s. 7.
.
Functions and powers
.
(2) Subject to this Act and the regulations, it is the function of the executive officer, and he or she has the power, to perform any functions or duties that he or she may have under this Act and the regulations, under the Drug Interchangeability and Dispensing Fee Act and its regulations and under any other Act or regulation, and without in any way restricting the generality of the foregoing,
.
(a) to administer the Ontario public drug programs;
(b) to keep, maintain and publish the Formulary;
(c) to make this Act apply in respect of the supplying of drugs that are not listed drug products as provided for in section 16;
(d) to designate products as listed drug products, listed substances and designated pharmaceutical products for the purposes of this Act, and to remove or modify those designations;
(e) to designate products as interchangeable with other products under the Drug Interchangeability and Dispensing Fee Act, and to remove or modify those designations;
(f) to negotiate agreements with manufacturers of drug products, agree with manufacturers as to the drug benefit price of listed drug products, negotiate drug benefit prices for listed substances with suppliers, and set drug benefit prices for designated pharmaceutical products;
(g) to require any information that may or must be provided to the executive officer under this Act or the regulations or any other Act or regulation to be in a format that is satisfactory to the executive officer;
(h) to make payments under the Ontario public drug programs;
(i) to establish clinical criteria under section 23; and
(j) to pay operators of pharmacies for professional services, and to determine the amount of such payments subject to the prescribed conditions, if any. 2006, c. 14, s. 7.
.
Report
.
(3) In every year,
(a) the executive officer shall make a report in writing to the Minister concerning the Ontario drug programs; and
(b) the Minister shall publish the report within 30 days of receiving it. 2006, c. 14, s. 7

This is how the Ontario Drug Benefit Act used to look. See the archive. However, the passage of Bill 132 repealed 1.1(3) which would have forced annual reporting to the Health Minister.

Also noteworthy: those annual reports would have been made public by law. That is not the case, as the pharmaceutical industry seems to oppose such transparency. Of course, this is done under the guise of eliminating burdens on businesses. The truth is never clearly stated.

And Bill 132 (which Wynne and Ford never fully enacted), would have forced disclosure of payments when it came to pushing medications. Have to wonder who they really work for.

(1) http://lobbyist.oico.on.ca/Pages/Public/PublicSearch/
(2) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/advSrch
(3) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/advSrch?V_SEARCH.command=navigate&time=1623728162394
(4) https://archive.is/cZVsT
(5) https://www.linkedin.com/in/jonathan-sampson/
(6) https://www.linkedin.com/in/melissalantsman/
(7) https://archive.is/VsG0V
(8) https://www.linkedin.com/in/katieheelis/
(9) https://archive.is/GIOQ0
(10) https://www.linkedin.com/in/abidmalikto/
(11) https://archive.is/7P9lC
(12) https://www.linkedin.com/in/carly-martin/
(13) https://www.ola.org/en/legislative-business/bills/parliament-42/session-1/bill-132#BK14
(14) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-o10/132589/rso-1990-c-o10.html
(15) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-o10/latest/rso-1990-c-o10.html

British Fertility Society Promotes Vaccines, Funded By Big Pharma

A few months ago, the British Fertility Society published a paper saying that there were no concerns about vaccination pregnant women, or women who were soon to become pregnant. Or even egg or sperm donors.

Should people of reproductive age receive a Covid-19 vaccine?
.
Yes.
People of reproductive age are advised to have the vaccine when they receive their invitation for vaccination. This includes those who are trying to have a baby as well as those who are thinking about having a baby, whether that is in the near future or in a few years’ time.

Can any of the Covid-19 vaccines affect fertility?
.
No.
There is absolutely no evidence, and no theoretical reason, that any of the vaccines can affect the fertility of women or men.

Can I have a Covid-19 vaccine during my fertility treatment (IVF, Frozen Embryo Transfer, Egg Freezing, Ovulation Induction, Intra-Uterine Insemination, using donated gametes or not)?
.
Yes.
You may wish to consider the timing of having a Covid-19 vaccine during your fertility treatment, taking into account that some people may get bothersome side effects in the few days after vaccination that they do not want to have during treatment. These include for example, tenderness at the injection site, fever, headache, muscle ache or feeling tired. It may be sensible to separate the date of vaccination by a few days from some treatment procedures (for example, egg collection in IVF), so that any symptoms, such as fever, might be attributed correctly to the vaccine or the treatment procedure. Your medical team will be able to advise you about the best time for your situation.

