Category: Vaccines

Posted on

Who’s Behind The Ontario Science Table? A Look At Their Partners And Members

For some background on the University of Toronto, Ontario Science Table, check this earlier article. While it’s true that there the vast majority of these members (and many Medical Health Officers in Ontario) have ties to U of T, there’s more to it than that. Let’s take a look:

It’s important that the Ontario Science Table claims to be independent, yet it’s partners with the Dalla Lana School of Public Health, and the majority of the Table has other ties there. It’s as if OST was simply an extension of U of T. But it gets more interesting from there. There are conflicts of interest everywhere.

  • CADTH, Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health
  • Cochrane Canada
  • Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University Of Toronto
  • Public Health Ontario
  • SPOR Evidence Alliance
  • Trillium Health Partners
  • Rob Steiner: PHAC Creator
  • Vinita Dubey: Toronto Associate Medical Officer
  • Other Science Table conflicts of interest

1. CDN Agency Drugs & Technologies in Health

Board of Directors
The 13-member CADTH Board of Directors is composed of an independent chair; a regional distribution of jurisdictional federal, provincial, and territorial representatives; and a number of non-jurisdictional representatives from health systems, academia, and the general public. Directors are elected by the Members of the Corporation, who are the Deputy Ministers of Health for participating federal, provincial, and territorial governments.
.
The Board has overall responsibility for administering the affairs of the Corporation and providing the strategic direction to guide CADTH’s success as the Canadian “go-to” provider of evidence and advice on the use of drugs and other health technologies.

  • 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. As Principal for the consulting firm Digital 4Sight, he led the firm’s global research initiative on Governance in the Digital Economy. In the co-operative sector, he was the Executive Vice-President and Corporate Secretary for the Credit Union Central of Ontario. Mr. Agnew also held the position of Ombudsman for Banking Services and Investments, the national dispute resolution service for consumers and small businesses. On the boards of directors for Polytechnics Canada, Colleges and Institutes Canada, and the Education Quality and Accountability Office. 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 WyattMark 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
  • Dr. Charmaine RoyeDr. Charmaine Roye, Physician, Ottawa
  • Public, Cathy McIntyre, Principal of Strategic Initiatives
  • Ellen Pekilis, Legal, Risk and Governance Advisor
  • Academic, Dr. Stuart Peacock, Leslie Diamond Chair in Cancer Survivorship and Professor, Faculty of Health Sciences, Simon Fraser University; Co-Director, the Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control (ARCC); and Distinguished Scientist in Cancer Control Research, British Columbia Cancer Agency
  • Observer (Quebec), Dr. Luc Boileau, President and CEO, Institut national d’excellence en santé et en services sociaux (INESSS)

Actual high ranking bureaucrauts are Directors of this organization. Forget independence from Government, this is the Government being represented here.

CADTH calls itself and independent and non-partisan group that provides information and recommendations for decision makers in health care.

2. Cochrane Canada

Cochrane Canada is affiliated with 26 partner organizations, each with a designated representative who liaises with our Knowledge Broker. Collaboration with other health organizations is an essential part of our mission to bring the use of evidence into healthcare decision-making. We collaborate with our partners to promote awareness, understanding and use of Cochrane Reviews to their members through activities such as workshops, webinars and online promotion.
.
The guidelines for becoming a partner organization can be reviewed here. If you are interested in partnering with Cochrane Canada, please contact us. The partner terms of reference set out the eligibility and responsibility of the partner relationship.

One of the Ontario Science Table’s partners is Cochrane Canada. While claiming to be an “independent global network” of healthcare practitioners and researchers, it’s partnered with the World Health Organization.

3. Dalla Lana School of Public Health, U Of T

  • Barbara Yaffe – Ontario Deputy Medical Officer
  • Eileen De Villa – Toronto Chief Medical Officer
  • Vinita Dubey – Toronto Associate Medical Officer of Health
  • Lisa Berger – Toronto Associate Medical Officer of Health
  • Christine Navarro – Toronto Associate Medical Officer of Health
  • Avis Lynn Noseworthy – Medical Officer of Health for the Haliburton, Kawartha, Pine Ridge
  • Vera Etches – Ottawa Deputy Medical Officer of Health
  • Brent Moloughney – Ottawa Associate Medical Officer
  • Lawrence C. Loh – Peel Medical Officer of Health
  • Hamidah Meghani – Halton Region Medical Health Officer
  • Nicola Mercer – Wellington-Dufferin-Guelph Medical Officer (UofT Medical School)
  • Mustafa Hirji – Niagara Acting Medical Officer of Health (U of T graduate)
  • Elizabeth Richardson – Hamilton Medical Officer of Health (U of T graduate)

The Dalla Lana School of Public Health is part of the University of Toronto. DLSPH is also partnered with the Ontario Science Table. Seems pretty strange that so many “Medical Officers” in Ontario either have attended U of T, and/or are Professors there.

4. Public Health Ontario

The Ontario COVID-19 Science Advisory Table is a group of scientific experts and health system leaders who evaluate and report on emerging evidence relevant to the COVID-19 pandemic, to inform Ontario’s response.
.
The Science Table’s mandate is to provide weekly summaries of relevant scientific evidence for the COVID-19 Health Coordination Table of the Province of Ontario, integrating information from existing scientific tables, Ontario’s universities and agencies, and the best global evidence. The Science Table summarizes its findings for the Health Coordination Table and for the public in Science Briefs.
.
The Science Table is an independent group, hosted by the Dalla Lana School of Public Health. There is no compensation for serving on the Science Table. However, the Scientific Director and the Secretariat are funded by the Dalla Lana School of Public Health and Public Health Ontario.

The Ontario Science Table claims to be an independent group, get admits it gets funding from PLSPH, and Public Health Ontario. Consider just how many people (and Medical Officers of Health) have ties to the University of Toronto. Also consider, that PHO’s agenda is in keeping this “pandemic” alive. It’s difficult to see the OST as anything other than the propaganda arm of those groups.

5. SPOR Evidence Alliance

The SPOR Evidence Alliance is made possible by a five-year grant from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) under Canada’s Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research (SPOR) Initiative, and the generosity of sponsors from 41 public agencies and organizations across Canada who have made cash or in-kind contributions.

SPOR Evidence Alliance also claims to be independent, but is partnered with the World Health Organization. This seems to be a pattern. Several universities are also listed as partners.

6. Trillium Health Partners

  • Michelle E. DiEmanuele is President and CEO of Trillium Health Partners. She has spent her career in the public and private sectors leading large-scale change and cultural transformation. Previously, Michelle was Associate Secretary of Cabinet and Deputy Minister in the Ontario Government. During this time, she led the renewal of public services through “Service Ontario” including the introduction of the first ever “Money Back Guarantee” for government services in North America. She reformed human resources, information technology and business services for the Ontario Government. She has also served as Interim CEO at the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation, Assistant Deputy Minister of Health, Vice President (Branch and Small Business Banking, Retail Markets/Human Resources), CIBC and Vice President (Human Resources and Organizational Development), Brookfield Properties Ltd.
  • Karli Farrow is a leader who has been a part of transformation designed to improve public services in Ontario for over fifteen years. She is the Senior Vice-President, Strategy, People and Corporate Affairs and is accountable for leading critical enabling functions including strategy and project management, human resources, organizational development, public affairs and corporate governance. Karli joined the previous Credit Valley Hospital and Trillium Health Centre in 2009 and in 2011 provided project leadership to support the merger of the two organizations. Prior to joining Trillium Health Partners, Karli worked for a health care consulting company where she led critical projects focused on reducing wait times and improving chronic disease management. She has also served in senior advisory roles for the government of Ontario, including Director of Policy for the Premier of Ontario and Chief of Staff to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. In these roles she worked to develop and implement strategies to improve access to care and the long-term sustainability of the health care system in Ontario.

In addition to many of the leadership and Board attending the University of Toronto, a few have also been high ranking officials in the Provincial Government. Could be why there is nothing to objectionable about what Ford is doing. Interestingly, several of them have ties to major banks.

7. Honourable Mention: Rob Steiner

Mr. Steiner also served as health and public health policy advisor and principal speechwriter for Paul Martin, during his Liberal Party leadership campaign and transition to being Prime Minister of Canada in 2003. He subsequently advised the Prime Minister’s Office and Cabinet on the creation of the Public Health Agency of Canada in 2004. In 2000, Mr. Steiner had managed the Liberal Party of Canada’s new media campaign in the period leading to and during the federal general election, working for Prime Minister Jean Chretien.

Steiner helped create the Public Health Agency of Canada, as per the new International Health Regulations, and was there when the Quarantine Act was passed. He’s also a longtime Liberal Party operative. Steiner is also a member of the Trudeau Foundation, but why should that matter?

8. Honourable Mention: Vinita Dubey

Dubey is a special circumstance. She is an Associate Medical Officer of Health for Toronto, working under Eileen De Villa. Both Dubey and De Villa are Professors at the University of Toronto. However, Dubey is also part of the ironically named Ontario Science Table, providing cover for her boss to impose the measures that she does.

9. Other Serious Conflicts Of Interest

  • Trevor Arnason: has an MD from the University of Toronto, and did a combined residency in Public Health and Preventive Medicine and Family Medicine at the University of Ottawa. In 2016, he moved to the east coast to be the Regional Medical Officer of Health for Halifax where he worked on several health promotion initiatives and co-led responses to multiple vaccine preventable disease outbreaks including one of the largest measles outbreaks in Canada in recent years. In January 2019, he returned to his hometown to work as an Associate Medical Officer of Health with Ottawa Public Health where is consultant to the vaccination and sexually transmitted and bloodborne infections portfolio. He also works part-time as a family doctor in an urgent care clinic.
  • Adalsteinn Brown: Prior to becoming Dean, he was the Director of the Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation and the Dalla Lana Chair of Public Health Policy also at the University. Other past roles include head of strategy for the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-term Care and the head of policy and science for the Ontario Ministry of Research and Innovation.
  • Anne Hayes: Director, Research, Analysis and Evaluation Branch, Strategic Policy, Planning and French Language Services Division, Ministries of Health and Long-Term Care
  • Melanie Kohn: worked in the Ontario public healthcare sector for almost 20 years. In July 2020, she was appointed Assistant Deputy Minister, Mental Health and Addictions, overseeing the funding and operations of the sector, the realization of the Roadmap to Wellness, and to support standing up the Mental Health and Addictions Centre of Excellence at Ontario Health. In 2016, Melanie joined the Ministry of Health as the inaugural Director of the Hospitals Branch. She was responsible for overseeing the operations, finances, and administration of the Public and Private Hospital Acts providing legislative and regulatory oversight for the province’s 145 hospitals.
  • Dr. Kwame McKenzie: previously a Human Rights Commissioner for Ontario and Chair of the Research and Evaluation Advisory Committee of Ontario’s Basic Income Pilot. In addition to his academic, policy and clinical work, Kwame has been a columnist for the Guardian, Times-online and Toronto Star and a past BBC Radio presenter.
  • David McKeown: the Associate Chief Medical Officer of Health for the province of Ontario, with responsibility for supporting the provincial covid-19 response. He is a physician specialist who has worked in the public health field for over 30 years. From 2004-2016 he led Toronto Public Health, Canada’s largest local public health agency, serving a diverse population of 2.7 million people. He has also served as the Medical Officer of Health for East York, the Region of Peel, and the former City of Toronto prior to municipal amalgamation. Dr. McKeown led the local public health response to the H1N1 pandemic, a major outbreak of Legionnaire’s Disease, and the first outbreak of West Nile Virus in Canada.
  • Rhiannon Mosher: Senior Policy Advisor for the Ontario government’s Behavioural Insights Unit (BIU). In this role, she works with partners in ministries across Ontario and other public sector organizations to help improve program and service delivery through evidence-based, human-centred solutions. Rhiannon has helped design and test solutions to improve programs and service in health, labour, and transportation. Most recently, she has been supporting work to inform the province’s response to COVID-19.
  • Sumit Raybardhan: Board Certified Infectious Diseases Pharmacist that practices at North York General Hospital, where he also co-leads the Antimicrobial Stewardship Program. His post-graduate work included a Masters in Public Health specializing in Epidemiology and International Health from Boston University. He has had experiences in the institutional hospital setting as a clinical pharmacist and at regional and international organizations such as Public Health Ontario, UNICEF, and Medicines for Malaria Venture. He currently focuses on pragmatic practice-based research on optimizing antimicrobial use.
  • Brian Schwartz: provides executive leadership for PHO’s public health science and population health programs including environmental and occupational health, health promotion, chronic disease and injury prevention, and research and ethics services. Previous portfolios include health protection, emergency preparedness, communicable diseases and infection prevention and control. Dr. Schwartz served as Scientific Advisor to the Emergency Management Branch of the Ministry of Heath and Long Term Care from 2004 to 2011, and was Public Health Ontario’s inaugural Chief of Emergency Management Support. He acted as Vice-chair of the Ontario SARS Scientific Advisory Committee in 2003 and was Chair of the Scientific Response Team for the 2009 H1N1 pandemic.
  • Premy Selvakumar: currently works at Public Health Ontario as an Administrative Assistant in the Health Promotion, Chronic Disease, Injury Prevention Department. She has over 10 years of administrative experience and has supported a variety high level of executives. She holds a Bachelor of commerce degree with a major in Human Resources and a minor in Marketing.

10. Does Anything Seem Wrong With This?

The Ontario Science Table presents itself as a neutral group of “experts”, offering insight into what is actually going on. Now, this doesn’t sound bad in principle.

The problem is that people on this panel are former (and current) Government officials. Groups that OST partners with also have former (and current) Government officials working for them. A few groups even partner with the World Health Organization. There are also Medical Officers of Health working for the OST, and serving as Faculty members for the University of Toronto — a partner organization.

How can it be taken seriously as anything other than an extension of the Government? The ties just run way too deep.

Posted on

CV# 66(6): WHO Policy Paper On MANDATORY “Vaccines”, Admitting They’re Experimental

Less than a year ago, this was decried as a conspiracy theory cooked up by paranoid tinfoil hatters. Now, the World Health Organization is openly discussing policies of MANDATORY injections. And to clarify, all of these gene-replacement “vaccines” are still considered experimental. They are authorized for emergency measures, but are not actually approved.

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://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

Before going any further, it is time to distinguish between 2 completely different ways medical devices and substances can be advanced.

(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.

To be approved means that this thing has been rigorously tested, and has passed all safety measures, and that it has rigorously been examined. This is not what happened here. Instead, these “vaccines” were given interim authorization, because the Government has decided that it’s worth releasing it to the general public, and finishing the testing later. This is allowed under Section 30.1 of the Canada Food & Drug Act, and an Interim Order was signed by Patty Hajdu.

Think this is an exaggeration? Take a look at the paperwork available from Health Canada. Not once do they refer to them as approved. Instead, they are “authorized under an Interim Order”. These are not the same thing, and cannot be used interchangeably. Now, let’s get to the WHO paper.

Vaccines are one of the most effective tools for protecting people against COVID-19. Consequently, with COVID-19 vaccination under way or on the horizon in many countries, some may be considering whether to make COVID-19 vaccination mandatory in order to increase vaccination rates and achieve public health goals and, if so, under what conditions, for whom and in what contexts

Right off the bat, there is no semblance of neutrality. The World Health Organization starts off with the assumption that these are safe and effective. So legitimate concerns about testing, long term side effects, and the necessity of these “vaccines” is minimized.

It is not uncommon for governments and institutions to mandate certain actions or types of behaviour in order to protect the well-being of individuals or communities. Such policies can be ethically justified, as they may be crucial to protect the health and well-being of the public. Nevertheless, because policies that mandate an action or behaviour interfere with individual liberty and autonomy, they should seek to balance communal well-being with individual liberties. While interfering with individual liberty does not in itself make a policy intervention unjustified, such policies raise a number of ethical considerations and concerns and should be justified by advancing another valuable social goal, like protecting public health.
.
This document does not provide a position that endorses or opposes mandatory COVID-19 vaccination. Rather, it identifies important ethical considerations and caveats that should be explicitly evaluated and discussed through ethical analysis by governments and/or institutional policy-makers who may be considering mandates for COVID-19 vaccination.

Interesting. This paper attempts to take a neutral and academic approach towards the idea of forced vaccinations (or gene replacement therapy). How exactly does someone take a neutral stance on forcing millions, or billions, or people to take experimental drugs? Is this really necessary for safety?

How do you balance: (a) your right to self autonomy and control over your own body, and (b) the doomsday predictions of sociopathic politicians, and corrupt scientists?

1. Necessity and proportionality
Mandatory vaccination should be considered only if it is necessary for, and proportionate to, the achievement of an important public health goal (including socioeconomic goals) identified by a legitimate public health authority. If such a public health goal (e.g., herd immunity, protecting the most vulnerable, protecting the capacity of the acute health care system) can be achieved with less coercive or intrusive policy interventions (e.g., public education), a mandate would not be ethically justified, as achieving public health goals with less restriction of individual liberty and autonomy yields a more favourable risk-benefit ratio.
.
As mandates represent a policy option that interferes with individual liberty and autonomy, they should be considered only if they would increase the prevention of significant risks of morbidity and mortality and/or promote significant and unequivocal public health benefits. If important public health objectives cannot be achieved without a mandate – for instance, if a substantial portion of individuals are able but unwilling to be vaccinated and this is likely to result in significant risks of harm – their concerns should be addressed, proactively if possible. If addressing such concerns is ineffective and those concerns remain a barrier to achievement of public health objectives and/or if low vaccination rates in the absence of a mandate put others at significant risk of serious harm, a mandate may be considered “necessary” to achieve public health objectives. In this case, those proposing the mandate should communicate the reasons for the mandate to the affected communities through effective channels and find ways to implement the mandate such that it accommodates the reasonable concerns of communities. Individual liberties should not be challenged for longer than necessary. Policy-makers should therefore frequently re-evaluate the mandate to ensure it remains necessary and proportionate to achieve public health goals. In addition, the necessity of a mandate to achieve public health goals should be evaluated in the context of the possibility that repeated vaccinations may be required as the virus evolves, as this may challenge the possibility of a mandate to realistically achieve intended public health objectives.

Our “leaders” rely on computer modelling and data manipulation in order to drive these predictions. Therefore, the case of necessity can always be skewed. Liberties should not be challenged longer than necessary, yet the only way to achieve it — at some point — is to take experimental drugs.

Not only should we consider mandating these “vaccines”, we should also consider if more and more will be needed to deal with mutations of it.

There’s little to no concern about the long term effects of these “vaccines”. In fact, the authors parrot the talking points that they are safe and effective. The only issue seems to be about making it required if they cannot “educate” the public in sufficient numbers.

2. Sufficient evidence of vaccine safety
.
Data should be available that demonstrate the vaccine being mandated has been found to be safe in the populations for whom the vaccine is to be made mandatory. When safety data are lacking or when they suggest the risks associated with vaccination outweigh the risks of harm without the vaccine, the mandate would not be ethically justified, particularly without allowing for reasonable exceptions (e.g., medical contraindications). Policy-makers should consider specifically whether vaccines authorized for emergency or conditional use meet an evidentiary threshold for safety sufficient for a mandate. In the absence of sufficient evidence of safety, there would be no guarantee that mandating vaccination would achieve the goal of protecting public health. Furthermore, coercive exposure of populations to a potentially harmful product would violate the ethical obligation to protect the public from unnecessary harm when the harm the product might cause outweighs the degree of harm that might exist without the product. Even when the vaccine is considered sufficiently safe, mandatory vaccination should be implemented with no-fault compensation schemes to address any vaccine-related harm that might occur. This is important, as it would be unfair to require people who experience vaccine-related harm to seek legal remedy from harm resulting from a mandatory intervention. Such compensation would depend on countries’ health systems, including the extent of universal health coverage and how they address harm from vaccines that are not fully licensed (e.g., vaccines authorized for emergency or conditional use).
.
3. Sufficient evidence of vaccine efficacy and effectiveness
.
Data on efficacy and effectiveness should be available that show the vaccine is efficacious in the population for whom vaccination is to be mandated and that the vaccine is an effective means of achieving an important public health goal. For instance, if mandatory vaccination is considered necessary to interrupt transmission chains and prevent harm to others, there should be sufficient evidence that the vaccine is efficacious in preventing serious infection and/or transmission. Alternatively, if a mandate is considered necessary to prevent hospitalization and protect the capacity of the acute health care system, there should be sufficient evidence that the vaccine is efficacious in reducing hospitalization. Policy-makers should carefully consider whether vaccines authorized for emergency or conditional use meet evidentiary thresholds for efficacy and effectiveness sufficient for a mandate.

Here we get to the heart of it. The World Health Organization mentions that policy makers might consider a mandate, even if these gene replacement “vaccines” have only emergency or conditional authorization. As mentioned earlier, that is what status the chemicals in Canada have.

Vaccine compensation programs should be established, but that leaves out a key detail. It’s not the drug manufacturers who would be paying for such injuries. It would be funded by the public. Privatized profits, socialized losses.

There’s also the interesting question: if an experimental or emergency use “vaccine” is taken, who actually is responsible for it?

Mandatory COVID-19 vaccination in context
.
Authorized COVID-19 vaccines have been shown to be safe and efficacious in preventing severe disease and death, and it is clear that vaccine supply will continue to increase globally, albeit inequitably. That being said, the nature of the COVID-19 pandemic and evidence on vaccine safety, efficacy, and effectiveness continue to evolve (including with respect to variants of concern). Consequently, the six considerations identified above are described generally so that they can be applied at any point in time and in any context. For illustrative purposes, we now turn our attention to the application of these ethical considerations in three settings for which mandatory vaccination is commonly discussed: for the general public, in schools, and for health workers.

Within this paragraph, it’s stated that authorized vaccines (again, not approved), are safe and efficacious. Then, it immediately claims this will continue to evolve. In other words, these “safety” guarantees are worth nothing.

Conclusions
Vaccines are effective for protecting people from COVID-19. Governments and/or institutional policy-makers should use arguments to encourage voluntary vaccination against COVID-19 before contemplating mandatory vaccination. Efforts should be made to demonstrate the benefit and safety of vaccines for the greatest possible acceptance of vaccination. Stricter regulatory measures should be considered only if these means are not successful. A number of ethical considerations and caveats should be explicitly discussed and addressed through ethical analysis when considering whether mandatory COVID-19 vaccination is an ethically justifiable policy option. Similar to other public health policies, decisions about mandatory vaccination should be supported by the best available evidence and should be made by legitimate public health authorities in a manner that is transparent, fair, non-discriminatory, and involves the input of affected parties.

WHO Paper On MANDATORY Vaccination April 13, 2021 (Original)
WHO Paper On MANDATORY Vaccination April 13, 2021 (Copy)

Use arguments first. Mandate only if that doesn’t work. In other words, if we can’t persuade people to take it willingly, then consider forcing them. Funny how “involves the input of affected parties” gets in there. If these are mandated, then of course input is removed.

Don’t you love it when academic debate what our human rights should be, and what bodily autonomy we should have?

References
1. Nuffield Council on Bioethics. Public health: Ethical issues. London: Nuffield Council on Bioethics; 2007
(https://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/assets/pdfs/Public-health-ethical-issues.pdf).
2. Gravagna K, Becker A, Valeris-Chacin R, Mohammed I, Tambe S, Awan FA et al. Global assessment of national
mandatory vaccination policies and consequences of non-compliance. Vaccine. 2020;38:7865–73.
3. Colgrove J, Bayer R. Manifold restraints: Liberty, public health, and the legacy of Jacobson v Massachusetts. Am J Public
Health. 2005;95:571–6.
4. World Health Organization. COVID-19 virtual press conference 7 December 2020
(https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/covid-19-virtual-press-conference-transcript—7-december-2020).
5. World Health Organization. Interim position paper: Considerations regarding proof of COVID-19 vaccination for
international travellers. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2021 (https://www.who.int/news-room/articles-detail/interim-position-paper-considerations-regarding-proof-of-covid-19-vaccination-for-international-travellers).
6. Walkinshaw E. Mandatory vaccinations: The international landscape. Can Med Assoc J. 2011;183:e1167–8.
7. Gostin LO, Salmon DA, Larson HJ. Mandating COVID-19 vaccines. JAMA. 2020;325:532–3.
8. Halabi S, Heinrich A, Omer S. No-fault compensation for vaccine injury – The other side of equitable access to Covid-19
vaccines. N Engl J Med. 2020;383:e125.
9. Schwartz JL. Evaluating and deploying Covid-19 vaccines – The importance of transparency, scientific integrity, and
public trust. N Engl J Med. 2020;383:1703–5.
10. Shetty P. Experts concerned about vaccination backlash. Lancet. 2020;375:970–1.
11. Giubilini A. Chapter 3, Vaccination policies and the principle of least restrictive alternative: An intervention ladder. In
Giubilini A, The ethics of vaccination. Cham (CH): Palgrave Pivot; 2019.
12. Goldenberg M. Vaccine hesitancy: Public trust, expertise, and the war on science. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh
Press. 2021.
13. Opel DJ, Lo B, Peek ME. Addressing mistrust about COVID-19 vaccines among patients of color. Ann Intern Med.
2021;M21-0055. doi: 10.7326/M21-0055.
14. Colgrove J. Immunization and ethics: Beneficence, coercion, public health, and the state. In: Mastroianni AC, Kahn JP,
Kass NE, editors. The Oxford handbook of public health ethics, New York City (NY): Oxford University Press; 2020:435–
44.
15. Sutton EJ, Upshur REG. Are there different spheres of conscience? J Eval Clin Pract. 2010;16:338–43.
16. Harris J, Holm S. Is there a moral obligation not to infect others? BMJ. 1995;311:1215–7.
17. Gruben V, Siemieniuk RA, McGeer A. Health care workers, mandatory influenza vaccination policies and the law. Can
Med Assoc J. 2014;186:1076–80.
18. Krystal JH. Responding to the hidden pandemic for healthcare workers: Stress. Nat Med. 2020;26:639.
19. Van Buynder PG, Konrad S, Kersteins F, Preston E, Brown PD, Keen D, et al. Healthcare worker influenza immunization
vaccinate or mask policy: Strategies for cost effective implementation and subsequent reductions in staff absenteeism due
to illness. Vaccine. 2015;33:625–8.
20. Caplan A, Shah NR. Managing the human toll caused by seasonal influenza: New York State’s mandate to vaccinate or
mask. JAMA. 2013;310:1797–8.
21. World Health Organization. Mask use in the context of COVID-19 – Interim guidance. Geneva: World Health
Organization; 2020. (https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/advice-on-the-use-of-masks-in-the-community-duringhome-care-and-in-healthcare-settings-in-the-context-of-the-novel-coronavirus-(2019-ncov)-outbreak)

Posted on

CV #17(E): Airline Industry Lobbying Recently, Main Beneficiaries Of Local Border Closures

Within the last week, the freedoms of Canadians to travel within Canada have been seriously eroded. Ground travel between Ontario and Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec, and within British Columbia has been stopped except for “approved” reasons. Was this done for safety, or something else altogether?

A few observations here. First, stopping ground travel makes travel by air the only realistic option for many people. Second, this makes movement of people easier to control. Third, it can be expected to generate a boost in business and revenue for airlines.

It’s possible that airlines are playing along with these increased control measures because it’s generating much needed business for them. And giving them near exclusive rights over Canadian travel insures that only approved passengers will be able to enjoy their “freedoms”.

A look through the Office of the Lobbying Commissioner’s website shows some interesting activity in recent weeks. This “could” all be a bizarre coincidence, but it doesn’t present that way.

  • March 29 – Greater Toronto Airports Authority
  • March 30 – Air Transport Association Of Canada
  • March 30 – Air Transport Association Of Canada
  • March 30 – Canadian Airports Council
  • March 31 – Hamilton International Airport
  • March 31 – Hamilton International Airport
  • March 31 – Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation
  • March 31 – Greater Toronto Airports Authority
  • March 31- Association Of Canadian Travel Agencies
  • April 8 – Canadian Air Traffic Control Association
  • April 12 – Canadian Airports Council
  • April 13 – Canadian Airports Council

In the weeks leading up to the April 16 border closures, there were several meetings between Ottawa and groups interested in boosting the airline industry.

To address the elephant in the room, the lobbying was done Federally, but the travel restrictions were imposed Provincially. The reason is simple. Trudeau would have a hard time demanding domestic travel stop, while foreigners flood in. However, Premiers could implement the restrictions, under the pretense of trying to protect their Provinces. Is this sleazy? Yes, but this kind of collusion isn’t that farfetched.

Now, Doug Ford has set up roadblocks for people entering Ontario from Manitoba or Quebec, BY GROUND. However, this doesn’t seem to apply to airplanes, both entering from other Provinces, or coming internationally.

B.C. has gone even farther, announcing that people cannot travel between regions without a permitted excuse. However, this also seems to apply only to travel from the ground.

What is the result of this? Airlines now have an effective monopoly for the bulk of travel into, out of, and within Canada.

While this claim may seem farfetched, consider this: Ford ordered the closure of small businesses across Ontario. Many went under completely, and countless lost their livelihoods. The terms of the orders seemed arbitrary and illogical. However, when you realize that the Ford Government had been lobbied by places like Walmart — who benefitted financially, things start to make sense.

Take a look on Air Canada or Westjet. Flights are still available. And flights are also coming in daily from China, India, the Middle East, and elsewhere.

You are still welcome to fly anywhere you like, as long as you play along with the “pandemic” measures. It was always about control, and never safety. Keep in mind, people like Ford have never publicly complained about people coming into Canada at all.


https://twitter.com/erinotoole/status/1384154709343162374

As for the idea that a “conservative” Prime Minister would be any better than Trudeau, consider this recent tweet. Erin O’Toole panders to the Polish and Jewish crowd, as a reminder of standing up to German occupation during the 2nd World War. He does this unironically, even as Canada is under varying degrees of martial law. Then again, he always supported stripping freedoms away. And even as he condemns China for human rights abuses and forced sterilizations, he pushes experimental vaccines that would likely sterilize most people.

As for opposition to these human rights abuses at the local level, it seems almost non-existent. Most “opposition” politicians whine that not enough is being done.

Trudeau, Premiers, and “Opposition” is a dog-and-pony show.
Do you get it now?

Posted on

Public Health Agency Of Canada Created As Branch Of WHO; Bill C-12 PHAC Act

This will sound controversial, but PHAC, the Public Health Agency of Canada, is essentially a branch of the World Health Organization. It’s therefore logical that Theresa Tam (or whoever that person is), would actually hold dual roles.

From 2004 to 2006, there were a few significant developments in Canadian politics. The effects of which would finally be felt in 2020, with this fake “pandemic”.

(1) Creation of Public Health Agency of Canada by Order In Council
(2) International Health Regulations, 3rd Edition, Take Effect
(3) Passing of Quarantine Act, based on WHO-IHR
(4) Passing of PHAC Act, giving the Agency real teeth

These events are connected. The 2005 Quarantine Act is domestic implementation of the International Health Regulations. The Provincial Health Acts are derivatives of that. PHAC is a branch of WHO that masquerades as part of the Canadian Government. It was created to fulfill obligations under WHO-IHR.

Far from being a rogue administration, this was advanced by successive Liberal and Conservative Governments. Maybe one of the reasons the Canadian media spent so much time on the Paul Martin/Stephen Harper drama was to divert attention from what was really going on. It may also explain why Erin O’Toole is so blase about martial law being imposed these days.

1. Timeline: PHAC Act/Quarantine Act/IHR 3rd Ed

  • Jan 23, 2004 – WHO decides to update IHR
  • 2004 to 2005 – WHO begins process of creating IHR 3rd Edition
  • Sept 23, 2004 – OIC 2004-1068, amend Financial Administration Act
  • Sept 23, 2004 – OIC 2004-1070, amend PS Staff Relations Act
  • Sept 23, 2004 – OIC 2004-1071, amend Public Service Employment Act
  • Sept 23, 2004 – OIC 2004-1072/1073, amend Privacy Act
  • Sept 23, 2004 – OIC 2004-1074/1075, amend Access To Info Act
  • Sept 23, 2004 – OIC 2004-1076, amend CSIS Act
  • Sept 23, 2004 – OIC 2004-1076, amend Auditor General Act
  • Oct 8, 2004 – 1st Reading of Quarantine Act
  • Oct 26, 2004 – 2nd Reading of Quarantine Act
  • Oct 28, 2004 – Parliamentary Hearing of Quarantine Act
  • Nov 4 2004 – Parliamentary Hearing of Quarantine Act
  • Nov 18, 2004 – Parliamentary Hearing of Quarantine Act
  • Nov 23, 2004 – Parliamentary Hearing of Quarantine Act
  • Nov 25, 2004 – Parliamentary Hearing of Quarantine Act
  • Dec 7, 2004 – Parliamentary Hearing of Quarantine Act
  • Dec 7, 2004 – Parliamentary Hearing of Quarantine Act
  • Dec 8, 2004 – Parliamentary Hearing of Quarantine Act
  • Feb 10, 2005 – 3rd Reading of Quarantine Act
  • Feb 10, 2005 – 1st Reading of Quarantine Act (Senate)
  • Mar 9, 2005 – 2nd Reading of Quarantine Act (Senate)
  • Apr 14, 2005 – 3rd Reading of Quarantine Act (Senate)
  • May 13, 2005 – Royal Assent of Quarantine Act
  • May 8, 2006 – 2nd Reading of PHAC Act Passed in HoC
  • May 11, 2006 – Parliamentary Hearing on PHAC Act
  • May 16, 2006 – Parliamentary Hearing on PHAC Act
  • June 20, 2006 – 3rd Reading of PHAC Act Passed in HoC
  • June 20, 2006 – 1st Reading of PHAC Act (Senate)
  • June 28, 2006 – 2nd Reading of PHAC Act (Senate)
  • Nov 3, 2006 – 3rd Reading of PHAC Act (Senate)
  • Dec 12, 2006 – Royal Assent of PHAC Act
  • Dec 15, 2006 – OIC 2006-1587, PHAC Act Active

2. PHAC Is Canada’s “Focal Point” For IHR

Article 4 Responsible authorities
1. Each State Party shall designate or establish a National IHR Focal Point and the authorities responsible within its respective jurisdiction for the implementation of health measures under these Regulations.
.
2. National IHR Focal Points shall be accessible at all times for communications with the WHO IHR Contact Points provided for in paragraph 3 of this Article. The functions of National IHR Focal Points shall include:
(a) sending to WHO IHR Contact Points, on behalf of the State Party concerned, urgent communications concerning the implementation of these Regulations, in particular under Articles 6 to 12; and
(b) disseminating information to, and consolidating input from, relevant sectors of the administration of the State Party concerned, including those responsible for surveillance and reporting, points of entry, public health services, clinics and hospitals and other government departments.
.
3. WHO shall designate IHR Contact Points, which shall be accessible at all times for communications with National IHR Focal Points. WHO IHR Contact Points shall send urgent communications concerning the implementation of these Regulations, in particular under Articles 6 to 12, to the National IHR Focal Point of the States Parties concerned. WHO IHR Contact Points may be designated by WHO at the headquarters or at the regional level of the Organization.
.
4. States Parties shall provide WHO with contact details of their National IHR Focal Point and WHO shall provide States Parties with contact details of WHO IHR Contact Points. These contact details shall be continuously updated and annually confirmed. WHO shall make available to all States Parties the contact details of National IHR Focal Points it receives pursuant to this Article.

IHR 3rd Edition Full Text 2005 (See highlighted version)

The 2005 Edition of the International Health Regulations specifies that each State Party (which is each country) shall establish a “focal point”. These points shall be responsible for implementing the Regulations, and answer to WHO.

And who is that focal point? The Public Health Agency of Canada. It was created specifically for the purpose of implementing WHO’s directives on global public health.

Who better to head PHAC than Theresa Tam? This person acted in a 2010 film supporting martial law, and already works for WHO anyway.

3. Timeline Of PHAC/IHR Implemented

January 19 to 23, 2004, at the 113th Session of the Executive Board of the World Health Organization, it was decided that the International Health Regulations were to receive an updated edition. See here, here and the archive.

Mr AISTON (Canada) said that the International Health Regulations were a key component of Canada’s approach to the management and containment of communicable diseases, and also central to the role and function of WHO. The approach proposed was good: while a case could be made for accelerating the process, revision required careful consideration and the timetable put forward was therefore probably realistic. Having been a participant in the negotiations on the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, he suggested that the process should be concluded in one or two negotiating sessions at most. Canada was preparing a domestic approach to the revision of the International Health Regulations and would keep WHO informed of developments.

Page 41 starts to address proposed changes to the IHR, and states that it was widely supported by Member States. There seems to be no concern with just how much sovereignty is given up.

In fact, discussions for what changes to make to the International Health Regulations continued throughout 2004, and into 2005. That’s when things started to happen in Canada, although this was not discussed publicly.

In September 2004, a series of Orders In Council were signed to retroactively include the Public Health Agency of Canada into existing legislation. PHAC was also a recent creation that had not yet received any sort of legislative legitimacy. That would later change.

This is not some conspiracy theory. In fact, PHAC itself writes “was created in 2004 in response to growing concerns about the capacity of Canada’s public health system to anticipate and respond effectively to public health threats”. This is posted on its own website. It’s under the section titled WHY WAS THE AGENCY CREATED?

PHAC’s creation was in part of the larger Federal Strategy. Part of that (Pillar 3) promoted the idea of a Pan-Canadian Public Health Network. “Pan-Canadian” seems to be a euphemism for global.

October 8, 2004, just 2 weeks later, Bill C-12 was introduced into the House of Commons. This was the Quarantine Act, and was to be based on the World Health Organization’s regulations. By the end of October, it had passed Second Reading and was before the HESA Committee.

The November 4 hearing, the second hearing, is quite an interesting one. Below are quotes from the transcript of that session.

The Quarantine Act is passed in 2005, and the 3rd Edition of IHR took effect that year. In 2006, “Conservative” Prime Minister Stephen Harper brings in the PHAC Act, to give some legislative legitimacy to PHAC.

4. Bill C-12, Quarantine Act, IHR Implementation

[Page 5]
Mr. Colin Carrie: I have a question about Canada’s quarantine laws. Are we in touch with the World Health Organization and other international organizations? If there’s an outbreak, can we have any influence on quarantining people in other areas, or vice versa, the sharing of information in that way?
.
Dr. Paul Gully: During an outbreak we certainly would communicate with the countries involved. During SARS we had close collaboration with the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia, for example, as required, to share intelligence. In terms of utilization of their legislation, such as quarantine acts, we feel that our relationship with WHO, which is closer, and also clarification of WHO’s powers under the international health regulations will, I think, further ensure there is consistency in terms of response from individual member states as a result of that. Does that answer your question?
.
Mr. Colin Carrie: Yes.
Are you aware of international standards for quarantine?
.
Dr. Paul Gully: The international health regulations would be the regulations that individual states would then use to design their quarantine acts. I don’t know of any other standards out there or best practices to look at quarantine acts, but the IHRs really have been used over the years as the starting point. Now, with the improvement of the international health regulations, maybe, as is the case in Canada, changes will occur to quarantine acts in other countries in order to better comply with the international health regulations.

[Page 6]
The Chair: Madam Demers.
[Translation]
Ms. Nicole Demers (Laval, BQ): Madam Chair, my colleague made a reference earlier to international agreements. This is also one of my concerns. You will recall that the fundamental principle established at the First International Sanitary Conference in 1951 was to ensure maximum protection combined with a minimum number of restrictions. This principle still holds sway today. I’m certainly concerned about our future course of action.

[Page 8]
Mrs. Carol Skelton: Why did Health Canada proceed with a separate Quarantine Act at this time?
.
Dr. Paul Gully: Those of us who administered the Quarantine Act over the years always knew there were deficiencies in the old act, and because it was rarely used there wasn’t the inclination to update it. As a result of SARS and utilization of the act, which certainly put it under close scrutiny, and the requirement for the Government of
Canada to respond to the various reports on SARS, it was felt that updating the act sooner rather than later was appropriate. In addition, during discussions about the international health regulations of the World Health Organization, it was felt that it was appropriate to do it and to spend time and energy, which it obviously does require, to do it now, before other parts of legislative renewal, of which Mr. Simard is well aware, were further implemented or further discussion was carried out.

[Page 8]
Mrs. Carol Skelton: I would appreciate that, please. We talked at a previous committee meeting about the newly
created Public Health Agency of Canada. Bill C-12 gives authority to the Minister of Health, with no mention at all of the Chief Public Health Officer. Is there any connection between Bill C-12 and the Public Health Agency headed by our Chief Public Health Officer?
.
Dr. Paul Gully: The minister has the powers and can delegate those powers. The responsibility for the Quarantine Act is a responsibility of the Public Health Agency, which is headed by the Chief Public Health Officer. In effect, the Chief Public Health Officer has responsibility for the act under the minister, because there are certain powers, obviously, that the minister will delegate to the Chief Public Health Officer.

[Page 9]
Ms. Ruby Dhalla: I have one question. In terms of the Quarantine Act for our country, where are we at in terms of best practices models when we look at the international spectrum?
.
Dr. Paul Gully: I don’t know the acts in other countries, but because we are updating our act right now and we’re taking into account the probable revisions to the international health regulations, I believe we would be well in the forefront in terms of having modern legislation.

From the November 4, 2004 Parliamentary Hearings. Bill C-12, the 2005 Quarantine Act, was written as to accommodate anticipated changes in the International Health Regulations. As is spelled out, compliance is mandatory.

It also becomes clear that the newly created Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC), will be responsible for carrying out actions in accordance with the Quarantine Act. Keep in mind, in 2004, PHAC had been created by Order In Council. There was no legislative basis for it yet.

5. Bill C-5: Public Health Agency Of Canada Act

WHEREAS the Government of Canada wishes to take public health measures, including measures relating to health protection and promotion, population health assessment, health surveillance, disease and injury prevention, and public health emergency preparedness and response;
WHEREAS the Government of Canada wishes to foster collaboration within the field of public health and to coordinate federal policies and programs in the area of public health;
WHEREAS the Government of Canada wishes to promote cooperation and consultation in the field of public health with provincial and territorial governments;
WHEREAS the Government of Canada also wishes to foster cooperation in that field with foreign governments and international organizations, as well as other interested persons or organizations;
AND WHEREAS the Government of Canada considers that the creation of a public health agency for Canada and the appointment of a Chief Public Health Officer will contribute to federal efforts to identify and reduce public health risk factors and to support national readiness for public health threats;

PUBLIC HEALTH AGENCY OF CANADA
Establishment
3. The Public Health Agency of Canada is established for the purpose of assisting the Minister in exercising or performing the Minister’s powers, duties and functions in relation to public health.

Qualifications required
(2) The Chief Public Health Officer shall be a health professional who has qualifications in the field of public health.
Lead health professional
7. (1) The Chief Public Health Officer is the lead health professional of the Government of Canada in relation to public health.
Communication with governments, public health authorities and organizations
(2) The Chief Public Health Officer may, with respect to public health issues, communicate with governments, public health author-ities or organizations in the public health field, within Canada or internationally.
Communication with the public, voluntary organizations and the private sector
(3) The Chief Public Health Officer may communicate with the public, voluntary organizations in the public health field or the private sector for the purpose of providing information, or seeking their views, about public health issues.

PHAC was created for the purpose of promoting public health, and it serves as a required “focal point” for Canada to fulfill its obligations under the International Health Regulations and the Quarantine Act.

Having Theresa Tam as both the Public Health Officer of Canada and working for the World Health Organization actually makes sense. PHAC effectively acts as a branch of WHO.

PHAC exists to serve a UN function.

6. Government Openly Admits PHAC Is WHO Outpost

How Canada meets its obligations under the IHR
As a signatory to the IHR, Canada is committed to help strengthen global health security. We build capacities to detect, assess, report and respond to public health events here at home and abroad.

Canada has confirmed its ability to meet these public health core capacity requirements under the IHR through the following activities: (a) monitoring and evaluation (such as the Joint External Evaluation (JEE) process)
real-life events; (b) emergency preparedness and response exercises; and (c) Collaboration efforts between federal departments and with provincial and territorial partners improve and strengthen our country’s public health preparedness and response system.

Canada has also established a National IHR Focal Point (NFP), which is required under IHR Article 4 (Responsible authorities). The NFP supports IHR-related communications between Canadian public health authorities, WHO, its regional office in the Americas (care of the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO)) and other countries.

Implementing the IHR in Canada
In Canada, the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) is the lead organization for implementing the IHR. PHAC is also Canada’s designated National IHR Focal Point (NFP). As the NFP, PHAC coordinates the implementation of the IHR on behalf of the Government of Canada.

IHR activities are a shared responsibility. This means that Canada’s Health Portfolio, other federal departments and provincial/territorial governments support IHR implementation.

Canada implements the IHR under existing legislation, regulations, policies and agreements in place at both the federal and provincial/territorial levels.

The success of IHR implementation in Canada relies on ongoing collaboration by all partners to carry out surveillance, reporting, notification, verification, response and collaboration activities: (a) across the country and (b) at international points of entry (airports, ports and ground crossings)

Because legislation differs among federal and provincial/territorial governments, Canada has mechanisms, agreements and plans in place that enable national coordination. This is particularly important during public health emergencies that require federal involvement.

It’s hardly a conspiracy theory when Ottawa openly admits that PHAC serves as the “focal point” for WHO, and to implement the International Health Regulations.

PREVIOUS CANUCK LAW POSTS
(1) WHO International Health Regulations Legally Binding
(2) A Look At International Health Regulation Statements
(3) Quarantine Act Actually Written By WHO, IHR Changes
(4) Provincial Health Acts Domestic Implementation Of WHO-IHR
(5) Provincial Health Acts Domestic Implementation Of WHO-IHR, Part II
(6) World Health Treaty Proposed, Based On WHO-IHR

WHO/INTERNATIONAL HEALTH REGULATIONS
(1) 113th Session Of World Health Org Executive, January 2004
(2) 113th Session World Health Organization Jaunary 2004
(3) https://apps.who.int/gb/ghs/pdf/A_IHR_IGWG_1-en.pdf
(4) WHO September 2 2004 IHR Meeting
(5) https://apps.who.int/gb/ghs/e/e-igwg.html
(6) https://archive.is/kexzW
(7) https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/corporate/mandate/about-agency/history.html
(8) https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/corporate/mandate/about-agency/federal-strategy.html
(9) WHO 113th Session Revise The IHR
(10) WHO IHR 3rd Edition Full Text 2005 MARKED

PUBLIC HEALTH AGENCY OF CANADA ACT (BILL C-5)
(1) https://orders-in-council.canada.ca/
(2) https://openparliament.ca/bills/39-1/C-5/?page=2
(3) https://www.parl.ca/LegisInfo/BillDetails.aspx?Language=E&billId=2162144&View=5
(4) https://parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/39-1/bill/C-5/first-reading
(5) HESA Committee Study On Bill C-5
(6) May 11 2006 HESA Transcript PHAC Act
(7) May 16 2006 HESA Transcript PHAC Act

QUARANTINE ACT (BILL C-12)
(1) https://www.parl.ca/LegisInfo/BillDetails.aspx?Language=E&billId=1395913
(2) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Committees/en/HESA/StudyActivity?studyActivityId=981075
(3) https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/38-1/HESA/report-2/
(4) Canada Quarantine Act Oct 28 Hearing
(5) Canada Quarantine Act Nov 4 Hearing
(6) Canada Quarantine Act Nov 18 Hearing
(7) Canada Quarantine Act Nov 23 Hearing
(8) Canada Quarantine Act Nov 25 Hearing
(9) Canada Quarantine Act Dec 7 First Hearing
(10) Canada Quarantine Act Dec 7 Second Hearing
(11) Canada Quarantine Act Dec 8 Hearing

Posted on

Getting Government Certified In Contact Tracing: No Skill Or Patience Required

Do you have an hour to kill? Want to become a government certified contact tracer? Now it’s even easier than ever. No real skill, talent, or hard work required.
https://training-formation.phac-aspc.gc.ca/?lang=en
https://training-formation.phac-aspc.gc.ca/course/
https://training-formation.phac-aspc.gc.ca/course/view.php?id=296

Side note: I notice that several of the questions imply that you may have multiple sexual partners. Almost as if there was some agenda going on.

CONTACT TRACING INTERVIEWING

It turns out that turning in someone who’s here illegally is actually the wrong answer. One would think that border enforcement is a serious topic, but the Public Health Agency of Canada doesn’t see it that way.

SUPPLEMENTAL TRAINING

The supplemental sections did cram a lot of social justice nonsense into it, such as privilege and oppression. However, we have to power through it (or just keep hitting skip), in order to get move on.

The public health section has a lot of history lessons, but very little useful information. Yes, this entire article has basically just been trolling, but it wasn’t that painful.

Posted on

CV #17(D): Dr. Michael Warner’s Financial Interests In Prolonging The “Pandemic”

Dr. Michael Warner of Toronto is constantly giving media appearances, demanding more lockdowns and more restrictions. Just a few examples are here and here. Even a year later he still advocates for having basic freedoms stripped in the name of “safety”. Now, is this just his professional, medical opinion? Or does he have other reasons for supporting such draconian measures?

This will sound petty, but Warner has a creepy demeanor, which comes across as MK Ultra. Beyond that, he has consistently demanded more and more restrictions be imposed on the public. The mainstream “news” outlets haven’t seen fit to really challenge him on anything he says.

Credit where it’s due: Stormhaven recently published a piece exposing the rampant conflicts of interest that Michael Warner has in promoting lockdowns and vaccines. Hopefully, this article can expand on that.

Despite Warner’s frequent visits to the Canadian media circuit, and in spite of his constant alarming tone, his other business interests are not discussed. He is only referred to as a doctor at Michael Garron Hospital. Either the Canadian media does no research, or they are intentionally not disclosing his other business ventures. Not sure which, but both options are bad.

Michael Warner On CBC, March 21, 2020
Michael Warner On CBC, March 23, 2020
Michael Warner, April 3, 2021
Background Information From Stormhaven
https://www.linkedin.com/in/michaelwarnermdmba
https://archive.is/WI06K
https://www.linkedin.com/company/ontariohealth/
https://archive.is/17Zmb
https://www.advisorymd.com/
https://www.pwc.com/
https://www.utoronto.ca/news/nine-u-t-researchers-receive-federal-grants-covid-19-projects
https://www.utoronto.ca/news/u-t-researchers-receive-federal-grants-covid-19-modelling-projects
https://healthydebate.ca/2016/07/topic/doctor-apps/
https://archive.is/dmNbb
https://www.prweb.com/releases/2016/03/prweb13287286.htm
https://archive.is/8gTxX
https://www.owler.com/news/askthedoctor
https://twitter.com/askthedr
https://www.askthedoctor.com/
https://www.askthedoctorfoundation.org/ppe
https://theppedrive.com/
https://betakit.com/ask-the-doctor-acquires-sehat-indias-largest-health-platform/
https://vator.tv/news/2012-01-05-askthedoctor-and-nih-partner-for-ai-medical-research

Michael Warner is a practicing intensivist and Medical Director of Critical Care at the Michael Garron Hospital. He is a Lecturer at the University of Toronto and educates residents on the financial aspects of transitioning to practice. In 2018, he won the Excellence in Community-Based Teaching award for the best teacher among all U of T community-based teaching hospitals. More recently, he founded thePPEdrive.com and has become a trusted physician voice in the media helping Canadians navigate the COVID-19 pandemic.
.
A graduate of Queen’s University School of Medicine, Dr. Warner trained in internal medicine and critical care at the University of Toronto. To nurture his interest in business, he completed the full-time MBA program at the Rotman School of Management.
.
As a respected clinician and entrepreneur, Dr. Warner has successfully combined his interests in business and medicine. He served as the Medical Director of Best Doctors Canada and worked domestically and internationally as a healthcare consultant for PwC. He also served as Chief Medical Officer of a virtual care company and has a growing interest in coordinating real estate investment opportunities for physicians.
.
In 2016 Dr. Warner started AdvisoryMD. He provides career coaching and personal finance education to physicians clients. For corporate clients he offers clinically informed business advice to companies ranging from healthcare start-up to private equity firm.

There is nothing inherently wrong with having multiples sources of income. However, the problems start to creep in when interests in one (financial or otherwise), collide with another. While Warner’s patients, and society as a whole would likely benefit from ending this martial law, his other businesses may not.

From April 2014 to October 2016, Warner was a consultant with Pricewaterhouse Coopers. One of the areas this company focuses on is transforming the health care sector by increasing the size and scope of virtual care available. Interesting that their former representative now advocates for the sorts of measures that would ensure their growth.

Warner has also moonlighted as a lecturer at the University of Toronto since 2011. Nothing particularly insidious about that. However, it’s worth noting that 9 researchers from UofT got collectively some $6 million to do coronavirus modelling in March 2020. Even more money was handed out in April 2021, despite the awful job done previously for the modelling.

In both his ABOUT section of his LinkedIn page and advisorymd.com site, Warner states that he served as Chief Medical Officer of a virtual care company, but does not identify the company. He also doesn’t make it clear if he is still with them in any capacity. It’s not AdvisoryMD, since he lists that separately. Strange, considering he seems to have no issue with naming other organizations he’s affiliated with.

Spoiler: It’s https://www.askthedoctor.com

This lack of system support is one reason Ask The Doctor decided not to enter the market of offering live access to doctors. The Toronto-based company has doctors answer patient questions within one hour for a fee, and has answered more than 5 million questions worldwide. Patients can also ask doctors on the site for a second opinion, uploading documents such as CT scans or pathology reports along with their self-reported descriptions of their medical history.

The company was almost ready to get into the business of providing virtual and home doctors visits before deciding at the last minute to pull out. “We leased two Teslas, we had decals on them, we created our Android app, we had hired the physicians and we had 100 companies signed up,” says Michael Warner, chief medical officer of Ask The Doctor and a physician at Toronto’s Michael Garron Hospital.

But they decided not to move forward because they felt that the market had already become dominated by some major US players such as Doctor on Demand, and because e-consultations weren’t covered by many provinces. Instead, they’re sticking with their specialty, health advice without the ability to formally diagnose problems, write prescriptions or order tests. “We know that one-quarter to one-third of visits to doctors are for doctors to talk to patients about their medical problems, to explain something, review something,” Warner says. “Helping people understand what’s going on in their body is an important part of primary care.”

One would think that Warner’s other role would be more obvious, given his high profile nature over the last year. But this took some digging.

In a now deleted article, Michael Warner was set to become the head the virtual health company “Ask The Doctor” as Chief Medical Officer of Canadian Operations. There is also a mention in the March 21, 2016 entry on Owler. Of course, as lockdowns and free movement continue to be restricted, the value in virtual health care will grow. As such, it would be AGAINST Warner’s business interests to advocate for a full reopening.

Ask The Doctor does have a Twitter account going back to 2009. However, all but 1 tweet prior to March 2020 has been removed.

Warner states he worked (or works) for a virtual care company, but does not name it. The website does not list him anywhere, despite his high profile, and the above articles are some of the very few that mention him. Does he not want people knowing his ties with the Ask The Doctor Foundation?

Warner’s hospital, the Michael Garron Hospital (formerly Toronto East General) started the PPE drive in the Spring of 2020, asking for donations of surplus equipment. Ask The Doctor Foundation started one around the same time. Whose idea was it?

Ask The Doctor also uses the World War III rhetoric on its website, wording Warner has employed several times. Odd they are both so hyperbolic if there is no connection.

For the curious minded, copies of some of ATD Health Network’s corporate filings are available to read. However, they aren’t all that exciting.

ATD Health Network 01 Amendment
ATD Health Network 02 Annual Return
ATD Health Network 03 Annual Return 2018
ATD Health Network 04 Annual Return 2019
ATD Health Network 05 Annual Return 2017
ATD Health Network 06 Annual Return 2021
ATD Health Network 07 Annual Return 2020
ATD Health Network 08 Directors 2017
ATD Health Network 09 Directors 2017
ATD Health Network 10 Directors 2017
ATD Health Network 11 Directors 2018
ATD Health Network 12 Dissolution
ATD Health Network 13 Dissolution 2014
ATD Health Network 14 Registered Board
ATD Health Network 15 Revival

In October 2015, Ask The Doctor acquired Sehat, the largest health platform in India. In November, they bought Patients Connected Ltd. as well. (Stormhaven erred in stating these were recent). In 2012, ATD partnered with the National Institute of Health to advance AI medical research.Without going too deep into it, Ask The Doctor is huge.

Warner lists his professional interests — except Ask The Doctor — which is bizarre. Also, has he cut ties with them, or is he still affiliated? Is he still their Chief Medical Officer?

With all of this in mind, there are 2 questions that need to be asked:
(a) Why does Michael Warner REALLY support continuous lockdowns?
(b) How come he is never challenged by the mainstream media?

*Disclaimers, Ethics* Proudly powered by WordPress