Category: UN/WHO

Posted on

CV #66(H): Selective Reporting, The Fraud And Deception Behind VAER Systems

In order for the true effects of a vaccine (or any pharmaceutical) to be fully known, it’s important to have all of the side effects documented and compiled. This is so members of the public can give informed consent, or refuse a product if they see it as unsafe. However, we are getting everything but the truth here.

Normally, clear thinking people would be able to see through such nonsense. However, politicians and hack “journalists” do what they can to keep the public uninformed. A quick example:

In order to keep this “pandemic” psy-op going, it’s necessary that the people in charge engage in mental gymnastics. In particular, the dangers must be exaggerated, and the dangers of the agenda minimized. Never mind that Alberta had zero flu deaths, as the variants are overrunning the Province.

This is done with the gene replacement therapies as well. They are not really “vaccines” as. Now, we can’t have the true scale of problems coming out. Broadly speaking, this is concealed in 2 ways:

  1. Intentionally inflating Covid-19 deaths
  2. Deliberate lowballing Of vaccine effects

Both points will be addressed below.

1. Intentionally Inflating Covid-19 Deaths

There is really no way to deny at this point that public officials are flat out lying about virus deaths, and artificially driving up the counts in order to keep the psy-op going. Check out this article for many more examples of this happening. Never mind that the virus has never been isolated, and that the PCR tests are completely useless for this job.

Skeptics may reasonably ask where the emergency if these death waves aren’t materializing. Better to gaslight such people as crazies and not answer. And never mind the fact that the flu and influenza seem to have coincidently disappeared.

2. DEFINITION FOR DEATHS DUE TO COVID-19
.
A death due to COVID-19 is defined for surveillance purposes as a death resulting from a clinically compatible illness, in a probable or confirmed COVID-19 case, unless there is a clear alternative cause of death that cannot be related to COVID disease (e.g. trauma). There should be no period of complete recovery from COVID-19 between illness and death.
.
A death due to COVID-19 may not be attributed to another disease (e.g. cancer) and should be counted independently of preexisting conditions that are suspected of triggering a severe course of COVID-19.

In fairness, this can’t entirely be blamed on politicians like Doug Ford, Christine Elliott, Jason Kenney, John Horgan, or Patty Hajdu. The guidelines are written up in such a way (intentionally?) that it positively invites death count inflation

2. Deliberate Lowballing Of Vaccine Effects

In November 2003, there was the International Conference on Harmonization of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharamaceuticals for Human Use. Their report is publicly available. Now there are some worthwhile parts in this. One of them is the attempt to create universal standards for reporting side effects of medications.

So, what exactly is worth reporting during drug trials, or once its already on the market?

4. STANDARDS FOR EXPEDITED REPORTING
4.1 What Should Be Reported?
4.1.1 Serious ADRs
Cases of adverse drug reactions that are both serious and unexpected are subject to expedited reporting. The reporting of serious expected reactions in an expedited manner varies among countries. Non-serious adverse reactions, whether expected or not, would normally not be subject to expedited reporting. For reports from studies and other solicited sources, all cases judged by either the reporting healthcare professional or the MAH as having a possible causal relationship to the medicinal product would qualify as ADRs. For purposes of reporting, spontaneous reports associated with approved drugs imply a suspected causal relationship.

4.1.2 Other Observations
In addition to single case reports, any safety information from other observations that could change the risk-benefit evaluation for the product should be communicated as soon as possible to the regulatory authorities in accordance with local regulation. Examples include any significant unanticipated safety findings from an in vitro, animal, epidemiological, or clinical study that suggest a significant human risk, such as evidence of mutagenicity, teratogenicity, carcinogenicity, or lack of efficacy with a drug used in treating a life-threatening or serious disease.

4.1.2.1 Lack of Efficacy
Evidence of lack of efficacy should not normally be expedited, but should be discussed in the relevant periodic safety update report. However, in certain circumstances and in some regions, individual reports of lack of efficacy are considered subject to expedited reporting. Medicinal products used for the treatment of life-threatening or serious diseases, vaccines, and contraceptives are examples of classes of medicinal products where lack of efficacy should be considered for expedited reporting. Clinical judgment should be used in reporting, with consideration of the local product labeling and disease being treated.

Apparently if reactions are serious and unexpected (not just serious), then it’s grounds for reporting in an expedited fashion. Otherwise, then there’s no rush.

It’s also interesting that it says “clinical judgement should be used” in reporting. Are these health care providers to act as a form of gatekeeper to this information getting out? And what is the standard for how that judgement should applied?

The Canadian standard for reporting isn’t much (if any) better.

Should all AEFIs be reported?

No. During their development, vaccines undergo rigorous testing for safety, quality, and efficacy. During these “pre-licensure trials” efforts are made to capture every single adverse event that follows immunization.

By the time a vaccine is authorized for marketing, the safety profile for common adverse events such as vaccination site reactions or mild fever is well known. It is always important to counsel vaccinees or their guardians regarding the possible occurrence of such reactions, but there is no need to report such expected events unless they are more severe or more frequent than expected.

Does this seem bizarre? A drug manufacturer claims that they intend to document and compile all of the data for side effects during clinical trials, but it’s not a big deal once the product is on the market?!

In fairness, the page does immediately contradict itself right after afterwards and say that events should be reported if it can’t be explained otherwise.

The Canadian Government’s own guidelines state that not all AEFI, or adverse effects following immunization, should be reported. The stated reasoning is that (presumably) minor reactions are already to be expected. In other words, these kinds of reactions are EXPECTED to happen, and shouldn’t be reported if minor.

The first problem is that this standard is incredibly subjective, and prone to both human error. Second, the people involved may not want the full truth about the side effects of their products to get out.

The page goes on to say that the preferred way of reporting is to Municipal or Provincial Health Units. The results are then forwarded along. Now, that can create a problem, if the people involved simply don’t view such reactions are worthwhile, or are instructed not to.

According to Public Health Ontario [Page 9] “all deaths temporally associated with receipt of vaccines that have been reported to public health units are thoroughly investigated and reported to PHO.” That’s interesting, since the Ontario Government doesn’t take issue with classifying Covid deaths simply from having the virus. See Christine Elliott above. Remember, WHO’s definition is death from a clinically compatible illness in a probable or confirmed case.

The BC Centre for Disease Control advises not to report on side effects if they are “known to occur” from the vaccine. With this standard in mind, how many legitimate complaints would have been turned away, since these were expected? Alberta also allows for “expected” reactions to bypassed being classified as AEFI.

The obvious questions to ask here: how accurate are the various reporting systems in Canada, and elsewhere? If patients are told not to report certain expected side effects, do we really know the true prevalence? If there is discretion by District Health Units on what to report, how wisely is it being used? How honest are the people who end up using the information at the end anyway?

Very common: may affect more than 1 in 10 people
 injection site pain
 tiredness
 headache
 muscle pain
 chills
 joint pain
 fever
 diarrhea

Common: may affect more than 1 in 100 and up to 1 in 10 people
 injection site redness
 injection site swelling
 nausea
 vomiting

Uncommon: may affect up to 1 in 100 people
 enlarged lymph nodes
 feeling unwell
 arm pain

Non-severe allergic reactions (such as rash, itching, hives or swelling of the face) and severe allergic reactions have been reported.

These are not all the possible side effects you may have when taking Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine. If you experience any side effects not listed here, tell your healthcare professional.
There is a remote chance that Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine could cause a severe allergic
reaction. A severe allergic reaction would usually occur within a few minutes to one hour after
getting a dose of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine. For this reason, your vaccination provider
may ask you to stay at the place where you received your vaccine for monitoring after
vaccination. Should you develop any serious symptoms or symptoms that could be an allergic
reaction, seek medical attention right away. Symptoms of an allergic reaction include:
 hives (bumps on the skin that are often very itchy)
 swelling of the face, tongue or throat
 difficulty breathing
 a fast heartbeat
 dizziness and weakness

For reference, the above list is what is or can be “expected” from the Pfizer vaccine. Once more, this mRNA “vaccine” is not approved by Health Canada, and only has interim authorization. Still feeling like a champ?

And all of this, for a virus that’s never been proven to exist, using testing methods never designed for infection detection.

As a final thought, just remember the people manufacturing these concoctions are indemnified from legal liability. It you are injured or killed, it’s your problem.

(1) https://globalnews.ca/news/7460952/alberta-influenza-zero-cases-hospitalizations/
(2) https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/alberta-third-wave-pandemic-variants-1.5972869
(3) https://www.who.int/classifications/icd/Guidelines_Cause_of_Death_COVID-19.pdf?ua=1
(4) https://database.ich.org/sites/default/files/E2A_Guideline.pdf
(5) Adverse Effect Reporting Guidelines World Health Org
(6) https://vaccine-safety-training.org/tl_files/vs/pdf/report-of-cioms-who-working-group.pdf
(7) WHO Vaccine Safety Training Manual
(8) https://www.publichealthontario.ca/-/media/documents/ncov/epi/covid-19-aefi-report.pdf?la=en
(9) Adverse Effect Reporting Guidelines Ontario
(10) https://www.health.gov.on.ca/en/pro/programs/publichealth/oph_standards/docs/aefi_cd.pdf
(11) Adverse Effects Case Definitions Ontario
(12) https://www.publichealthontario.ca/-/media/documents/ncov/epi/covid-19-aefi-report.pdf?la=en
(13) http://www.bccdc.ca/health-professionals/clinical-resources/adverse-events-following-immunization
(14) https://www.albertahealthservices.ca/info/Page16187.aspx
(15) Health Canada Reporting Adverse Reactions
(16) https://archive.is/Uz0hx
(17) https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/immunization/reporting-adverse-events-following-immunization/user-guide-completion-submission-aefi-reports.html
(18) Health Canada On Vaccine Safety
(19) https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/reports-publications/canada-communicable-disease-report-ccdr/monthly-issue/2014-40/ccdr-volume-40-s-3-december-4-2014/ccdr-volume-40-s-3-december-4-2014-2.html
(20) https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/phac-aspc/migration/phac-aspc/publicat/ccdr-rmtc/14vol40/dr-rm40s-3/assets/pdf/ccdrv40is3a05-eng.pdf
(21) Vaccine Vigilance Working Group Report
(22) https://canucklaw.ca/cv-26c-exposing-the-lies-of-the-inflated-death-tolls/
(23) https://canucklaw.ca/cv-37h-bccdc-admitted-a-year-ago-pcr-tests-dont-work-as-advertised/
(24) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/FOI-Fluroide-Free-Peel-Compilation.pdf

Posted on

CV #66(G): Patty Hajdu Lies: Rigorous Testing WASN’T Required To Get “Vaccines” Onto Market

Canadians are constantly told that these gene therapy “vaccines” are safe, and have undergone strict testing in order to be allowed on the market. But what exactly are those standards? And is it normal practice to include a clause making authorization mandatory?

People should know that if the product injures or kills them, indemnification agreements prevent the manufacturers from getting sued. A vaccine injury compensation program was announced back in December, but appears to have gone nowhere.

As a reminder, Interim Authorization and Approval are quite different, and cannot be used interchangeably.

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

If you read the inserts provided by Health Canada (see below), they will all claim to be “authorized under Section 5 of an Interim Order”. Fine, but what is that Order, and what does it actually say?

Issuance
5 The Minister must issue an authorization in respect of a COVID-19 drug if the following requirements are met:

(a) the applicant has submitted an application to the Minister that meets the requirements set out in subsection 3‍(1) or 4‍(2);
(b) the applicant has provided the Minister with all information or material, including samples, requested under subsection 13‍(1) in the time, form and manner specified under subsection 13‍(2); and
(c) the Minister has sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that the benefits associated with the drug outweigh the risks, having regard to the uncertainties relating to the benefits and risks and the necessity of addressing the urgent public health need related to COVID-19.

Several of these “vaccines”, and I use the term loosely, were given Interim Authorization under Section 5 of an Interim Order signed by Health Minister Patty Hajdu on September 16, 2020. The above criteria is all that is required.

Note: Section 5 starts out with “The Minister must” issue and authorization. It’s not that “The Minister should”, or “The Minister may” issue one, but the Minister MUST.

Also, the above requirements are not very strict. 3(1) or 4(2) must be met, along with 13(1) and 13(2). And all that’s needed is the very subjective standard that the “Minister has sufficient evidence to support the conclusion”. It doesn’t specify what, if any, standard there is. The Minister only needs to see is as “worth the risk” given the uncertainties there are.

It’s worth noting that Health Canada doesn’t do the testing themselves. Instead, they rely heavily on the documentation provided. Quite the trust system.

Application for authorization
3 (1) Subject to section 4, an application for an authorization in respect of a COVID-19 drug must be in a form established by the Minister and contain sufficient information and material to enable the Minister to determine whether to issue the authorization, including
.
(a) the applicant’s name and contact information and, in the case of a foreign applicant, the name and contact information of their representative in Canada;
(b) a description of the drug and a statement of its proper name or its common name if there is no proper name;
(c) a statement of the brand name of the drug or the identifying name or code proposed for the drug;
a list of the ingredients of the drug, stated quantitatively;
(d) the specifications for each of the drug’s ingredients;
(e) a description of the facilities and equipment to be used in the manufacture, preparation and packaging of the drug;
(f) details of the method of manufacture and the controls to be used in the manufacture, preparation and packaging of the drug;
(g) details of the tests to be applied to control the potency, purity, stability and safety of the drug;
(h) the names and qualifications of all the investigators to whom the drug has been sold;
(i) a draft of every label to be used in connection with the drug, including any package insert and any document that (j) is provided on request and that sets out supplementary information on the use of the drug;
(k) a statement of all the representations to be made for the promotion of the drug respecting
(i) the recommended route of administration of the drug,
(ii) the proposed dosage of the drug,
(iii) the drug’s indications, and
(iv) the contra-indications and side effects of the drug;
(l) a description of the dosage form that is proposed for the sale of the drug;
(m) evidence that all test batches of the drug used in any studies conducted in connection with the application were manufactured and controlled in a manner that is representative of market production;
(n) in the case of a drug intended for administration to food-producing animals, the withdrawal period of the drug; and
(o) the known information in relation to the quality, safety and effectiveness of the drug.

About part (n), it says “administration to food-producing animals”. Are we to assume that livestock are going to be vaccinated with these substances at some point? Or are we repurposing drugs that were originally meant for them? That’s a bit unsettling.

Application for authorization – foreign drug
4 (1) An application for an authorization in respect of a COVID-19 drug may be based on a comparison to a foreign drug if the sale of the foreign drug is authorized by a foreign regulatory authority on the basis of information submitted to the authority in relation to the quality, safety and effectiveness of that drug.
.
Content
(2) The application must be in a form established by the Minister and contain the following information and material:
.
(a) the information and material described in paragraphs 3‍(1)‍(a) to (d), (f), (j) to (l) and, if applicable, (n);
(b) an attestation, signed and dated by an individual who has authority to bind the applicant in Canada, certifying that the applicant has access to the information referred to in paragraph 3‍(1)‍(o) that was submitted to the relevant foreign regulatory authority in order for the foreign drug to be authorized to be sold;
(c) information that demonstrates that the drug is identical to, and is manufactured, prepared and packaged in the same manner as, the foreign drug;
(d) information that demonstrates that the sale of the foreign drug is authorized by the foreign regulatory authority referred to in paragraph (b); and
(e) any labels that are approved by the foreign regulatory authority referred to in paragraph (b) for use in connection with the foreign drug.

Request for information or material
13 (1) The Minister may request that a person that has submitted an application for an authorization in respect of a COVID-19 drug or the holder of such an authorization provide any information or material, including samples, that is necessary to enable the Minister to determine whether to issue, amend or suspend the authorization.
.
Time, form and manner
(2) The person or holder, as the case may be, must provide the information, material or samples in the time, form and manner specified by the Minister.

Section 3(1) lists what documentation needs to be submitted to get authorization. Section 4(2) contains a few extra steps for foreign drugs. Sections 13(1) and (2) state that information and samples must be provided if demanded.

The standard for Interim Authorization under Section 5 appears to be a fairly low one. Keep in mind, the Minister doesn’t even need to be certain the drugs work as advertised. It just has to be determined to be worth the risk. Not quite what we are told on the news.

As for the basis in the law, Section 30.1 of the Canada Food & Drug Act allows the Health Minister to sign such Orders, if it’s believed, (or claimed to be believed), it’s in the public interest. There is no requirement that the Minister have any appropriate education background, or know what he/she is talking about.

Circling back to the top of Section 5, the Health Minister “must issue an authorization” if the conditions in Section 5 are met?!?! So this isn’t discretionary? Our graphic designer Minister must sign off on this?

It’s also unsettling that this Order allows for drugs originally intended for livestock to be repurposed and tested on humans.

WHO Paper On MANDATORY Vaccination April 13, 2021 (Original)
WHO Paper On MANDATORY Vaccination April 13, 2021 (Copy)
Section 30.1 Canada Food & Drug Act
September 2020 Interim Order From Patty Hajdu
https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/news/2020/12/government-of-canada-announces-pan-canadian-vaccine-injury-support-program.html
https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/astrazeneca-covid-19-vaccine-pm-en.pdf
https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/janssen-covid-19-vaccine-pm-en.pdf
https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/covid-19-vaccine-moderna-pm-en.pdf
https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/pfizer-biontech-covid-19-vaccine-pm1-en.pdf

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

Vaccines Supported For Pregnant Women, Despite No Testing
Vaccines Given “Interim Authorization”, Not Approval. Very Different
Call Centers Wrongly Telling People “Vaccines” Are Approved
Ontario Adds, Then Removes Protections Against “No Jab, No Job”
WHO April 13 Paper: Discussion On Mandatory “Experimental Vaxx”

Posted on

CV #37(H): BCCDC Admitted A Year Ago PCR Tests Don’t Work As Advertised

https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/BC-COVID19_InterpretingTesting_Results_NAT_PCR.pdf
http://www.bccdc.ca/Health-Professionals-Site/Documents/COVID19_InterpretingTesting_Results_NAT_PCR.pdf
https://www.cpsbc.ca/for-physicians/college-connector/2020-V08-02/04

1. How does the test work?
The NAT works by detecting RNA specific to the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes COVID-19 infection, after RNA has been extracted from the specimen and then amplified in the laboratory. NATs are typically performed on nasopharyngeal swabs, but the test can also be done on other sample types such as throat swabs, saliva, sputum, tracheal aspirates, and broncho-alveolar lavage (BAL) specimens.
.
The NAT has a high analytical sensitivity (i.e., it works well at detecting the virus when the virus is present). The NAT can potentially detect as few as 10-100 copies of viral RNA per mL in a respiratory sample. Note that this is not the same as clinical sensitivity of NAT for detection of COVID-19 infection, which is unknown at this time (see #5 below)

2. What do the test results mean?
 Positive: Viral RNA is detected by NAT and this means that the patient is confirmed to have COVID-19 infection.
A positive NAT does not necessarily mean that a patient is infectious, as viral RNA can be shed in the respiratory tract for weeks but cultivatable (live) virus is typically not detected beyond 8 to 10 days after symptom onset.
 Negative: Viral RNA is not detected in the sample. However, a negative test result does not totally rule out COVID-19 infection as there may be reasons beyond test performance that can result in a lack of RNA detection in patients with COVID-19 infection (false negatives; see below).
 Indeterminate: The NAT result is outside the validated range of the test (i.e., RNA concentration is below the
limit of detection, or a non-specific reaction), or this might occur when the sample collected is of poor quality
(i.e., does not contain a sufficient amount of human cells). Indeterminate results do not rule in or rule out infection.
.
Overall, clinical judgement remains important in determining the implications of NAT test results, and whether a repeat test is indicated for negative or indeterminate results (for example, if the patient’s recent exposures or clinical presentation suggest COVID-19 infection is likely, diagnostic tests for other respiratory pathogens remain negative, or there is worsening of symptoms). For clinical guidance including testing and specimen collection, please refer to COVID-19 testing guidelines for British Columbia.

5. What is the clinical sensitivity of the NAT test?
A statistic commonly quoted is that there is a 30% chance of a false negative result for a NAT test in a patient with COVID-19 infection (i.e., a 70% sensitivity). These and other similar estimates are based on a small number studies that compared the correlation between CT scan findings suggestive of COVID-19 infection to NAT on upper respiratory tract specimens. In these studies, 20-30% of people with a positive CT scan result had negative NAT results – and as discussed above a number of factors can contribute to false negative results. CT scan is not a gold standard for diagnosis of COVID-19 infection, and CT scan cannot differentiate amongst the many microbiological causes of pneumonia.
.
Ultimately, for COVID-19 testing, there is currently no gold standard, and the overall clinical sensitivity and specificity of NAT in patients with COVID-19 infection is unknown (i.e., how well NAT results correlate with clinical infection, “true positivity” or “true negativity” rate).

Some points to take away
-Detecing RNA does not mean infection
-Error rate in infection detection is unknown.
-Positive test is meaningless
-Negative test is meaningless
-Can’t distinguish with many microbial causes of pneumonia
-30% false negative rate just a “commonly quoted statistic”
-Actual accuracy rate unknown

As for the “deaths due to Covid” perhaps check out the guidelines passed down College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia:

1. Recording COVID-19 on the medical certificate of cause of death

COVID-19 should be recorded on the medical certificate of cause of death for all decedents where the disease caused, or is assumed to have caused, or contributed to death.

In other words, just make it up.

Posted on

Cochrane Canada: WHO Partner; OST Partner; McMaster University Affiliate

Cochrane Canada is listed as a partner for the Ontario Science Table. However, there are important things about this organization that are not being publicly discussed. For starters, Cochrane is partnered with the World Health Organization, and receives funding from them. Cochrane (the parent org) also gets funding from various Governments and universities.

What is the end result of this? Cochrane helps to legitimize the actions of the very Governments that it gets funded from. After all, it refuses to accept commercial funding.

It’s a bit like the 2003 Iraq war. U.S. Government Officials leaked their “information” to various journalists. Those journalists were then cited as sources to show there were weapons of mass destruction.

Cochrane is for anyone interested in using high-quality information to make health decisions. Whether you are a doctor or nurse, patient or carer, researcher or funder, Cochrane evidence provides a powerful tool to enhance your healthcare knowledge and decision making.

Cochrane’s members and supporters come from more than 130 countries, worldwide. Our volunteers and contributors are researchers, health professionals, patients, carers, and people passionate about improving health outcomes for everyone, everywhere. Our global independent network gathers and summarizes the best evidence from research to help you make informed choices about treatment and we have been doing this for 25 years.

We do not accept commercial or conflicted funding. This is vital for us to generate authoritative and reliable information, working freely, unconstrained by commercial and financial interests.

Cochrane appears to have legitimacy, because it only takes money from Government or academic sources. But then it publishes material that validates the actions and conclusions of those very parties. It’s pay-for-play, but with very serious consequences.

The largest single donor to Cochrane (globally) is the National Institute for Health Research in the UK. But it’s worth pointing out that the World Health Organization is high up on that list.

More than 1 million GBP

  • National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) (UK)
  • Danish Health Authorities (Denmark)
  • National Institutes of Health (USA)

500k to 1 million GBP

  • Federal Ministry of Health (Germany)

100k to 500k GBP

  • South African Medical Research Council
  • Anonymous non‐profit organizations (charitable donations or commissioned work)
  • Department for International Development (UK)
  • Cochrane Charity ‐ central funds awarded
  • National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia)
  • Chief Scientist Office (Scotland)
  • World Health Organization
  • McMaster University (Canada)
  • Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (Norway)
  • Ministry of Health (New Zealand)
  • Ministry of Health, British Columbia (Canada)
  • Lower Austrian Health and Social Fund (Austria)
  • Laura & John Arnold Foundation
  • South African Department of Health
  • Institut national du Cancer (France)

50k to 100k GBP

  • Ministry of Health (Austria)
  • laurence le cleach (France)
  • HSC Research and Development (Northern Ireland)
  • Ministerio de Sanidad, Servicios Sociales e Igualdad/Ministry of Health, Social Services and Equality (Spain)
  • Joint Research Centre (Italy)
  • Vermont Oxford Network
  • Swiss Medical Board
  • Ministry of Health and Welfare (Taiwan)
  • The Gerber Foundation
  • Ciber de Epidemiología y Salud Pública (Spain)
  • Centre for Future Health, University of York / Wellcome (UK)
  • The National Health Research Institutes (Taiwan)
  • Skåne University Hospital (Sweden)

20k to 50k GBP

  • National Research Foundation (South Africa)
  • Federal Ministry of Education and Research (Germany)
  • University of Vermont, Larner College of Medicine (USA)
  • Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine (South Africa)
  • Cochrane Oral Health Global Alliance
  • Lund University (Sweden)
  • Federal Ministry of Education (Nigeria)
  • National Institute for Medical Research Development (Iran)
  • European Respiratory Society
  • Farncombe Family gift
  • Canadian Rheumatology Association
  • The Global Fund
  • Northumberland, Tyne and Wear NHS Foundation Trust (

    • UK)

  • Monash University (Australia)
  • University of York (UK)
  • Ministry of Science and Technology (Taiwan)
  • Institut de Recerca de Sant Pau (Spain)
  • Public Health Wales
  • Instituto Ramón y Cajal de Investigación Sanitaria (IRYCIS) (Spain)
  • Kazan Federal University Program, Federal Ministry of Education and Science (Russia)
  • Universidad Francisco de Vitoria (Spain)
  • Dr. Peter Tugwell University Account (Canada)
  • Hamilton Health Sciences
  • State of Lower Austria
  • Lazio Region (Italy)
  • Universidad Tecnológica Equinoccial (Ecuador)
  • Niederösterreich Gesundheits und Sozialfonds (NOGUS)/Health and Social Funds, Lower Austria (Austria)
  • Odense University Hospital, University of Southern Denmark
    Canadian Association of Gastroenterology (Canada)
  • Anonymous non‐profit organization (charitable donation)

    • 10k to 20k GBP

    • American College of Gastroenterology (USA)
    • Navarre Health Service (Spain)
    • Foundation IRCCS ‐ Istituto Neurologico Carlo Besta, Milan (Italy)
    • Federal Ministry of Health (Nigeria)
    • University of Pécs (Hungary)
    • Campbell Collaboration
    • Economic and Social Research Council (UK)
    • Workshop 2018/2019
    • Medical Center – University of Freiburg (Germany)
    • Training (self‐funded)
    • Erasmus University (Netherlands)
    • Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University (South Africa)
    • Ministry of Health and Regione Lombardia (Italy)
    • INSTITUTO DE EVALUACIÓN TECNOLÓGICA EN SALUD ‐ IETS‐ and UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL DE COLOMBIA (Colombia)
    • PROPUESTA PARA LA ESTRUCTURACION TECNICA Y OPERATIVA DE UN MODELO DE EXCELENCIA PARA LA RUTA INTEGRAL DE

    0.5k to 10k GBP

    • University Hospital Gaetano Martino Messina (Italy)
    • Faculdade de Medicina de Lisboa (Portugal)
    • Region Skåne (Sweden)
    • University of Copenhagen (Denmark)
    • MDS Foundation (Portugal)
    • Mapi Research Trust
    • CHU de Québec ‐ université Laval research center: Population Health and Optimal Health Practices (Canada)
    • Canada research chair critical care neurology and trauma (Canada)
    • Instituto Universitario Hospital Italiano (Italy)
    • Jagiellonian University Medical College (Poland)
    • University of the Basque Country (Spain)
    • Cochrane Canada
    • National Insitute for Clincal Excellence (NICE) (UK)
    • University of Split, School of Medicine (Croatia)
    • Cochrane Japan (commissioned work)
    • INSTITUTO SALVADOREÑO DE SEGURO SOCIAL ISSS and INSTITUTO DE INVESTIGACIONES CLÍNICAS DE LA UNIVERSIDAD NAC
    • Cochrane Response
    • Ministry of Science and Education (Croatia)
    • Pan American Health Organization (PAHO)
    • City of Zagreb (Croatia)
    • Motor Neurone Disease Association (UK)
    • RCSI & UCD Malaysia Campus (formerly Penang Medical College) (Malaysia)
    • John Wiley & Sons, Ltd
    • Center for Primary Care and Public Health (Unisanté), Lausanne, Switzerland (formerly Institute of Social and Preventive Med
    • German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD)
    • City of Split (Canada)
    • Split‐Dalmatia County (Croatia)
    • Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts

    Less than 500 GBP

    • Center for Reproductive Medicine (Netherlands)
    • Health Authority, Umbria Region (Italy)

    As for the operation of Cochrane Canada, it is tied to McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario. In fact, several people have an interest in that school.

    McMaster is a major donor to Cochrane, as is the British Columbia Ministry of Health.

    In 2016, the Michael G. DeGroote Cochrane Canada Centre formalized a move from the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute (OHRI) to its original home of McMaster University – widely acknowledged as the home of evidence-based medicine.

    The Centre supports Cochrane initiatives across the country by conducting education activities, functioning as the communications and knowledge brokering lead for Cochrane Canada, and advocating for the use of evidence in decision-making within Canada.

    Link to search IRS charity tax records:
    https://apps.irs.gov/app/eos/

    Let’s clarify here: there are actually 2 separate entities. The Foundation is the group that distributes money to various organizations and institutions. The Foundation Trust, however, is concerned primarily about asset management.

    BILL & MELINDA GATES FOUNDATION
    EIN: 56-2618866
    gates.foundation.taxes.2016
    gates.foundation.taxes.2017
    gates.foundation.taxes.2018

    BILL & MELINDA GATES FOUNDATION TRUST
    EIN: 91-1663695
    gates.foundation.trust.taxes.2018

    Above are records from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. The records are publicly available with the IRS. The top is from the year 2017, and the bottom 2018.

    McMaster claimed to have isolated the virus that causes Covid-19. That’s very interesting, considering that when Fluoride Free Peel did a freedom of information request for it, there were no records available.

    $21 million from the Gates Foundation since 2015, according to their publications. Is McMaster University an institution we can trust, or has it been corrupted by special interest money and ideology?

    Also, is Cochrane (either Cochrane Canada, or the parent organization) something that we can trust? Or is it just helping conceal the intentions of interested parties?

    IMPORTANT LINKS
    (1) https://covid19-sciencetable.ca/our-partners/
    (2) https://covid19-sciencetable.ca/our-partners/
    (3) https://esnetwork.ca/
    (4) https://www.cochrane.org
    (5) https://www.cochrane.org/about-us/our-funders-and-partners
    (6) https://canada.cochrane.org/about-us/micheal-g-degroote-cochrane-canada-centre
    (7) https://apps.irs.gov/app/eos/
    (8) https://healthsci.mcmaster.ca/home/2020/03/13/mcmaster-researcher-plays-key-role-in-isolating-covid-19-virus-for-use-in-urgent-research
    (9) https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/university-of-toronto-sunnybrook-hsc-have-no-record-of-covid-19-virus-isolation/
    (10) https://www.gatesfoundation.org/about/committed-grants/2019/11/inv003448
    (11) https://www.gatesfoundation.org/about/committed-grants/2019/11/inv003448
    (12) https://www.gatesfoundation.org/about/committed-grants/2015/06/opp1129405
    (13) https://www.gatesfoundation.org/about/committed-grants?q=mcmaster%20#jump-nav-anchor0

    EARLIER IN THIS SERIES
    (a) Michael Warner Financially Benefits From Prolonged Lockdowns
    (b) Who Is Ontario Deputy Medical Officer, Barbara Yaffe?
    (c) OST, Monopoly From The University Of Toronto Connected
    (d) OST, University Of Toronto, Look At Their Members And Partners
    (e) OST’s Robert Steiner Claims To Be Behind PHAC Canada Creation
    (f) OST’s Kwame McKenzie Headed 2017 UBI Pilot Project
    (g) OST UofT Prelude Actually Set Out In May 2019
    (h) OST’s Murty Has Tech Firm That Benefits From Lockdowns
    (i) OST: Como Foundation Gives Trillium Health Partners $5M
    (j) OST: Current PHO Officials Also Sitting On As Partners
    (k) OST: Canadian Agency For Drugs & Technologies In Health; pCPA
    (l) OST: Centre For Effective Practice Gets Money From Lockdown

    Posted on

    OST; WHO; Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH), Pan-Canadian Pharmaceutical Alliance

    The Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH), is a partner of the Ontario Science Table, or OST. However, CADTH is also a working group for the World Health Organization, Health Evidence Network. Now, OST “claims” to be a neutral and independent body giving scientific and medical advice. Question, is CADTH compromised, or can this do really serve 2 (or more) masters?

    The Health Evidence Network describes itself in the following way:

    Recognizing that public health, health care and health systems policy-makers need access to timely, independent and reliable health information for decision-making, WHO/Europe started HEN in 2003. It acts as a platform, providing evidence in multiple formats to help decision-making.

    The Health Evidence Network also claims to be independent, much the way OST does. Interestingly, they always have the exact same recommendations to make.

    Previously Theresa Tam got flack for being on a World Health Organization Committee, while simultaneously claiming to represent Canada as the Public Health Officer. It seems these kinds of conflicts of interest are normal, and not the exception.

    CADTH, the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health, claims to be

    an independent, not-for-profit organization responsible for providing health care decision-makers with objective evidence to help make informed decisions about the optimal use of health technologies.

    Created in 1989 by Canada’s federal, provincial, and territorial governments, CADTH was born from the idea that Canada needs a coordinated approach to assessing health technologies. The result was an organization that harnesses Canadian expertise from every region and produces evidence-informed solutions that benefit patients in jurisdictions across the country.

    CADTH claims to be independent, just like OST claims to be independent. The WHO Health Evidence Network also says that it’s an independent entity. Keep that in mind, as it will become important later on. Now, who actually runs CADTH?

    • David Agnew: held the position of President and CEO of UNICEF Canada, and was the first head of the organization recruited from outside the international development sector. He is the past Chair of Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre and of Colleges Ontario. He also serves on numerous other boards and committees, including the Toronto Region Immigrant Employment Council, the Council on Foreign Relations’ Higher Education Working Group on Global Issues, the Sichuan University International Advisory Board, the CivicAction Steering Committee and the Canadian Ditchley Foundation Advisory Board. He is a former member of the federal government’s Science, Technology, and Innovation Council, a former director of ventureLAB and the Empire Club of Canada, and has served on the campaign cabinets of the United Way in Toronto and Peel.
    • Marcel Saulnier, Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic Policy Branch, Health Canada
    • Western Provinces, Mitch Moneo, Assistant Deputy Minister, Pharmaceutical Services Division, Ministry of Health, British Columbia
    • Mark Wyatt, Assistant Deputy Minister, Saskatchewan Ministry of Health
    • Territories, Stephen Samis, Deputy Minister, Health and Social Services, Government of Yukon
    • Ontario, Patrick Dicerni, Assistant Deputy Minister, Drugs and Devices Division and Executive Officer, Ontario Public Drug Programs
    • Atlantic Provinces, Jeannine Lagassé, Associate Deputy Minister of Health and Wellness, Province of Nova Scotia.
    • Karen Stone, Deputy Minister of Health and Community Services (NL)
    • Health Systems, Dr. Brendan Carr, President and CEO of the Nova Scotia Health Authority

    The Board of Directors of CADTH primarily is made up of high level bureaucrats in Canada, such as Associate Deputy Ministers. Far from being independent, this board is in fact connected to Provincial and Federal Governments.

    • drugs
    • diagnostic tests
    • medical, dental, and surgical devices and procedures

    CADTH makes recommendations whether to accept certain medical devices and procedures. They also make recommendations on pharmaceuticals. This is interesting, considering that they don’t seem to do any research themselves. In fact, looking up the term “gene therapy” nets a lot of results.

    Strange, because aren’t the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA “vaccines” really just a form of gene replacement therapy? It seems this technology has been around for a while.

    Although this may seem harmless enough, there is another aspect to what these Provincial bureaucrats are doing. It’s not only that they want to review and make recommendations, but they want to PROMOTE cheap pharmaceuticals as well.

    The pan-Canadian Pharmaceutical Alliance (pCPA) is an alliance of the provincial, territorial and federal governments that collaborates on a range of public drug plan initiatives to increase and manage access to clinically effective and affordable drug treatments.

    One of pCPA’s key roles is to conduct joint negotiations for brand name and generic drugs in Canada in order to achieve greater value for publicly funded drug programs and patients through its combined negotiating power. Its objectives are to:

  • increase access to clinically effective and cost-effective drug treatment options;
  • achieve consistent and lower drug costs for participating jurisdictions;
  • reduce duplication of effort and improve use of resources; and
  • improve consistency of decisions among participating jurisdictions.

    • (Alberta) Chad Mitchell, Assistant Deputy Minister
    (British Columbia) Mitch Moneo, Assistant Deputy Minister (Vice-Chair, Acting)
    (Manitoba) Teresa Mrozek, (A) Assistant Deputy Minister
    (New Brunswick) Mark Wies, Assistant Deputy Minister
    (Newfoundland & Labrador) John McGrath, (A) Assistant Deputy Minister
    (Northwest Territories) Derek Elkin, Assistant Deputy Minister
    (Nova Scotia) Natalie Borden, Executive Director
    (Nunavut) Donna Mulvey, Territorial Director
    (Ontario) Patrick Dicerni, Assistant Deputy Minister; Executive Officer
    (Prince Edward Island) Lori Ellis, Director of Health Workforce Planning and Pharmacy
    (Quebec) Lucie Opatrny, Assistant Deputy Minister
    (Saskatchewan) Mark Wyatt, Assistant Deputy Minister (Chair)
    (Yukon) Amy Riske, Assistant Deputy Minister
    (Federal) Scott Doidge, Director General

    Notice anything? Just like with CADTH, the pan-Canadian Pharmaceutical Alliance is also run by top bureaucrats in the Governments. In fact, Mitch Moneo of B.C., and Mark Wyatt of Saskatchewan sit on both groups. the goal of this group is getting cheap, generic drugs available to all Canadians.

    Now, these bureaucrats, and their colleagues, are also involved with the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health, which approves drugs, procedures, and medical devices.

    And CADTH is a partner of the Ontario Science Table, which is pushing: mass vaccination, drugs for other health issues, mandatory masks, and lockdowns which will drive up the use of internet and virtual health care.

    The pCPA site explains the process like this:
    Health Canada reviews the drugs, which is not the same as actually testing them. Then CADTH and INESSS (the Quebec counterpart), review it to see if this is a cost effective way to go. Then pCPA tries to negotiate for cheaper and more affordable drug prices. Eventually it gets worked into public and private drug plans.

    Back to the original point: the Ontario Science Table claims to be an independent group. But it’s partnered with (among others) CADTH, who plays a major role in advancing big pharma in Canada.

    IMPORTANT LINKS
    (a) https://www.euro.who.int/en/data-and-evidence/evidence-informed-policy-making/health-evidence-network-hen/technical-members/current-technical-members/canadian-agency-for-drugs-and-technologies-in-health-cadth,-canada
    (b) https://covid19-sciencetable.ca/our-partners/
    (c) https://www.cadth.ca/about-cadth
    (d) https://www.cadth.ca/about-cadth/who-we-are/board-of-directors
    (e) https://www.pcpacanada.ca/
    (f) https://www.pcpacanada.ca/governance
    (g) https://www.pcpacanada.ca/faq
    (h) https://www.pcpacanada.ca/about

    EARLIER IN THIS SERIES
    (a) Michael Warner Financially Benefits From Prolonged Lockdowns
    (b) Who Is Ontario Deputy Medical Officer, Barbara Yaffe?
    (c) OST, Monopoly From The University Of Toronto Connected
    (d) OST, University Of Toronto, Look At Their Members And Partners
    (e) OST’s Robert Steiner Claims To Be Behind PHAC Canada Creation
    (f) OST’s Kwame McKenzie Headed 2017 UBI Pilot Project
    (g) OST UofT Prelude Actually Set Out In May 2019
    (h) OST’s Murty Has Tech Firm That Benefits From Lockdowns
    (i) Como Foundation Gives Trillium Health Partners $5M
    (j) Current PHO Officials Also Sitting On Ontario Science Table

    Posted on

    Public Health Ontario A Semi-Autonomous Corporation, Whose Leaders Sit With ON Science Table

    According to the Ontario Agency for Health Protection and Promotion Act, 2007, the Ontario Agency for Health Protection and Promotion was created, which is now referred to as Public Health Ontario. The timing is interesting, given that its creation aligns with the 2005 Quarantine Act, which itself is the result of the 3rd Edition of the International Health Regulations from the World Health Organization.

    For some background information, here is more on the WHO-IHR, the Quarantine Act, and Ontario‘s own Health Act. It’s worth also addressing PHAC, and its self-proclaimed advisor, Robert Steiner, who also sits on OST. These are not independent events, but are directly linked.

    This entity (referred to as Public Health Ontario, or PHO), is set up and structured as a corporation. It’s a Crown Corporation, mostly autonomous from the Government.

    Powers
    7 (1) Except as limited by this Act, the Corporation has the capacity, rights and powers of a natural person for carrying out its objects. 2007, c. 10, Sched. K, s. 7 (1).

    This group is to have the same rights and powers as an actual person which is not weird at all. The Act also indemnifies any employees or officers or directors from any liability, as long as they claim to be acting in good faith.

    IMMUNITY AND UNPAID JUDGMENTS
    No actions or proceedings against Crown
    26 No proceeding for damages or otherwise shall be commenced against the Crown, the Minister or any person employed by the Crown with respect to any act done or omitted to be done or any decision of the Corporation, a director or officer of the Corporation, a member of a standing committee or a person employed by the Corporation. 2007, c. 10, Sched. K, s. 26.

    Immunity from civil action
    27 (1) No proceeding for damages or otherwise shall be commenced against the Minister, a director or officer of the Corporation, a member of a standing committee, or any person employed by the Crown or the Corporation, with respect to any act done or omitted to be done or any decision under this Act that is done in good faith in the execution or intended execution of a power or duty under this Act. 2007, c. 10, Sched. K, s. 27 (1); 2011, c. 1, Sched. 6, s. 7 (1).

    Nothing shows that people take responsibility for their actions quite like giving them a pass for the possible consequences. There are limited provisions for taking action against the Crown itself, but not members involved.

    Anyhow, that Act specifies that this corporation is to act as an autonomous and mostly independent group from the Government. This would be similar to Alberta Health Services operates.

    Now, PHO is structured as a corporation, and is designed to be an arm’s length operation from the Crown. Okay. But looking at who runs it, some familiar faces appear.

    • Brian Schwartz is Vice President of PHO
    • Vanessa Allen is Chief, Microbiology and Laboratory Science at PHO
    • Jessica Hopkins, Chief Health Protection and Emergency Preparedness Officer at PHO
    • Samir Patel, Deputy Chief, Microbiology and Laboratory Science at PHO

    Some interesting names in the Leadership of Public Health Ontario. Why should we care about who any of them are? There’s a really simple reason.

    In case it wasn’t clear, here is the point: several high ranking members of Public Health Ontario are also members of the Ontario Science Table. Keep in mind, the OST presents itself as neutral and independent expert advice. At the same time, officials from a Crown Corporation in that same Province are part of their organization.

    Considering that PHO functions as an extension of the World Health Organization, and implements their dictates, what kind of perspectives will these people bring to OST? Will they simply implement the same ideas, cloaked as “science”, or will they offer radically different policies? So far, it seems to be the former.

    When these people speak at OST events and gatherings, are they talking as scientists working independently for the health of Ontarians overall? Or, are they acting in the capacity of Public Health Ontario representatives? Unless the OST is an extension of PHO, there are bound to be conflicts of interest.

    It’s a bit like Theresa Tam, who has a page as the Public Health Officer of Canada, but who also as a page for a World Health Organization Advisory Committee. These people even use the same photographs.

    On a related note: Deputy Prime Minister, and Finance Minister, Chrystia Freeland is also a Trustee at the World Economic Forum. Other prominent politicians are also involved with that organization.

    The mess that is the covered before, and more is likely to be added. Far from being independent, OST is rotten to the core with conflicts of interests, and members who have side ventures.

    Do the OST and Trillium Health Partners really think that mask mandates are in the public’s best interest? Or did a $5 million donation from a mask manufacturer change their minds? Does Michael Warner‘s side business influence his support for lockdowns? What About Kumar Murty‘s business interests? Or Kwame McKenzie‘s 2017 Ontario UBI project?

    Final thoughts to readers in Ontario: do you have any clue who is really running health care in Ontario? Do you know who is actually running the Province? Who’s behind the martial law masked as medical necessity? Think Doug Ford or Christine Elliott are anything but puppets?