Should I delay my fertility treatment until after I have had the Covid-19 vaccine?
.
The only reason to consider delaying fertility treatment until after you have been vaccinated would be if you wanted to be protected against Covid-19 before you were pregnant. The chance of successful treatment is unlikely to be affected by a short delay, for example of up to 6 months, particularly if you are 37 years of age or younger. However, delays of several months may affect your chance of success once you are over 37 and especially if you are 40 years of age or older.

How soon after having a Covid-19 vaccine can I start my fertility treatment?
.
Immediately – you do not need to delay your fertility treatment, unless you wish to have your second dose before pregnancy (see above).

I had a positive pregnancy test today. Can I still have a Covid-19 vaccine?
.
If you are in a risk category for Covid-19, either because of the potential for exposure at work or medical issues, you can still have the vaccine in pregnancy. If you have no increased risks for Covid-19, the Joint Committee on Vaccination & Immunisation (JCVI) have advised that you delay it until after pregnancy. There is no reason to believe that any of the Covid-19 vaccines would be harmful, but their effects in pregnancy have not yet been fully investigated. The information that is known is reassuring. None of the vaccines contain live virus and so there is no risk that the pregnant woman or her baby could get Covid-19 from the vaccine. For further information on vaccination in pregnancy, see the information produced by the Royal College of Obstetricians & Gynaecologists [https://www.rcog.org.uk/en/news/updated-adviceon-covid-19-vaccination-in-pregnancy-and-women-who-are-breastfeeding/]. The health care professional looking after you in pregnancy will be able to advise you taking into account your individual risk.

I am donating my eggs/sperm for the use of others. Can I still have a Covid-19 vaccine?
.
Yes.
Covid-19 vaccines do not contain any virus and so you cannot pass on Covid-19 by receiving the vaccine. The Human Fertilisation & Embryology Authority have stated that you must allow at least 7 days from the most recent vaccination prior to donating eggs or sperm. If the donor feels unwell after the vaccination, they must not donate for 7 days after their symptoms have got better [https://www.hfea.gov.uk/treatments/covid-19-and-fertility-treatment/].

Not only can prospective couples get the vaxx, they can donate eggs and sperm as well, with no risk to the new hosts. While that certainly sounds strange enough, the document is ended with the following disclaimer. Of course, it’s in the fine print, and is difficult to read.

Disclaimer
This FAQ document represents the views of ARCS/BFS, which were reached after careful consideration of the scientific evidence available at the time of preparation. In the absence of scientific evidence on certain aspects, a consensus between the Executive teams and other members has been obtained. ARCS/BFS are not liable for damages related to the use of the information contained herein. We cannot guarantee correctness, completeness or accuracy of the guidance in every respect. Please be aware that the evidence and advice for COVID-19 vaccines for those trying to achieve a pregnancy or those who are pregnant already is rapidly developing and the latest data or best practice may not yet be incorporated into the current version of this document. ARCS and BFS recommend that patients always seek the advice of their local centre if they have any concerns.

This group hedges its statements as well. They claim that there is no risk (or even theoretical risk) to a pregnant woman, while still saying more research needs to be done. That alone should be enough reason to walk away.

Apparently, there is no theoretical reason to be worried about vaccines and pregnancy, however, the evidence is always changing. And these people assume no liability for anything they say to you. Things start to become clear when it’s known who funds the BFS. It’s even more transparent in that BFS had some of their work signal boosted by the Vaccine Confidence Project.

In fact, there are a lot of groups working together to promote the mass vaccination agenda globally. These are just a few of them:

  • World Health Organization
  • Imperial College London
  • Vaccine Impact Modelling Consortium
  • London School Of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine
  • Vaccine Confidence Project
  • GAVI – Global Vaccine Alliance
  • IFFIm – International Finance Facility for Immunization
  • Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
  • UN Verified Initiative
  • Team Halo

Team Halo partially explains the relationship between the groups as follows:

Team Halo was established as part of the United Nations Verified Initiative in partnership with The Vaccine Confidence Project at the University of London’s School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. It is proud to collaborate with the Vaccine Alliance and GAVI. Support is provided by Luminate and IKEA Foundation.

