Category: Health

Posted on

CV #66(H): Selective Reporting, The Fraud And Deception Behind VAER Systems

In order for the true effects of a vaccine (or any pharmaceutical) to be fully known, it’s important to have all of the side effects documented and compiled. This is so members of the public can give informed consent, or refuse a product if they see it as unsafe. However, we are getting everything but the truth here.

Normally, clear thinking people would be able to see through such nonsense. However, politicians and hack “journalists” do what they can to keep the public uninformed. A quick example:

In order to keep this “pandemic” psy-op going, it’s necessary that the people in charge engage in mental gymnastics. In particular, the dangers must be exaggerated, and the dangers of the agenda minimized. Never mind that Alberta had zero flu deaths, as the variants are overrunning the Province.

This is done with the gene replacement therapies as well. They are not really “vaccines” as. Now, we can’t have the true scale of problems coming out. Broadly speaking, this is concealed in 2 ways:

  1. Intentionally inflating Covid-19 deaths
  2. Deliberate lowballing Of vaccine effects

Both points will be addressed below.

1. Intentionally Inflating Covid-19 Deaths

There is really no way to deny at this point that public officials are flat out lying about virus deaths, and artificially driving up the counts in order to keep the psy-op going. Check out this article for many more examples of this happening. Never mind that the virus has never been isolated, and that the PCR tests are completely useless for this job.

Skeptics may reasonably ask where the emergency if these death waves aren’t materializing. Better to gaslight such people as crazies and not answer. And never mind the fact that the flu and influenza seem to have coincidently disappeared.

2. DEFINITION FOR DEATHS DUE TO COVID-19
.
A death due to COVID-19 is defined for surveillance purposes as a death resulting from a clinically compatible illness, in a probable or confirmed COVID-19 case, unless there is a clear alternative cause of death that cannot be related to COVID disease (e.g. trauma). There should be no period of complete recovery from COVID-19 between illness and death.
.
A death due to COVID-19 may not be attributed to another disease (e.g. cancer) and should be counted independently of preexisting conditions that are suspected of triggering a severe course of COVID-19.

In fairness, this can’t entirely be blamed on politicians like Doug Ford, Christine Elliott, Jason Kenney, John Horgan, or Patty Hajdu. The guidelines are written up in such a way (intentionally?) that it positively invites death count inflation

2. Deliberate Lowballing Of Vaccine Effects

In November 2003, there was the International Conference on Harmonization of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharamaceuticals for Human Use. Their report is publicly available. Now there are some worthwhile parts in this. One of them is the attempt to create universal standards for reporting side effects of medications.

So, what exactly is worth reporting during drug trials, or once its already on the market?

4. STANDARDS FOR EXPEDITED REPORTING
4.1 What Should Be Reported?
4.1.1 Serious ADRs
Cases of adverse drug reactions that are both serious and unexpected are subject to expedited reporting. The reporting of serious expected reactions in an expedited manner varies among countries. Non-serious adverse reactions, whether expected or not, would normally not be subject to expedited reporting. For reports from studies and other solicited sources, all cases judged by either the reporting healthcare professional or the MAH as having a possible causal relationship to the medicinal product would qualify as ADRs. For purposes of reporting, spontaneous reports associated with approved drugs imply a suspected causal relationship.

4.1.2 Other Observations
In addition to single case reports, any safety information from other observations that could change the risk-benefit evaluation for the product should be communicated as soon as possible to the regulatory authorities in accordance with local regulation. Examples include any significant unanticipated safety findings from an in vitro, animal, epidemiological, or clinical study that suggest a significant human risk, such as evidence of mutagenicity, teratogenicity, carcinogenicity, or lack of efficacy with a drug used in treating a life-threatening or serious disease.

4.1.2.1 Lack of Efficacy
Evidence of lack of efficacy should not normally be expedited, but should be discussed in the relevant periodic safety update report. However, in certain circumstances and in some regions, individual reports of lack of efficacy are considered subject to expedited reporting. Medicinal products used for the treatment of life-threatening or serious diseases, vaccines, and contraceptives are examples of classes of medicinal products where lack of efficacy should be considered for expedited reporting. Clinical judgment should be used in reporting, with consideration of the local product labeling and disease being treated.

Apparently if reactions are serious and unexpected (not just serious), then it’s grounds for reporting in an expedited fashion. Otherwise, then there’s no rush.

It’s also interesting that it says “clinical judgement should be used” in reporting. Are these health care providers to act as a form of gatekeeper to this information getting out? And what is the standard for how that judgement should applied?

The Canadian standard for reporting isn’t much (if any) better.

Should all AEFIs be reported?

No. During their development, vaccines undergo rigorous testing for safety, quality, and efficacy. During these “pre-licensure trials” efforts are made to capture every single adverse event that follows immunization.

By the time a vaccine is authorized for marketing, the safety profile for common adverse events such as vaccination site reactions or mild fever is well known. It is always important to counsel vaccinees or their guardians regarding the possible occurrence of such reactions, but there is no need to report such expected events unless they are more severe or more frequent than expected.

Does this seem bizarre? A drug manufacturer claims that they intend to document and compile all of the data for side effects during clinical trials, but it’s not a big deal once the product is on the market?!

In fairness, the page does immediately contradict itself right after afterwards and say that events should be reported if it can’t be explained otherwise.

The Canadian Government’s own guidelines state that not all AEFI, or adverse effects following immunization, should be reported. The stated reasoning is that (presumably) minor reactions are already to be expected. In other words, these kinds of reactions are EXPECTED to happen, and shouldn’t be reported if minor.

The first problem is that this standard is incredibly subjective, and prone to both human error. Second, the people involved may not want the full truth about the side effects of their products to get out.

The page goes on to say that the preferred way of reporting is to Municipal or Provincial Health Units. The results are then forwarded along. Now, that can create a problem, if the people involved simply don’t view such reactions are worthwhile, or are instructed not to.

According to Public Health Ontario [Page 9] “all deaths temporally associated with receipt of vaccines that have been reported to public health units are thoroughly investigated and reported to PHO.” That’s interesting, since the Ontario Government doesn’t take issue with classifying Covid deaths simply from having the virus. See Christine Elliott above. Remember, WHO’s definition is death from a clinically compatible illness in a probable or confirmed case.

The BC Centre for Disease Control advises not to report on side effects if they are “known to occur” from the vaccine. With this standard in mind, how many legitimate complaints would have been turned away, since these were expected? Alberta also allows for “expected” reactions to bypassed being classified as AEFI.

The obvious questions to ask here: how accurate are the various reporting systems in Canada, and elsewhere? If patients are told not to report certain expected side effects, do we really know the true prevalence? If there is discretion by District Health Units on what to report, how wisely is it being used? How honest are the people who end up using the information at the end anyway?

Very common: may affect more than 1 in 10 people
 injection site pain
 tiredness
 headache
 muscle pain
 chills
 joint pain
 fever
 diarrhea

Common: may affect more than 1 in 100 and up to 1 in 10 people
 injection site redness
 injection site swelling
 nausea
 vomiting

Uncommon: may affect up to 1 in 100 people
 enlarged lymph nodes
 feeling unwell
 arm pain

Non-severe allergic reactions (such as rash, itching, hives or swelling of the face) and severe allergic reactions have been reported.

These are not all the possible side effects you may have when taking Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine. If you experience any side effects not listed here, tell your healthcare professional.
There is a remote chance that Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine could cause a severe allergic
reaction. A severe allergic reaction would usually occur within a few minutes to one hour after
getting a dose of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine. For this reason, your vaccination provider
may ask you to stay at the place where you received your vaccine for monitoring after
vaccination. Should you develop any serious symptoms or symptoms that could be an allergic
reaction, seek medical attention right away. Symptoms of an allergic reaction include:
 hives (bumps on the skin that are often very itchy)
 swelling of the face, tongue or throat
 difficulty breathing
 a fast heartbeat
 dizziness and weakness

For reference, the above list is what is or can be “expected” from the Pfizer vaccine. Once more, this mRNA “vaccine” is not approved by Health Canada, and only has interim authorization. Still feeling like a champ?

And all of this, for a virus that’s never been proven to exist, using testing methods never designed for infection detection.

As a final thought, just remember the people manufacturing these concoctions are indemnified from legal liability. It you are injured or killed, it’s your problem.

(1) https://globalnews.ca/news/7460952/alberta-influenza-zero-cases-hospitalizations/
(2) https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/alberta-third-wave-pandemic-variants-1.5972869
(3) https://www.who.int/classifications/icd/Guidelines_Cause_of_Death_COVID-19.pdf?ua=1
(4) https://database.ich.org/sites/default/files/E2A_Guideline.pdf
(5) Adverse Effect Reporting Guidelines World Health Org
(6) https://vaccine-safety-training.org/tl_files/vs/pdf/report-of-cioms-who-working-group.pdf
(7) WHO Vaccine Safety Training Manual
(8) https://www.publichealthontario.ca/-/media/documents/ncov/epi/covid-19-aefi-report.pdf?la=en
(9) Adverse Effect Reporting Guidelines Ontario
(10) https://www.health.gov.on.ca/en/pro/programs/publichealth/oph_standards/docs/aefi_cd.pdf
(11) Adverse Effects Case Definitions Ontario
(12) https://www.publichealthontario.ca/-/media/documents/ncov/epi/covid-19-aefi-report.pdf?la=en
(13) http://www.bccdc.ca/health-professionals/clinical-resources/adverse-events-following-immunization
(14) https://www.albertahealthservices.ca/info/Page16187.aspx
(15) Health Canada Reporting Adverse Reactions
(16) https://archive.is/Uz0hx
(17) https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/immunization/reporting-adverse-events-following-immunization/user-guide-completion-submission-aefi-reports.html
(18) Health Canada On Vaccine Safety
(19) https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/reports-publications/canada-communicable-disease-report-ccdr/monthly-issue/2014-40/ccdr-volume-40-s-3-december-4-2014/ccdr-volume-40-s-3-december-4-2014-2.html
(20) https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/phac-aspc/migration/phac-aspc/publicat/ccdr-rmtc/14vol40/dr-rm40s-3/assets/pdf/ccdrv40is3a05-eng.pdf
(21) Vaccine Vigilance Working Group Report
(22) https://canucklaw.ca/cv-26c-exposing-the-lies-of-the-inflated-death-tolls/
(23) https://canucklaw.ca/cv-37h-bccdc-admitted-a-year-ago-pcr-tests-dont-work-as-advertised/
(24) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/FOI-Fluroide-Free-Peel-Compilation.pdf

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

CV #37(H): BCCDC Admitted A Year Ago PCR Tests Don’t Work As Advertised

https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/BC-COVID19_InterpretingTesting_Results_NAT_PCR.pdf
http://www.bccdc.ca/Health-Professionals-Site/Documents/COVID19_InterpretingTesting_Results_NAT_PCR.pdf
https://www.cpsbc.ca/for-physicians/college-connector/2020-V08-02/04

1. How does the test work?
The NAT works by detecting RNA specific to the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes COVID-19 infection, after RNA has been extracted from the specimen and then amplified in the laboratory. NATs are typically performed on nasopharyngeal swabs, but the test can also be done on other sample types such as throat swabs, saliva, sputum, tracheal aspirates, and broncho-alveolar lavage (BAL) specimens.
.
The NAT has a high analytical sensitivity (i.e., it works well at detecting the virus when the virus is present). The NAT can potentially detect as few as 10-100 copies of viral RNA per mL in a respiratory sample. Note that this is not the same as clinical sensitivity of NAT for detection of COVID-19 infection, which is unknown at this time (see #5 below)

2. What do the test results mean?
 Positive: Viral RNA is detected by NAT and this means that the patient is confirmed to have COVID-19 infection.
A positive NAT does not necessarily mean that a patient is infectious, as viral RNA can be shed in the respiratory tract for weeks but cultivatable (live) virus is typically not detected beyond 8 to 10 days after symptom onset.
 Negative: Viral RNA is not detected in the sample. However, a negative test result does not totally rule out COVID-19 infection as there may be reasons beyond test performance that can result in a lack of RNA detection in patients with COVID-19 infection (false negatives; see below).
 Indeterminate: The NAT result is outside the validated range of the test (i.e., RNA concentration is below the
limit of detection, or a non-specific reaction), or this might occur when the sample collected is of poor quality
(i.e., does not contain a sufficient amount of human cells). Indeterminate results do not rule in or rule out infection.
.
Overall, clinical judgement remains important in determining the implications of NAT test results, and whether a repeat test is indicated for negative or indeterminate results (for example, if the patient’s recent exposures or clinical presentation suggest COVID-19 infection is likely, diagnostic tests for other respiratory pathogens remain negative, or there is worsening of symptoms). For clinical guidance including testing and specimen collection, please refer to COVID-19 testing guidelines for British Columbia.

5. What is the clinical sensitivity of the NAT test?
A statistic commonly quoted is that there is a 30% chance of a false negative result for a NAT test in a patient with COVID-19 infection (i.e., a 70% sensitivity). These and other similar estimates are based on a small number studies that compared the correlation between CT scan findings suggestive of COVID-19 infection to NAT on upper respiratory tract specimens. In these studies, 20-30% of people with a positive CT scan result had negative NAT results – and as discussed above a number of factors can contribute to false negative results. CT scan is not a gold standard for diagnosis of COVID-19 infection, and CT scan cannot differentiate amongst the many microbiological causes of pneumonia.
.
Ultimately, for COVID-19 testing, there is currently no gold standard, and the overall clinical sensitivity and specificity of NAT in patients with COVID-19 infection is unknown (i.e., how well NAT results correlate with clinical infection, “true positivity” or “true negativity” rate).

Some points to take away
-Detecing RNA does not mean infection
-Error rate in infection detection is unknown.
-Positive test is meaningless
-Negative test is meaningless
-Can’t distinguish with many microbial causes of pneumonia
-30% false negative rate just a “commonly quoted statistic”
-Actual accuracy rate unknown

As for the “deaths due to Covid” perhaps check out the guidelines passed down College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia:

1. Recording COVID-19 on the medical certificate of cause of death

COVID-19 should be recorded on the medical certificate of cause of death for all decedents where the disease caused, or is assumed to have caused, or contributed to death.

In other words, just make it up.

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