Christine Massey On: FOI Requests; Virus Isolation; Fluoride’s Harmful Effects

The following is from an interview that was supposed to be published in a European health magazine. There were some translation issues which ultimately prevented its release. Permission has been granted for this printing. In any event, go check out the work by Fluoride Free Peel.

A bit odd how most of the heroes who claim to be fighting this medical tyranny rarely (if ever) mention the fact that this “virus” has never been isolated. This is all based on lies.

(1) Massey Interview Isolation Purification
(2) https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/no-fluoride-pregnancy-studies-suggest-safety-re-iq-or-adhd/
(3) https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/20130705121108426.pdf
(4) https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Health-Canada-FOI-Response-Letter-June2014.pdf
(5) https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/3424-2/
(6) https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/freedom-of-information-reveals-public-health-agency-of-canada-has-no-record-of-sars-cov-2-isolation-performed-by-anyone-anywhere-ever/
(7) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yg5qnmqjWsM&feature=emb_logo
(8) https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/template-for-foi-requests/

Before we get into the “SARS-COV-2” discussion, would you like to describe the Freedom of Information responses you have collected in regards to fluoride exposure during pregnancy, and what prompted you to begin that project?

A few years ago I submitted a series of 9 freedom of information requests to find out if public health institutions that promote water fluoridation had any primary studies to show that fluoride exposure is safe during pregnancy with respect to IQ and ADHD symptoms in their offspring. Dentists and public health officials in Canada and the U.S. are always telling us that water fluoridation is “safe and effective for everyone” and they call it a “great public health achievement”. But it turned out that they had no studies whatsoever.

I had focused on those particular outcomes because I was aware, thanks to the efforts of the wider community, that a large body of evidence had accumulated suggesting that fluoride is neurotoxic at high enough doses, and some high quality government-funded studies had recently showed that common fluoride exposure levels during pregnancy are associated with lower IQs and increased ADHD symptoms in offspring.

Many people aren’t aware, but there is currently a lawsuit underway against the U.S. EPA over their failure to regulate drinking water fluoride levels in a manner protective of neurological health. And this is only one of many concerns.

It had also come to light that the chemical typically used to fluoridate water here is actually an industrial hazardous waste acid that is contaminated, for example with arsenic and lead, and had never been subjected to long-term toxicology studies. We also knew that, after many decades of the practice, fluoridated water had still never been tested for effectiveness in humans via double-blind randomized controlled experiments. Health Canada’s 2014 FOI response to Ms. Joanne David confirmed those facts.

It is easy to prove using grade-school math that so-called “optimally fluoridated” water delivers contra-indicated doses of fluoride to children every single day (see slides 6 and 10 here). In every 350 ml glass of water a child receives the same amount of fluoride that all of the dental and public health authorities insist should be spit out, not swallowed, when brushing their teeth with the recommended amount of fluoridated toothpaste. Most dentists are completely unaware of this simple truth.

Despite the simplicity of this truth, even Medical Officers of Health sometimes try to dispute it, because they get paid massive salaries to push the government’s health agendas. I presented the simple math multiple times to the municipal council where I used to live. But only 1 sensible Councillor cared, the rest didn’t and they continued with the practice. It was like talking to a brick wall. And I wasn’t the only one trying to reason with them and showing them evidence of harm, many other people were doing the same thing.

What is your academic background?

I have a master’s degree in biostatistics from Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto. I used to work as a statistician with cancer researchers.

Some might claim that because you are not an expert on fluoride toxicity, or a virologist, your input is of no value on either topic. How would you respond to that?

No one needs a special background to grasp the grade-school math mentioned above, or the lack of randomized controlled studies to prove the alleged effectiveness of fluoridated water, or the lack of toxicology studies on the chemical, or to notice the blatant double-standard that is applied by the public health community and dentists.

If you show them a study that suggests ineffectiveness or harm to humans, they will dismiss it because it’s not a controlled experiment and they will go through it with a fine-tooth comb to point out weaknesses. What they won’t tell you is that they have zero controlled human experiments to prove effectiveness or safety, and that they rely solely on observational studies of equal or lesser quality when insisting the practice is safe and effective.

While they claim it would be unethical to carry out a controlled experiment on humans who give voluntary, informed consent to investigate potential harm, they insist it’s a “great public health achievement” to force an uncontrolled experiment without voluntary or informed consent onto entire communities.

Anyone can see the contradiction, and it applies to other health practices as well – for example not testing a drug on pregnant, consenting volunteers, but then marketing and administering that same drug to pregnant women, insisting that It’s safe and effective.

With regards to the isolation/purification of the theoretical “COVID-19 virus”, it’s as simple as recognizing the difference between mixing things together and separating things apart, and realizing that no one on the planet has a purified sample of the alleged virus. It’s not rocket science – anyone willing to invest a little time can understand it.

We have every right to question and dispute the so-called experts, and it’s important that we do, especially when it comes to things that directly impact our lives. Experts often don’t agree among themselves and have been wrong on many things throughout history. And some so-called experts (i.e. public health officials) are in fact not expert on a given public health topic. So it’s very dangerous for people to think that they should not investigate and should not feel free to question anything that does not make sense to them, and to demand answers if need be.

Right now our world is being turned upside down over claims that are quite easy to disprove. The truth is that no one has a purified sample of the alleged virus, and thus there are zero validated tests and zero “confirmed cases”.

How did you become aware of the “virus” isolation/purification issue?

Nothing about the “COVID-19” story made sense from the beginning, starting with the blind acceptance by media and governments that a deadly new virus was responsible for respiratory disease in heavily polluted Wuhan.

Also the numbers didn’t make sense here in Ontario when they put us into lockdown for the first time. And I simply could not take seriously the notion that the same governments in Canada and the U.S. that unlawfully mass medicate and experiment on the public with fluoride were suddenly taking extraordinary steps to protect us. They kept saying that they were doing it “out of an abundance of caution”. But they had demonstrated zero caution or credibility when it came to fluoridation, so it was completely contradictory to their usual behaviour.

