Category: NGO/CS

Posted on

Subversion In The Courts: SOGI Activists Implementing Their Agenda By Stealth

According to the publication: Canadian Lawyer, working tirelessly to upend tradition and social norms is worthy of an honourable mention. Never mind the consequences of that work.

An interesting point about the struggle for “equal” rights. The more victories you achieve, only the less and less important issues remain. Here, “Morgane” Oger goes on CBC to talk about removing references involving gender from BC Courts. Yes, that’s where we are. Keep in mind, this person wanted to establish a doxing website, took a Christian to the cleaners for telling the truth, and got Vancouver Rape Relief defunded for not admitting men. Yes, Oger felt the need to push for an ideology at the expense of women.

As bad as Oger is, we need to look at the bigger picture: the SOGI agenda is being implemented into the Courts, with the deliberate aim of corrupting them. The institutional rot is not limited to a few activists seeking attention. Oger is a symptom of a much larger problem.

LEADER. EDUCATOR. ADVOCATE.
The CBA Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Community Section (SOGIC) aims to:
-Address the needs and concerns of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and two-spirited members within the CBA
–Provide a forum for the exchange of information, ideas and action on legal issues relating to sexual orientation and gender identity
-Encourage lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and two-spirited lawyers to actively participate in the CBA’s work
-Develop and provide continuing legal education and other professional development programs on legal issues relating to sexual orientation and gender identity
-Develop member services relevant to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and two-spirited CBA members
.
OUR WORK
SOGIC is a founding member of the International Lesbian and Gay Law Association. We liaise with lesbian and gay law groups in the United States, the United Kingdom and Israel, among others. Our members frequently attend the Nstrong>National Lesbian and Gay Law Association’s (NLGLA) Lavender Law conferences. The NLGLA is affiliated with the American Bar Association.

The Canadian Bar Association (CBA) has its own SOGI (sexual orientation and gender identity) section within it. Far from being limited, it has Provincial and International partners. Specifically, they list the U.S., U.K. and Israel.

This is far more coordinated than some activists and sympathetic media. The major goal is to get SOGI policies implemented into law. These are people trying to circumvent the legislative process.

One such person is Barbara Findlay, who refuses to spell her name with capital letters as an act of defiance. This spelling wasn’t for any real reason, just to cause friction. The publisher, Canadian Lawyer, did an article which lists several accomplishments she had over the years.

  • Changing definition of marriage
  • Putting 2 women on a birth certificate (2 mothers)
  • Forcing centers to host gay “weddings”
  • Forcing rape centers to accept tran-volunteers
  • Getting sex change surgery for inmates
  • Putting biologically male inmates in women’s prisons

Recently, Findlay was successful in getting a B.C. father‘s rights removed, as he tried to prevent his daughter from transitioning into a boy. Never mind the high regret and suicide rate among trans-children. The agenda had to go ahead.

Forcing the Knights of Columbus Center to host a lesbian “wedding” is an interesting one. Remember: the main rallying cry when changing the definition of marriage was that it wouldn’t impose on others. Turns out, that was a lie. There was every intention of imposing — later on.

Findlay and Oger line up ideologically when it comes to Vancouver Rape Relief. Findlay tried to force it to accept trans-volunteers, and Oger got it defunded for only accepting biological women as victims.

The society also notes that findlay founded the CBABC Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Community (SOGIC) section and co-founded the CBA National SOGIC federation. In BC, SOGIC is now a community of over 215 LGBTQ2SI+ lawyers, law students and judges.

Findlay isn’t just a bystander. She founded the BC Branch of SOGI lawyers, and co-founded the National Federation. She has been involved in establishing the infrastructure.

The Canadian Bar Association also has an overtly anti-white agenda. They explicitly ask Trudeau to put more “BIPOC” (black, indigenous, people of colour), members onto the bench. Apparently whites can’t be trusted to understand the lived experience of others, especially when non-whites have such high crime rates.

The CBA has also written the Government on a variety of issues, including: conversion therapy, gay blood donation ban, banning intersex surgery decisions by parents, etc… This reads like it was written by EGALE or some other gay rights group.

C. A specific online hate remedy [Page 8]
.
While existing remedies not specifically addressed to the internet – section 12 of the CHRA, for instance – may be available to address online hate, we recommend adding a remedy specific to the internet. This would remove uncertainty and avoid litigation about the meaning of more generic legislation. It could also serve as a warning with an educational and preventive purpose. The government should not miss this opportunity.
.
A revised civil remedy needs to be directed not only against inciters, but also against publishers, including internet platforms. Internet providers should not have civil immunity for the material on their platforms.
.
Rather than removing liability of internet providers from individual defamation suits, we recommend that the Tribunal have legislated power to make legally binding orders on internet providers.
.
The repealed section 13 of the CHRA excluded internet providers from its ambit:
(3) For the purposes of this section, no owner or operator of a telecommunication undertaking communicates or causes to be communicated any matter described in subsection (1) by reason only that the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking owned or operated by that person are used by other persons for the transmission of
that matter.
.
A re-enacted section 13 should expressly say the exact opposite: when an internet provider allows a person to use their services, the provider is communicating what the person posts on the provider’s platform.

The CBA explicitly supports hate speech laws. Typically, lawyers argue that people should have more freedoms and more rights. But here, they are quite okay with stripping away those rights, and putting the screws to internet providers, in the name of fighting hate.

Now, calling for less whites to be put on benches should be seen as an act of hate speech, right? No, there are a few groups it’s perfectly legal to discriminate against.

If the CBA were truly committed to open and honest discussion on controversial topics, that point of view may be understood. However, it functions as an activist group.

These are the people who have infiltrated our legal system, and are covertly (and not covertly) trying to remake society. Equality for all is a great talking point, but that isn’t really the goal.

It’s true that CBA-SOGIC may not speak for all members, and likely doesn’t, but they act as if they do.

