Category: Vaccines

Posted on

CV #66(B): Health Authorities Fine With Vaccinating Pregnant Women, While Admitting No Testing Done

Bad medical advice is all too common. However, several “reputable” health authorities seem content to raise the stakes even more. They recommend — or at least don’t oppose — vaccinating pregnant women, despite openly admitting a serious lack of testing and longitudinal studies.

1. Who Are These “Reputable” Organizations?

  • World Health Organization
  • American Society of Obstetricians & Gynaecologists
  • U.S. Center for Disease Control
  • U.K. National Health Services
  • Royal College of Physicians of Ireland
  • Australian Department of Health
  • Canadian Society of Obstetricians & Gynaecologists

A disclaimer: this is certainly not all of them. More organizations could easily be added to this list.

2. World Health Organization

Should pregnant women be vaccinated?
While pregnancy puts women at higher risk of severe COVID-19, very little data are available to assess vaccine safety in pregnancy.
.
Nevertheless, based on what we know about this kind of vaccine, we don’t have any specific reason to believe there will be specific risks that would outweigh the benefits of vaccination for pregnant women.
.
For this reason, those pregnant women at high risk of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 (e.g. health workers) or who have comorbidities which add to their risk of severe disease, may be vaccinated in consultation with their health care provider.

The World Health Organization, or WHO, has very little data (or no data), concerning pregnant women and the risks of vaccination. Nonetheless, they don’t see a problem with this going ahead.

3. Society Of Obstetricians/Gynaecologists, US

-ACOG recommends that COVID-19 vaccines should not be withheld from pregnant individuals.
-COVID-19 vaccines should be offered to lactating individuals similar to non-lactating individuals.
-While a conversation with a clinician may be helpful, it should not be required prior to vaccination, as this may cause unnecessary barriers to access.
-Vaccines currently available under EUA have not been tested in pregnant women. Therefore, limited safety data specific to use in pregnancy is available. See details about the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) EUA process below.
–Unfounded claims linking COVID-19 vaccines to infertility have been scientifically disproven.
-ACOG recommends vaccination for all eligible people who may consider future pregnancy.

It’s interesting that this group claims the link between COVID-19 vaccines and infertility has been scientifically disproved, considering they admit no testing has been done.

4. US Center For Disease Control

There are limited data about the safety of COVID-19 vaccines for people who are pregnant
Until findings are available from clinical trials and additional studies, only limited data are available on the safety of COVID-19 vaccines, including mRNA vaccines, administered during pregnancy:
.
Limited data are currently available from animal developmental and reproductive toxicity studies. No safety concerns were demonstrated in rats that received Moderna COVID-19 vaccine before or during pregnancy; studies of
-the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine are ongoing.
-Researchers have studies planned in people who are pregnant.
-Both vaccine manufacturers are monitoring people in the clinical trials who became pregnant.

Getting vaccinated is a personal choice for people who are pregnant
.
People who are pregnant and part of a group recommended to receive COVID-19 vaccine, such as healthcare personnel, may choose to be vaccinated. A conversation between pregnant patients and their clinicians may help them decide whether to get vaccinated with a vaccine that has been authorized for use under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA). While a conversation with a healthcare provider may be helpful, it is not required prior to vaccination.

The U.S. Center for Disease Control (USCDC) shrugs off the vaccinating of pregnant women as a “personal choice”, despite there being no studies done on it. When they say “limited data”, it actually means that they have no data.

5. UK, National Health Services

COVID-19 vaccine in pregnancy
There is no known risk with giving inactivated virus or bacterial vaccines or toxoids during pregnancy or whilst breast-feeding. However, the COVID-19 vaccines have not yet been tested in pregnancy, so it has been advised that until more information is available, pregnant women should not routinely have these vaccines. As a matter of caution, COVID-19 vaccine is therefore not routinely advised in pregnancy but there are some circumstances in which the potential benefits of vaccination are particularly important for pregnant women. This may include women who are at very high risk of catching the infection or those with certain medical conditions that put them at high risk of suffering serious complications from COVID-19 infection. In such circumstances, a woman may choose to have COVID-19 vaccine in pregnancy following a discussion with her doctor or nurse.

Evidence so far reviewed by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), the UK regulatory agency responsible for licencing medicines including vaccines, has raised no concerns for safety in pregnancy.

The data for each licensed COVID-19 vaccine in pregnancy is limited because pregnant women are not included in vaccine trials. This is not because of any specific safety concerns but as a matter of caution, like that applied to trials of most other medicines.

There is some deliberate word games here. The United Kingdown (Britain) tries to reassure the public that these vaccines are safe, while admitting that testing such as on pregnant women is non-existent. If no testing has been done, how can there be “limited evidence” available?

Also note: the UK doesn’t prohibit or recommend that pregnant women not be given this vaccine. Instead, they say that it shouldn’t COMMONLY be happening. Not the same thing.

6. Royal College Of Physicians Of Ireland

COVID-19 vaccines have not been studied in pregnancy and breastfeeding
.
You may get some side-effects from getting the vaccine.

What are the negatives of this option?
1. COVID-19 vaccines have not been studied in pregnant and breastfeeding people
We do not know for sure if there are negative impacts of giving COVID-19 vaccines in pregnancy.
However available information is reassuring and there are no current safety concerns about these vaccines in pregnancy.
2. You may get some side-effects from getting the vaccine.
Common side effects are reported in more than 1 in 10 people and include fatigue, headache, sore arm, fever and muscle or joint
pains. These are more common after the second dose and usually resolve within 2 days.

Despite not being tested on pregnant women, it is presented in Ireland as a serious option to consider. Considering all the hype about the health risks of this virus, this groups comes across indifferent as to the side effects of these injections.

7. Australian Department Of Health

How do I know that the COVID-19 vaccine is safe?
All vaccines are thoroughly tested for safety before they are approved for use in Australia. This includes careful analysis of clinical trial data, ingredients, chemistry, manufacturing and other factors.

Can I get the vaccine if I am pregnant?
In preparation for vaccine rollout, the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation (ATAGI) is currently finalising clinical advice for health care providers on the use of COVID-19 vaccines in Australia in 2021. This is likely to include advice in relation to pregnant women. This advice will be provided as soon as it is received.
.
Clinical trials for new medicines do not typically include pregnant or breastfeeding participants. Each country that is or has hosted clinical trials for COVID-19 vaccine candidates has different guidance regarding use of COVID-19 vaccines in pregnancy based on the benefits, risks and uncertainties in the context of the prevailing pandemic situation.

Australia claims it is still finalizing its guidance. Fair enough. However, the lack of testing on pregnant women should be a huge red flag for any advice that might come out in favour of this. But that isn’t really what they are saying.

8. Society Of Obstetricians/Gynaecologists, CA

Consensus Statement: Women who are pregnant or breastfeeding should be offered vaccination at any time during pregnancy if they are eligible and no contraindications exist.
.
This decision is based on the women’s personal values and an understanding that the risk of infection and/or morbidity from COVID-19 outweighs the theorized and undescribed risk of being vaccinated during pregnancy or
while breastfeeding. Women should not be precluded from vaccination based on pregnancy status or breastfeeding.

Pregnant and breastfeeding women were excluded from the available Phase II and Phase III studies for the PfizerBioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines. However, for Pfizer-BioNTech, there were 23 individuals (12 in the vaccine arm and 11 in the placebo arm) who reported pregnancies during the trial and are being followed for pregnancy outcomes with no reports of adverse effects to date. For the Moderna trials, there were 13 women (6 in the vaccine and 7 in the placebo group) who reported pregnancies during the trial without report of adverse effects to date. Recently V-safe CDC registry which includes pregnant women reported no differences in the rates of adverse events or pregnancy complications for those women who were pregnant and received either the PfizerBioNtech vaccine or the Moderna vaccine. The Developmental and Reproductive Toxicity (DART) animal studies for the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines are ongoing. According to the World Health Organization (WHO) and the American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists (ACOG), no major safety signals have been identified.

Similarly, breastfeeding women were also excluded from the Phase III trials available at present. Therefore, there is no data on the safety of COVID-19 vaccines in lactating women or the effects of mRNA vaccines on the breastfed infant or on milk production. Because mRNA vaccines are not considered live virus vaccines, they are not hypothesized to be a risk to the breastfeeding infant.

Pregnant and breast feeding women were not part of the AstraZeneca trials either. It seems that this piece of information should be front and center of any discussion or recommendation.

Decades of experience with other vaccines administered during pregnancy would suggest that we could expect a similar efficacy for the COVID-19 vaccines in pregnant women compared to non-pregnant women. Vaccines in general are immunogenic, safe, and efficacious when delivered to pregnant women. While there have been no red flags or hypothesized mechanisms for potential harm associated with the administration of an mRNA non-replicating viral vector vaccine during pregnancy, until more data is available, the potential risks of vaccination to a pregnant woman and her fetus remain unknown and only theoretical. What is known, however, is that an unvaccinated pregnant woman remains at risk of COVID-19 infection and remains at heightened risk of severe morbidity if infected compared to non-pregnant counterparts. Severe infection with COVID-19 carries risks to both maternal, fetal and neonatal health. While pregnancy itself does not appear to increase the risk of becoming infected with SARS-CoV-2, pregnant individuals may be in work-related (e.g., health-care worker, front line workers etc.) or community situations (e.g., caregiver, indigenous communities, outbreak setting, etc.) where the risk of infection is considerable. Owing to maternal age or underlying comorbidities, some pregnant women are at high risk of severe COVID-related morbidity.

So we don’t actually have any data on pregnant women being studied. But looking at OTHER vaccines, we assume the risk is similar.

NACI has advised “that a complete vaccine series with a COVID-19 vaccine may be offered to pregnant individuals in the authorized age group, without contraindications to the vaccine, if a risk assessment deems that the benefits outweigh the potential risks for the individual and the fetus, and if informed consent includes discussion about the absence of evidence on the use of COVID-19 vaccine in this population (Discretionary NACI Recommendation)”.

We recommend that pregnant and breastfeeding women who are eligible for the COVID-19 vaccine due to exposure risk, medical status, or other circumstances should be able to make an informed decision by having access to up-to-date information about the safety and efficacy of the vaccine (including clear information about the data that is not yet available) and information about the risks of COVID-19 infection for them. The concern around vaccination in the absence of evidence of safety in pregnancy has been debated in the literature. The PREVENT Working Group state, “the absence of evidence and the mere theoretical or even documented risk of fetal harm is generally not sufficient to justify denying pregnant women access to a vaccine in an outbreak or epidemic.” During an epidemic, the default should be to offer vaccines to pregnant women alongside other affected populations

Individuals contemplating pregnancy
For an individual planning a pregnancy, it is recommended to complete the entire COVID-19 vaccination series (where possible) to achieve maximal vaccine efficacy ahead of pregnancy. It is not known whether an individual should delay pregnancy following receipt of the vaccine and a risk-benefit discussion for those planning pregnancy should occur similar to the discussion for pregnant and breastfeeding women.

It’s recommended that women anticipating pregnancy get vaccinated first. Interesting. It seems that studies have been done on the reproductive problems, or possible sterility.

This entire article is filled with such nonsense. Pregnant women should be offered vaccination, however, the risks are downplayed, as is the lack of real testing. Also, it’s fair to assume that the overwhelming recovery rate of this “virus” is either minimized, or ignored entirely.

Section 30.1 of the Canada Food & Drug Act allows for the Health Minister to sign an Interim Order allowing untested vaccines to be approved. Public officials don’t discuss this. Nor do they mention the fact that they don’t do any testing; they just review the documentation.

In SOGC’s statement (see backup), they see nothing wrong with giving pregnant women — or nursing mothers — these “vaccines”. The reasoning behind it is convoluted and twisted.

These examples are hardly the only ones. However, it’s disturbing to see these seemingly legitimate organizations pushing vaccines on pregnant and nursing women — when they weren’t tested on them in the first place.

Posted on

CV #9: A Look At Money Sunk Into Paying For Vaccines, Research

On August 1, 2020, the Canadian Government, or rather taxpayers, handed out over $240,000 to conduct research which included the study of the issues surrounding MANDATORY vaccines. Yes, that was apparently worth paying for a study. Now, let’s see what else the public’s money has been spent on.

1. Grants To Develop CV Vaccines In Canada

NAME DATE AMOUNT
Alberta Research Chemicals Inc. Jul. 1, 2020 $36,000
Archambault, Denis Jun. 1, 2020 $622,782
Barr, Stephen D Apr. 1, 2020 $998,840
Bell, John C Jun. 1, 2020 $1,936,150
Biodextris Inc. Sep. 24, 2020 $1,307,678
BioVectra Inc. Sep. 4, 2020 $5,412,045
Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Aug. 4, 2020 $40,000,000
Entos Pharmaceuticals Inc. May 1, 2020 $100,000
Entos Pharmaceuticals Inc. Sep. 1, 2020 $5,000,000
Falzarano, Darryl Feb. 1, 2020 $999,793
Falzarano, Darryl Jun. 1, 2020 $1,459,325
Grant, Michael D Sep. 1, 2020 $497,175
Halperin, Scott A Aug. 1, 2020 $240,731
Halperin, Scott A Sep. 1, 2020 $3,516,000
Houghton, Michael Apr. 1, 2020 $600,000
Immunovaccine Technologies Inc. Apr. 1, 2020 $378,239
Immunovaccine Technologies Inc. Apr. 1, 2020 $636,596
Immunovaccine Technologies Inc. Sep. 17, 2020 $1,000,000
Kobinger, Gary P Feb. 1, 2020 $999,356
Leclerc, Denis Feb. 1, 2020 $717,645
Les biotechnologies Ulysse inc Jun. 22, 2020 $30,000
Lewis, John D Jun. 1, 2020 $4,175,000
Liu, Jun Jun. 1, 2020 $416,483
McGill University (Academia) Nov. 6, 2020 $160,198
Medicago inc. Oct. 18, 2020 $173,000,000
Novocol Pharmaceutical of Canada Sep. 8, 2020 $500,000
PharmAchieve Corporation. Ltd. Apr. 1, 2020 $49,920
Pharma Glycovax Inc Aug. 31, 2020 $3,978,832
Precision NanoSystems Inc. Oct. 9, 2020 $18,203,000
Providence Therapeutics Holdings Sep. 1, 2020 $4,700,000
Resilience Biotechnologies Inc. Nov. 1, 2020 $2,103,150
Richardson, Christopher D Jun. 1, 2020 $138,097
Symvivo Corporation Sep. 4, 2020 $2,821,081
Watts, Tania H Jun. 1, 2020 $1,329,250
University of Saskatchewan Jul. 7, 2020 $23,000,000
Xing, Zhou Jun. 1, 2020 $1,920,985
Yao, Xiao-Jian Apr. 1, 2020 $326,578

This came from a quick search of Federal donations, “Vaccine + Covid”. A lot of money was spent already, for many different parties.

2. Other Grants Funding Vaccines/Research

NAME DATE AMOUNT
Adventist Development and Relief Agency Mar. 30, 2020 $3,500,000
Brockman, Mark A Dec. 1, 2011 $1,419,901
CARE Canada May 29, 2019 $2,000,000
Gavi, The Vaccine Alliance Mar. 28, 2014 $20,000,000
Gavi, The Vaccine Alliance Sep. 17, 2015 $500,000,000
IDRC Feb. 17, 2015 $3,000,000
Immuno Vaccine Technologies Sep. 15, 2011 $2,944,000
Immuno Vaccine Technologies Oct. 6, 2008 $3,000,000
Int’l Development Research Centre Sep. 29, 2015 $9,000,000
International Rescue Committee Jun. 12, 2019 $2,600,000
Kobinger, Gary P Apr. 1, 2017 $3,997,503
Loeb, Mark B Oct. 1, 2012 $2,864,660
Loeb, Mark B Jul. 1, 2016 $8,310,463
Medicago inc. May 13, 2015 $8,000,000
Medicago Inc. Jan. 1, 2019 $2,515,000
Novartis Animal Health Canada Inc. Nov. 1, 2006 $1,836,921
Novartis Animal Health Canada Inc. Nov. 7, 2008 $1,747,458
Ogilvie, Gina S Apr. 1, 2019 $10,090,731
Ostrowski, Mario A Dec. 1, 2011 $1,415,432
UNICEF Sep. 4, 2020 $2,500,000
University of Saskatchewan Feb. 16, 2018 $3,609,771
University of Saskatchewan Mar. 23, 2018 $15,609,771
University of Saskatchewan (VIDO) Oct. 2, 2007 $49,000,000
WHO – World Health Organization Mar. 31, 2015 $20,000,000
WHO – World Health Organization Nov. 13, 2019 $2,000,000
Xing, Zhou Jul. 1, 2017 $2,462,740

This is by no means all of them, but are some of the bigger grants flagged by searching “vaccines” on the Government of Canada website.

3. NSERC/CIHR/SSHRC Research Grants

NSERC, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, has also handed out hundreds of grants over the last year regarding “Covid research”. It’s available for all to see.

CIHR, the Canadian Institutes for Health Research, has also listed the grants they they will be handing out. As of August 8, 2020, it was listed at $111 million.

SSHRC, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, also has a website detailing information about its grants and spending.

4. Who Needs Science-Based Policy Anyway?

This is BC Provincial Health Officer, Bonnie Henry. Despite repeated admissions like this, the local media fawns over her, refusing to ask difficult questions. This is the unelected dictator of the Province, that all parties agreed to abdicate their responsibilities to. And this is what BC promotes as “safety“.

Posted on

New $2.25M For “Vaccine Confidence” Programs, $240K To Study Mandatory Vaccines

The Canadian Government is offering organizations up to $50,000 each to promote “vaccine confidence”, and to convince people that they should be taking it. It’s being organized jointly by the NSERC, the SSHRC, and the CIHR.

To be clear, this isn’t 1 grant of $2.25 million. It is 45 grants of $50,000 each, or potentially more than 45, if amounts less than this are awarded.

1. Grants To Promote “Vaccine Confidence”

The Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC), and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) are pleased to launch a special $2.25 million funding opportunity to support activities that promote vaccine confidence in Canada. The agencies expect these activities will improve public understanding of vaccines and help Canadians to make evidence-based decisions, especially among populations that are hesitant about vaccines.

The new funding is targeted at Canadian non-profit organizations, non-federal museums and science centres, and academic institutions with a strong track record of science and/or health promotion. Researchers from all fields with an expertise in combating vaccine-related misinformation may apply either individually through their institutions or in collaboration with science, social sciences, humanities, and/or health promotion organizations.

NSERC will host information webinars to discuss the funding opportunity’s goals and selection criteria, how to prepare an application, and to answer questions. Interested applicants can attend the French session on March 8, 2021 at 1:30 PM Eastern and/or the English session on March 9, 2021 at 12:30 PM Eastern.

This is serious. SSHRC/NSERC/CIHR are working together to launch a program that will award up to $50,000 each for an institution to promote “vaccine confidence”, in order to convince Canadians that these vaccines are safe. Presumably the CV shots are the primary target.

Note: none of these grants are aimed at ENSURING vaccines are safe, such as with additional testing. Instead, the goal is to CONVINCE people that they already are.

2. Marketing/Advertising, Not Science At Play

Examples of eligible activities include:
.
-providing scientifically sound information about vaccines via social media, hotlines, webinars, forums or websites in a way that addresses beliefs and fears
–developing, translating and disseminating easy-to-understand and engaging materials on vaccine acceptance and adoption of public health measures in a culturally appropriate way
-delivering workshops to train community leaders on promoting vaccine confidence and sharing best practices for evidence-based decision making
-mobilizing social sciences and humanities knowledge to address cultural and societal determinants of vaccine hesitancy in order to better ensure vaccine confidence
-sharing historical perspectives on pandemics and vaccine development to build trust and confidence in the community
-providing techniques for identifying reliable sources of information versus misinformation pertaining to vaccines

These activities have nothing to do with science. Instead, they are about using the perceived legitimacy of scientific institutions in order to promote the Government narratives. In short, these institutions would become propaganda outlets, much like the media in Canada.

3. Study Into MANDATORY Vaccines In Canada

Remember how, just 6 months ago, people who spoke of mandatory vaccinations were called “conspiracy theorists”? Turns out, that at least $240,000 of public money has been spend looking into exactly that issue. And there are probably more of these grants.

The Government is enlisting institutions which appear to be neutral in order to prop up its agenda. Seriously, how much is integrity worth these days? It’s bad enough that almost the entire Canadian media is in on it, but scientific institutions at least claim to be neutral truth seekers.

4. Important Links

https://twitter.com/CIHR_IRSC
https://twitter.com/NSERC_CRSNG
https://twitter.com/SSHRC_CRSH

NSERC Grant Postings, For “Vaccine Confidence”
https://archive.is/QRJAW

Event Information Describing The Grant Program
https://archive.is/8QaUT

$240,000 Spent To Study MANDATORY Vaccines
https://archive.is/5xA4e

Other “Pandemic” Grants

RE: CANUCK LAW ON “VACCINE HESITANCY”
(A) Canada’s National Vaccination Strategy
(B) The Vaccine Confidence Project
(C) More Research Into Overcoming “Vaccine Hesitancy”
(D) Psychological Manipulation Over “Vaccine Hesitancy”
(E) World Economic Forum Promoting More Vaccinations

RE: CANUCK LAW ON MEDIA SUBSIDIES, DONATIONS
(a) Subsidization Programs Available For Media Outlets (QCJO)
(b) Political Operatives Behind Many “Fact-Checking” Groups
(c) DisinfoWatch, MacDonald-Laurier, Journalists For Human Rights
(d) Taxpayer Subsidies To Combat CV “Misinformation”
(e) Postmedia Periodicals Getting Covid Subsidies
(f) Aberdeen Publishing (BC, AB) Getting Grants To Operate
(g) Other Periodicals Receiving Subsidies
(h) Still More Media Subsidies Taxpayers Are Supporting
(i) Media Outlets, Banks, Credit Unions, All Getting CEWS

Posted on

CV #30(E): Crestview Strategy, Danielle Peters, Lobbyists Behind $173 Million Grant To Medicago

Medicago received a grant of $173,000,000 to develop a CV-19 vaccine. Beyond that, a portion of the grant is to build a manufacturing facility, which presumably should be operational by 2040.

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

The rest of the series is here. Many lies, lobbying, conflicts of interest, and various globalist agendas operating behind the scenes, obscuring the vile agenda called the GREAT RESET. The Gates Foundation finances: the WHO, the US CDC, GAVI, ID2020, John Hopkins University, Imperial College London, the Pirbright Institute, the BBC, and individual pharmaceutical companies. The International Health Regulations are legally binding. The Postmedia empire and the “independent” media are paid off, as are the fact-checkers. The virus was never isolated, PCR tests are a fraud, as are forced masks, social bubbles, and 2m distancing.

2. Danielle Peters, Major Pharma Lobbyist

  • February 4, 2019
  • February 4, 2019
  • February 5, 2019
  • November 27, 2019
  • January 22, 2020
  • March 3, 2020
  • March 5, 2020
  • May 25, 2020
  • June 8, 2020
  • June 8, 2020
  • June 29 2020
  • July 13, 2020
  • July 15, 2020
  • July 29, 2020
  • July 30, 2020
  • August 6, 2020
  • August 7, 2020
  • August 26, 2020
  • August 27, 2020
  • September 1, 2020
  • September 10, 2020
  • September 16, 2020
  • September 29, 2020
  • October 10, 2020
  • October 10 2020
  • January 13, 2021
  • January 28, 2021

The above list only includes searches for Medicago, which Danielle Peters is featured prominently. She has been registered as a Medicago lobbyist since 2013. Those dates are when she met on behalf of Medicago to lobby for vaccines. If you only search her name, Peters is involved in other pharma lobbying, such as with Merck, Kalgene Pharmaceuticals, Therapure Biopharma, and the Alliance for Safe Online Pharmacies

3. Danielle Peters, Magnet Strategy Group

Dani Peters is President of Magnet Strategy Group, a consulting firm that manages public affairs strategies in Canada and the United States.

Prior to founding Magnet Strategy Group, Dani held senior roles in public affairs firms in the U.S. and Canada, concentrating on fields that include innovation, health and life sciences. Over the past decade, Dani has worked with groups in the health sector to develop and manage government, public policy, funding, advocacy and stakeholder strategies.

Dani is co-founder of the Cross-Border Health Foundation, an organization that fosters dialogue between Canada and the United States around common health priorities. In addition to operating Magnet Strategy Group, Dani serves on the Industry Advisory Board for Bloom Burton & Co., a healthcare investment advisory firm in Toronto. She is also a Health Leader-in-Residence for the World Health Innovation Network (WIN), within the University of Windsor’s Odette School of Business.

What else is there to say? She is clearly a very connected person. Considering that Medicago landed a $173 million contract, due largely to her lobbying, Peters was financially a great investment. This deal wasn’t just to fund vaccine research, it was to build a facility as well.

4. Peters Lobbied While With Rothwell

It worth pointing out that Peters also lobbied on behalf of Medicago when she was employed by the firm, Rothwell Group. Seems that not much has changed.

5. Peters Part Of Adjuvant Partners As Well

Look familiar? It should. This profile is almost identical to the Magnet profile, down to using the same photograph. Among other things, Adjuvant lists “gene therapy” as one area it’s involved with. This appears to be another lobbying firm, as they don’t do medical research themselves.

6. Peters’ LinkedIn Page

The profile of one of the main players behind the $173 million spending. However, she has not acted alone in this.

7. Blake Oliver Jumps Ship To Government

On February 26, 2020, Blake Oliver lobbied the Federal Government on behalf of Medicago, while still employed at Crestview Strategy. Days later, he was working for the Government, in the Ministry of Transportation. He also helped volunteer for the Liberals in the 2019 election.

8. Patricia Sibal, Liberal Party Volunteer

Also connected to this is Patricia Sabil. She has lobbied for Medicago, while working for Crestview Strategy. She is also a volunteer with the Liberals in Ontario and Quebec.

9. Susie Heath, Liberal With Wynne/McGuinty

Susie Heath spent years with the Liberal Government of Dalton McGuinty and Kathleen Wynne. She has also lobbied on behalf of Medicago, while with Crestview Strategy

10. Jennifer Babcock, Ex-Crestview Lobbyist

Babcock spent several years in Parliament, working for various politicians. She also lobbied on behalf of both Medicago and GAVI. Honourable mentions go out to Lucas Malinowski, and Joanna Carey, who appear to have since left Crestview.

Jason Clark is still with Crestview, and has acted for Medicago and GAVI. He volunteered in the 2015 election for Liberals in the Ottawa region. Crestview itself was co-founded by Rob Silver, husband of Katie Telford, Trudeau’s Chief-of-Staff.

Currently, Ashton Arsenault is registered as a lobbyist for both Medicago and GAVI. For some variety, he is a strategist with the Conservative Party of Canada.

For some background information into Crestview and other lobbying, please check here, here, here and here.

This is what they mean when they say “we’re all in it together”.

11. Conflicts Of Interest Ignored In Media

Given the heavy subsidization of the media in Canada, it’s no surprise that none of this is being reported. When outlets are dependent on the Government to prop them up, they are unlikely to do real research. But about that $173 million grant, people should know who is really pulling the strings.

Posted on

IBC #8(B): Various Bonds, Enterprises, The World Bank Group Is Running

The World Bank tries to portray itself as an organization devoted to the welfare of humankind globally. However, the organization is involved in many bond schemes that most people are completely unaware of. It’s quite the lucrative side operation.

1. More On The International Banking Cartel

For more on the banking cartel, check this page. The Canadian Government, like so many others, has sold out the independence and sovereignty of its monetary system to foreign interests. BIS, like its central banks, exceed their agenda and try to influence other social agendas. See who is really controlling things, and the common lies that politicians and media figures tell. The bankers work with the climate mafia and pandemic pushers to promote mutual goals of control and debt slavery.

2. Important Links

5 Organizations Make Up The World Bank

World Bank Launches “Blockchain Bond” In 2018
Second Round Of Blockchain Bonds In 2019
Video Explaining Blockchain Implementation In New Bonds
Seychelles Launches Blue Bonds In 2018
Blue Bonds Partially Financed By Rockefeller Foundation
Video Explaining Blue (Water) Bonds Concept
Rockefeller Foundation Financing Green Bonds
Founders And Partners Of Climate Bonds
“Pandemic Bonds” Started in 2017 By World Bank Group
Pandemic Emergency Financing Facility
World Bank Won’t Pay Out Pandemic Bonds
Video Explaining Pandemic Bonds Concept
World Bank Launching Social Impact Bonds
Lukashenko Claims IMF & World Bank Offered Bribe

3. About The World Bank Group

  • IBRD, The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development
  • IDA, The International Development Association
  • IFC, The International Finance Corporation
  • MIGA, The Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency
  • ICSID, The International Centre for Settlement of Investment Dispute

Partnering With Governments
Together, IBRD and IDA form the World Bank, which provides financing, policy advice, and technical assistance to governments of developing countries. IDA focuses on the world’s poorest countries, while IBRD assists middle-income and creditworthy poorer countries.
.
Partnering With The Private Sector
IFC, MIGA, and ICSID focus on strengthening the private sector in developing countries. Through these institutions, the World Bank Group provides financing, technical assistance, political risk insurance, and settlement of disputes to private enterprises, including financial institutions.
.
One World Bank Group
While our five institutions have their own country membership, governing boards, and articles of agreement, we work as one to serve our partner countries. Today’s development challenges can only be met if the private sector is part of the solution. But the public sector sets the groundwork to enable private investment and allow it to thrive. The complementary roles of our institutions give the World Bank Group a unique ability to connect global financial resources, knowledge, and innovative solutions to the needs of developing countries.

Most people don’t know this, but the World Bank is actually the partnership of 5 organizations. Strangely, an outside search of them reveals nothing about them, other than being part of the World Bank Group. A deep dive is needed into the inner workings of the World Bank, and is coming in a future article.

4. Types Of Bonds World Bank Involved With

Here are some of the programs the World Bank has been mixed up in. It’s quite the varied and lucrative enterprise. People can become very wealthy with these schemes, although, it’s dependent on others playing along.

  • Blockchain Bonds
  • Blue (Water) Bonds
  • Green Bonds
  • Pandemic Bonds
  • Social Bonds
  • Vaccine Bonds

5. World Bank & Blockchain Bonds

WASHINGTON/SYDNEY, August 23/24, 2018 – The World Bank launched bond-i (blockchain operated new debt instrument), the world’s first bond to be created, allocated, transferred and managed through its life cycle using distributed ledger technology. The two-year bond raised $110 million, marking the first time that investors have supported the World Bank’s development activities in a transaction that is fully managed using the blockchain technology.

The World Bank mandated Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA) as arranger for the bond on August 10. The announcement was followed by a two-week consultation period with the market, with key investors indicating strong support for the issuance.

Investors in the bond include CBA, First State Super, NSW Treasury Corporation, Northern Trust, QBE, SAFA, and Treasury Corporation of Victoria. CBA and the World Bank will continue to welcome investor interest in the bond throughout its life cycle, and inquiries from other market participants in relation to the platform.

The bond is part of a broader strategic focus of the World Bank to harness the potential of disruptive technologies for development. In June 2017, the World Bank launched a Blockchain Innovation Lab to understand the impact of blockchain and other disruptive technologies in areas such as land administration, supply chain management, health, education, cross-border payments, and carbon market trading.

The World Bank Group started “blockchain bonds” in 2018. Rather than the more traditional methods, this would, as the name implies, use Blockchain technology as an alternative. The next round of bonds came in 2019.

6. World Bank & Blue (Water) Bonds

The Republic of Seychelles start the first sovereign “blue bond” in 2018. The Rockefeller Foundation, Standard Chartered Bank and Bank of New York Mellon helped with payments. The bonds themselves were placed with the private investors: Nuveen, Prudential and Calvert Impact Capital.

7. World Bank & Green/Climate Bonds

Climate Bonds, or “Green Bonds“, is yet another growing industry that the Rockefellers and other environmental groups are trying to pump up. This is an industry that is potentially worth $100 trillion or more. However, the money likely won’t be going where people think it will.

8. World Bank, PEFF & Pandemic Bonds

Washington, DC, June 28, 2017 – The World Bank (International Bank for Reconstruction and Development) today launched specialized bonds aimed at providing financial support to the Pandemic Emergency Financing Facility (PEF), a facility created by the World Bank to channel surge funding to developing countries facing the risk of a pandemic.

This marks the first time that World Bank bonds are being used to finance efforts against infectious diseases, and the first time that pandemic risk in low-income countries is being transferred to the financial markets.

The PEF will provide more than $500 million to cover developing countries against the risk of pandemic outbreaks over the next five years, through a combination of bonds and derivatives priced today, a cash window, and future commitments from donor countries for additional coverage.

The transaction, that enables PEF to potentially save millions of lives, was oversubscribed by 200% reflecting an overwhelmingly positive reception from investors and a high level of confidence in the new World Bank sponsored instrument. With such strong demand, the World Bank was able to price the transaction well below the original guidance from the market. The total amount of risk transferred to the market through the bonds and derivatives is $425 million.

In June 2017, the World Bank started up “Pandemic Bonds“, which would be a sort of insurance policy against infectious diseases. Of course, one has to wonder how far ahead they saw in starting this.

The PEFF, or Pandemic Emergency Financing Facility, will determine if there is a pandemic, according to certain criteria. But early in 2020, the World Bank was accused of “waiting for people to die”, by refusing to pay out this money.

9. World Bank & Social Impact Bonds

In February 2019 “Social Impact Bonds” were started up. They are marketed as a sort of social investment driver, to improve the quality of live for people in the 3rd World, particularly women. They are also supposed to help with the financing of the UNSDA, or United Nations Sustainable Development Agenda.

10. World Bank, IFFM & Vaccine Bonds

This was addressed in the Planned-emic series. Instead of giving money directly to GAVI, there is a convoluted scheme that involves making pledges to IFFIm, the International Finance Facility for Immunizations. Those pledges are then used to generate bonds which are sold to the World Bank. The World Bank then re-sells those bonds on the open market. The money from sales goes to GAVI, who uses it to finance their vaccine agenda.

Note: IFFIm is actually financed by GAVI (who is financed by Gates), so there isn’t really any independence here.

Of course, these means that donor pledges end up costing much more than originally told, or it means only a portion of that money is put to use.

11. Some Thoughts On These Bonds

In early 2020, the President of Belarus claimed that the IMF (International Monetary Fund), and World Bank, offered him a bribe of almost $1 billion if he would impose pandemic measures on his country. He refused. While that seemed like an absurd conspiracy theory at the time, more and more questions need to be answered.

What are the IMF and World Bank up to, and are these bonds connected to their push for drastic (and forced) social changes?

While all of these projects have nice enough sounding names, a question keeps coming up: why is it necessary to use these bonds at all? Instead of selling, and reselling bonds, shouldn’t the money go directly to the people who will be impacted? After all, the average person doesn’t benefit from increased bond values, only the bond holders do.

It’s interesting that the Rockefeller Foundation is so supportive of all of this. After all, they drafted the Lockstep Narrative in 2010. They lay out in broad strokes how to force social change under the false pretense of a global health crisis.

Of course, companies that don’t play along with the agenda, such as “non-green” industries, will soon be forced out of business. The threats have been openly made for a long time now.

Posted on

Conservatives Whine About Sexual Assault During Quarantine, Not The Forced Quarantines Themselves

This is a new level of moral relativity. Apparently, authorities detaining people for 14 days under the false pretense of public safety is okay. The forcible confinement is not the issue. Nor is the nasal rape that comes in the form of PCR tests. However, the entire experience is suddenly a human rights violation if a sexual assault is committed during that time.

1. Rempel Supports House Arrest In Principle

https://twitter.com/GregMcLeanYYC/status/1358115105683066881

This is from February 6, 2021. At the 28 second mark, Michelle Rempel-Garner explicitly states that everyone (presuming her party included), supports the idea of forcing people into their homes for 14 days at a time.

In her usual “Canada last” ways, she does ask for exemptions for Temporary Foreign Workers from quarantine, at a time when unemployment in Canada is still extremely high.

To reiterate, the “Official Opposition” doesn’t have a problem with imprisoning people. Their complaints are limited to some of the details of implementing such policies.

2. Fake Outrage Over Assault In Quarantine

https://twitter.com/MichelleRempel/status/1365032919866118147

On February 25, Rempel pretended to be outraged that people coming into Canada were being forced into quarantine against their will, and not knowing where they are going. Keep in mind, on February 6, she was okay with this, according to her own statement.

Does any of this mean that Conservatives now have a problem with this sort of confinement? Keep in mind, it would be illegal in any other circumstances. No. Instead, all that is asked is for a review, and to do a better job of vetting the guards holding them prisoner.

“The Liberal government must take action now. We call for the Liberals to suspend the hotel quarantine requirement until they have put measures in place to ensure the safety of Canadians and institute a system for verifying at-home quarantine that doesn’t involve security agents who have not been properly vetted. During this necessary pause, the federal government should continue with on-arrival testing and the 14-day at-home quarantine for all international travelers to protect the public health of Canadians.”

Even in her statement, there is no principled objection to the quarantine camps themselves (or internment camps). There is no objection to forcing people into house arrest. In fact, they seem content to re-establish these detention centers once better screening methods are in place.

The National Post mentioned that there was a call to suspend the program, which is not the same thing as cancelling it altogether.

3. Vaccine Agenda: They’re All In It Together

(See 1:30 mark in this, or original video). Trudeau claims that “normalcy will not return without a vaccine that is widely available, and that could be a very long way off”.

https://twitter.com/erinotoole/status/1356966419934683138

This is Erin O’Toole, the leader of the so-called “Conservative” Party of Canada, which claims to be the main opposition to Trudeau. Problem is: they don’t actually oppose anything ideologically. They whine about vaccines and tests not arriving fast enough, but don’t object on moral or ethical grounds.

There’s no way to describe this other than as a dog and pony show. These “leaders” are just going through the motions.