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation directly (or indirectly) finances: WHO; GAVI; Imperial College London; London School for Hygiene & Tropical Medicine; Vaccine Confidence Project; Vaccine Impact Modelling Consortium; the BBC; the US CDC; and countless drug companies.

Imperial College London became notorious for the doomsday modelling of Neil Ferguson, nicknamed “Dr. Lockdown”, owing to his wild predictions about death waves that never materialize.

GAVI was started up in 1999, in large part because of a $750 million grant from the Gates Foundation. GAVI coordinates spreading its concoctions around the world. It also coordinates a funding scam with the International Finance Facility for Immunizations (IFFIm). Here countries make pledges of donations, which are then converted into “vaccine bonds“.

The Vaccine Confidence Project is part of the London School for Hygiene & Tropical Medicine. In addition to getting money from Gates, they receive contributions from major pharmaceutical companies.

These examples are by no means exhaustive, but they show just how interconnected these groups are. We are at the point where fertility organizations are funded by pharmaceutical companies, and advise that there is no risk to their future children. Remember: they are all in this together.

(1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98NA3nQBBLc
(2) https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCVQJ9BADJ9btFc8G0eNE9wg
(3) https://twitter.com/BritFertSoc
(4) https://www.britishfertilitysociety.org.uk/
(5) https://www.britishfertilitysociety.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Covid19-Vaccines-FAQ-1_3.pdf
(6) British Fertility Society Recommends Vaccines
(7) https://www.britishfertilitysociety.org.uk/about/sponsorship/
(8) https://www.britishfertilitysociety.org.uk/about/corporate-membership/
(9) https://www.vaccineconfidence.org
(10) https://www.vaccineconfidence.org/partners-funders
(11) https://www.un.org/en/coronavirus/%E2%80%98verified%E2%80%99-initiative-aims-flood-digital-space-facts-amid-covid-19-crisis
(12) https://www.un.int/news/un%E2%80%99s-verified-initiative-encourages-us-take-%E2%80%98pause%E2%80%99
(13) https://covidtrials.ca/
(14) https://archive.is/VKc0M
(15) https://www.thinkresearch.com/ca/
(16) https://www.thinkresearch.com/ca/2021/01/18/think-research-announces-appointment-of-dr-eric-hoskins-former-ontario-health-minister-to-board-of-directors/
(17) https://canucklaw.ca/cv-18-ottawa-sends-iffim-money-for-vaccine-bonds-gavi-gpei-grants/
(18) https://airmedtrials.com/
(19) https://canucklaw.ca/cv-24-gates-financing-of-imperial-college-london-and-their-modelling/
(20) https://canucklaw.ca/cv-24b-london-school-of-hygiene-tropical-medicine-more-modelling-financed-by-gates/
(21) https://canucklaw.ca/cv-24c-vaccine-impact-modelling-consortium-more-bogus-science/
(22) https://canucklaw.ca/cv-24d-heidi-larson-lshtm-vcp-vaxxing-pregnant-women-financed-by-big-pharma/
(23) https://canucklaw.ca/cv-27c-share-verified-uses-emotional-manipulation-selective-truth-to-promote-narrative/

Executives Of Public Health “Charities” Drawing Huge Salaries To Lock You Down

It seems that most, if not all, of these “public health” organizations are actually registered charities. This is likely structured that way to encourage private donations. After all, a person isn’t really making the entire payment if they are submitting receipts to the Canada Revenue Agency.

While this article starts off with the Nova Scotia Health Authority, the pattern here can be applied to its counterparts elsewhere.

Looking at the most recent tax information available, the NSHA took in some $2.5 billion in revenues, and approximately 90% of it was Government (or rather taxpayer) funded. Approximately 10% came from some other sources. Also makes one wonder what “other sources” could be, if it isn’t gifts, donations (with or without a receipt), or Government money.

As for the expenses, administrative costs is a pretty self explanatory title. However, 92%, presumably what was spent on health care, is actually listed as “charitable programs”. $1.7 billion was spent on salaries, and $24.5 million on consulting fees.

By the way, whatever happened to that $83 million classified as “other” spending? Did it end up in someone’s pocket, or some offshore bank account?

