FDA Stopping Emergency Authorized PCR Tests? Not Approved In Canada Either

The FDA has allowed so called RT-PCR testing under the pretense that it’s effective for virus detection. It has been given emergency use authorization, which is set to run out in December 2021. Okay, what will take its place, or will this whole hoax come to an end?

“After December 31, 2021, CDC will withdraw the request to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) of the CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel, the assay first introduced in February 2020 for detection of SARS-CoV-2 only. CDC is providing this advance notice for clinical laboratories to have adequate time to select and implement one of the many FDA-authorized alternatives.”

Public health officials in Canada always talk about how they are “following the science”. Turns out, at least part of it has been farmed out to the United States. And what is adopted here is sketchy, at best. If Canada is relying on this “testing” method, and the U.S. stops, what happens here?

Read between the lines on Health Canada’s own website.

Health Canada refers to guidance published by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on nucleic acid-based tests:
-for testing devices intended for laboratory or point-of-care use, please refer to FDA’s guidance on molecular -tests
-for testing devices intended for self-testing, please review the FDA guidance for molecular and antigen tests for non-laboratory use
-Manufacturers following the FDA guidance for molecular and antigen tests for non-laboratory use should note that Health Canada expects them to follow the guidance for non-prescription testing. This is because the distinction made by the FDA between prescription and non-prescription testing does not exist in Canada.
The FDA, Food & Drug Administration, guidances are in a template format and outline requirements that these products must meet.

Health Canada says in its own guidelines that it uses the USFDA as a reference point in how nucleic-acid based tests are conducted. That’s quite interesting considering that the FDA’s own tests are not approved, but instead have emergency use authorization. And that is set to lapse at the end of 2021. And it’s about to get more interesting from that.

Now, FDA approval is different than FDA emergency use authorization. This parallels Health Canada, in which approval is different than interim authorization. The FDA lists a few circumstances where EUA will be given. The following is from their site:

1. A determination by the Secretary of Homeland Security that there is a domestic emergency, or a significant potential for a domestic emergency, involving a heightened risk of attack with a CBRN agent(s);
2. A determination by the Secretary of Defense that there is a military emergency, or a significant potential for a military emergency, involving a heightened risk to United States military forces of attack with a CBRN agent(s);
3. A determination by the Secretary of HHS that there is a public health emergency, or a significant potential for a public health emergency, that affects, or has a significant potential to affect, national security or the health and security of United States citizens living abroad, and that involves a CBRN agent or agents, or a disease or condition that may be attributable to such agent(s);
4. The identification of a material threat, by the Secretary of Homeland Security pursuant to section 319F-2 of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act, that is sufficient to affect national security or the health and security of United States citizens living abroad.

Presumably, the emergency use authorization is granted under #3. However, the document makes it clear that this is not the same thing as being approved. Furthermore, when the emergency is over, sales and distributions of such products must end.

Health Canada links that FDA document on their own site. Presumably, this is used as a starting point for how the Canadian Government handles such things.

Under Section B on that same page, Health Canada lists the “specific nucleic acid sequences from the genome of the SARS-CoV-2 (please specify the targeted gene(s) of the pathogen).” In other words, these tests are not supposed to test for an isolated virus, but to test for a gene, or a portion of a virus — assuming it exists.

The World Health Organization also doesn’t think isolating a virus is necessary. See page 3 of its March 2020 guidance, page 8 of its September 2020 guidance.

Health Canada, again, same page, asks companies applying for an authorization to disclose the known limitations of their testing equipment. On F, Proposed Intended Use, it provides the following:

  • Negative results do not preclude SARS-CoV-2 infection and should not be used as the sole basis for patient management decisions. Negative results must be combined with clinical observations, patient history and epidemiological information.
  • Negative results from pooled samples should be treated as presumptive. If inconsistent with clinical signs and symptoms or necessary for patient management, pooled samples should be tested individually. Negative results do not preclude SARS-CoV-2 infection and must not be used as the sole basis for patient management decisions. Negative results must be considered in the context of a patient’s recent exposures, history, presence of clinical signs and symptoms consistent with COVID-19.
  • Use of the [test name] in a general, asymptomatic screening population is intended to be used as part of an infection control plan, that may include additional preventative measures, such as a predefined serial testing plan or directed testing of high-risk individuals. Negative results should be considered presumptive and do not preclude current or future infection obtained through community transmission or other exposures. Negative results must be considered in the context of an individual’s recent exposures, history, presence of clinical signs and symptoms consistent with COVID-19.

