Drugs/Alcohol – Page 5

July 22, 2021August 4, 2021

Ford Still Lobbied By Political Operatives On Behalf Of Vaccine Companies

This is just the latest installment of the ongoing series: “Who’s pulling Doug Ford’s strings?” And in a twist that should surprise no one, it’s more of big pharma. This time, it’s AstraZeneca and GlaxoSmithKline.

The GSK listings here came up with 1 useful name, while there were a few with AZ. It must also be said, that this industry has been going on for a long time.

Nadia Yee worked as a manager for GlaxoSmithKline for several years. Her role was to get more drugs out to the public. She is currently a Senior Manager for AstraZeneca. Before becoming a drug lobbyist, she worked in the Government of Mike Harris/Ernie Eves, the “Conservatives” in power before Ford.

Jon Feairs started off in the Interim Program in the Ontario Legislature. He then went to work for M.P.P. Mike Gravelle (a Liberal). He then went on to hold several roles in the Government under McGuinty and Wynne.

Ryan Lock held several roles in different Ministries of the Liberal Governments of Wynne/McGuinty, before he joined GlaxoSmithKline in 2016. More examples of the revolving door.

Since we last checked in on Jessica Georgakopoulos, she has done more lobbying including for GSK. Keep in mind, she worked in Ford’s Office, and was his “Covid Communications Director” for a time. It’s not like she was close to the Premier and access to him, or anything like that.

Keep in mind, while other lobbyists may not have officially held roles in the Governments they seek to infleunce, companies like AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, and others, all have dedicated marketing and sales teams to pitch their products to public.

What else is going on lately?

Susan Baker spent nearly a decade in the Ontario Ministry of Health, and would have served under Liberal, NDP and Conservative rule. She now lobbies for Innovative Medicines Canada

Conrad Bellehumeur spent years working for the Government of Canada before becoming a lobbyist for IM Canada. Considering how many politicians switch between Provincial and Federal, it would be interesting to know who he associates with.

Anne-Sophie Belzile was an Advisor to the Canadian Senate, and Advisor the Liberal Party of Canada, and worked for Martha Hall Findley.

There has also been some recent activity on behalf of Pfizer. Let’s see who is behind all of that.

Steven Hogue spent several years working for the Liberal Government of Jean Chretien, prior to him becoming a lobbyist for Pfizer. It seems that it’s paid off.

Alexis Sciuk took a different path. Although she doesn’t have connections to politicians listed, she has been in the Canadian media for quite a while

Gillian (Zimmerman) Kennedy was a Senior Policy Advisor and Strategist for the Ontario Government when Dalton McGuinty was Premier. Now, she works for the pharma industry.

What can we expect from all of this? More lockdowns? More shots or boosters needed? Ever get the sense that Ford is just along for the ride? If you haven’t figured out by now that Ford is a tool for the drug lobby, you haven’t been paying attention.

July 20, 2021October 12, 2021

BCOHRC Deliberately Misrepresents Basic Information In Vaccination “Guidance”

The following piece comes from a “guidance document” that the BC Office of the Human Rights Commissioner recently published. In short, people CAN lose their jobs or livelihood.

To be clear, the Government won’t mandate this for B.C. That being said, employers will have wide discretion to require it, if they deem it “essential”. Is enabling all that much better?

Their media representative, Elaine (her last name has been scrubbed) was evasive, and tap danced around important information. This included: (a) vaccines not being approved, but having interim authorization; (b) how experimental vaccines can be pushed given BC cancelled its state of emergency; (c) the lack of long term testing; and (d) indemnified manufacturers, among other things

In short, the BCOHRC seems more content with the “illusion” of protecting human rights, rather than “actually” protecting human rights.

If Elaine, or her employer, cared about so-called marginalized people, they wouldn’t allow for experimental injections to be a condition of certain jobs. Despite all the social justice nonsense on their website, it’s clear that it’s all just for show.

From page 3:

Policies that treat people differently based on whether they have been vaccinated—“vaccination status policies”—must remain consistent with the obligations legislated under B.C.’s Human Rights Code. Individuals must be protected from discrimination based on their place of origin, religion, physical or mental disability, family status or other Code-protected ground.

Employers, landlords and service providers (duty bearers) can, in some limited circumstances, implement vaccination status policies—but only if other less intrusive means of preventing COVID-19 transmission are inadequate for the setting and if due consideration is given to the human rights of everyone involved.

Vaccination status policies should be justified by scientific evidence relevant to the specific context, time-limited and regularly reviewed, proportional to the risks they seek to address, necessary due to a lack of less-intrusive alternatives and respectful of privacy to the extent required by law. In applying such a vaccination
status policy, duty bearers must accommodate those who cannot receive a vaccine to the point of undue hardship.

No one’s safety should be put at risk because of others’ personal choices not to receive a vaccine. Just as importantly, no one should experience harassment or unjustifiable discrimination when there are effective alternatives to vaccination status policies.

