Category: Vaccines

Posted on

WHO Advises Not To Vaccinate Children, Then Changes It Secretly

As of 3 June 2021, WHO has evaluated that the following vaccines against COVID-19 have met the necessary criteria for safety and efficacy:

  • AstraZeneca/Oxford vaccine
  • Johnson and Johnson
  • Moderna
  • Pfizer/BionTech
  • Sinopharm
  • Sinovac

Read our Q&A on the Emergency Use Listing process to find out more about how WHO assesses the quality, safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines.

Some national regulators have also assessed other COVID-19 vaccine products for use in their countries.

Take whatever vaccine is made available to you first, even if you have already had COVID-19. It is important to be vaccinated as soon as possible once it’s your turn and not wait. Approved COVID-19 vaccines provide a high degree of protection against getting seriously ill and dying from the disease, although no vaccine is 100% protective.

WHO SHOULD GET VACCINATED

The COVID-19 vaccines are safe for most people 18 years and older, including those with pre-existing conditions of any kind, including auto-immune disorders. These conditions include: hypertension, diabetes, asthma, pulmonary, liver and kidney disease, as well as chronic infections that are stable and controlled.

If supplies are limited in your area, discuss your situation with your care provider if you:

-Have a compromised immune system
-Are pregnant (if you are already breastfeeding, you should continue after vaccination)
-Have a history of severe allergies, particularly to a vaccine (or any of the ingredients in the vaccine)
-Are severely frail

Children should not be vaccinated for the moment.

There is not yet enough evidence on the use of vaccines against COVID-19 in children to make recommendations for children to be vaccinated against COVID-19. Children and adolescents tend to have milder disease compared to adults. However, children should continue to have the recommended childhood vaccines.

WHAT SHOULD I DO AND EXPECT AFTER GETTING VACCINATED

Stay at the place where you get vaccinated for at least 15 minutes afterwards, just in case you have an unusual reaction, so health workers can help you.

Check when you should come in for a second dose – if needed. Most of the vaccines available are two-dose vaccines. Check with your care provider whether you need to get a second dose and when you should get it. Second doses help boost the immune response and strengthen immunity.

In most cases, minor side effects are normal. Common side effects after vaccination, which indicate that a person’s body is building protection to COVID-19 infection include:

-Arm soreness
-Mild fever
-Tiredness
-Headaches
-Muscle or joint aches

Contact your care provider if there is redness or tenderness (pain) where you got the shot that increases after 24 hours, or if side effects do not go away after a few days.

If you experience an immediate severe allergic reaction to a first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine, you should not receive additional doses of the vaccine. It’s extremely rare for severe health reactions to be directly caused by vaccines.

Taking painkillers such as paracetamol before receiving the COVID-19 vaccine to prevent side effects is not recommended. This is because it is not known how painkillers may affect how well the vaccine works. However, you may take paracetamol or other painkillers if you do develop side effects such as pain, fever, headache or muscle aches after vaccination.

Even after you’re vaccinated, keep taking precautions

While a COVID-19 vaccine will prevent serious illness and death, we still don’t know the extent to which it keeps you from being infected and passing the virus on to others. The more we allow the virus to spread, the more opportunity the virus has to change.

Continue to take actions to slow and eventually stop the spread of the virus:

-Keep at least 1 metre from others
-Wear a mask, especially in crowded, closed and poorly ventilated settings.
-Clean your hands frequently
-Cover any cough or sneeze in your bent elbow
-When indoors with others, ensure good ventilation, such as by opening a window

Doing it all protects us all.

UPDATE TO ARTICLE

Children and adolescents tend to have milder disease compared to adults, so unless they are part of a group at higher risk of severe COVID-19, it is less urgent to vaccinate them than older people, those with chronic health conditions and health workers.

Shortly after originally posting, WHO changed its advice. Now, instead of “we shouldn’t vaccinate children”, the article reads “it’s less urgent”. Nice way to slip the narrative.

(1) https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/covid-19-vaccines/advice
(2) https://www.who.int/immunization/programmes_systems/policies_strategies/consent_note_en.pdf
(3) WHO Schools And Implied Not Direct Consent
(4) https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/340841/WHO-2019-nCoV-Policy-brief-Mandatory-vaccination-2021.1-eng.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
(5) WHO Paper On MANDATORY Vaccination April 13, 2021 (Copy)
(6) https://www.laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/F-27/page-8.html#h-234517
(7) https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-health-products/covid19-industry/drugs-vaccines-treatments/interim-order-import-sale-advertising-drugs.html#a2.3
(8) https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/astrazeneca-covid-19-vaccine-pm-en.pdf
(9) https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/janssen-covid-19-vaccine-pm-en.pdf
(10) https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/covid-19-vaccine-moderna-pm-en.pdf
(11) https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/pfizer-biontech-covid-19-vaccine-pm1-en.pdf

Posted on

Bit Of History: WHO Wrote Paper On “Implied Consent” For Vaccinations In 2014

Several years ago, the World Health Organization published a paper on various levels of “consent” required for vaccinating children. It also introduces the idea of “implied consent for children”. Apparently, just going to school after a notice has been given will suffice.

Approaches to obtain informed consent:

  • 1. Written consent
  • 2. Verbal consent
  • 3. Implied consent

It’s the third type that is the most nefarious.

3. An implied consent process by which parents are informed of imminent vaccination through social mobilization and communication, sometimes including letters directly addressed to the parents. Subsequently, the physical presence of the child or adolescent, with or without an accompanying parent at the vaccination session, is considered to imply consent. This practice is based on the opt-out principle and parents who do not consent to vaccination are expected implicitly to take steps to ensure that their child or adolescent does not participate in the vaccination session. This may include not letting the child or adolescent attend school on a vaccination day, if vaccine delivery occurs through schools.

Implied consent procedures are common practice in many countries. However, when children present for vaccination unaccompanied by their parents, it is challenging to determine whether parents indeed provided consent. Therefore, countries are encouraged to adopt procedures that ensure that parents have been informed and agreed to the vaccination. Comprehensive data on whether the approach countries use to deal with consent has changed or evolved over the last decades is not available.

Based on concepts of vaccines as a public good, or on public-health goals of disease elimination and outbreak control, some countries identify one or more vaccines as mandatory in law, or in their policies. Vaccination may, for example, be made a condition for entry into preschool or primary school, or to enable access to welfare benefits. Whether consent is needed for mandatory vaccination depends on the legal nature of the regulations. When mandatory vaccination is established in relevant provisions in law, consent may not be required. If the mandatory nature of vaccination is based on policy, or other forms of soft law, informed consent needs to be obtained as for any other vaccines. Some countries allow individuals to express non-consent (opt-out) and obtain an exemption for mandatory vaccines. This may come with certain conditions, like barring unvaccinated children from attending school during disease outbreaks

Have to cringe at how getting informed consent, or having the parents involved, is seen as an inconvenience. Then again, many concerned parents would put a stop to such things.

(1) https://www.who.int/immunization/programmes_systems/policies_strategies/consent_note_en.pdf
(2) WHO Schools And Implied Not Direct Consent
(3) https://www.sott.net/article/424625-WHO-now-says-your-childs-presence-in-school-counts-as-informed-consent-for-vaccination-parental-presence-not-required

Posted on

Bill C-11: CPC National Secretary Lobbied For Big Pharma To Get Easier Access To Your Medical Data

Bill C-11, the Digital Charter Implementation Act, is currently before Parliament. At the time of writing this, it has still only undergone the first reading. Some of the more disturbing sections of it were covered previously.

Contrary to what the name may imply, “Digital Charter” doesn’t refer to antiviolence activity, spawned by the Christchurch psy-op. Instead, this is an end run around privacy as we know it.

This piece will focus on big pharma getting its hands on Canadians’ medical information. If this were to pass, then potentially all of this, minus your name and address, would be available to anyone will to purchase it.

What’s particularly disturbing is that one of the people pushing for this is Amber Ruddy, the Secretary of the National Council of the Conservative Party of Canada. She’s also CURRENTLY an employee at Counsel Public Affairs, the lobbying firm, and has Emergent BioSolutions, the company making the AstraZeneca vaccines, as a client.

A November 23, 2020 press release by the Federal Government summarized what it expected to accomplish with Bill C-11. Very interestingly, there will be new exceptions to requiring consent in order to obtain personal information.

CPPA will also promote responsible innovation by reducing regulatory burden. A new exception to consent will address standard business practices; a new regime to clarify how organizations are to handle de-identified personal information, and another new exception to consent to allow organizations to disclose personal information for socially beneficial purposes, such as public health research, for example.

There is nothing ambiguous about this. Public health research could be considered a “socially beneficial purpose” and your records handed over. But in fairness, this has probably been happening for a long time already. This Bill would make it a specifically permitted reason.

Among other things, Ruddy (and her colleagues) wanted to make it easier for drug companies to access “anonymized health data”. What this would mean is that your medical records could be send off to third parties, with the only caveat being that your personal information is removed.

Items like date of birth (showing age), and postal code (showing region) would likely still be included. As would the details of your visits, procedures, medications, and dates performed. Keep in mind, even anonymized accounts can be re-identified based on just a few clues.

Search “GlaxoSmithKline” and “Digital Charter”, it shows 35 registrations over the last few years, including Ruddy.

Transfer to service provider
19 An organization may transfer an individual’s personal information to a service provider without their knowledge or consent.
.
De-identification of personal information
20 An organization may use an individual’s personal information without their knowledge or consent to de-identify the information.
.
Research and development
21 An organization may use an individual’s personal information without their knowledge or consent for the organization’s internal research and development purposes, if the information is de-identified before it is used.

Public Interest
Individual’s interest
29 (1) An organization may collect an individual’s personal information without their knowledge or consent if the collection is clearly in the interests of the individual and consent cannot be obtained in a timely way.
Use
(2) An organization may use an individual’s personal information without their knowledge or consent if the information was collected under subsection (1).

Statistical or scholarly study or research
35 An organization may disclose an individual’s personal information without their knowledge or consent if
(a) the disclosure is made for statistical purposes or for scholarly study or research purposes and those purposes cannot be achieved without disclosing the information;
(b) it is impracticable to obtain consent; and
(c) the organization informs the Commissioner of the disclosure before the information is disclosed.

Socially beneficial purposes
39 (1) An organization may disclose an individual’s personal information without their knowledge or consent if
(a) the personal information is de-identified before the disclosure is made;
(b) the disclosure is made to
(i) a government institution or part of a government institution in Canada,
(ii) a health care institution, post-secondary educational institution or public library in Canada,
(iii) any organization that is mandated, under a federal or provincial law or by contract with a government institution or part of a government institution in Canada, to carry out a socially beneficial purpose, or
(iv) any other prescribed entity; and
(c) the disclosure is made for a socially beneficial purpose.
Definition of socially beneficial purpose
(2) For the purpose of this section, socially beneficial purpose means a purpose related to health, the provision or improvement of public amenities or infrastructure, the protection of the environment or any other prescribed purpose.

The entire Bill is quite long, but those are a few points. While claiming that this legislation gives members of the public wide control over their information, it lays out ways that same private info can be shared with 3rd parties, without the knowledge or consent of that person.

It’s interesting that Conservatives pretend to care about free speech and Bill C-10, but are silent about the erosion of privacy with Bill C-11. Have to wonder if their Secretary is the reason for this.

This is hardly the first such privacy intrusion has been brought forward. A decade ago, Vic Toews gaslighted Canadians who opposed warrantless seizures of their internet data as “standing with the child pornographers”. Seems not much has changed.

For more on Emergent BioSolutions, and other lobbying, check the links below. It’s quite the cesspit, and Ruddy is up to her neck in it.

(1) https://www.conservative.ca/
(2) https://www.conservative.ca/team-member/amber-ruddy/
(3) https://www.parl.ca/LegisInfo/BillDetails.aspx?Language=E&billId=10950130
(4) https://parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/43-2/bill/C-11/first-reading#ID0E0XB0BA
(5) https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/062.nsf/eng/00120.html
(6) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=367534&regId=908352
(7) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/advSrch?V_SEARCH.command=navigate&time=1624013972454
(8) https://canucklaw.ca/bill-c-11-digital-charter-implementation-act-of-canada/

Posted on

CIHR Using Taxpayer Money To Convince Pregnant Women & Children To Get Vaccine

If this doesn’t make your blood boil, nothing will. CIHR, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research has been handing out public money to pay people to convince others to take the experimental, unapproved, gene replacement “vaccines”. And yes, pregnant women are specifically mentioned in these grants.

To make things even worse, the CIHR wants to hire people to convince children to get poisoned as well.

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

Now, who are the people who have sold their souls in return for getting some sweet, sweet “pandemic bucks”?

NAME AMOUNT
Barkun, Alan N $784,125
Berman, Peter $118,575
Bottari, Carolina $218,025
Brignardello Petersen, Romina Andrea $1,365,525
Brunet, Alain F $240,975
Burchell, Ann N $768,825
Campbell, Tavis S $271,575
Caron, Etienne $738,000
Cheng, Adam $248,625
Divangahi, Maziar $569,925
Durocher, Evelyne $115,000
Elahi, Shokrollah $1,071,000
Ehrhardt, Rudolf A $229,500
Estabrooks, Carole Anne $756,890
Foster, Jennifer $332,775
Fowler, Robert A $455,175
Gesink, Dionne $393,975
Harris, M. Anne $325,125
Jan, Eric $445,230
Jardine, Cynthia $348,075
Katapally, Tarun Reddy $554,434
Kaul, Rupert $489,600
Lavoie, Kim $638,775
Lisonkova, Sarka $168,300
Luo, Honglin $562,275
Mazurak, Vera C $344,250
Meyer, Jeffrey H $761,175
Mubareka, Samira $612,765
Nissim, Rinat $294,525
O’Campo, Patricia J $302,175
Oremus, Mark $195,075
Pai, Nitika $378,675
Pike, Ian $267,750
Puyat, Joseph H $302,175
Rigatto, Claudio $562,275
Robillard, Rébecca $168,300
Rothman, Linda $416,925
Rousseau, Cecile $240,975
Sylvestre, Marie-Pierre $457,422
Vivion, Maryline $153,000
Wang, JianLi $137,700
Webster, Fiona $160,650
Woodgate, Roberta L $358,594
Zimmermann, Camilla $423,045

Should anyone raise the topic, no, this isn’t doxing. If one accepts grants from the Federal Government, it is public, and searchable by anyone. Moreover, it’s in the public interest that others know who they are. These people are pushing injections on the general population, most likely without being completely forthcoming.

Interesting to note: most of these grants run until 2022 or 2023. It could be because these drugs are in the experimental stages, and the testing won’t be done until then. These drugs are not “approved” by Health Canada, but instead, are given interim authorization under an emergency order.

  • 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. Also known as emergency authorization.
  • 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.

(1) https://search.open.canada.ca/en/gc/
(2) https://search.open.canada.ca/en/gc/?sort=agreement_value_fs%20desc&page=1&search_text=vaccine%20hesitancy%20pregnant#
(3) https://archive.is/x1H5x
(4) https://archive.is/PsecY
(5) https://www.laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/F-27/page-8.html#h-234517
(6) https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-health-products/covid19-industry/drugs-vaccines-treatments/interim-order-import-sale-advertising-drugs.html#a2.3
(7) https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/astrazeneca-covid-19-vaccine-pm-en.pdf
(8) https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/janssen-covid-19-vaccine-pm-en.pdf
(9) https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/covid-19-vaccine-moderna-pm-en.pdf
(10) https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/pfizer-biontech-covid-19-vaccine-pm1-en.pdf

Posted on

Pavlov’s Dogs: OST’s Obedience Training Guide For Ontario Residents

Many years ago, Ivan Pavlov discovered that given the right structure of rewards, dogs could be trained simply by ringing a bell. Dogs would to associate the ringing with food, even at times when that wasn’t the end result.

While his experiments are rudimentary today, they were important break throughs at the time. It’s still taught in introductory college psychology classes. Now, from the Ontario Science Table, and their paper of April 2021.

Key Message
The science of getting people to start something new is different from the science of getting them to continue positive behaviours. Amid rising rates of new SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern, Ontario needs a refreshed approach to maintaining and enhancing adherence to public health measures. Promising strategies to increase effective masking and physical distancing include persuasion, enablement, modelling the behaviour, and clear education.

As such, the strategies are explicitly linked to target groups in a position to action them to support two key groups of Ontarians:
.
1. Those who are already adhering to physical distancing and masking in most situations but are unclear on the remaining high-risk scenarios that exist in their lives (focus on maintenance).
2. Those who are inconsistently following these public health measures due to easily addressed capability, opportunity and motivation reasons (focus on enhancement)

This paper (also archived here) from the Ontario Science Table outlines psychological and behavioural modification techniques that can be applied to convince people to obey the ever changing public health measures.

This was mentioned in a previous article, but now, deserves its own standalone piece. This is quite a piece of work.

The Ontario Science Table recommends tax breaks for companies to force customers and employees to wear masks. That had been rumoured to be a part of the subsidy requirements, but the OST openly suggests that sort of thing.

This is a common type of tactic in retail settings. By moving certain products to make them constantly visible, they are more likely to be on the minds of customers. Hence, they are more likely to be bought.

Masks are to be provided at will in order to reinforce the message that mask wearing is necessary. And by extension, masks are used to reinforce the claim that there is a global pandemic, despite there not being any evidence whatsoever for it.

This one puts the “training” in obedience training. OST recommends creating videos and instructional guides on masks, and to claim it’s what they’ve learned from the science.

OST recommends the implementation of “mask refreshers” so that masks are constantly on the minds of Ontarians. This is essential, otherwise they may start questioning whether there really is a pandemic.

This is straight out of advertising. Get people to identify with those sending the messages, and they are much more likely to comply. It’s subtle emotional manipulation.

Interesting way to get people to go along with the psy-op. Just use humour to lighten the situation.

That same idea can apply to people who get the experimental gene-replacement shot. Doughnuts, beer, lottery tickets and other incentives are already being handed out. Then again, maybe taking out such people is for the best.

https://covid19-sciencetable.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Science-Brief_Enhancing-Adherence-to-Public-Health-Measures_20210422_published.pdf

Interpretation
Governments, public health units, and healthcare organizations are delivering strategies to support Ontarians in adhering to public health measures, with an emphasis on physical distancing and masking. This Science Brief recognizes that more than a year into the COVID-19 pandemic, we need to move beyond “more of the same” when it comes to strategies to maintain and enhance how, when, and where Ontarians engage in masking and distancing. Groups in a position to support change can leverage behavioural science to refresh their approaches by using a range of evidence-based behavioural change strategies. These strategies can help to move beyond asking Ontarians to “do more” (potentially contributing to pandemic fatigue) and instead focus on creating the conditions needed to ensure ongoing adherence in our current state.

Methods Used for This Science Brief
The advice on this brief has been developed using the COM-B model. COM-B is a theoretical framework employed by Behavioural Scientists to help identify key behavioural barriers to desired action. The model identifies three essential conditions: Capability, Opportunity, Motivation that affect Behaviour and decision making. Capability barriers include lack of knowledge and comprehension about a behaviour and its consequences, and lack of skill necessary to carry out a behaviour. Opportunity barriers include time and resource constraints that make a desired behaviour more difficult or costly to carry out. Motivation barriers include emotional reactions and inaccurate beliefs that create obstacles for carrying out a behaviour.

It’s hard to believe that the OST would release such a report, detailing how to use Ontario as modern day dogs of Ivan Pavlov. But here we are. The April 2021 white paper speaks for itself, and commentary isn’t really necessary.

(1) https://covid19-sciencetable.ca
(2) https://covid19-sciencetable.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Science-Brief_Enhancing-Adherence-to-Public-Health-Measures_20210422_published.pdf
(3) OST Science Brief Enhancing Adherence to Public Health Measures
(4) https://www.simplypsychology.org/pavlov.html

WHO IS THE ONTARIO SCIENCE TABLE?
(5) Ontario Science Table: Ties To University Of Toronto
(6) Ontario Science Table: Extension Of Gov’t, No Independence
(7) UotT/DLSPH Joins WHO; Communism; Anti-White
(8) Ontario Science Table: Kwame McKenzie, Ontario UBI Pilot Project
(9) Robert Steiner Claims To Be Major PHAC Advisor To Liberals
(10) Ontario Science Table: Actually Set Out In May 2019?
(11) Ontario Science Table; Kumar Murty; Perfect Cloud
(12) Ontario Science Table: Influenced By $5M From Como???
(13) OST: Partnered With CADTH, A WHO Group; And pCPA
(14) Centre For Effective Practive/Partners Profit From Lockdowns
(15) Ontario Science Table: Cochrane Canada; McMaster; Gates
(16) Ontario Science Table: SPOR Evidence Alliance; WHO Funding
(17) OST: David Fisman; Race Baiting; Side Job With ETFO
(18) OST: Adalsteinn Brown; DLSPH; MOH; Premiers Council
(19) Institute For Pandemics Started For Ontario Science Table Hacks

Posted on

Ontario Pharmacists Association: Getting Handouts From Ford, As They Push Bills 160/132

Melissa Lantsman helped get Doug Ford elected in 2018. She lists her position as the “War Room Director & Spokesperson” for the campaign. She left shortly after, and began lobbying the very Government she helped install. There are others who are in similar positions, as this topic has been addressed before.

The organization of interest here is the Ontario Pharmacists Association. They were involved in 2 pieces of legislation.

The first, Bill 160, was passed by the Wynne Government but never implemented. It would have forced disclosure of financial interests of doctors who received money to push certain drugs. While passed in Parliament, it was never given Royal Proclamation, and hence, has no legal effect. This was covered previously.

The second, Bill 132, repealed annual disclosure requirements for the Health Minister concerning drug programs. These reports were to be made publicly available. More on this later.

In recent years, there have been 6 documented meetings between the Ontario Government (both Liberal and Conservative Administrations), and the Ontario Pharmacists Association. According to the Registry, the OPA has also been receiving grants from the Government. This included $190,604 in the fiscal year of 2018, and another $381,200 in 2020.

  • Jonathan Sampson
  • Melissa Lantsman
  • Katie Heelis
  • Abid Malik
  • Morvarid Rohani
  • Carly Martin

Now, who are these people?

Jonathan Sampson was a high ranking bureaucrat with the Office of the Attorney General in Ontario, under both the Wynne and Ford Governments. He then joined Sussex Strategy Group and became a lobbyist.

Melissa Lantsman is currently a Director at the Michael Garron Hospital. This is where Michael Warner, the infamous lockdown doctor, also works.

Lantsman spent 3 years as a spokeswoman for the Foreign Affairs Office of Canada, and another 2 in the Finance Ministry, before getting into Ontario politics. She helped get Doug Ford elected in 2018, and is now running to be a Federal Candidate in the next election, whenever that is.

She was also one of several lobbyists for Walmart in 2020. She was trying to keep the retail giant open while others were allowed to die.

It doesn’t appear that Lantsman’s switching between politics and lobbying will be any issue. Amber Ruddy, the Secretary of the National Council of the CPC is an active pharma lobbyist. Erin O’Toole used to be a lobbyist for Facebook.

Katie Heelis used to be the “Issues Manager” for the Ontario Minister of Health, back under the regime of Kathleen Wynne. Afterwards, she became a lobbyist, taking on clients such as Shoppers Drug Mart.

Abid Malik spent several years working for the Ministry of Health under the regimes of McGuinty and Wynne. He moved on to lobbying, and is now an official at the Ontario Medical Association.

Carly Martin sort of went the other way. She a lobbyist, and later came to work for the Ford Government. Since July 2020, she has worked in the Cabinet Office, and presumably has direct access to Ford.

Getting back to the issue of Bill 132, what were the effects of passing it?

Bill 132 was an omnibus Bill (aren’t they all?) but buried in Schedule 11 was the notice that a part of the Ontario Drug Benefit Act would be repealed. This isn’t some minor thing, but has huge implications.

Lobbying Activity
Tell us about your current lobbying activity. Complete all that apply. You must choose at least one option:

Legislative proposal Yes

Describe your lobbying goal(s) in detail. What are you attempting to influence or accomplish as a result of your communications with Ontario public office holders?

OPA will be advocating for the removal of unnecessary regulatory burden in the pharmacy sector as defined as the goal through Bill 132, Better for People, Smarter for Business Act, 2019

Going through the records of the Lobby Registry, it’s explicitly stated that this was a reason for speaking to Public Officials. There’s no guesswork involved.

Executive officer
.
1.1 (1) The Lieutenant Governor in Council shall appoint an executive officer for the Ontario public drug programs. 2006, c. 14, s. 7.
.
Functions and powers
.
(2) Subject to this Act and the regulations, it is the function of the executive officer, and he or she has the power, to perform any functions or duties that he or she may have under this Act and the regulations, under the Drug Interchangeability and Dispensing Fee Act and its regulations and under any other Act or regulation, and without in any way restricting the generality of the foregoing,
.
(a) to administer the Ontario public drug programs;
(b) to keep, maintain and publish the Formulary;
(c) to make this Act apply in respect of the supplying of drugs that are not listed drug products as provided for in section 16;
(d) to designate products as listed drug products, listed substances and designated pharmaceutical products for the purposes of this Act, and to remove or modify those designations;
(e) to designate products as interchangeable with other products under the Drug Interchangeability and Dispensing Fee Act, and to remove or modify those designations;
(f) to negotiate agreements with manufacturers of drug products, agree with manufacturers as to the drug benefit price of listed drug products, negotiate drug benefit prices for listed substances with suppliers, and set drug benefit prices for designated pharmaceutical products;
(g) to require any information that may or must be provided to the executive officer under this Act or the regulations or any other Act or regulation to be in a format that is satisfactory to the executive officer;
(h) to make payments under the Ontario public drug programs;
(i) to establish clinical criteria under section 23; and
(j) to pay operators of pharmacies for professional services, and to determine the amount of such payments subject to the prescribed conditions, if any. 2006, c. 14, s. 7.
.
Report
.
(3) In every year,
(a) the executive officer shall make a report in writing to the Minister concerning the Ontario drug programs; and
(b) the Minister shall publish the report within 30 days of receiving it. 2006, c. 14, s. 7

This is how the Ontario Drug Benefit Act used to look. See the archive. However, the passage of Bill 132 repealed 1.1(3) which would have forced annual reporting to the Health Minister.

Also noteworthy: those annual reports would have been made public by law. That is not the case, as the pharmaceutical industry seems to oppose such transparency. Of course, this is done under the guise of eliminating burdens on businesses. The truth is never clearly stated.

And Bill 160 (which Wynne and Ford never fully enacted), would have forced disclosure of payments when it came to pushing medications. It’s been in limbo since 2017. Have to wonder who they really work for.

(1) http://lobbyist.oico.on.ca/Pages/Public/PublicSearch/
(2) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/advSrch
(3) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/advSrch?V_SEARCH.command=navigate&time=1623728162394
(4) https://archive.is/cZVsT
(5) https://www.linkedin.com/in/jonathan-sampson/
(6) https://www.linkedin.com/in/melissalantsman/
(7) https://archive.is/VsG0V
(8) https://www.linkedin.com/in/katieheelis/
(9) https://archive.is/GIOQ0
(10) https://www.linkedin.com/in/abidmalikto/
(11) https://archive.is/7P9lC
(12) https://www.linkedin.com/in/carly-martin/
(13) https://www.ola.org/en/legislative-business/bills/parliament-42/session-1/bill-132#BK14
(14) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-o10/132589/rso-1990-c-o10.html
(15) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-o10/latest/rso-1990-c-o10.html

*Disclaimers, Ethics* Proudly powered by WordPress