ACOG, Council On Patient Safety In Women’s Health Care, Partnered With Drug Companies

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the ACOG, made quite a stir when they recommended back in December 2020 that it was okay for pregnant women to get these experimental “emergency use authorization” vaccines. Apparently, that is still the case.

Turns out, there is a bigger picture to look at. The ACOG is part of the Council on Patient Safety, a collective of health care groups that work together.

The Membership Of The Council On Patient Safety In Women’s Health Care comprises 19 different spots, and there are currently 2 vacancies. The groups have different goals, but there is a lot of overlap with what they do. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists is a member, and so is the American College of Nurse Midwives. By itself, that it nothing remarkable.

  • American Academy of Family Physicians
  • American Association of Nurse Anesthetists
  • American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology
  • American College of Nurse Midwives
  • American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
  • American College of Osteopathic Obstetricians and Gynecologists
  • American Society for Anesthesiologists
  • American Society for Reproductive Medicine
  • Advancing Female Pelvic Medicine & Reconstructive Surgery
  • Association of Women’s Health, Obstetric and Neonatal Nurses
  • Nurse Practitioners In Women’s Health
  • Preeclampsia Foundation
  • Society for Academic Specialists in General Obstetrics & Gynecology
  • Society of Gynecologic Surgeons
  • Society for Obstetric Anesthesia and Perinatology
  • Society of OB/Gyn Hospitals
  • Society for Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility

The problems start to set in once you realize that the Council on Patient Safety also has an “industry” branch, including pharmaceutical companies. Needless to say, whatever policies the Council pushes can greatly increase the market for these products

The Forum on Patient Safety in Women’s Health Care, created in January 2013, is a collaboration between the Council and industry partners committed to advancing patient safety in women’s health care. The Forum is designed to facilitate open and ongoing dialogue in order to identify and maximize common interests in women’s health and to develop collaborative initiatives.

There is a scrolling banner of those industry partners, and it was capped for illustrative purposes. Anyone find it odd that drug companies are partnering with health groups this closely?

Some familiar names, including Pfizer, and Johnson & Johnson. Is it any wonder that vaccines are still recommended for pregnant women? I don’t suppose the industry partners had anything to do with that. Interesting, that people online are recently getting upset over these recommendations, yet no one takes that time to do even a basic search.

The U.S. Center for Disease Control Foundation (the fundraising arm), receives considerable donations annually, including from drug companies. This isn’t really a secret these days. And what a shocker, Johnson & Johnson, and Pfizer, are both on the donors list.

Now, the USCDC recommends mass vaccinations, including for pregnant women. The Council on Patient Safety recommends them too. And both have ties to companies that will benefit from these decisions. Do you get it now?

(Update): This problem isn’t limited to the United States, which isn’t surprising. The Society for Obstetricians and Gynecologists of Canada has some interesting donors. The largest is MD Financial Management, a company that provides money management services to doctors. The next largest are Bayer, Merck and Pfizer. Related health care groups probably are funded by big pharma as well.

Now, SOGC refers to this as “providing resources”. Is that a euphemism for drug companies providing money? Or discounting their products? Wish it was a little more specific.

(1) https://cwcnova.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/ACIPURGINGEUA.pdf
(2) ACOG Recommends Vaccinating Pregnant Women
(3) https://www.phillytrib.com/news/health/ob-gyn-associations-recommend-all-pregnant-people-get-vaccinated-against-covid-19/article_74130a85-fb9d-5ed6-a4f2-002b4746f238.html
(4) https://safehealthcareforeverywoman.org/
(5) https://safehealthcareforeverywoman.org/council/about-us/council-members/
(6) https://safehealthcareforeverywoman.org/council/about-us/industry-form/
(7) https://www.cdcfoundation.org/partner-list/corporationshttps://archive.is/cYdV4
(8) https://www.sogc.org
(9) https://www.sogc.org/en/-COVID-19/COVID-19/COVID-19-Champions/en/content/COVID-19/covid-champions.aspx?hkey=1d24c3f0-be85-48f3-bc0a-a006c53b98a2
(10) https://archive.is/lGQpy

Alberta Activist Collective: Selling Merchandise At PRO-Lockdown Protests

Over the last 18 months or so, protest in Canada have typically been over restrictions to civil liberties. People quite reasonably were angry over arbitrary and heavy handed crackdowns on basic freedoms. However, something new has arrived, standing that idea on its head.

There are protests in Alberta demanding that Jason Kenney, Deena Hinshaw and Tyler Shandro MAINTAIN restrictions on people’s rights. This isn’t trolling or satire. These people are quite serious, and they want your freedoms eroded on an indefinite basis.

That being said, there are things about these protests that seem off, things that the paid off media in Canada will never address. Things just aren’t quite right with these people.

There is a new group around, called the Alberta Activist Collective. It states that it’s here to support non-violent activism and engagement. Well, who could disagree with that? Of course, the Commie fist in the logo is an odd choice.

It would be nice to know if these same people showed such outrage when places like Nova Scotia banned public gatherings. Did they speak up then rights to free (peaceful) assembly were trampled on all across the country? Have they protested about the incoming vaccine passports and mandatory shots that are creeping in?

By new, it’s very new. In fact, its Twitter account was set up earlier this month. Strange that they are only now considered with the freedom to assemble and protest. They claim to be a non-profit organization, although that seems unlikely. Given their lack of any presence or infrastructure, it seems doubtful they’ve taken to filing the appropriate paperwork.

Currently, there is a Go Fund Me page active to raise money for the AAC. There is also merchandise (shirts, coffee mugs….) being sold, with the proceeds going to that Go Fund Me account.

Vladislav Sobolev, the founder of Hugs Over Masks, seemed to be shameless when he used the freedom movement to open up his own fashion line in 2020. AAC outdoes him, using calls for tyranny to sell their products. Just 2 sides of the same grifting coin.

It’s hard to tell what the AAC actually does, since their website isn’t operational. However, it promises to be ready in the next 8 or 9 days, or so. Seriously, this group claims to be a non-profit, even though its site doesn’t work, and its social media is all very new.

The merchandise lists 2 people as promoting it. One is Albert Nobbs, the head of AAC. The other is Darrin Thompson, who founded the Gamechangers Canada Online Network. The site is pretty bare, so it’s unclear that exactly it’s supposed to be doing.

It’s interesting that both men have Palestinian flags in their Twitter bios. They also promote the same Black Lives Matter and gay rights talking points. Strange how people can virtue signal about the non-existent oppression of minority groups in Canada, yet support the overall erosion of basic rights. But this is what the Frankfurt School of Cultural Marxism, and similar institutions, have led to.

These protests included people like Muna Saleh, a “curriculum studies and Muslim motherhood researcher, social studies teacher educator.” She identifies as Palestinian, suggesting a lack of attachment to this country. She demands that the Kenney Government maintain such violations in the name of safety. Interestingly, if she were still in Palestine, she wouldn’t enjoy anywhere near the freedoms and rights that she enjoys today. Oh, the joys of multiculturalism.

These protests are anything but organic and natural. However, the media that was so quick to vilify other gatherings turns a blind eye to this. It looks like a combination of grifting, injected with other political movements. Sure, there are legitimate doctors, but their movement is already co-opted.

Of course, how much of these funds raised will end up going to the pro-Palestinian groups? The main players all seem to be on their side. Hell, if they hate freedom so much, then go home, or at least to Toronto.

Seriously, this information wasn’t difficult to find.

(1) https://edmonton.ctvnews.ca/rally-against-lifting-of-covid-19-restrictions-hosted-outside-alberta-legislature-saturday-1.5530764
(2) https://albertaactivistcollective.ca/progress/
(3) https://twitter.com/ActivistAlberta
(4) https://twitter.com/BallerGearCA/status/1415731518727548928
(5) https://archive.is/pajOZ
(6) https://ballergear.ca/collections/aac
(7) https://archive.is/i035m
(8) https://www.gofundme.com/f/LaunchAAC?utm_campaign=p_cp+share-sheet&utm_medium=copy_link_all&utm_source=customer
(9) https://archive.is/NoJc6
(10) https://www.gamechangerscanada.com/
(11) https://twitter.com/Albert_Nobbs
(12) https://twitter.com/darrinthompson6
(13) https://hugsovermasks.ca/

“Inside The Ontario Science Table” Now Available Online

Inside The Ontario Science Table: The “Independent” Group Pulling Ford’s Strings, is now available both in paperback, and as an ebook. It builds off of the last one, and as the name implies, there is a heavy focus on that one Province. Of course, Twenty Twenty-One is still there as well, and covers a lot of topics related to this so-called “pandemic”.

A lot of work has gone into both of these, so please support independent research. Thank you.

Other coverage on the site continues.

(1) https://www.amazon.ca/B09BCNP48J
(2) https://www.amazon.ca/B095Y515XK

B.C. Contemplating Vaccine Passports, As Bonnie Henry Glosses Over Old Statements

Apparently, Bonnie Henry is going to be pressuring people to take the experimental “vaccine”, but will get getting private businesses to do the dirty work.

Health Minister, Adrian Dix, didn’t have much to say in a meaningful sense. After all, his education in history and political science didn’t really prepare him for the role.

People in B.C. may be a bit confused. After all, the Protective Measures (COVID-19) Order was repealed on June 28, 2021. Also, the State of Emergency from March 2020 was formally cancelled.

Guess we can forget about a peaceful life in B.C. Will there also be emergency measures reintroduced at some point? After all, there are still plenty of people who see through this act.

From the looks of things, it seems that the B.C. Government won’t mandate it. However, they will encourage businesses to impose such a policy. Now, will they be subsidized to enforce such rules? Will there be extra perks for places that do?

Many people know about the 2015 Ontario Labour Arbitration which the ONA fought against a mandatory VOM “vaccinate-or-mask” policy. What less people know is that Bonnie Henry was an expert witness in that case.

Case: Sault Area Hospital and Ontario Nurses’ Association, 2015 CanLII 55643 (ON LA)

No joke. Less than a decade ago, Bonnie was telling an Ontario Hearing that there was no real evidence that masks or vaccines worked against influenza. Since then, she has changed her tune, and says something quite different. Although the ruling is readily available, there don’t appear to be transcripts.

134. Dr. Henry agreed with this observation by Dr. Skowronski and Dr. Patrick who are her colleagues at the British Columbia Centre for Disease Control:
.
I do agree, as we’ve discussed earlier, influenza is mostly transmitted in the community and we don’t have data on the difference between vaccinated and unvaccinated healthcare workers and individual transmission events…in healthcare settings.
.
135. Dr. Henry agreed that no VOM policy would influence influenza in the community. Dr. McGeer denied that she had used or recommended the use of community burden in the assessment of development of such a policy.

So there is no data on any differences between vaccinated and unvaccinated health care workers. Yet these people are still arguing for VOM (vaccine or mask).

145. In her Report Dr. Henry also referred to observational studies as supporting the data she said was derived from the RCTs but acknowledged that these studies related to long term care and not acute care settings. She was cross-examined at length concerning the studies referenced in this section of her Report, some that dealt with other closed community settings, and agreed that they were “clearly not referring to a healthcare setting”.
.
146. Witness commentary concerning the observational/experimental studies relied upon in the McGeer/Henry Reports is set out in Appendix A to this Award. I conclude from a review of these studies, and the expert witness commentary, that they do not disclose a consistent position. They address a wide range of issues in a wide range of settings. Some are not supportive of the OHA/SAH experts’ claim. Some provide weak support at best. Some have nothing to do with the issue in question. Some have acknowledged study design limitations.

Evidence introduced by Bonnie Henry was for long term care centers, not health care settings, so this apples and oranges. There is also weak or irrelevant evidence argued.

160. In direct examination Dr. Henry stated that the pre-symptomatic period was “clearly not the most infectious period but we do know that it happens”.[203] She also agreed in cross-examination that transmission required an element of proximity and a sufficient amount of live replicating virus.
.
161. At another point, the following series of questions and answers ensued during Dr. Henry’s cross-examination:
.
Q. With respect to transmission while asymptomatic, and I want to deal with your authorities with respect to that, would you agree with me that there is scant evidence to support that virus shedding of influenza actually leads to effective transmission of the disease before somebody becomes symptomatic?
.
A. I think we talked about that yesterday, that there is some evidence that people shed prior to being symptomatic, and there is some evidence of transmission, that leading to transmission, but I absolutely agree that that is not the highest time when shedding and transmission can occur.
.
Q. So were you—I put it to you that there’s scant evidence, and that was Dr. De Serres’ evidence, so—but that there’s very little evidence about that, do you agree?
.
A. There is—as we talked about yesterday, there is not a lot of evidence around these pieces, I agree.
.
Q. And clearly transmission risk is greatest when you’re symptomatic, when you’re able to cough or sneeze?
.
A. Transmission risk is greatest, as we’ve said, when you’re symptomatic, especially in the first day or two of symptom onset

Not a lot of evidence regarding risks of transmission. Yes, this is 2015, but it coming straight from BCPHO Bonnie Henry.

177. Dr. McGeer and Dr. Henry presented the position of the OHA and the Hospital based upon their understanding of the relevant literature. Neither of them asserted that they had particular expertise with respect to masks or had conducted studies testing masks.

So, no actual expertise of research. Bonnie Henry just read what was available. And this is the Provincial Health Officer of British Columbia.

184. In her pre-hearing Report Dr. Henry responded to a request that she discuss the evidence that masks protect patients from influenza this way:
.
There is good evidence that surgical masks reduce the concentration of influenza virus expelled into the ambient air (a 3.4 fold overall reduction in a recent study) when they are worn by someone shedding influenza virus. There is also evidence that surgical masks reduce exposure to influenza in experimental conditions.
.
Clinical studies have also suggested that masks, in association with hand hygiene, may have some impact on decreasing transmission of influenza infection. These studies are not definitive as they all had limitations. The household studies are limited by the fact that mask wearing did not start until influenza had been diagnosed and the patient/household was enrolled in the study, such that influenza may have been transmitted prior to enrollment. A study in student residences is limited by the fact that participants wore their mask for only approximately 5 hours per day. Two systematic reviews of the cumulative studies conclude that there is evidence to support that wearing of masks or respirators during illness protects others, and a very limited amount of data to support the use of masks or respirators to prevent becoming infected
.
In summary, there is evidence supporting the use of wearing of masks to reduce transmission of influenza from health care workers to patients. It is not conclusive, and not of the quality of evidence that supports influenza vaccination. Based on current evidence, patient safety would be best ensured by requiring healthcare providers to be vaccinated if they provide care during periods of influenza activity. However, if healthcare workers are unvaccinated, wearing masks almost certainly provides some degree of protection to their patients.

Bonnie Henry keeps hedging her answers. Yes, there is protection, but there are issues with the studies, and the evidence isn’t conclusive. She also takes the position that vaccinating everyone in health care settings would be prefereable.

219. Dr. Henry answered the ‘why not mask everyone’ question this way:
.
It is [influenza vaccination] by far, not perfect and it needs to be improved, but it reduces our risk from a hundred percent where we have no protection to somewhat lower. And there’s nothing that I’ve found that shows there’s an incremental benefit of adding a mask to that reduced risk…..there’s no data that shows me that if we do our best to reduce that incremental risk, the risk of influenza, that adding a mask to that will provide any benefit. But if we don’t have any protection then there might be some benefit when we know our risk is greater.
.
When we look at individual strains circulating and what’s happening, I think we need it to be consistent with the fact that there was nothing that gave us support that providing a mask to everybody all the time was going to give us any additional benefit over putting in place the other measures that we have for the policy. It’s a tough one. You know, it varies by season.[320]
.
It is a challenging issue and we’ve wrestled with it. I’m not a huge fan of the masking piece. I think it was felt to be a reasonable alternative where there was a need to do—to feel that we were doing the best we can to try and reduce risk.
.
I tried to be quite clear in my report that the evidence to support masking is not as great and it is certainly not as good a measure

Bonnie Henry admits no strong evidence to support maskings. However, that was 2015, and apparently the science has changed completely since then. Or perhaps just the politics.

In any event, she seems content pushing experimental, unapproved “vaccines” on the public. Of course, the manufacturers are indemnified against liability.

Even within the last year her view on masks changed considerably. It’s a good thing people document and archive these inconsistencies. Kudos to whoever made this compilation. Otherwise, people like Bonnie Henry, Adrian Dix, John Horgan and Mike Farnworth would be more easily able to rewrite history, and conceal their deceptions

Don’t worry! Action4Canada will be filing their lawsuit any day now, and that will save us! They are just one fundraiser away from being almost ready to start. (Yes, this is sarcasm.)

(1) https://bc.ctvnews.ca/not-vaccinated-against-covid-19-b-c-s-health-officials-say-there-will-be-consequences-1.5525139
(2) https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/mo/mo/m0275_2021?fbclid=IwAR309l-HdQCrEdBaF6q2dUMwr5CbevxjJ94CweOLK-VUSBx7bE-weX725KE
(3) https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/public-safety-and-emergency-services/emergency-preparedness-response-recovery/embc/reports/speaker/621140-letter_to_the_speaker-protective_measures-m273.pdf
(4) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onla/doc/2015/2015canlii62106/2015canlii62106.pdf
(5) 2015.ontario.nurses.association.mask.ruling
(6) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onla/doc/2015/2015canlii62106/2015canlii62106.html
(7) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onla/doc/2016/2016canlii76496/2016canlii76496.html
(8) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/2018.ontario.college.of_.nurses.mask_.ruling.pdf

Press Forward: Anti-White “Independent” Media Controlled And Funded By The Establishment

This is a media group called Press Forward. While it’s nice to see independent media covering events in Canada, even if we may ideologically disagree, this is not the case here. While presenting itself as a group of indy/alt media outlets, this is anything but.

Press Forward has a list of criteria for membership in their group. Most raise no eyebrows, and are in fact very reasonable. However, #8 catches attention for all the wrong reasons.

8. Members must have a publicly posted diversity, equity and inclusion policy in place and be willing to report publicly on the composition of their organization. If you do not have a policy or self-reporting process yet, Press Forward can provide a template and assistance.

While other requirements such as transparency, ethics policies, privacy policies, and trying to generate revenue are sensible, this last one is not. This isn’t a call to make decisions purely on merit, and to ignore traits like race, gender, age, or nationality. On the contrary, it’s a call to make decisions BASED ON those traits.

The site does go on to provide a template for their diversity, equity and inclusion policy. And wow, it’s quite a doozy.

SAMPLE DIVERSITY, EQUITY AND INCLUSION POLICY
We recognize that systemic discrimination based on age, class, cultural and/or linguistic background, ability, economic status, gender, race, religion and sexual orientation have contributed to an environment where the voices of many people in Canada aren’t uplifted. We are committed to reporting on stories that reflect the country’s diversity, as well as hiring and promoting journalists from a variety of underrepresented backgrounds.
.
Diversity: PUBLICATION will integrate equity principles into its decision-making processes. Equity and diversity will inform short-, mid- and long-term editorial planning, source cultivation, editing practices, art direction, etc. Our reporting sheds light on systemic barriers and historic challenges and will reference these issues when contextualizing breaking news.
.
Inclusiveness: As an employer, PUBLICATION will foster a welcoming, barrier-free environment, and build and nurture relationships with writers, editors, photographers and illustrators, as well as other consultants, from a variety of underrepresented groups.
.
Leadership: PUBLICATION’s leadership will strive to ensure it reflects the full diversity of Canada. This includes senior leadership, staff, freelancers, interns and volunteers, as well as featured sources, guests, speakers, etc.
.
Accountability: PUBLICATION will collect on the demographic makeup of the organization and will make a concerted effort to sensitively survey employees, freelancers and audiences on equity and diversity issues. PUBLICATION will then relay this information to the public via regular equity reports.

This is actually the template provided. To be part of Press Forward, it’s necessary to have a policy such as this, which comes across as anti-white. When they talk about factoring diversity into the hiring practices and stories covered, it means non white.

When they say organizations should reflect the full diversity of Canada, it means whites should be replaced. It also means that men, especially white men, are a thing of the past.

Truly independent media outlets don’t need to report on their racial or gender makeup. They don’t need to report the sexual habits of their members. Yet, Press Forward does. Strange, in a country that has all kinds of laws to enshrine equal rights, apparently minorities are oppressed.

This isn’t the hallmark of a collective of indy authors. This comes across as someone, like a Government, trying to implement social policy in how media outlets are composed, and what is written.

Now, about the groups themselves: what are the media outlets that are part of this organization? Where are they located?

  • Canada’s National Observer (Observer Media Group)
  • La Converse
  • The Coast Halifax Weekly
  • Committee Trawler (Halifax)
  • The Discourse
  • The Independent (Newfoundland & Labrador)
  • The Local (Toronto)
  • The Narwhal
  • New Canadian Media
  • Oakville News
  • The Sprawl (Calgary)
  • Sun Peaks Independent News
  • The Tyee
  • Village Media
  • West End Phoenix

And who is running Press Forward?

  • Emma Gilchrist, Chair, Editor-in-Chief, The Narwhal
  • Stacy Lee Kong, Vice-Chair, Deputy Editor, West End Phoenix
  • Jeremy Klaszus, Editor in Chief, The Sprawl
  • Brent Jolly, National News Media Council
  • Lela Savić, La Converse, Discourse Media
  • Karyn Pugliese, Assistant Professor, Ryerson University
  • Rachel Pulfer, Executive Director, Journalists For Human Rights

Narwhal is Registered Journalism Organization with the Canada Revenue Agency. At the time of writing this, there are only 3, although over a hundred have applied. This means that Narwhal is entitled to special tax breaks most companies wouldn’t be able to get.

A quick search shows a number of recent grants by the Federal Government. Remember, Governments typically don’t hand out money to groups which are a potential threat. Would they give money to media outlets that will hold their feet to the fire?

MEDIA OUTLET DATE AMOUNT
Discourse Media Jul. 17, 2018 $1,520
Discourse Media Apr. 1, 2020 $161,795
Journalists for Human Rights Jun. 1, 2019 $250,691
Journalists for Human Rights Oct. 11, 2019 $11,764,838
Journalists for Human Rights Jul. 14, 2020 $1,479,856
New Canadian Media Oct. 1, 2018 $42,555
New Canadian Media May 1, 2019 $66,517
New Canadian Media Oct. 1, 2019 $66,800
New Canadian Media Apr. 1, 2020 $9,471
New Canadian Media Apr. 1, 2020 $69,300
New Canadian Media May 1, 2020 $31,900
New Canadian Media Aug. 1, 2020 $40,000
Observer Media Group Apr. 1, 2020 $253,594
Observer Media Group Apr. 1, 2021 $100,000
Sprawl Media Ltd. Apr. 1, 2020 $30,258
Sun Peaks Independent News Inc. Jun. 5, 2020 $3,504
Sun Peaks Independent News Inc. Apr. 1, 2020 $63,452
The Tyee Apr. 1, 2020 $360,469
Village Media Inc. Jul. 25, 2016 $88,000
Village Media Inc. May 1, 2018 $156,000
Village Media Inc. May 18, 2018 $140,000
Village Media Inc. Sep. 2, 2019 $190,000
Village Media Inc. Sep. 2, 2019 $260,000
West End Phoenix Apr. 1, 2020 $140,134

Canadians object to their money being spent on things they consider wasteful. Fair enough. But here, money is being given to organizations that put diversity above talent and results. Journalists are so restricted that they can get their work subsidized by the public.

This isn’t all of them of course. Still, several have received substantial amounts of money from Ottawa to promote their work. Press Forward is supported (financed in part) by the Trottier Family Foundation Foundation. More on them soon enough.

The Misinformation Project provides Canadian journalists and journalism students with digital investigation and media literacy training in online misinformation. The program is a continuation of JHR’s Combating Misinformation Project, which was funded in part by the Government of Canada in 2020. During this six month program, sixteen professional journalists will hold online training sessions for Canadian news organizations. These sessions cover the information landscape, responsible reporting and digital verification with the goal of helping participants integrate the skills into their daily reporting.
.
The Misinformation Project is funded by the McConnell Foundation, the Trottier Family Foundation and the Rossy Family Foundation.
.
JHR partnered with First Draft News, a global leader in misinformation research and training, to implement the project.

JHR, Journalists for Human Rights, is running the “Misinformation Project“, which was partially funded by the Government of Canada. It gets additional funding from the Trottier Family Foundation, the McConnell Foundation, and the Rossy Family Foundation. Misinformation, of course, are things that contradict the official narrative.

What does this have to do with Press Forward? Rachel Pulfer, Executive Director, Journalists For Human Rights, is on their Board of Directors.

In this earlier piece, it was laid out how various groups trying to “fight misinformation” were actually run by political operatives, and they were getting public money. JHR is led by Peter Donolo, longtime Liberal Party operative. He has been a handler for Jean Chretien, Michael Ignatieff and Justin Trudeau. This corruption crosses all parties.

JHR also runs another group called “Disinfowatch“, in conjunction with the Koch-funded MacDonald-Laurier Institute for Public Policy.

Of course, this isn’t all the money that gets spent on this. Here are some more grants courtesy of the taxpayers. And you think it was going towards roads and schools.

In March 2020, Ryerson University announced that it would be conducting research into “misinformation”, how it spreads, and how to contain it. This would be funded by the Canadian Government. Strangely, this would be run out of the business school, and not the journalism school.

Karyn S. Pugliese, the Director at Press Forward, has been a reporter on CBC and CTV, and is a former reporter at Parliament Hill. An interesting addition to this group.

The Narwhal, which gets special tax breaks because of its status with the Canada Revenue Agency, is also a member of the organization Covering Climate Now. There are many partners in the group, including mainstream names.

CCNow collaborates with journalists and newsrooms to produce more informed and urgent climate stories, to make climate a part of every beat in the newsroom — from politics and weather to business and culture — and to drive a public conversation that creates an engaged public. Mindful of the media’s responsibility to inform the public and hold power to account, we advise newsrooms, share best practices, and provide reporting resources that help journalists ground their coverage in science while producing stories that resonate with audiences.

By their own admission, CCNow wants to insert the climate change issue into everything, and use that to shift the culture. This isn’t media, it’s indoctrination. Just a thought, but this partnership may be why the CRA is so willing to grant the RJO status to Narwhal. One of their Directors is Alex Himelfarb, a former Privy Council Clerk.

Another Director is a member of the National News Media Council. They describe themselves as a “self-regulatory ethics body for the news media industry in Canada”. Now there’s nothing wrong with having different views, but this seems pretty inconsistent for Press Forward, which claims to be pushing independent journalism.

The Sprawl, based in Alberta, seems to be about the closest thing to independent. It is willing to take submissions from a broad group of people. However, it bleats the “diversity” drum to such a degree that everything else seems secondary. A quick look through recent articles show an incredibly leftwing streak.

This is hardly a complete rundown, however, it’s difficult to consider this group “independent” in any way, considering some of the people running it.

Instead of calling for stories based on talent, hard work, or creativity, all of this takes a backseat to “diversity and inclusion”. It seems done to deliberately drive up sentiments about being persecuted or taken advantage of. And we all know what the goal is.

It also has to be said, none of these outlets ask critical questions about the “pandemic” that has been going on for the last 18 months or so. Instead, the official narratives get promoted in their work. Perhaps that’s another reason for the subsidies.

(1) https://pressforward.ca/
(2) https://pressforward.ca/about-us/
(3) https://archive.is/YpLNi
(4) https://archive.is/YQYFh
(5) https://pressforward.ca/sample-diversity-equity-and-inclusion-policy/
(6) https://pressforward.ca/team/
(7) https://pressforward.ca/membership/
(8) https://pressforward.ca/membership-criteria-2/
(9) https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/charities-giving/other-organizations-that-issue-donation-receipts-qualified-donees/other-qualified-donees-listings/list-registered-journalism-organizations.html
(10) https://search.open.canada.ca/en/gc/
(11) https://jhr.ca/jhrs-misinformation-project
(12) https://archive.is/9Ed4r
(13) https://canucklaw.ca/media-subsidies-to-counter-online-misinformation-groups-led-by-political-operatives/
(14) https://canucklaw.ca/taxpayer-grants-to-fight-misinformation-in-media-including-more-pandemic-bucks/
(15) https://www.ryerson.ca/news-events/news/2020/03/ryersons-social-media-lab-tackles-misinformation-amid-pandemic/
(16) https://thenarwhal.ca/about-us/
() https://coveringclimatenow.org/about/
(17) https://coveringclimatenow.org/partners/partner-list/
(18) https://thenarwhal.ca/alex-himelfarb
(19) https://www.mediacouncil.ca/
(20) https://www.sprawlalberta.com/policies

FDA Stopping Emergency Authorized PCR Tests? Not Approved In Canada Either

The FDA has allowed so called RT-PCR testing under the pretense that it’s effective for virus detection. It has been given emergency use authorization, which is set to run out in December 2021. Okay, what will take its place, or will this whole hoax come to an end?

