Drugs/Alcohol Archives - Page 5 of 18

August 2, 2021August 3, 2022

ACOG, Council On Patient Safety In Women’s Health Care, Partnered With Drug Companies

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the ACOG, made quite a stir when they recommended back in December 2020 that it was okay for pregnant women to get these experimental “emergency use authorization” vaccines. Apparently, that is still the case.

Turns out, there is a bigger picture to look at. The ACOG is part of the Council on Patient Safety, a collective of health care groups that work together.

The Membership Of The Council On Patient Safety In Women’s Health Care comprises 19 different spots, and there are currently 2 vacancies. The groups have different goals, but there is a lot of overlap with what they do. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists is a member, and so is the American College of Nurse Midwives. By itself, that it nothing remarkable.

American Academy of Family Physicians
American Association of Nurse Anesthetists
American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology
American College of Nurse Midwives
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
American College of Osteopathic Obstetricians and Gynecologists
American Society for Anesthesiologists
American Society for Reproductive Medicine
Advancing Female Pelvic Medicine & Reconstructive Surgery
Association of Women’s Health, Obstetric and Neonatal Nurses
Nurse Practitioners In Women’s Health
Preeclampsia Foundation
Society for Academic Specialists in General Obstetrics & Gynecology
Society of Gynecologic Surgeons
Society for Obstetric Anesthesia and Perinatology
Society of OB/Gyn Hospitals
Society for Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility

The problems start to set in once you realize that the Council on Patient Safety also has an “industry” branch, including pharmaceutical companies. Needless to say, whatever policies the Council pushes can greatly increase the market for these products

The Forum on Patient Safety in Women’s Health Care, created in January 2013, is a collaboration between the Council and industry partners committed to advancing patient safety in women’s health care. The Forum is designed to facilitate open and ongoing dialogue in order to identify and maximize common interests in women’s health and to develop collaborative initiatives.

There is a scrolling banner of those industry partners, and it was capped for illustrative purposes. Anyone find it odd that drug companies are partnering with health groups this closely?

Some familiar names, including Pfizer, and Johnson & Johnson. Is it any wonder that vaccines are still recommended for pregnant women? I don’t suppose the industry partners had anything to do with that. Interesting, that people online are recently getting upset over these recommendations, yet no one takes that time to do even a basic search.

The U.S. Center for Disease Control Foundation (the fundraising arm), receives considerable donations annually, including from drug companies. This isn’t really a secret these days. And what a shocker, Johnson & Johnson, and Pfizer, are both on the donors list.

Now, the USCDC recommends mass vaccinations, including for pregnant women. The Council on Patient Safety recommends them too. And both have ties to companies that will benefit from these decisions. Do you get it now?

(Update): This problem isn’t limited to the United States, which isn’t surprising. The Society for Obstetricians and Gynecologists of Canada has some interesting donors. The largest is MD Financial Management, a company that provides money management services to doctors. The next largest are Bayer, Merck and Pfizer. Related health care groups probably are funded by big pharma as well.

Now, SOGC refers to this as “providing resources”. Is that a euphemism for drug companies providing money? Or discounting their products? Wish it was a little more specific.

(1) https://cwcnova.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/ACIPURGINGEUA.pdf
(2) ACOG Recommends Vaccinating Pregnant Women
(3) https://www.phillytrib.com/news/health/ob-gyn-associations-recommend-all-pregnant-people-get-vaccinated-against-covid-19/article_74130a85-fb9d-5ed6-a4f2-002b4746f238.html
(4) https://safehealthcareforeverywoman.org/
(5) https://safehealthcareforeverywoman.org/council/about-us/council-members/
(6) https://safehealthcareforeverywoman.org/council/about-us/industry-form/
(7) https://www.cdcfoundation.org/partner-list/corporations https://archive.is/cYdV4
(8) https://www.sogc.org
(9) https://www.sogc.org/en/-COVID-19/COVID-19/COVID-19-Champions/en/content/COVID-19/covid-champions.aspx?hkey=1d24c3f0-be85-48f3-bc0a-a006c53b98a2
(10) https://archive.is/lGQpy

July 27, 2021July 28, 2021

B.C. Contemplating Vaccine Passports, As Bonnie Henry Glosses Over Old Statements

Apparently, Bonnie Henry is going to be pressuring people to take the experimental “vaccine”, but will get getting private businesses to do the dirty work.

Health Minister, Adrian Dix, didn’t have much to say in a meaningful sense. After all, his education in history and political science didn’t really prepare him for the role.

