Category: Vaccines

Posted on

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 After all, the Protective Measures (COVID-19) Order was repealed on June 28, 2021.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

Posted on

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

Posted on

Ford Still Lobbied By Political Operatives On Behalf Of Vaccine Companies

This is just the latest installment of the ongoing series: “Who’s pulling Doug Ford’s strings?” And in a twist that should surprise no one, it’s more of big pharma. This time, it’s AstraZeneca and GlaxoSmithKline.

The GSK listings here came up with 1 useful name, while there were a few with AZ. It must also be said, that this industry has been going on for a long time.

Nadia Yee worked as a manager for GlaxoSmithKline for several years. Her role was to get more drugs out to the public. She is currently a Senior Manager for AstraZeneca. Before becoming a drug lobbyist, she worked in the Government of Mike Harris/Ernie Eves, the “Conservatives” in power before Ford.

Jon Feairs started off in the Interim Program in the Ontario Legislature. He then went to work for M.P.P. Mike Gravelle (a Liberal). He then went on to hold several roles in the Government under McGuinty and Wynne.

Ryan Lock held several roles in different Ministries of the Liberal Governments of Wynne/McGuinty, before he joined GlaxoSmithKline in 2016. More examples of the revolving door.

Since we last checked in on Jessica Georgakopoulos, she has done more lobbying including for GSK. Keep in mind, she worked in Ford’s Office, and was his “Covid Communications Director” for a time. It’s not like she was close to the Premier and access to him, or anything like that.

Keep in mind, while other lobbyists may not have officially held roles in the Governments they seek to infleunce, companies like AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, and others, all have dedicated marketing and sales teams to pitch their products to public.

What else is going on lately?

Susan Baker spent nearly a decade in the Ontario Ministry of Health, and would have served under Liberal, NDP and Conservative rule. She now lobbies for Innovative Medicines Canada

Conrad Bellehumeur spent years working for the Government of Canada before becoming a lobbyist for IM Canada. Considering how many politicians switch between Provincial and Federal, it would be interesting to know who he associates with.

Anne-Sophie Belzile was an Advisor to the Canadian Senate, and Advisor the Liberal Party of Canada, and worked for Martha Hall Findley.

There has also been some recent activity on behalf of Pfizer. Let’s see who is behind all of that.

Steven Hogue spent several years working for the Liberal Government of Jean Chretien, prior to him becoming a lobbyist for Pfizer. It seems that it’s paid off.

Alexis Sciuk took a different path. Although she doesn’t have connections to politicians listed, she has been in the Canadian media for quite a while

Gillian (Zimmerman) Kennedy was a Senior Policy Advisor and Strategist for the Ontario Government when Dalton McGuinty was Premier. Now, she works for the pharma industry.

What can we expect from all of this? More lockdowns? More shots or boosters needed? Ever get the sense that Ford is just along for the ride? If you haven’t figured out by now that Ford is a tool for the drug lobby, you haven’t been paying attention.

(1) http://lobbyist.oico.on.ca/Pages/Public/PublicSearch/
(2) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/advSrch
(3) https://www.linkedin.com/in/nadia-yee-050765a/
(4) https://archive.is/UlkMf
(5) https://www.linkedin.com/in/jon-feairs-826b5739/
(6) https://archive.is/9fj0j
(7) https://www.linkedin.com/in/ryan-lock-6b6899b/
(8) https://archive.is/62e0P
(9) https://www.linkedin.com/in/jessica-georgakopoulos-931b5523/
(10) https://archive.is/JGWso
(11) https://www.linkedin.com/in/susan-baker-b9359640/
(12) https://archive.is/QROy9
(13) https://www.linkedin.com/in/conradbellehumeur/
(14) https://archive.is/cafE0
(15) https://www.linkedin.com/in/anne-sophie-belzile-28843114/
(16) https://archive.is/LsuLR
(17) https://www.linkedin.com/in/steven-hogue-559837/
(18) https://archive.is/eUddr
(19) https://www.linkedin.com/in/alexis-sciuk/
(20) https://archive.is/D4zhI
(21) https://www.linkedin.com/in/gillian-kennedy-mba-b4029325/
(22) https://archive.is/sSfLl

Posted on

Bit Of History: University Of Toronto, Public Health, Funded With Rockefeller Money

[Reprinted without permission]

The Rockefeller Foundation’s contributions to the University of Toronto have been an important part of its global philanthropic agenda in support of health, food, employment, cities, energy and innovation over the past century.

Established in 1913, the Rockefeller Foundation has disbursed more than US$17 billion in today’s dollars. Among its achievements, the foundation played a role in the founding of the field of public health, developed vaccines for diseases such as yellow fever and malaria, and led a global transformation of agriculture that has saved millions of lives.

Created by American industrialist John D. Rockefeller, the foundation is also a major supporter of educational institutions. It established the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, and schools of public health at both Harvard and Johns Hopkins Universities. It became a major benefactor of the University of Toronto following the discovery of insulin in 1921 by Frederick Banting and Charles Best.

The following year, the foundation donated several million dollars to U of T for a chair of surgery and to fund construction of anatomy and pathology labs. The foundation also helped establish the School of Hygiene, which housed the Departments of Hygiene and Preventive Medicine, Public Health Nursing, Epidemiology and Biometrics, and Physical Hygiene, as well as a Division of Industrial Hygiene. It incorporated the existing Connaught Laboratories, then a global leader in the development and manufacture of vaccines.

In 1933, further contributions helped create the School of Nursing, transforming the program at U of T from a diploma course for existing nurses into a fully-fledged bachelor’s degree program in a new departmental building at Queen’s Park Crescent. Other Rockefeller gifts helped found programs in Chinese Studies in 1934, and the Department of Slavic Studies in 1949.

The foundation’s leadership in global philanthropy for more than a century has had a tremendous impact. Its support for education and research at U of T has played a major role in building our impressive global legacy.

Certainly not the only major donor. However, no one else has given anywhere close to $17 billion places like the University of Toronto (adjusted for inflation). Check out other major names. Correction: an earlier interpretation of the announcement thought it was $17B exclusively to this school.

Kind of makes one wonder who financed the various outlets at the school, such as the Centre for Vaccine-Preventable Diseases, the WHO Collaboration Centre.

One notable set of donors are William (Bill) Graham and Catherin Graham. Bill is a former Defense Minister of Canada, former Foreign Affairs Minister, and former Interim Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada. In total, they have contributed from $10.4 million.

This is quite the rabbit hole, but a few points to consider:

While this may be coincidental, the U.S. Federal Reserve came into existence in 1913. This led to the latest iteration of debt based currency, and debt slavery in that country.

The Rockefeller Foundation recently announced a $13.5 million grant, mostly for the U.S., to be spent on combatting misinformation.

The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine is listed as being founded by Rockefeller. From their own website: “The Rockefeller Foundation invented an international health system virtually overnight in 1914, simultaneously launching a pilot project throughout Central America and the British Caribbean to treat hookworm disease and lay the foundations of permanent departments of health under the auspices of its International Health Board.”

The LSHTM, much like Imperial College London, and the Vaccine Impact Modelling Consortium, receive heavy financing from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

  • European Commission
  • European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA)
  • Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI)
  • GlaxoSmithKline
  • Merck
  • University College London
  • Johnson & Johnson
  • UNICEF

The Vaccine Confidence Project, headed by Heidi Larson, is run by the LSHTM. Unsurprisingly, pharma companies are the biggest donors. After all, VCP is generating newer and larger markets for their products.

Johns Hopkins University has been running pandemic “scenarios” for many years. Makes one wonder how much of any of this is actually real.

In 2016, the ID2020 group was started. Among its initial partners are the Rockefeller Foundation, Microsoft, and GAVI, the Global Vaccine Alliance.

Rockefeller founded (along with others), the Climate Bonds Initiative. And this is hardly the only organization. Those carbon taxes people hate paying are going to make a limited number of people very rich.

And as mentioned before, UofT is structured as a charity.

Some interesting bits of information that most people probably never think about.

(1) https://www.chancellorscircle.utoronto.ca/members/the-rockefeller-foundation/
(2) https://archive.is/8r2eH
(3) Wayback Machine
(4) https://www.utoronto.ca/news/u-t-opens-groundbreaking-centre-strengthen-vaccine-confidence-through-collaboration
(5) https://www.dlsph.utoronto.ca/who-collaborating-centre-on-health-promotion/
(6) https://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/our-work/events-archive/2001_dark-winter/index.html
(7) https://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/our-work/events-archive/2005_atlantic_storm/index.html
(8) https://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/our-work/events/2018_clade_x_exercise/index.html
(9) https://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/event201/
(10) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Rockefeller.Foundation.lockstep.2010.pdf
(11) https://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/news/the-rockefeller-foundation-commits-13-5-million-in-funding-to-strengthen-public-health-response-efforts/
(12) https://id2020.org/alliance
(13) https://www.lshtm.ac.uk/newsevents/events/rockefeller-foundation-parasitism-and-peripheral-origins-global-health
(14) https://www.vaccineconfidence.org/
(15) https://www.vaccineconfidence.org/partners-funders
(16) https://canucklaw.ca/cv-24-gates-financing-of-imperial-college-london-and-their-modelling/
(17) https://canucklaw.ca/cv-24b-london-school-of-hygiene-tropical-medicine-more-modelling-financed-by-gates/
(18) https://canucklaw.ca/cv-24c-vaccine-impact-modelling-consortium-more-bogus-science/
(19) https://www.climatebonds.net/about/funders

Posted on

BCOHRC Deliberately Misrepresents Basic Information In Vaccination “Guidance”

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

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

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

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

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

From page 3:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Except they aren’t approved. From page 8:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello,

I run a small site in BC and came across this

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

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

Any chance of getting in touch?

Thanks,
Ronnie (Editor)
XXX-XXX-XXXX

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

Hello Ronnie,

Thank you for reaching out to us.

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

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

Thank you,
Elaine

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

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

Hello Elaine

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks,
Ronnie

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

Hi Ronnie,

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

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

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

Thank you,
Elaine

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

Hello Elaine,

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

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

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

Thanks,
Ronnie

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

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

Hi Ronnie,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you,
Elaine

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

Hello Elaine,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hopefully I’m wrong,
Thanks,
Ronnie

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

Hello Ronnie,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you,
Elaine

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

Hello Elaine,

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

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

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

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

Thanks.
Ronnie

Hi Ronnie,

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

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

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

Thank you,
Elaine

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

Posted on

Rockefeller Spends $13.5 Million To Combat “Misinformation” In U.S., Elsewhere

Think that it’s only taxpayers who are funding efforts to stop so-called “misinformation”? Turns out, the Rockefeller Foundation is financing it as well, and this is quite the contribution.

July 15, 2021—The Rockefeller Foundation is announcing $13.5 million in new funding to strengthen Covid-19 response efforts in the U.S., Africa, India, and Latin America to counter health mis- and disinformation – confusing, inaccurate, and harmful information that spreads at an unprecedented speed and scale and threatens the health and wellbeing of communities around the world. The announcement responds immediately to Confronting Health Misinformation: The U.S. Surgeon General’s Advisory on Building a Healthy Information Environment, which calls for a “whole-of-society” effort so that people around the world know what to do—and trust the sources they hear from—during a public health emergency.

“By identifying mis- and disinformation as a challenge to our collective health, the Surgeon General’s guidance reinforces The Rockefeller Foundation’s role in investing in data-driven public health interventions to meet the unique challenges of today’s media environment,” said Bruce Gellin, Chief of Global Public Health Strategy at The Rockefeller Foundation.

The funding will support the design and evaluation of interventions, tools, and methods to build trust in Covid-19 vaccination efforts and counter inaccurate information, and research to understand how inaccurate health information impacts online and offline behaviors, the true cost of mis- and disinformation on health and economic outcomes, and what strategies might be most effective to counter and manage inaccurate and harmful information from malicious sources. Funded projects will provide a foundation for modern information and communication networks that better serve people and are better prepared to encourage actions and behaviors essential to public health response efforts. Detailed information is slated to be released by the end of 2021.

“Science alone is not sufficient to drive action: the best data analysis in the world will not stop an outbreak if people at risk are not aware of the problem, do not think it is a real threat, do not trust the messenger, or do not know what actions to take to protect themselves and their loves ones,” said Estelle Willie, Director of Health Policy and Communications at The Rockefeller Foundation. “The Rockefeller Foundation’s $13.5 million commitment is a direct acknowledgment that effective public health begins with effective communication that cuts through the noise and confusion stemming from mis- and disinformation.”

Today’s announcement marks another step in The Rockefeller Foundation’s commitment to reinvigorate public health for the 21st century so that the world can effectively prevent, detect, and respond to health threats to avert future pandemics. This investment builds on the Foundation’s U.S. Equity-First Vaccination Initiative, which supports community-based organizations serving people of color with the expertise and resources to own and drive evidence-based, misinformation-resilient conversations about vaccines in their communities. Launched in April 2021, the year-long initiative will identify effective strategies to increase vaccine confidence in diverse communities, and assess, to the extent possible, the role misinformation plays in shaping knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs about Covid-19 vaccines.

“Vaccine equity” is a term that’s based on the assumption that racism and structural inequalities are the reasons that certain minorities are unable to get vaccines in high enough numbers.

Of course, Rockefeller is also the same organization who brought the “Lockstep Narrative” back in 2010. It was also a partner in the 2016 project, ID2020.

Don’t worry, nothing to see here.

(1) https://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/news/the-rockefeller-foundation-commits-13-5-million-in-funding-to-strengthen-public-health-response-efforts/
(2) https://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/covid-19-response/achieving-vaccine-equity/
(3) Rockefeller.Foundation.lockstep.2010
(4) https://id2020.org/alliance

*Disclaimers, Ethics* Proudly powered by WordPress