Category: Health

Posted on

CV #62(F): International — Or Global — Treaty For Pandemic Preparedness And Response Proposed

About 2 dozen world leaders have agreed, at least in principle, of setting up an international treaty to “deal with future pandemics”. Presumably, this would ultimately result in a World Government of sorts that could act in sweeping ways. But of course, it would all be done in the name of public health.

1. Important Links

https://www.who.int/news-room/commentaries/detail/op-ed—covid-19-shows-why-united-action-is-needed-for-more-robust-international-health-architecture
https://archive.is/pMWzw

(62.1) WHO International Health Regulations Legally Binding
(62.2) A Look At International Health Regulation Statements
(62.3) Quarantine Act Actually Written By WHO, IHR Changes
(62.4) Prov. Health Acts, Domestic Implementation Of WHO-IHR
(62.5) Prov. Health Acts, Domestic Implementation Of WHO-IHR, Part II

2. Text Of Letter Agreed By National Leaders

The COVID-19 pandemic is the biggest challenge to the global community since the 1940s. At that time, following the devastation of two world wars, political leaders came together to forge the multilateral system. The aims were clear: to bring countries together, to dispel the temptations of isolationism and nationalism, and to address the challenges that could only be achieved together in the spirit of solidarity and cooperation, namely peace, prosperity, health and security.

Today, we hold the same hope that as we fight to overcome the COVID-19 pandemic together, we can build a more robust international health architecture that will protect future generations. There will be other pandemics and other major health emergencies. No single government or multilateral agency can address this threat alone. The question is not if, but when. Together, we must be better prepared to predict, prevent, detect, assess and effectively respond to pandemics in a highly coordinated fashion. The COVID-19 pandemic has been a stark and painful reminder that nobody is safe until everyone is safe.

We are, therefore, committed to ensuring universal and equitable access to safe, efficacious and affordable vaccines, medicines and diagnostics for this and future pandemics. Immunization is a global public good and we will need to be able to develop, manufacture and deploy vaccines as quickly as possible.

This is why the Access to COVID-19 Tools Accelerator (ACT-A) was set up in order to promote equal access to tests, treatments and vaccines and support health systems across the globe. ACT-A has delivered on many aspects but equitable access is not achieved yet. There is more we can do to promote global access.

To that end, we believe that nations should work together towards a new international treaty for pandemic preparedness and response.

Such a renewed collective commitment would be a milestone in stepping up pandemic preparedness at the highest political level. It would be rooted in the constitution of the World Health Organization, drawing in other relevant organizations key to this endeavour, in support of the principle of health for all. Existing global health instruments, especially the International Health Regulations, would underpin such a treaty, ensuring a firm and tested foundation on which we can build and improve.

The main goal of this treaty would be to foster an all-of-government and all-of-society approach, strengthening national, regional and global capacities and resilience to future pandemics. This includes greatly enhancing international cooperation to improve, for example, alert systems, data-sharing, research, and local, regional and global production and distribution of medical and public health counter measures, such as vaccines, medicines, diagnostics and personal protective equipment.

It would also include recognition of a “One Health” approach that connects the health of humans, animals and our planet. And such a treaty should lead to more mutual accountability and shared responsibility, transparency and cooperation within the international system and with its rules and norms.

To achieve this, we will work with Heads of State and governments globally and all stakeholders, including civil society and the private sector. We are convinced that it is our responsibility, as leaders of nations and international institutions, to ensure that the world learns the lessons of the COVID-19 pandemic.

At a time when COVID-19 has exploited our weaknesses and divisions, we must seize this opportunity and come together as a global community for peaceful cooperation that extends beyond this crisis. Building our capacities and systems to do this will take time and require a sustained political, financial and societal commitment over many years.

Our solidarity in ensuring that the world is better prepared will be our legacy that protects our children and grandchildren and minimizes the impact of future pandemics on our economies and our societies.

Pandemic preparedness needs global leadership for a global health system fit for this millennium. To make this commitment a reality, we must be guided by solidarity, fairness, transparency, inclusiveness and equity.

Still think those “International Health Regulations” aren’t legally binding? Wrong, they will be used as the basis for asserting even more control. And it’s already largely done.

From the way things are going, it seems extremely unlikely that there will be any sort of referendum or democratic mandate to legitimize such a thing nationally.

When they say “coming together globally”, what does that really mean? Will there be a supra-national group to decide what sectors of the economy should be shut down? Will there be misinformation laws to punish or charge people for contradicting the narrative? Will they decide on mandatory vaccinations, or masks? What accountability, if any, will be in place?