Then I heard that they were using PCR tests to diagnose people, and I recalled hearing about those same tests from the great investigative journalist Jon Rappoport over the years. He had reported that they were highly problematic for diagnosing other alleged viral diseases.

So I started looking for more detailed information about the PCR tests, and in doing so came across the brilliant work of Canada’s David Crowe, and later the equally brilliant Dr. Andrew Kaufman, Dr. Thomas Cowan and Dr. Stefan Lanka, and eventually others as well. They were all pointing out flaws in the story of the alleged virus itself. So I studied their work, and started looking at the “isolation” studies for myself, which confirmed what these gentlemen were describing.

And what gave you the idea of requesting freedom of information responses from governments and institutions?

I had found the FOIs a very simple and effective tool for exposing the absence of safety studies at institutions that promote fluoridated water during pregnancy, and realized FOIs could be useful again to investigate whether the alleged virus had in fact been isolated/purified.

Please describe your initial steps, the wording of your requests, and the first response or 2 that you received.

My first request was submitted on May 14, 2020 to Health Canada. (Some people have claimed that Health Canada is not an appropriate institution to have submitted this request to, but I disagree because Health Canada is the Canadian institution that has approved all of the “COVID-19” test kits, clinical trials, injections and other drugs and devices.)

I was very careful with the wording because I wanted to weed out the fraudulent “isolation” studies where nothing is actually isolated/purified, but not make it so restrictive that it also weeded out any potential legitimate studies.

The request was for: “all records describing the isolation of a SARS-COV-2 virus, directly from a sample taken from a diseased patient, where the patient sample was not first combined with any other source of genetic material”.

I stressed that I meant “isolation” in the “every-day sense of the word: the act of separating a thing(s) from everything else” and that I was “not requesting records where “isolation of SARS-COV-2” refers instead to the culturing of something, or the performance of an amplification test (i.e. a PCR test), or the sequencing of something”.

And I clarified that my request was to include any such record that had been downloaded to a computer, or printed in hard copy, etc. In other words, any record authored by anyone, anywhere, that was held by Health Canada. And I requested citations for any such record that might already be available to the public elsewhere, since publicly available records are not covered by the FOI legislation.

On June 11th, 2020 an Access to Information analyst advised me that Health Canada would not typically evaluate the type of information I had requested and that “Information on virus isolation would be best obtained from the Public Health Agency of Canada or the National Research Council.”

On June 23rd, 2020 the same analyst advised that Health Canada’s role is only to review evidence provided by sponsors in order to make regulatory decisions to approve products and authorize clinical trials, and that I might wish to contact the sponsors of clinical trials and/or companies in order to get the information I was seeking.

Health Canada’s final response came on June 24, 2020 and it stated: “Having completed a thorough search, we regret to inform you that we were unable to locate any records responsive to your request.” So I posted the response on my website, shared it on social media and sent it to my municipal Council.

On July 14, 2020, the National Research Council of Canada provided their stating that “a thorough search of NRC’s records has now been completed, and we regret to inform you that no records responsive to your request were identified”.

On December 7, 2020, the Public Health Agency of Canada (which includes Canada’s only “biosafety level 4” laboratory, the National Microbiology Laboratory) responded and provided me with 1 study and several emails that they claimed were responsive, but none of the records described isolation/purification of the alleged virus from a patient sample or from anything else.

In a revised response to that same request, the Public Health Agency of Canada admitted that they had no responsive records and stated that the gold standard used to determine the presence of intact virus in patient samples is visible cytopathic effects on cells in a cell culture.

Further, the Agency said that in the case of SARS-COV-2 “isolation” kidney cells extracted from an African green monkey (“Vero cells”) “combined with minimal essential medium (MEM) were used because they are essential to support viral replication and cell growth”, and that “PCR further confirms that intact virus is present”. But of course culturing has nothing to do with isolating/purifying anything, and PCR tests do not even attempt detect alleged viruses or even alleged genomes.

What did you make of these responses?

It was clear that the top health institutions in Canada had no evidence that the alleged virus had ever been isolated/purified, and thus no proof that “it” even exists. I realized that this was important evidence that could help to open people’s eyes and possibly be used in court, so yes, I kept submitting requests to more and more institutions in Canada, including at the provincial and municipal levels.

As of today (November 1, 2021), your website lists responses from 127 institutions in over 25 countries. How did you amass such an enormous collection from around the world?

Eventually a gentleman from New Zealand contacted me and asked if I would mind him using the same wording in requests in his country. Of course I welcomed this, and this gentleman ended up submitting and receiving responses to many requests in New Zealand, Australia, the U.S. So I posted his responses on my website as well, to help publicize them and make it easier for people to find all of the isolation/purification FOI responses. (He went on to do many other initiatives on this issue as well, including a 59 second video that explains the irrational, unscientific version of “isolation” used in virology.)

Gradually more and more people got in touch with me, sending in the FOI responses they had received, and in some cases court documents, and all of them were added to the collection. I’m aware of responses from additional institutions that I don’t have copies of yet, as well.

To this day, no institution has provided or cited even 1 record of the alleged “COVID-19 virus” (or any other alleged virus, that I’m aware of) having been isolated/purified from even 1 patient sample on the planet.

There is an FOI Request Template on my website where I encourage people to submit requests to the institutions where they live.

What are the implications of the fact that no one has any record of the alleged virus having been purified from patient samples?

Politicians who have engaged in fear-mongering, terrorized, manipulated and coerced the public, misused public resources, sabotaged businesses and economies, passed fraud-based “laws” and regulations, gave so-called “emergency” powers to lying public health officials, and issued threats, “mandates”, and all manner of financial and psychological abuse are all responsible for their actions.

