Category: Vaccines

Posted on

Can Plaintiffs/Defendants Testify As Expert Witnesses In Their Own Cases?

This piece is going to be a bit different. It’s an effort to answer a question: can interested parties also serve as experts in the same case? It will look at an example, using Ontario as a model.

The instinctive answer would be no, this is a serious conflict of interest. But let’s look a bit deeper. Remember, this is just for information, and there’s no need for anyone to overreact.

1. Important Links

Ontario Rules Of Civil Procedure
Ontario Law Society: Rule 3.4 (Conflicts Of Interest)
Canadian National Railway Co. v. McKercher LLP, 2013 SCC 39
Vaccine Choice Canada Lawsuit, October 2019
Vaccine Choice Canada Lawsuit, July 2020

2. Ontario Rules Of Civil Procedure

RULE 4.1 DUTY OF EXPERT
.
DUTY OF EXPERT
.
4.1.01 (1) It is the duty of every expert engaged by or on behalf of a party to provide evidence in relation to a proceeding under these rules,
.
(a) to provide opinion evidence that is fair, objective and non-partisan;
.
(b) to provide opinion evidence that is related only to matters that are within the expert’s area of expertise; and
.
(c) to provide such additional assistance as the court may reasonably require to determine a matter in issue. O. Reg. 438/08, s. 8.
.
Duty Prevails
.
(2) The duty in subrule (1) prevails over any obligation owed by the expert to the party by whom or on whose behalf he or she is engaged. O. Reg. 438/08, s. 8.

According to Rule 4.1.01(1) and (2), the answer likely is no. A person who is a Plaintiff or Defendant is by nature an interested party. If the person has a vested interest (financial or otherwise), then overcoming that conflict of interest would be difficult.

3. What Expert Reports Will Include (Ontario)

(2.1) A report provided for the purposes of subrule (1) or (2) shall contain the following information:
.
1. The expert’s name, address and area of expertise.
.
2. The expert’s qualifications and employment and educational experiences in his or her area of expertise.
.
3. The instructions provided to the expert in relation to the proceeding.
.
4. The nature of the opinion being sought and each issue in the proceeding to which the opinion relates.
.
5. The expert’s opinion respecting each issue and, where there is a range of opinions given, a summary of the range and the reasons for the expert’s own opinion within that range.
.
6. The expert’s reasons for his or her opinion, including,
i. a description of the factual assumptions on which the opinion is based,
ii. a description of any research conducted by the expert that led him or her to form the opinion, and
iii. a list of every document, if any, relied on by the expert in forming the opinion.
.
7. An acknowledgement of expert’s duty (Form 53) signed by the expert. O. Reg. 438/08, s. 48.

Rule 53.03 of Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure outlines what is expected by expert witness to submit in their reports to the Court, in advance of trial. It’s a pretty good outline for the contents.

4. OLS Rules Of Professional Conduct

SECTION 3.4 CONFLICTS
Duty to Avoid Conflicts of Interest
3.4-1 A lawyer shall not act or continue to act for a client where there is a conflict of interest, except as permitted under the rules in this Section.

Commentary
[1] As defined in rule 1.1-1, a conflict of interest exists when there is a substantial risk that a lawyer’s loyalty to or representation of a client would be materially and adversely affected by the lawyer’s own interest or the lawyer’s duties to another client, a former client, or a third person. Rule 3.4-1 protects the duties owed by lawyers to their clients and the lawyer-client relationship from impairment as a result of a conflicting duty or interest. A client’s interests may be seriously prejudiced unless the lawyer’s judgment and freedom of action on the client’s behalf are as free as possible from conflicts of interest.

[2] In addition to the duty of representation arising from a retainer, the law imposes other duties on the lawyer, particularly the duty of loyalty. The duty of confidentiality, the duty of candour and the duty of commitment to the client’s cause are aspects of the duty of loyalty. This rule protects all of these duties from impairment by a conflicting duty or interest.

[7] A bright line rule has been developed by the courts to protect the representation of and loyalty to current clients. c.f. Canadian National Railway Co. v. McKercher LLP, [2013] 2 S.C.R. 649. The bright line rule holds that a lawyer cannot act directly adverse to the immediate legal interests of a current client, without the clients’ consent. The bright line rule applies even if the work done for the two clients is completely unrelated. The scope of the bright line rule is limited. It provides that a lawyer cannot act directly adverse to the immediate legal interests of a current client. Accordingly, the main area of application of the bright line rule is in civil and criminal proceedings. Exceptionally, the bright line rule does not apply in circumstances where it is unreasonable for a client to expect that the client’s law firm will not act against the client in unrelated matters.

Consent
3.4-2 A lawyer shall not represent a client in a matter when there is a conflict of interest unless there is consent, which must be fully informed and voluntary after disclosure, from all affected clients and the lawyer reasonably believes that he or she is able to represent each client without having a material adverse effect upon the representation of or loyalty to the other client.

Having an expert witness as a Plaintiff or Defendant is a conflict. It gets even trickier when there are other clients involved in the same case. The duty of the expert is to the court first and foremost. The Ontario Law Society, (a.k.a. Law Society of Upper Canada), has strict rules against members engaging in conflicts of interest.

5. Supreme Court: Bright Red Line Rule

Canadian National Railway Co. v. McKercher LLP, 2013 SCC 39

Cases Cited
.
Referred to: R. v. Neil, 2002 SCC 70, [2002] 3 S.C.R. 631; MacDonald Estate v. Martin, 1990 CanLII 32 (SCC), [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1235; R. v. Cunningham, 2010 SCC 10, [2010] 1 S.C.R. 331; Cholmondeley v. Clinton (1815), 19 Ves. Jun. 261, 34 E.R. 515; Bricheno v. Thorp (1821), Jacob 300, 37 E.R. 864; Taylor v. Blacklow (1836), 3 Bing. (N.C.) 235, 132 E.R. 401; Rakusen v. Ellis, [1912] 1 Ch. 831; Strother v. 3464920 Canada Inc., 2007 SCC 24, [2007] 2 S.C.R. 177; Bolkiah v. KPMG, [1999] 2 A.C. 222; Moffat v. Wetstein (1996), 1996 CanLII 8009 (ON SC), 29 O.R. (3d) 371; Canadian Pacific Railway v. Aikins, MacAulay & Thorvaldson (1998), 1998 CanLII 5073 (MB CA), 23 C.P.C. (4th) 55; De Beers Canada Inc. v. Shore Gold Inc., 2006 SKQB 101, 278 Sask. R. 171; Toddglen Construction Ltd. v. Concord Adex Developments Corp. (2004), 34 C.L.R. (3d) 111.

(f) The Bright Line Rule
.
[27] In Neil, this Court (per Binnie J.) stated that a lawyer may not represent a client in one matter while representing that client’s adversary in another matter, unless both clients provide their informed consent. Binnie J. articulated the rule thus:

The bright line is provided by the general rule that a lawyer may not represent one client whose interests are directly adverse to the immediate interests of another current client — even if the two mandates are unrelated — unless both clients consent after receiving full disclosure (and preferably independent legal advice), and the lawyer reasonably believes that he or she is able to represent each client without adversely affecting the other. [Emphasis in original; para. 29]

[28] The rule expressly applies to both related and unrelated matters. It is possible to argue that a blanket prohibition against concurrent representation is not warranted with respect to unrelated matters, where the concrete duties owed by the lawyer to each client may not actually enter into conflict. However, the rule provides a number of advantages. It is clear. It recognizes that it is difficult — often impossible — for a lawyer or law firm to neatly compartmentalize the interests of different clients when those interests are fundamentally adverse. Finally, it reflects the fact that the lawyer-client relationship is a relationship based on trust. The reality is that “the client’s faith in the lawyer’s loyalty to the client’s interests will be severely tried whenever the lawyer must be loyal to another client whose interests are materially adverse”: Restatement of the Law, Third: The Law Governing Lawyers (2000), vol. 2, § 128(2), at p. 339

The “bright red line” has been explicitly stated to lawyers who represent clients with opposing interests. However, the idea of representing an expert witness is an interesting twist.

Though the language differs across jurisdictions, experts are considered “Friends of the Court”, neutral people who can provide unbiased information and opinion for a Judge and/or Jury.

True, experts are paid for their time by someone. That alone does not render them useless, as they do have a role to play. But what happens when the Expert has a vested interest in the outcome of the case?

While the Lawyer’s Clients (the Experts and non-Experts) could conceivably agree that this conflict of interest should be set aside, what about opposing Parties? Could it not result in an unfair Trial by stacking the deck against them?

Something seems off about this.

6. Such A Conflict In Ongoing Case?!?!

Pages 39-43 of the Statement of Claim spell out the qualifications and education of Denis Rancourt. And yes, it is quite impressive. However, no facts are pleaded to demonstrate that Rancourt has been harmed in any way by these restrictions, or that he has suffered any losses. He is clearly being introduced as an expert witness.

It’s not just that Rancourt is to be paid a fee for his time and trouble. That would be one thing. Here, he is a Plaintiff in an $11 million lawsuit — which he doubles as an Expert in. It stands to reason that he could make $1 to $2 million is the case is successful, which is a conflict of interest. Even if he is unbiased, this conflict will not be lost on the Court — or the other lawyers.

Is this normal? Are Experts typically interested Parties in the cases they participate in? Is there some exception or clause in the law that allows for this to happen? Is this a common practice that just isn’t discussed much? This appears to be the sort of thing that would jeopardize fair proceedings, but who knows?

Note: this is not an attempt to defend the nonsense that has gone on Federally, Provincially, Municipally and even in other countries. All of those people should be tried for crimes against humanity. The CV hoax is extensively outlined in this series. However, all problems need to be called out.

There are of course other issues, such as missing service addresses, and no defenses filed, but they have been addressed elsewhere.

The Statement of Claim was released publicly, but with most Plaintiff names redacted. Anyone who wants the unedited version can get a copy for free from the Ontario Superior Court (Civil Division) in Toronto.

Posted on

CV #35(C): Health Canada Refuses To Answer Questions About Indemnification For Vaccines

The public is understandably anxious about whether vaccine manufacturers will be indemnified (legally immune), for the products they sell. It’s a valid question, from a patient perspective, and as a taxpayer.

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. Also: there is little to no science behind what our officials are doing; they promote degenerate behaviour; and the International Health Regulations are legally binding. See here, here, and here. The media is paid off, and our democracy compromised, shown: here, here, here, and here.

2. Email Exchange With Health Canada

Health Canada was contact specifically about the indemnification of vaccine manufacturers. Above are the responses. However, it’s a bit misleading to say that they can’t release information due to ongoing negotiating. Health Canada wouldn’t even discuss indemnification for Eli Lilly Canada and Gilead Sciences Canada. Both had been settled long ago.

3. Health Canada And Vaccine Regulation

Vaccination is one of the world’s greatest public health achievements. For over 50 years, vaccines have helped prevent and control the spread of deadly diseases and saved the lives of millions of infants, children and adults. For example, there are vaccines for:

-epidemics, such as Ebola
-childhood diseases and debilitating diseases, such as polio
-diseases, such as Yellow Fever, that are common in some travel destinations
-influenza strains that change every year
-preventing or treating cancer
Many vaccines are recommended as part of Canadian public health programs to prevent people from getting diseases. This means that they are given to large numbers of healthy people.

This is why regulating the safety, efficacy and quality of vaccines is of particular importance. There are also reporting systems in place to monitor vaccine safety.

https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-health-products/biologics-radiopharmaceuticals-genetic-therapies/activities/fact-sheets/regulation-vaccines-human-canada.html

Emergency access to vaccines
In some cases, such as public health emergencies like flu pandemics, special authorizations are used to give emergency access to a vaccine. For example, Health Canada issued an Interim Order in 2009 for the H1N1 pandemic vaccine. The vaccine was developed to protect against the H1N1 pandemic virus. The vaccine contained an inactivated (non-live) version of the H1N1 virus strain recommended by WHO for the manufacture of vaccines during the 2009 flu pandemic.

Worth addressing: in that 2009 Interim Order to approve vaccines for H1N1, Health Canada allowed drugs made by GlaxoSmithKline, (GSK), onto the market that hadn’t been fully tested. GSK was indemnified by the Government. Would it happen here?

Why is it so hard to get a straight answer with this case? Will they be indemnified or not?

Posted on

Psychological Manipulation And Techniques To Overcome “Vaccine Hesitancy”

One way to “persuade” people to get vaccinated is to simply strip them of their rights. Sure, the Government won’t tie you down to get it, but good luck enjoying your life otherwise. This is David Williams, the Chief Medical Officer of Ontario.

A point of clarification: the research into “vaccine hesitancy” isn’t about CREATING safe vaccines. Instead, it’s about CONVINCING people that they already are. Big difference.

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. Also: there is little to no science behind what our officials are doing; they promote degenerate behaviour; and the International Health Regulations are legally binding. See here, here, and here. The media is paid off, and our democracy compromised, shown: here, here, here, and here.

2. Important Links

Ontario Medical Officer David Williams: Boot To Neck
Health Canada On Addressing Vaccine Hesitancy
Canada On Improving Vaccination Rates
Canadian Family Physician Publication
Vaccine Hesitancy Clinic
CBC Smearing Skeptics Of Masks/Vaccines
May 2019 Statement On Canada And Vaccine Hesitancy

Vaccine Hesitancy: Part A; Part B; Part C

3. Be Vague, Avoid Giving Specifics

This infographic uses autism as an example. The trick is to be conclusive (but vague), in stating that there are no harmful effects. It recommends not saying anything meaningful or specific, in order to make it harder to pin down.

4. Only Be “Honest” With Vaccine Accepters

This chart gives different techniques depending how willing to the person is to accept vaccines at all. It suggests being somewhat open about the risks, but emphasizing that they are rare. For the reluctant people, the guidelines say to focus on “building rapport” to get them to take it, but doesn’t specify to list what’s actually in the vaccines. As for the “refusers”, the recommendation is a mild form of gaslighting. Avoid giving direct answers, and focus on the risks of not being vaccinated.

5. Have A Script/Technique Already Prepared

Start early:
Take advantage of prenatal appointments and the first few postnatal appointments. A mixed-methods study showed that parents who delayed or refused vaccines were twice as likely to start thinking about vaccines before their children’s births. A randomized controlled trial showed that adherence to the immunization schedule improved with a single prenatal education session, and another showed benefit from stepwise education interventions prenatally, postnatally, and 1 month after birth. At these appointments, parents can be provided with opportunities to ask questions and with credible take-home materials, websites, or tools.

Present vaccination as the default approach:
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends a presumptive approach to discussions about vaccinations and restating the recommendation after addressing parents’ concerns. A cross-sectional study found that parents were significantly more likely to resist vaccine recommendations if the provider used a participatory rather than a presumptive initiation format (odds ratio of 17.5, 95% CI 1.2 to 253.5) and that when providers pursued the original recommendations, almost half of initially resistant parents subsequently accepted the recommendations. While a follow-up cross-sectional study showed that the presumptive initiation format had a lower-rated visit experience, it was still associated with higher parental vaccine acceptance at the end of the visit.

Be honest about side effects when asked, and reassure parents of a robust vaccine safety system:
A 2014 systematic review showed that serious adverse events associated with vaccines are extremely rare. Perceived risk might be lowered by acknowledging that vaccines might result in mild side effects and very rarely serious adverse events. The Canadian vaccine safety system has 8 components, including an evidence-based approval process, manufacturer regulations, independent recommendations for vaccine use, and ongoing monitoring of adverse events. It has been shown in a randomized controlled trial that providing general information on the adverse event reporting system might increase trust and vaccine acceptance among adults. However, no similar study was found for childhood immunization.

Tell stories in addition to providing scientific facts:
According to a survey of primary care physicians in the United States, the most common communication practices deemed very effective for convincing skeptical parents were personal statements by physicians about what they would do for their own children and about their personal experiences with vaccine safety among their patients. Stories and images highlighting the effects of VPDs improved attitudes toward vaccination according to a randomized controlled trial, especially for individuals who had lower confidence in vaccines. However, another randomized controlled trial showed that dramatic narratives and images resulted in no significant change in intention to vaccinate and even decreased intention among those who had the least favourable perception. However, this study tested Web-based messages only. Although more evidence is needed on the topic, storytelling, which has commonly been used by the antivaccine movement, has been proposed as a possible messaging technique to supplement evidence-based information.

Build trust with parents:
A recent review found that parental trust in a provider helps ensure vaccine compliance. A qualitative study reported that a mother’s trust is obtained when a provider spends time discussing vaccines, does not deride her concerns, is knowledgeable, and provides satisfactory answers. Other qualitative studies identified respect, empathy, and tailored information as aspects of communication competence.

Address pain:
Pain associated with vaccination is a concern for many parents and children. Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines have been developed to reduce vaccination-associated.

Focus on protection for the child and community:
Necessity of vaccines is the top concern from Canadian parents, and a study conducted in Quebec found that one of the strongest factors associated with parental vaccine hesitancy was the belief that VPDs were not serious. A study conducted in the United States had similar findings. To highlight the importance of individual protection, the use of motivational interviewing could be considered. A recent Canadian randomized controlled trial showed that motivational interviewing on maternity wards increased the intention to vaccinate by 20% and the likelihood of complete vaccination status by 9%. A systematic review concluded that there might be some parental willingness to vaccinate children for the benefit of others; however, its relative importance as a motivating tool is uncertain.

Note that throughout this, there is no suggestion that the doctor have a frank and open discussion about what is actually in vaccines, the gaps in knowledge, or the long term effects. The recommendation is to build trust, so that the patient will not ask difficult questions and just take it. The entire approach can be described as “shut up and trust me”. Again, doctors are guided to be vague when answering questions.

6. Set Up Actual Vaccine Hesitancy Clinic

Again, the focus is on “building trust” and “forming a relationship”, but never a focus on educating the patient on what is in the vaccines, and the long term effects. Also, guilt trip the people by implying that it’s necessary in order for life to return to normal.

7. Social Media Manipulation, Censorship

There are many ways to “put one’s thumb on the scale” to ensure that the right, pro-vaccination messages are what is seen and heard online. Some techniques include:

(a) Flood social media with pro-vaxx content
(b) Automatically direct people to Government sites
(c) Take down sites which contradict the Government
(d) Get certain accounts demonetized
(e) Manipulate search algorithms

8. Deliberate Gaslighting Of Critics, Skeptics

There is the option of intentionally smearing people as emotional and bigoted for asking legitimate questions about masks and vaccines. While this CBC video explicitly claims to oppose shaming and humiliation, it’s tone seems to support exactly that.

9. Not Limited To Current “Pandemic”

No, this situation isn’t unique to 2020. Governments and NGOs have for many years been looking at ways to get more people vaccinated.

10. Patients Not Provided Real Information

Much of the research involves techniques of “building a relationship”, or of “building a rapport”, or of “being sympathetic”. This does nothing to address the litany of legitimate concerns and questions that many have about the chemicals being injected into their bodies.

Even more disturbingly, there aren’t recommendations that physicians and nurses take the time and effort to research and understand exactly what the chemicals are.

In fact, much of the published research explicitly recommends avoiding real discussion, especially with people who have done their homework — so called “vaccine refusers”. In effect, it encourages health care workers to betray their oath and obligations regarding informed consent.

If this is health care, then the entire system is broken beyond repair.

A telltale sign of deception is when a person is asked increasingly direct questions, but remains vague about the answers. That is exactly what is implied with these techniques to overcome “vaccine hesitancy”.

Posted on

CV #24(C): Vaccine Impact Modelling Consortium, More Bogus Science

The Vaccine Impact Modelling Consortium: just another group involved in the junk science of computer modelling for epidemics. It in under the umbrella of Imperial College London, and is heavily funded by Gates and GAVI. Of course, GAVI is heavily funded by Gates.

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. Also: there is little to no science behind what our officials are doing; they promote degenerate behaviour; the Australian Department of Health admits the PCR tests don’t work; the US CDC admits testing is heavily flawed; and The International Health Regulations are legally binding. See here, here, and here. The media is paid off, and our democracy compromised, shown: here, here, here, and here.

2. VIMC Key Partners

https://www.vaccineimpact.org/partners/

About us
The Vaccine Impact Modelling Consortium coordinates the work of several research groups modelling the impact of vaccination programmes worldwide.

The Consortium was established at the end of 2016 for a period of five years, and is currently coordinated by secretariat based at Imperial College London.

As its core objective, the Consortium aims to deliver more sustainable, efficient, and transparent approach to generating disease burden and vaccine impact estimates. Furthermore, the Consortium will work on aggregating the estimates across a portfolio of twelve vaccine-preventable diseases and further advancing the research agenda in the field of vaccine impact modelling.

The Consortium is funded by Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and the data generated by the Consortium will support the evaluation of the two organisations’ existing vaccination programmes, and inform potential future investments and vaccine scale-up opportunities.

https://www.vaccineimpact.org/aboutus/

Strange that the coronavirus isn’t listed. After all, this group is closely tied to Gates and GAVI. However, it seems to be involved in everything else under the sun.

3. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

In 2016, a donation of $5.6 million was awarded to Imperial College London to establish the Vaccine Impact Modelling Consortium. As the name implies, it would work on computer models to predict viruses and vaccine treatments. Of course, models are just predictions, and are not evidence of anything.

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

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

The tax records are worth going through. The Gates Foundation donates to many universities across the globe. It’s difficult to comprehend without seeing the full list.

4. Know Who This Group Works For

The takeaway here is simple: when research is released, always know who is funding it, and where their allegiances lie. Vaccine Impact Modelling Consortium is no different.

Posted on

CV #30(B): Pfizer Still Lobbying In Canada, Vaccine Approved In U.K.

Vaccines are coming into Canada from Pfizer and others. This was recently been announced on the CBC. For some context, remember that:
-The virus survival rate is over 99% (if it even exists)
-PCR tests are useless as diagnostic tools (again, if it even exists)
-People have to be tested to know they have it
-Vaccines were cooked up in the last few months, side effects unknown
-Things like masks will continue afterwards

1. Rempel Isn’t Who She Pretends To Be

In the video with Michelle Rempel-Garner (discussing Derek Sloan’s petition), it’s interesting that she shrugs off the very valid concerns of unproven drugs. She also doesn’t question the wisdom behind lockdowns themselves. Want your freedom? Shut up and get the vaccine. This is typical of “conservative” politicians in Canada.

Rempel isn’t who she appears to be. And why exactly does she keep looking to her right in the video? Is there someone else in the room?

2. Pfizer Lobbying Ottawa Regularly

Pfizer has lobbied the Federal Government 153 times since becoming a registered lobbyist in 2007. Of course, that doesn’t include any discussions that may be “off the books”. One of Pfizer’s lobbyists, Steven Hogue, used to work in the Prime Minister’s Office when Jean Chretien was in office.

3. Goldy Hyer Ex-Pfizer Lobbyist In Ottawa

Goldy Hyer was at a time the Chief-of-Staff for Joe Clark, then Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada. He is also involved with:
(a) The Century Initiative
(b) Asia Business Leaders Advisory Council
(c) Catalyst Inc. / Catalyst Canada
(d) 30% Club Canada

4. Pfizer Lobbied M-132 Committee Vice-Chairs

Motion Text
That the Standing Committee on Health be instructed to undertake a study on ways of increasing benefits to the public resulting from federally funded health research, with the goals of lowering drugs costs and increasing access to medicines, both in Canada and globally; and that the Committee report its findings and recommendations to the House no later than one year from the time this motion is adopted.

M-132 was filed in late 2017, by Raj Saini. It was a motion to finance pharmaceuticals, and pharmaceutical research, both in Canada and abroad. See here and here. Marilyn Gladue, and Don Davies, (both lobbied by Pfizer), were the Vice-Chairs on that Committee.

5. Pfizer Lobbying In Ontario

Pfizer has also been busy lobbying Ontario since 2002 over pharmaceutical interests. It’s worth noting, that both Kathleen Wynne and Doug Ford never fully implemented Bill 160. This Bill would have mandated disclosure, (rather than it being optional), of payments made to health care providers to sell certain drugs.

Since Bill 160 isn’t really the law, there’s no requirement hospitals or health care staff to disclose the financing they may get to push certain remedies.

8. Pfizer Lobbying In Manitoba

Manitoba has had lobbyists from Pfizer in the past, but none active since 2017. Perhaps they have moved on to Ottawa.

7. Pfizer Lobbying In Alberta

A search in the Alberta Lobbyist Registry shows 12 meetings since 2018 between Government officials, and Pfizer. The last one was just the other day. Jason Kenney isn’t doing quite the “hard sell” that Ford does, but he is still fully on board with the agenda.

Of course, there is other lobbying going on, and in other Provinces as well. These examples provided are hardly exhaustive of what’s going on, but should provide a decent sample.

8. Hajdu Order To Approve Untested Vaccines

Interim Orders
Marginal note:Interim orders
.
30.1 (1) The Minister may make an interim order that contains any provision that may be contained in a regulation made under this Act if the Minister believes that immediate action is required to deal with a significant risk, direct or indirect, to health, safety or the environment.
.
Marginal note: Cessation of effect
.
(2) An interim order has effect from the time that it is made but ceases to have effect on the earliest of
.
(a) 14 days after it is made, unless it is approved by the Governor in Council,
.
(b) the day on which it is repealed,
.
(c) the day on which a regulation made under this Act, that has the same effect as the interim order, comes into force, and
.
(d) one year after the interim order is made or any shorter period that may be specified in the interim order.

On September 16, 2020, Health Minister Patty Hajdu signed an Interim Order allowing for approval of vaccines in an expedited manner, even if they were fully tested. Section 30.1 of the Food and Drug Act allows that. It must be pointed out, however, that Hajdu is not a doctor, and has no medical background at all.

9. UK Approves Pfizer/BioNTech Vaccine, Dec. 2

Tens of thousands of people will receive an effective and high-quality COVID-19 vaccine from next week, as the UK becomes the first country in the western world to authorise a vaccine.

Following rigorous clinical trials involving thousands of people and extensive analysis of the vaccine’s safety, quality and effectiveness by experts from the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), Pfizer/BioNTech’s vaccine has been authorised for use in the UK.

Now authorisation has been granted, Pfizer will deliver the vaccine to the UK. In making the recommendation to authorise supply, the MHRA will decide what additional quality assurance checks may be required before a vaccine can be made available. Pfizer will then deliver the vaccines to the UK as soon as possible.

The NHS has decades of experience in rolling out successful widespread vaccination programmes and has put in place extensive deployment plans.

In line with the recommendations of the independent Joint Committee for Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI), the vaccine will be rolled out to the priority groups including care home residents and staff, people over 80 and health and care workers, then to the rest of the population in order of age and risk, including those who are clinically extremely vulnerable.

Isn’t this great? Pfizer/BioNTech got their approval to start distributing vaccines in the UK. Surely, with all these rigorous tests, they are certain that the product is safe, right?

10. UK: Vaccine Damage Payments Scheme

In advance of a rollout of an authorised COVID-19 vaccine and in line with other immunisation programmes, the government is taking the precautionary step to ensure that, in the very rare possibility where someone is severely disabled as a result of taking a COVID-19 vaccine, they can access financial assistance through the Vaccine Damage Payments Scheme (VDPS).

No safety concerns have been reported in vaccines authorised for use following rigorous clinical trials involving tens of thousands of people and extensive analysis of the vaccine’s safety, quality and effectiveness by experts from the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).

Pfizer/BioNTech’s vaccine is now the first COVID-19 vaccine to be authorised for use in the UK, and the MHRA will keep safety under continual review.

Adding diseases to the VDPS is not new and numerous diseases have been added as successive governments have rolled out more immunisation programmes, such as HPV and Meningitis B. In response to the H1N1 (swine flu) pandemic, the previous government added swine flu to the VDPS on 10 October 2009.

Generally, only those who were administered vaccines as part of a childhood immunisation programme are covered under the VDPS. However, because COVID-19 vaccines will be rolled out to a large proportion of the adult population, the government will amend the eligibility requirements, ensuring adults who are administered a COVID-19 vaccine in the UK or Isle of Man, or as part of an armed forces medical treatment, will be covered by the scheme too.

The VDPS is a safety net to help ease the burden on individuals who have in extremely rare circumstances experienced harm due to receiving a government-recommended vaccine. It is not a compensation scheme. Rather, it provides a one-off, tax-free lump sum – currently £120,000 – for those suffering a severe disability as a result of a vaccine against a disease listed under the Vaccine Damage Payments Act.

Background information
Currently, in order to qualify for the payment, it must be accepted, on the balance of probability, that there is a causal link between the vaccine and the claimed disability and that the resulting disability amounts to severe (ie at least 60%) disablement.
.
Claims are assessed and paid where successful by the Department for Work and Pensions.

The UK Government only the day before announces approval for Pfizer/BioNTech’s vaccine. Almost immediately afterwards, the UK reveals that taxpayers will be on the hook for any injuries that result from these vaccines.

The amount is capped at £120,000, and even then, it’s only with very serious disability. Capitalized profits, socialized compensation. Of course, the implication of having a vaccine compensation scheme means that the companies themselves will be off the hook for whatever death and injury results.

11. Pfizer And Violation Tracker

Of course, Pfizer isn’t too willing to share some of it’s more troubling history, such as this provided by Violation Tracker. Well worth a long read. Everything from false claims, to bribery, to kickbacks are cited.

12. Gates A Recent Pfizer Donor

In addition to making contributions to Pfizer, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation owns over $1.7 million in stock from the pharmaceutical company.

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

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

Take a look at the documents for yourself. The full list can be found here, just search for the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Those 2 organizations will pop up.

The above screenshots are donations the Gates Foundation made in 2016 and 2018.

13. Pfizer Vaccines Coming To Canada/U.S.

Pfizer has already applied for permission to begin distributing in Canada and the United States, and they very likely will get it. If it’s anything like what happened with GlaxoSmithKline, they’ll be indemnified as well. Even if Canada were to set up a compensation scheme, it will never fully make up for the harm done.

And this point is critical: the vaccines haven’t even been fully tested. They’ll be doing more long term studies as the years go on. This is not the same thing as having vaccines ready.

As Tam says: vaccines normally take a decade or more. But here, just a few months apparently. And all for something with a mortality rate approximately that of the flu.

What about long term problems like premature death? Sterilization? Paralysis? Pain? Disfiguration? Unfortunately, a lot of that won’t become clear for a few years at least. Consequently, people will have to hope and pray.

Pfizer’s Vaccine Promoted On CBC News
Lobbying Commissioner’s Office In Canada
Lobbying Registry Of Ontario
Manitoba Provincial Lobbying Registry
Alberta Lobbyist Registry
Pfizer Lobbying The Federal Government On Vaccines
Goldy Hyer Ex-Pfizer Lobbyist In Ottawa
Goldy Hyer’s LinkedIn Page
M-132, Parliamentary Study On International Vaccines
Section 30.1 Of Canada Food And Drug Act
Interim Order Allowing CV Vaccines To Be Sold In Canada

UK To Allow Certain Vaccines Deployed In Country
https://archive.is/wTXun
CV-19 To Be Added To UK Vaccine Compensation Scheme
https://archive.is/fHGKZ

GSK Indemnified Against Damages For H1N1 Vaccines In 2009
Pfizer Clinical Information
Pfizer And Violation Tracker Documentation

Posted on

CV #37(B): WHO Once Again Admits No Real Evidence For Masks, But Still Recommends Them

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. Also: there is little to no science behind what our officials are doing; they promote degenerate behaviour; and the International Health Regulations are legally binding. See here, here, and here. The media is paid off, and our democracy compromised, shown: here, here, here, and here.

2. Important Links

https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/331693
April 6 WHO Guidance On Masks

https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/advice-for-public/when-and-how-to-use-masks
June 5 WHO Guidance On Masks

WHO On Forcing Masks On Children
August 21 WHO Guidance For Masks On Children

WHO On Masks: December 1 Update
December 1 WHO Guidance On Masks

Note: for more context for this article, check Part 37A. That refers to the April 6 and June 5 guidelines handed down by the World Health Organization. In short, they still aren’t checking for logical consistency.

3. Quotes From December 1 Guidance

BC’s tyrant-in-chief, Bonnie Henry, has said that she has no time for people who think that masks cause health problems, or reduce their freedom. This flies in the face on WHO guidelines, and even her own dictates. Henry gaslights people, despite there being no science behind limiting group sizes, or most things she says.

[Page 1]
This document, which is an update of the guidance published on 5 June 2020, includes new scientific evidence relevant to the use of masks for reducing the spread of SARS-CoV-2, thevirus that causes COVID-19, and practical considerations. It contains updated evidence and guidance on the following:

In case this isn’t obvious, this is suppose to reflect changes and more information coming out. Supposedly the evidence and knowledge evolves, as the situation requires it.

[Page 1]
The World Health Organization (WHO) advises the use of masks as part of a comprehensive package of prevention and control measures to limit the spread of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. A mask alone, even when it is used correctly, is insufficient to provide adequate protection or source control. Other infection prevention and control (IPC) measures include hand hygiene, physical distancing of at least 1 metre, avoidance of touching one’s face, respiratory etiquette, adequate ventilation in indoor settings, testing, contacttracing, quarantine and isolation. Together these measures are critical to prevent human-to-human transmission of SARS-CoV-2.

WHO still recommends face masks. Keep that point in mind. Also, it’s been mentioned before that WHO suggests people being 1m apart. There is no reference to 2m on their site.

[Page 3]
The presence of viral RNA is not the same as replication- and infection-competent (viable) virus that could be transmissible and capable of sufficient inoculum to initiate invasive infection. A limited number of studies have isolated viable SARS-CoV-2 from air samples in the vicinity of COVID-19 patients (20, 21).

This pretty much blows the whole PCR test out of the water. Simply having traces present doesn’t you are infected.

[Page 3]
High quality research is required to address the knowledge gaps related to modes of transmission, infectious dose and settings in which transmission can be amplified. Currently, studies are underway to better understand the conditions in which aerosol transmission or superspreading events may occur.
.
Current evidence suggests that people infected with SARSCoV-2 can transmit the virus whether they have symptoms or not. However, data from viral shedding studies suggest that infected individuals have highest viral loads just before or around the time they develop symptoms and during the first 5-7 days of illness (12). Among symptomatic patients, the duration of infectious virus shedding has been estimated at 8 days from the onset of symptoms (22-24) for patients with mild disease, and longer for severely ill patients (12). The period of infectiousness is shorter than the duration of detectable RNA shedding, which can last many weeks (17).

Research is still needed? That’s a pretty big thing to admit, since supposedly the vaccines are here, and ready to go. It seems that we won’t need it after all.

As for the claim that asymptomatic transmission is possible, that is likely a response to this bombshell dropped on June 8, 2020. WHO admitted asymptomatic transmission was very rare, but there was quite predictably a lot of anger and confusion over that. Maria Van Kerkhove spent the next day backtracking. See below.

Back in June, the WHO thought that as much as 41% of the global population could be infected, which is over 3 billion people. In reality, they have no idea.

[Page 5]
Evidence on universal masking in health care settings
.
In areas where there is community transmission or large-scale outbreaks of COVID-19, universal masking has been adopted in many hospitals to reduce the potential of transmission by health workers to patients, to other staff and anyone else entering the facility (50).
.
Two studies found that implementation of a universal masking policy in hospital systems was associated with
decreased risk of healthcare-acquired SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, these studies had serious limitations: both were before-after studies describing a single example of a phenomenon before and after an event of interest, with no concurrent control group, and other infection control measures were not controlled for (51, 52). In addition, observed decreases in health worker infections occurred too quickly to be attributable to the universal masking policy.

Universal masking seems to be the case in hospital settings. However, some of the scientific research supporting it has serious limitations.

[Page 6]
Fabric masks are not regulated as protective masks or part of the PPE directive. They vary in quality and are not subject to mandatory testing or common standards and as such are not considered an appropriate alternative to medical masks for protection of health workers. One study that evaluated the use of cloth masks in a health care facility found that health care workers using 2 ply cotton cloth masks (a type of fabric mask) were at increased risk of influenza-like illness compared with those who wore medical masks (72).

Interesting. Using cloth masks actually increased the risk of influenza like illnesses. But just wear a mask anyway.

[Page 8]
Evidence on the protective effect of mask use in community settings
.
At present there is only limited and inconsistent scientific evidence to support the effectiveness of masking of healthy people in the community to prevent infection with respiratory viruses, including SARS-CoV-2 (75). A large randomized community-based trial in which 4862 healthy participants were divided into a group wearing medical/surgical masks and a control group found no difference in infection with SARS-CoV-2 (76). A recent systematic review found nine trials (of which eight were cluster-randomized controlled trials in which clusters of people, versus individuals, were randomized) comparing medical/surgical masks versus no masks to prevent the spread of viral respiratory illness. Two trials were with healthcare workers and seven in the community. The review concluded that wearing a mask may make little or no difference to the prevention of influenza-like illness

Even a good chunk of their own research concluded there was little to no benefit to forcing masks on the general population.

[Page 8]
Guidance
The WHO COVID-19 IPC GDG considered all available evidence on the use of masks by the general public including
effectiveness, level of certainty and other potential benefits and harms, with respect to transmission scenarios, indoor versus outdoor settings, physical distancing and ventilation. Despite the limited evidence of protective efficacy of mask wearing in community settings, in addition to all other recommended preventive measures, the GDG advised mask wearing in the following settings:

WHO recommends mask wearing in many situations, despite limited evidence it actually works. Again, all of this is from their own report.

[Page 10]
The potential disadvantages of mask use by healthy people in the general public include:
• headache and/or breathing difficulties, depending on type of mask used (55);
• development of facial skin lesions, irritant dermatitis or worsening acne, when used frequently for long hours (58, 59, 127);
• difficulty with communicating clearly, especially for persons who are deaf or have poor hearing or use lipreading (128, 129);
• discomfort (44, 55, 59)
• a false sense of security leading to potentially lower adherence to other critical preventive measures such as physical distancing and hand hygiene (105);
• poor compliance with mask wearing, in particular by young children (111, 130-132);
• waste management issues; improper mask disposal leading to increased litter in public places andenvironmental hazards (133);
• disadvantages for or difficulty wearing masks, especially for children, developmentally challenged persons, those with mental illness, persons with cognitive impairment, those with asthma or chronic respiratory or breathing problems, those who have had facial trauma or recent oral maxillofacial surgery and those living in hot and humid environments (55, 130).

This is essentially a cut-and-paste from earlier guidance. Note: even though breathing problems are specifically listed, Bonnie Henry has no time for such people.

[Page 11]
Mask use during physical activity Evidence
.
There are limited studies on the benefits and harms of wearing medical masks, respirators and non-medical masks while exercising. Several studies have demonstrated statistically significant deleterious effects on various cardiopulmonary physiologic parameters during mild to moderate exercise in healthy subjects and in those with underlying respiratory diseases (134-140). The most significant impacts have been consistently associated with the use of respirators and in persons with underlying obstructive airway pulmonary diseases such as asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), especially when the condition is moderate to severe (136). Facial microclimate changes with increased temperature, humidity and perceptions of dyspnoea were also reported in some studies on the use of masks during exercise (134, 141). A recent review found negligeable evidence of negative effects of mask use during exercise but noted concern for individuals with severe cardiopulmonary disease (142).

The World Health Organization discourages the use of masks for people who are exercising. Good to know. However, is must be asked if people were deliberately subjected to this is order to gather data for the research.

[Page 19]
Background
A non-medical mask, also called fabric mask, community mask or face covering, is neither a medical device nor personal protective equipment. Non-medical masks are aimed at the general population, primarily for protecting others from exhaled virus-containing droplets emitted by the mask wearer. They are not regulated by local health authorities or occupational health associations, nor is it required for manufacturers to comply with guidelines established by standards organizations. Non-medical masks may be homemade or manufactured. The essential performance parameters include good breathability, filtration of droplets originating from the wearer, and a snug fit covering the nose and mouth. Exhalation valves on masks are discouraged as they bypass the filtration function of the mask.

Non-medical masks have no real standards for manufacturing.

[Page 19]
Evidence on the effectiveness of non-medical (fabric) masks
.
A number of reviews have been identified on the effectiveness of non-medical masks (151-156). One systematic review (155) identified 12 studies and evaluated study quality. Ten were laboratory studies (157-166), and two reports were from a single randomized trial (72, 167). The majority of studies were conducted before COVID-19 emerged or used laboratory generated particles to assess filtration efficacy. Overall, the reviews concluded that cloth face masks have limited efficacy in combating viral infection transmission.

Sure, there’s limited evidence they actually work. But just wear a mask, any mask, because it’s about community safety.

(from page 21): WHO recommends masks be able to filter out 70% or more of particles, at 3 microns or more. That is pretty meaningless since the virus is less then 1/10 that diameter.

4. Thoughts On Latest Guidance

Even giving the World Health Organization every benefit of the doubt, its own reports admit the evidence on mask use is limited and often contradictory. The recommendations are based on politics, not science.

Talking about the “Great Reset” or the depopulation agenda would be nice, but that sort of transparency is most unlikely.