People must be protected based on certain identity groups. But humans as a whole aren’t worth consideration. Now, from page 6:

Evidence-based — Evidence (of the risk of transmission in the specific setting) is required to justify policies that restrict individual rights for the purpose of protecting collective public health or workplace safety. Such policies must be aligned with up-to date public health recommendations and reflect current medical and epidemiological understanding of the specific risks the policy aims to address.

But once again, these are not approved, and there is no long term testing. From page 7:

The COVID-19 vaccines approved by Health Canada have proven highly effective at protecting individuals from COVID-19 infection and serious illness.

Except they aren’t approved. From page 8:

Migrant and undocumented workers, many of whom do not have a Personal Health Number, may be unaware they are eligible for the vaccine or concerned about revealing their immigration status.

Interesting the concern for “undocumented workers”, which is a euphemism for illegal aliens. The BCOHRC cares more about people illegally in the country than legitimate safety concerns of their guidelines. From page 10:

In my view, a person who chooses not to get vaccinated as a matter of personal preference—especially where that choice is based on misinformation or misunderstandings of scientific information—does not have grounds for a human rights complaint against a duty bearer implementing a vaccination status policy.

It would be nice to know what “misinformation or misunderstandings” would apply here. And in fact, that question was posed to Elaine. But as stated, the BCOHRC seems more concerned about appearing to care about human rights, than actually caring about human rights. Continuing from page 11:

Conclusion
It is in challenging times that it is most critical to place human rights at the centre of our decision making. No one’s safety should be put at risk because of other people’s personal choices not to receive a vaccine, and no one should experience harassment or unjustified discrimination when there are effective alternatives to vaccination
status policies.

We must all guard against the impulse to react out of fear, speculation and stereotyping. Restrictions imposed in the name of safety must be justified based on the most current public health recommendations reflecting the best available medical and scientific evidence, relevant to a specific setting.

While these paragraphs sound great, the BCOHRC is more concerned about optics and pretending to care about human rights.

Though this document doesn’t officially call for mandatory injections, it’s intended to provide instructions on how employers can get around it.

When specifically asked about approved v.s. authorized injections, Elaine pivots by claiming it’s not the place of the BCOHRC to provide medical advice. If she was being straightforward, this issue would have been addressed directly.

And no, this isn’t just some academic musings. Elaine made it clear that the BCOHRC intended for this document to be used as a guideline throughout B.C.

(1) https://bchumanrights.ca/wp-content/uploads/BCOHRC_Jul2021_Vaccination-Policy-Guidance_FINAL.pdf
(2) BCOHRC_Jul2021_Vaccination-Policy-Guidance_FINAL
(3) Section 30.1, Canada Food & Drug Act
(4) Interim (Emergency) Order Signed By Patty Hajdu
(5) https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/astrazeneca-covid-19-vaccine-pm-en.pdf
(6) https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/janssen-covid-19-vaccine-pm-en.pdf
(7) https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/covid-19-vaccine-moderna-pm-en.pdf
(8) https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/pfizer-biontech-covid-19-vaccine-pm1-en.pdf

In case anyone thinks this may be unfair, here is the entire email exchange, going back to last week. Does it sound like a person giving straightforward answers?

From: Ronnie Lempert editor@canucklaw.ca
Sent: July 14, 2021 1:51 PM
To: XXXXXXXX, Elaine OHRC:EX Elaine.XXXXXXXX@bchumanrights.ca
Subject: media request for information on document

Hello,

I run a small site in BC and came across this

https://bchumanrights.ca/wp-content/uploads/BCOHRC_Jul2021_Vaccination-Policy-Guidance_FINAL.pdf

There are some questions about its implementation, as it would impact readers.

Any chance of getting in touch?

Thanks,
Ronnie (Editor)
XXX-XXX-XXXX

From: “XXXXXXXX Elaine OHRC:EX” Elaine.XXXXXXXX@bchumanrights.ca
Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2021 2:09 PM
To: “editor@canucklaw.ca” editor@canucklaw.ca
Subject: RE: media request for information on document

Hello Ronnie,

Thank you for reaching out to us.

The Commissioner is not doing media on this release, and of course implementation and roll out decisions are going to come from government and other agencies, not BCOHRC

However, if you have specific questions about the guidance that fall within our jurisdiction, if you send them to me via email, I will check and see if there is any more information we have to provide to you.

Thank you,
Elaine

Elaine XXXXXXX (she/her)
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, Communications
BC’s Office of the Human Rights Commissioner
Office: 1-844-922-XXXX | Cell: 1-250-216-XXXX
bchumanrights.ca | @humanrights4bc

From: Ronnie Lempert editor@canucklaw.ca
Sent: July 14, 2021 2:33 PM
To: XXXXXXXX, Elaine OHRC:EX Elaine.XXXXXXXX@bchumanrights.ca
Subject: RE: media request for information on document

Hello Elaine

I’d hoped to ask in person, but here are the important parts.

(1) The Government takes its advice from the BCOHRC, does it not? So wouldn’t your reports and recommendations be considered, at a minimum?