These are what Health Canada lists as examples (emphasis mine). In other words, the tests, if negative, don’t really mean negative. It must be taken in context of other factors. This is a long way away from being the “gold standard” that we are always told it is.

Such guidelines seem ripe for abuse, as a test result could mean whatever the person wants it to be. The above disclaimer means that it’s very subjective, and unreliable as a standardized medical or scientific device.

The BC Centre for Disease Control admitted in April 2020 that the tests are useless. If they can’t detect infection, and the actual error rate is unknown, then they are of no help, other than to artificially drive up false positives. Also, let’s not forget this now scrubbed article of Bonnie Henry admitting false positives could overburden the hospitals. Does this virus even exist?

Other provinces, like Ontario and Manitoba, claim that PCR tests are the “gold standard”. At testing what exactly?

It’s not just nucleic acid tests (or PCR tests) that are held to virtually non-existent standards. Other tests follow the same pattern.

Results are for the identification of SARS-CoV-2 [protein name]antigen. Antigen is generally detectable in [specimen type]during the acute phase of infection. Positive results indicate the presence of viral antigens, but clinical correlation with patient history and other diagnostic information is necessary to determine infection status. Positive results do not rule out bacterial infection or co-infection with other viruses. The agent detected may not be the definite cause of disease. Laboratories within the United States and its territories are required to report all positive results to the appropriate public health authorities.

Negative results should be treated as presumptive, and do not rule out SARS-CoV-2 infection and should not be used as the sole basis for treatment or patient management decisions, including infection control decisions. Negative results should be considered in the context of a patient’s recent exposures, history and the presence of clinical signs and symptoms consistent with COVID-19, and confirmed with a molecular assay, if necessary, for patient management.

The [test name] is intended for use by [include intended user, for example, trained clinical laboratory personnel specifically instructed and trained in vitro diagnostic procedures]. The [test name] is only for use under the Food and Drug Administration’s Emergency Use Authorization.

Under Section F: Proposed intended use, there are some rather lengthy disclaimers to be added in. In short, these tests are to be used as an emergency authorized test by the FDA, not approved.

Beyond that, the test results are meaningless. A positive result could be a false positive, and a negative result could be a false positive. It’s only to be used in conjunction with a patient’s history. Again, this is competely subjective.

Interim Orders, like this one signed on March 30, 2020, allow medical devices and medications to be distributed in Canada, even if they don’t meet all the regulatory conditions. In short, as long as there is an “emergency”, there will always be a way to get them into the market.

That Order since lapsed, and Patty Hajdu signed another one on March 1, 2021. Theoretically, as long as this keeps getting extended, then Health Canada will never need to make a determination as to whether these products are safe.

Limitations related to the intended use of serological tests
Based on the information available at the present time, Health Canada will not authorize serological tests intended to be used for diagnosis or for self-testing. As research evolves and we learn more about the virus, the disease and the immune response, the requirements in this Guidance may be updated accordingly based on available scientific evidence.
The following statements should be included as limitations of serological tests:
-This assay is not intended to be used for screening patients or as an aid for diagnosis of patients with suspected COVID-19 infection.
-This assay is not intended for home testing (or self-testing).
Negative results do not preclude SARS-CoV-2 infection and should not be used as the sole basis for patient management decisions.
Negative results must be combined with clinical observations, patient history, and epidemiological information.
-False negative results can occur in elderly and immunocompromised patients.
False positive results for IgM and IgG antibodies may occur due to cross-reactivity from pre-existing antibodies or other possible causes.

The above listings are limitations of serology testing. All of these tests come with a common disclaimer: we don’t know that they actually work.

If people haven’t figured out by now that this is all a scam, then they probably never will. This is obvious to anyone paying attention.

(1) https://www.cdc.gov/csels/dls/locs/2021/07-21-2021-lab-alert-Changes_CDC_RT-PCR_SARS-CoV-2_Testing_1.html
(2) https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-health-products/covid19-industry/medical-devices/testing/nucleic-acid-devices.html
(3) https://archive.is/HaFdq
(4) http://www.bccdc.ca/Health-Professionals-Site/Documents/COVID19_InterpretingTesting_Results_NAT_PCR.pdf
(5) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/BC-COVID19_InterpretingTesting_Results_NAT_PCR.pdf
(6) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/WHO-COVID-19-laboratory-Testing-March-17-2020.pdf
(7) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/WHO-2019-nCoV-laboratory-September-11-2020-Guidelines.pdf
(8) https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-health-products/covid19-industry/medical-devices/testing/antigen-devices/fda-guidance-molecular-diagnostic-template-commercial-manufacturers.html
(9) https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-health-products/medical-devices/application-information/guidance-documents/covid19-requirements-serological-antibody-tests.html
(10) https://archive.is/ISGAH
(11) https://archive.is/hyKJj
(12) https://www.cdc.gov/csels/dls/locs/2021/07-21-2021-lab-alert-Changes_CDC_RT-PCR_SARS-CoV-2_Testing_1.html
(13) https://archive.is/oc5OY
(14) https://www.fda.gov/media/97321/download
(15) FDA Emergency Use Guidelines
(16) https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-health-products/covid19-industry/medical-devices/testing/antigen-devices/fda-guidance-antigen-template-test-developers.html
(17) https://archive.is/wASc9
(18) https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-health-products/compliance-enforcement/covid19-interim-order-drugs-medical-devices-special-foods.html
(19) https://archive.is/sPj1p
(20) https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-health-products/covid19-industry/drug-medical-device-food-shortages/interim-order-2021.html
(21) https://archive.is/n3dPV
(22) https://archive.is/U2k6g

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.

(1) http://lobbyist.oico.on.ca/Pages/Public/PublicSearch/
(2) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/advSrch
(3) https://www.linkedin.com/in/nadia-yee-050765a/
(4) https://archive.is/UlkMf
(5) https://www.linkedin.com/in/jon-feairs-826b5739/
(6) https://archive.is/9fj0j
(7) https://www.linkedin.com/in/ryan-lock-6b6899b/
(8) https://archive.is/62e0P
(9) https://www.linkedin.com/in/jessica-georgakopoulos-931b5523/
(10) https://archive.is/JGWso
(11) https://www.linkedin.com/in/susan-baker-b9359640/
(12) https://archive.is/QROy9
(13) https://www.linkedin.com/in/conradbellehumeur/
(14) https://archive.is/cafE0
(15) https://www.linkedin.com/in/anne-sophie-belzile-28843114/
(16) https://archive.is/LsuLR
(17) https://www.linkedin.com/in/steven-hogue-559837/
(18) https://archive.is/eUddr
(19) https://www.linkedin.com/in/alexis-sciuk/
(20) https://archive.is/D4zhI
(21) https://www.linkedin.com/in/gillian-kennedy-mba-b4029325/
(22) https://archive.is/sSfLl

Bit Of History: University Of Toronto, Public Health, Funded With Rockefeller Money

[Reprinted without permission]

The Rockefeller Foundation’s contributions to the University of Toronto have been an important part of its global philanthropic agenda in support of health, food, employment, cities, energy and innovation over the past century.

Established in 1913, the Rockefeller Foundation has disbursed more than US$17 billion in today’s dollars. Among its achievements, the foundation played a role in the founding of the field of public health, developed vaccines for diseases such as yellow fever and malaria, and led a global transformation of agriculture that has saved millions of lives.

Created by American industrialist John D. Rockefeller, the foundation is also a major supporter of educational institutions. It established the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, and schools of public health at both Harvard and Johns Hopkins Universities. It became a major benefactor of the University of Toronto following the discovery of insulin in 1921 by Frederick Banting and Charles Best.

The following year, the foundation donated several million dollars to U of T for a chair of surgery and to fund construction of anatomy and pathology labs. The foundation also helped establish the School of Hygiene, which housed the Departments of Hygiene and Preventive Medicine, Public Health Nursing, Epidemiology and Biometrics, and Physical Hygiene, as well as a Division of Industrial Hygiene. It incorporated the existing Connaught Laboratories, then a global leader in the development and manufacture of vaccines.

In 1933, further contributions helped create the School of Nursing, transforming the program at U of T from a diploma course for existing nurses into a fully-fledged bachelor’s degree program in a new departmental building at Queen’s Park Crescent. Other Rockefeller gifts helped found programs in Chinese Studies in 1934, and the Department of Slavic Studies in 1949.

The foundation’s leadership in global philanthropy for more than a century has had a tremendous impact. Its support for education and research at U of T has played a major role in building our impressive global legacy.

Certainly not the only major donor. However, no one else has given anywhere close to $17 billion places like the University of Toronto (adjusted for inflation). Check out other major names. Correction: an earlier interpretation of the announcement thought it was $17B exclusively to this school.

Kind of makes one wonder who financed the various outlets at the school, such as the Centre for Vaccine-Preventable Diseases, the WHO Collaboration Centre.

One notable set of donors are William (Bill) Graham and Catherin Graham. Bill is a former Defense Minister of Canada, former Foreign Affairs Minister, and former Interim Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada. In total, they have contributed from $10.4 million.

This is quite the rabbit hole, but a few points to consider:

While this may be coincidental, the U.S. Federal Reserve came into existence in 1913. This led to the latest iteration of debt based currency, and debt slavery in that country.

The Rockefeller Foundation recently announced a $13.5 million grant, mostly for the U.S., to be spent on combatting misinformation.

The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine is listed as being founded by Rockefeller. From their own website: “The Rockefeller Foundation invented an international health system virtually overnight in 1914, simultaneously launching a pilot project throughout Central America and the British Caribbean to treat hookworm disease and lay the foundations of permanent departments of health under the auspices of its International Health Board.”

The LSHTM, much like Imperial College London, and the Vaccine Impact Modelling Consortium, receive heavy financing from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

  • European Commission
  • European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA)
  • Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI)
  • GlaxoSmithKline
  • Merck
  • University College London
  • Johnson & Johnson

The Vaccine Confidence Project, headed by Heidi Larson, is run by the LSHTM. Unsurprisingly, pharma companies are the biggest donors. After all, VCP is generating newer and larger markets for their products.

Johns Hopkins University has been running pandemic “scenarios” for many years. Makes one wonder how much of any of this is actually real.

In 2016, the ID2020 group was started. Among its initial partners are the Rockefeller Foundation, Microsoft, and GAVI, the Global Vaccine Alliance.

Rockefeller founded (along with others), the Climate Bonds Initiative. And this is hardly the only organization. Those carbon taxes people hate paying are going to make a limited number of people very rich.

And as mentioned before, UofT is structured as a charity.

Some interesting bits of information that most people probably never think about.

(1) https://www.chancellorscircle.utoronto.ca/members/the-rockefeller-foundation/
(2) https://archive.is/8r2eH
(3) Wayback Machine
(4) https://www.utoronto.ca/news/u-t-opens-groundbreaking-centre-strengthen-vaccine-confidence-through-collaboration
(5) https://www.dlsph.utoronto.ca/who-collaborating-centre-on-health-promotion/
(6) https://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/our-work/events-archive/2001_dark-winter/index.html
(7) https://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/our-work/events-archive/2005_atlantic_storm/index.html
(8) https://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/our-work/events/2018_clade_x_exercise/index.html
(9) https://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/event201/
(10) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Rockefeller.Foundation.lockstep.2010.pdf
(11) https://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/news/the-rockefeller-foundation-commits-13-5-million-in-funding-to-strengthen-public-health-response-efforts/
(12) https://id2020.org/alliance
(13) https://www.lshtm.ac.uk/newsevents/events/rockefeller-foundation-parasitism-and-peripheral-origins-global-health
(14) https://www.vaccineconfidence.org/
(15) https://www.vaccineconfidence.org/partners-funders
(16) https://canucklaw.ca/cv-24-gates-financing-of-imperial-college-london-and-their-modelling/
(17) https://canucklaw.ca/cv-24b-london-school-of-hygiene-tropical-medicine-more-modelling-financed-by-gates/
(18) https://canucklaw.ca/cv-24c-vaccine-impact-modelling-consortium-more-bogus-science/
(19) https://www.climatebonds.net/about/funders

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:

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


I run a small site in BC and came across this


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

Any chance of getting in touch?

Ronnie (Editor)

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 XXXXXXX (she/her)
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”.


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.


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,

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


P.S. you are always welcome to visit the site if any of the content interests you.

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,

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,

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,

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.


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,

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.

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.

(1) http://lobbyist.oico.on.ca/Pages/Public/PublicSearch/
(2) https://twitter.com/rnao
(3) https://www.thestar.com/opinion/contributors/2021/06/18/five-former-mayors-of-toronto-on-why-it-is-time-for-the-city-to-decriminalize-simple-drug-possession.html
(4) https://rnao.ca/news/media-releases/nurses-urge-premier-ford-reinstate-2015-sexual-education-curriculum
(5) https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/liberal-politician-jailed-for-child-porn-released-early-on-parole
(6) https://rnao.ca/news/media-releases/nurses-say-evidence-robust-supervised-injection-and-overdose-prevention
(7) https://rnao.ca/news/media-releases/provinces-support-supervised-injection-services-and-overdose-prevention
(8) https://rnao.ca/news/media-releases/nurses-press-end-hallway-health-care-during-visit-queens-park
(9) https://rnao.ca/news/media-releases/nurses-call-halt-plans-stop-funding-critical-opioid-treatment-sites
(10) https://rnao.ca/news/media-releases/rnao-launches-new-social-media-campaign-maskathon
(11) https://rnao.ca/news/media-releases/rnao-urges-stricter-measures-combat-rapidly-rising-number-covid-19-infections
(12) https://rnao.ca/news/media-releases/rnao-statement-governments-re-opening-announcement
(13) https://rnao.ca/news/media-releases/rnao-says-latest-public-health-measures-will-help-curb-covid-19-variants-urges
(14) https://rnao.ca/news/media-releases/nurses-must-be-fully-vaccinated-immediately-rnao-demands
(15) https://rnao.ca/news/media-releases/rnao-celebrates-the-best-in-health-care-journalism-with-its-annual-media-awards
(16) https://twitter.com/Docs4Decrim/status/1410785836975628288

Toronto Region Board Of Trade Supports Vaccine Passports, While Receiving And Encouraging Subsidies

The Toronto Region Board of Trade, TRBoT, a group that isn’t accountable to the public, and holds no public office, is openly calling for Ontario to adopt vaccine passports. The idea is that people who refuse should be denied access to what they call “non essential” services. Jan De Silva, President and CEO of the group, pushes hard for it. More on her later.

In fact, if a group wanted to kill off businesses, it’s hard to think of a better way to do this.

TORONTO – The Toronto Region Board of Trade is calling on the Ontario government to introduce a vaccine passport system for non-essential business activity.

Jan De Silva, CEO of the board, says vaccine passports are the only way to safely reopen larger events like business conferences and will help revive tourism.

“Now that we’ve got sufficient vaccine, it’s a way to start resuming a more normal form of day-to-day living.” She said it’s a personal decision to get vaccinated, but accessing major events and indoor dining requires moral responsibility.

The board of trade says it is having discussions with the Ontario premier’s office about introducing a vaccine passport system.

This should alarm people. A board representing large business interests is meeting with Doug Ford’s office to discuss limiting people’s right to free association and free movement, unless they agree to have their privacy limited and take experimental “vaccines” for a virus that likely doesn’t exist.

Remember when trade associations used to call for less government restrictions and regulations? Now, the TRBoT is doing exactly the opposite of that. And far from calling on independence, this group openly promotes the idea of its members scooping up government benefits.

The TRBoT is partially funded by the City of Toronto, the Province of Ontario and the Ministry of Energy. This means that taxpayers are helping keep this operation afloat. Beyond that, there are also dozens of private sponsors who stand to benefit from the policies proposed. Rather than demanding economic freedom, there are demands for corporate welfare.

The Toronto Board of Trade is also pushing agenda of the mass testing people at work. For businesses with less than 150 employees, enough test sticks can be included to get everyone twice a week for 4 weeks, or 8 times each overall. Of course, it’s really taxpayers footing the bill for this, although that point is minimized. What exactly happens to the personal information afterwards anyway?

Granted these tests don’t work anyway, but whatever.

In their FAQ section, the Board of Trade provides links to what kind of government support is available. It’s interesting that this group, which claims to be pro-business, isn’t demanding Ford and Tory end their martial law. Instead, they push a pattern of dependence on their members.

In June, there was an update to the list of government (taxpayer) handouts available. However, there still isn’t any urgency in just letting businesses operate normally.

Jan de Silva is the President and CEO of the TRBoT. However, her other connections lend doubt as to what her motivations are. She’s a Director at Intact Financial Corporation, a large insurance company. She’s a member of APEC (Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation), and ABLAC (Asia Business Leaders Council). She’s also a Director at Piment Investments Limited, a firm supporting business expansion in Asia. Also, she’s a non-Executive Director at Blue Umbrella Limited, which sells compliance technology, and is based in Hong Kong. Furthermore, de Silva has chaired the Canada-China Business Council in Beijing. Her profile screams pro-business (in Asia), but she calls on restricting businesses and commerce in Canada, unless certain conditions are met.

De Silva isn’t kidding about lobbying all levels of Government. In fact, the TRBoT has been registered since 2007, and she is personally listed now. What is referred to as “Digital Adaptation – to seek funding for delivery of programs helping small to medium size businesses digitally transform their end-to end operations”, likely is a euphemism that included vaccine passports.

The TRBoT also supports an interesting combination of policies that include: (a) climate change nonsense to kill jobs; (b) “globalized” trade to continue offshoring local industries; and (c) increased immigration to compete for whatever jobs are left.

This is pretty much what Conservative Inc. calls for.

Also, for an organization that claims to be for businesses and a market economy, they don’t seem to mind getting taxpayer subsidies to keep their operations going. This includes receiving CEWS, the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy.

The TRBoT also supports “smart cities“, which means an almost completely digitally-run community. While this may sound convenient, there may be privacy issues to sort out. The April 14, 2021 webcast included as speakers:

1) Craig Clydesdale, Founder & CEO, Utilities Without Borders
2) Craig McLellan, CEO, ThinkOn
3) Raphael Wong, Director- Strategic Initiatives, ThoughtWire
4) Hugh O’Reilly, Executive Director, Innovate Cities

At least we’ll still have jobs when this is over, right?

Now, there is justification in the fear that jobs are disappearing permanently. TRBoT supports the Scale Up Initiative. It’s goal is to put more of the economy online, and to cut costs. Of course “cutting costs” generally means laying off employees. Keep in mind, TRBoT receives public money, which means taxpayers are subsidizing the costs of chopping the job pool available.

How do you feel about this, residents of Toronto and Ontario? Your tax money is helping fund an organization that encourages OTHER businesses to get subsidies, while pushing for vaccine passports? Yay, for capitalism.

(1) https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/video/ontario-needs-a-vaccine-passport-mandate-by-this-fall-toronto-region-board-of-trade-ceo~2241660
(2) https://www.680news.com/2021/07/13/toronto-board-of-trade-vaccine-passports/
(3) https://www.bot.com/AboutUs/WhoWeAre/Sponsors.aspx
(4) https://supportbusiness.bot.com/screening-kits/
(5) https://supportbusiness.bot.com/faqs/
(6) https://supportbusiness.bot.com/2021/06/07/covid-19-government-and-international-response-june-4-2021/
(7) https://www.bot.com/AboutUs/Governance/AnnualReports.aspx
(8) TRBOT Annual Report 2020 FINAL
(9) TRBOT-Annual-Report-2021
(10) https://www.linkedin.com/in/alaina-tennison/
(11) https://archive.is/SUeuH
(12) https://www.linkedin.com/in/janetdesilva/
(13) https://archive.is/Mbh5s
(14) https://supportbusinessdev.bot.com/webinars/rap-webcast-series-3-smart-cities-solutions-to-upgrade-and-drive-your-business-forward/
(15) https://wtctoronto.com/scale-up/
(16) https://wtctoronto.com/rap/
(17) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=15291&regId=911677
(18) https://apps.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/hacc/cews/srch/pub/bscSrch