Oger Discusses Stripping “Gendered Language” From BC Courts
https://canucklaw.ca/morgane-oger-foundation-wants-to-be-another-doxxing-site/
https://canucklaw.ca/morgane-oger-further-weaponizes-human-rights-codes-55k-ruling/
https://morganeoger.ca/2020/02/20/vancouver-rape-relief-failure-to-meet-vancouver-criteria-for-program-funding-shows-pressing-need-to-update-approach/

https://www.cba.org/Sexual-Orientation-and-Gender-Identity-Community/
Canadian Lawyer Mag On Barbara Findlay
https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/2019bcsc254/2019bcsc254
https://canucklaw.ca/bc-supreme-court-rules-parents-cant-stop-kids-from-getting-sex-changes/
Canadian Bar Association Put More Non Whites On Benches
Canadian Bar Association Trudeau Should Change Laws
Canadian Bar Association Hate Speech Laws

Posted on

CV# 66(6): WHO Policy Paper On MANDATORY “Vaccines”, Admitting They’re Experimental

Less than a year ago, this was decried as a conspiracy theory cooked up by paranoid tinfoil hatters. Now, the World Health Organization is openly discussing policies of MANDATORY injections. And to clarify, all of these gene-replacement “vaccines” are still considered experimental. They are authorized for emergency measures, but are not actually approved.

WHO Paper On MANDATORY Vaccination April 13, 2021 (Original)
WHO Paper On MANDATORY Vaccination April 13, 2021 (Copy)
Section 30.1 Canada Food & Drug Act
September 2020 Interim Order From Patty Hajdu
https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/astrazeneca-covid-19-vaccine-pm-en.pdf
https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/janssen-covid-19-vaccine-pm-en.pdf
https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/covid-19-vaccine-moderna-pm-en.pdf
https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/pfizer-biontech-covid-19-vaccine-pm1-en.pdf

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

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

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

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.

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. Now, let’s get to the WHO paper.

Vaccines are one of the most effective tools for protecting people against COVID-19. Consequently, with COVID-19 vaccination under way or on the horizon in many countries, some may be considering whether to make COVID-19 vaccination mandatory in order to increase vaccination rates and achieve public health goals and, if so, under what conditions, for whom and in what contexts

Right off the bat, there is no semblance of neutrality. The World Health Organization starts off with the assumption that these are safe and effective. So legitimate concerns about testing, long term side effects, and the necessity of these “vaccines” is minimized.

It is not uncommon for governments and institutions to mandate certain actions or types of behaviour in order to protect the well-being of individuals or communities. Such policies can be ethically justified, as they may be crucial to protect the health and well-being of the public. Nevertheless, because policies that mandate an action or behaviour interfere with individual liberty and autonomy, they should seek to balance communal well-being with individual liberties. While interfering with individual liberty does not in itself make a policy intervention unjustified, such policies raise a number of ethical considerations and concerns and should be justified by advancing another valuable social goal, like protecting public health.
.
This document does not provide a position that endorses or opposes mandatory COVID-19 vaccination. Rather, it identifies important ethical considerations and caveats that should be explicitly evaluated and discussed through ethical analysis by governments and/or institutional policy-makers who may be considering mandates for COVID-19 vaccination.

Interesting. This paper attempts to take a neutral and academic approach towards the idea of forced vaccinations (or gene replacement therapy). How exactly does someone take a neutral stance on forcing millions, or billions, or people to take experimental drugs? Is this really necessary for safety?

How do you balance: (a) your right to self autonomy and control over your own body, and (b) the doomsday predictions of sociopathic politicians, and corrupt scientists?

1. Necessity and proportionality
Mandatory vaccination should be considered only if it is necessary for, and proportionate to, the achievement of an important public health goal (including socioeconomic goals) identified by a legitimate public health authority. If such a public health goal (e.g., herd immunity, protecting the most vulnerable, protecting the capacity of the acute health care system) can be achieved with less coercive or intrusive policy interventions (e.g., public education), a mandate would not be ethically justified, as achieving public health goals with less restriction of individual liberty and autonomy yields a more favourable risk-benefit ratio.
.
As mandates represent a policy option that interferes with individual liberty and autonomy, they should be considered only if they would increase the prevention of significant risks of morbidity and mortality and/or promote significant and unequivocal public health benefits. If important public health objectives cannot be achieved without a mandate – for instance, if a substantial portion of individuals are able but unwilling to be vaccinated and this is likely to result in significant risks of harm – their concerns should be addressed, proactively if possible. If addressing such concerns is ineffective and those concerns remain a barrier to achievement of public health objectives and/or if low vaccination rates in the absence of a mandate put others at significant risk of serious harm, a mandate may be considered “necessary” to achieve public health objectives. In this case, those proposing the mandate should communicate the reasons for the mandate to the affected communities through effective channels and find ways to implement the mandate such that it accommodates the reasonable concerns of communities. Individual liberties should not be challenged for longer than necessary. Policy-makers should therefore frequently re-evaluate the mandate to ensure it remains necessary and proportionate to achieve public health goals. In addition, the necessity of a mandate to achieve public health goals should be evaluated in the context of the possibility that repeated vaccinations may be required as the virus evolves, as this may challenge the possibility of a mandate to realistically achieve intended public health objectives.

Our “leaders” rely on computer modelling and data manipulation in order to drive these predictions. Therefore, the case of necessity can always be skewed. Liberties should not be challenged longer than necessary, yet the only way to achieve it — at some point — is to take experimental drugs.

Not only should we consider mandating these “vaccines”, we should also consider if more and more will be needed to deal with mutations of it.

There’s little to no concern about the long term effects of these “vaccines”. In fact, the authors parrot the talking points that they are safe and effective. The only issue seems to be about making it required if they cannot “educate” the public in sufficient numbers.

2. Sufficient evidence of vaccine safety
.
Data should be available that demonstrate the vaccine being mandated has been found to be safe in the populations for whom the vaccine is to be made mandatory. When safety data are lacking or when they suggest the risks associated with vaccination outweigh the risks of harm without the vaccine, the mandate would not be ethically justified, particularly without allowing for reasonable exceptions (e.g., medical contraindications). Policy-makers should consider specifically whether vaccines authorized for emergency or conditional use meet an evidentiary threshold for safety sufficient for a mandate. In the absence of sufficient evidence of safety, there would be no guarantee that mandating vaccination would achieve the goal of protecting public health. Furthermore, coercive exposure of populations to a potentially harmful product would violate the ethical obligation to protect the public from unnecessary harm when the harm the product might cause outweighs the degree of harm that might exist without the product. Even when the vaccine is considered sufficiently safe, mandatory vaccination should be implemented with no-fault compensation schemes to address any vaccine-related harm that might occur. This is important, as it would be unfair to require people who experience vaccine-related harm to seek legal remedy from harm resulting from a mandatory intervention. Such compensation would depend on countries’ health systems, including the extent of universal health coverage and how they address harm from vaccines that are not fully licensed (e.g., vaccines authorized for emergency or conditional use).
.
3. Sufficient evidence of vaccine efficacy and effectiveness
.
Data on efficacy and effectiveness should be available that show the vaccine is efficacious in the population for whom vaccination is to be mandated and that the vaccine is an effective means of achieving an important public health goal. For instance, if mandatory vaccination is considered necessary to interrupt transmission chains and prevent harm to others, there should be sufficient evidence that the vaccine is efficacious in preventing serious infection and/or transmission. Alternatively, if a mandate is considered necessary to prevent hospitalization and protect the capacity of the acute health care system, there should be sufficient evidence that the vaccine is efficacious in reducing hospitalization. Policy-makers should carefully consider whether vaccines authorized for emergency or conditional use meet evidentiary thresholds for efficacy and effectiveness sufficient for a mandate.

Here we get to the heart of it. The World Health Organization mentions that policy makers might consider a mandate, even if these gene replacement “vaccines” have only emergency or conditional authorization. As mentioned earlier, that is what status the chemicals in Canada have.

Vaccine compensation programs should be established, but that leaves out a key detail. It’s not the drug manufacturers who would be paying for such injuries. It would be funded by the public. Privatized profits, socialized losses.

There’s also the interesting question: if an experimental or emergency use “vaccine” is taken, who actually is responsible for it?

Mandatory COVID-19 vaccination in context
.
Authorized COVID-19 vaccines have been shown to be safe and efficacious in preventing severe disease and death, and it is clear that vaccine supply will continue to increase globally, albeit inequitably. That being said, the nature of the COVID-19 pandemic and evidence on vaccine safety, efficacy, and effectiveness continue to evolve (including with respect to variants of concern). Consequently, the six considerations identified above are described generally so that they can be applied at any point in time and in any context. For illustrative purposes, we now turn our attention to the application of these ethical considerations in three settings for which mandatory vaccination is commonly discussed: for the general public, in schools, and for health workers.

Within this paragraph, it’s stated that authorized vaccines (again, not approved), are safe and efficacious. Then, it immediately claims this will continue to evolve. In other words, these “safety” guarantees are worth nothing.

Conclusions
Vaccines are effective for protecting people from COVID-19. Governments and/or institutional policy-makers should use arguments to encourage voluntary vaccination against COVID-19 before contemplating mandatory vaccination. Efforts should be made to demonstrate the benefit and safety of vaccines for the greatest possible acceptance of vaccination. Stricter regulatory measures should be considered only if these means are not successful. A number of ethical considerations and caveats should be explicitly discussed and addressed through ethical analysis when considering whether mandatory COVID-19 vaccination is an ethically justifiable policy option. Similar to other public health policies, decisions about mandatory vaccination should be supported by the best available evidence and should be made by legitimate public health authorities in a manner that is transparent, fair, non-discriminatory, and involves the input of affected parties.

WHO Paper On MANDATORY Vaccination April 13, 2021 (Original)
WHO Paper On MANDATORY Vaccination April 13, 2021 (Copy)

Use arguments first. Mandate only if that doesn’t work. In other words, if we can’t persuade people to take it willingly, then consider forcing them. Funny how “involves the input of affected parties” gets in there. If these are mandated, then of course input is removed.

Don’t you love it when academic debate what our human rights should be, and what bodily autonomy we should have?

References
1. Nuffield Council on Bioethics. Public health: Ethical issues. London: Nuffield Council on Bioethics; 2007
(https://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/assets/pdfs/Public-health-ethical-issues.pdf).
2. Gravagna K, Becker A, Valeris-Chacin R, Mohammed I, Tambe S, Awan FA et al. Global assessment of national
mandatory vaccination policies and consequences of non-compliance. Vaccine. 2020;38:7865–73.
3. Colgrove J, Bayer R. Manifold restraints: Liberty, public health, and the legacy of Jacobson v Massachusetts. Am J Public
Health. 2005;95:571–6.
4. World Health Organization. COVID-19 virtual press conference 7 December 2020
(https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/covid-19-virtual-press-conference-transcript—7-december-2020).
5. World Health Organization. Interim position paper: Considerations regarding proof of COVID-19 vaccination for
international travellers. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2021 (https://www.who.int/news-room/articles-detail/interim-position-paper-considerations-regarding-proof-of-covid-19-vaccination-for-international-travellers).
6. Walkinshaw E. Mandatory vaccinations: The international landscape. Can Med Assoc J. 2011;183:e1167–8.
7. Gostin LO, Salmon DA, Larson HJ. Mandating COVID-19 vaccines. JAMA. 2020;325:532–3.
8. Halabi S, Heinrich A, Omer S. No-fault compensation for vaccine injury – The other side of equitable access to Covid-19
vaccines. N Engl J Med. 2020;383:e125.
9. Schwartz JL. Evaluating and deploying Covid-19 vaccines – The importance of transparency, scientific integrity, and
public trust. N Engl J Med. 2020;383:1703–5.
10. Shetty P. Experts concerned about vaccination backlash. Lancet. 2020;375:970–1.
11. Giubilini A. Chapter 3, Vaccination policies and the principle of least restrictive alternative: An intervention ladder. In
Giubilini A, The ethics of vaccination. Cham (CH): Palgrave Pivot; 2019.
12. Goldenberg M. Vaccine hesitancy: Public trust, expertise, and the war on science. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh
Press. 2021.
13. Opel DJ, Lo B, Peek ME. Addressing mistrust about COVID-19 vaccines among patients of color. Ann Intern Med.
2021;M21-0055. doi: 10.7326/M21-0055.
14. Colgrove J. Immunization and ethics: Beneficence, coercion, public health, and the state. In: Mastroianni AC, Kahn JP,
Kass NE, editors. The Oxford handbook of public health ethics, New York City (NY): Oxford University Press; 2020:435–
44.
15. Sutton EJ, Upshur REG. Are there different spheres of conscience? J Eval Clin Pract. 2010;16:338–43.
16. Harris J, Holm S. Is there a moral obligation not to infect others? BMJ. 1995;311:1215–7.
17. Gruben V, Siemieniuk RA, McGeer A. Health care workers, mandatory influenza vaccination policies and the law. Can
Med Assoc J. 2014;186:1076–80.
18. Krystal JH. Responding to the hidden pandemic for healthcare workers: Stress. Nat Med. 2020;26:639.
19. Van Buynder PG, Konrad S, Kersteins F, Preston E, Brown PD, Keen D, et al. Healthcare worker influenza immunization
vaccinate or mask policy: Strategies for cost effective implementation and subsequent reductions in staff absenteeism due
to illness. Vaccine. 2015;33:625–8.
20. Caplan A, Shah NR. Managing the human toll caused by seasonal influenza: New York State’s mandate to vaccinate or
mask. JAMA. 2013;310:1797–8.
21. World Health Organization. Mask use in the context of COVID-19 – Interim guidance. Geneva: World Health
Organization; 2020. (https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/advice-on-the-use-of-masks-in-the-community-duringhome-care-and-in-healthcare-settings-in-the-context-of-the-novel-coronavirus-(2019-ncov)-outbreak)

Posted on

BC Provincial Health Services Authority Is A Private Corporation, Charity

The PHSA, or Provincial Health Services Authority of British Columbia, is a private organization that runs health care in the Province. It operates similar to SROs, or self-regulating organizations in other Provinces. It was founded in 2001. True, it receives FUNDING from the public, but is set up as a corporation, and acts in an autonomous manner.

Part 2 — Fundamental Matters in Relation to Societies
.
Division 1 — Nature of Societies
.
Purposes
2(1) Subject to subsection (2), a society may be formed under this Act for one or more lawful purposes, including, without limitation, agricultural, artistic, benevolent, charitable, educational, environmental, patriotic, philanthropic, political, professional, recreational, religious, scientific, social or sporting purposes.
.
(2) A society must not have, as one of its purposes, the carrying on of a business for profit or gain, but carrying on a business to advance or support the purposes of a society is not prohibited by this subsection.
.
(3) The registrar may, in writing and giving reasons, order a society to alter its purposes if the registrar considers one or more of those purposes to be contrary to this Act or otherwise unlawful.

Liability of members
5 A member of a society is not, in that capacity, liable for a debt or other liability of the society.
.
Capacity and powers of society
6 A society has the capacity, rights, powers and privileges of an individual of full capacity.

Division 3 — Incorporation of Societies
.
Application for incorporation
13 One or more persons may incorporate a society by filing with the registrar an incorporation application that
.
(a) sets out the name reserved under section 9 [name] for the society and the reservation number given for that name,
.
(b) contains
(i) a constitution,
(ii) bylaws, and
(iii) a statement of directors and registered office, and
(c) sets out the full name and contact information of each of the applicants for incorporation.

The PHSA, is a corporation that acts under the BC Societies Act. It has the by-laws and constitution like any other company, and has the legal protections and rights of a full person.

In section 2.1 of its By-Laws, the PHSA specifies that there must always be at least one person appointed from the University of British Columbia. Very strange to have a quota system from an institution. It’s even more strange since Adrian Dix and several members running PHSA also have attended UBC.

Members are also able to rack up large debts in the name of the PHSA, but won’t be held personally responsible for any of them.

Why does all of this matter? Because the PHSA is the group that oversees all health care in British Columbia. According to a 2018 mandate letter from Health Minister Adrian Dix:

PHSA is directed to develop, review, and/or update evidence informed provincial clinical policy, in alignment with the policy direction set by the Ministry, to ensure appropriate, consistent, and equitable patient care services to strengthen the quality of our system of health care, in the following areas:
• Cancer Health
• Women’s Health
• Perinatal Health
• Children’s Health
• Mental Health and Substance Use (as requested by the Ministry of Mental Health and
Addictions)
• Forensic Psychiatric
• Health Care for Provincial Correctional Institutions
• Out-of-Hospital Emergency Health
• Disease control
• Renal Health
• Cardiac Health
• Organ Donation and Transplantation Health
• Trans Health
• Trauma Care
• Stroke Care
• Laboratory Medicine
• Provincial Blood and Blood Product Utilization
• Other areas as requested by the Ministry.

The mandate letter from Dix also specifies the PHSA is to “provide effective provincial oversight which includes provincial planning, coordination , monitoring, evaluating, and reporting on province-wide results and health outcomes for the following specialized provincial services”. In essence, PHSA is to be the brains and coordination behind health care in BC.

Keep in mind, Adrian Dix became Health Minister without being a doctor, or having any medical background whatsoever. His education consists of studying history and political science at the University of British Columbia. He is a former Chief-of-Staff for ex-Premier Glen Clark. It’s political climbing, not skill, that landed him in this current role. So he likely serves as little more than a yes-man.

In May 2008, the BC Health Act was replaced by the BC Public Health Act, also, implementing provisions from the 2005 Quarantine Act (Bill C-12). This included “Modernization of powers and duties of public health officials for communicable disease prevention and control, environmental health hazard response, chronic disease and hazard prevention, and public health emergency response; e.g. updated inspection powers, powers to issue orders, quarantine and isolation provisions”.

The Public Health Act also requires that there be a “Provincial Health Officer” appointed, and that such person be given broad powers. Currently, it’s Bonnie Henry, who has never had her name on any ballot.

There are references to “the Authority” in the Public Health Act, but it isn’t clear if it refers to the PSHA. Likely it means the people enforcing the various orders, not the policy heads. In any event, it goes on and on about the power to enforce “safety measures“.

What does all of this mean? It means that health care policy in BC is being determined by an autonomous group that isn’t really part of the Government. Yes, they receive public money, but they act on their own to determine how care shall be provided. While technically answering the Minister of Health, Adrian Dix has no qualifications, and can’t act to check that power. Not only that, the Public Health Act was modelled after the WHO International Health Regulations and 2005 Quarantine Act.

A body that isn’t accountable to the public, and a “Provincial Health Officer” who can’t be easily replaced are enforcing laws written by the World Health Organization. This is the state of affairs in British Columbia. With a set up like this, it’s no wonder that people like Bonnie Henry, Adrian Dix, John Horgan and Mike Farnworth are able to get away with so much. Collusion between political parties doesn’t help.

Update To Article

Pardon the oversight, but the B.C. Provincial Health Services Authority actually has charity status with the Canada Revenue Agency. In the fiscal year ending March 31, 2020, this group took in some $3.8 billion in revenue from various sources.

Receipted donations $37,800.00 (0.00%)
Non-receipted donations $172,585.00 (0.00%)
Gifts from other registered charities $754,945,753.00 (19.86%)
Government funding $2,947,928,518.00 (77.55%)
All other revenue $98,427,173.00 (2.59%)
Total revenue: $3,801,511,829.00

Charitable programs $3,536,901,905.00 (93.05%)
Management and administration $264,235,205.00 (6.95%)
Fundraising $0.00 (0.00%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $0.00 (0.00%)
Other $0.00 (0.00%)
Total expenses: $3,801,137,110.00

Total compensation for all positions: $1,373,060,592.00
Full-time employees: 8760
Part-time employees: 6403
Professional and consulting fees: $83,454,434.00

It’s also worth pointing out that 10 people made at least $350,000

LAWS, POLICIES, DOCUMENTS
(1) BC Societies Act, Full Text
(2) BC Public Health Act Announcement
(3) Full Text Of BC Public Health Act, Effective 2008
(4) http://www.phsa.ca/about/leadership/corporate-governance#About
(5) http://www.phsa.ca/about-site/Documents/PHSA%20Bylaws.pdf
(6) Provincial Health Services Authority BC Bylaws
(7) http://www.phsa.ca/about-site/Documents/PHSA%20Constitution.pdf
(8) Provincial Health Services Authority BC Constitution
(9) http://www.phsa.ca/about-site/Documents/PHSA%20Foundational%20%20Mandate.pdf
(10) Provincial Health Services Authority Foundational Mandate 2018
(11) http://www.phsa.ca/about-site/Documents/2019-20%20PHSA%20Mandate%20Letter.pdf
(12) Provincial Health Services Authority Foundational Mandate 2019
(13) http://www.phsa.ca/about/leadership/board-of-directors

PREVIOUS CANUCK LAW POSTS
(1) WHO International Health Regulations Legally Binding
(2) A Look At International Health Regulation Statements
(3) Quarantine Act Actually Written By WHO, IHR Changes
(4) Provincial Health Acts Domestic Implementation Of WHO-IHR, Part I
(5) Provincial Health Acts Domestic Implementation Of WHO-IHR, Part II
(6) World Health Treaty Proposed, Based On WHO-IHR
(7) Public Health Agency Of Canada Created As UN Outpost

Posted on

Grants Still Coming For Gay Pride Parades, Even During So-Called Pandemic

We are supposedly in the middle of a “global pandemic”, but why should that get in the way of open degeneracy, funded by public money? There are supposed to be limits on public gatherings, but perhaps pride marches will be exempt. Just wear a mask, and pretty much anything else goes, it seems.(Stock photo found online)

https://search.open.canada.ca/ (FEDERAL)

1. Federal Grants To Pride Groups

NAME DATE AMOUNT
Buddies In Bad Times Theatre Apr. 15, 2021 $11,800
Calgary Pride Planning Comm. Aug. 28, 2020 $25,600
Calgary Pride Planning Comm. Aug. 28, 2020 $102,500
Calgary Pride Planning Comm. Dec. 1, 2020 $100,000
Fernie Pride Society Sep. 5, 2020 $8,400
Fernie Pride Society Nov. 30, 2020 $57,139
Fierté Canada Pride Jun. 1, 2020 $50,000
Fierté Fredericton Pride Inc. Oct. 1, 2020 $161,604
Fierté Timmins Pride Nov. 20, 2020 $125,000
Jasper Pride Festival Society Oct. 1, 2020 $65,400
Kemptville Pride Nov. 25, 2020 $93,471
Lac La Ronge Regional Pride Comm. Jun. 26, 2021 $9,600
Moosejaw Pride Inc. Apr. 1, 2021 $11,000
Nanaimo Pride Society Apr. 1, 2021 $24,500
Niagara Senior Pride Network Nov. 23, 2020 $24,400
PEI Pride Inc. Jul. 28, 2020 $20,000
Peterborough Pride Committee Apr. 1, 2021 $5,300
Pride In Art Society Apr. 1, 2021 $63,300
Regina Pride Inc. Apr. 1, 2021 $19,400
Saskatoon Diversity Network Apr. 1, 2021 $14,700
Taber Equality Alliance Apr. 1, 2021 $5,000
Thunder Pride Association Nov. 9, 2020 $20,265
Toronto Pride Jun. 1, 2020 $25,600
Toronto Pride Jun. 1, 2020 $102,500
Toronto Pride Jun. 1, 2021 $63,500
Truro Pride Society Nov. 4, 2020 $17,204
UR Pride Centre for SGD Inc. Aug. 25, 2020 $25,000
Vancouver Pride Society Jul. 1, 2020 $25,600
Vancouver Pride Society Jul. 1, 2020 $102,500
Victoria Pride Society May 1, 2021 $18,100
Windsor Pride Community Nov. 30, 2020 $28,800
Winnipeg Gay & Lesbian Film Oct. 13, 2020 $5,000
Winnipeg Gay & Lesbian Film Oct. 13, 2020 $15,200
Winnipeg Pride Festival Apr. 1, 2021 $25,500
York Pride Fest May 1, 2021 $15,500
Yorkton Pride Apr. 1, 2021 $6,900
Yukon Queer Society Apr. 1, 2021 $19,700

Even as there are bans on people gathering, and meeting with others outside your “safety bubble”, grants for pride events keep being issued. Churches are ordered closed, but open degeneracy is allowed. Ever get the sense these people aren’t on your side?

Businesses are being shut down, and many more forced into bankruptcy. People’s livelihoods are wrecked, as they are forced onto CERB, CRB or EI. But the Government still has money for this. Nor has there been any indication that the globohomo mafia will get hit.

Keep in mind, this doesn’t include Provincial or Municipal grants. Nor does it reflect private donations. A lot of money is poured into this industry.

https://search.open.canada.ca/

2. Pride Now Just Another Corporate Event

Does Calgary Pride (or any pride) look like it’s the opposition for anything? When it has the open backing of the media, corporations, and politicians who march in it, it’s just a mainstream event. Whatever happened to just moving on with your lives?

3. Will Pride Events Be Continuing This Year?

A serious question: Will Ontario’s Tyrant-In-Chief, Doug Ford, allow the pride parades and other events to go on in June? Will they get a pass, even as he threatens to detain people for simply being outside? Will the globohomo industry also feel the pain? June is just 6 weeks away.

It’s worth asking, since there has never been any logic or consistency to what is going on. Maybe the martial law will end (temporarily), so people can flash their privates publicly, and demand to be accepted into society.

BC doesn’t seem to be any better. Someone in the government actually thought this was a good idea.

Posted on

The University Of Toronto, Ontario Science Table Monopoly On “Public Health” In Ontario

Ever get the impression that there is way too much group think in “public health” in Ontario? That could be because so many of them have ties to one institution: the University of Toronto.

About the Science Table
The Ontario COVID-19 Science Advisory Table is a group of scientific experts and health system leaders who evaluate and report on emerging evidence relevant to the COVID-19 pandemic, to inform Ontario’s response.
.
The Science Table’s mandate is to provide weekly summaries of relevant scientific evidence for the COVID-19 Health Coordination Table of the Province of Ontario, integrating information from existing scientific tables, Ontario’s universities and agencies, and the best global evidence. The Science Table summarizes its findings for the Health Coordination Table and for the public in Science Briefs.
.
The Science Table is an independent group, hosted by the Dalla Lana School of Public Health. There is no compensation for serving on the Science Table. However, the Scientific Director and the Secretariat are funded by the Dalla Lana School of Public Health and Public Health Ontario.

Interesting, the Ontario Science Table claims to be “independent”, yet it also has a mandate to provide health information for the Province of Ontario. How independent can they really be? And even if there isn’t direct compensation, are they expecting favours later? Political favours?

https://covid19-sciencetable.ca/about/
https://www.ontariosunshinelist.com/positions/twbpm

  • Adalsteinn Brown, Co-Chair, Dean, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto Senior Fellow, Massey College
  • Brian Schwartz, Co-Chair, Vice-President, Public Health Ontario, Associate Professor, Department of Family and Community Medicine and Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto
  • Peter Jüni, Scientific Director, Professor of Medicine and Epidemiology, Department of Medicine and Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Director, Applied Health Research Centre, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael’s Hospital
  • Upton Allen, Professor of Paediatrics, University of Toronto
  • Vanessa Allen, Assistant Professor, Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathobiology, University of Toronto, Chief, Microbiology and Laboratory Science, Public Health Ontario, Medical Director, Provincial COVID-19 Diagnostic Network, Ontario Health, Clinical Consultant, Infectious Diseases, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre
  • Laura Desveaux, Scientific Lead, Institute for Better Health; Learning Health System Program Lead, Trillium Health Partners; Innovation Fellow, Institute for Health System Solutions and Virtual Care, Women’s College Hospital; Assistant Professor, Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto; Executive Director, Women Who Lead
  • David Fisman, Professor of Epidemiology, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto
  • Jennifer Gibson, Director, Joint Centre for Bioethics, University of Toronto, Sun Life Financial Chair in Bioethics, Associate Professor, Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, Dalla Lana School of Public Health University of Toronto
  • Anna Greenberg, Vice President, Health System Performance, Health Quality Ontario Adjunct Lecturer, Institute of Health Policy Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto
  • Michael Hillmer, Assistant Deputy Minister, Capacity Planning and Analytics Division, Ministries of Health and Long-Term Care, Assistant Professor, Institute for Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation, University of Toronto
  • Jessica Hopkins, Deputy Chief, Health Protection, Public Health Ontario, Assistant Professor (part-time), Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Adjunct Lecturer, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto
  • Audrey Laporte, Professor and Director, Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Director, Canadian Centre for Health Economics
  • Linda Mah, Associate Professor of Psychiatry, Division of Geriatric Psychiatry, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Associate Member, Institute of Medical Science, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto
  • Allison McGeer, Microbiologist and Infectious Disease Consultant, Mount Sinai Hospital, Professor, Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathobiology, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto
  • David McKeown, Associate Chief Medical Officer of Health, Ontario Ministry of Health, Adjunct Professor, Clinical Public Health Division, University of Toronto
  • Andrew Morris, Professor, Infectious Diseases, University of Toronto; Director, Antimicrobial Stewardship Program, Sinai Health and University Health Network
  • Laveena Munshi, Assistant Professor, Clinician Investigator, Interdepartmental Division of Critical Care Medicine, Sinai Health System/University Health Network, University of Toronto
  • Kumar Murty, Director, Fields Institute for Research in Mathematical Sciences, Professor of Mathematics, University of Toronto
  • Samir Patel, Deputy Chief, Microbiology, Public Health Ontario, Clinical Microbiologist, Public Health Ontario
    Associate Professor, Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathobiology, University of Toronto
  • Fahad Razak, Internist and Assistant Professor, St. Michael’s Hospital, University of Toronto, Assistant Professor, Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Research Scientist, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, Provincial Lead, Quality Improvement in General Internal Medicine, Ontario Health
  • Robert Reid, Chief Scientist, Trillium Health Partners, Professor (status), Institute for Health Policy, Management & Evaluation, University of Toronto, Professor (part-time), Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Affiliate Associate Professor, Health Services, University of Washington
  • Paula Rochon, Senior Scientist and Geriatrician Women’s College Hospital; Professor, Division of Geriatric Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto; RTOERO Chair in Geriatric Medicine, University of Toronto.
  • Beate Sander, Canada Research Chair in Economics of Infectious Diseases, Scientist and Director, Population Health Economics Research, University Health Network, Director, Health Modeling and Health Economics, Toronto Health Economics and Technology Assessment collaborative, Associate Professor and Faculty Co-Lead Health Technology Assessment program, Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto
  • Michael Schull, CEO and Senior Core Scientist, ICES Professor and Clinician-Scientist, Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Senior Scientist, Evaluative Clinical Sciences, Sunnybrook Research Institute, Professor, Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto
  • Arjumand Siddiqi, Associate Professor and Division Head of Epidemiology, University of Toronto Canada Research Chair in Population Health Equity
  • Arthur Slutsky, Scientist, St. Michael’s Hospital, Unity Health Toronto, Professor of Medicine, Surgery and Biomedical Engineering, University of Toronto
  • Janet Smylie, Professor, Dalla Lana School of Public Health and Department of Family and Community Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto
  • Tania Watts, Professor of Immunology, University of Toronto
  • Nathan Stall, Eliot Phillipson Clinician-Scientist Training Program and the Division of Geriatric Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Toronto
  • Robert Steiner, Management and Evaluation Director, Dalla Lana Fellowship in Global Journalism, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto
  • Antonina Maltsev, MPH Epidemiology Student, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto
  • Karen Born, Senior Research Associate, Assistant Professor, University of Toronto
  • Gerald Lebovic, Assistant Professor, Institute of Health Policy Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto
  • Justin Morgenstern, Senior Research Associate, Assistant Professor, Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Toronto
  • Ayodele Odutayo, Senior Research Associate, Resident Physician, University of Toronto
  • Pavlos Bobos, Pavlos Bobos is a professionally trained clinician (physiotherapy) and a clinical epidemiologist.
    His graduate studies were conducted at the Bone and Joint Institute at Western University and the Dalla Lana School of Public Health at University of Toronto.
  • Yoojin Choi, Research Associate, PhD Candidate, Department of Immunology, University of Toronto Course Instructor, Institute of Medical Science, University of Toronto
  • Roisin McElroy, Research Associate, Emergency Medicine Physician, St. Joseph’s Health Centre, Unity Health Toronto, Lecturer, Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Toronto
  • Ashini Weerasinghe, an epidemiologist within the Health Promotion, Chronic Disease and Injury Prevention Program at Public Health Ontario. She holds a master’s degree in epidemiology from the Dalla Lana School of Public Health at the University of Toronto
  • Diana Yan, Research Associate, HBSc Data Science & Pharmacology Student, University of Toronto

That is the “Science Table” Covid-19 Advisory For Ontario. The above list isn’t everyone, but a lot of them. They all have ties to the same institution. But what about these “medical experts” demanding lockdowns? Surely, they have some more variety to them.

Barbara Yaffe – Ontario Deputy Medical Officer
Eileen De Villa – Toronto Chief Medical Officer
Vinita Dubey – Toronto Associate Medical Officer of Health
Lisa Berger – Toronto Associate Medical Officer of Health
Christine Navarro – Toronto Associate Medical Officer of Health
Avis Lynn Noseworthy – Medical Officer of Health for the Haliburton, Kawartha, Pine Ridge
Vera Etches – Ottawa Deputy Medical Officer of Health
Brent Moloughney – Ottawa Associate Medical Officer
Lawrence C. Loh – Peel Medical Officer of Health
Hamidah Meghani – Halton Region Medical Health Officer
Nicola Mercer – Wellington-Dufferin-Guelph Medical Officer (UofT Medical School)
Mustafa Hirji – Niagara Acting Medical Officer of Health (U of T graduate)
Elizabeth Richardson – Hamilton Medical Officer of Health (U of T graduate)

Seeing any pattern here? A lot of them have connections to the same place. It can’t all be a giant coincidence. For more background information on Barbara Yaffe, check this earlier piece.

Posted on

Who Is Ontario Deputy Medical Officer Barbara Yaffe?

The now infamous clip of Barbara Yaffe telling Ontario that these testing methods can result in 50% false positives. Amazingly, she has never faced real scrutiny from this.

It’s interesting how little information is available on Yaffe, considering she has been in a position of power for years. In some ways, this looks like another Theresa Tam.

https://www.linkedin.com/in/barbara-yaffe-b5395111/
https://archive.is/eaKt7
https://doctors.cpso.on.ca/DoctorDetails/Barbara-Ann-Yaffe/0026394-31217
https://opengovca.com/ontario-employee/Yaffe,_Barbara
https://mds.servicerating.ca/office/p-a-rostas-medicine-professional-corporation
https://academic.oup.com/pch/article/5/6/319/2655770?login=true
Canadian Journal Of Public Health
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa032111
https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/62/2/139/2462731?login=true
https://www.dlsph.utoronto.ca/faculty-profile/yaffe-barbara/
https://www.dlsph.utoronto.ca/faculty-profile/de-villa-eileen/
https://www.dlsph.utoronto.ca/faculty-profile/moloughney-brent/
CIHR Grants To Conduct Modelling, Other Research (2020)
Ottawa Announcing Grants For CV-19 Research
UofT “Modellers” Getting More Taxpayer Money (2021)
April 17, 2020 Memo To Ontario Doctors
National Collaborating Centre For Infectious Diseases
U of Toronto, McMaster Claim To Have Isolated Covid-19
Fluoride Free Peel On UofT Virus Isolation

Barbara Yaffe is more than just on the “Sunshine List” for Ontario. She’s taking in over $250,000 per year, plus a generous benefits program, courtesy of taxpayers. That’s in addition to the money she gets moonlighting as a Professor for the University of Toronto. For that kind of money, one would hope that the Province is getting a skilled professional. However, her work history isn’t all that impressive.

Yaffe is also part of the NCCID, which aims on implementing aspects of public health into all areas of life. She is a Member, and on the Advisory Board. However, it’s unclear what, if anything, she actually does.

Yaffe is still 1 of 2 registered shareholders of P.A. Rostas Medicine Professional Corporation, which “appears” to be a medical practice set up in 2008, but no information is available about it.

Not only is Yaffe paid quite well, it appears that the entire upper echelon of Ontario Health is making great salaries. Seems none of them have lost jobs, or been forced onto EI or CERB.

Keep in mind, Yaffe blurted out last December that she “only says what they write down for [her]”. This suggests she is little more than a puppet for the political masters. As for her education, she’s a lifer at U of T.

1974 – University of Toronto, General Science
1978 – University of Toronto, Medical Degree
1981 – University of Toronto, Masters of Public Health
1983 – University of Minnesota, Epidemiology (online?)
1984 – University of Toronto, Fellowship in Public Health and Preventative Medicine

That’s from the LinkedIn page. The CPSO profile simply lists medical school in 1978, and a specialty in “Community Medicine” in 1984. Is the LinkedIn page fake? Or is the professional CPSO profile missing information? Anyhow, the “ABOUT” section on LinkedIn states:

I am a public health physician with over 30 years of experience working in local public health in Toronto, Ontario, both as a Medical Officer of Health and as an Associate MOH. My current position is Director of Communicable Disease Control and Associate MOH with Toronto Public Health. My areas of interest include the prevention and control of infectious diseases and emergency preparedness and response, but also much broader areas of public health. My work has increasingly focused on identifying and helping to address the unique needs of our diverse populations and communities – new immigrants/refugees, the homeless, drug users etc. My work involves collaboration with multiple stakeholders (local, provincial and national), advocacy, policy development and program implementation. I am interested in contributing to public health at a national and international level as possible.

If this is to be taken at face value, Yaffe has been a political operative in Ontario for over 30 years. This means she hasn’t actually practiced medicine much, if at all. Yaffe’s talent seems to be in helping write papers on the topic of population control measures. More can be found on Google Scholar. Here are a few of them.

In September 2000, Yaffe co-authored a paper for Oxford Academic that outlined measures should a terrorist attack happen in Canada. If it wasn’t predictive programming, it’s quite the coincidence.

In 2004, Sheela V. Basrur, Barbara Yaffe and Bonnie Henry wrote for the Canadian Journal of Public Health outlining the quarantine, contact tracing and restrictions of movement around SARS.

In 2004, Yaffe co-authored (along with Bonnie Henry) a piece in the New England Journal of Medicine called: Public Health Measures to Control the Spread of the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome during the Outbreak in Toronto.

From the last 2004 SARS paper:

METHODS
We analyzed SARS case, quarantine, and hotline records in relation to control measures. The two phases of the outbreak were compared.
.
CONCLUSIONS
The transmission of SARS in Toronto was limited primarily to hospitals and to households that had had contact with patients. For every case of SARS, health authorities should expect to quarantine up to 100 contacts of the patients and to investigate 8 possible cases. During an outbreak, active in-hospital surveillance for SARS-like illnesses and heightened infection-control measures are essential.
.
QUARANTINE AND CALLS TO THE HOTLINE
During the outbreak, 23,103 contacts were identified as requiring quarantine (Figure 2). Of those in quarantine, 27 (0.1 percent) were issued a legally enforceable quarantine order owing to initial noncompliance. A breakdown of 316,615 calls to the Toronto Public Health SARS hotline is given in Table 1. The most common reason for calling was to discuss potential exposures.

Even back in 2003/2004, these public health officials were discussing and research details and methods related to quarantine and contact tracing. Not that it will ever be abused some day.

Yaffe is also an Associate Professor at the Dalla Lana School of Public Health at the University of Toronto. So is Eileen De Villa, Toronto Medical Health Officer. De Villa has her own backstory, as explained by Stormhaven and Diverge Media. Brent Moloughney is the Associate Medical Officer for Ottawa, and also a Dalla Lana Professor. Notice a trend?

In 2020, at least 9 people at the University of Toronto got grants from the CIHR, Canadian Institutes for Health Research, for Covid-19, some of it to conduct modelling.

  • Roy Gillis of the department of applied psychology and human development at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education: Responding to the stigma, fear, discrimination and misinformation related to the COVID-19 disease outbreak – a novel analyses and intervention for a novel coronavirus
  • Shaf Keshavjee of the department of surgery in the Faculty of Medicine and the University Health Network: Reducing the health-care resource burden from COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2) –Rapid diagnostics to risk-stratify for severity of illness
  • Robert Maunder of the department of psychiatry in the Faculty of Medicine and Sinai Health System: Peer champion support for hospital health-care workers during and after a novel coronavirus outbreak: It’s a marathon, not a sprint
  • Vijaya Kumar Murty of the department of mathematics in the Faculty of Arts & Science and the Fields Institute for Research in Mathematical Sciences: Agent-based and multi-scale mathematical modelling of COVID-19 for assessments of sustained transmission risk and effectiveness of countermeasures
  • James Rini of the departments of biochemistry and molecular genetics in the Faculty of Medicine: Neutralizing antibodies as SARS-CoV-2 therapeutics
  • Simron Singh of the Dalla Lana School of Public Health and the department of medicine in the Faculty of Medicine and Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre: Assessment of cancer patient and caregiver perspective on the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) and the impact on delivery of cancer care at an institution with a confirmed case of COVID-19
  • Darrell Tan of the Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation at the Dalla Lana School of Public Health and department of medicine in the Faculty of Medicine and St. Michael’s Hospital: COVID-19 ring-based prevention trial for undermining spread (CORPUS)
  • Xiaolin Wei of the Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation at the Dalla Lana School of Public Health: Developing integrated guidelines for health-care workers in hospital and primary health-care facilities in response to Covid-19 pandemic in low- and mddle-Income countries (LMICs)
  • Xiao-Yan Wen of the department of physiology in the Faculty of Medicine and St. Michael’s Hospital: Therapeutic development for COVID-19 coronavirus-induced sepsis and ARDS targeting vascular leakage

Even going back to March 2020, Ottawa was handing out money everywhere to conducting research on Covid-19. Overnight, it became a growth industry for researchers looking for work. The grants have continued into 2021.

This is nowhere near exhaustive, and a deeper dive will surely uncover far more grants being doled out.

Even as groups like the CIHR are shelling out money to conduct modelling and “response plans”, they are also funding efforts to convince people that vaccines are safe. A significant conflict of interest.

With lives at stake, and large amounts of taxpayer money, one would think that oversight and review mechanisms would be tighter.

Some of the research went to (at least allegedly) for isolating and purifying Covid-19. In fact, the University of Toronto proudly broadcast that achievement as a marvel of modern science. On March 13, 2020, a prominent article was posted on the University website.

While that sounds great, it doesn’t seem to withstand scrutiny. An organization called Fluoride Free Peel has been looking for proof isolation from all over the world. When presented with a freedom of information request, there were “no records available”. What happened? Was this contracted out to some 3rd party, or was there never any isolation to begin with?

The University of Toronto is receiving large amounts of money in the name of pandemic research. Barbara Yaffe (and Eileen De Villa), are both Faculty Members at U of T. At the same time, both are Medical Officers, with De Villa in Toronto, and Yaffe Provincially. They are able (at least in theory) to use their positions of power to prolong the narrative and keep and “pandemic bucks” going.

Last Spring, Health Minister Christine Elliott openly admitted that death “with the virus” are being conflated with deaths “from the virus”. The counting system is at best dysfunctional, and at worse, fruadulent. Moreover, Toronto Public Health made a similar admission and nothing came of it.

It really does go past the point of being absent minded. These medical experts have to be deliberately ignoring what is in front of their faces. More likely, they are fully complicit in perpetuating a hoax.

Yaffe seems to offer nothing productive about this “pandemic”, and only pushes continued medical tyranny. She’s never practiced as a doctor (unless it’s well hidden) and just writes papers and lectures at University of Toronto. Nor has she shown any interest in the myriad of legitimate concerns related to human rights violations. She simply acts to give Ford’s Government a cloak of legitimacy.

After all, she just says whatever they write down for her.

*Disclaimers, Ethics* Proudly powered by WordPress