[March 2016] Compensated full-time positions:
$250,000 to $299,999: 7
$300,000 to $349,999: 1
$350,000 and over: 2
.
[March 2017] Compensated full-time positions:
$200,000 to $249,999: 6
$250,000 to $299,999: 3
$300,000 to $349,999: 1
.
[March 2018] Compensated full-time positions:
$200,000 to $249,999: 5
$250,000 to $299,999: 3
$300,000 to $349,999: 1
$350,000 and over: 1
.
[March 2019] Compensated full-time positions:
$200,000 to $249,999: 3
$250,000 to $299,999: 6
$350,000 and over: 1
.
[March 2020] Compensated full-time positions:
$200,000 to $249,999: 3
$250,000 to $299,999: 4
$300,000 to $349,999: 2
$350,000 and over: 1

It certainly seems that the executives were paid very well for what they do. And nothing screams competent quite like locking down an entire Province for a year (and counting). No one has been fired, or forced onto CERB or EI.

Never forget that tyrants like Rankin and Strang are willing to use secret court hearings in order to shut down the ability of people to peacefully voice their unhappiness.

Just a thought: perhaps the groups who are so interested in lobbying the Nova Scotia Government to buy large quantities of their products are also making donations to the NS Health Authority. It may be worth considering.

This is hardly limited to Nova Scotia. Taking a look at the tax records of the British Columbia Provincial Health Services Authority, BCPHSA, we get this:

[March 2016] Compensated full-time positions:
$200,000 to $249,999: 2
$250,000 to $299,999: 6
$300,000 to $349,999: 1
$350,000 and over: 1
.
[March 2017] Compensated full-time positions:
$200,000 to $249,999: 1
$250,000 to $299,999: 7
$300,000 to $349,999: 1
$350,000 and over: 1
.
[March 2018] Compensated full-time positions:
$200,000 to $249,999: 3
$250,000 to $299,999: 6
$350,000 and over: 1
.
[March 2019] Compensated full-time positions:
$350,000 and over: 10
.
[March 2020] Compensated full-time positions:
$350,000 and over: 10

Next we turn to Alberta Health Services. Remember, Jason Kenney is a “conservative” and claims to support freedom. As for the people running the AHS, it’s interesting that there are always 10 people listed. Or perhaps it just refers to the top 10 earners.

[March 2016] Compensated full-time positions:
$350,000 and over: 10
.
[March 2017] Compensated full-time positions:
$350,000 and over: 10
.
[March 2018] Compensated full-time positions:
$350,000 and over: 10
.
[March 2019] Compensated full-time positions:
$350,000 and over: 10
.
[March 2020] Compensated full-time positions:
$350,000 and over: 10

The Saskatchewan Health Authority is no better, paying its top executives more than $350,000 each. They also support lockdowns, and pushing experimental poison on their citizens. Way to promote public health.

[March 2016] Compensated full-time positions:
$350,000 and over: 10
.
[March 2017] Compensated full-time positions:
$350,000 and over: 10
.
[March 2018] Compensated full-time positions:
$350,000 and over: 10
.
[March 2019] Compensated full-time positions:
$350,000 and over: 10
.
[March 2020] Compensated full-time positions:
$350,000 and over: 10

Next up is the Winnipeg Regional Health Authority, which is separate from the Manitoba Government, although subjected to the rules imposed Provincially.

[March 2016] Compensated full-time positions:
$350,000 and over: 10
.
[March 2017] Compensated full-time positions:
$350,000 and over: 10
.
[March 2018] Compensated full-time positions:
$350,000 and over: 10
.
[March 2019] Compensated full-time positions:
$350,000 and over: 10
.
[March 2020] Compensated full-time positions:
$350,000 and over: 10

Anyone notice a pattern here? The top executives are making large amounts of money, often in excess of $300,000 per year. While others are told that their jobs and businesses are “non-essential”, the decision makers are still drawing their salaries. There hasn’t been a single notice of such a person getting laid off. The damage they cause seems to be irrelevant.

See what else is listed as a charity.
It’s quite surprising.

Depending on the Province, and amount given, tax rebates are possible in the area of around 50%. This means that the public will be subsidizing these “donations”.