3. Who Has Approved, At Least In Principle

  • Edi Rama, Prime Minister of Albania;
  • Sebastián Piñera, President of Chile;
  • Carlos Alvarado Quesada, President of Costa Rica;
  • J. V. Bainimarama, Prime Minister of Fiji;
  • Emmanuel Macron, President of France;
  • Angela Merkel, Chancellor of Germany;
  • Charles Michel, President of the European Council;
  • Kyriakos Mitsotakis, Prime Minister of Greece;
  • Joko Widodo, President of Indonesia;
  • Uhuru Kenyatta, President of Kenya;
  • Moon Jae-in, President of the Republic of Korea;
  • Mark Rutte, Prime Minister of the Netherlands;
  • Erna Solberg, Prime Miniser of Norway;
  • António Luís Santos da Costa, Prime Minister of Portugal;
  • Klaus Iohannis, President of Romania;
  • Paul Kagame, President of Rwanda;
  • Macky Sall, President of Senegal;
  • Aleksandar Vučić, President of Serbia;
  • Cyril Ramaphosa, President of South Africa;
  • Pedro Sánchez, Prime Minister of Spain;
  • Prayut Chan-o-cha, Prime Minister of Thailand;
  • Keith Rowley, Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago;
  • Kais Saied, President of Tunisia;
  • Volodymyr Zelensky, President of Ukraine;
  • Boris Johnson, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom;
  • Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Director-General of the World Health Organization.

Sure, Canada isn’t on that list — yet. However, there is certainly nothing to indicate that we won’t be forced to go along at some point. The people running this country aren’t exactly huge supporters of free speech.

Posted on

CV #66(D): Call-In Centers Are Wrongly Telling People “Vaccines” Were Approved

Mass vaccination centers have opened across Canada. The goal is to inject largely untested substances into people, under the pretense of a public health emergency. Now, these aren’t really “vaccines”, but are gene-replacement therapy, and 99% of people don’t need them, but that’s another story. This is to get into the misrepresentation that is going on with the call in centers set up.

1. “Vaccines” Not Health Canada Approved

Before going any further, it is time to distinguish between 2 completely different ways medical devices and substances can be advanced.

  • 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. Also known as emergency authorization.
  • 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.

To be approved means that this thing has been rigorously tested, and has passed all safety measures, and that it has rigorously been examined. This is not what happened here.

Instead, these “vaccines” were given interim authorization, because the Government has decided that it’s worth releasing it to the general public, and finishing the testing later. This is allowed under Section 30.1 of the Canada Food & Drug Act, and an Interim Order was signed by Patty Hajdu.

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

Think this is an exaggeration? Take a look at the paperwork available from Health Canada. Not once do they refer to them as approved. Instead, they are “authorized under an Interim Order”. These are not the same thing, and cannot be used interchangeably.

2. Recordings From Booking Centers

Fraser Health Booking

Interior Health Booking

Island Health Booking

Northern Health Booking

Vancouver Health Booking

Saskatchewan Booking

Manitoba Booking

Ontario Booking

In each inquiry made, the person on the other end conflated “approved” with an “interim or temporary authorization”. Now, it possible — even likely — that they don’t know the difference and are not attempting to deceive. But the result is the same. Average citizens call in, and won’t know the difference.

Pardon the less than stellar quality. Speaker phones aren’t the best for this sort of thing.

The 5 recordings here are from each of the 5 health zones in BC. But surely, this is going on elsewhere as well. People don’t ask the necessary questions.

3. Calls To Various Government Lines

Health Canada

Public Health Agency of Canada (Their # anyway)

811 Phone Support In BC

Manitoba Health Services

The people booking not seem to know. Not only that, various Government bodies apparently don’t have a clue either. Not very reassuring.

4. Trudeau’s Two-Faced Claims

Here, we get the standard answer of “Health Canada tests and insures the safety of all vaccines that are APPROVED”. While this sounds fine on the surface, these were never approved, they were given interim authorization. The Government hopes you won’t know the difference.

Posted on

CV #66(C): Trudeau Lies, Covid “Vaccines” Being Injected Were Never Approved By Health Canada

Justin Trudeau, Theresa Tam, Patty Hajdu and others are misrepresenting when they claim that these vaccines have been approved for use. Aside from not really being vaccines, we need to distinguish between 2 things:

(a) Emergency use 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.
(b) 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.

The substances being injected have been authorized for use, because of an Interim Order.