(2) This document says on the top of page 10:
In my view, a person who chooses not to get vaccinated as a matter of personal preference—especially where that choice is based on misinformation or misunderstandings of scientific information—does not have grounds for a human rights complaint against a duty bearer implementing a vaccination status policy.

Okay, specifically, what would be a misunderstanding or what would count as misinformation?

(3) Middle of page 7, it’s stated that the vaccines are “approved by Health Canada”. However, when looking up the product inserts, they don’t say approved anywhere. They say “authorized under an interim order”.

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

So, are these vaccines approved, or are they given interim authorization? They are not the same thing.

(4) Considering that testing has gone on for about a year, how can the BCOHRC say with any confidence if and what any side effects would be in 5 or 10 years?

(5) Are the manufacturers indemnified against lawsuits from any injury?

(6) Will the BCOHRC assume any responsibility/liability if this policy were implemented for any injuries/deaths?

(7) What cost/benefit analysis was done in coming to the decision that mandatory vaccines may be required? Could I have a copy of those studies?

(8) Has the extensive legal history, particularly with Pfizer, been any sort of deterrent in coming to this kind of decision?

(9) Does imposing this vaccination requirement result in a backdoor vaccine passport?

(10) Considering BC ended its state of emergency June 30, what is the legal basis for allowing the requirement of these vaccines?

(11) If my boss fired me for refusing a vaccine based on the above questions, what would the BCOHRC do? Would you determine that the employer has a right to demand them? Would you determine that I am uninformed?

I realize this is a lot, but that document is a cause for concern.

Thanks,
Ronnie

From: “XXXXXXXX, Elaine OHRC:EX” Elaine.XXXXXXXX@bchumanrights.ca
Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2021 3:14 PM
To: “editor@canucklaw.ca” editor@canucklaw.ca
Subject: RE: media request for information on document

Hi Ronnie,

That’s a long list. I will see if I can help clarify where possible.

I am sure you understand several of these questions are out of scope.

It’s nearing end of day. Would you let me know of your deadline please?

Thank you,
Elaine

From: Ronnie Lempert editor@canucklaw.ca
Sent: July 14, 2021 4:06 PM
To: XXXXXXXX, Elaine OHRC:EX Elaine.XXXXXXXX@bchumanrights.ca
Subject: RE: media request for information on document

Hello Elaine,

There isn’t a specific deadline, but whenever they can be done.

If there is someone in a different department or division who might have insight on some of them, they are welcome to add it in as well.

I realize this is a lot, but the kind of audience I write for doesn’t like the idea that their livelihoods could be conditional on taking this, for the issues outlined below

Thanks,
Ronnie

P.S. you are always welcome to visit the site if any of the content interests you.
https://canucklaw(dot)ca

From: “XXXXXXXX, Elaine OHRC:EX” Elaine.XXXXXXXX@bchumanrights.ca
Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2021 2:14 PM
To: “editor@canucklaw.ca” editor@canucklaw.ca
Subject: RE: media request for information on document

Hi Ronnie,

I am able to get back to you today with clarifications from our Office.

This document is intended to provide guidance to duty bearers under B.C.’s Human Rights Code, including employers, housing providers, service providers, and government insofar as government plays each of these roles. Our hope is that duty bearers will consider – and follow – our recommendations.

You will note that this guidance does not contain a recommendation that government put into place a mandatory vaccine requirement, but it does allow for proof-of-vaccine requirements in some circumstances.

Our legislative mandate empowers us to provide public guidance and recommendations on matters of public policy by clarifying existing human rights laws and advising how new laws and public policy must be adapted to adhere to them. You can read the provisions of B.C.’s Human Rights Code here.

It is not within our mandate to provide medical advice. We rely on public health guidance issued by the Office of the Provincial Health Officer and the BC Centres for Disease Control, and invite you to refer to their work.

It is also not within our mandate to address individual human rights complaints. All human rights complaints in the province – including those made concerning COVID-19 accommodations such as masking and vaccination – are managed by a separate entity, the BC Human Rights Tribunal. You can read more about the purpose and function of the BC Human Rights Tribunal here.

Thank you,
Elaine

From: Ronnie Lempert editor@canucklaw.ca
Sent: July 15, 2021 3:08 PM
To: XXXXXXXX, Elaine OHRC:EX Elaine.XXXXXXXX@bchumanrights.ca
Subject: RE: media request for information on document

Hello Elaine,

If you hope that your recommendations will be followed, then what’s wrong with getting clarification from your office? I’m trying to determine exactly what you are calling for.

As just one example, these vaccines have interim authorization under an emergency order, (an emergency now cancelled in BC). See attached screenshots. On page 7 of the document they are referred to as “approved”, which distorts the truth. Does this concern you?

On page 10 of the document, it’s stated that people who refuse to get it for person reasons will not be protected. It also states that misinformation or misunderstandings are not an excuse. It’s a valid question to ask what qualifies as “misinformation”.

Also, does pointing out the lack of long term testing, or manufacturer indemnification count as misinformation?

To be blunt, it appears that the BCOHRC is empowering employers and others to force/coerce people into taking it, while glossing over the experimental status of these vaccines.