Remember that $5 million donation from the Como Foundation to Trillium Health Partners? Como is a company whose business skyrocketed after mask mandates were imposed. The Canadian public, and in particular, Ontarians, will be picking up the tab.

As a final thought, it’s not just health care institutions that are structured as charities. Countless colleges and universities are either structured the same way, or have a foundation that is. Every time they get donations, the public is forced to subsidize it.

And it’s worth pointing out, many schools receive grants from pharmaceutical companies. Sometimes it’s in the form of scholarships, sometimes as research funding.

(1) Nova Scotia Health Authority Charity Page
(2) https://novascotia.ca/sns/Lobbyist/default.asp
(3) BC Provincial Health Services Authority
(4) BCCDC Foundation For Population & Public Health
(5) Alberta Health Services
(6) Saskatchewan Health Authority
(7) Winnipeg Regional Health Authority
(8) https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/charities-giving/giving-charity-information-donors/claiming-charitable-tax-credits/charitable-donation-tax-credit-rates.html

AstraZeneca Maker, Emergent BioSolutions, Lobbying All Federal Parties

Parliament Hill in Ottawa is an absolute cesspool. It’s ripe with corruption, and is run by dishonest people. Here is at least part of the reason they keep pushing experimental vaccines on Canadians.

Not limited to Ontario or Ottawa, this lobbying is happening out in the West as well. Learn who Jean-Marc Prevost really is.

From this earlier piece, it’s shown that Amber Ruddy, the Secretary of the National Council of the Conservative Party of Canada is an ACTIVE lobbyist. It doesn’t prevent her from running the fundraising arm of the so-called “Official Opposition”.

This is not limited to the so-called “Conservatives”. This sort of conflict of interest exists in other parties as well.

Bridget Howe worked for the Liberal Party of Canada for years. She even helped Trudeau get re-elected. Then in January 2020, she moved over to Counsel Public Affairs and started working as a lobbyist. She is not alone either.

Sheamus Murphy worked for the Ontario (Liberal) Government, and for the Federal Liberals while in opposition. It seems that his work for Emergent BioSolutions actually dates back to 2017, so he’s been shilling for a while.

In August 2017, Ben Parsons went from being a Senior Advisor for the Liberal Party of Canada, to a lobbyist for Counsel Public Affairs. That certainly didn’t take long.

Brad Lavigne actually used to run the Federal NDP back in the days of Jack Layton. Now, he shills for the very same corporations he once pretended he opposed.

This sort of thing is hardly an isolated incident. Some more of the corruption that lobbying is:

But don’t worry. If all else fails, simply vote for the PPC. Surely, Maxime Bernier will stand up to the pharmaceutical industry, and do what he can to protect Canadians.

On second thought, maybe those high profile lawsuits will work instead. After all, a defense is expected to be filed any day now.

(1) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/advSrch
(2) https://counselpa.com/
(3) https://www.linkedin.com/in/bridgethowe/
(4) https://archive.is/S6B9i
(5) https://www.linkedin.com/in/brad-lavigne-a0927a39/
(6) https://archive.is/rTfrK
(7) https://www.linkedin.com/in/sheamusmurphy/
(8) https://archive.is/zghs1
(9) https://www.linkedin.com/in/benparso/

Canadian Pharmaceutical Sciences Foundation A Registered Charity Funded By Drug Companies

The Canadian Society for Pharmaceutical Sciences (CSPS) is an NGO devoted to advancing drug research in Canada. It also states it wants to be “involved with the [political] decision making process. The Canadian Pharmaceutical Sciences Foundation (CPFS) appears to be the fundraising arm of the CSPS. The Foundation is a registered charity with the Canada Revenue Agency.

The CPFS was received its status as a charity in 2018. From that point on, any donations made would be eligible for taxpayer funded rebates of around 50%.

As pointed out in the previous article, there is a reason public health groups are often set up as charities. It makes private interest groups more likely to donate, since the taxpayers end up subsidizing a good chunk of these contributions.

According to its website, the The specific goals of the CSPS are:

  • To advocate excellence in pharmaceutical research
  • To promote allocation of funds for pharmaceutical research
  • To be involved in decision and policy making processes at the government level

On the surface, this doesn’t seem so bad. But this is where things get sticky: the big donors to the CSPS are pharmaceutical companies. In other words, the organization calling for (a) better pharma research; (b) more funding for research; and (c) being involved with the policy decisions gets money from drug makers.