1. Canada Food & Drug Act, Section 30.1

Interim orders
.
30.1 (1) The Minister may make an interim order that contains any provision that may be contained in a regulation made under this Act if the Minister believes that immediate action is required to deal with a significant risk, direct or indirect, to health, safety or the environment.
.
Marginal note: Cessation of effect
(2) An interim order has effect from the time that it is made but ceases to have effect on the earliest of
(a) 14 days after it is made, unless it is approved by the Governor in Council,
(b) the day on which it is repealed,
(c) the day on which a regulation made under this Act, that has the same effect as the interim order, comes into force, and
(d) one year after the interim order is made or any shorter period that may be specified in the interim order.

Section 30.1 of the Canada Food & Drug Act. Here is the Interim Order signed September 16, 2020 by Health Minister Patty Hajdu. This is quite different from having drugs or medical devices being approved through the formal channels. Now, what does that document actually say?

2. September 16 Order From Patty Hajdu

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;
(d) a list of the ingredients of the drug, stated quantitatively;
(e) the specifications for each of the drug’s ingredients;
(f) a description of the facilities and equipment to be used in the manufacture, preparation and packaging of the drug;
(g) details of the method of manufacture and the controls to be used in the manufacture, preparation and packaging of the drug;
(h) details of the tests to be applied to control the potency, purity, stability and safety of the drug;
(i) the names and qualifications of all the investigators to whom the drug has been sold;
(j) a draft of every label to be used in connection with the drug, including any package insert and any document that 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.

This may be nitpicking, but notice that the Order doesn’t say that the drug has to be safe. It only states that the “unknown information” has to be provided.

It also doesn’t specify that the testing has to be completed, or anywhere close to done. In fact, these authorizations can be issued with next to no testing being done.

Yes, a considerable amount of information needs to be provided. But it doesn’t mean that safety — the biggest issue — has to be conclusively established. The standard is much lower.

4 Content
.
4(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.

Issuance
.
5 The Minister must issue an authorization in respect of a COVID-19 drug if the following requirements are met:
-the applicant has submitted an application to the Minister that meets the requirements set out in subsection 3‍(1) or 4‍(2);
-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
-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.

If the above criteria are met, then the authorization MUST be approved, according to Section 5 of the Order.

To be clear, getting an authorization under this Interim Order isn’t the same thing as having a drug of vaccine getting approved. This authorization is a sort of temporary emergency measure. These are not the same thing, and should not be conflated in any way.

Prohibition – significant difference
.
6 (1) It is prohibited to sell a COVID-19 drug to which an authorization relates if any of the matters referred to in subsection 3‍(1) or subsection 4‍(2) — other than in paragraph 3‍(1)‍(i) or 4‍(2)‍(e), as the case may be — are significantly different from the information or material contained in the application, unless the Minister amends the authorization.

Amendment
(2) The Minister must amend the authorization if the following requirements are met:
.
(a) the holder of the authorization has submitted an application to the Minister to amend it;
(b) the holder 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.

Notice that the September 16, 2020 Order keeps referring to this as an “authorization” for drugs. It never says the term “approval”. Why is this? It’s because a temporary authorization and an approval are 2 entirely different animals.

True, both lead to “vaccines” getting put into people’s arms. But they are not the same in terms of standards, testing, length of study, and review.

3. Authorized Despite Testing Deficiencies

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

Want to know the shortcomings in these “thoroughly tested” vaccines? This page contains information directly from the product information. Why aren’t our so-called opposition parties addressing any of this?

Think that suing the manufacturer will be an option if these “vaccines” harm you? Think again. They are exempt from liability. While an injury compensation program was announced back in December, there have been no details or updates since.

4. Same Deception Problem With Fauci

In this recent interview, Anthony Fauci gets called out by Eugenio Derbez for repeatedly distorting the truth. Fauci tries to conflate vaccines being “approved by the FDA”, and an “Emergency Use Authorization”. They are not the same thing. See here for the full conversation.

Posted on

CV #66(B): Health Authorities Fine With Vaccinating Pregnant Women, While Admitting No Testing Done

Bad medical advice is all too common. However, several “reputable” health authorities seem content to raise the stakes even more. They recommend — or at least don’t oppose — vaccinating pregnant women, despite openly admitting a serious lack of testing and longitudinal studies.

1. Who Are These “Reputable” Organizations?

  • World Health Organization
  • American Society of Obstetricians & Gynaecologists
  • U.S. Center for Disease Control
  • U.K. National Health Services
  • Royal College of Physicians of Ireland
  • Australian Department of Health
  • Canadian Society of Obstetricians & Gynaecologists

A disclaimer: this is certainly not all of them. More organizations could easily be added to this list.