A human rights approach to proof of vaccination during the COVID-19 pandemic (bchumanrights.ca)

Hopefully I’m wrong,
Thanks,
Ronnie

From: XXXXXXXX, Elaine OHRC:EX” Elaine.XXXXXXXX@bchumanrights.ca
Sent: Monday, July 19, 2021 5:07 PM
To: “editor@canucklaw.ca” editor@canucklaw.ca
Subject: RE: media request for information on document

Hello Ronnie,

As discussed last week, here is additional clarification from our Office.

To clarify, our Office focuses on promoting and protecting human rights through education, research, advocacy, monitoring and public inquiry into issues of systemic discrimination in the province. Our legislative mandate is specifically focused on systemic discrimination, and therefore we are not able to comment on individual cases nor can we provide legal advice.

The vaccination status guidance offers general advice on how duty bearers can respect human rights if developing vaccination status policies — that is, policies that treat people differently based on whether or not they have been vaccinated against COVID-19.

B.C.’s Human Rights Commissioner Kasari Govender and our Office have not advocated for mandatory vaccination.

The purpose of the guidance document is to provide a human rights based lens to the development of vaccination status policies. It offers general advice on how duty bearers should respect human rights law when developing policies that treat people differently based on whether or not they have been vaccinated against COVID-19. The document follows current health guidance from the PHO and BCCDC, as well as sources cited in the guidance document and footnotes.

It is the position of BCOHRC that human rights law provides that duty bearers (such as employers) can implement vaccination status policies, only if less intrusive means of preventing transmission are not possible and with accommodations in place, as per the guidance. Vaccination status policies must remain consistent with the obligations legislated under B.C.’s Human Rights Code.

I hope this clarifies for you. We don’t have anything to add that isn’t already in the guidance, so suggest if you are looking for more specific details on potential future scenarios or the legal parameters of instituting proof of vaccination policies (these are still evolving as this is such a new issue across the board), that you seek context from a lawyer experienced in human rights, privacy and workplace law.

Thank you,
Elaine

From: Ronnie Lempert editor@canucklaw.ca
Sent: July 19, 2021 6:59 PM
To: XXXXXXXX, Elaine OHRC:EX Elaine.XXXXXXXX@bchumanrights.ca
Subject: RE: media request for information on document

Hello Elaine,

My biggest concern — one which is getting sidestepped here, it that you are laying out guidelines for EXPERIMENTAL and UNAPPROVED vaccines (interim authorization is not approved), and never make it clear that that this is the case. In short, the recommendations are based on misleading, or at best, incomplete information.

Saying “we don’t provide legal advice” is a bit of a cop out, since policies will likely be drafted based on the recommendations your office makes.

For the record, is it BCOHRC’s position that these are fully approved? Or just authorized for emergency use?

On a semi-related note: I’m curious what studies or cost/benefit analysis has been done, either for this, or for you recommendations on masks. Anything that debated or considered physical or psychological harms? Do you have anything you could share? Alternatively, is there anything publicly posted that you relied on? I’d like to see specifically what science has been relied on.

Thanks.
Ronnie

Hi Ronnie,

You can read all of our current and past COVID-19 guidance, including footnotes and references here: https://bchumanrights.ca/key-issues/covid-19/

You can read Health Canada information about vaccines here: https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-health-products/covid19-industry/drugs-vaccines-treatments/vaccines.html

We have nothing further to add or say that has not already been published.

Thank you,
Elaine

An astute person will realize that not once did she address the issue of these “vaccines” being authorized under a (now cancelled) emergency order, and not approved.

July 16, 2021March 20, 2022

RNAO: Receives Public Money As It Promotes Lockdowns, Masks, Mandatory Vaccinations, Hard Drugs

The RNAO, the Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario, gets a lot of money to run its organization. However, it seems that the policies it promotes do anything but promote public health. What are some of the things it calls for?

To begin with, RNAO opposed in February any loosening of the medical martial law imposed by Doug Ford.

From the records of the Ontario Lobbying Registry, it shows that the RNAO has been receiving millions from the Government, which really means millions from taxpayers.

“The measures announced by the government are welcome, and we are glad our voices were heard,” says RNAO CEO Dr. Doris Grinspun referring to the Action Alert issued by the association immediately preceding Tuesday’s cabinet meeting. In that call, RNAO asked for:
-a lockdown of all non-essential services
-the need to vaccinate all essential service workers
-10 paid sick days for all workers
-re-instituting a moratorium on all residential and encampment evictions
–restricting travel within Ontario and between Ontario and other provinces and countries to only essential travel

April 2021, the RNAO publicly called for lockdowns in the Province. This included shutting down everything deemed “non-eseential”. Furthermore, this group demanded restrictions on travel be imposed both within Ontario, and between Provinces, and to vaccinate every so-called essential worker.

It should be shocking that an organization that claims to support public health calls for such measures that would inflict mental and financial harm. There’s no indication they even attempted to gauge support levels before making these demands.