Doesn’t this come across as a bit of a conflict of interest?

LATINUM SPONSORS

  • Roche
  • University of Alberta

GOLD SPONSORS

  • Abbvie
  • AstraZeneca
  • Boehringer Ingelheim
  • Gilead
  • Janssen
  • Innovative Medicines Canada
  • Merck
  • Pendant Biosciences

SILVER SPONSORS

  • Waters

BRONZE SPONSORS

  • Advanced Polymer Materials
  • Aphria
  • Avicanna
  • Bayer
  • CDRD
  • CJPP
  • Dalhousie U
  • Dynacare
  • IMV
  • IPAC
  • Pfizer
  • Precision Rx-Dx
  • London HSC
  • Children’s Hospital
  • Northernchem
  • Panag
  • SickKids
  • Schulich Medicine & Dentistry, Western U
  • University of Toronto Leslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy
  • U of Toronto Physiology & Pharmacology

A/V SPONSOR

  • PSAV

Taking a look at their 2018 conference newsletter, it’s revealed that major drug companies (including household names) are top sponsors. Pharma research is being promoted and funded … by the very companies who stand to profit from the sales of those products. Remember, CSPS wants to be involved in the decision making process.

As for their 2017 conference sponsors, well, you probably get the idea by now. It’s funded by interested parties.

The CSPS offers an undergraduate award to all pharmacy schools in Canada. There is also a GSK early career award. The University of Alberta also offers a “poster award” for the most innovative poster presentation, based on scientific discovery.

Do as you will, but understand where pharma research money is really coming from. A lot of it is from drug companies, getting tax breaks on the backs of the public.

(1) https://www.cspscanada.org/
(2) https://www.cspscanada.org/canadian-pharmaceutical-sciences-foundation-2/
(3) https://www.cspscanada.org/about-csps/mission-vision/
(4) https://www.cspscanada.org/symposium-events/awards/research-program-awards/
(5) https://www.cspscanada.org/symposium-events/awards/csps-awards/early-career-award/
(6) https://www.cspscanada.org/symposium-events/awards/poster-awards/
(7) https://apps.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/hacc/srch/pub/chrt
(8) https://www.cspscanada.org/?s=sponsors
(9) CSPS Conference Sponsors 2012
(10) CSPS Conference Sponsors 2014
(11) CSPS Conference Sponsors 2015
(12) CSPS Conference Sponsors 2016
(13) CSPS Conference Sponsors 2017
(14) CSPS Newsletter 2016 Fall Edition
(15) CSPS Newsletter 2017 Fall Edition
(16) CSPS Newsletter 2018 Fall Edition

BC Centre For Disease Control Foundation Is Registered Charity, With Pharma Funding

According to the Canada Revenue Agency, the BCCDC Foundation — British Columbia Centre for Disease Control Foundation — is actually a registered charity. It’s located at 1500-1090 West Georgia Street in vancouver, while the BCCDC (the body) is at 655 W 12th Ave, Vancouver.

The BCCDC Foundation appears to be the fundraising branch of the agency, though it appears to have the same goals.

It turns out that a lot of these “public health” agencies are registered charities, accepting private money. However, more on that later.

Looking at their annual reports, some of the same names keep coming up in terms of partners and donors. Several are pharmaceutical companies.

As disturbing as it sounds, the BCCDC Foundation routinely lists pharmaceutical companies as being major partners and donors in its annual reports. Check out the most recent ones available below.

The BCCDC Foundation is hardly alone in being a registered charity, and accepting donations from private interests. In fact, a check with Canada Revenue Agency reveals that this is normal.

BC Provincial Health Services Authority
Alberta Health Services

Pardon the earlier oversight, but these “public” groups are in fact registered charities, as are countless others of their counterparts. More on that later.

Unfortunately, the publicly available information with the CRA doesn’t list the dollar amounts of contributors. However, it does give insight as to where the money is spent, including giving to “qualified donee”.