2. World Health Organization

Should pregnant women be vaccinated?
While pregnancy puts women at higher risk of severe COVID-19, very little data are available to assess vaccine safety in pregnancy.
.
Nevertheless, based on what we know about this kind of vaccine, we don’t have any specific reason to believe there will be specific risks that would outweigh the benefits of vaccination for pregnant women.
.
For this reason, those pregnant women at high risk of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 (e.g. health workers) or who have comorbidities which add to their risk of severe disease, may be vaccinated in consultation with their health care provider.

The World Health Organization, or WHO, has very little data (or no data), concerning pregnant women and the risks of vaccination. Nonetheless, they don’t see a problem with this going ahead.

3. Society Of Obstetricians/Gynaecologists, US

-ACOG recommends that COVID-19 vaccines should not be withheld from pregnant individuals.
-COVID-19 vaccines should be offered to lactating individuals similar to non-lactating individuals.
-While a conversation with a clinician may be helpful, it should not be required prior to vaccination, as this may cause unnecessary barriers to access.
-Vaccines currently available under EUA have not been tested in pregnant women. Therefore, limited safety data specific to use in pregnancy is available. See details about the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) EUA process below.
–Unfounded claims linking COVID-19 vaccines to infertility have been scientifically disproven.
-ACOG recommends vaccination for all eligible people who may consider future pregnancy.

It’s interesting that this group claims the link between COVID-19 vaccines and infertility has been scientifically disproved, considering they admit no testing has been done.

4. US Center For Disease Control

There are limited data about the safety of COVID-19 vaccines for people who are pregnant
Until findings are available from clinical trials and additional studies, only limited data are available on the safety of COVID-19 vaccines, including mRNA vaccines, administered during pregnancy:
.
Limited data are currently available from animal developmental and reproductive toxicity studies. No safety concerns were demonstrated in rats that received Moderna COVID-19 vaccine before or during pregnancy; studies of
-the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine are ongoing.
-Researchers have studies planned in people who are pregnant.
-Both vaccine manufacturers are monitoring people in the clinical trials who became pregnant.

Getting vaccinated is a personal choice for people who are pregnant
.
People who are pregnant and part of a group recommended to receive COVID-19 vaccine, such as healthcare personnel, may choose to be vaccinated. A conversation between pregnant patients and their clinicians may help them decide whether to get vaccinated with a vaccine that has been authorized for use under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA). While a conversation with a healthcare provider may be helpful, it is not required prior to vaccination.

The U.S. Center for Disease Control (USCDC) shrugs off the vaccinating of pregnant women as a “personal choice”, despite there being no studies done on it. When they say “limited data”, it actually means that they have no data.

5. UK, National Health Services

COVID-19 vaccine in pregnancy
There is no known risk with giving inactivated virus or bacterial vaccines or toxoids during pregnancy or whilst breast-feeding. However, the COVID-19 vaccines have not yet been tested in pregnancy, so it has been advised that until more information is available, pregnant women should not routinely have these vaccines. As a matter of caution, COVID-19 vaccine is therefore not routinely advised in pregnancy but there are some circumstances in which the potential benefits of vaccination are particularly important for pregnant women. This may include women who are at very high risk of catching the infection or those with certain medical conditions that put them at high risk of suffering serious complications from COVID-19 infection. In such circumstances, a woman may choose to have COVID-19 vaccine in pregnancy following a discussion with her doctor or nurse.

Evidence so far reviewed by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), the UK regulatory agency responsible for licencing medicines including vaccines, has raised no concerns for safety in pregnancy.

The data for each licensed COVID-19 vaccine in pregnancy is limited because pregnant women are not included in vaccine trials. This is not because of any specific safety concerns but as a matter of caution, like that applied to trials of most other medicines.

There is some deliberate word games here. The United Kingdown (Britain) tries to reassure the public that these vaccines are safe, while admitting that testing such as on pregnant women is non-existent. If no testing has been done, how can there be “limited evidence” available?

Also note: the UK doesn’t prohibit or recommend that pregnant women not be given this vaccine. Instead, they say that it shouldn’t COMMONLY be happening. Not the same thing.

6. Royal College Of Physicians Of Ireland

COVID-19 vaccines have not been studied in pregnancy and breastfeeding
.
You may get some side-effects from getting the vaccine.