Beyond that, the RNAO seems to take no issue with calling for constitutional rights to be suspended on the extremely thin premise of preventing a disease. However, its members seem to spineless to call it out.

Make no mistake: there is widespread support for drug decriminalization in Toronto, with 50 civil society organizations and five former mayors signing a recent call in this regard. Health professionals who find themselves on the front lines are being vocal about the need for change; the Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario recently said that “decriminalizing personal possession of drugs must be part and parcel of any harm-reduction strategy because it decreases stigma and opens the door to hope, help and health.” Support also comes from people who use drugs, families of loved ones who have overdosed, and 60 per cent of Ontarians who were polled by the Angus Reid Institute in February 2021.

In a June 2021 piece in the Toronto Star, the RNAO was quoted as calling for the full decriminalization of all personal amounts of any narcotics. The RNAO also advocates for “safe injection” sites. In other words, they don’t object to the use of hard drugs. They just want to be involved in it.

Here are some other notices on the RNAO website:

July 2018, the RNAO urged Ford’s PC Government to reinstate the 2015 sex-ed curriculum. Never mind that Ben Levin, a convicted pedophile, had been largely responsible for writing it. How interesting that this is one of their first priorities.

August 2018, the RNAO advocated for more funding for supervised drug injection sites. The rationale was that instead of getting people treatment, paying for narcotics and medical staff to do it “safely” saved lives. They were happy when it was announced that the “conservatives” were supportive of it.

February 2019, the RNAO claims that Ontario’s hospitals are overwhelmed, and that there is understaffing to properly provide care. Interestingly, this point will soon be forgotten in 2020, and overcrowding will be due to the so-called pandemic.

April 2020, the RNAO called for continued funding for the opioid crisis. They want to keep the money coming in for the treatments they provide. Keep in mind, the RNAO supports “safe injection sites” as an alternative to treatment.

July 2020, the RNAO started their #Maskathon campaign, to get everyone in Ontario, even young children, wearing masks. Strangely, they don’t bother to address the physical and psychological effects these will have on people.

October 2020, the RNAO called for lockdowns in the Province. This included banning dining in restaurants, and shutting down bars, gyms and places of worships. In February 2021, they were critical of plans to cut back on this. April 2021, they called for a full lockdown of “non essential” services because of this variants nonsense.

May 2021, the RNAO openly demanded that all health care workers receive these “vaccinations”. Never mind that they weren’t approved by Health Canada, had no long term testing, and the manufacturers were indemnified.

RNAO celebrated its “best in health care journalism” by naming several establishment reporters.

A serious question to all Ontario residents: does it look like this organization has your best interests at heart? They claim to, and they take enough of your money.

July 10, 2021October 10, 2021

CPC Realizes Endorsing “Great Reset” (Build Back Better) Very Unpopular, Pulls Page Down

Someone within the brain trust seems to have finally realized that endorsing slogans of the Great Reset (even in a modified form) is a dumb idea. Consequently, this page has been taken down, but thankfully, is archived and available.

https://www.conservative.ca/build-back-stronger

Build Back Stronger
The Liberals want to “build back better.” Conservatives will “build back stronger.”
.
We are facing the greatest economic crisis of our lifetime.
Canada’s Conservatives led by Erin O’Toole will bring back certainty and stability.
.
The Liberal agenda is to launch a risky experiment with Canada’s economy.
Justin Trudeau says, “We are all in this together.” But, under the Liberals, Canada is more divided than ever before.
.
With the Liberals, it’s the haves over the have-nots.
.
It’s Bay Street over Main Street.
It’s those with a salary, benefits, and a pension over those without.
It’s those with Liberal connections over the outsiders who have to play by the rules.
.
Instead, Erin O’Toole’s Conservatives will fight for you and your family, and the countless Canadians left behind by the Trudeau Liberal government.
.
Sign below if you want to build back stronger!

This has been said before, but it comes across like they are trying to lose on purpose. It’s difficult to explain moves like this as stupidity, especially when it’s kept up for months.

Why people think voting, especially for someone like this, will solve anything is baffling.

(1) https://www.conservative.ca/cpc/build-back-stronger/
(2) https://archive.is/OnQZs
(3) https://archive.is/NbnSb
(4) Wayback Machine

June 26, 2021December 6, 2021

Canadian Immunization Research Network, Which Evaluates Vaccines, Is Funded By Big Pharma

The Canadian Immunization Research Network is a group that receives substantial funding from drug companies, as well as Canadian taxpayers. Part of their mandate is evaluating vaccine effectiveness. Now, here’s where things start to get interesting.

Our Focus
CIRN’s goals remain consistent with that of PCIRN, however, the network will not be limited to influenza research alone. Rather, CIRN will cover a broader scope of research pertaining to all areas of vaccine, immunization, and infectious diseases. The network will strive to achieve the following goals:
.
(1) Continue to perform vaccine research to inform health policy in Canada.
(2) Maintain an active research network capable of immediate response to infectious disease threats in Canada.
(3) Further develop collaborations between Canadian vaccine experts.
(4) Train the next generation of pandemic vaccine researchers.
(5) Perform applied public health research and vaccine evaluations of high priority for Canadian health decision makers.