Purification is just 1 essential (but not sufficient) step in proving the existence of an alleged virus. And it needs to have been carried out on many patient samples, not just 1 or a few. And the steps of purifying and following up with the other necessary steps with the purified sample (characterization, sequencing and controlled experiments) should have been carried out by multiple research teams in order to replicate and verify the results. Instead, to this day, no one on the planet has performed even the purification step, from even 1 patient sample.

So it is 100% clear that these politicians all failed to demand proof that the alleged virus even exists, let alone proof of a pandemic. And on top of that they failed to respect God-given rights and freedoms and to uphold higher laws, and they have caused vast amounts of needless suffering and misery. They have participated in a global fraud and crimes against humanity, and they are responsible along with all the other complicit parties (virologists, public health officials, etc).

Despite all of the evidence to the contrary, institutions around the world still insist that the alleged “SARS-CoV-2” has been isolated. What do you say to that?

The FOI collection includes responses from numerous intuitions that had claimed to have “isolated the virus”, for example:

  • University of Toronto (Canada)
  • McMaster University (Canada)
  • Mount Sinai Hospital (Canada)
  • Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre (Canada)
  • Vaccine and Infectious Disease Organization – International Vaccine Centre (Canada)
  • U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
  • University of Otago (New Zealand)
  • Peter Doherty Institute (Australia)
  • Indian Council of Medical Research
  • National Institute of Infectious Diseases “Lazzaro Spallanzani” (Italy)

The Methods sections of the so-called “virus isolation” studies, and FOI responses from many institutions, make it clear that “SARS-COV-2 isolation” to a virologist means “culturing” a patient sample in monkey kidney cells (aka “Vero” cells), fetal bovine serum and toxic drugs, reducing the nutrition to the cells, and then irrationally and unscientifically blaming the alleged “virus” for whatever harm (“cytopathic effects”) they observe in the monkey cells. It’s all wild speculation and outlandish assumptions.

They usually don’t bother with any sort of controls, and in the studies where they do refer to “control” cells, they fail to describe exactly what they did to those cells.

A colleague of mine had an email conversation with a Chinese virologist involved in one of these papers, and this virologist admitted that they gave the experimental cells double the amount of toxic drugs that they gave their so-called “controls”. This was only 1 of the many problems with their paper.

And, we know there could not have been full control in any of the allegedly “controlled” experiments because full control would require everything to be the same in both the experimental and control groups except for the 1 factor that is being investigated – in this case the alleged virus. Since no one has a purified sample of the alleged virus, no experiment could have been fully controlled.

What myself and many other people have come to realize during the last 1.5 years is that virology is simply not a science. The faulty “virus isolation” methods applied during this virus-less “pandemic” are not even unique to “COVID-19”, they are typical.

Others, such as Germany’s Dr. Stefan Lanka, had already known of these problems for years or even decades. Now it is time for the entire world to come to this knowledge, so that we are never duped or coerced again into another faux “vaccine” or any other sort of “virus” manipulation.

BCOHRC Deliberately Misrepresents Basic Information In Vaccination “Guidance”

The following piece comes from a “guidance document” that the BC Office of the Human Rights Commissioner recently published. In short, people CAN lose their jobs or livelihood.

To be clear, the Government won’t mandate this for B.C. That being said, employers will have wide discretion to require it, if they deem it “essential”. Is enabling all that much better?

Their media representative, Elaine (her last name has been scrubbed) was evasive, and tap danced around important information. This included: (a) vaccines not being approved, but having interim authorization; (b) how experimental vaccines can be pushed given BC cancelled its state of emergency; (c) the lack of long term testing; and (d) indemnified manufacturers, among other things

In short, the BCOHRC seems more content with the “illusion” of protecting human rights, rather than “actually” protecting human rights.

If Elaine, or her employer, cared about so-called marginalized people, they wouldn’t allow for experimental injections to be a condition of certain jobs. Despite all the social justice nonsense on their website, it’s clear that it’s all just for show.

From page 3:

Policies that treat people differently based on whether they have been vaccinated—“vaccination status policies”—must remain consistent with the obligations legislated under B.C.’s Human Rights Code. Individuals must be protected from discrimination based on their place of origin, religion, physical or mental disability, family status or other Code-protected ground.

Employers, landlords and service providers (duty bearers) can, in some limited circumstances, implement vaccination status policies—but only if other less intrusive means of preventing COVID-19 transmission are inadequate for the setting and if due consideration is given to the human rights of everyone involved.

Vaccination status policies should be justified by scientific evidence relevant to the specific context, time-limited and regularly reviewed, proportional to the risks they seek to address, necessary due to a lack of less-intrusive alternatives and respectful of privacy to the extent required by law. In applying such a vaccination
status policy, duty bearers must accommodate those who cannot receive a vaccine to the point of undue hardship.

No one’s safety should be put at risk because of others’ personal choices not to receive a vaccine. Just as importantly, no one should experience harassment or unjustifiable discrimination when there are effective alternatives to vaccination status policies.

People must be protected based on certain identity groups. But humans as a whole aren’t worth consideration. Now, from page 6:

Evidence-based — Evidence (of the risk of transmission in the specific setting) is required to justify policies that restrict individual rights for the purpose of protecting collective public health or workplace safety. Such policies must be aligned with up-to date public health recommendations and reflect current medical and epidemiological understanding of the specific risks the policy aims to address.

But once again, these are not approved, and there is no long term testing. From page 7:

The COVID-19 vaccines approved by Health Canada have proven highly effective at protecting individuals from COVID-19 infection and serious illness.

Except they aren’t approved. From page 8:

Migrant and undocumented workers, many of whom do not have a Personal Health Number, may be unaware they are eligible for the vaccine or concerned about revealing their immigration status.

Interesting the concern for “undocumented workers”, which is a euphemism for illegal aliens. The BCOHRC cares more about people illegally in the country than legitimate safety concerns of their guidelines. From page 10:

In my view, a person who chooses not to get vaccinated as a matter of personal preference—especially where that choice is based on misinformation or misunderstandings of scientific information—does not have grounds for a human rights complaint against a duty bearer implementing a vaccination status policy.