What are the negatives of this option?
1. COVID-19 vaccines have not been studied in pregnant and breastfeeding people
We do not know for sure if there are negative impacts of giving COVID-19 vaccines in pregnancy.
However available information is reassuring and there are no current safety concerns about these vaccines in pregnancy.
2. You may get some side-effects from getting the vaccine.
Common side effects are reported in more than 1 in 10 people and include fatigue, headache, sore arm, fever and muscle or joint
pains. These are more common after the second dose and usually resolve within 2 days.

Despite not being tested on pregnant women, it is presented in Ireland as a serious option to consider. Considering all the hype about the health risks of this virus, this groups comes across indifferent as to the side effects of these injections.

7. Australian Department Of Health

How do I know that the COVID-19 vaccine is safe?
All vaccines are thoroughly tested for safety before they are approved for use in Australia. This includes careful analysis of clinical trial data, ingredients, chemistry, manufacturing and other factors.

Can I get the vaccine if I am pregnant?
In preparation for vaccine rollout, the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation (ATAGI) is currently finalising clinical advice for health care providers on the use of COVID-19 vaccines in Australia in 2021. This is likely to include advice in relation to pregnant women. This advice will be provided as soon as it is received.
.
Clinical trials for new medicines do not typically include pregnant or breastfeeding participants. Each country that is or has hosted clinical trials for COVID-19 vaccine candidates has different guidance regarding use of COVID-19 vaccines in pregnancy based on the benefits, risks and uncertainties in the context of the prevailing pandemic situation.

Australia claims it is still finalizing its guidance. Fair enough. However, the lack of testing on pregnant women should be a huge red flag for any advice that might come out in favour of this. But that isn’t really what they are saying.

8. Society Of Obstetricians/Gynaecologists, CA

Consensus Statement: Women who are pregnant or breastfeeding should be offered vaccination at any time during pregnancy if they are eligible and no contraindications exist.
.
This decision is based on the women’s personal values and an understanding that the risk of infection and/or morbidity from COVID-19 outweighs the theorized and undescribed risk of being vaccinated during pregnancy or
while breastfeeding. Women should not be precluded from vaccination based on pregnancy status or breastfeeding.

Pregnant and breastfeeding women were excluded from the available Phase II and Phase III studies for the PfizerBioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines. However, for Pfizer-BioNTech, there were 23 individuals (12 in the vaccine arm and 11 in the placebo arm) who reported pregnancies during the trial and are being followed for pregnancy outcomes with no reports of adverse effects to date. For the Moderna trials, there were 13 women (6 in the vaccine and 7 in the placebo group) who reported pregnancies during the trial without report of adverse effects to date. Recently V-safe CDC registry which includes pregnant women reported no differences in the rates of adverse events or pregnancy complications for those women who were pregnant and received either the PfizerBioNtech vaccine or the Moderna vaccine. The Developmental and Reproductive Toxicity (DART) animal studies for the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines are ongoing. According to the World Health Organization (WHO) and the American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists (ACOG), no major safety signals have been identified.

Similarly, breastfeeding women were also excluded from the Phase III trials available at present. Therefore, there is no data on the safety of COVID-19 vaccines in lactating women or the effects of mRNA vaccines on the breastfed infant or on milk production. Because mRNA vaccines are not considered live virus vaccines, they are not hypothesized to be a risk to the breastfeeding infant.

Pregnant and breast feeding women were not part of the AstraZeneca trials either. It seems that this piece of information should be front and center of any discussion or recommendation.

Decades of experience with other vaccines administered during pregnancy would suggest that we could expect a similar efficacy for the COVID-19 vaccines in pregnant women compared to non-pregnant women. Vaccines in general are immunogenic, safe, and efficacious when delivered to pregnant women. While there have been no red flags or hypothesized mechanisms for potential harm associated with the administration of an mRNA non-replicating viral vector vaccine during pregnancy, until more data is available, the potential risks of vaccination to a pregnant woman and her fetus remain unknown and only theoretical. What is known, however, is that an unvaccinated pregnant woman remains at risk of COVID-19 infection and remains at heightened risk of severe morbidity if infected compared to non-pregnant counterparts. Severe infection with COVID-19 carries risks to both maternal, fetal and neonatal health. While pregnancy itself does not appear to increase the risk of becoming infected with SARS-CoV-2, pregnant individuals may be in work-related (e.g., health-care worker, front line workers etc.) or community situations (e.g., caregiver, indigenous communities, outbreak setting, etc.) where the risk of infection is considerable. Owing to maternal age or underlying comorbidities, some pregnant women are at high risk of severe COVID-related morbidity.

So we don’t actually have any data on pregnant women being studied. But looking at OTHER vaccines, we assume the risk is similar.