In their “focus section“, the CIRN mentions that evaulating vaccines of high priority for Canadian decision makers is something they do. So, are these the people who ensured these experimental “vaccines” got interim authorization.

Also, considering that Pfizer/BioNtech is one of the products that got the emergency authorization, isn’t this a conflict of interest? After all, Pfizer is one of the major donors.

According to their financial statements, almost $24 million of the $59 million that the CIRN has received since 2009 has come from industry sources. Considering that Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline and Sanofi are listed as partners, the bulk of it probably was from them.

Pfizer has been lobbying Ottawa for years to get its products distributed here. One of its officials, Steven Hogue, worked in the Prime Minister’s Office back when Jean Chretien was in charge.

GlaxoSmithKline is another one that’s busy in Ottawa. Lobbyists for the company have ties to both the Liberal and Conservative Parties of Canada. In fact, Amber Ruddy, the Secretary of the National Council of the CPC, used to be a GSK lobbyist. Sanofi is involved in this as well.

This should be red flag for people. Pharmaceutical companies, involved in lobbying Ottawa and trying to sell products, are also financing the “independent” group that evaluates their effectiveness.

CIRN conducts a variety of research studies throughout the year, and many of these studies are multi-year projects. Often there are opportunities for members of the public to participate in studies in their local area; the Research Studies descriptions provide an overview of the study and indicate whether the study is active and recruiting.
.
Each research study funded by the CIRN Network will address one or more of the 5 following research area priorities:
.
(1) Rapid evaluation of candidate vaccines for safety and immunogenicity in persons of all ages;
(2) Population based methods to evaluate vaccine effectiveness and safety following release for general use;
(3) Vaccine hesitancy and evaluation of strategies to address hesitancy;
(4) Vaccine coverage, including isolated communities and cohorts of concern; and
(5) Adverse events following immunization.

CIRN funds research into a variety of subtopics, including vaccine hesitancy. This refers to the normal reluctance to put strange medications into one’s body. They are also involved in trying to convince pregnant women to take it. Research has also been done into proper messaging for Public Health Officials, as in, what lines or scripts are most effective. Another was using the internet to explain to why large portions of the public may be reluctant to take this.

Considering the amount of money CIRN gets from drug companies, there is an obvious dual loyalty presented here.

It’s not a stretch to call these “vaccine hesitancy” projects a form of marketing. Pfizer, GSK and Sanofi are studying their target markets, to see what techniques work.

CIRN has also received a number of grants from PHAC and the CIHR. Some of that is listed below.

June 23, 2021June 23, 2021

Ron DeSantis “Vaccine Passport Ban” Leaves EHP Act, Forced Vaccinations, Curfews Intact

Amendment To Original
It seems that many of these powers were already in place from 2002, and then Governor Jeb Bush. However, the vaccine passport ban left these intact. SB 1262, the Emergency Health Powers Act, was passed in the hysteria of terrorism, which the media helped perpetuate. It was (in error), attributed to DeSantis. Instead, he appears to have just left them in place.

There is a separate piece of legislation, SB 6003, to strike “vaccination” out. We’ll have to see how it goes.

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis is frequently hailed as a freedom lover, and a pushback to tyranny in the area. But is that really true? How strong is his resistance?

At no point does DeSantis condemn or criticize these experimental concoctions. He never states that they are not approved, but only allowed because of an FDA Emergency Use Authorization. He never talks about the manufacturers being indemnified from liability.

Granted, he issued a blanket pardon for all of the illegitimate fines and charges handed down for breaching previous draconian Orders, but they should never have been issued in the first place.

For starters, while local officials may be prohibited from imposing mask mandates, there is nothing stopping private businesses from demanding them, even for essential goods.

Recently, DeSantis signed SB 2006, which the media claimed would ban “vaccine passports”. While that is true, there were many poison pills left from the Bush era. Either the Governor didn’t fully read the existing Act, or he just didn’t care.

Specifically, still allows the right of the State to impose quarantine measures, similar to what the International Health Regulations call for. It also allows for forced vaccinations. That’s right, a provision was put in to allow for MANDATORY vaccinations “or other treatments”. SB 6003 is in the works to strip vaccination out, but so far, has not been passed.

https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2021/2006/BillText/er/HTML is the link, and it seems to be down. So is the general site. Thankfully, it has been archived.