2015 to 2016 Donations From BCCDC Foundation
Qualified donee # 1
Name of organization: University of British Columbia
Associated charity: No
Business number/Registration number: 108161779RR0001
City: VANCOUVER
Province/Territory: BC
Amounts of non-cash gifts:
Total amount of gifts: CAN$ 111,663.00

Qualified donee # 2
Name of organization: PROVINCIAL HEALTH SERVICES AUTHORITY
Associated charity: No
Business number/Registration number: 863530135RR0001
City: VANCOUVER
Province/Territory: BC
Amounts of non-cash gifts:
Total amount of gifts: CAN$ 1,084,366.00

2016 to 2017 Donations From BCCDC Foundation
Qualified donee # 1
Name of organization: University of British Columbia
Associated charity: No
Business number/Registration number: 108161779RR0001
City: VANCOUVER
Province/Territory: BC
Amounts of non-cash gifts:
Total amount of gifts: CAN$ 141,967.00
Was any part of the gift intended for political activities?

Qualified donee # 2
Name of organization: PROVINCIAL HEALTH SERVICES AUTHORITY
Associated charity: No
Business number/Registration number: 863530135RR0001
City: VANCOUVER
Province/Territory: BC
Amounts of non-cash gifts:
Total amount of gifts: CAN$ 706,762.00
Was any part of the gift intended for political activities? No

Qualified donee # 3
Name of organization: BRITISH COLUMBIA CENTRE FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION
Associated charity: No
Business number/Registration number: 851838730RR0001
City: VANCOUVER
Province/Territory: BC
Amounts of non-cash gifts:
Total amount of gifts: CAN$ 41,972.00
Was any part of the gift intended for political activities?

2017 to 2018 Donations From BCCDC Foundation
Qualified donee # 1
Name of organization: UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
Associated charity: No
Business number/Registration number: 108161779RR0001
City: VANCOUVER
Province/Territory: BC
Amounts of non-cash gifts:
Total amount of gifts: CAN$ 135,274.00
Was any part of the gift intended for political activities? No

Qualified donee # 2
Name of organization: PROVINCIAL HEALTH SERVICES AUTHORITY
Associated charity: No
Business number/Registration number: 863530135RR0001
City: VANCOUVER
Province/Territory: BC
Amounts of non-cash gifts:
Total amount of gifts: CAN$ 426,016.00
Was any part of the gift intended for political activities? No

Qualified donee # 3
Name of organization: BRITISH COLUMBIA CENTRE FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION
Associated charity: No
Business number/Registration number: 851838730RR0001
City: VANCOUVER
Province/Territory: BC
Amounts of non-cash gifts:
Total amount of gifts: CAN$ 15,300.00
Was any part of the gift intended for political activities? No

2018 to 2019 Donations From BCCDC Foundation
Qualified donee # 1
Name of organization: University of British Columbia
Associated charity: No
Business number/Registration number: 108161779RR0001
City: VANCOUVER
Province/Territory: BC
Amounts of non-cash gifts:
Total amount of gifts: CAN$ 58,714.00
Was any part of the gift intended for political activities? No

Qualified donee # 2
Name of organization: PROVINCIAL HEALTH SERVICES AUTHORITY
Associated charity: No
Business number/Registration number: 863530135RR0001
City: VANCOUVER
Province/Territory: BC
Amounts of non-cash gifts:
Total amount of gifts: CAN$ 290,267.00
Was any part of the gift intended for political activities? No

2019 to 2020 Donations From BCCDC Foundation
Qualified donee # 1
Name of organization: PROVINCIAL HEALTH SERVICES AUTHORITY
Associated charity: No
Business number/Registration number: 863530135RR0001
City: VANCOUVER
Province/Territory: BC
Amounts of non-cash gifts:
Total amount of gifts: CAN$ 588,553.00

Qualified donee # 2
Name of organization: COMMUNITY-BASED RESEARCH CENTRE SOCIETY
Associated charity: No
Business number/Registration number: 882078124RR0001
City: VANCOUVER
Province/Territory: BC
Amounts of non-cash gifts:
Total amount of gifts: CAN$ 8,341.00

Qualified donee # 3
Name of organization: UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
Associated charity: No
Business number/Registration number: 108161779RR0001
City: VANCOUVER
Province/Territory: BC
Amounts of non-cash gifts:
Total amount of gifts: CAN$ 89,225.00

Qualified donee # 4
Name of organization: PHA PUBLIC HEALTH ASSOCIATION OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
Associated charity: No
Business number/Registration number: 118818830RR0002
City: VICTORIA
Province/Territory: BC
Amounts of non-cash gifts:
Total amount of gifts: CAN$ 74,626.00

It’s interesting to see that UBC (University of British Columbia) and the BCPHSA (BC Provincial Health Services Authority are the main recipients of money raised by the BCCDC Foundation. The BCPHSA is also a registered charity, and it receives more money from this charity.

The implication is also that UBC, the BCPHSA and the BCCDC are indirectly receiving donations from pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer. That wouldn’t impact the medical guidance it offers, would it?

As an aside, the BCCDC Foundation is also quite heavily into the social justice and anti-racism narrative. Course, that just means that white mean are oppressing everyone else. This institution also supports the whole SOGI (sexual orientation and gender identity) movement. This is quite the irony, and most minorities are absolutely put off by deviancies these groups push.

The BCCDC Foundation also misrepresents the status of these vaccines in Canada. They were never approved, but given interim authorization, under the guise of being an emergency. These are not the same thing. It’s interesting (though not surprising) that they are funding vaccine research by people from the same institutions they help finance.

And if that isn’t weird or creepy enough, testing and vaccinating cats may soon be on the horizon. Perhaps once the human trials are complete we can start on animals.

The Foundation also works with Genome BC, and one of their major projects is mapping out how vaccine effects can be measured according to genetic makeup. On some level intriguing, but it’s also pretty creepy.

This moment is brought to you by big pharma.

However, it’s a little unclear. Is the BCCDC FINANCING UBC and the BCPHSA, or are they receiving donations from them? Or is money going back and forth?

All of this raises an interesting question. BC Provincial Health Officer, Bonnie Henry, used to run the BCCDC. It’s now getting pharma bucks from companies like Pfizer, who have a financial stake in promoting this pandemic narrative. Is this a conflict of interest for her?

Jennifer Gardy (a Director), used to be an official for the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, but that isn’t really relevant, is it?

Then again, she had no problem with putting an exemption into her orders to accommodate a Keremeos winery that she co-owned.

There also doesn’t seem to be any issue, with her former handler, Jean-Marc Prevost, accepting a job with Counsel Public Affairs to lobby on behalf of Emergent Biosciences. This is the manufacturer of AstraZeneca.

Now, this is too long to address in a single post, but many of the Provincial or Municipal “Health Authorities” are actually registered charities. See here, for some of them.

Why structure all of these as charities? One obvious answer is to make it more likely for others to donate. After all, a charitable contribution typically results in a tax rebate of around 50%. That means taxpayers are subsidizing these donations. So when companies like Pfizer, Merck and GSK are donating to the BCCDC Foundation, it means the public is partially paying for it.

(1) https://apps.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/hacc/srch/pub/dsplyBscSrch
(2) https://apps.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/hacc/srch/pub/dsplyRprtngPrd?q.srchNm=bccdc&q.stts=0007&selectedCharityBn=861277309RR0001&dsrdPg=1
(3) https://apps.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/hacc/srch/pub/dsplyRprtngPrd?q.srchNm=provincial+health&q.stts=0007&selectedCharityBn=863530135RR0001&dsrdPg=1
(4) https://bccdcfoundation.org/
(5) https://bccdcfoundation.org/a-new-partnership-to-fund-priority-research-on-covid-19-vaccination-in-bc/
(6) https://bccdcfoundation.org/all-resources/decoding-public-health/
(7) https://bccdcfoundation.org/sexual-orientation-and-gender-identity-and-expression-conversion-efforts-sogiece-dialogue-event-and-research/
(8) https://bccdcfoundation.org/cats-needed-for-covid-19-and-cats-study/
(9) BCCDCF Annual Report 2013-14 Final Report
(10) BCCDCF Annual Report 2014-15 Final Report
(11) BCCDCF Annual Report 2015-16 Final Report
(12) BCCDCF Annual Report 2016-17 Final Report
(13) BCCDCF Annual Report 2017-18 Final Report
(14) BCCDCF Annual Report 2018-19 Final Report
(15) https://twitter.com/BCCDCFoundation
(16) https://twitter.com/GenomeBC
(17) https://twitter.com/msfhr/status/1395417138723049472