Category: Wars

Posted on

Healthcare Of Ontario Pension Plan (HOOPP) Owns Stock In Vaccines & Masks Being Pushed

The Ontario Science Table lists groups in the health care sector as its partners. Whether or not the individual members support this, and to what extent, the pensions of a lot of people are tied up in promoting their agenda.

HOOPP, the Healthcare of Ontario Pension Plan has some interesting medical holdings. This is at least according the SEC, or U.S. Securities and Exchanges Commission. While there is nothing inherently bad in investing in your own field, it will be driven by the way you want it to go.

The fund claims to have over $100 billion in net assets, or equity. Fair enough, let’s take a look at where some of that money is.

COMPANY AMOUNT
1Life Healthcare $540,000
3M Co. $462,000
Alexion Pharmaceuticals $34,891,000
Alnylam Pharmaceuticals $213,000
Alpha Healthcare Acquisition Corp $2,232,000
Amplitude Health Care Acquisition $930,000
Bausch Health Cos $2,366,000
Biogen Inc. $235,000
CVS Health Corp $32,871
Cytomx Therapeutics Inc. $835,000
Deerfield Healthcare Technology Acquisition $2,696,000
DFP Healthcare Acquisition $3,633,000
Gilead Sciences $6,420,000
HCA Healthcare $142,000
Healthcare Merger Corp. $1,019,000
Jazz Pharmaceuticals PLC $3,538,000
Johnson & Johnson $34,401,000
Livongo Health Inc. $6,169,000
Merck & Co. $6,221,000
Pfizer $38,467,000
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals $1,052,000

The individual companies weren’t named in the HOOPP paperwork, so a visit to the SEC was needed for that. For reference, Gilead is the manufacturer of Veklury, also known as Remdesivir, a drug (not a vaccine) to counter Covid-19. It was given interim authorization to be used in Canada. Janssen (which is owned by Johnson & Johnson) also has an authorized “vaccine” in Canada. So does Pfizer, which is partnered with BioNTech. Yes, these are the same companies.

As for the next group, this is on the list of things that will make you go “hmmm”. If health care workers in Ontario were expecting, or wanting, a shutdown of society, these would be the companies to invest in.

A serious question: does it come across as a conflict of interest when health care workers are pushing pharmaceuticals which their pension plans own stock in? And it gets stranger.

COMPANY AMOUNT
Alibaba Group Holdings $730,000,000
Alphabet Inc. $4,799,000
Amazon $18,848
Beyond Meat Inc. $151,000
Blackline Software $16,000
Blackrock $85,000
Blackstone Group $625,000
Broadcom Inc. $181,000
Coca Cola Co. $58,552,000
Dish Network Corporation $89,000
E-Bay $101,000
Facebook $24,022,000
Goldman Sachs $15,978,000
Grid Dynamics Inc. $4,676,000
Mastercard $427,644,000
Microsoft Corp. $298,081
Netflix $335,000
Nike $2,354
PayPal Holdings $378,000
Salesforce $2,746,000
Shaw Communications $6,386,000
Shopify $50,537,000
Starbucks $11,065,000
Visa $1,802,000
Walmart $13,148,000
Zoom Communications $216,000

HOOPP seems to be investing in everything that we need in order to have a cashless society, working from home, and an abundance of pharmaceuticals. But that’s probably just a coincidence.

While most of the profiles of the HOOPP leadership were privatized, a few were in the open. Some interesting details revealed in them.

Tanya Pereira is the Senior Director of Operations at HOOPP. She is also a Strategic Advisor at Andone Pharmaceuticals, during that same time period.

John Watson is the Director of Operations Support at HOOPP. He has also been charge of other pension plans. Early in his career, he was a records supervisor at Sick Kids Hospital Toronto, which gets significant funding from the Gates Foundation.

HOOPP claims to be pushing the ESG/green agenda pretty hard. So expect that they’ll only be investing in such companies that “appear” to be green, regardless of whether or not they actually are green. They sing the praises about sustainability and climate change. Most people have heard it all before.

As for the HOOPP owning stock in these vaccines and masks, and their members pushing them on the public, that is downright shady, to say the least. True, it’s the doctors and nurses themselves who market it to the lay person, but how does this look?

Is this ancient? According to the SEC, it covers the period up to December 31, 2020, and was filed on March 1, 2021. Now, it’s possible that these shares have since been sold, but the first interim authorizations were coming out before then. Again, how does it look?

IMPORTANT LINKS
(1) https://hoopp.com/
(2) https://hoopp.com/about-hoopp
(3) https://hoopp.com/investments/pension-plan-performance-and-hoopp-annual-report
(4) https://hoopp.com/about-hoopp/pension-leadership
(5) https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-health-products/covid19-industry/drugs-vaccines-treatments/authorization/list-drugs.html
(6) https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/veklury/product-details
(7) https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/janssen-covid-19-vaccine/product-details
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1535845/000153584520000007/0001535845-20-000007-index.htm
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1535845/000153584520000007/xslForm13F_X01/SEC13F09_2020.xml
https://archive.is/Kqazd

EARLIER IN THIS SERIES
(a) Michael Warner Financially Benefits From Prolonged Lockdowns
(b) Who Is Ontario Deputy Medical Officer, Barbara Yaffe?
(c) OST, Monopoly From The University Of Toronto Connected
(d) OST, University Of Toronto, Look At Their Members And Partners
(e) OST’s Robert Steiner Claims To Be Behind PHAC Canada Creation
(f) OST’s Kwame McKenzie Headed 2017 UBI Pilot Project
(g) OST UofT Prelude Actually Set Out In May 2019
(h) OST’s Murty Has Tech Firm That Benefits From Lockdowns
(i) OST: Como Foundation Gives Trillium Health Partners $5M
(j) OST: Current PHO Officials Also Sitting On As Partners
(k) OST: Canadian Agency For Drugs & Technologies In Health; pCPA
(l) OST: Centre For Effective Practice Gets Money From Lockdown
(m) OST: Cochrane Canada; WHO; McMaster University
(n) OST: SPOR Evidence Alliance Gets Funding From WHO

Posted on

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

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

WHO Paper On MANDATORY Vaccination April 13, 2021 (Original)
WHO Paper On MANDATORY Vaccination April 13, 2021 (Copy)
Section 30.1 Canada Food & Drug Act
September 2020 Interim Order From Patty Hajdu
https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/astrazeneca-covid-19-vaccine-pm-en.pdf
https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/janssen-covid-19-vaccine-pm-en.pdf
https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/covid-19-vaccine-moderna-pm-en.pdf
https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/pfizer-biontech-covid-19-vaccine-pm1-en.pdf

Testing Product Insert AstraZeneca Interim Authorization
Testing Product Insert Janssen Interim Authorization
Testing Product Insert Moderna Interim Authorization
Testing Product Insert Pfizer Interim Authorization

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

(a) Approved: Health Canada has fully reviewed all the testing, and steps have been done, with the final determination that it can be used for the general population
(b) Interim Authorization: deemed to be “worth the risk” under the circumstances, doesn’t have to be fully tested. Allowed under Section 30.1 of the Canada Food & Drug Act. Commonly referred to as an emergency use authorization.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on

CV #37(G): No Science Behind Determining A “Variant” Of Coronavirus, Just Make Assumptions

Do we have actual “experts” and “professionals” in charge? Or, are we being ruled by a group of actors being paid to read from a script? More and more, it appears to be the latter. There’s little reason or justification behind a lot of what they do, and no science.

1. Remember: Listen To The “Experts” For Advice

So-called “experts” here and here talk about need for more lockdowns. It’s interesting how many of these interviews are softballs. Instead of pushing hard for a justification, these “journalists” seem content to parrot the talking points. Is there a lockdown or martial law area of expertise in epidemiology? How is it they are all completely on the same page when it comes to imposing restrictions?

Fauci: Just assume these variants are more dangerous. Don’t worry about proof or testing, just guess and make predictions. It’s shocking that anyone still takes this quack seriously, considering how wrong he has been about everything.

When he says (at 0:36) that the Pfizer and Moderna seem to continue to be effective against the mutant strain, what is he basing this on? Was there research and testing, or is he making more assumptions? Likewise, what is the basis of his claims of vaccine efficacy being reduced?

(At 1:22) he talks about modifying and upgrading vaccines. In that case, what is the point of vaccinating everyone now if it will become obsolete at a later point?

Also, never forget: Anthony Fauci was previously on the Scientific Advisory Council in collaboration with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and the World Health Organization.

The so-called “top doctors” in Alberta and British Columbia, Deena Hinshaw and Bonnie Henry, have a great scientific method for determining whether you have a variant. To heck with confirmation sequencing. They say you should just assume you have it.

2. Definitions Of CV Cases And Deaths

2. DEFINITION FOR DEATHS DUE TO COVID-19
A death due to COVID-19 is defined for surveillance purposes as a death resulting from a clinically compatible illness, in a probable or confirmed COVID-19 case, unless there is a clear alternative cause of death that cannot be related to COVID disease (e.g. trauma). There should be no period of complete recovery from COVID-19 between illness and death.
.
A death due to COVID-19 may not be attributed to another disease (e.g. cancer) and should be counted independently of preexisting conditions that are suspected of triggering a severe course of COVID-19

Never mind that the BC Centre for Disease Control admits that these tests can’t determine if it’s actually an infection. Simply finding traces of genetic material (after many amplification cycles) does not in any way mean a disease has been detected.

(a) https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/WHO-2019-nCoV-Surveillance_Case_Definition-2020.2
(b) https://www.who.int/classifications/icd/Guidelines_Cause_of_Death_COVID-19.pdf?ua=1
(c) http://www.bccdc.ca/Health-Professionals-Site/Documents/COVID19_InterpretingTesting_Results_NAT_PCR.pdf

3. Fluoride Free Peel On Virus Isolation

An honourable mention to Fluoride Free Peel, and them filing literally dozens of freedom of information requests. If the “original” virus has never been isolated, how can there be any legitimate assumption that variants have been identified?

4. Lack Of Science Behind What “Experts” Doing

(A) Bonnie Henry Admits No Science In Anything She Does
(B) ARTICLE: Lack Of Real Science In “Global Pandemic”
(1) WHO Supports Mask Use, Admits No Real Evidence
(2) WHO “Still” Recommends Masks Despite Little Evidence
(3) WHO’s Records Show PCR Testing Always Was A Fraud
(4) WHO Distorts On Cases, Deaths, Surveillance Information
(5) WHO Promotes Masks For Children As Young As 6
(6) RT-PCR Tests For A Gene, Not A Virus

If you still think this is all about a virus, and that people are acting in good faith, there is no hope. Fortunately, the readers seem far more skeptical.

Posted on

Vaccine Community Innovation Challenge & Immunization Partnership Fund

It’s getting harder and harder to conceal the real harm that these “vaccines” can do to people. As such, the Canadian Government pours taxpayer money into many programs to convince the public that nothing is wrong. It’s targeted advertising, under a thin veil of “science”. These initiatives are worth millions of dollars.

1. Vaccine Community Innovation Challenge

Vaccination is one of the best ways to protect against COVID-19 and other serious infectious diseases. The Government of Canada recognizes that community engagement plays a critical role in building vaccine confidence so everyone has the accurate information they need to make an informed decision on vaccination.

To this end, the Minister of Health, the Honourable Patty Hajdu, announced today the launch of the Vaccine Community Innovation Challenge.

Under the Challenge, individuals and/or groups are invited to propose creative ideas for communications campaigns that will reach groups within their communities who have been disproportionately impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Twenty finalists will be chosen by an expert panel and given $25,000 to develop their ideas and launch their campaigns. A grand prize of $100,000 will be awarded to one winner at the end of the Challenge period to reinvest in the protection and promotion of public health in their community.

Community-driven engagement can more effectively influence vaccine confidence among communities who are underserved and have been disproportionately impacted by COVID-19. The Challenge encourages people to help spread the word about COVID-19 vaccines and increase vaccine confidence through creative, community-driven and culturally sensitive means.

Vaccination saves lives and helps prevent and control the spread of serious infectious diseases. To keep Canadians safe from COVID-19 and other diseases, the Government of Canada works with partners and communities to foster confidence in vaccination by increasing access to reliable, accurate and timely information about vaccines, and by supporting communities to help spread the word in their own voices and through people they trust.

The Federal Government is handing out 20 grants of $25,000 each, which a further $100,000 available to the “winner”. The point of these grants, like the others, is to hire people to act to promote the Government message of vaccination. By using members of select groups, it is hoped that this will build trust and compliance in an agenda that would no otherwise be possible.

2. Immunization Partnership Fund

Vaccine hesitancy and the spread of misinformation about vaccines has also been a persistent challenge for many years and has been amplified in recent years by digital social platforms. Instilling confidence in COVID-19 vaccines may be particularly challenging given the spread of misinformation related to these vaccines. Engendering trust, confidence and acceptance will require innovative approaches.

The COVID-19 vaccination campaign is the largest mass vaccination campaign ever undertaken. As such, it presents an opportunity to identify and address longstanding systemic barriers to vaccination – including acceptance and uptake of vaccines beyond those that prevent COVID-19. New and reimagined interventions are required to develop or expand tools, education, and supports for healthcare providers as well as strategies and resources to support community-driven solutions. There is no “one size fits all” solution, and a multifaceted approach, grounded in Canada’s diversity, is crucial for reaching all Canadians.

Cultural safety
Promoting and improving cultural safety involves the understanding of social, political and historical contexts to design policy, research and practice that are physically, mentally, emotionally and spiritually safe. Applicants must demonstrate knowledge and understanding of cultural factors relevant to their project, and integrate cultural safety into the proposed project’s design, implementation and evaluation.

Section 5: Funding amount and duration
The total annual funding envelope for this program is approximately $9 million per year. The value of funding per project is a minimum of $100,000 total to a maximum of $500,000.
.
Projects should be a minimum of one year. All projects must conclude by March 31, 2023.

<

p style=”padding: 2px 6px 4px 6px; color: #555555; background-color: #eeeeee; border: #dddddd 2px solid;”>
Applicants will be assessed on their ability to leverage in-kind and financial contributions that will contribute to the project’s development and implementation. A specific matched funding ratio is not required. Applicants will be required to demonstrate that these contributions are secured if invited to submit a full proposal.

This is actually a much larger program. $9 million annually will be available, in denominations of between $100,000 and $500,000 each. The idea is much the same: convince particular groups of Canadians that mass vaccination is good.

Note: this isn’t work done to ENSURE that vaccines are safe and reliable. Instead, this is work to CONVINCE people that they already are.

3. Ottawa Spending $64 Million On Programs

TORONTO — The federal government is investing $64 million in COVID-19 vaccine education campaigns to help combat vaccine hesitancy and misinformation in Canada, while also encouraging Canadians to get the shot.

Minister of Health Patty Hajdu said in a press release on Tuesday that the investment, through the Immunization Partnership Fund (IPF), will increase public access to “reliable, accurate and timely information about vaccines.” She says this will help ensure Canadians “make informed and confident vaccine choices for themselves and their families.”

“Vaccines are an important and effective way to protect Canadians and stop the spread of COVID-19. Working with our partners, we will make sure that Canadians have the latest information about how and when they can get vaccinated, but also why they should get vaccinated,” Hajdu said in the release.

According to the release, the funding includes $30.25 million for “community-led projects” that will work to increase vaccine confidence by addressing “gaps in knowledge, attitudes and beliefs related to vaccination.”

The federal government said the funding will also be used to develop “tailored, targeted tools and educational resources” to raise vaccine awareness for COVID-19 and other diseases.

In addition, the funds will support local efforts to address community barriers to access and acceptance of vaccines.

This isn’t just a top-down program from Ottawa. The Federal Government will be dispensing millions of dollars for Provincial and Municipal programs to convince people that the vaccines are needed. Whenever supposed independents are pushing for the gene replacement, you have to wonder if they are receiving funding.

4. Important Links, Research

Vaccine Community Innovation Program
https://archive.is/5grnW
Immunization Partnership Fund Of Canada
https://archive.is/j5rIC
Ottawa Spending $64 Million On Various Programs
https://archive.is/WDTkN

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

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 #66(D): Call-In Centers Are Wrongly Telling People “Vaccines” Were Approved

Mass vaccination centers have opened across Canada. The goal is to inject largely untested substances into people, under the pretense of a public health emergency. Now, these aren’t really “vaccines”, but are gene-replacement therapy, and 99% of people don’t need them, but that’s another story. This is to get into the misrepresentation that is going on with the call in centers set up.

1. “Vaccines” Not Health Canada Approved

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

  • INTERIM AUTHORIZATION — deemed to be “worth the risk” under the circumstances, doesn’t have to be fully tested. Allowed under Section 30.1 of the Canada Food & Drug Act. Also known as emergency authorization.
  • APPROVED — Health Canada has fully reviewed all the testing, and steps have been done, with the final determination that it can be used for the general population.

To be approved means that this thing has been rigorously tested, and has passed all safety measures, and that it has rigorously been examined. This is not what happened here.

Instead, these “vaccines” were given interim authorization, because the Government has decided that it’s worth releasing it to the general public, and finishing the testing later. This is allowed under Section 30.1 of the Canada Food & Drug Act, and an Interim Order was signed by Patty Hajdu.

https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/astrazeneca-covid-19-vaccine-pm-en.pdf
https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/janssen-covid-19-vaccine-pm-en.pdf
https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/covid-19-vaccine-moderna-pm-en.pdf
https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/pfizer-biontech-covid-19-vaccine-pm1-en.pdf

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

2. Recordings From Booking Centers

Fraser Health Booking

Interior Health Booking

Island Health Booking

Northern Health Booking

Vancouver Health Booking

Saskatchewan Booking

Manitoba Booking

Ontario Booking

In each inquiry made, the person on the other end conflated “approved” with an “interim or temporary authorization”. Now, it possible — even likely — that they don’t know the difference and are not attempting to deceive. But the result is the same. Average citizens call in, and won’t know the difference.

Pardon the less than stellar quality. Speaker phones aren’t the best for this sort of thing.

The 5 recordings here are from each of the 5 health zones in BC. But surely, this is going on elsewhere as well. People don’t ask the necessary questions.

3. Calls To Various Government Lines

Health Canada

Public Health Agency of Canada (Their # anyway)

811 Phone Support In BC

Manitoba Health Services

The people booking not seem to know. Not only that, various Government bodies apparently don’t have a clue either. Not very reassuring.

4. Trudeau’s Two-Faced Claims

Here, we get the standard answer of “Health Canada tests and insures the safety of all vaccines that are APPROVED”. While this sounds fine on the surface, these were never approved, they were given interim authorization. The Government hopes you won’t know the difference.

Posted on

CV #66(C): Trudeau Lies, Covid “Vaccines” Being Injected Were Never Approved By Health Canada

Justin Trudeau, Theresa Tam, Patty Hajdu and others are misrepresenting when they claim that these vaccines have been approved for use. Aside from not really being vaccines, we need to distinguish between 2 things:

(a) Emergency use authorization — deemed to be “worth the risk” under the circumstances, doesn’t have to be fully tested. Allowed under Section 30.1 of the Canada Food & Drug Act.
(b) Approved — Health Canada has fully reviewed all the testing, and steps have been done, with the final determination that it can be used for the general population.

The substances being injected have been authorized for use, because of an Interim Order.

1. Canada Food & Drug Act, Section 30.1

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.

Section 30.1 of the Canada Food & Drug Act. Here is the Interim Order signed September 16, 2020 by Health Minister Patty Hajdu. This is quite different from having drugs or medical devices being approved through the formal channels. Now, what does that document actually say?

2. September 16 Order From Patty Hajdu

Application for authorization
.
3 (1) Subject to section 4, an application for an authorization in respect of a COVID-19 drug must be in a form established by the Minister and contain sufficient information and material to enable the Minister to determine whether to issue the authorization, including
.
(a) the applicant’s name and contact information and, in the case of a foreign applicant, the name and contact information of their representative in Canada;
(b) a description of the drug and a statement of its proper name or its common name if there is no proper name;
(c) a statement of the brand name of the drug or the identifying name or code proposed for the drug;
(d) a list of the ingredients of the drug, stated quantitatively;
(e) the specifications for each of the drug’s ingredients;
(f) a description of the facilities and equipment to be used in the manufacture, preparation and packaging of the drug;
(g) details of the method of manufacture and the controls to be used in the manufacture, preparation and packaging of the drug;
(h) details of the tests to be applied to control the potency, purity, stability and safety of the drug;
(i) the names and qualifications of all the investigators to whom the drug has been sold;
(j) a draft of every label to be used in connection with the drug, including any package insert and any document that is provided on request and that sets out supplementary information on the use of the drug;
(k) a statement of all the representations to be made for the promotion of the drug respecting
(i) the recommended route of administration of the drug,
(ii) the proposed dosage of the drug,
(iii) the drug’s indications, and
(iv) the contra-indications and side effects of the drug;
(l) a description of the dosage form that is proposed for the sale of the drug;
(m) evidence that all test batches of the drug used in any studies conducted in connection with the application were manufactured and controlled in a manner that is representative of market production;
(n) in the case of a drug intended for administration to food-producing animals, the withdrawal period of the drug; and
(o) the known information in relation to the quality, safety and effectiveness of the drug.

This may be nitpicking, but notice that the Order doesn’t say that the drug has to be safe. It only states that the “unknown information” has to be provided.

It also doesn’t specify that the testing has to be completed, or anywhere close to done. In fact, these authorizations can be issued with next to no testing being done.

Yes, a considerable amount of information needs to be provided. But it doesn’t mean that safety — the biggest issue — has to be conclusively established. The standard is much lower.

4 Content
.
4(2) The application must be in a form established by the Minister and contain the following information and material:
(a) the information and material described in paragraphs 3‍(1)‍(a) to (d), (f), (j) to (l) and, if applicable, (n);
(b) an attestation, signed and dated by an individual who has authority to bind the applicant in Canada, certifying that the applicant has access to the information referred to in paragraph 3‍(1)‍(o) that was submitted to the relevant foreign regulatory authority in order for the foreign drug to be authorized to be sold;
(c) information that demonstrates that the drug is identical to, and is manufactured, prepared and packaged in the same manner as, the foreign drug;
(d) information that demonstrates that the sale of the foreign drug is authorized by the foreign regulatory authority referred to in paragraph (b); and
(e) any labels that are approved by the foreign regulatory authority referred to in paragraph (b) for use in connection with the foreign drug.

Issuance
.
5 The Minister must issue an authorization in respect of a COVID-19 drug if the following requirements are met:
-the applicant has submitted an application to the Minister that meets the requirements set out in subsection 3‍(1) or 4‍(2);
-the applicant has provided the Minister with all information or material, including samples, requested under subsection 13‍(1) in the time, form and manner specified under subsection 13‍(2); and
-the Minister has sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that the benefits associated with the drug outweigh the risks, having regard to the uncertainties relating to the benefits and risks and the necessity of addressing the urgent public health need related to COVID-19.

If the above criteria are met, then the authorization MUST be approved, according to Section 5 of the Order.

To be clear, getting an authorization under this Interim Order isn’t the same thing as having a drug of vaccine getting approved. This authorization is a sort of temporary emergency measure. These are not the same thing, and should not be conflated in any way.

Prohibition – significant difference
.
6 (1) It is prohibited to sell a COVID-19 drug to which an authorization relates if any of the matters referred to in subsection 3‍(1) or subsection 4‍(2) — other than in paragraph 3‍(1)‍(i) or 4‍(2)‍(e), as the case may be — are significantly different from the information or material contained in the application, unless the Minister amends the authorization.

Amendment
(2) The Minister must amend the authorization if the following requirements are met:
.
(a) the holder of the authorization has submitted an application to the Minister to amend it;
(b) the holder has provided the Minister with all information or material, including samples, requested under subsection 13‍(1) in the time, form and manner specified under subsection 13‍(2); and
(c) the Minister has sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that the benefits associated with the drug outweigh the risks, having regard to the uncertainties relating to the benefits and risks and the necessity of addressing the urgent public health need related to COVID-19.

Notice that the September 16, 2020 Order keeps referring to this as an “authorization” for drugs. It never says the term “approval”. Why is this? It’s because a temporary authorization and an approval are 2 entirely different animals.

True, both lead to “vaccines” getting put into people’s arms. But they are not the same in terms of standards, testing, length of study, and review.

3. Authorized Despite Testing Deficiencies

https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/astrazeneca-covid-19-vaccine-pm-en.pdf
https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/janssen-covid-19-vaccine-pm-en.pdf
https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/covid-19-vaccine-moderna-pm-en.pdf
https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/pfizer-biontech-covid-19-vaccine-pm1-en.pdf

Want to know the shortcomings in these “thoroughly tested” vaccines? This page contains information directly from the product information. Why aren’t our so-called opposition parties addressing any of this?

Think that suing the manufacturer will be an option if these “vaccines” harm you? Think again. They are exempt from liability. While an injury compensation program was announced back in December, there have been no details or updates since.

4. Same Deception Problem With Fauci

In this recent interview, Anthony Fauci gets called out by Eugenio Derbez for repeatedly distorting the truth. Fauci tries to conflate vaccines being “approved by the FDA”, and an “Emergency Use Authorization”. They are not the same thing. See here for the full conversation.