Category: NGO/CS

Posted on

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

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

1. Important Links

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

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

2. Text Of Letter Agreed By National Leaders

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Who Has Approved, At Least In Principle

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

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

Posted on

CCS #7(C): The NGOs & Special Interest Groups Behind The Carbon Tax Challenges

Yes, the Supreme Court of Canada recently declared the Carbon tax to be constitutional. But who exactly were the NGOs pushing for this to be accepted?

1. Debunking The Climate Change Scam

The entire climate change industry, (and yes, it is an industry) is a hoax perpetrated by the people in power. See the other articles on the scam, the propaganda machine in action, and some of the court documents in Canada. Carbon taxes are just a small part of the picture, and conservatives are intentionally sabotaging their court cases.

2. Important Links

https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/18781/index.do
https://scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/info/af-ma-eng.aspx?cas=39116
Diverge Media On Major Judicial Conflict In Case
Canada Ecofiscal Commission – Main Page
https://www.linkedin.com/in/christopher-ragan-7a595631/
https://rightsofchildren.ca/our-work/
https://www.progressalberta.ca/about
https://www.linkedin.com/in/jimstorrie/
https://institute.smartprosperity.ca/content/green-bonds-canada
https://institute.smartprosperity.ca/about
https://www.youthclimatelab.org/
https://www.youthclimatelab.org/our-board
https://www.youthclimatelab.org/toolbox

3. Diverge Media On Chief Justice Wagner

Diverge Media just reported that Chief Justice Richard Wagner was the opening speaker at the Centre For International Sustainable Development Law (CISDL) in 2020. That certainly sheds things in a new light. Check out their article for much more information.

4. NGOs Intervening In Court Challenges

  • Assembly of First Nations
  • Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation
  • Canada’s Ecofiscal Commission
  • Canadian Public Health Association
  • Canadian Taxpayers Federation
  • Climate Justice et al
  • David Suzuki Foundation
  • Generation Squeeze et al
    1. Generation Squeeze
    2. Public Health Association of BC
    3. Saskatchewan Public Health Association
    4. Canadian Associations of Physicians for the Environment
    5. Canadian Coalition for the Rights of the Child
    6. Youth Climate Lab
  • International Emissions Trading Association
  • Oceans North Conservation Society
  • Progress Alberta Communications Limited
  • Saskatchewan Power Corporation & Saskenergy Inc.
  • Smart Prosperity Institute
  • Thunderchild First Nation

The list of both the Governments and NGOs participating in the Supreme Court challenge are available to all. Likewise, the arguments they submit are all posted publicly. While it’s too extensive to cover everything, let’s dig down anyway.

5. Canada’s Ecofiscal Commission

Canada Ecofiscal Commission recommends raising Canada’s Carbon tax to $210/tonne, and are fully behind the climate agenda. But who exactly is involved with this organization? Who is calling the shots?

Chris Ragan is the Chair of the Canada Ecofiscal Commission. Prior to that, he was: Advisor to the Governor of the Bank of Canada; Advisor to the Finance Minister of Canada; and worked for the C.D. Howe Institute.

Glen Hodgson‘s history includes: Conference Board of Canada, where he was Senior Vice-President and Chief Economist for twelve years; the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in Washington D.C.; Export Development Canada (EDC); and the Canadian Department of Finance. His affiliations include: Senior Fellow at the C.D. Howe Institute; Chief Economist with International Financial Consulting Ltd (IFCL)

Jason Dion was a project manager and economist at the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), where his work focused on climate change mitigation and adaptation, green public procurement, and sustainable infrastructure. Jason is the author of numerous publications, including environmental fiscal reform studies for the governments of Mauritius and Mozambique, funded by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).

Steven Williams is the CEO of Suncor, and is also on the McKinsey & Company Advisory Committee. In 2005 he was appointed to the National Roundtable on the Environment and the Economy by the Prime Minister, then Paul Martin. He was also part of COP21 in Paris in 2015.

The advisory Board includes:

  • Michael Harcourt, former Vancouver Mayor
  • Gordon Campbell, former Vancouver Mayor, former BC Premier
  • Jean Charest, former Quebec Premier
  • Paul Martin, former Prime Minister

There are more of course, but a lot of interesting connections to the political world. And perhaps a coincidence, but McGill and Simon Fraser Universities keep coming up in their biographies.

6. Canadian Coalition For Rights Of The Child

Our Work

The Canadian Coalition for the Rights of Children (CCRC) is a network of Canadian organizations and individuals who promote respect for the rights of children. Its purpose is to: exchange information; provide public education materials about the Convention on the Rights of the Child; monitor implementation of the Convention in Canada; and engage in dialogue with government officials on child rights issues.

The objectives of the Coalition are:

-To uphold human rights in Canada and the world, in accordance with the United Nations’ Convention on the Rights of the Child and its related conventions and protocols, by providing relevant public education programs such as workshops and seminars; and
-To monitor and report on the implementation of the United Nations’ Convention on the Rights of the Child in Canada and internationally.

What We Do

The Convention on the Rights of the Child is the guiding framework for all activities of the coalition. Those activities include:
-Monitoring and promoting the implementation of children’s rights in Canada, in both domestic policies and international relations.
-Establishing national, provincial, and local links between groups concerned about the well-being of children, to share information and co-operate in the advancement of children’s rights.
-Fostering education and awareness in Canada about the rights of children, especially among young Canadians.
-Promoting Canada’s role in international bodies that foster children’s rights and engaging Canadians in international initiatives to advance respect for children’s rights.

How We Do It

Children’s Rights Monitoring
-The CCRC brings together Canadian children and civil society organizations to participate in the regular five-year reviews of Canada’s implementation of the CRC before the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child.
-The CCRC makes submissions on policy proposals before parliament from the perspective of children’s rights.
-The Coalition provides a child-rights analysis of the federal budget and other national policies.
-The CCRC helps children from all parts of Canada participate in consultations on matters that affect them, with the support of coalition members. Canadian children have participated in the World Summit for Children, the Earth Summit, the UN Special Session for Children, and other national and international events.
-The CCRC provided policy recommendations for Canada’s participation in the UN Special Session for Children, and for Canada’s Action Plan, entitled “A Canada Fit for Children.”

Presumably, wanting carbon dioxide gone is a children’s rights issue. This group openly admits that its major goals involve seeing through the implementation of a child’s right treaty.

  • Kate Butler, Child Protection Advisor, Save the Children Canada – Chair
  • Hala Mreiwed, Post-doctoral Student, Children’s Rights and Education, McGill University – Secretary
  • Emily Chan, Lawyer, Justice for Children and Youth – Treasurer
  • Robyn Aaron, Child Rights Specialist
  • Daniella Bendo, PhD Candidate in Children’s Rights, Carleton University
  • Terence Hamilton, Child Rights Policy Analyst, UNICEF Canada
  • Helesia Luke, Communications and Development Coordinator, First Call BC Child and Youth Advocacy Coalition
  • Laura Wright, Child Rights Consultant and PhD Candidate in Children’s Rights
  • Candace Blake-Amarante, PhD., Playwright and Children’s Author
  • Michael Saini, Ph.D., M.S.W., R.S.W., Associate Professor, Factor-Inwentash Chair in Law and Social Work. University of Toronto
  • Ashley Vandermorris, MC, FRCPC, Staff Physician, Division of Adolescent Medicine, Sick Kids Hospital. Associate Professor, Department of Paediatrics, University of Toronto
  • Tara Black, PhD, Assistant Professor, Factor-Inwentash Faculty of Social Work, University of Toronto

It’s list of Directors is pretty impressive, but this seemingly has nothing to do with the climate change agenda. Nonetheless, they have been granted Intervenor status with the Supreme Court of Canada, along with Generation Squeeze

7. David Suzuki Foundation

This was addressed in considerable detail in another article. Take a deeper look into what exactly is going on, and what their interests really are. It’s a very well funded organization. There’s also details provided on the International Emissions Trading Association, (IETA).

8. Progress Alberta

Progress Alberta describes itself as a progressive leaning advocacy group. To their credit, they don’t claim to be neutral in the policies they call for. One of their members, Jim Storrie, recently worked for the Alberta NDP, which is interesting. There is little information about who their donors actually are.

9. Smart Prosperity Institute, Green Bonds

Smart Prosperity Institute’s annual “Green Bonds – State of the Market in Canada” reports provide unique insight on the role of green bonds in funding environment and climate-related projects in Canada. The annual report is a special supplement to the Bonds and Climate Change: The State of the Market global report and is prepared collaboratively with Climate Bonds Initiative. Commissioned by HSBC, the report marks specific highlights from the current year, emerging trends, and identifies specific opportunities for market development of green bonds in Canada.

The Smart Prosperity Institute is heavily in selling “climate bonds“, and partners with HSBC and the Climate Bonds Initiative. Their financial interest in this enterprise heavily depends on there being continued growth in the bond market.

The Climate Bonds Initiative publicly posts that the market for their climate bonds may eventually top $1 trillion in value. But this can only happen if Governments everywhere continue to push the narrative that climate change is about to cause a worldwide disaster.

Green Bonds have infiltrated Ontario and Quebec, and elsewhere. More and more public money is being sunk into these ventures.

  • uOttawa
  • Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
  • The Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change
  • Fulbright Canada
  • Natural Resources Canada
  • The Jarislowsky Foundation
  • Atkinson Foundation
  • Alberta Real Estate Foundation
  • Environment and Climate Change Canada
  • Société de développement économique de la Colombie-Britannique (SDECB)
  • Tides Canada
  • CDEM
  • Echo Foundation
  • The Greenbelt Foundation
  • The Real Estate Foundation of BC
  • The J.W. McConnell Family Foundation
  • Conseil de développement économique de l’Alberta
  • The Salamander Foundation
  • Canadian Water Network
  • Suncor Energy Foundation
  • Vancity
  • Conseil Économique et Coopératif de la Saskatchewan

Steven Williams, CEO of Suncor, is also part of Canada’s Ecofiscal Commission, another Intervenor trying to keep the Carbon tax intact. The Tides Foundation gets some funding from George Soros, head of Open Society. Various branches of Government — relying on taxpayer money — also fund this group. The McConnell Foundation also contributes to Youth Climate Lab.

10. Youth Climate Lab, Infiltration Manual

Dominique Souris, the co-Founder and Executive Director of Youth Climate Lab, is also a member of the World Economic Forum. Both groups are ideologically aligned with the climate change agenda.

Ronny Jumeau was appointed Seychelles’ Permanent Representative to the United Nations and Ambassador to the United States for the first time. He was also Ambassador to Canada, Brazil, Cuba and several Caribbean islands until 2012 when he became his country’s New York-based roving Ambassador for Climate Change and Small Island Developing State Issues. He is the Member of the Board of the Green Climate Fund (GCF), representing Small Island Developing States(SIDS) and a Member of the Executive Council of SIDS DOCK, the global sustainable energy initiative for Small Island Developing States (SIDS). He is also a Director at Youth Climate Lab

Youth Climate Lab — Infiltration Manual

Youth Climate Lab produces an “infiltration manual“, (their words, not mine), to give people step by step instruction on how to insert the climate change agenda into local politics. They are partnered with the climate caucus, and funded by the McConnell Foundation.

11. What Does All This Mean To Canada?

Various Provincial Premiers intentionally sabotaged their court challenges by playing along with the climate change scam. Now, it seems that several NGOs acting as Intervenors had their own agenda in making submissions. Even groups like the Canadian Taxpayers’ Federation only opposed it on groups it was wasteful.

It’s also interesting, that piece by Diverge Media, which lists Canada’s Supreme Court Chief Justice speaking at an eco-conference. That alone raises questions about how impartial he is.

In the end, it’s the Canadian public that gets hurt by this politically driven Carbon tax. There wasn’t anyone fighting for the public during those proceedings.

Posted on

NSERC/CIHR/SSHRC Offering Money To Those Willing To Target Minorities For Vaccination

On Tuesday, March 9, 2021, these 4 bodies held a joint conference to discuss funding opportunities for targeting minority groups in Canada for vaccination. This isn’t limited to these CV “vaccines”, but is aimed at vaccination in general. In case anyone wonders that the videos are taken out of context, the entire videos and power-points (both English and French), are included in the following links.

Encouraging vaccine confidence in Canada.ppt_
Renforcer la confiance a l’egard des vaccins au Canada

CIHR/NSERC/SSHRC Vaccine Confidence Full Conference (English)
CIHR/NSERC/SSHRC Vaccine Confidence Full Conference (French)

NSERC Page Announcing Grant Program

This is a continuation from this previous article. The Canadian Institutes for Health Research (CIHR), Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC), and Social Studies and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC), are launching this joint program. $2.25 million is to be spent. Grants are to be up to $50,000 each. In theory, 45 organizations could receive this money.

To be clear, this isn’t about financing research into the causes and details of “vaccine hesitancy”. Instead, this is about employing institutions (who present as scientific) to push the narrative that vaccination is a good thing. This is paying organizations to promote the push the narrative. In short, this is glorified advertising. It is made clear throughout that this is not about employing research.

If you want this money, you need to figure out how to target a minority community in Canada, getting them more accepting of mass vaccination. Having a science background is not important, provided you are good at selling things. Is your integrity worth just $50,000?

You may be forgiven for thinking that CIHR, NSERC, and SSHRC were about providing grants for scientific research. That is supposed to be their agenda. But not today.

RE: CANUCK LAW ON “VACCINE HESITANCY”
(A) Canada’s National Vaccination Strategy
(B) The Vaccine Confidence Project
(C) More Research Into Overcoming “Vaccine Hesitancy”
(D) Psychological Manipulation Over “Vaccine Hesitancy”
(E) World Economic Forum Promoting More Vaccinations
(F) CIHR/NSERC/SSHRC On Grants To Raise Vaccine Uptake

RE: CANUCK LAW ON MEDIA SUBSIDIES, DONATIONS
(a) Subsidization Programs Available For Media Outlets (QCJO)
(b) Political Operatives Behind Many “Fact-Checking” Groups
(c) DisinfoWatch, MacDonald-Laurier, Journalists For Human Rights
(d) Taxpayer Subsidies To Combat CV “Misinformation”
(e) Postmedia Periodicals Getting Covid Subsidies
(f) Aberdeen Publishing (BC, AB) Getting Grants To Operate
(g) Other Periodicals Receiving Subsidies
(h) Still More Media Subsidies Taxpayers Are Supporting
(i) Media Outlets, Banks, Credit Unions, All Getting CEWS

Other articles are available above. They concern both the corruption of the media in Canada, and the “vaccine hesitancy” research that has been underway for a long time. Take the deep dive.

While so much of the Canadian media is compromised, this site never will be. Truth matters much more than money.

Posted on

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

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

1. Who Are These “Reputable” Organizations?

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

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

2. World Health Organization

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

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

3. Society Of Obstetricians/Gynaecologists, US

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

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

4. US Center For Disease Control

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

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

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

5. UK, National Health Services

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

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

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

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

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

6. Royal College Of Physicians Of Ireland

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

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

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

7. Australian Department Of Health

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

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

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

8. Society Of Obstetricians/Gynaecologists, CA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on

New $2.25M For “Vaccine Confidence” Programs, $240K To Study Mandatory Vaccines

The Canadian Government is offering organizations up to $50,000 each to promote “vaccine confidence”, and to convince people that they should be taking it. It’s being organized jointly by the NSERC, the SSHRC, and the CIHR.

To be clear, this isn’t 1 grant of $2.25 million. It is 45 grants of $50,000 each, or potentially more than 45, if amounts less than this are awarded.

1. Grants To Promote “Vaccine Confidence”

The Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC), and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) are pleased to launch a special $2.25 million funding opportunity to support activities that promote vaccine confidence in Canada. The agencies expect these activities will improve public understanding of vaccines and help Canadians to make evidence-based decisions, especially among populations that are hesitant about vaccines.

The new funding is targeted at Canadian non-profit organizations, non-federal museums and science centres, and academic institutions with a strong track record of science and/or health promotion. Researchers from all fields with an expertise in combating vaccine-related misinformation may apply either individually through their institutions or in collaboration with science, social sciences, humanities, and/or health promotion organizations.

NSERC will host information webinars to discuss the funding opportunity’s goals and selection criteria, how to prepare an application, and to answer questions. Interested applicants can attend the French session on March 8, 2021 at 1:30 PM Eastern and/or the English session on March 9, 2021 at 12:30 PM Eastern.

This is serious. SSHRC/NSERC/CIHR are working together to launch a program that will award up to $50,000 each for an institution to promote “vaccine confidence”, in order to convince Canadians that these vaccines are safe. Presumably the CV shots are the primary target.

Note: none of these grants are aimed at ENSURING vaccines are safe, such as with additional testing. Instead, the goal is to CONVINCE people that they already are.

2. Marketing/Advertising, Not Science At Play

Examples of eligible activities include:
.
-providing scientifically sound information about vaccines via social media, hotlines, webinars, forums or websites in a way that addresses beliefs and fears
–developing, translating and disseminating easy-to-understand and engaging materials on vaccine acceptance and adoption of public health measures in a culturally appropriate way
-delivering workshops to train community leaders on promoting vaccine confidence and sharing best practices for evidence-based decision making
-mobilizing social sciences and humanities knowledge to address cultural and societal determinants of vaccine hesitancy in order to better ensure vaccine confidence
-sharing historical perspectives on pandemics and vaccine development to build trust and confidence in the community
-providing techniques for identifying reliable sources of information versus misinformation pertaining to vaccines

These activities have nothing to do with science. Instead, they are about using the perceived legitimacy of scientific institutions in order to promote the Government narratives. In short, these institutions would become propaganda outlets, much like the media in Canada.

3. Study Into MANDATORY Vaccines In Canada

Remember how, just 6 months ago, people who spoke of mandatory vaccinations were called “conspiracy theorists”? Turns out, that at least $240,000 of public money has been spend looking into exactly that issue. And there are probably more of these grants.

The Government is enlisting institutions which appear to be neutral in order to prop up its agenda. Seriously, how much is integrity worth these days? It’s bad enough that almost the entire Canadian media is in on it, but scientific institutions at least claim to be neutral truth seekers.

4. Important Links

https://twitter.com/CIHR_IRSC
https://twitter.com/NSERC_CRSNG
https://twitter.com/SSHRC_CRSH

NSERC Grant Postings, For “Vaccine Confidence”
https://archive.is/QRJAW

Event Information Describing The Grant Program
https://archive.is/8QaUT

$240,000 Spent To Study MANDATORY Vaccines
https://archive.is/5xA4e

Other “Pandemic” Grants

RE: CANUCK LAW ON “VACCINE HESITANCY”
(A) Canada’s National Vaccination Strategy
(B) The Vaccine Confidence Project
(C) More Research Into Overcoming “Vaccine Hesitancy”
(D) Psychological Manipulation Over “Vaccine Hesitancy”
(E) World Economic Forum Promoting More Vaccinations

RE: CANUCK LAW ON MEDIA SUBSIDIES, DONATIONS
(a) Subsidization Programs Available For Media Outlets (QCJO)
(b) Political Operatives Behind Many “Fact-Checking” Groups
(c) DisinfoWatch, MacDonald-Laurier, Journalists For Human Rights
(d) Taxpayer Subsidies To Combat CV “Misinformation”
(e) Postmedia Periodicals Getting Covid Subsidies
(f) Aberdeen Publishing (BC, AB) Getting Grants To Operate
(g) Other Periodicals Receiving Subsidies
(h) Still More Media Subsidies Taxpayers Are Supporting
(i) Media Outlets, Banks, Credit Unions, All Getting CEWS

Posted on

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

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

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

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

2. Danielle Peters, Major Pharma Lobbyist

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

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

3. Danielle Peters, Magnet Strategy Group

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

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

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

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

4. Peters Lobbied While With Rothwell

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

5. Peters Part Of Adjuvant Partners As Well

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

6. Peters’ LinkedIn Page

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

7. Blake Oliver Jumps Ship To Government

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

8. Patricia Sibal, Liberal Party Volunteer

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

9. Susie Heath, Liberal With Wynne/McGuinty

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

10. Jennifer Babcock, Ex-Crestview Lobbyist

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

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

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

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

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

11. Conflicts Of Interest Ignored In Media

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