NACI has advised “that a complete vaccine series with a COVID-19 vaccine may be offered to pregnant individuals in the authorized age group, without contraindications to the vaccine, if a risk assessment deems that the benefits outweigh the potential risks for the individual and the fetus, and if informed consent includes discussion about the absence of evidence on the use of COVID-19 vaccine in this population (Discretionary NACI Recommendation)”.

We recommend that pregnant and breastfeeding women who are eligible for the COVID-19 vaccine due to exposure risk, medical status, or other circumstances should be able to make an informed decision by having access to up-to-date information about the safety and efficacy of the vaccine (including clear information about the data that is not yet available) and information about the risks of COVID-19 infection for them. The concern around vaccination in the absence of evidence of safety in pregnancy has been debated in the literature. The PREVENT Working Group state, “the absence of evidence and the mere theoretical or even documented risk of fetal harm is generally not sufficient to justify denying pregnant women access to a vaccine in an outbreak or epidemic.” During an epidemic, the default should be to offer vaccines to pregnant women alongside other affected populations

Individuals contemplating pregnancy
For an individual planning a pregnancy, it is recommended to complete the entire COVID-19 vaccination series (where possible) to achieve maximal vaccine efficacy ahead of pregnancy. It is not known whether an individual should delay pregnancy following receipt of the vaccine and a risk-benefit discussion for those planning pregnancy should occur similar to the discussion for pregnant and breastfeeding women.

It’s recommended that women anticipating pregnancy get vaccinated first. Interesting. It seems that studies have been done on the reproductive problems, or possible sterility.

This entire article is filled with such nonsense. Pregnant women should be offered vaccination, however, the risks are downplayed, as is the lack of real testing. Also, it’s fair to assume that the overwhelming recovery rate of this “virus” is either minimized, or ignored entirely.

Section 30.1 of the Canada Food & Drug Act allows for the Health Minister to sign an Interim Order allowing untested vaccines to be approved. Public officials don’t discuss this. Nor do they mention the fact that they don’t do any testing; they just review the documentation.

In SOGC’s statement (see backup), they see nothing wrong with giving pregnant women — or nursing mothers — these “vaccines”. The reasoning behind it is convoluted and twisted.

These examples are hardly the only ones. However, it’s disturbing to see these seemingly legitimate organizations pushing vaccines on pregnant and nursing women — when they weren’t tested on them in the first place.

Posted on

CV #9: A Look At Money Sunk Into Paying For Vaccines, Research

On August 1, 2020, the Canadian Government, or rather taxpayers, handed out over $240,000 to conduct research which included the study of the issues surrounding MANDATORY vaccines. Yes, that was apparently worth paying for a study. Now, let’s see what else the public’s money has been spent on.

1. Grants To Develop CV Vaccines In Canada

NAME DATE AMOUNT
Alberta Research Chemicals Inc. Jul. 1, 2020 $36,000
Archambault, Denis Jun. 1, 2020 $622,782
Barr, Stephen D Apr. 1, 2020 $998,840
Bell, John C Jun. 1, 2020 $1,936,150
Biodextris Inc. Sep. 24, 2020 $1,307,678
BioVectra Inc. Sep. 4, 2020 $5,412,045
Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Aug. 4, 2020 $40,000,000
Entos Pharmaceuticals Inc. May 1, 2020 $100,000
Entos Pharmaceuticals Inc. Sep. 1, 2020 $5,000,000
Falzarano, Darryl Feb. 1, 2020 $999,793
Falzarano, Darryl Jun. 1, 2020 $1,459,325
Grant, Michael D Sep. 1, 2020 $497,175
Halperin, Scott A Aug. 1, 2020 $240,731
Halperin, Scott A Sep. 1, 2020 $3,516,000
Houghton, Michael Apr. 1, 2020 $600,000
Immunovaccine Technologies Inc. Apr. 1, 2020 $378,239
Immunovaccine Technologies Inc. Apr. 1, 2020 $636,596
Immunovaccine Technologies Inc. Sep. 17, 2020 $1,000,000
Kobinger, Gary P Feb. 1, 2020 $999,356
Leclerc, Denis Feb. 1, 2020 $717,645
Les biotechnologies Ulysse inc Jun. 22, 2020 $30,000
Lewis, John D Jun. 1, 2020 $4,175,000
Liu, Jun Jun. 1, 2020 $416,483
McGill University (Academia) Nov. 6, 2020 $160,198
Medicago inc. Oct. 18, 2020 $173,000,000
Novocol Pharmaceutical of Canada Sep. 8, 2020 $500,000
PharmAchieve Corporation. Ltd. Apr. 1, 2020 $49,920
Pharma Glycovax Inc Aug. 31, 2020 $3,978,832
Precision NanoSystems Inc. Oct. 9, 2020 $18,203,000
Providence Therapeutics Holdings Sep. 1, 2020 $4,700,000
Resilience Biotechnologies Inc. Nov. 1, 2020 $2,103,150
Richardson, Christopher D Jun. 1, 2020 $138,097
Symvivo Corporation Sep. 4, 2020 $2,821,081
Watts, Tania H Jun. 1, 2020 $1,329,250
University of Saskatchewan Jul. 7, 2020 $23,000,000
Xing, Zhou Jun. 1, 2020 $1,920,985
Yao, Xiao-Jian Apr. 1, 2020 $326,578

This came from a quick search of Federal donations, “Vaccine + Covid”. A lot of money was spent already, for many different parties.

2. Other Grants Funding Vaccines/Research

NAME DATE AMOUNT
Adventist Development and Relief Agency Mar. 30, 2020 $3,500,000
Brockman, Mark A Dec. 1, 2011 $1,419,901
CARE Canada May 29, 2019 $2,000,000
Gavi, The Vaccine Alliance Mar. 28, 2014 $20,000,000
Gavi, The Vaccine Alliance Sep. 17, 2015 $500,000,000
IDRC Feb. 17, 2015 $3,000,000
Immuno Vaccine Technologies Sep. 15, 2011 $2,944,000
Immuno Vaccine Technologies Oct. 6, 2008 $3,000,000
Int’l Development Research Centre Sep. 29, 2015 $9,000,000
International Rescue Committee Jun. 12, 2019 $2,600,000
Kobinger, Gary P Apr. 1, 2017 $3,997,503
Loeb, Mark B Oct. 1, 2012 $2,864,660
Loeb, Mark B Jul. 1, 2016 $8,310,463
Medicago inc. May 13, 2015 $8,000,000
Medicago Inc. Jan. 1, 2019 $2,515,000
Novartis Animal Health Canada Inc. Nov. 1, 2006 $1,836,921
Novartis Animal Health Canada Inc. Nov. 7, 2008 $1,747,458
Ogilvie, Gina S Apr. 1, 2019 $10,090,731
Ostrowski, Mario A Dec. 1, 2011 $1,415,432
UNICEF Sep. 4, 2020 $2,500,000
University of Saskatchewan Feb. 16, 2018 $3,609,771
University of Saskatchewan Mar. 23, 2018 $15,609,771
University of Saskatchewan (VIDO) Oct. 2, 2007 $49,000,000
WHO – World Health Organization Mar. 31, 2015 $20,000,000
WHO – World Health Organization Nov. 13, 2019 $2,000,000
Xing, Zhou Jul. 1, 2017 $2,462,740

This is by no means all of them, but are some of the bigger grants flagged by searching “vaccines” on the Government of Canada website.

3. NSERC/CIHR/SSHRC Research Grants

NSERC, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, has also handed out hundreds of grants over the last year regarding “Covid research”. It’s available for all to see.

CIHR, the Canadian Institutes for Health Research, has also listed the grants they they will be handing out. As of August 8, 2020, it was listed at $111 million.

SSHRC, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, also has a website detailing information about its grants and spending.

4. Who Needs Science-Based Policy Anyway?

This is BC Provincial Health Officer, Bonnie Henry. Despite repeated admissions like this, the local media fawns over her, refusing to ask difficult questions. This is the unelected dictator of the Province, that all parties agreed to abdicate their responsibilities to. And this is what BC promotes as “safety“.

Posted on

CV #30(E): Crestview Strategy, Danielle Peters, Lobbyists Behind $173 Million Grant To Medicago

Medicago received a grant of $173,000,000 to develop a CV-19 vaccine. Beyond that, a portion of the grant is to build a manufacturing facility, which presumably should be operational by 2040.

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

The rest of the series is here. Many lies, lobbying, conflicts of interest, and various globalist agendas operating behind the scenes, obscuring the vile agenda called the GREAT RESET. The Gates Foundation finances: the WHO, the US CDC, GAVI, ID2020, John Hopkins University, Imperial College London, the Pirbright Institute, the BBC, and individual pharmaceutical companies. The International Health Regulations are legally binding. The Postmedia empire and the “independent” media are paid off, as are the fact-checkers. The virus was never isolated, PCR tests are a fraud, as are forced masks, social bubbles, and 2m distancing.