People in B.C. may be a bit confused. After all, the Protective Measures (COVID-19) Order was repealed on June 28, 2021. Also, the State of Emergency from March 2020 was formally cancelled.

Guess we can forget about a peaceful life in B.C. Will there also be emergency measures reintroduced at some point? After all, there are still plenty of people who see through this act.

From the looks of things, it seems that the B.C. Government won’t mandate it. However, they will encourage businesses to impose such a policy. Now, will they be subsidized to enforce such rules? Will there be extra perks for places that do?

Many people know about the 2015 Ontario Labour Arbitration which the ONA fought against a mandatory VOM “vaccinate-or-mask” policy. What less people know is that Bonnie Henry was an expert witness in that case.

Case: Sault Area Hospital and Ontario Nurses’ Association, 2015 CanLII 55643 (ON LA)

No joke. Less than a decade ago, Bonnie was telling an Ontario Hearing that there was no real evidence that masks or vaccines worked against influenza. Since then, she has changed her tune, and says something quite different. Although the ruling is readily available, there don’t appear to be transcripts.

134. Dr. Henry agreed with this observation by Dr. Skowronski and Dr. Patrick who are her colleagues at the British Columbia Centre for Disease Control:
.
I do agree, as we’ve discussed earlier, influenza is mostly transmitted in the community and we don’t have data on the difference between vaccinated and unvaccinated healthcare workers and individual transmission events…in healthcare settings.
.
135. Dr. Henry agreed that no VOM policy would influence influenza in the community. Dr. McGeer denied that she had used or recommended the use of community burden in the assessment of development of such a policy.

So there is no data on any differences between vaccinated and unvaccinated health care workers. Yet these people are still arguing for VOM (vaccine or mask).

145. In her Report Dr. Henry also referred to observational studies as supporting the data she said was derived from the RCTs but acknowledged that these studies related to long term care and not acute care settings. She was cross-examined at length concerning the studies referenced in this section of her Report, some that dealt with other closed community settings, and agreed that they were “clearly not referring to a healthcare setting”.
.
146. Witness commentary concerning the observational/experimental studies relied upon in the McGeer/Henry Reports is set out in Appendix A to this Award. I conclude from a review of these studies, and the expert witness commentary, that they do not disclose a consistent position. They address a wide range of issues in a wide range of settings. Some are not supportive of the OHA/SAH experts’ claim. Some provide weak support at best. Some have nothing to do with the issue in question. Some have acknowledged study design limitations.

Evidence introduced by Bonnie Henry was for long term care centers, not health care settings, so this apples and oranges. There is also weak or irrelevant evidence argued.

160. In direct examination Dr. Henry stated that the pre-symptomatic period was “clearly not the most infectious period but we do know that it happens”.[203] She also agreed in cross-examination that transmission required an element of proximity and a sufficient amount of live replicating virus.
.
161. At another point, the following series of questions and answers ensued during Dr. Henry’s cross-examination:
.
Q. With respect to transmission while asymptomatic, and I want to deal with your authorities with respect to that, would you agree with me that there is scant evidence to support that virus shedding of influenza actually leads to effective transmission of the disease before somebody becomes symptomatic?
.
A. I think we talked about that yesterday, that there is some evidence that people shed prior to being symptomatic, and there is some evidence of transmission, that leading to transmission, but I absolutely agree that that is not the highest time when shedding and transmission can occur.
.
Q. So were you—I put it to you that there’s scant evidence, and that was Dr. De Serres’ evidence, so—but that there’s very little evidence about that, do you agree?
.
A. There is—as we talked about yesterday, there is not a lot of evidence around these pieces, I agree.
.
Q. And clearly transmission risk is greatest when you’re symptomatic, when you’re able to cough or sneeze?
.
A. Transmission risk is greatest, as we’ve said, when you’re symptomatic, especially in the first day or two of symptom onset

Not a lot of evidence regarding risks of transmission. Yes, this is 2015, but it coming straight from BCPHO Bonnie Henry.

177. Dr. McGeer and Dr. Henry presented the position of the OHA and the Hospital based upon their understanding of the relevant literature. Neither of them asserted that they had particular expertise with respect to masks or had conducted studies testing masks.

So, no actual expertise of research. Bonnie Henry just read what was available. And this is the Provincial Health Officer of British Columbia.

184. In her pre-hearing Report Dr. Henry responded to a request that she discuss the evidence that masks protect patients from influenza this way:
.
There is good evidence that surgical masks reduce the concentration of influenza virus expelled into the ambient air (a 3.4 fold overall reduction in a recent study) when they are worn by someone shedding influenza virus. There is also evidence that surgical masks reduce exposure to influenza in experimental conditions.
.
Clinical studies have also suggested that masks, in association with hand hygiene, may have some impact on decreasing transmission of influenza infection. These studies are not definitive as they all had limitations. The household studies are limited by the fact that mask wearing did not start until influenza had been diagnosed and the patient/household was enrolled in the study, such that influenza may have been transmitted prior to enrollment. A study in student residences is limited by the fact that participants wore their mask for only approximately 5 hours per day. Two systematic reviews of the cumulative studies conclude that there is evidence to support that wearing of masks or respirators during illness protects others, and a very limited amount of data to support the use of masks or respirators to prevent becoming infected
.
In summary, there is evidence supporting the use of wearing of masks to reduce transmission of influenza from health care workers to patients. It is not conclusive, and not of the quality of evidence that supports influenza vaccination. Based on current evidence, patient safety would be best ensured by requiring healthcare providers to be vaccinated if they provide care during periods of influenza activity. However, if healthcare workers are unvaccinated, wearing masks almost certainly provides some degree of protection to their patients.

Bonnie Henry keeps hedging her answers. Yes, there is protection, but there are issues with the studies, and the evidence isn’t conclusive. She also takes the position that vaccinating everyone in health care settings would be prefereable.

219. Dr. Henry answered the ‘why not mask everyone’ question this way:
.
It is [influenza vaccination] by far, not perfect and it needs to be improved, but it reduces our risk from a hundred percent where we have no protection to somewhat lower. And there’s nothing that I’ve found that shows there’s an incremental benefit of adding a mask to that reduced risk…..there’s no data that shows me that if we do our best to reduce that incremental risk, the risk of influenza, that adding a mask to that will provide any benefit. But if we don’t have any protection then there might be some benefit when we know our risk is greater.
.
When we look at individual strains circulating and what’s happening, I think we need it to be consistent with the fact that there was nothing that gave us support that providing a mask to everybody all the time was going to give us any additional benefit over putting in place the other measures that we have for the policy. It’s a tough one. You know, it varies by season.[320]
.
It is a challenging issue and we’ve wrestled with it. I’m not a huge fan of the masking piece. I think it was felt to be a reasonable alternative where there was a need to do—to feel that we were doing the best we can to try and reduce risk.
.
I tried to be quite clear in my report that the evidence to support masking is not as great and it is certainly not as good a measure

Bonnie Henry admits no strong evidence to support maskings. However, that was 2015, and apparently the science has changed completely since then. Or perhaps just the politics.

In any event, she seems content pushing experimental, unapproved “vaccines” on the public. Of course, the manufacturers are indemnified against liability.

Even within the last year her view on masks changed considerably. It’s a good thing people document and archive these inconsistencies. Kudos to whoever made this compilation. Otherwise, people like Bonnie Henry, Adrian Dix, John Horgan and Mike Farnworth would be more easily able to rewrite history, and conceal their deceptions

Don’t worry! Action4Canada will be filing their lawsuit any day now, and that will save us! They are just one fundraiser away from being almost ready to start. (Yes, this is sarcasm.)

(1) https://bc.ctvnews.ca/not-vaccinated-against-covid-19-b-c-s-health-officials-say-there-will-be-consequences-1.5525139
(2) https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/mo/mo/m0275_2021?fbclid=IwAR309l-HdQCrEdBaF6q2dUMwr5CbevxjJ94CweOLK-VUSBx7bE-weX725KE
(3) https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/public-safety-and-emergency-services/emergency-preparedness-response-recovery/embc/reports/speaker/621140-letter_to_the_speaker-protective_measures-m273.pdf
(4) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onla/doc/2015/2015canlii62106/2015canlii62106.pdf
(5) 2015.ontario.nurses.association.mask.ruling
(6) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onla/doc/2015/2015canlii62106/2015canlii62106.html
(7) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onla/doc/2016/2016canlii76496/2016canlii76496.html
(8) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/2018.ontario.college.of_.nurses.mask_.ruling.pdf

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

Category: Drugs/Alcohol

ACOG, Council On Patient Safety In Women’s Health Care, Partnered With Drug Companies

Like this:

B.C. Contemplating Vaccine Passports, As Bonnie Henry Glosses Over Old Statements

Like this:

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:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this: