British Fertility Society Promotes Vaccines, Funded By Big Pharma

A few months ago, the British Fertility Society published a paper saying that there were no concerns about vaccination pregnant women, or women who were soon to become pregnant. Or even egg or sperm donors.

Should people of reproductive age receive a Covid-19 vaccine?
People of reproductive age are advised to have the vaccine when they receive their invitation for vaccination. This includes those who are trying to have a baby as well as those who are thinking about having a baby, whether that is in the near future or in a few years’ time.

Can any of the Covid-19 vaccines affect fertility?
There is absolutely no evidence, and no theoretical reason, that any of the vaccines can affect the fertility of women or men.

Can I have a Covid-19 vaccine during my fertility treatment (IVF, Frozen Embryo Transfer, Egg Freezing, Ovulation Induction, Intra-Uterine Insemination, using donated gametes or not)?
You may wish to consider the timing of having a Covid-19 vaccine during your fertility treatment, taking into account that some people may get bothersome side effects in the few days after vaccination that they do not want to have during treatment. These include for example, tenderness at the injection site, fever, headache, muscle ache or feeling tired. It may be sensible to separate the date of vaccination by a few days from some treatment procedures (for example, egg collection in IVF), so that any symptoms, such as fever, might be attributed correctly to the vaccine or the treatment procedure. Your medical team will be able to advise you about the best time for your situation.

Should I delay my fertility treatment until after I have had the Covid-19 vaccine?
The only reason to consider delaying fertility treatment until after you have been vaccinated would be if you wanted to be protected against Covid-19 before you were pregnant. The chance of successful treatment is unlikely to be affected by a short delay, for example of up to 6 months, particularly if you are 37 years of age or younger. However, delays of several months may affect your chance of success once you are over 37 and especially if you are 40 years of age or older.

How soon after having a Covid-19 vaccine can I start my fertility treatment?
Immediately – you do not need to delay your fertility treatment, unless you wish to have your second dose before pregnancy (see above).

I had a positive pregnancy test today. Can I still have a Covid-19 vaccine?
If you are in a risk category for Covid-19, either because of the potential for exposure at work or medical issues, you can still have the vaccine in pregnancy. If you have no increased risks for Covid-19, the Joint Committee on Vaccination & Immunisation (JCVI) have advised that you delay it until after pregnancy. There is no reason to believe that any of the Covid-19 vaccines would be harmful, but their effects in pregnancy have not yet been fully investigated. The information that is known is reassuring. None of the vaccines contain live virus and so there is no risk that the pregnant woman or her baby could get Covid-19 from the vaccine. For further information on vaccination in pregnancy, see the information produced by the Royal College of Obstetricians & Gynaecologists []. The health care professional looking after you in pregnancy will be able to advise you taking into account your individual risk.

I am donating my eggs/sperm for the use of others. Can I still have a Covid-19 vaccine?
Covid-19 vaccines do not contain any virus and so you cannot pass on Covid-19 by receiving the vaccine. The Human Fertilisation & Embryology Authority have stated that you must allow at least 7 days from the most recent vaccination prior to donating eggs or sperm. If the donor feels unwell after the vaccination, they must not donate for 7 days after their symptoms have got better [].

Not only can prospective couples get the vaxx, they can donate eggs and sperm as well, with no risk to the new hosts. While that certainly sounds strange enough, the document is ended with the following disclaimer. Of course, it’s in the fine print, and is difficult to read.

This FAQ document represents the views of ARCS/BFS, which were reached after careful consideration of the scientific evidence available at the time of preparation. In the absence of scientific evidence on certain aspects, a consensus between the Executive teams and other members has been obtained. ARCS/BFS are not liable for damages related to the use of the information contained herein. We cannot guarantee correctness, completeness or accuracy of the guidance in every respect. Please be aware that the evidence and advice for COVID-19 vaccines for those trying to achieve a pregnancy or those who are pregnant already is rapidly developing and the latest data or best practice may not yet be incorporated into the current version of this document. ARCS and BFS recommend that patients always seek the advice of their local centre if they have any concerns.

This group hedges its statements as well. They claim that there is no risk (or even theoretical risk) to a pregnant woman, while still saying more research needs to be done. That alone should be enough reason to walk away.

Apparently, there is no theoretical reason to be worried about vaccines and pregnancy, however, the evidence is always changing. And these people assume no liability for anything they say to you. Things start to become clear when it’s known who funds the BFS. It’s even more transparent in that BFS had some of their work signal boosted by the Vaccine Confidence Project.

In fact, there are a lot of groups working together to promote the mass vaccination agenda globally. These are just a few of them:

  • World Health Organization
  • Imperial College London
  • Vaccine Impact Modelling Consortium
  • London School Of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine
  • Vaccine Confidence Project
  • GAVI – Global Vaccine Alliance
  • IFFIm – International Finance Facility for Immunization
  • Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
  • UN Verified Initiative
  • Team Halo

Team Halo partially explains the relationship between the groups as follows:

Team Halo was established as part of the United Nations Verified Initiative in partnership with The Vaccine Confidence Project at the University of London’s School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. It is proud to collaborate with the Vaccine Alliance and GAVI. Support is provided by Luminate and IKEA Foundation.

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation directly (or indirectly) finances: WHO; GAVI; Imperial College London; London School for Hygiene & Tropical Medicine; Vaccine Confidence Project; Vaccine Impact Modelling Consortium; the BBC; the US CDC; and countless drug companies.

Imperial College London became notorious for the doomsday modelling of Neil Ferguson, nicknamed “Dr. Lockdown”, owing to his wild predictions about death waves that never materialize.

GAVI was started up in 1999, in large part because of a $750 million grant from the Gates Foundation. GAVI coordinates spreading its concoctions around the world. It also coordinates a funding scam with the International Finance Facility for Immunizations (IFFIm). Here countries make pledges of donations, which are then converted into “vaccine bonds“.

The Vaccine Confidence Project is part of the London School for Hygiene & Tropical Medicine. In addition to getting money from Gates, they receive contributions from major pharmaceutical companies.

These examples are by no means exhaustive, but they show just how interconnected these groups are. We are at the point where fertility organizations are funded by pharmaceutical companies, and advise that there is no risk to their future children. Remember: they are all in this together.

(6) British Fertility Society Recommends Vaccines

1 Year Ago, Maria Van Kerkhove Of WHO Suggested 16% Of Global Population Already Infected

June 8, 2020, Maria Van Kerkhove, who claims to be a doctor and an expert, told the world “asymptomatic transmission” was extremely rare.

The day after, a very terrified looking Kerkhove backpedaled, claiming that “very rare” didn’t really mean very rare. She claimed that so-called modelling estimated that between 6% and 41% of the total population had already been infected. She stated that there was a point estimate (whatever that is), or around 16%.

Let’s crunch some numbers:
-The world population was around 7.8 billion people last year.
-6% of that would be 468 million people.
-16% of that would be 1.25 BILLION people.
-41% of that would be 3.2 BILLION people.

This time last year, assuming these models are even in the ballpark, 1 to 3 billion people had already been infected. About 500,000 people had died, notwithstanding how fraudulent the reporting system is.

In her still pinned tweet, Kerkhove tries to explain how scientific collaboration is done, and how different partners work together.

Kerkhove claimed in April 2020 that research papers are being sent to the WHO prior to publication. One has to wonder if the conclusions are “tweaked” in order to suit a particular narrative. She says that all evidence everywhere is looked at, which is reasonable take on its own.

Problem is that you have people like BC Provincial Health Officer, “Babbling Bonnie” Henry, who repeatedly admit that there is no real science behind the things that they do. Is this supposed to be a joke?

Neither Canadian public health officials nor bureaucrats at the WHO will address topics such as the heavy lobbying and financing from the pharmaceutical industry. They won’t delve into the new enterprises that stand to be lucrative from a prolonged pandemic. They go out of their way to avoid these subjects.

They also try to downplay how these gene therapy “vaccines” are not approved anywhere, but instead have some form of emergency use authorization. The manufacturers are indemnified from lawsuits, which removes the incentive to create safe products.

Things aren’t quite what they appear to be.

Any wonder why the idea of “airborne transmission” is now being pushed? They have to keep moving the goalposts in order to keep others from locking in on their lies. It’s also why they are now pushing the “variants” nonsense. Don’t be deceived.

How’s this for a conflict of interest? Kerkhove also works for Imperial College London, which featured Neil Ferguson (Professor Lockdown) and his doomsday modelling. ICL is heavily funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. She also got her PhD at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine. This also gets funding from Gates, and partners with the Vaccine Confidence Project — funded by drug companies.

Ever get the feeling that this woman isn’t been transparent?


CV #10(D): Nova Scotia Pharma Lobbying; MOH Robert Strang An Anti-Democratic Tyrant

Just to get it out of the way, it’s disturbing how someone who looks this unhealthy could be a Medical Officer of Health, as he is for the Province of Nova Scotia. Supposedly he was a rugby player, although it’s hard to tell. For some inexplicable reason, the media treats people like this as rock stars.

Anyhow, Strang is a huge proponent of endless lockdowns, and pushing the big pharma agenda. However, even when the consequences of this are becoming obvious, he won’t admit any responsibility. See the above video, and the following quote:

Nova Scotia will pause the use of AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 vaccine as the first dose effective today, May 12.
The decision is based on an abundance of caution due to an observed increase in the rare blood clotting condition linked to this vaccine and because Nova Scotia has enough mRNA vaccine to immunize people age 40 and older.
Anyone who is scheduled to receive their first dose of AstraZeneca vaccine will receive an email canceling that appointment and asking them to book a new appointment for either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine.
A decision on second doses will be made once more information is received from the National Advisory Committee on Immunization. Nova Scotia’s vaccine plan will be adjusted based on this guidance.
The AstraZeneca vaccine has been linked to vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia, or VITT, in other provinces.
Anyone with any of the following symptoms after receiving the AstraZeneca vaccine should seek medical help right away or call 911 and say they have received the vaccine:
-shortness of breath
-chest pain
-stomach pain that will not go away
-leg swelling
-a sudden and severe headache
-a headache that will not go away and is getting worse
-blurred vision
-skin bruising (other than the area vaccinated), reddish or purplish spots, or blood blisters under the skin
The above symptoms are most likely to occur between days four and 14 after receiving the AstraZeneca vaccine.

Have to love the mental gymnastics here. Even as Robert Strang tells Nova Scotia that getting the vaccines was the right decision, it’s pulled from use (probably forever), and people are urged to seek medical attention for a variety of symptoms.

The message is touted nationally as well. Even though this “vaccine” is being pulled for health reasons, Canadians should take pride in the decision to get a first (or second) dose. It’s mind blowing that people could actually take this seriously.

Strang has taken it upon himself to decide what’s true and what’s not, and to condemn “misinformation“.

Interesting side note: Strang took some flak for opting out of AstraZeneca himself. Perhaps he doesn’t really believe what he preaches.

So, why is Nova Scotia so hesitant (pardon the pun) to completely throw AstraZeneca under the bus?

Wild idea, but perhaps AstraZeneca having 15 people currently registered (as in right now) as lobbyists with the Nova Scotia Government played some role in not completely bashing their product. And no, this is not limited to a single company.

The Canadian Medical Association, which is on record as supporting Ontario’s stay-at-home order (or 24 hour curfew) also has plenty of lobbyists registered with Nova Scotia.

The Doctors of Nova Scotia doesn’t seem to raise too many red flags. However, having a lobbyist from GlaxSmithKline is an interesting bit. Likewise with Innovative Medicines, Merck, and the Pharmacy Association of Canada. It’s almost as if there was some pattern to the types of organization that are lobbying in Nova Scotia.

Keep in mind, these are only the registrations that are documented. It’s quite likely that other things have gone on behind the scene for which records aren’t posted.

Strang worked with Theresa Tam on the Special Advisory Committee on the Epidemic of Opioid Overdoses Regarding Updated Data on Canada’s Opioid Crisis in 2018. Interesting. Now he pushes for Nova Scotians to take “vaccines” that are not approved, but only have interim authorization, based on low standards.

On Wednesday May 12, 2021, an application for injunction was filed in Nova Scotia Supreme Court. It was granted on Friday based on 2 Affidavits, one from Robert Strang. This was done “ex parte”, meaning that there was no opposing side to challenge it.

At a minimum, it would have been nice to see what was in those Affidavits.

The result is that public gatherings, including gatherings to these illegal measures have been effectively banned. The ban (unless thrown out) would remain in place as long as the Government decides there is a public health emergency.

In participating in this, Strang demonstrated himself to be nothing more than a thug. He convinced a judge to strip away Nova Scotia’s right to assemble, something that could never have been accomplished legislatively.

(14) Nova Scotia Supreme Court Protest Injunction May 14

Why Is Rempel Silent On Harmful Effects Of “Interim Authorized” Vaccines?

Rempel is tied the World Economic Forum, as are many “Conservatives”. Don’t worry, it won’t impact how she does her job. She’ll stand up for Canadians on making sure these “vaccines” are safe.

At least these are safe, right? At least these “vaccines” have gone through all the steps to become approved by Health Canada, correct? These aren’t allowed onto the market by some emergency authorization?

So, Michelle Rempel-Garner is a sell out to big pharma. But at least the Conservative Party of Canada is taking seriously the vast array of civil rights abuses going on in Canada.

Remember: voting works.
Vote next election.

WHO Paper On MANDATORY Vaccination April 13, 2021 (Original)
WHO Paper On MANDATORY Vaccination April 13, 2021 (Copy)
Section 30.1 Canada Food & Drug Act
September 2020 Interim Order From Patty Hajdu

Vaccines Supported For Pregnant Women, Despite No Testing
Vaccines Given “Interim Authorization”, Not Approval. Very Different
Call Centers Wrongly Telling People “Vaccines” Are Approved
Ontario Adds, Then Removes Protections Against “No Jab, No Job”
WHO April 13 Paper: Discussion On Mandatory “Experimental Vaxx”

CV #24(D): Heidi Larson; LSHTM; VCP; Vaxxing Pregnant Women; Financed By Big Pharma

Heidi Larson is a bit of a superstar for the pharmaceutical industry, and its allies. It’s well known that GAVI, the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization, is heavily funded by the Gates Foundation, and big pharama. GAVI has also been lobbying the Canadian Parliament for years, and getting hundreds of millions of dollars in grants.

A bit of background information here. The VCP, Vaccine Confidence Program, is part of the LSHTM, or London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine. Both receive extensive funding from pharmaceutical companies, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the World Health Organization, and Governments.

Who else is worth noting?

  • Board member, Carlos Alban (AbbVie)
  • Board member, Bill Anderson (Roche)
  • Board Member, Gabriel Baertschi (Grünenthal)
  • Board member, Anders Blanck (LIF)
  • Board Member, Olivier Charmeil (Sanofi)
  • Board Member, Alberto Chiesi (Chiesi)
  • Board member, Frank Clyburn (MSD)
  • Board Member, Eric Cornut (Menarini)
  • Board member, Richard Daniell (Teva Pharmaceutical Europe)
  • Board member, Johanna Friedl-Naderer (Biogen)
  • Board Member, Murdo Gordon (Amgen)
  • Board member, Peter Guenter (Merck)
  • Board member, Angela Hwang (Pfizer)
  • Board member, Enrica Giorgetti (Farmindustria)
  • Board member, Dirk Kosche (Astellas)
  • Board member, Jean-Luc Lowinski (Pierre Fabre)
  • Board member, Catherine Mazzacco (LEO Pharma)
  • Board member, Johanna Mercier (Gilead)
  • Board member, Luke Miels (GSK)
  • Board member, Gianfranco Nazzi (Almirall)
  • Board member, Oliver O’Connor (IPHA)
  • Board Member, Stefan Oelrich (Bayer)
  • Board member, Giles Platford (Takeda)
  • Board member, Antonio Portela (Bial)
  • Board member, Iskra Reic (AstraZeneca)
  • Board Member, Susanne Schaffert (Novartis)
  • Board member, Stefan Schulze (VIFOR PHARMA)
  • Board Member, Kris Sterkens (Johnson & Johnson)
  • Board member, Han Steutel (vfa)
  • Board member, Alfonso Zulueta (Eli Lilly)

One of the major donors of the Vaccine Confidence Project is the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA). It’s Board is made of up members representing major big pharma companies.

Another donor of VCP is the Innovative Medicine Institute. Salah-Dine Chibout is on the Governing Board of IMI, and also is the Global Head of Discovery and Investigational Safety at Novartis. Additionally, Paul Stoffels is the Chief Scientific Officer at Johnson & Johnson, Worldwide Chairman of Janssen Pharmaceutical Companies of Johnson & Johnson.

The VCP also works closely with the World Health Organization, and is supportive of its mass vaccination agenda. The role with WHO is simply to market the programs to make them more effective.

The Gates Foundation has financial connections to WHO, GAVI, the CDC, and countless pharmaceutical companies. It is also connected to agencies that are involved in computer modelling, such as:
(a) Imperial College London, Neil Ferguson
(b) London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine
(c) Vaccine Impact Modelling Consortium

While all of this is nefarious and creepy, where does Heidi Larson fit into this? What role does she play in the system?

Larson works for both VCP and LSHTM. Her job is mostly one of research and consulting into “increasing vaccine confidence”. In layman’s terms, she is looking into ways to convince segments of the population to get vaccines at higher rates. This doesn’t involve research into CREATING safer and more effective products. Instead, it’s done to CONVINCE people that they already are. Her financial connections to companies like GSK and Merck likely influence her work.

Larson and her cronies apparently see nothing wrong with targeting pregnant women, who are the focus of the following article. Yes, damn the consequences, let’s vaxx the preggers. This, and the following information should horrify and enrage normal people.

5. Conclusion
This literature review has shown that both pregnant women and HCW cite safety concerns as a main barrier to obtaining/providing influenza and pertussis vaccines during pregnancy. However responses differed depending on geographical area: inlow-income countries for example, pregnant women were more likely to cite access issues as a barrier to vaccination. There are alsowide gaps in knowledge regarding the attitudes of HCW to vaccination in pregnancy, which is significant considering the impact they have on a woman’s decision to vaccinate.
From the supply side, regulatory agencies still do not have a licensing pathway for many vaccines for pregnant women, manufacturers remain concerned about liability and providers perceive that pregnant women are unwilling to accept vaccines [95].
As the MDG era comes to an end, the development agenda beyond 2015 is widening to include other important health issues such as non-communicable diseases (NCDs). However, neither still-births nor neonatal deaths are mentioned in post-2015 documents [96] risking that the current momentum for new-born health may be lost.
Barriers to vaccination in pregnancy are complex and can differ from barriers and concerns affecting uptake of routine childhood vaccinations. Maternal vaccination is administered at a time when the patient is cautious about various behaviours, including taking medications and vaccinations, and feels responsible for not just her own life but of that foetus. Depending on the cultural context, different norms are also established around the time of pregnancy. Barriers also vary depending on context and target population.
Taking these points into account, ‘quick-fix’ interventions which aim to increase vaccination uptake, such as health communication messages and training physicians in communication strategies [97], without understanding addressing the root cause of vaccine hesitancy in specific contexts, are likely to have little effect on patients’ decisions to vaccinate or on the provider’s own confidence in communicating with parents about vaccines.
It is important to understand how cultural and gender dynamics in different settings can influence a woman’s decision to vaccinate. This can be done through in-depth local ethnographies, taking the views of all community members and influencers into account, complemented by in-depth individual interviews and focus groups. Research could also examine some of the complex socio-political reasons for under-vaccination in certain communities must to inform vaccination policies and delivery strategies. With more understanding of the perspectives of pregnant women, their providers and communities, maternal vaccine strategies will be more likely to reach and protect pregnant women and their newborns from preventable disease.

Rather than reading the entire paper, that’s the conclusion. First, it’s pointed out that vaccine manufacturers are concerned about liability. So they are fully aware of the damage and exposure their products can bring. Second, it’s acknowledged that women feel responsibility for not just themselves, but the baby as well. This can be manipulated and it ties into the third point, that specific messaging needs to be used on this group. Fourth, specific training to “sell” the vaccines will likely be needed. Fifth, it is higher vaccination rates, not overall safety, that is the focus.

The reference list is extensive.
Check out the actual paper.

That is interesting. Not only is Larson working for the LSHTM and Vaccine Confidence Program, but she has also been employed by pharmaceutical companies GlaxoSmithKline and Merck.

Vaccine confidence concerns the belief that vaccination – and by extension the providers and range of private sector and political entities behind it – serves the best health interests of the public and its constituents. The Oxford English Dictionary defines confidence as “the mental attitude of trusting in or relying on a person or thing”. In light of that, we are not examining the well-studied domain of supply and access barriers to vaccination, but rather what is typically called the “demand” side of immunisation. However, our focus on confidence takes the “demand” rubric a step further than the more traditional notion of building demand through increasing knowledge and awareness of vaccines and immunisation to understanding what else drives confidence in vaccines, and the willingness to accept a vaccine, when supply, access and information are available. In other words, understanding vaccine confidence means understanding the more difficult belief-based, emotional, ideological and contextual factors whose influences often live outside an immunisation or even health programme but affect both confidence in and acceptance of vaccines.

The Vaccine Confidence Program believes that vaccines are good for humanity. It’s a part of the LSHTM, which is one of the biggest modelers of CV-19, predicting death waves. It also receives funding from drug companies who have a product to sell. What we have is a situation where the manufacturers, sales agents, and marketers work together under some humanitarianism guise.

October 2020, Larson co-chaired a panel on combatting pandemic misinformation. It was hosted by LSHTM and Center for Strategic and International Studies.

December 2020, Larson tweeted out — but did not condemn or question — a JAMA Network article discussing mandatory vaccinations.

January 2021, LSHTM tweeted (and Larson retweeted) a Telegraph article on combatting misinformation

January 2021, Larson was at the Pulitzer Center for a talk on combatting misinformation around CV vaccination. A look at their donors reveals the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Facebook, Omidyar Network, Planned Parenthood, and the Rockefeller Foundation.

March 2021, Larson wrote a piece for the New York Times, in support of AstraZeneca. The basic premise was that the AZ vaccine was safe, and that only public perception and confidence were keeping it from being distributed. She also called for “training vaccinators” in such a way to boost the image among others. In short, train people to better sell the product.

Now, this may be a coincidence, but some of the same companies that are paying for Larson’s work “increasing vaccine confidence” are also lobbying Ottawa to buy their products.

Side note with GlaxoSmithKline: Larson has disclosed being a consultant for the company. Now, in 2009, Canada gave Interim Authorization (not approval), to 2 vaccines for H1N1, Arepanrix and Monovalent Vaccine. Lawsuits were filed because the injections harmed a lot of people, but:

[19] The federal Minister of Health authorized the sale of the Arepanrix vaccine pursuant to an interim order dated October 13, 2009. Human trials of the vaccine were still underway. The Minister of Health is empowered to make interim orders if immediate action is required because of a danger to health, safety or the environment. In issuing the interim order, Health Canada deemed the risk profile of Arepanrix to be favourable for an interim order. The authorization was based on the risk caused by the current pandemic threat and its danger to human health. As part of the interim order process, Health Canada agreed to indemnify GSK for any claims brought against it in relation to the administration of the Arepanrix vaccine.

That’s one way to have high confidence in your product: make any sale contingent on getting legal immunity in advance. It’s fair to assume this latest batch came with the same conditions.

Larson’s career appears to have taken off in 2000, then she went to work for UNICEF. No surprise, but she was pushing mass vaccination even then. The bulk of her career appears to be acting as a mouthpiece for big pharma.

Canada announced the launch of a vaccine injury compensation program in December 2020, but so far, so follow-ups have been mentioned.

An interesting side note with Larson’s Twitter profile: she claims that she “did this reluctantly”. That is a strange comment. Does she not believe in what she pushes on the global population?

Anyhow, if nothing else is taken away from here, remember this: the “vaccine confidence” movement is funded by big pharma. They want to convince you that their products are safe. Just ignore the testing issues, and the indemnification agreements.

(9) Vaccination During Pregnancy Propaganda Research
(10) Vaccine Acceptance During Pregnancy Research

(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
(F) CIHR/NSERC/SSHRC On Grants To Raise Vaccine Uptake
(G) $50,000 Available — Each — For Groups To Target Minorities
(H) Canada Vaccine Innovation Community Challenge

Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, And Some Of Their Holdings

The Canadian Pension Plan Investment Board is responsible for investing the money that gets taken from workers’ pay cheques. Now, what does this group actually invest in? The answers may be surprising, as it speaks to the direction they plan to take the fund.

3M Co. $51,203,000
Acceleron Pharma Inc. $85,000
Agios Pharmaceuticals Inc. $1,017,000
Alexion Pharmaceuticals $33,800,000
Alnylam Pharmaceuticals $1,329,000
Amicus Therapeutics $31,186,000
Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals $69,000
Biogen $3,749,000
Biohaven Pharmaceuticals $31,000
China Biologic Products $242,000
CVS Health Corp. $104,361,000
Cardiovascular Sys Inc. $1,339,000
Checkmate Pharmaceuticals $219,000
Eli Lilly & Co. $134,902,000
Fusion Pharmaceuticals $36,624,000
GW Pharmaceuticals $173,115,000
Gilead Sciences $85,944,000
HCA Healthcare $20,325,000
Healthpeak Properties Inc. $43,159,000
Horizon Therapeutics $688,000
Hutchison China Meditech $3,145,000
Ionis Pharmaceuticals $2,414,000
Johnson & Johnson $479,225,000
Ligand Pharmaceuticals $466,000
Magellan Health $5,683,000
Medifast Inc. $641,000
Medpace Holdings Inc. $15,813,000
Merck & Co. $379,344,000
Mirati Therapeutics $61,000
Moderna $75,193,000
Neurocrine Biosciences $752,000
Novavax Inc. $56,000
Opko Health Inc. (Sold off)
Orthofix Med Inc. $976,000
PTC Therapeutics $13,561,000
Pacira Biosciences $13,925,000
Pfizer Inc. $224,969,000
Phillip Morris $128,347,000
Physicians Realty Trust $5,618,000
Prestige Consumer Healthcare $1,022,000
Procter & Gamble $498,019,000
Quest Diagnostics $130,317,000
Reata Pharmaceuticals $323,000
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals $3,233,000
Royalty Pharma $5,420,000
Sabra Healthcare REIT $6,232,000
Sage Therapeutics $735,000
Sigilon Therapeutics $71,333,000
Starr Surgical Co. $21,247,000
Teladoc Health Inc. $4,796,000
Tenet Healthcare Corp. $14,267,000
Teva Pharmaceuticals $1,723,000
Theravance Biopharma $169,000
Thermo Fisher Scientific $198,939,000
Trevi Therapeutics $36,000
Trillium Therapeutics $1,431,000
Ultragenyx Pharmaceutical $1,000
United Therapeutics Corp. 413,000
Unitedhealth Group Inc. $1,067,720,000
Usans Health Sciences $5,867,000
Viatris Inc. $16,153,000
West Pharmaceutical SVSC $410,000
Zimmer Biomet $19,398

Aside from all of the stocks in pharmaceuticals and health care, the CPPIB has interests in many other organizations that will raise eyebrows. True, the “Great Reset” may be a massive conspiracy theory, but the investments here would suggest otherwise.

Alphabet Inc. $2,188,964,000
Amazon Inc. $779,986
American Express $134,979,000
Apple Inc. $979,811,000
Aramark $19,240,000
Autodesk $19,044,000
Bank of America $372,509
Bank of Montreal $62,350
Bank of Nova Scotia $216,553,000
Best Buy $12,943,000
Blackline Inc. $493,000
Blackrock $230,895,000
Blackstone $53,059,000
Boeing $70,565,000
Citigroup $319,809,000
Comcast Corp. $65,150,000
E-Bay $15,259,000
Equifax $135,602,000
Fox Corp. $4,632,000
Hewlett Packard $121,000
Home Depot $274,181,000
Icici Bank Limited $59,222,000
JP Morgan Chase $876,096,000
Mastercard Incorporated $2,236,387,000
Microsoft Corp $1,143,414,000
Molson Coors Beverage $8,593,000
NASDAQ $5,116,000
Newscorp $470,000
Paycom Software 4993,000
Paychex Inc. $19,982,000
PayPal Holdings $228,341,000
Pinterest $611,000
Rogers Communications $1,500,000,000
Royal Bank of Canada $537,548,000
Shaw Communications Inc. $100,269,000
Shopify $244,903,000
Starbucks Corp. $32,580,000
Synchrony Financial $5,553,000
Target Corp. $29,903,000
Tesla Inc. $128,538,000
Toronto Dominion Bank $289,035,000
Transunion $37,293,000
Trip Advisor $1,468,000
Twitter Inc. $57,887,000
Uber Technologies $60,382,000
Verizon Communications $192,559,000
Visa Inc. $135,000
Vonage Holdings Corp $145,000
Walmart Inc. $245,483,000
Zoom Video Communications $5,807,000

For reference, Alphabet Inc. is the company that owns Google and its subsidiaries, such as YouTube. It seems that being major stakeholders in the business will have great influence over the social media censorship that Governments ask them to play. CPPIB holds over $2 billion. Difficult to say no to your biggest shareholders.

Additionally the CPPIB holds over $50 million in stock in Twitter. This platform has also been brutal when it comes to censoring views that contradict official pandemic or election narratives.

This is certainly quite in the interesting portfolio: pro-big pharma, and pro-Great Reset. However, there is a bigger and more fundamental problem that needs to be addressed: liabilities.

Year Value of Fund Inv Income Rate of Return
2010 $127.6B $22.1B 14.9%
2011 $148.2B $20.6B 11.9%
2012 $161.6B $9.9B 6.6%
2013 $183.3B $16.7B 10.1%
2014 $219.1B $30.1B 16.5%
2015 $264.6B $40.6B 18.3%
2016 $278.9B $9.1 6.8%
2017 $316.7B $33.5B 11.8%
2018 $356.B $36.7B 11.6%
2019 $392B $32B 8.9%

The CPPIB routinely crows about how well its investments do, and how the fund is worth hundreds of billions of dollars. The problem is that it has a screwy accounting system. Instead of taking into account all assets and liabilities, the health is determined by ability to meet current obligations. The fund has been properly accounted, and there is over $1 trillion in unfunded liabilities. This is money taken in an spent, for which it (should have been) paid out.

Most pension systems act as a ponzi scheme, where the only way to meet old obligations is with the infusion of new money. Clearly, such a system is unsustainable in the long term.

But hey, at least our investments in Pfizer, Moderna, Johnson & Johnson, Gilead, Eli Lilley and 3M are doing well. Good thing there is a “pandemic” to drive up demand for these products.

To hell with free speech and open media.
Big pharma is here to stay.