1056 (d) The State Health Officer, upon declaration of a public
1057 health emergency, may take actions that are necessary to protect
1058 the public health. Such actions include, but are not limited to:
1059 1. Directing manufacturers of prescription drugs or over
1060 the-counter drugs who are permitted under chapter 499 and
1061 wholesalers of prescription drugs located in this state who are
1062 permitted under chapter 499 to give priority to the shipping of
1063 specified drugs to pharmacies and health care providers within
1064 geographic areas that have been identified by the State Health
1065 Officer. The State Health Officer must identify the drugs to be
1066 shipped. Manufacturers and wholesalers located in the state must
1067 respond to the State Health Officer’s priority shipping
1068 directive before shipping the specified drugs.
1069 2. Notwithstanding chapters 465 and 499 and rules adopted
1070 thereunder, directing pharmacists employed by the department to
1071 compound bulk prescription drugs and provide these bulk
1072 prescription drugs to physicians and nurses of county health
1073 departments or any qualified person authorized by the State
1074 Health Officer for administration to persons as part of a
1075 prophylactic or treatment regimen.
1076 3. Notwithstanding s. 456.036, temporarily reactivating the
1077 inactive license of the following health care practitioners,
1078 when such practitioners are needed to respond to the public
1079 health emergency: physicians licensed under chapter 458 or
1080 chapter 459; physician assistants licensed under chapter 458 or
1081 chapter 459; licensed practical nurses, registered nurses, and
1082 advanced practice registered nurses licensed under part I of
1083 chapter 464; respiratory therapists licensed under part V of
1084 chapter 468; and emergency medical technicians and paramedics
1085 certified under part III of chapter 401. Only those health care
1086 practitioners specified in this paragraph who possess an
1087 unencumbered inactive license and who request that such license
1088 be reactivated are eligible for reactivation. An inactive
1089 license that is reactivated under this paragraph shall return to
1090 inactive status when the public health emergency ends or before
1091 the end of the public health emergency if the State Health
1092 Officer determines that the health care practitioner is no
1093 longer needed to provide services during the public health
1094 emergency. Such licenses may only be reactivated for a period
1095 not to exceed 90 days without meeting the requirements of s.
1096 456.036 or chapter 401, as applicable.
1097 4. Ordering an individual to be examined, tested,
1098 vaccinated, treated, isolated, or quarantined for communicable
1099 diseases that have significant morbidity or mortality and
1100 present a severe danger to public health. Individuals who are
1101 unable or unwilling to be examined, tested, vaccinated, or
1102 treated for reasons of health, religion, or conscience may be
1103 subjected to isolation or quarantine.
1104 a. Examination, testing, vaccination, or treatment may be
1105 performed by any qualified person authorized by the State Health
1106 Officer.
1107 b. If the individual poses a danger to the public health,
1108 the State Health Officer may subject the individual to isolation
1109 or quarantine. If there is no practical method to isolate or
1110 quarantine the individual, the State Health Officer may use any
1111 means necessary to vaccinate or treat the individual.
1112 c. Any order of the State Health Officer given to
1113 effectuate this paragraph is shall be immediately enforceable by
1114 a law enforcement officer under s. 381.0012.
1115 (e)(2) Individuals who assist the State Health Officer at
1116 his or her request on a volunteer basis during a public health
1117 emergency are entitled to the benefits specified in s.
1118 110.504(2), (3), (4), and (5).
1119 Section 18. Section 381.00316, Florida Statutes, is created
1120 to read:
1121 381.00316 COVID-19 vaccine documentation.—
1122 (1) A business entity, as defined in s. 768.38 to include
1123 any business operating in this state, may not require patrons or
1124 customers to provide any documentation certifying COVID-19
1125 vaccination or post-infection recovery to gain access to, entry
1126 upon, or service from the business operations in this state.
1127 This subsection does not otherwise restrict businesses from
1128 instituting screening protocols consistent with authoritative or
1129 controlling government-issued guidance to protect public health.
1130 (2) A governmental entity as defined in s. 768.38 may not
1131 require persons to provide any documentation certifying COVID-19
1132 vaccination or post-infection recovery to gain access to, entry
1133 upon, or service from the governmental entity’s operations in
1134 this state. This subsection does not otherwise restrict
1135 governmental entities from instituting screening protocols
1136 consistent with authoritative or controlling government-issued
1137 guidance to protect public health.
1138 (3) An educational institution as defined in s. 768.38 may
1139 not require students or residents to provide any documentation
1140 certifying COVID-19 vaccination or post-infection recovery for
1141 attendance or enrollment, or to gain access to, entry upon, or
1142 service from such educational institution in this state. This
1143 subsection does not otherwise restrict educational institutions
1144 from instituting screening protocols consistent with
1145 authoritative or controlling government-issued guidance to
1146 protect public health.
1147 (4) The department may impose a fine not to exceed $5,000
1148 per violation.
1149 (5) This section does not apply to a health care provider
1150 as defined in s. 768.38; a service provider licensed or
1151 certified under s. 393.17, part III of chapter 401, or part IV
1152 of chapter 468; or a provider with an active health care clinic
1153 exemption under s. 400.9935.
1154 (6) The department may adopt rules pursuant to ss. 120.536
1155 and 120.54 to implement this section.
1156 Section 19. Subsection (1) of section 406.11, Florida
1157 Statutes, is amended, and paragraph (c) is added to subsection
1158 (2) of that section, to read:
1159 406.11 Examinations, investigations, and autopsies.—
1160 (1) In any of the following circumstances involving the
1161 death of a human being, the medical examiner of the district in
1162 which the death occurred or the body was found shall determine
1163 the cause of death and certify the death and shall, for that
1164 purpose, make or perform have performed such examinations,
1165 investigations, and autopsies as he or she deems shall deem
1166 necessary or as shall be requested by the state attorney:
1167 (a) When any person dies in this the state:
1168 1. Of criminal violence.
1169 2. By accident.
1170 3. By suicide.
1171 4. Suddenly, when in apparent good health.
1172 5. Unattended by a practicing physician or other recognized
1173 practitioner.
1174 6. In any prison or penal institution.
1175 7. In police custody.
1176 8. In any suspicious or unusual circumstance.
1177 9. By criminal abortion.
1178 10. By poison.
1179 11. By disease constituting a threat to public health.
1180 12. By disease, injury, or toxic agent resulting from
1181 employment.
1182 (b) When a dead body is brought into this the state without
1183 proper medical certification.
1184 (c) When a body is to be cremated, dissected, or buried at
1185 sea.
1186 (2)
1187 (c) A district medical examiner shall assist the State
1188 Health Officer in identifying and reporting deaths upon a
1189 request by the State Health Officer under s. 381.00315.
1190 Section 20. Except as otherwise expressly provided in this
1191 act, this act shall take effect July 1, 2021.