2. Danielle Peters, Major Pharma Lobbyist

  • February 4, 2019
  • February 4, 2019
  • February 5, 2019
  • November 27, 2019
  • January 22, 2020
  • March 3, 2020
  • March 5, 2020
  • May 25, 2020
  • June 8, 2020
  • June 8, 2020
  • June 29 2020
  • July 13, 2020
  • July 15, 2020
  • July 29, 2020
  • July 30, 2020
  • August 6, 2020
  • August 7, 2020
  • August 26, 2020
  • August 27, 2020
  • September 1, 2020
  • September 10, 2020
  • September 16, 2020
  • September 29, 2020
  • October 10, 2020
  • October 10 2020
  • January 13, 2021
  • January 28, 2021

The above list only includes searches for Medicago, which Danielle Peters is featured prominently. She has been registered as a Medicago lobbyist since 2013. Those dates are when she met on behalf of Medicago to lobby for vaccines. If you only search her name, Peters is involved in other pharma lobbying, such as with Merck, Kalgene Pharmaceuticals, Therapure Biopharma, and the Alliance for Safe Online Pharmacies

3. Danielle Peters, Magnet Strategy Group

Dani Peters is President of Magnet Strategy Group, a consulting firm that manages public affairs strategies in Canada and the United States.

Prior to founding Magnet Strategy Group, Dani held senior roles in public affairs firms in the U.S. and Canada, concentrating on fields that include innovation, health and life sciences. Over the past decade, Dani has worked with groups in the health sector to develop and manage government, public policy, funding, advocacy and stakeholder strategies.

Dani is co-founder of the Cross-Border Health Foundation, an organization that fosters dialogue between Canada and the United States around common health priorities. In addition to operating Magnet Strategy Group, Dani serves on the Industry Advisory Board for Bloom Burton & Co., a healthcare investment advisory firm in Toronto. She is also a Health Leader-in-Residence for the World Health Innovation Network (WIN), within the University of Windsor’s Odette School of Business.

What else is there to say? She is clearly a very connected person. Considering that Medicago landed a $173 million contract, due largely to her lobbying, Peters was financially a great investment. This deal wasn’t just to fund vaccine research, it was to build a facility as well.

4. Peters Lobbied While With Rothwell

It worth pointing out that Peters also lobbied on behalf of Medicago when she was employed by the firm, Rothwell Group. Seems that not much has changed.

5. Peters Part Of Adjuvant Partners As Well

Look familiar? It should. This profile is almost identical to the Magnet profile, down to using the same photograph. Among other things, Adjuvant lists “gene therapy” as one area it’s involved with. This appears to be another lobbying firm, as they don’t do medical research themselves.

6. Peters’ LinkedIn Page

The profile of one of the main players behind the $173 million spending. However, she has not acted alone in this.

7. Blake Oliver Jumps Ship To Government

On February 26, 2020, Blake Oliver lobbied the Federal Government on behalf of Medicago, while still employed at Crestview Strategy. Days later, he was working for the Government, in the Ministry of Transportation. He also helped volunteer for the Liberals in the 2019 election.

8. Patricia Sibal, Liberal Party Volunteer

Also connected to this is Patricia Sabil. She has lobbied for Medicago, while working for Crestview Strategy. She is also a volunteer with the Liberals in Ontario and Quebec.

9. Susie Heath, Liberal With Wynne/McGuinty

Susie Heath spent years with the Liberal Government of Dalton McGuinty and Kathleen Wynne. She has also lobbied on behalf of Medicago, while with Crestview Strategy

10. Jennifer Babcock, Ex-Crestview Lobbyist

Babcock spent several years in Parliament, working for various politicians. She also lobbied on behalf of both Medicago and GAVI. Honourable mentions go out to Lucas Malinowski, and Joanna Carey, who appear to have since left Crestview.

Jason Clark is still with Crestview, and has acted for Medicago and GAVI. He volunteered in the 2015 election for Liberals in the Ottawa region. Crestview itself was co-founded by Rob Silver, husband of Katie Telford, Trudeau’s Chief-of-Staff.

Currently, Ashton Arsenault is registered as a lobbyist for both Medicago and GAVI. For some variety, he is a strategist with the Conservative Party of Canada.

For some background information into Crestview and other lobbying, please check here, here, here and here.

This is what they mean when they say “we’re all in it together”.

11. Conflicts Of Interest Ignored In Media

Given the heavy subsidization of the media in Canada, it’s no surprise that none of this is being reported. When outlets are dependent on the Government to prop them up, they are unlikely to do real research. But about that $173 million grant, people should know who is really pulling the strings.