“After December 31, 2021, CDC will withdraw the request to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) of the CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel, the assay first introduced in February 2020 for detection of SARS-CoV-2 only. CDC is providing this advance notice for clinical laboratories to have adequate time to select and implement one of the many FDA-authorized alternatives.”

Public health officials in Canada always talk about how they are “following the science”. Turns out, at least part of it has been farmed out to the United States. And what is adopted here is sketchy, at best. If Canada is relying on this “testing” method, and the U.S. stops, what happens here?

Read between the lines on Health Canada’s own website.

Health Canada refers to guidance published by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on nucleic acid-based tests:
.
-for testing devices intended for laboratory or point-of-care use, please refer to FDA’s guidance on molecular -tests
-for testing devices intended for self-testing, please review the FDA guidance for molecular and antigen tests for non-laboratory use
-Manufacturers following the FDA guidance for molecular and antigen tests for non-laboratory use should note that Health Canada expects them to follow the guidance for non-prescription testing. This is because the distinction made by the FDA between prescription and non-prescription testing does not exist in Canada.
.
The FDA, Food & Drug Administration, guidances are in a template format and outline requirements that these products must meet.

Health Canada says in its own guidelines that it uses the USFDA as a reference point in how nucleic-acid based tests are conducted. That’s quite interesting considering that the FDA’s own tests are not approved, but instead have emergency use authorization. And that is set to lapse at the end of 2021. And it’s about to get more interesting from that.

Now, FDA approval is different than FDA emergency use authorization. This parallels Health Canada, in which approval is different than interim authorization. The FDA lists a few circumstances where EUA will be given. The following is from their site:

1. A determination by the Secretary of Homeland Security that there is a domestic emergency, or a significant potential for a domestic emergency, involving a heightened risk of attack with a CBRN agent(s);
.
2. A determination by the Secretary of Defense that there is a military emergency, or a significant potential for a military emergency, involving a heightened risk to United States military forces of attack with a CBRN agent(s);
.
3. A determination by the Secretary of HHS that there is a public health emergency, or a significant potential for a public health emergency, that affects, or has a significant potential to affect, national security or the health and security of United States citizens living abroad, and that involves a CBRN agent or agents, or a disease or condition that may be attributable to such agent(s);
.
4. The identification of a material threat, by the Secretary of Homeland Security pursuant to section 319F-2 of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act, that is sufficient to affect national security or the health and security of United States citizens living abroad.

Presumably, the emergency use authorization is granted under #3. However, the document makes it clear that this is not the same thing as being approved. Furthermore, when the emergency is over, sales and distributions of such products must end.

Health Canada links that FDA document on their own site. Presumably, this is used as a starting point for how the Canadian Government handles such things.

Under Section B on that same page, Health Canada lists the “specific nucleic acid sequences from the genome of the SARS-CoV-2 (please specify the targeted gene(s) of the pathogen).” In other words, these tests are not supposed to test for an isolated virus, but to test for a gene, or a portion of a virus — assuming it exists.

The World Health Organization also doesn’t think isolating a virus is necessary. See page 3 of its March 2020 guidance, page 8 of its September 2020 guidance.

Health Canada, again, same page, asks companies applying for an authorization to disclose the known limitations of their testing equipment. On F, Proposed Intended Use, it provides the following:

  • Negative results do not preclude SARS-CoV-2 infection and should not be used as the sole basis for patient management decisions. Negative results must be combined with clinical observations, patient history and epidemiological information.
  • Negative results from pooled samples should be treated as presumptive. If inconsistent with clinical signs and symptoms or necessary for patient management, pooled samples should be tested individually. Negative results do not preclude SARS-CoV-2 infection and must not be used as the sole basis for patient management decisions. Negative results must be considered in the context of a patient’s recent exposures, history, presence of clinical signs and symptoms consistent with COVID-19.
  • Use of the [test name] in a general, asymptomatic screening population is intended to be used as part of an infection control plan, that may include additional preventative measures, such as a predefined serial testing plan or directed testing of high-risk individuals. Negative results should be considered presumptive and do not preclude current or future infection obtained through community transmission or other exposures. Negative results must be considered in the context of an individual’s recent exposures, history, presence of clinical signs and symptoms consistent with COVID-19.

These are what Health Canada lists as examples (emphasis mine). In other words, the tests, if negative, don’t really mean negative. It must be taken in context of other factors. This is a long way away from being the “gold standard” that we are always told it is.

Such guidelines seem ripe for abuse, as a test result could mean whatever the person wants it to be. The above disclaimer means that it’s very subjective, and unreliable as a standardized medical or scientific device.

The BC Centre for Disease Control admitted in April 2020 that the tests are useless. If they can’t detect infection, and the actual error rate is unknown, then they are of no help, other than to artificially drive up false positives. Also, let’s not forget this now scrubbed article of Bonnie Henry admitting false positives could overburden the hospitals. Does this virus even exist?

Other provinces, like Ontario and Manitoba, claim that PCR tests are the “gold standard”. At testing what exactly?

It’s not just nucleic acid tests (or PCR tests) that are held to virtually non-existent standards. Other tests follow the same pattern.

Results are for the identification of SARS-CoV-2 [protein name]antigen. Antigen is generally detectable in [specimen type]during the acute phase of infection. Positive results indicate the presence of viral antigens, but clinical correlation with patient history and other diagnostic information is necessary to determine infection status. Positive results do not rule out bacterial infection or co-infection with other viruses. The agent detected may not be the definite cause of disease. Laboratories within the United States and its territories are required to report all positive results to the appropriate public health authorities.

Negative results should be treated as presumptive, and do not rule out SARS-CoV-2 infection and should not be used as the sole basis for treatment or patient management decisions, including infection control decisions. Negative results should be considered in the context of a patient’s recent exposures, history and the presence of clinical signs and symptoms consistent with COVID-19, and confirmed with a molecular assay, if necessary, for patient management.

The [test name] is intended for use by [include intended user, for example, trained clinical laboratory personnel specifically instructed and trained in vitro diagnostic procedures]. The [test name] is only for use under the Food and Drug Administration’s Emergency Use Authorization.

Under Section F: Proposed intended use, there are some rather lengthy disclaimers to be added in. In short, these tests are to be used as an emergency authorized test by the FDA, not approved.

Beyond that, the test results are meaningless. A positive result could be a false positive, and a negative result could be a false positive. It’s only to be used in conjunction with a patient’s history. Again, this is competely subjective.

Interim Orders, like this one signed on March 30, 2020, allow medical devices and medications to be distributed in Canada, even if they don’t meet all the regulatory conditions. In short, as long as there is an “emergency”, there will always be a way to get them into the market.

That Order since lapsed, and Patty Hajdu signed another one on March 1, 2021. Theoretically, as long as this keeps getting extended, then Health Canada will never need to make a determination as to whether these products are safe.

Limitations related to the intended use of serological tests
.
Based on the information available at the present time, Health Canada will not authorize serological tests intended to be used for diagnosis or for self-testing. As research evolves and we learn more about the virus, the disease and the immune response, the requirements in this Guidance may be updated accordingly based on available scientific evidence.
.
The following statements should be included as limitations of serological tests:
.
-This assay is not intended to be used for screening patients or as an aid for diagnosis of patients with suspected COVID-19 infection.
-This assay is not intended for home testing (or self-testing).
Negative results do not preclude SARS-CoV-2 infection and should not be used as the sole basis for patient management decisions.
Negative results must be combined with clinical observations, patient history, and epidemiological information.
-False negative results can occur in elderly and immunocompromised patients.
False positive results for IgM and IgG antibodies may occur due to cross-reactivity from pre-existing antibodies or other possible causes.

The above listings are limitations of serology testing. All of these tests come with a common disclaimer: we don’t know that they actually work.

If people haven’t figured out by now that this is all a scam, then they probably never will. This is obvious to anyone paying attention.

(1) https://www.cdc.gov/csels/dls/locs/2021/07-21-2021-lab-alert-Changes_CDC_RT-PCR_SARS-CoV-2_Testing_1.html
(2) https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-health-products/covid19-industry/medical-devices/testing/nucleic-acid-devices.html
(3) https://archive.is/HaFdq
(4) http://www.bccdc.ca/Health-Professionals-Site/Documents/COVID19_InterpretingTesting_Results_NAT_PCR.pdf
(5) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/BC-COVID19_InterpretingTesting_Results_NAT_PCR.pdf
(6) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/WHO-COVID-19-laboratory-Testing-March-17-2020.pdf
(7) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/WHO-2019-nCoV-laboratory-September-11-2020-Guidelines.pdf
(8) https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-health-products/covid19-industry/medical-devices/testing/antigen-devices/fda-guidance-molecular-diagnostic-template-commercial-manufacturers.html
(9) https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-health-products/medical-devices/application-information/guidance-documents/covid19-requirements-serological-antibody-tests.html
(10) https://archive.is/ISGAH
(11) https://archive.is/hyKJj
(12) https://www.cdc.gov/csels/dls/locs/2021/07-21-2021-lab-alert-Changes_CDC_RT-PCR_SARS-CoV-2_Testing_1.html
(13) https://archive.is/oc5OY
(14) https://www.fda.gov/media/97321/download
(15) FDA Emergency Use Guidelines
(16) https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-health-products/covid19-industry/medical-devices/testing/antigen-devices/fda-guidance-antigen-template-test-developers.html
(17) https://archive.is/wASc9
(18) https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-health-products/compliance-enforcement/covid19-interim-order-drugs-medical-devices-special-foods.html
(19) https://archive.is/sPj1p
(20) https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-health-products/covid19-industry/drug-medical-device-food-shortages/interim-order-2021.html
(21) https://archive.is/n3dPV
(22) https://archive.is/U2k6g