Included in this Bill, SB 2006, are the famous provisions to ban “vaccine passports”, and the text can be found on lines 1122 to 1147. As stated there is a $5,000 (maximum) penalty for breaching this. However, it is not a complete ban, and professions such as health care can still require it.

But that isn’t all. Starting on line 1097
1097 4. Ordering an individual to be examined, tested,
1098 vaccinated, treated, isolated, or quarantined for communicable
1099 diseases that have significant morbidity or mortality and
1100 present a severe danger to public health. Individuals who are
1101 unable or unwilling to be examined, tested, vaccinated, or
1102 treated for reasons of health, religion, or conscience may be
1103 subjected to isolation or quarantine.

A State Health Officer can order a person to be examined, tested, vaccinated, treated, isolated of quarantined for “communicable diseases”. People who refuse, even for valid exemptions, may be quarantined by force. That doesn’t exactly seem consistent with “freedom”. Why is it still there?

1107 b. If the individual poses a danger to the public health,
1108 the State Health Officer may subject the individual to isolation
1109 or quarantine. If there is no practical method to isolate or
1110 quarantine the individual, the State Health Officer may use any
1111 means necessary to vaccinate or treat the individual.

Line 1110 and 1110 state that the State Health Officer may use any means necessary to vaccinate, or otherwise “treat” an individual. What good is it to ban vaccine passports, when the underlying vaccination can still be imposed on a member of the public? What else is in there?

1029 (b) Before declaring a public health emergency, the State
1030 Health Officer shall, to the extent possible, consult with the
1031 Governor and shall notify the Chief of Domestic Security. The
1032 declaration of a public health emergency shall continue until
1033 the State Health Officer finds that the threat or danger has
1034 been dealt with to the extent that the emergency conditions no
1035 longer exist and he or she terminates the declaration. However,
1036 a declaration of a public health emergency may not continue for
1037 longer than 60 days unless the Governor concurs in the renewal
1038 of the declaration.

The State Health Official is an unelected bureaucrat, who has the power to just declare an emergency, and keep it going. Yes, the Governor needs to sign off on renewals past 60 days, but that doesn’t really fix the problem. And who runs Florida anyway, the Governor, or the State Health Officer?

124 specified format; requiring that orders issued by a
125 political subdivision which impose a curfew
126 restricting travel or movement allow persons to travel
127 during the curfew to and from their places of
128 employment; amending s. 377.703, F.S.

Don’t worry about more house arrest (sarcasm). In the event of a forced curfew, people would still be allowed to travel to their jobs. DeSantis won’t PREVENT areas from imposing one, but at least people will still be able to work.

Ron DeSantis is greatly admired in Canada. But is he really the freedom fighter that he claims to be? Why were all of these things left in?

(1) https://www.flsenate.gov/
(2) https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2021/2006/BillText/er/HTML
(3) https://archive.is/XCFxp
(4) Wayback Machine Archive
(5) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRFpYmBHzn0
(6) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zeL0lVxXms
(7) https://aapsonline.org/press/jebbushlet.htm
(8) https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2002/04/state-public-health-emergency-bills-getting-favorable-reception

Category: Drugs/Alcohol

Ford Still Lobbied By Political Operatives On Behalf Of Vaccine Companies

Like this:

BCOHRC Deliberately Misrepresents Basic Information In Vaccination “Guidance”

Like this:

RNAO: Receives Public Money As It Promotes Lockdowns, Masks, Mandatory Vaccinations, Hard Drugs

Like this:

CPC Realizes Endorsing “Great Reset” (Build Back Better) Very Unpopular, Pulls Page Down

Like this:

Canadian Immunization Research Network, Which Evaluates Vaccines, Is Funded By Big Pharma

Like this:

Ron DeSantis “Vaccine Passport Ban” Leaves EHP Act, Forced Vaccinations, Curfews Intact

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this: