Category: Health

Posted on

CV #24(D): Heidi Larson; LSHTM; VCP; Vaxxing Pregnant Women; Financed By Big Pharma

Heidi Larson is a bit of a superstar for the pharmaceutical industry, and its allies. It’s well known that GAVI, the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization, is heavily funded by the Gates Foundation, and big pharama. GAVI has also been lobbying the Canadian Parliament for years, and getting hundreds of millions of dollars in grants.

A bit of background information here. The VCP, Vaccine Confidence Program, is part of the LSHTM, or London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine. Both receive extensive funding from pharmaceutical companies, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the World Health Organization, and Governments.

Who else is worth noting?

  • Board member, Carlos Alban (AbbVie)
  • Board member, Bill Anderson (Roche)
  • Board Member, Gabriel Baertschi (Grünenthal)
  • Board member, Anders Blanck (LIF)
  • Board Member, Olivier Charmeil (Sanofi)
  • Board Member, Alberto Chiesi (Chiesi)
  • Board member, Frank Clyburn (MSD)
  • Board Member, Eric Cornut (Menarini)
  • Board member, Richard Daniell (Teva Pharmaceutical Europe)
  • Board member, Johanna Friedl-Naderer (Biogen)
  • Board Member, Murdo Gordon (Amgen)
  • Board member, Peter Guenter (Merck)
  • Board member, Angela Hwang (Pfizer)
  • Board member, Enrica Giorgetti (Farmindustria)
  • Board member, Dirk Kosche (Astellas)
  • Board member, Jean-Luc Lowinski (Pierre Fabre)
  • Board member, Catherine Mazzacco (LEO Pharma)
  • Board member, Johanna Mercier (Gilead)
  • Board member, Luke Miels (GSK)
  • Board member, Gianfranco Nazzi (Almirall)
  • Board member, Oliver O’Connor (IPHA)
  • Board Member, Stefan Oelrich (Bayer)
  • Board member, Giles Platford (Takeda)
  • Board member, Antonio Portela (Bial)
  • Board member, Iskra Reic (AstraZeneca)
  • Board Member, Susanne Schaffert (Novartis)
  • Board member, Stefan Schulze (VIFOR PHARMA)
  • Board Member, Kris Sterkens (Johnson & Johnson)
  • Board member, Han Steutel (vfa)
  • Board member, Alfonso Zulueta (Eli Lilly)

One of the major donors of the Vaccine Confidence Project is the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA). It’s Board is made of up members representing major big pharma companies.

Another donor of VCP is the Innovative Medicine Institute. Salah-Dine Chibout is on the Governing Board of IMI, and also is the Global Head of Discovery and Investigational Safety at Novartis. Additionally, Paul Stoffels is the Chief Scientific Officer at Johnson & Johnson, Worldwide Chairman of Janssen Pharmaceutical Companies of Johnson & Johnson.

The VCP also works closely with the World Health Organization, and is supportive of its mass vaccination agenda. The role with WHO is simply to market the programs to make them more effective.

The Gates Foundation has financial connections to WHO, GAVI, the CDC, and countless pharmaceutical companies. It is also connected to agencies that are involved in computer modelling, such as:
(a) Imperial College London, Neil Ferguson
(b) London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine
(c) Vaccine Impact Modelling Consortium

While all of this is nefarious and creepy, where does Heidi Larson fit into this? What role does she play in the system?

Larson works for both VCP and LSHTM. Her job is mostly one of research and consulting into “increasing vaccine confidence”. In layman’s terms, she is looking into ways to convince segments of the population to get vaccines at higher rates. This doesn’t involve research into CREATING safer and more effective products. Instead, it’s done to CONVINCE people that they already are. Her financial connections to companies like GSK and Merck likely influence her work.

Larson and her cronies apparently see nothing wrong with targeting pregnant women, who are the focus of the following article. Yes, damn the consequences, let’s vaxx the preggers. This, and the following information should horrify and enrage normal people.

5. Conclusion
This literature review has shown that both pregnant women and HCW cite safety concerns as a main barrier to obtaining/providing influenza and pertussis vaccines during pregnancy. However responses differed depending on geographical area: inlow-income countries for example, pregnant women were more likely to cite access issues as a barrier to vaccination. There are alsowide gaps in knowledge regarding the attitudes of HCW to vaccination in pregnancy, which is significant considering the impact they have on a woman’s decision to vaccinate.
.
From the supply side, regulatory agencies still do not have a licensing pathway for many vaccines for pregnant women, manufacturers remain concerned about liability and providers perceive that pregnant women are unwilling to accept vaccines [95].
.
As the MDG era comes to an end, the development agenda beyond 2015 is widening to include other important health issues such as non-communicable diseases (NCDs). However, neither still-births nor neonatal deaths are mentioned in post-2015 documents [96] risking that the current momentum for new-born health may be lost.
.
Barriers to vaccination in pregnancy are complex and can differ from barriers and concerns affecting uptake of routine childhood vaccinations. Maternal vaccination is administered at a time when the patient is cautious about various behaviours, including taking medications and vaccinations, and feels responsible for not just her own life but of that foetus. Depending on the cultural context, different norms are also established around the time of pregnancy. Barriers also vary depending on context and target population.
.
Taking these points into account, ‘quick-fix’ interventions which aim to increase vaccination uptake, such as health communication messages and training physicians in communication strategies [97], without understanding addressing the root cause of vaccine hesitancy in specific contexts, are likely to have little effect on patients’ decisions to vaccinate or on the provider’s own confidence in communicating with parents about vaccines.
.
It is important to understand how cultural and gender dynamics in different settings can influence a woman’s decision to vaccinate. This can be done through in-depth local ethnographies, taking the views of all community members and influencers into account, complemented by in-depth individual interviews and focus groups. Research could also examine some of the complex socio-political reasons for under-vaccination in certain communities must to inform vaccination policies and delivery strategies. With more understanding of the perspectives of pregnant women, their providers and communities, maternal vaccine strategies will be more likely to reach and protect pregnant women and their newborns from preventable disease.

Rather than reading the entire paper, that’s the conclusion. First, it’s pointed out that vaccine manufacturers are concerned about liability. So they are fully aware of the damage and exposure their products can bring. Second, it’s acknowledged that women feel responsibility for not just themselves, but the baby as well. This can be manipulated and it ties into the third point, that specific messaging needs to be used on this group. Fourth, specific training to “sell” the vaccines will likely be needed. Fifth, it is higher vaccination rates, not overall safety, that is the focus.

The reference list is extensive.
Check out the actual paper.

That is interesting. Not only is Larson working for the LSHTM and Vaccine Confidence Program, but she has also been employed by pharmaceutical companies GlaxoSmithKline and Merck.

Vaccine confidence concerns the belief that vaccination – and by extension the providers and range of private sector and political entities behind it – serves the best health interests of the public and its constituents. The Oxford English Dictionary defines confidence as “the mental attitude of trusting in or relying on a person or thing”. In light of that, we are not examining the well-studied domain of supply and access barriers to vaccination, but rather what is typically called the “demand” side of immunisation. However, our focus on confidence takes the “demand” rubric a step further than the more traditional notion of building demand through increasing knowledge and awareness of vaccines and immunisation to understanding what else drives confidence in vaccines, and the willingness to accept a vaccine, when supply, access and information are available. In other words, understanding vaccine confidence means understanding the more difficult belief-based, emotional, ideological and contextual factors whose influences often live outside an immunisation or even health programme but affect both confidence in and acceptance of vaccines.

The Vaccine Confidence Program believes that vaccines are good for humanity. It’s a part of the LSHTM, which is one of the biggest modelers of CV-19, predicting death waves. It also receives funding from drug companies who have a product to sell. What we have is a situation where the manufacturers, sales agents, and marketers work together under some humanitarianism guise.

October 2020, Larson co-chaired a panel on combatting pandemic misinformation. It was hosted by LSHTM and Center for Strategic and International Studies.

December 2020, Larson tweeted out — but did not condemn or question — a JAMA Network article discussing mandatory vaccinations.

January 2021, LSHTM tweeted (and Larson retweeted) a Telegraph article on combatting misinformation

January 2021, Larson was at the Pulitzer Center for a talk on combatting misinformation around CV vaccination. A look at their donors reveals the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Facebook, Omidyar Network, Planned Parenthood, and the Rockefeller Foundation.

March 2021, Larson wrote a piece for the New York Times, in support of AstraZeneca. The basic premise was that the AZ vaccine was safe, and that only public perception and confidence were keeping it from being distributed. She also called for “training vaccinators” in such a way to boost the image among others. In short, train people to better sell the product.

Now, this may be a coincidence, but some of the same companies that are paying for Larson’s work “increasing vaccine confidence” are also lobbying Ottawa to buy their products.

Side note with GlaxoSmithKline: Larson has disclosed being a consultant for the company. Now, in 2009, Canada gave Interim Authorization (not approval), to 2 vaccines for H1N1, Arepanrix and Monovalent Vaccine. Lawsuits were filed because the injections harmed a lot of people, but:

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

That’s one way to have high confidence in your product: make any sale contingent on getting legal immunity in advance. It’s fair to assume this latest batch came with the same conditions.

Larson’s career appears to have taken off in 2000, then she went to work for UNICEF. No surprise, but she was pushing mass vaccination even then. The bulk of her career appears to be acting as a mouthpiece for big pharma.

Canada announced the launch of a vaccine injury compensation program in December 2020, but so far, so follow-ups have been mentioned.

An interesting side note with Larson’s Twitter profile: she claims that she “did this reluctantly”. That is a strange comment. Does she not believe in what she pushes on the global population?

Anyhow, if nothing else is taken away from here, remember this: the “vaccine confidence” movement is funded by big pharma. They want to convince you that their products are safe. Just ignore the testing issues, and the indemnification agreements.

(1) https://www.vaccineconfidence.org/
(2) https://www.vaccineconfidence.org/team
(3) https://www.vaccineconfidence.org/partners-funders
(4) https://archive.is/Ah9Pw
(5) https://www.efpia.eu/
(6) https://www.efpia.eu/about-us/who-we-are/
(7) https://www.imi.europa.eu/about-imi/governance/governing-board
(8) https://www.who.int/vaccine_safety/initiative/communication/network/vaccineconfidenceproject/en/
(9) Vaccination During Pregnancy Propaganda Research
(10) Vaccine Acceptance During Pregnancy Research
(11) https://www.vaccineconfidence.org/vcp-mission
(12) https://twitter.com/ProfHeidiLarson
(13) https://www.linkedin.com/in/heidi-larson-07b535119/
(14) https://www.csis.org/analysis/call-action-csis-lshtm-high-level-panel-vaccine-confidence-and-misinformation
(15) https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2774712?utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=content-shareicons&utm_content=article_engagement&utm_medium=social&utm_term=122920#.X-uxuv4Z2-I.twitter
(16) https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/climate-and-people/meet-scientists-tackling-vaccine-misinformation-tiktok/
(17) https://pulitzercenter.org/event/covid-19-vaccines-combating-misinformation
(18) https://pulitzercenter.org/about/donors
(19) https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/22/opinion/astrazeneca-vaccine-trust.html
(20) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca
(21) https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-health-products/drug-products/legislation-guidelines/interim-orders.html
(22) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2019/2019onsc7066/2019onsc7066.html
(23) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heidi_Larson
(24) https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/news/2020/12/government-of-canada-announces-pan-canadian-vaccine-injury-support-program.html

CANUCK LAW ON “VACCINE HESITANCY”
(A) Canada’s National Vaccination Strategy
(B) The Vaccine Confidence Project
(C) More Research Into Overcoming “Vaccine Hesitancy”
(D) Psychological Manipulation Over “Vaccine Hesitancy”
(E) World Economic Forum Promoting More Vaccinations
(F) CIHR/NSERC/SSHRC On Grants To Raise Vaccine Uptake
(G) $50,000 Available — Each — For Groups To Target Minorities
(H) Canada Vaccine Innovation Community Challenge

Posted on

Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, And Some Of Their Holdings

The Canadian Pension Plan Investment Board is responsible for investing the money that gets taken from workers’ pay cheques. Now, what does this group actually invest in? The answers may be surprising, as it speaks to the direction they plan to take the fund.

COMPANY AMOUNT
3M Co. $51,203,000
Acceleron Pharma Inc. $85,000
Agios Pharmaceuticals Inc. $1,017,000
Alexion Pharmaceuticals $33,800,000
Alnylam Pharmaceuticals $1,329,000
Amicus Therapeutics $31,186,000
Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals $69,000
Biogen $3,749,000
Biohaven Pharmaceuticals $31,000
China Biologic Products $242,000
CVS Health Corp. $104,361,000
Cardiovascular Sys Inc. $1,339,000
Checkmate Pharmaceuticals $219,000
Eli Lilly & Co. $134,902,000
Fusion Pharmaceuticals $36,624,000
GW Pharmaceuticals $173,115,000
Gilead Sciences $85,944,000
HCA Healthcare $20,325,000
Healthpeak Properties Inc. $43,159,000
Horizon Therapeutics $688,000
Hutchison China Meditech $3,145,000
Ionis Pharmaceuticals $2,414,000
Johnson & Johnson $479,225,000
Ligand Pharmaceuticals $466,000
Magellan Health $5,683,000
Medifast Inc. $641,000
Medpace Holdings Inc. $15,813,000
Merck & Co. $379,344,000
Mirati Therapeutics $61,000
Moderna $75,193,000
Neurocrine Biosciences $752,000
Novavax Inc. $56,000
Opko Health Inc. (Sold off)
Orthofix Med Inc. $976,000
PTC Therapeutics $13,561,000
Pacira Biosciences $13,925,000
Pfizer Inc. $224,969,000
Phillip Morris $128,347,000
Physicians Realty Trust $5,618,000
Prestige Consumer Healthcare $1,022,000
Procter & Gamble $498,019,000
Quest Diagnostics $130,317,000
Reata Pharmaceuticals $323,000
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals $3,233,000
Royalty Pharma $5,420,000
Sabra Healthcare REIT $6,232,000
Sage Therapeutics $735,000
Sigilon Therapeutics $71,333,000
Starr Surgical Co. $21,247,000
Teladoc Health Inc. $4,796,000
Tenet Healthcare Corp. $14,267,000
Teva Pharmaceuticals $1,723,000
Theravance Biopharma $169,000
Thermo Fisher Scientific $198,939,000
Trevi Therapeutics $36,000
Trillium Therapeutics $1,431,000
Ultragenyx Pharmaceutical $1,000
United Therapeutics Corp. $413,000
Unitedhealth Group Inc. $1,067,720,000
Usans Health Sciences $5,867,000
Viatris Inc. $16,153,000
West Pharmaceutical SVSC $410,000
Zimmer Biomet $19,398

Aside from all of the stocks in pharmaceuticals and health care, the CPPIB has interests in many other organizations that will raise eyebrows. True, the “Great Reset” may be a massive conspiracy theory, but the investments here would suggest otherwise.

COMPANY AMOUNT
Alphabet Inc. $2,188,964,000
Amazon Inc. $779,986
American Express $134,979,000
Apple Inc. $979,811,000
Aramark $19,240,000
Autodesk $19,044,000
Bank of America $372,509
Bank of Montreal $62,350
Bank of Nova Scotia $216,553,000
Best Buy $12,943,000
Blackline Inc. $493,000
Blackrock $230,895,000
Blackstone $53,059,000
Boeing $70,565,000
Citigroup $319,809,000
Comcast Corp. $65,150,000
E-Bay $15,259,000
Equifax $135,602,000
Fox Corp. $4,632,000
Hewlett Packard $121,000
Home Depot $274,181,000
Icici Bank Limited $59,222,000
JP Morgan Chase $876,096,000
Mastercard Incorporated $2,236,387,000
Microsoft Corp $1,143,414,000
Molson Coors Beverage $8,593,000
NASDAQ $5,116,000
Newscorp $470,000
Paycom Software $993,000
Paychex Inc. $19,982,000
PayPal Holdings $228,341,000
Pinterest $611,000
Rogers Communications $1,500,000,000
Royal Bank of Canada $537,548,000
Shaw Communications Inc. $100,269,000
Shopify $244,903,000
Starbucks Corp. $32,580,000
Synchrony Financial $5,553,000
Target Corp. $29,903,000
Tesla Inc. $128,538,000
Toronto Dominion Bank $289,035,000
Transunion $37,293,000
Trip Advisor $1,468,000
Twitter Inc. $57,887,000
Uber Technologies $60,382,000
Verizon Communications $192,559,000
Visa Inc. $135,000
Vonage Holdings Corp $145,000
Walmart Inc. $245,483,000
Zoom Video Communications $5,807,000

For reference, Alphabet Inc. is the company that owns Google and its subsidiaries, such as YouTube. It seems that being major stakeholders in the business will have great influence over the social media censorship that Governments ask them to play. CPPIB holds over $2 billion. Difficult to say no to your biggest shareholders.

Additionally the CPPIB holds over $50 million in stock in Twitter. This platform has also been brutal when it comes to censoring views that contradict official pandemic or election narratives.

This is certainly quite in the interesting portfolio: pro-big pharma, and pro-Great Reset. However, there is a bigger and more fundamental problem that needs to be addressed: liabilities.

Year Value of Fund Inv Income Rate of Return
2010 $127.6B $22.1B 14.9%
2011 $148.2B $20.6B 11.9%
2012 $161.6B $9.9B 6.6%
2013 $183.3B $16.7B 10.1%
2014 $219.1B $30.1B 16.5%
2015 $264.6B $40.6B 18.3%
2016 $278.9B $9.1 6.8%
2017 $316.7B $33.5B 11.8%
2018 $356.B $36.7B 11.6%
2019 $392B $32B 8.9%

The CPPIB routinely crows about how well its investments do, and how the fund is worth hundreds of billions of dollars. The problem is that it has a screwy accounting system. Instead of taking into account all assets and liabilities, the health is determined by ability to meet current obligations. The fund has been properly accounted, and there is over $1 trillion in unfunded liabilities. This is money taken in an spent, for which it (should have been) paid out.

Most pension systems act as a ponzi scheme, where the only way to meet old obligations is with the infusion of new money. Clearly, such a system is unsustainable in the long term.

But hey, at least our investments in Pfizer, Moderna, Johnson & Johnson, Gilead, Eli Lilley and 3M are doing well. Good thing there is a “pandemic” to drive up demand for these products.

To hell with free speech and open media.
Big pharma is here to stay.

https://www.sec.gov/edgar/browse/
https://www.sec.gov/edgar/browse/?CIK=1283718
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1283718/000110465921024475/xslForm13F_X01/infotable.xml
https://www.cppinvestments.com/the-fund/our-performance
https://canucklaw.ca/pensions-1b-unsustainable-underfunded-takes-money-out-of-canada/

Posted on

CV #66(G): Patty Hajdu Lies: Rigorous Testing WASN’T Required To Get “Vaccines” Onto Market

Canadians are constantly told that these gene therapy “vaccines” are safe, and have undergone strict testing in order to be allowed on the market. But what exactly are those standards? And is it normal practice to include a clause making authorization mandatory?

People should know that if the product injures or kills them, indemnification agreements prevent the manufacturers from getting sued. A vaccine injury compensation program was announced back in December, but appears to have gone nowhere.

As a reminder, Interim Authorization and Approval are quite different, and cannot be used interchangeably.

(a) Approved: Health Canada has fully reviewed all the testing, and steps have been done, with the final determination that it can be used for the general population
(b) Interim Authorization: deemed to be “worth the risk” under the circumstances, doesn’t have to be fully tested. Allowed under Section 30.1 of the Canada Food & Drug Act. Commonly referred to as an emergency use authorization.

If you read the inserts provided by Health Canada (see below), they will all claim to be “authorized under Section 5 of an Interim Order”. Fine, but what is that Order, and what does it actually say?

Issuance
5 The Minister must issue an authorization in respect of a COVID-19 drug if the following requirements are met:

(a) the applicant has submitted an application to the Minister that meets the requirements set out in subsection 3‍(1) or 4‍(2);
(b) the applicant has provided the Minister with all information or material, including samples, requested under subsection 13‍(1) in the time, form and manner specified under subsection 13‍(2); and
(c) the Minister has sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that the benefits associated with the drug outweigh the risks, having regard to the uncertainties relating to the benefits and risks and the necessity of addressing the urgent public health need related to COVID-19.

Several of these “vaccines”, and I use the term loosely, were given Interim Authorization under Section 5 of an Interim Order signed by Health Minister Patty Hajdu on September 16, 2020. The above criteria is all that is required.

Note: Section 5 starts out with “The Minister must” issue and authorization. It’s not that “The Minister should”, or “The Minister may” issue one, but the Minister MUST.

Also, the above requirements are not very strict. 3(1) or 4(2) must be met, along with 13(1) and 13(2). And all that’s needed is the very subjective standard that the “Minister has sufficient evidence to support the conclusion”. It doesn’t specify what, if any, standard there is. The Minister only needs to see is as “worth the risk” given the uncertainties there are.

It’s worth noting that Health Canada doesn’t do the testing themselves. Instead, they rely heavily on the documentation provided. Quite the trust system.

Application for authorization
3 (1) Subject to section 4, an application for an authorization in respect of a COVID-19 drug must be in a form established by the Minister and contain sufficient information and material to enable the Minister to determine whether to issue the authorization, including
.
(a) the applicant’s name and contact information and, in the case of a foreign applicant, the name and contact information of their representative in Canada;
(b) a description of the drug and a statement of its proper name or its common name if there is no proper name;
(c) a statement of the brand name of the drug or the identifying name or code proposed for the drug;
a list of the ingredients of the drug, stated quantitatively;
(d) the specifications for each of the drug’s ingredients;
(e) a description of the facilities and equipment to be used in the manufacture, preparation and packaging of the drug;
(f) details of the method of manufacture and the controls to be used in the manufacture, preparation and packaging of the drug;
(g) details of the tests to be applied to control the potency, purity, stability and safety of the drug;
(h) the names and qualifications of all the investigators to whom the drug has been sold;
(i) a draft of every label to be used in connection with the drug, including any package insert and any document that (j) is provided on request and that sets out supplementary information on the use of the drug;
(k) a statement of all the representations to be made for the promotion of the drug respecting
(i) the recommended route of administration of the drug,
(ii) the proposed dosage of the drug,
(iii) the drug’s indications, and
(iv) the contra-indications and side effects of the drug;
(l) a description of the dosage form that is proposed for the sale of the drug;
(m) evidence that all test batches of the drug used in any studies conducted in connection with the application were manufactured and controlled in a manner that is representative of market production;
(n) in the case of a drug intended for administration to food-producing animals, the withdrawal period of the drug; and
(o) the known information in relation to the quality, safety and effectiveness of the drug.

About part (n), it says “administration to food-producing animals”. Are we to assume that livestock are going to be vaccinated with these substances at some point? Or are we repurposing drugs that were originally meant for them? That’s a bit unsettling.

Application for authorization – foreign drug
4 (1) An application for an authorization in respect of a COVID-19 drug may be based on a comparison to a foreign drug if the sale of the foreign drug is authorized by a foreign regulatory authority on the basis of information submitted to the authority in relation to the quality, safety and effectiveness of that drug.
.
Content
(2) The application must be in a form established by the Minister and contain the following information and material:
.
(a) the information and material described in paragraphs 3‍(1)‍(a) to (d), (f), (j) to (l) and, if applicable, (n);
(b) an attestation, signed and dated by an individual who has authority to bind the applicant in Canada, certifying that the applicant has access to the information referred to in paragraph 3‍(1)‍(o) that was submitted to the relevant foreign regulatory authority in order for the foreign drug to be authorized to be sold;
(c) information that demonstrates that the drug is identical to, and is manufactured, prepared and packaged in the same manner as, the foreign drug;
(d) information that demonstrates that the sale of the foreign drug is authorized by the foreign regulatory authority referred to in paragraph (b); and
(e) any labels that are approved by the foreign regulatory authority referred to in paragraph (b) for use in connection with the foreign drug.

Request for information or material
13 (1) The Minister may request that a person that has submitted an application for an authorization in respect of a COVID-19 drug or the holder of such an authorization provide any information or material, including samples, that is necessary to enable the Minister to determine whether to issue, amend or suspend the authorization.
.
Time, form and manner
(2) The person or holder, as the case may be, must provide the information, material or samples in the time, form and manner specified by the Minister.

Section 3(1) lists what documentation needs to be submitted to get authorization. Section 4(2) contains a few extra steps for foreign drugs. Sections 13(1) and (2) state that information and samples must be provided if demanded.

The standard for Interim Authorization under Section 5 appears to be a fairly low one. Keep in mind, the Minister doesn’t even need to be certain the drugs work as advertised. It just has to be determined to be worth the risk. Not quite what we are told on the news.

As for the basis in the law, Section 30.1 of the Canada Food & Drug Act allows the Health Minister to sign such Orders, if it’s believed, (or claimed to be believed), it’s in the public interest. There is no requirement that the Minister have any appropriate education background, or know what he/she is talking about.

Circling back to the top of Section 5, the Health Minister “must issue an authorization” if the conditions in Section 5 are met?!?! So this isn’t discretionary? Our graphic designer Minister must sign off on this?

It’s also unsettling that this Order allows for drugs originally intended for livestock to be repurposed and tested on humans.

WHO Paper On MANDATORY Vaccination April 13, 2021 (Original)
WHO Paper On MANDATORY Vaccination April 13, 2021 (Copy)
Section 30.1 Canada Food & Drug Act
September 2020 Interim Order From Patty Hajdu
https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/news/2020/12/government-of-canada-announces-pan-canadian-vaccine-injury-support-program.html
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

Testing Product Insert AstraZeneca Interim Authorization
Testing Product Insert Janssen Interim Authorization
Testing Product Insert Moderna Interim Authorization
Testing Product Insert Pfizer Interim Authorization

Vaccines Supported For Pregnant Women, Despite No Testing
Vaccines Given “Interim Authorization”, Not Approval. Very Different
Call Centers Wrongly Telling People “Vaccines” Are Approved
Ontario Adds, Then Removes Protections Against “No Jab, No Job”
WHO April 13 Paper: Discussion On Mandatory “Experimental Vaxx”

Posted on

SPOR Evidence Alliance (OST Partner), Gets Funding From World Health Organization

This is another look at the Ontario Science Table, and their partners. Now we get to the SPOR Evidence Alliance, which was supported by CIHR, the Canadian Institutes for Health Research. SPOR itself is an acronym for “Strategy for Patient Oriented Research”. Okay, it’s funded by the Canadian Government, but by itself, that isn’t too bad.

Problem is, SPOR is also supported and sponsored by, the World Health Organization, although the distinction isn’t clear. It’s also sponsored by CADTH, the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health, a WHO Working Group.

How We Manage Conflicts of Interests
.
-We currently DO NOT accept any funding from private industry (e.g., pharmaceutical companies, medical device manufacturers) to support our research activities.
-All our members must declare annual statements of conflicts and competing interests.
We encourage and nurture open communication and respectful relationships, and strive to resolve conflicts and competing interests through diplomacy.

While this sounds fine on paper, it overlooks 2 details. First, Governments, supra-national bodies and academia “can” and often do have conflicts of interest. Second, even if they don’t have conflicts of interests, groups they partner with can.

SPOR has more sponsors. This includes the University of Toronto, which has all kinds of ties to the Ontario Science Table. Furthermore, it’s sponsored by McMaster University, which hosts Cochrane Canada (another WHO partner), and receives money from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

At a Glance
The Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research (SPOR) Evidence Alliance is a pan-Canadian research initiative designed to promote evidence-informed health policy and practice changes. Our 300+ network of researchers, trainees, patient partners, and stakeholders is led by Dr. Andrea Tricco and 11 principal investigators from across Canada.

The SPOR Evidence Alliance was founded in 2017, thanks to a five-year grant awarded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) under Canada’s SPOR Initiative, and the generosity of partners from 41 sponsors from public and not-for-profit sectors in Canada.

From this description, SPOR seems to present itself as a researching and consulting group, one designed to cause systematic change to health care. How many of these groups are there?

And when they take money from institutions like the World Health Organization, how independent can they really be?

Also, CIHR funds initiatives that seem to run counter to independence, like paying groups to act as vaccine salesmen and improve uptake rates. How independent is this group, or any part of the Canadian Government?

IMPORTANT LINKS
(1) https://sporevidencealliance.ca/
(2) https://sporevidencealliance.ca/about/governance-structure/
(3) https://sporevidencealliance.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/SPOREA_Alliance-Infographic.pdf
(4) https://cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/193.html
(5) https://cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/41204.html

EARLIER IN THIS SERIES
(a) Michael Warner Financially Benefits From Prolonged Lockdowns
(b) Who Is Ontario Deputy Medical Officer, Barbara Yaffe?
(c) OST, Monopoly From The University Of Toronto Connected
(d) OST, University Of Toronto, Look At Their Members And Partners
(e) OST’s Robert Steiner Claims To Be Behind PHAC Canada Creation
(f) OST’s Kwame McKenzie Headed 2017 UBI Pilot Project
(g) OST UofT Prelude Actually Set Out In May 2019
(h) OST’s Murty Has Tech Firm That Benefits From Lockdowns
(i) OST: Como Foundation Gives Trillium Health Partners $5M
(j) OST: Current PHO Officials Also Sitting On As Partners
(k) OST: Canadian Agency For Drugs & Technologies In Health; pCPA
(l) OST: Centre For Effective Practice Gets Money From Lockdown
(m) OST: Cochrane Canada; WHO; McMaster University

Posted on

Cochrane Canada: WHO Partner; OST Partner; McMaster University Affiliate

Cochrane Canada is listed as a partner for the Ontario Science Table. However, there are important things about this organization that are not being publicly discussed. For starters, Cochrane is partnered with the World Health Organization, and receives funding from them. Cochrane (the parent org) also gets funding from various Governments and universities.

What is the end result of this? Cochrane helps to legitimize the actions of the very Governments that it gets funded from. After all, it refuses to accept commercial funding.

It’s a bit like the 2003 Iraq war. U.S. Government Officials leaked their “information” to various journalists. Those journalists were then cited as sources to show there were weapons of mass destruction.

Cochrane is for anyone interested in using high-quality information to make health decisions. Whether you are a doctor or nurse, patient or carer, researcher or funder, Cochrane evidence provides a powerful tool to enhance your healthcare knowledge and decision making.

Cochrane’s members and supporters come from more than 130 countries, worldwide. Our volunteers and contributors are researchers, health professionals, patients, carers, and people passionate about improving health outcomes for everyone, everywhere. Our global independent network gathers and summarizes the best evidence from research to help you make informed choices about treatment and we have been doing this for 25 years.

We do not accept commercial or conflicted funding. This is vital for us to generate authoritative and reliable information, working freely, unconstrained by commercial and financial interests.

Cochrane appears to have legitimacy, because it only takes money from Government or academic sources. But then it publishes material that validates the actions and conclusions of those very parties. It’s pay-for-play, but with very serious consequences.

The largest single donor to Cochrane (globally) is the National Institute for Health Research in the UK. But it’s worth pointing out that the World Health Organization is high up on that list.

More than 1 million GBP

  • National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) (UK)
  • Danish Health Authorities (Denmark)
  • National Institutes of Health (USA)

500k to 1 million GBP

  • Federal Ministry of Health (Germany)

100k to 500k GBP

  • South African Medical Research Council
  • Anonymous non‐profit organizations (charitable donations or commissioned work)
  • Department for International Development (UK)
  • Cochrane Charity ‐ central funds awarded
  • National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia)
  • Chief Scientist Office (Scotland)
  • World Health Organization
  • McMaster University (Canada)
  • Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (Norway)
  • Ministry of Health (New Zealand)
  • Ministry of Health, British Columbia (Canada)
  • Lower Austrian Health and Social Fund (Austria)
  • Laura & John Arnold Foundation
  • South African Department of Health
  • Institut national du Cancer (France)

50k to 100k GBP

  • Ministry of Health (Austria)
  • laurence le cleach (France)
  • HSC Research and Development (Northern Ireland)
  • Ministerio de Sanidad, Servicios Sociales e Igualdad/Ministry of Health, Social Services and Equality (Spain)
  • Joint Research Centre (Italy)
  • Vermont Oxford Network
  • Swiss Medical Board
  • Ministry of Health and Welfare (Taiwan)
  • The Gerber Foundation
  • Ciber de Epidemiología y Salud Pública (Spain)
  • Centre for Future Health, University of York / Wellcome (UK)
  • The National Health Research Institutes (Taiwan)
  • Skåne University Hospital (Sweden)

20k to 50k GBP

  • National Research Foundation (South Africa)
  • Federal Ministry of Education and Research (Germany)
  • University of Vermont, Larner College of Medicine (USA)
  • Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine (South Africa)
  • Cochrane Oral Health Global Alliance
  • Lund University (Sweden)
  • Federal Ministry of Education (Nigeria)
  • National Institute for Medical Research Development (Iran)
  • European Respiratory Society
  • Farncombe Family gift
  • Canadian Rheumatology Association
  • The Global Fund
  • Northumberland, Tyne and Wear NHS Foundation Trust (

    • UK)

  • Monash University (Australia)
  • University of York (UK)
  • Ministry of Science and Technology (Taiwan)
  • Institut de Recerca de Sant Pau (Spain)
  • Public Health Wales
  • Instituto Ramón y Cajal de Investigación Sanitaria (IRYCIS) (Spain)
  • Kazan Federal University Program, Federal Ministry of Education and Science (Russia)
  • Universidad Francisco de Vitoria (Spain)
  • Dr. Peter Tugwell University Account (Canada)
  • Hamilton Health Sciences
  • State of Lower Austria
  • Lazio Region (Italy)
  • Universidad Tecnológica Equinoccial (Ecuador)
  • Niederösterreich Gesundheits und Sozialfonds (NOGUS)/Health and Social Funds, Lower Austria (Austria)
  • Odense University Hospital, University of Southern Denmark
    Canadian Association of Gastroenterology (Canada)
  • Anonymous non‐profit organization (charitable donation)

    • 10k to 20k GBP

    • American College of Gastroenterology (USA)
    • Navarre Health Service (Spain)
    • Foundation IRCCS ‐ Istituto Neurologico Carlo Besta, Milan (Italy)
    • Federal Ministry of Health (Nigeria)
    • University of Pécs (Hungary)
    • Campbell Collaboration
    • Economic and Social Research Council (UK)
    • Workshop 2018/2019
    • Medical Center – University of Freiburg (Germany)
    • Training (self‐funded)
    • Erasmus University (Netherlands)
    • Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University (South Africa)
    • Ministry of Health and Regione Lombardia (Italy)
    • INSTITUTO DE EVALUACIÓN TECNOLÓGICA EN SALUD ‐ IETS‐ and UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL DE COLOMBIA (Colombia)
    • PROPUESTA PARA LA ESTRUCTURACION TECNICA Y OPERATIVA DE UN MODELO DE EXCELENCIA PARA LA RUTA INTEGRAL DE

    0.5k to 10k GBP

    • University Hospital Gaetano Martino Messina (Italy)
    • Faculdade de Medicina de Lisboa (Portugal)
    • Region Skåne (Sweden)
    • University of Copenhagen (Denmark)
    • MDS Foundation (Portugal)
    • Mapi Research Trust
    • CHU de Québec ‐ université Laval research center: Population Health and Optimal Health Practices (Canada)
    • Canada research chair critical care neurology and trauma (Canada)
    • Instituto Universitario Hospital Italiano (Italy)
    • Jagiellonian University Medical College (Poland)
    • University of the Basque Country (Spain)
    • Cochrane Canada
    • National Insitute for Clincal Excellence (NICE) (UK)
    • University of Split, School of Medicine (Croatia)
    • Cochrane Japan (commissioned work)
    • INSTITUTO SALVADOREÑO DE SEGURO SOCIAL ISSS and INSTITUTO DE INVESTIGACIONES CLÍNICAS DE LA UNIVERSIDAD NAC
    • Cochrane Response
    • Ministry of Science and Education (Croatia)
    • Pan American Health Organization (PAHO)
    • City of Zagreb (Croatia)
    • Motor Neurone Disease Association (UK)
    • RCSI & UCD Malaysia Campus (formerly Penang Medical College) (Malaysia)
    • John Wiley & Sons, Ltd
    • Center for Primary Care and Public Health (Unisanté), Lausanne, Switzerland (formerly Institute of Social and Preventive Med
    • German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD)
    • City of Split (Canada)
    • Split‐Dalmatia County (Croatia)
    • Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts

    Less than 500 GBP

    • Center for Reproductive Medicine (Netherlands)
    • Health Authority, Umbria Region (Italy)

    As for the operation of Cochrane Canada, it is tied to McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario. In fact, several people have an interest in that school.

    McMaster is a major donor to Cochrane, as is the British Columbia Ministry of Health.

    In 2016, the Michael G. DeGroote Cochrane Canada Centre formalized a move from the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute (OHRI) to its original home of McMaster University – widely acknowledged as the home of evidence-based medicine.

    The Centre supports Cochrane initiatives across the country by conducting education activities, functioning as the communications and knowledge brokering lead for Cochrane Canada, and advocating for the use of evidence in decision-making within Canada.

    Link to search IRS charity tax records:
    https://apps.irs.gov/app/eos/

    Let’s clarify here: there are actually 2 separate entities. The Foundation is the group that distributes money to various organizations and institutions. The Foundation Trust, however, is concerned primarily about asset management.

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

    BILL & MELINDA GATES FOUNDATION TRUST
    EIN: 91-1663695
    gates.foundation.trust.taxes.2018

    Above are records from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. The records are publicly available with the IRS. The top is from the year 2017, and the bottom 2018.

    McMaster claimed to have isolated the virus that causes Covid-19. That’s very interesting, considering that when Fluoride Free Peel did a freedom of information request for it, there were no records available.

    $21 million from the Gates Foundation since 2015, according to their publications. Is McMaster University an institution we can trust, or has it been corrupted by special interest money and ideology?

    Also, is Cochrane (either Cochrane Canada, or the parent organization) something that we can trust? Or is it just helping conceal the intentions of interested parties?

    IMPORTANT LINKS
    (1) https://covid19-sciencetable.ca/our-partners/
    (2) https://covid19-sciencetable.ca/our-partners/
    (3) https://esnetwork.ca/
    (4) https://www.cochrane.org
    (5) https://www.cochrane.org/about-us/our-funders-and-partners
    (6) https://canada.cochrane.org/about-us/micheal-g-degroote-cochrane-canada-centre
    (7) https://apps.irs.gov/app/eos/
    (8) https://healthsci.mcmaster.ca/home/2020/03/13/mcmaster-researcher-plays-key-role-in-isolating-covid-19-virus-for-use-in-urgent-research
    (9) https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/university-of-toronto-sunnybrook-hsc-have-no-record-of-covid-19-virus-isolation/
    (10) https://www.gatesfoundation.org/about/committed-grants/2019/11/inv003448
    (11) https://www.gatesfoundation.org/about/committed-grants/2019/11/inv003448
    (12) https://www.gatesfoundation.org/about/committed-grants/2015/06/opp1129405
    (13) https://www.gatesfoundation.org/about/committed-grants?q=mcmaster%20#jump-nav-anchor0

    EARLIER IN THIS SERIES
    (a) Michael Warner Financially Benefits From Prolonged Lockdowns
    (b) Who Is Ontario Deputy Medical Officer, Barbara Yaffe?
    (c) OST, Monopoly From The University Of Toronto Connected
    (d) OST, University Of Toronto, Look At Their Members And Partners
    (e) OST’s Robert Steiner Claims To Be Behind PHAC Canada Creation
    (f) OST’s Kwame McKenzie Headed 2017 UBI Pilot Project
    (g) OST UofT Prelude Actually Set Out In May 2019
    (h) OST’s Murty Has Tech Firm That Benefits From Lockdowns
    (i) OST: Como Foundation Gives Trillium Health Partners $5M
    (j) OST: Current PHO Officials Also Sitting On As Partners
    (k) OST: Canadian Agency For Drugs & Technologies In Health; pCPA
    (l) OST: Centre For Effective Practice Gets Money From Lockdown

    Posted on

    Centre For Effective Practice, Yet Another OST “Partner” That Stands To Profit From Lockdowns

    The Centre for Effective Practice, or CEP, is another “partner” of the Ontario Science Table. The OST apparently does the thinking for Doug Ford and Christine Elliott.

    Unsurprisingly, CEP was established as part of the University of Toronto in 2004. They list their services as: research & evaluation, clinical tools and digitization, education programs, and engagement & communication.

    CEP also provides a set of key talking points that doctors and other health care providers are to parrot concerning these “vaccines” now available in Canada. The goal isn’t to address legitimate concerns, but rather, to appear to be addressing them.

    COVID-19 vaccine authorization
    Health Canada has authorized a number of COVID-19 vaccines for use in Canada after a thorough and rigorous review of the evidence to ensure the vaccines meet the standards of safety, quality and efficacy for authorization in Canada. Health Canada will continue to monitor the safety of the vaccines after they are available.

    Key messages
    –Lead by example. Get the COVID-19 vaccine yourself as soon as it is offered to you to protect yourself, your patients, and your community.
    –Advise patients to receive the vaccine. Communication by trusted health professionals about the importance of vaccines is the most effective way to counter vaccine hesitancy. Tell your patients you will get or have already received the vaccine.
    -Be an educator. Be prepared to answer patient questions and address concerns about the vaccine.

    Vaccine summary
    –Efficacy against severe disease and hospitalization
    -All of the approved vaccines have a high efficacy rate against severe disease. In the clinical trials, efficacy against severe disease was shown to be:

    Pfizer: 75-100% (after dose 2)
    Moderna: 100% (14 days after dose 2)
    AstraZeneca: 100% (after dose 2)
    Janssen: 85.4% (28 days after dose)

    First, whether by accident, or by design, CEP is blurring the line between “approved” vaccines, and ones given “interim authorization”. To clarify, these are not approved. Section 30.1 of the Canada Food & Drug Act allows the Health Minister to sign an Interim Order, allowing them on the market anyway.

    (a) Approved: Health Canada has fully reviewed all the testing, and steps have been done, with the final determination that it can be used for the general population
    (b) Interim Authorization: deemed to be “worth the risk” under the circumstances, doesn’t have to be fully tested. Allowed under Section 30.1 of the Canada Food & Drug Act. Commonly referred to as an emergency use authorization.

    Have a look at the Interim Order, particularly Section 5. Getting authorization isn’t exactly a difficult burden to meet.

    Second, an astute person will notice the sleight-of-hand here. These so-called vaccines were “authorized” by Health Canada, however “approved” ones will be rigorously tested. This is an indirect way of saying that these weren’t actually subjected to such testing.

    Third, these aren’t really vaccines. Gene replacement therapy would be a more accurate description of the mRNA substances that Pfizer and Moderna produced.

    Fourth, it doesn’t say that these gene-replacement “vaccines” will prevent a virus. Instead, it touts efficacy against severe disease and hospitalization. In other words, symptom management.

    Fifth, it is explicitly stated that people will rely on your opinion in order to make the decision. While it’s also stated to answer questions, this passage is full of misrepresentations.

    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

    Instead of taking word of someone on the internet, it’s probably best to read the product inserts for yourself. Above are the documents provided by Health Canada. Notice, that nowhere do they say “approved” in the documentation.

    However, CEP doesn’t provide the actual Health Canada documents. They do other an AstraZeneca summary and a comparison paper, but not the original source materials

    Now, why why CEP, the Centre for Effective Practice, be such a blatant shill in the name of big pharma? When you look at their donors and collaborators, things start to make a lot of sense.

    Some of CEP’s financial contributors, associates are worth a closer look:

    1. Association of Family Health Teams of Ontario
    2. eHealth Centre of Excellence
    3. Healthcare Excellence Canada
    4. OntarioMD

    Could it be that CEP, and its partners and donors support continued lockdowns and restrictions in Ontario, (and elsewhere), at least partially because it’s good for business? Let’s take a look into some of these groups.

    We Are The Advocate, Network And Resource For Team-Based Primary Care In Ontario
    The Association of Family Health Teams of Ontario (AFHTO) works to support the implementation and growth of primary care teams by promoting best practices, sharing lessons learned, and advocating on behalf of all primary care teams. Evidence and experience show that team-based comprehensive primary care is delivering better health and better value to patients.
    .
    AFHTO is a not-for-profit association representing Ontario’s primary health care teams, which include Family Health Teams (FHTs), Nurse Practitioner-Led Clinics (NPLCs) and others who provide interprofessional comprehensive primary care.
    .
    Working towards a common vision
    Our members share the compelling vision that one day, all Ontarians will have timely access to high-quality and comprehensive primary care; care that is:
    .
    Informed by the social determinants of health – the conditions in which people are born, grow, live, work and age
    Delivered by the right mix of health professionals, working in collaborative teams in partnership with patients, caregivers and the community
    .
    Anchored in an integrated and equitable health system, promoting good health and seamless care for all patients
    Sustainable – efficiently delivered and appropriately resourced to achieve expected outcomes

    AFHTO works with and on behalf of members to:
    .
    Provide leadership to promote expansion of high-quality, comprehensive, well-integrated interprofessional primary care for the benefit of all Ontarians, and
    Be their advocate, champion, network and resource to support them in improving and delivering optimal interprofessional care

    The Association of Family Health Teams of Ontario is essentially a lobbying group, for the unmbrella of health care workers. That’s what this word salad means. AFTHO also is quite partisan in their efforts, and are pushing for the virtual care model of health, a large part of their online content covers that.

    AFHTO is also demanding Ford impose a stay-at-home order. This is a conflict of interest since they are also promoting the “solution”: more access to online health services.

    The eHealth Centre of Excellence is another online medical service that offers e-prescribing, referrals, and consults with specialists. As continued lockdowns make physical movement more tricky, this enterprise will surely grow. Also, as the physical and mental health of people wears down, it will artificially generate more business.

    Healthcare Excellence Canada acts as a cross between a health care consultant, and an continuing education provided. They also donate to CEP, and their business model is expected to grow. Also, if you wish to take their Executive Training Program, it’s only $2,500 to enroll. What a deal!

    OntarioMD offers a variety of services, such as digital health services, which can be bundled together. There’s also eConsulting, which aims to connect patients to specialists quicker. There’s also a Health Medical Upgrade, which is a way of digitizing, storing, and moving records. As physical appearances in health care settings are replaced, the demand for this will grow.

    It’s worth pointing out that OntarioMD is not the only party to benefit from this arrangement. Additionally, it means increased business for its vendors, who will also see the rewards. Some of these names should be familiar.

    To circle back to the start of the article: what is the real reason that the Centre for Effective Practice, (an Ontario Science Table partner), is so on board with restrictions to liberty? Or, are these connections just coincidental, and completely unrelated?

    Don’t worry, CEP has their “talking points” for people who may be concerned about getting experimental shots of who knows what.

    CEP_21-015_Provider-Guide_Moderna_r5
    CEP AstraZeneca Information Propaganda
    CEP Vaccine Comparison Sheet Propaganda

    IMPORTANT LINKS
    (1) https://cep.health/
    (2) https://cep.health/toolkit/covid-19-resource-centre/
    (3) https://tools.cep.health/tool/covid-19-vaccines/
    (4) https://tools.cep.health/tool/covid-19-vaccine-staging-environment/
    (5) https://tools.cep.health/tool/virtual-management-of-chronic-conditions-during-covid-19/
    (6) https://covid19-sciencetable.ca/our-partners/
    (7) https://twitter.com/Roman_Baber/status/1386788379669508103
    (8) Ontario Science Table 01 Behaviour Control Techniques April 22 2021
    (9) Ontario Science Table 02 Vaccine Confidence March 5 2021
    (10) Ontario Science Table 03 Learning From Israel Feb 1 2021
    (11) Ontario Science Table 04 Putting In Harsher Restrictions Oct 15 2021
    (12) https://www.laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/F-27/page-8.html#h-234517
    (13) Patty Hajdu’s September 16 Interim Order
    (14) CEP AstraZeneca Information Propaganda
    (15) CEP Vaccine Comparison Sheet Propaganda
    (16) https://www.afhto.ca/
    (17) https://www.afhto.ca/afhtos-role-supporting-team-based-care/about-afhto
    (18) https://www.afhto.ca/news-events/news/ontario-needs-stay-home-order
    (19) AFHTO Shift To Virtual Health Care
    (20) https://ehealthce.ca/Our-Team.htm
    (21) https://healthcareexcellence.ca/
    (22) Health Care Excellence Executive Training Class
    (23) https://www.ontariomd.ca/
    (24) https://www.ontariomd.ca/about-us/our-organization/our-partners

    EARLIER IN THIS SERIES
    (a) Michael Warner Financially Benefits From Prolonged Lockdowns
    (b) Who Is Ontario Deputy Medical Officer, Barbara Yaffe?
    (c) OST, Monopoly From The University Of Toronto Connected
    (d) OST, University Of Toronto, Look At Their Members And Partners
    (e) OST’s Robert Steiner Claims To Be Behind PHAC Canada Creation
    (f) OST’s Kwame McKenzie Headed 2017 UBI Pilot Project
    (g) OST UofT Prelude Actually Set Out In May 2019
    (h) OST’s Murty Has Tech Firm That Benefits From Lockdowns
    (i) Como Foundation Gives Trillium Health Partners $5M
    (j) Current PHO Officials Also Sitting On Ontario Science Table
    (k) Canadian Agency For Drugs & Technologies In Health; pCPA

    *Disclaimers, Ethics* Proudly powered by WordPress