It would be nice to know what “misinformation or misunderstandings” would apply here. And in fact, that question was posed to Elaine. But as stated, the BCOHRC seems more concerned about appearing to care about human rights, than actually caring about human rights. Continuing from page 11:

Conclusion
It is in challenging times that it is most critical to place human rights at the centre of our decision making. No one’s safety should be put at risk because of other people’s personal choices not to receive a vaccine, and no one should experience harassment or unjustified discrimination when there are effective alternatives to vaccination
status policies.

We must all guard against the impulse to react out of fear, speculation and stereotyping. Restrictions imposed in the name of safety must be justified based on the most current public health recommendations reflecting the best available medical and scientific evidence, relevant to a specific setting.

While these paragraphs sound great, the BCOHRC is more concerned about optics and pretending to care about human rights.

Though this document doesn’t officially call for mandatory injections, it’s intended to provide instructions on how employers can get around it.

When specifically asked about approved v.s. authorized injections, Elaine pivots by claiming it’s not the place of the BCOHRC to provide medical advice. If she was being straightforward, this issue would have been addressed directly.

And no, this isn’t just some academic musings. Elaine made it clear that the BCOHRC intended for this document to be used as a guideline throughout B.C.

(1) https://bchumanrights.ca/wp-content/uploads/BCOHRC_Jul2021_Vaccination-Policy-Guidance_FINAL.pdf
(2) BCOHRC_Jul2021_Vaccination-Policy-Guidance_FINAL
(3) Section 30.1, Canada Food & Drug Act
(4) Interim (Emergency) Order Signed By Patty Hajdu
(5) https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/astrazeneca-covid-19-vaccine-pm-en.pdf
(6) https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/janssen-covid-19-vaccine-pm-en.pdf
(7) https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/covid-19-vaccine-moderna-pm-en.pdf
(8) https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/pfizer-biontech-covid-19-vaccine-pm1-en.pdf

In case anyone thinks this may be unfair, here is the entire email exchange, going back to last week. Does it sound like a person giving straightforward answers?


From: Ronnie Lempert editor@canucklaw.ca
Sent: July 14, 2021 1:51 PM
To: XXXXXXXX, Elaine OHRC:EX Elaine.XXXXXXXX@bchumanrights.ca
Subject: media request for information on document

Hello,

I run a small site in BC and came across this

https://bchumanrights.ca/wp-content/uploads/BCOHRC_Jul2021_Vaccination-Policy-Guidance_FINAL.pdf

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

Any chance of getting in touch?

Thanks,
Ronnie (Editor)
XXX-XXX-XXXX


From: “XXXXXXXX Elaine OHRC:EX” Elaine.XXXXXXXX@bchumanrights.ca
Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2021 2:09 PM
To: “editor@canucklaw.ca” editor@canucklaw.ca
Subject: RE: media request for information on document

Hello Ronnie,

Thank you for reaching out to us.

The Commissioner is not doing media on this release, and of course implementation and roll out decisions are going to come from government and other agencies, not BCOHRC

However, if you have specific questions about the guidance that fall within our jurisdiction, if you send them to me via email, I will check and see if there is any more information we have to provide to you.

Thank you,
Elaine

Elaine XXXXXXX (she/her)
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, Communications
BC’s Office of the Human Rights Commissioner
Office: 1-844-922-XXXX | Cell: 1-250-216-XXXX
bchumanrights.ca | @humanrights4bc


From: Ronnie Lempert editor@canucklaw.ca
Sent: July 14, 2021 2:33 PM
To: XXXXXXXX, Elaine OHRC:EX Elaine.XXXXXXXX@bchumanrights.ca
Subject: RE: media request for information on document

Hello Elaine

I’d hoped to ask in person, but here are the important parts.

(1) The Government takes its advice from the BCOHRC, does it not? So wouldn’t your reports and recommendations be considered, at a minimum?

(2) This document says on the top of page 10:
In my view, a person who chooses not to get vaccinated as a matter of personal preference—especially where that choice is based on misinformation or misunderstandings of scientific information—does not have grounds for a human rights complaint against a duty bearer implementing a vaccination status policy.

Okay, specifically, what would be a misunderstanding or what would count as misinformation?

(3) Middle of page 7, it’s stated that the vaccines are “approved by Health Canada”. However, when looking up the product inserts, they don’t say approved anywhere. They say “authorized under an interim order”.

https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/astrazeneca-covid-19-vaccine-pm-en.pdf
https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/janssen-covid-19-vaccine-pm-en.pdf
https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/covid-19-vaccine-moderna-pm-en.pdf
https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/pfizer-biontech-covid-19-vaccine-pm1-en.pdf

So, are these vaccines approved, or are they given interim authorization? They are not the same thing.

(4) Considering that testing has gone on for about a year, how can the BCOHRC say with any confidence if and what any side effects would be in 5 or 10 years?

(5) Are the manufacturers indemnified against lawsuits from any injury?

(6) Will the BCOHRC assume any responsibility/liability if this policy were implemented for any injuries/deaths?

(7) What cost/benefit analysis was done in coming to the decision that mandatory vaccines may be required? Could I have a copy of those studies?

(8) Has the extensive legal history, particularly with Pfizer, been any sort of deterrent in coming to this kind of decision?

(9) Does imposing this vaccination requirement result in a backdoor vaccine passport?

(10) Considering BC ended its state of emergency June 30, what is the legal basis for allowing the requirement of these vaccines?

(11) If my boss fired me for refusing a vaccine based on the above questions, what would the BCOHRC do? Would you determine that the employer has a right to demand them? Would you determine that I am uninformed?

I realize this is a lot, but that document is a cause for concern.

Thanks,
Ronnie


From: “XXXXXXXX, Elaine OHRC:EX” Elaine.XXXXXXXX@bchumanrights.ca
Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2021 3:14 PM
To: “editor@canucklaw.ca” editor@canucklaw.ca
Subject: RE: media request for information on document

Hi Ronnie,

That’s a long list. I will see if I can help clarify where possible.

I am sure you understand several of these questions are out of scope.

It’s nearing end of day. Would you let me know of your deadline please?

Thank you,
Elaine


From: Ronnie Lempert editor@canucklaw.ca
Sent: July 14, 2021 4:06 PM
To: XXXXXXXX, Elaine OHRC:EX Elaine.XXXXXXXX@bchumanrights.ca
Subject: RE: media request for information on document

Hello Elaine,

There isn’t a specific deadline, but whenever they can be done.

If there is someone in a different department or division who might have insight on some of them, they are welcome to add it in as well.

I realize this is a lot, but the kind of audience I write for doesn’t like the idea that their livelihoods could be conditional on taking this, for the issues outlined below

Thanks,
Ronnie

P.S. you are always welcome to visit the site if any of the content interests you.
https://canucklaw(dot)ca


From: “XXXXXXXX, Elaine OHRC:EX” Elaine.XXXXXXXX@bchumanrights.ca
Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2021 2:14 PM
To: “editor@canucklaw.ca” editor@canucklaw.ca
Subject: RE: media request for information on document

Hi Ronnie,

I am able to get back to you today with clarifications from our Office.

This document is intended to provide guidance to duty bearers under B.C.’s Human Rights Code, including employers, housing providers, service providers, and government insofar as government plays each of these roles. Our hope is that duty bearers will consider – and follow – our recommendations.

You will note that this guidance does not contain a recommendation that government put into place a mandatory vaccine requirement, but it does allow for proof-of-vaccine requirements in some circumstances.

Our legislative mandate empowers us to provide public guidance and recommendations on matters of public policy by clarifying existing human rights laws and advising how new laws and public policy must be adapted to adhere to them. You can read the provisions of B.C.’s Human Rights Code here.

It is not within our mandate to provide medical advice. We rely on public health guidance issued by the Office of the Provincial Health Officer and the BC Centres for Disease Control, and invite you to refer to their work.

It is also not within our mandate to address individual human rights complaints. All human rights complaints in the province – including those made concerning COVID-19 accommodations such as masking and vaccination – are managed by a separate entity, the BC Human Rights Tribunal. You can read more about the purpose and function of the BC Human Rights Tribunal here.

Thank you,
Elaine


From: Ronnie Lempert editor@canucklaw.ca
Sent: July 15, 2021 3:08 PM
To: XXXXXXXX, Elaine OHRC:EX Elaine.XXXXXXXX@bchumanrights.ca
Subject: RE: media request for information on document

Hello Elaine,

If you hope that your recommendations will be followed, then what’s wrong with getting clarification from your office? I’m trying to determine exactly what you are calling for.

As just one example, these vaccines have interim authorization under an emergency order, (an emergency now cancelled in BC). See attached screenshots. On page 7 of the document they are referred to as “approved”, which distorts the truth. Does this concern you?

On page 10 of the document, it’s stated that people who refuse to get it for person reasons will not be protected. It also states that misinformation or misunderstandings are not an excuse. It’s a valid question to ask what qualifies as “misinformation”.

Also, does pointing out the lack of long term testing, or manufacturer indemnification count as misinformation?

To be blunt, it appears that the BCOHRC is empowering employers and others to force/coerce people into taking it, while glossing over the experimental status of these vaccines.

A human rights approach to proof of vaccination during the COVID-19 pandemic (bchumanrights.ca)

Hopefully I’m wrong,
Thanks,
Ronnie


From: XXXXXXXX, Elaine OHRC:EX” Elaine.XXXXXXXX@bchumanrights.ca
Sent: Monday, July 19, 2021 5:07 PM
To: “editor@canucklaw.ca” editor@canucklaw.ca
Subject: RE: media request for information on document

Hello Ronnie,

As discussed last week, here is additional clarification from our Office.

To clarify, our Office focuses on promoting and protecting human rights through education, research, advocacy, monitoring and public inquiry into issues of systemic discrimination in the province. Our legislative mandate is specifically focused on systemic discrimination, and therefore we are not able to comment on individual cases nor can we provide legal advice.

The vaccination status guidance offers general advice on how duty bearers can respect human rights if developing vaccination status policies — that is, policies that treat people differently based on whether or not they have been vaccinated against COVID-19.

B.C.’s Human Rights Commissioner Kasari Govender and our Office have not advocated for mandatory vaccination.

The purpose of the guidance document is to provide a human rights based lens to the development of vaccination status policies. It offers general advice on how duty bearers should respect human rights law when developing policies that treat people differently based on whether or not they have been vaccinated against COVID-19. The document follows current health guidance from the PHO and BCCDC, as well as sources cited in the guidance document and footnotes.

It is the position of BCOHRC that human rights law provides that duty bearers (such as employers) can implement vaccination status policies, only if less intrusive means of preventing transmission are not possible and with accommodations in place, as per the guidance. Vaccination status policies must remain consistent with the obligations legislated under B.C.’s Human Rights Code.

I hope this clarifies for you. We don’t have anything to add that isn’t already in the guidance, so suggest if you are looking for more specific details on potential future scenarios or the legal parameters of instituting proof of vaccination policies (these are still evolving as this is such a new issue across the board), that you seek context from a lawyer experienced in human rights, privacy and workplace law.

Thank you,
Elaine


From: Ronnie Lempert editor@canucklaw.ca
Sent: July 19, 2021 6:59 PM
To: XXXXXXXX, Elaine OHRC:EX Elaine.XXXXXXXX@bchumanrights.ca
Subject: RE: media request for information on document

Hello Elaine,

My biggest concern — one which is getting sidestepped here, it that you are laying out guidelines for EXPERIMENTAL and UNAPPROVED vaccines (interim authorization is not approved), and never make it clear that that this is the case. In short, the recommendations are based on misleading, or at best, incomplete information.

Saying “we don’t provide legal advice” is a bit of a cop out, since policies will likely be drafted based on the recommendations your office makes.

For the record, is it BCOHRC’s position that these are fully approved? Or just authorized for emergency use?

On a semi-related note: I’m curious what studies or cost/benefit analysis has been done, either for this, or for you recommendations on masks. Anything that debated or considered physical or psychological harms? Do you have anything you could share? Alternatively, is there anything publicly posted that you relied on? I’d like to see specifically what science has been relied on.

Thanks.
Ronnie


Hi Ronnie,

You can read all of our current and past COVID-19 guidance, including footnotes and references here: https://bchumanrights.ca/key-issues/covid-19/

You can read Health Canada information about vaccines here: https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-health-products/covid19-industry/drugs-vaccines-treatments/vaccines.html

We have nothing further to add or say that has not already been published.

Thank you,
Elaine


An astute person will realize that not once did she address the issue of these “vaccines” being authorized under a (now cancelled) emergency order, and not approved.

Predatory Publications By Professor Pyne (Part 4: The Followup)

1. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for Part I, the paper and backstory.
CLICK HERE, for Part II, the Pyne interview.
CLICK HERE, for Part III, TRU responds in case.

CLICK HERE, for the Ad Hoc Investigatory Committee report.

2. Context Of Followup

In 2017, Professor Pyne released a research report on so-called “predatory publishing”. In it, he details how academics publish in journals that are not peer reviewed, and who make little if any effort to verify the findings.

Although the report did not drop specific names, it was not well received by Thompson Rivers University. In a sense this was understandable, as it is not a topic that most people wish to address. Professor Pyne claims that this led to the atmosphere at the school changing, and to his eventual suspension.

Regardless of how touchy the topic may be, this was the wrong way to handle it. Truth should never be censored just because it is inconvenient or embarrassing.

This topic was originally covered early this year. However, since then the Committee investigating the case has ruled that Professor Pyne’s rights were violated.

3. From Ad Hoc Investigative Comm Report

Our investigation has found the following:
1. Based on the evidence presented to the Committee, TRU appears to suffer a broad institutional weakness when it comes to understanding academic freedom beyond its narrow application to support faculty members’ freedom to pursue what they expect to be fruitful avenues of research and publish their results.

2. There were significant breaches of Dr. Pyne’s academic freedom with respect to the Administration’s responses to his intramural and extramural communications criticizing the School of Business and Economics, its programs, and its faculty. These breaches arose from the failure to properly consider Dr. Pyne’s academic freedom, which is encoded in the collective agreement governing his employment at TRU, in managing workplace complaints against Dr. Pyne.

3. The collective agreement between the University and its faculty association contains an article on academic freedom that creates a positive obligation on the parties to consider academic freedom in any case involving speech and other communications from faculty members. The failure to consider Dr. Pyne’s academic freedom in human resources processes has had the effect of denying Dr. Pyne access to procedural fairness, and hence the decision to suspend him was not made on a sound basis.

4. There is no evidence that any person at TRU attempted to interfere with Dr. Pyne as he carried out his study into publishing in predatory journals.

5. Dr. Pyne’s privacy was breached by both TRU and TRUFA on multiple occasions.

Point #3, the school was found to be lacking in having a strong understanding of its academic freedom obligations.

About point #4, that is true, though it doesn’t appear that the school knew what was happening as the research was being done. As no live subjects were used, no ethics approval was needed.

Point #5 concerned leaking of personal information which Professor Pyne believes was done deliberately.

There is a differentiation between open access publishing and so-called predatory publishing that is often over-looked. Open access publishing relies on the same processes as traditional publishing, including rigorous peer review, whereas predatory publishing does not and attempts to co-opt the open access model for financial gain. In an increasingly complex arena for publishing research, universities and academics grapple with assessing faculty members’ published research for tenure and promotion, and for various institutional benefits, including salary increases and research awards. Academic librarians have long provided their expertise in identifying scholarly resources and are now assisting researchers in identifying which constitute legitimate open access publishing and which do not. There is a clear need for universities to ensure the integrity of their academic decisions for tenure and promotion, in particular, by having policies that differentiate between legitimate and predatory publishing.

Dr. Pyne’s research on the rewards of publishing in predatory journals has raised questions about the way his own colleagues and institution are managing the complexity of publishing research at a time when there is a growing number of journals with questionable peer review practices. These questions go to the heart of the credibility of TRU, and one would expect them to be taken seriously by the university’s senior administration. Even if one wishes to critique Dr. Pyne’s published results – as would be expected as part of a robust scholarly discourse – it seems irresponsible for the Administration to ignore the issues his work raises for TRU, which include whether the fundamental academic judgments involved in tenure and promotion decisions are being made on a sound basis.

The only evidence the Committee has seen of any discussion of the issue of predatory journals is related to the TRU Senate discussion of a motion put forward by a faculty senator in April 2017 to refer the matter to the Senate Tenure and Promotion Committee, which is chaired by the Provost. The matter seems to be still with this Committee, which appears not to have made any reports to Senate since then.

It is the Committee’s opinion that the apparent failure of TRU’s Administration to consider seriously the issue of publishing in predatory journals and its potential impacts on TRU’s core academic decisions represents a profound failure of academic governance at the university

Again, read the whole report for a more thorough reply.

An interesting point is raised: even if one has issues with the topic being raised, the way it was handled was completely wrong.

Beyond that, the report on predatory publishing raises very valid concerns. Academics should be concerned about the quality of the screening that is done of their research. Predatory publishes may reward professors with money or more status for work that by all rights should have been rejected. Academia can be a vicious place. In fact, shedding light on this could be viewed as investigative journalism.

Finally, retaliation (no matter how subtle) creates a chilling effect for everyone. What topics are now off limits? Who will be next? Is this really where we want to go with free speech?

4. Comments From Professor Pyne

1/ What exactly did the ruling say?
-TRU and TRUFA violated academic freedom
-Committee tries not to attribute motives to people
-TRU lacks strong policies in academic freedom
-TRU violated privacy laws by leaking confidential information
-TRU should pay wages lost during suspension

2/ Can or will TRU appeal?
-TRU refused to participate in the process, so not likely
-There have been claims of defamation, even though people were not named in the paper

3/ What has changed since this case happened?
-I’ve had my office transferred elsewhere
-People were unhappy with some Facebook postings I made
-The issue still isn’t sitting well with people

4/ Do you think it will make a difference at TRU?
-No, it doesn’t seem to have
Committee has been hand picked by the President
-They say that they have not been provided with all the information, but won’t say what they don’t have

5/ What would you say to people concerned about academic freedom?
-It’s an important cause
-There are a lot of hoops to jump through
-Check out the Society for Academic Freedom

Predatory Publications by TRU Professor Pyne (Part 3: TRU Responds)


(Thompson Rivers University in Kamloops, BC)

CLICK HERE, for Part I, the paper and backstory.
CLICK HERE, for Part II, the Pyne interview

This is Part III of a story involving economics Professor, Derek Pyne. Pyne published a paper studying the economic impacts of “predatory publishing” in academic journals. This led to international attention.

Predatory Journals In Essence
-Mailbox addresses (suites) given in address
-Journal no one has heard of before
-Very quick turnaround times
-Questionable, if any, peer review
-Questionable “Impact Factors Analysis”
-Real journal will provide abstract, fake will make you buy entire article, paywall

Pyne had been suspended in the fall of 2018. He cited several reasons, including this publication. In the interest of fairness, Thompson Rivers University was contacted for their side of the story.

While Professor Pyne agreed to an in person meeting, TRU answered questions by email. Due to privacy and legal concerns the answers were much more restricted than what Prof Pyne had disclosed. Here is that exchange.

1/ Professor Pyne’s paper on “Predatory Journals” must have been unexpected. What is TRU’s response to it?

It is important to understand that research is an independent activity undertaken by faculty and the university is not in the practice of monitoring the publishing activity of its faculty. Professor Pyne has the freedom to publish his research and talk about his research publicly.

2/ Does TRU believe the paper to be factually accurate, or a distortion of academic publishing?

TRU does not take a position on Professor Pyne’s research other than that it supports individual faculty member’s right to research and publish their research, and for this research to be openly debated among the academic community.

3/ Was his suspension in 2018 related to the paper he produced?

The action taken against Professor Pyne was not related to his specific research, the dissemination of his research, or the exercising of his right to academic freedom. The action was related to matters that TRU is unable to comment on due to both employment and privacy law.

4/ Have there been any changes to academic publishing as a result of this release? Reviews on how grants/tenure are awarded?

As previously indicated, research is an independent activity and subject to academic discourse. On the matter of tenure and promotion, any faculty member hired or promoted at TRU goes through a robust process, which involves a review of research activity and publishing credentials. This is a process led by peers, hence, any faculty member at TRU moving through the promotion and tenure process is doing so with the endorsement of their faculty colleagues provincially, nationally, and internationally. Additional information on promotion and tenure can be found on TRU’s website.

Click to access Principles_and_Essential_Features_of_Standards_Documents23557.pdf

5/ Has any faculty research been given a “second look” as a result of the paper?

As indicated, TRU does not monitor the independent publishing activity of its faculty. However, there are processes built within the university system where such activity is reviewed. For example, at TRU, divisional peer review committees and a university committee of Senate review publishing credentials during the tenure and promotion process of faculty. In addition, each individual faculty council and department, with input from the university’s Senate, determine the criteria for tenure and promotion, which includes close scrutiny of publications. Faculty, chairs and deans are also involved in the hiring of any new faculty, and a review of publishing credentials would be part of that process.

6/ Professor Pyne told me he doesn’t believe the academic union is acting properly in the matter, and it has since gone to Labour Relations. Any comment on that?

TRU cannot speak on behalf of the union.

Predatory Publications by TRU Professor Pyne (Part 2: Meeting The Man)

(Thompson Rivers University in Kamloops, BC)

See the previous article on the infamous paper by Thompson Rivers University Economic Professor, Derek Pyne.

For a simplified version of the story, Professor Pyne published a paper in April 2017 titled “Predatory publications”. It was a look into the academic publishing, and how fake journals were popping up. Given university professors’ duty to “publish or perish”, these seemed to be a way out.

This is a topic that has been reluctantly addressed by universities before. However, this paper took more of an economic view of the subject — rewards and benefits from publishing in such journals.

The paper has not been well received by Thompson Rivers University, especially since it seemed to implicate members of the faculty. Relations between Professor Pyne and the school have gone downhill.

In September 2018, almost a year and a half later, Professor Pyne was suspended from TRU. He is now back at work. He claims that the paper was one reason, but not the only, for the suspension.

Currently, a complaint has been filed under Section 13 of the Labour Relations Code, claiming the Union violated Section 12. Here is the actual text from the Labour Relations Code (of BC)

Duty of fair representation
12 (1)
A trade union or council of trade unions must not act in a manner that is arbitrary, discriminatory or in bad faith
(a) in representing any of the employees in an appropriate bargaining unit, or
(b) in the referral of persons to employment whether or not the employees or persons are members of the trade union or a constituent union of the council of trade unions.
.
(2) It is not a violation of subsection (1) for a trade union to enter into an agreement under which
(a) an employer is permitted to hire by name certain trade union members,
(b) a hiring preference is provided to trade union members resident in a particular geographic area, or
(c) an employer is permitted to hire by name persons to be engaged to perform supervisory duties.
.
(3) An employers’ organization must not act in a manner that is arbitrary, discriminatory or in bad faith in representing any of the employers in the group appropriate for collective bargaining.
.
Procedure for fair representation complaint
13 (1) If a written complaint is made to the board that a trade union, council of trade unions or employers’ organization has contravened section 12, the following procedure must be followed:
(a) a panel of the board must determine whether or not it considers that the complaint discloses a case that the contravention has apparently occurred;
(b) if the panel considers that the complaint discloses sufficient evidence that the contravention has apparently occurred, it must
(i) serve a notice of the complaint on the trade union, council of trade unions or employers’ organization against which the complaint is made and invite a reply to the complaint from the trade union, council of trade unions or employers’ organization, and
(ii) dismiss the complaint or refer it to the board for a hearing.
(2) If the board is satisfied that the trade union, council of trade unions or employers’ organization contravened section 12, the board may make an order or direction referred to in section 14 (4) (a), (b) or (d).

Canuck Law meeting Professor Pyne

The actual interview occurred on Thursday, January 24 at the University in Kamloops, BC. Note: Questions were prepared, but the replies shown are summaries of what was said.

1/ What did you think would happen publishing this?
-It was a new angle on the publishing industry
-This hadn’t been done before
-Expected a higher amount of support for academic freedom and inquiry

2/ Any support from colleagues?
-Some privately do offer support
-No one wants to be public about it
-This is considered an attack on academic freedom

3/ What actually triggered the suspension?
-Collective agreement allows for feedback for candidates
-I exercised that right. University called it defamatory and accusatory

4/ Why the 16 month delay in the suspension? (April 2017-Sept 2018)
-It took time for the backlash to happen
-Reporting by the New York Times really hurt
-American media interviews were given
-Comments made in online forums
-Research comments

5/ Why isn’t the TRU faculty union helping?
-164 page complaint was filed
-Academic unions don’t work the same way private sector unions do
-Lack of understanding by the union in matters like this

6/ What do you see Labour Relations doing?
-Little. They have a very low success rate
-Since 2016 (records shown), 0 or 1 cases successful each year
-Most “successes” come from informal negotiation between parties

7/ What would you like Labour Relations to do?
-Order the union to file a grievance

8/ How can universities screen for “predatory journals”? What are the warning signs?
-Mailbox addresses (suites) given in address
-Journal no one has heard of before
-Very quick turnaround times
-Questionable, if any, peer review
-Questionable “Impact Factors Analysis”
-Real journal will provide abstract, fake will make you buy entire article, paywall
-There are 10,800 right now identified, another 955 suspected (all fields)

9/ Has this led to policy changes at TRU?
-Might have tipped people off as to what is happening?

10/ Was it difficult to get data for research?
-Time consuming
-Manually searching profiles
-Research Ethics not needed (since no face-to-face interviews)
-Google Scholar quick source (academic publications)
-Checking academic profiles also an option

11/ Does this hurt academia?
-It can lower the trust people have in experts and authority figures

12/ Broadly speaking, how does peer review work?
-You need an idea of which journals to submit to
-You submit your research
-You may have to redo large sections of your paper
-Editor of publication often orders revise & resubmit
-Editor will find referees with similar publications to review yours
-Referees are usually volunteers, it’s more of an honour
-It can easily take a year or two to get published

Duke Pesta & Common Core Education

(Duke Pesta in his critique of “Common Core” Education in America)

Not much I can add to this, but Heartland Institution was contacted for information. This is a fascinating, yet morbid review of the new Federal standards of education.

Amendment 10
.
– Undelegated Powers Kept by the States and the People
.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

From Lennie Jarrett of Heartland Institute

I answered each question below it. Let me know if you need anything else.

This was in regards to some of the videos I had seen of Duke Pesta addressing education in the US. It was fascinating to watch in a morbid way.

1/ Regarding the introduction of Common Core and uniform standards across the states: do you view it as well intended/well meaning, or some malevolent purpose?

I view it as both. Many people had really good intentions but were very naïve in how Common Core (CCSS) would be implemented and managed by a self-serving bureaucracy. I know others wanted national standards so they could control education easily from a centralized bureaucracy. CCSS gave them the closest thing possible to that.

2/ This may be outside your scope, but if the public has never been consulted in any meaningful way, would there be any grounds to invalidate CC requirements?

Unfortunately, no, they could not be invalidated. This is a lesson for many parents, that there is no true local control of education. It’s been controlled by the states and federal interventions for decades.

3/ Could you explain the rationale for making mathematics more complex than needed? (Arithmetic shouldn’t look like introduction algebra)

The rationale is some believe they are making it easier by trying to teach different methods while claiming it is a higher method of learning. As a student of mathematics myself, the methods they are teaching are absurd. Math must be taught systematically starting at its foundation. Without a foundation, the higher learning becomes difficult at best leaving many students unprepared for future careers in the STEM fields.

4/ Why are people with no teaching experience being allowed to write CC or other cirriculum?

Much of the curriculum is created by those wanting to make money off their products. They use CCSS as a tool to try and build their market share regardless of the product’s effectiveness at teaching.

Secondly, there are examples of curriculum written by non-teachers that are excellent. It’s really a matter of subject matter mastery, not necessarily a matter of teaching experience.

5/ Could you offer any solutions to getting children out of this nonsense?

Universal education choice is the only solution. Parents must be fully enabled to find the education that best fits the needs of their child. The selection of schools by parents will drive the curriculum to be the best for the student instead of the bureaucracy driving the curriculum to what is best for them.

6/ Why would people like Bill Gates be supporting this? It seems designed to collapse a nation.

Gates needs STEM ready employees. He was not getting that from the public schools. He thought he could fix the system. He was wrong. He claims to learn from his mistakes, and while he does make changes into his direction, he has yet to realize it’s the system itself that is preventing any significant reform and success.

7/ Anything else you think concerned parents should know?

Stop thinking your school is great, while everyone else’s school is bad. The entire system is the problem. CCSS is just the latest fad with more coming each time one fails. Demand your right to have the money designated for your child to follow your child to the education opportunity of your choice. Simply put, fund children, not bureaucracy.

%d bloggers like this: