CSN Press Room - 'One Health' vs 'Gain of Function': Which pandemic cause has stronger evidence?
SLIDE SHOW + BRIEFING NOTE/UNANSWERED QUESTIONS - 10/23/24
Bill C-293 came before the Senators at the end of the day on Tuesday, October 22. It is very clear that there is a lack of evidence underpinning the reference to the WHO’s ONE HEALTH initiative that is the reason for many of the measures in the Bill re: limiting animal to human transfer of pathogens, precisely those measures that threaten Canada’s agricultural sector, and with that, the country’s economy. It is also clear that Senators are unaware of the role that bioweapons research plays in making pathogens more virulent and thereby in driving pandemics. The CSN Press Room had shared a Press Release and a Briefing Note on these matters on Sept. 23, 2024.
Recently, the private member initiating the bill, ON MP Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, felt compelled to prepare a video response regarding the fears that sections of his Bill potentially amount to whole scale closure of commercial agricultural operations. The link to his video along with a response explaining the validity of the concerns within the current context can be see here. Many evidence-based preventative and pandemic response measures were NOT included in the Bill now before the Senate. Given the exceeding vagueness of the One Health references that are in the bill, readers may wish to see this RE-DRAFT for illustrative purposes posted here:
They may also wish to download this slide show as it provides evidence and suggests experts to consult on the role that gain of function experiments related to biowarfare or bioterrorism play in driving pandemics.
In the last section of Bill C-293, an individual is to be appointed in order to coordinate Canada’s pandemic response. On September 24, 2024 Health Canada announced the launch of something called Health Emergency Readiness Canada (HERC). Upon first glance, readers may assume that this refers to the appointment of a coordinator for future pandemics. Yet because HERC is to be a joint venture between Health Canada and the Ministry of Innovation, Science and Technology, it appears to lean toward monetizing science for investment purposes including in vaccines, rather than toward the use of science-based means to improve the health of Canadians or toward emergency management. In the month following that announcement about HERC, there have been very few details made public and little coverage in the press. However, the Chief Science Officer of Canada has also made a recent announcement regarding her possible coordinating role in times of emergencies.
In order to assist Canadian journalists navigate through all the related unanswered questions, CSN Press Room began drafting a document. Yet given the need to further brief Senators as to the Zoonosis vs Gain of Function topic, we have decided to create one combined document for immediate release. (Hopefully in the future, “briefing” notes will be more BRIEF!!)
Readers are invited to focus on whichever sections further their own understanding and which support their efforts to share information and knowledge on these topics.
Only this latter document is being presented below. To see the slide show and the suggestions for a redraft of Bill C-263, please download the first two attachments above.
Thank you.
MANY UNANSWERED QUESTIONS ARISE AFTER ANNOUNCEMENT OF HEALTH EMERGENCY READINESS CANADA (HERC)
CSNews October 23, 2024 Contact H. Noerenberg CanadianShareableNews@proton.me
Journalists with an interest in Health & Wellness, in Municipal, Provincial, Territorial and Federal Public & Health Policy, in Emergency Response, in Global Affairs, in Science & Technology, in Innovation, in Finance, in Anti-Globalist Activism, Agriculture, Hunting & Forestry, in small, medium and large Businesses, in topics around Justice & Indigenous Affairs, in issues surrounding the Medical Profession, the Elderly, the Immunocompromised, the Vaccine Injured and those with Chronic Illnesses and in Senate Matters, etc. are invited to take note of the many unanswered questions around the announcement of a new Health Emergency Readiness Centre (HERC).
THIS IS BEING SHARED AS A COMPANION DOCUMENT to TWO DOCUMENTS RELEASED here BY THE CSN PRESS ROOM on September 24, 2024:
News Release entitled CANADIANS SEEK THE DEFEAT OF THE PANDEMIC PREVENTION AND PREPAREDNESS BILL AS IT GOES TO 2nd READING in SENATE
BRIEFING NOTE RE: UPCOMING SECOND READING OF BILL C-293 (THE PANDEMIC PREVENTION AND PREPAREDNESS BILL)
(Note: Related questions will be listed starting on page 17)
SUMMARY: Canada’s Senate is set to examine Bill C-293. One of the components of that Bill is an Amendment of the Department of Health Act which reads: “the Minister shall appoint a national pandemic prevention and preparedness coordinator from among the officials of the Public Health Agency of Canada and delegate to the coordinator the powers, duties and functions that the Minister considers appropriate.”
It is unclear whether one of the recently announced bodies related to Health, Emergencies, Science, etc. should fill the role of “coordinator” as per Bill C-293 or whether that role is still yet to be determined. Not yet determined either, is a potential budget for this “coordinator”.
On a related note, both Bill C-293 and a recent report from the Office of the Chief Science Advisor of Canada make reference to the World Health Organization’s “One Health” program as a key driver of decision making within Canada on matters around pandemic prevention. Not mentioned in any of the documents intended to guide Canada’s emergency response in the face of reported coming pandemics, is the role that the artificial lab-based manipulations of pathogens have in driving pandemics. In contrast, the One Health approach centres around fears that pandemics primarily arise from zoonotic diseases, i.e. from pathogens that can jump from a non-human to a human and vice versa. Measures such as reducing land use, restricting forestry operations, regulating commercial agriculture, etc. are being suggested in Bill C-293 as potential means of pandemic prevention. Meanwhile, there is nothing in Bill C-293 that references evidence-based antiviral and other therapeutics for the prevention and treatment of pandemic illnesses.
This combination Press Release/Briefing Note/List of Unanswered Questions is intended to assist journalists as they further investigate these and related stories. It is also intended to assist Canada’s Senators as well as elected officials at every level as they consider Canada’s state of readiness for future pandemics, as well as the role that outside NGOs, foreign influencers, philanthropic/vested interest-funded agencies should be given in determining and driving Canadian Health policy. And finally, it is simply intended as a means of informing and inspiring much needed public discussion in this country.
THE COORDINATING BODY mentioned in Bill C-293
One of the many items on the Order Paper for the current fall sitting of the Senate is the Second Reading of Bill C-293, the Pandemic Prevention and Preparedness Bill initiated by Liberal MP Nathan Erskine-Smith. The final section of Bill C-293 reads:
National coordinator — pandemic prevention and preparedness
4.11 For the purpose of coordinating the activities under the Pandemic Prevention and Preparedness Act, the Minister shall appoint a national pandemic prevention and preparedness coordinator from among the officials of the Public Health Agency of Canada and delegate to the coordinator the powers, duties and functions that the Minister considers appropriate.
Senators might be wondering which of the recently announced reports or initiatives might already be intended as the “national pandemic prevention and preparedness coordinator” or whether the intention (if the Bill were to be passed as is) is to assign an even different coordinator with yet another budget to cover operations.
Recent government announcements include:
Health Emergency Readiness Canada (HERC)
Strengthening the Use of Science for Emergency Management in Canada
GOVERNMENT NOTIFICATION re: HERC + EMERGENCIES
On September 24, 2024 Health Canada announced: “Federal government launches Health Emergency Readiness Canada to strengthen preparedness for future health emergencies” https://www.canada.ca/en/innovation-science-economic-development/news/2024/09/federal-government-launches-health-emergency-readiness-canada-to-strengthen-preparedness-for-future-health-emergencies.html “HERC will serve as Canada’s focal point to help mobilize industry to respond in a coordinated approach to public health needs and to support the growth of a domestic life sciences sector. This new organization will bridge the gap between research and commercialization, meaning Canadians could get faster access to the most relevant and effective vaccines, therapeutics, diagnostics and other products, including when they need them the most.”
At the time, a tweet was posted by Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada which includes links to a Handbook on “innovation funding, R&D collaboration, commercial opportunities, and advisory services to help fuel innovation”. https://x.com/ISED_CA/status/1828083900310073690
As well, on September 24, Canada’s Minister of Innovation, Science and Technology , François-Philippe Champagne tweeted “Being ready, and staying ready, is essential! That’s why Health Emergency Readiness Canada will ensure we have the tools needed to protect Canadians from the next public health crisis.” https://x.com/FP_Champagne/status/1838690890375929911 Since that date, there has been no further mention of HERC on his X account. And very little coverage of HERC in the mainstream media.
GOVERNMENT NOTIFICATION re: OPEN SCIENCE & the use of Science in Emergencies
Earlier, in May 2024, the Office of the Chief Science Advisor referenced a 2020 Road Map on the topic of Open Science: “Open Science is the practice of sharing data, information, tools, and research results, and eliminating barriers to collaboration. Open science is a new way of doing science. It accelerates discovery by enabling others to build on previously validated research. This may translate to new and faster discoveries and treatments—and lives saved.” https://science.gc.ca/site/science/en/office-chief-science-advisor/open-science
On October 21, 2024, a 22 page report entitled “Strengthening the Use of Science for Emergency Management in Canada: A Brief Report from the Chief Science Advisor of Canada” was posted on https://science.gc.ca/site/science/en/office-chief-science-advisor/emergency-preparedness. It proposes “A Three-Point Framework for the Use of Science in Emergencies” and makes a number of recommendations including “empower the Chief Science Advisor to coordinate science advice and set up, in collaboration with relevant departments, transparent and agile advisory groups during national emergencies.” As in the case of Bill C-293, this report also references the World Health Organization’s ONE HEALTH approach, in statements like: “Adopt interrelated One Health approaches to effectively detect, mitigate and address disease threats to humans, animals and environments.” The report uses the following definition:
“One Health is an integrated, unifying approach that aims to sustainably balance and optimize the health of people, animals and ecosystems. It recognizes the health of humans, domestic and wild animals, plants, and the wider environment (including ecosystems) are closely linked and inter-dependent. The approach mobilizes multiple sectors, disciplines and communities at varying levels of society to work together to foster well-being and tackle threats to health and ecosystems, while addressing the collective need for clean water, energy and air, safe and nutritious food, taking action on climate change, and contributing to sustainable development. (Definition developed by the One Health High Level Expert Panel)”
What is not referenced in the report on the use of science for emergency management, is any potential role for the recently announced Health Emergency Readiness Canada.
POTENTIAL CONNECTION BETWEEN Drug Approval Regulations and the AGILE REGULATION TOOL KIT
Specifically Health Emergency Readiness Canada and less directly, both Strengthening the Use of Science for Emergency Management in Canada and the Road Map on the topic of Open Science make references to the need for Canadians to have speedy access to drugs, vaccines and therapeutics in emergencies. From December 2022 to April 2023, Health Canada was running a consultation on proposed agile regulations and guidance for licensing drugs and medical devices. This has since been closed off and it is likely that some of the results of this consultation have made their way into processes referenced on Health Canada’s webpage of Guidance on the Food and Drug Regulations for public health emergency drugs found here: https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/programs/consultation-proposed-agile-regulations-guidance-licensing-drugs-medical-devices/food-drug-regulations-public-health-emergency/references-contacts.html.
Canadians concerned about the implication of the term “AGILE” in the consultation process point to one of many ‘toolkits’ being prepared for use by government officials by unelected and unidentified members of a slew of globalist organizations. In particular the document entitled ‘Agile Regulation for the Fourth Industrial Revolution: A Toolkit for Regulators’ by the world’s largest corporate lobby organization - the World Economic Forum, lets regulators know how much better it is for corporations if governments were to refrain from “prescriptive” regulations in favour of “goal based” regulation which allows corporations so much more leeway as they seek to get their products approved by governments for sale among the population. Canadians who noticed Health Canada’s swing AWAY from its former requirements (x amount of studies submitted to be run a certain way and with a minimum of 3000 trial participants) to a newer, more “Agile” approach are noting the way in which via so-called “public/private partnerships” highly influential corporations have indeed managed to supersede government authority over its own affairs. Anyone able to take the time to listen to the testimony of AB constitutional lawyer Shawn Buckley on the changes to the regulatory system at Health Canada will see how the use of “corporate agendas” in shaping government policy puts Canadian citizens at a huge disadvantaging, in fact disenfranchising us all once the precedent has been set in a few industry cases. See: https://nationalcitizensinquiry.ca/witness/shawn-buckley/.
ONE HEALTH
A key section of Bill C-293 reads:
(3) When establishing the plan under subsection (1) or when providing the required information under subsection (2), the Minister of Health or the ministers referred to in subsection (2), as the case may be, must (a) use a multisectoral and multidisciplinary collaborative approach, known as a One Health approach, that focuses on the human, animal, plant and ecosystem health and welfare interface;
In Canada, the term “One Health” appears to have been introduced in 2014 in the Canada Communicable Disease Report (Volume 40-16). https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/reports-publications/canada-communicable-disease-report-ccdr/monthly-issue/2014-40/ccdr-volume-40-16-september-18-2014.html.
The concept of One Health is based on the recognition that there are interconnections among human, animal and environmental health and there is increasingly a need to cross professional, disciplinary and institutional boundaries to address these. This issue highlights the fact that tropical diseases may only be an airplane ride away, that recreational waters can be affected by environmental factors that may be amenable to satellite surveillance and that severe weather (e.g. typhoons) can disrupt public health activities (e.g. immunization).
Then, the term was referenced in 2016 in the strategic plan of the Canadian Public Health Laboratory Network. https://www.canada.ca/en/services/health/publications/science-research-data/2016-2020-canadian-public-health-laboratory-network-strategic-plan.html
Mandate: To assure an integrated public health laboratory network response to infectious diseases that encompasses One Health.
More recently, the term comes up in searches related to Legionella spp. in drinking water guidelines, in work related to National West Nile Surveillance, in the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's (CFIA) Animal Health Science Directorate with reference to Animal Health Risk Analysis and Intelligence section, in research related to factors that influence the health of caribou and muskoxen on Victoria Island, in documents on net-zero communities and climate change resilience, and with reference to possible SARS-CoV-2-associated risk from mink farming in British Columbia. https://www.canada.ca/en/sr/srb.html#q=%22one%20health%22
It is appears clear that the entirety of Bill C-293 is an abbreviated version of this document published two years ago: (FAO, UNEP, WHO, and WOAH. 2022. One Health Joint Plan of Action (2022-2026). Working together for the health of humans, animals, plants and the environment. Rome. https://doi.org/10.4060/cc2289en)
The One Health Joint Plan of Action is grounded in the One Health approach, which the World Health Organization (WHO) defines as follows:
One Health is an integrated, unifying approach that aims to sustainably balance and optimize the health of humans, animals, plants and ecosystems. It recognizes the health of humans, domestic and wild animals, plants and the wider environment (including ecosystems) are closely linked and interdependent.
The approach mobilizes multiple sectors, disciplines and communities at varying levels of society to work together to foster well-being and tackle threats to health and ecosystems, while addressing the collective need for clean water, energy and air, safe and nutritious food, taking action on climate change, and contributing to sustainable development. (Page 4)
It is clear from the One Health Joint Plan of Action 2022 - 2026 that the One Health approach is to be implemented within member countries, which would include Canada.
The Quadripartite Organizations – the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH, founded as OIE), and the World Health Organization (WHO) – collaborate to drive the change and transformation required to mitigate the impact of current and future health challenges at the human–animal– plant–environment interface at global, regional and country level.
Responding to international requests to prevent future pandemics and to promote health sustainably through the One Health approach, the Quadripartite has developed the One Health Joint Plan of Action (2022–2026) (OH JPA). (Page x)
Of note: other than general comments about fighting Antimicrobial Resistance, there are no examples in the Joint Plan of Action of how exactly the One Health Approach would look in a health care setting, and no references to case studies illustrating when and how it has already been applied. To find specifics, one needs to seek elsewhere, for example this 2019 study that states:
Due to the broad, often seemingly all encompassing, nature of One Health in promoting synergies of multiple disciplines and sectors, the One Health community has faced difficulties in determining specific One Health impact indicators for formally evaluating One Health successes. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31564744/
For more on the possibility that the author of Bill C-293 drew concepts from foreign NGO documentation (i.e. the World Health Organization) see this open letter to MP Nathaniel Erskine-Smith:
WHAT IS MISSING - DEVELOPING POPULATION HEALTH
Given that the stated purpose of implementing the One Health approach is to prevent pandemics, there is nothing in the Joint Plan of Action about safeguarding the population from pandemics by promoting health literacy and by ensuring optimal health prior to the emergence of widespread illnesses as a key bulwark against infection. At a basic level such measures should include improving sanitation, water and air quality, combatting malnutrition, Vitamin D deficiency, and other known means of strengthening immunity to optimize the body’s ability to effectively fight of all manners of microbes, pathogens, infections - endemic, pandemic or otherwise. There is not even a cursory reference to the concept of holistic integration of physical, mental, and spiritual well-being, often referred to as the Dimensions of Wellness. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5508938/
There are no references to any lessons learned from the COVID-19 experience about the preventative effect of antimalarial medication (which is one of the key differences resulting in a much lower rate of illness in countries where people have regular, inexpensive and widespread access to proven therapeutics compared with the infection rate and mortality rates in Canada, where such antimalarial medication was not widespread (in fact where its use was disallowed.) This researcher’s “think aloud protocol” traces an attempt to find information on one of the antivirals commonly used in the Global South. https://r.8b.io/387157/assets/files/Part_B_10_13.pdf And here is just one of many sample published studies on the same topic. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41429-021-00491-6 There is no comparison between the degree to which public health officials were sceptical of a product like the Nobel Prize winning repurposed antiviral ivermectin and the degree to which they were sceptical of a brand new product with no previous use case history, the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines. See: https://www.albertahealthservices.ca/assets/info/ppih/if-ppih-covid-19-sag-ivermectin-in-treatment-and-prevention-rapid-review.pdf
In the Joint Plan of Action, “prevention” is simply referred to in sweeping terms like:
systemic prevention measures integrating the health of humans, animals, plants and the environment. (Page 9)
However, the Joint Plan of Action contains this statement, also without specific examples:
With significant investments by funding partners, One Health initiatives and networks are emerging worldwide, with many countries and regions encouraging collaboration between professionals from different disciplines, working from community to global levels across sectors and institutional divides. (Page 11)
WHO + PATHOGEN “BENEFITS SHARING”
Underpinning the entire One Health Approach is the same focus on zoonotic pathogens that also underpins the the proposed WHO Pandemic Treaty which is currently in re-development. The draft version that was rejected at the World Health Assembly earlier this year contained language around a core component of interest to the pharmaceutical companies who directly or indirectly contribute roughly two thirds of the WHO’s budget. It is to be expected that the new draft will retain much of this language and these intents:
[Article 12] is intended to establish the WHO Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing System (PABS System). PABS is intended to “ensure rapid, systematic and timely access to biological materials of pathogens with pandemic potential and the genetic sequence data.” This system is of potential high relevance and needs to be interpreted in the context that SARS-CoV-2, the pathogen causing the recent Covid-19 outbreak, was highly likely to have escaped from a laboratory. PABS is intended to expand the laboratory storage, transport, and handling of such viruses, under the oversight of the WHO, an organization outside of national jurisdiction with no significant direct experience in handling biological materials. (https://brownstone.org/articles/the-who-pandemic-agreement-a-guide/)
It is clear we find ourselves in a new gold rush — the process used to develop the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines has since become ‘templated’. Just add the genetic sequence of the new pathogen and ergo, companies now have a new vaccine product that they can sell to governments. And if governments mandate the injection, for example, by putting it on childhood vaccine schedules, there is a permanent expanded market. The new WHO Pandemic Treaty, with its focus on “benefit sharing” is essentially nothing more than a trade document outlining the market share of the pathogen harvesting/‘vaccine’ manufacturing business to be allowed to enter the Global South while the controlling interests remain in Europe and North America, a new form of colonialist enterprise.
The very fact that the new HERC is a joint endeavour between the Ministries of Health and Innovation is noteworthy. HERC is meant to signal that Canada is open for business according to Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada. https://x.com/ISED_CA/status/1828083900310073690
WHAT IS MISSING. BIOWARFARE RESEARCH
What is NOT addressed in Bill C-293 or in its probable parent document, the WHO’s One Health Joint Plan of Action, is the recognition that it is not the simple encounter with animals or plants in the wild that leads to the so-called zoonotic transfer of pandemic illness. It is the deliberate harvesting of such pathogens followed by intentional modification of the genetic structures to make them more transmissible and to result in more severe symptoms than would naturally be the case. This is referred to as ‘gain of function’ research, which, after being banned in the US by President Obama, was transferred overseas. The classic example involves Dr. Anthony Fauci, the infamous lab in Wuhan, and patents that were sought for both the SARS-Cov-2 virus AND functions within the associated mRNA vaccines. https://archive.org/details/the-fauci-covid-19-dossier_202109 It is known that there was interplay between the US military Agency DARPA and Moderna, for example. Given the concerning number of pandemic illnesses connected to bioweapons, biowarfare and bioterrorism, one would assume that a plan to counteract pandemics would necessarily take that possibility into consideration. The CSN Press Room provided links for further investigation in the Briefing Note found here. https://canadianshareablenews.substack.com/p/csn-press-room-canadians-seek-defeat
That document includes this paragraph:
What is missing in this Bill is any evidence of a far greater cause of pandemics than viral “spillover” from animals to humans — that of intentional efforts within the bioweapons development community to intentionally alter viruses in order to make them more virulent and thus suited to purposes of biowarfare. Every major pandemic in the last 60 years originated through ‘gain of function’ research, including SARS-CoV-1. In fact, 71 instances of "biological risks from anthropic sources” have occurred between 1975 and 2016 alone, with the majority arising out of purposes related to biodefense, bioweapon, bioterrorism or related research, often accidentally released. These range from Anthrax and Ebola to Foot and Mouth disease to the Marburg virus and SARS-CoV-1 originating from places such as Fort Dietrich, the UNC Chapel Hill (both US military bases) and the National Centre for Foreign Animal Disease in Winnipeg as well as in the National Institute of Virology in Beijing and others.
See: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9274012/
Dr. Meryl Nass is a US physician with decades-long experience as a watchdog of the US regulators including the FDA and the CDC. She is also a noted bioweapons expert and has provided expert testimony to legislative bodies within Canada at least twice, in particular around anthrax in the military context. One of her recent presentations on the bioweapons industry’s focus on new pathogens and another on the implications of the aforementioned WHO Pandemic Treaty can be heard here. https://cmsindipendente.it/seminario20240419 In fact, many of the other presentations given at the same event such as those by Prof. Jay Bhattacharya, Dr. Norman Fenton, Dr. Katarina Lindley, Prof. Masanori Fukushima, Prof. Reginald M.J. Oduor, On. Rob Roos, Sen. Thomas Pressley, Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg, and Sen. Ron Johnson are essential viewing for Canadian policy makers considering mitigating any future health emergencies. The presenters’ experiences in various parts of the globe have the potential to help Canada’s policy makers gain a better understanding of the events of the past four years. Also highly recommended is the angle coming from investment banker Catherine Austin Fitts. She was a former Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development serving under US President George HW Bush . She shares valuable insights into the global financial scenario, CBDC and digital control grid aspects of any proposal to turn ultimate decision maker powers out of Canadian hands into those of unelected globalist-oriented bureaucrats with access to unlimited tech surveillance capabilities.
MORE OF WHAT IS MISSING
There is currently no recognition in Bill C-293 of what to do for and about the vaccine inured as well as about legal action taken by many who were negatively impacted by other pandemic mitigation measures such as lockdowns and quarantines. Speaking at the NCI hearing in Regina on June 1, 2024, chartered financial analyst Lex Acker stated: “Now, 596 000 un-vaxed Canadian claiming EI times 26 000 per claim. That's 12.9 billion dollars. That's what the government needed to avoid. They needed to avoid this massive liability.”Lex Acker was using the government's own internal documents and memos, and explained to the National Citizens Inquiry how the federal employment insurance program was used to refuse benefits to the unvaccinated, in effect creating a two-tiered system. https://nationalcitizensinquiry.ca/witness/lex-acker-jun-01-2024-regina-saskatchewan/
NOTEWORTHY ANALYSIS OF WHAT WENT WRONG
Sasha Latypova is a US based pharmaceutical R&D executive who provides extensive documentation on all key aspects of COVID-19 related research on this post:
Here we share only a fragment and recommend others read further.
Pandemics do not exist naturally. It is not possible for a natural infectious disease to spread all over the world simultaneously. Any local communicable diseases self extinguish. The vast majority to what is presented to the public as historical pandemics are diseases related to lack of water sanitation from human and animal waste, crowding and infestation with rats, fleas, etc. These include diseases that are attributable to bacteria - e.g. cholera and the plague. The inappropriately named “Spanish Flu” was severely misrepresented as a “pandemic”, decades after the fact. It wasn’t considered one by the International Sanitary Convention (predecessor to WHO, 1850 - 1949), also here.
Pandemics do not exist, they are faked by the governments with bio-chemical agents such as chemical poisons, synthetic drugs and toxins (not viruses) manufactured utilizing “infectious disease research” loophole of the International Bioweapons Convention, and massive amounts of engineered virus fear porn, fake PCR and hospital murder protocols.
Of note is that on the same day that the HERC announcement was made public, the association representing Canada’s pharmaceutical industry released this response.
The establishment of this new agency is a step toward ensuring that Canada is better prepared for future health emergencies. By working closely with industry and other stakeholders, the government can facilitate faster access to vaccines, treatments, and diagnostics for all Canadians. “By fostering greater collaboration between industry, academia, and government, HERC can help bridge the gap between research and commercialization, and support efforts to ensure that Canadians benefit from the latest innovations in life sciences when they need them most,” said IMC President Bettina Hamelin. https://innovativemedicines.ca/newsroom/all-news/imc-welcomes-the-government-of-canadas-announcement-on-the-launch-of-health-emergency-readiness-canada-herc/
Clearly, their first thought when it comes to “health emergencies” is “faster access to vaccines.”
David Bell is a former WHO scientist and researcher, now working independently. He provides an invaluable examination of the history of the WHO, and its corporate capture over the decades. He outlines how private and corporate interests intersect and pull strings on government policy, a process that was seen in the past in fascist governments as they ceded the ability to pull rank over corporate interests. He demonstrates that as a result of these fascist corporate interests, prior knowledge of management of infectious diseases was abandoned at the advent of COVID-19. In fact, those few countries that continued following the WHO’s OWN 2019 guidelines (prior to it changes) ended up with lower all cause mortality rates, a fact not widely acknowledged on government and corporate backed “mainstream” media. We are sharing only the abstract here but highly recommend that all policy makers read the entire article found at https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ajes.12531
The World Health Organization's broad definition of health embraces physical, mental and social well-being. Expressed in its 1946 constitution alongside concepts of community participation and national sovereignty, it reflected an understanding of a world emerging from centuries of colonialist oppression and the public health industry's shameful facilitation of fascism. Health policy would be people-centered, closely tied to human rights and self-determination. The COVID-19 response has demonstrated how these ideals have been undone. Decades of increasing funding within public-private partnerships have corroded the basis of global public health. The COVID-19 response, intended for a virus that overwhelmingly targeted the elderly, ignored norms of epidemic management and human rights to institute a regime of suppression, censorship, and coercion reminiscent of the power systems and governance that were previously condemned. Without pausing to examine the costs, the public health industry is developing international instruments and processes that will entrench these destructive practices in international law. Public health, presented as a series of health emergencies, is being used once again to facilitate a fascist approach to societal management. The beneficiaries will be the corporations and investors whom the COVID-19 response served well. Human rights and individual freedom, as under previous fascist regimes, will lose. The public health industry must urgently awaken to the changing world in which it works, if it is to adopt a role in saving public health rather than contributing to its degradation.
David Bell is also one of the researchers involved in this joint project between the University of Leeds and US based Brownstone Institute is called REPPARE (REevaluating the Pandemic Preparedness And REsponse agenda). The policy briefs prepared so far are also required reading for anyone delving into pandemic preparedness. Of note is the finding that there are far fewer cases of animal to human spillover (zoonotic disease) than the WHO’s push to the One Health initiative would lead one to believe. See: “Rational Policy over Panic” here: https://brownstone.org/reppare/
UNADDRESSED: CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
In Canada, examples of government policy makers drawing upon subject matter experts with ties to pharmaceutical funding are legion. The non-pharma funded organization of evidence based medical and health research professionals, the Canadian Covid Care Alliance (CCCA) has addressed examples of conflicts of interest in numerous publications, videos and podcasts. Particularly noteworthy is the information presented by health researcher and Chair of the Strategic Advisory Committee of the CCCA Deanna McLeod. https://www.canadiancovidcarealliance.org/all/deanna-mcleod-pt-3-big-pharma-and-vaccine-conflict-of-interest/
The Standing Committee on Health (HESA) sought advice from U of T professor Dr. David Fisman. His institution was working out a research partnership with Moderna. Dr. Fisman’s faulty interpretation of data around vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals spread like wildfire across all ‘mainstream’ media platforms in the country, while there has been no coverage of the work of statistician and health researcher Regina Wateel, who demonstrates the fraudulence of Dr. Fisman’s work. https://www.fismansfraud.ca/.
Had our Parliamentarians been interested in drawing from a balance of perspectives when pulling together advice to Canadians, they could also have turned to the lead vaccinologist behind what was started as the development team for Canada’s COVID-19 vaccine. Dr. Byram Bridle has suffered severe backlash and had his development program shut down for pointing out Pfizer’s own data re; the concerning bio-distribution of the vaccine components in a range of organs within hours after injection - something that is likely still not recognized by Health Canada. Instead of being lauded for his ethics, Dr. Bridle was (AND STIILL REMAINS) vilified and banned from his own campus a persona non grata among those who put corporate interests ahead of human safety. His recent testimony to the independent National Citizen’s Inquiry is commented on and linked to here
The revelation of outright falsehoods passed on by Health Canada re: the purported safety and efficacy of mRNA injections for the frail elderly with comorbidities, those with autoimmune and inflammatory disorders, pregnant & lactating women, children under 12 and other vulnerable subgroups permanently shut the door on anyone from Health Canada taking the lead in future pandemic mitigation. When even Pfizer, with its long history of fraud is HONESTLY pointing out that its research did not cover those groups, for the government health officials then to FALSELY CLAIM that there IS PROVEN SAFETY for these groups and to NOT quietly hint to provincial health ministries NOT TO SPREAD this false information is, frankly, treasonous and the Senate will need to turn its attention to ensuring ways to have people who participated in that deception removed.
The Government of Canada’s (undated) Trust and Transparency Strategy seeks to “enhance trust and transparency”. Ergo, it would follow that with reference to the Government of Canada’s management of COVID-19, a clear line of sight is established between those providing health guidance and those who stand to gain from that policy guidance. This is where the many documents in the Conflict of Interest series presented on the website of the Canadian Covid Care Alliance
https://www.canadiancovidcarealliance.org/?s=conflict+of+interest
and presentations such as this one given by Deanna Mcleod https://www.canadiancovidcarealliance.org/all/deanna-mcleod-pt-3-big-pharma-and-vaccine-conflict-of-interest/ become crucial.
Certified Canadian emergency management professionals who deal with hazard assessment, mitigation and prevention were NOT called upon during the COVID-19 pandemic. In fact, their efforts to provide professional insights and advice were rebuffed. Two of them Dean Beaudry and Lt. Col. David Redman testified to the National Citizens Inquiry and would be excellent sources for whose dealing with a revision to Bill C-293. They can be heard as part of the Red Deer hearings posted here: https://nationalcitizensinquiry.ca/red-deer-testimony/
WHO “verbiage” on this topic is circulating and being re-used in multiple policy and even security documents:
Emerging and re-emerging zoonotic pathogens with epidemic and pandemic potential pose a major threat to humans, animals and society through their immense health, social, economic and security impacts. Prevention, preparedness, early warning, early detection, response and recovery to these threats require coordinated One Health approaches that integrate the environmental dimension to preserve biodiversity, build resilience and ensure sustainable health, livelihoods and food systems. Cohesive and collaborative global efforts that tackle emerging diseases at source are imperative.
This action track focuses on: i) understanding the drivers of (re-)emerging zoonotic diseases and related processes and pathways, including ecosystem degradation, land-use and habitat change, environmental and climatic factors, as well as harvesting, farming and the trade of animals, wild and domestic; ii) developing risk mitigation measures, including the maintenance of resilient healthy ecosystems, early interventions aimed at reversing or halting environmental degradation and biodiversity loss, the regulation of farming and trade in wildlife and wild animal products, and the reduction of spillover risks at key animal value-chain points and wildlife–domestic animal–human interfaces, including live animal markets (traditional markets); and iii) enhancing sustainable and targeted One Health surveillance, early warning and response mechanisms in ecosystems, targeting animal–human–environment interfaces and key animal value- chain points. The focus will be on known (re-)emerging zoonotic diseases previously identified to have epidemic and pandemic potential, while also considering “Disease X”, caused by a yet unknown zoonotic pathogen and with the potential to develop into a future epidemic/pandemic.
it is important to identify the validity of the research underlying its core message and to determine the reasons for which the step of genetic manipulation of pathogens to purposefully increase their pathogenicity (by means of bioweapons research) is NOT included.
GLBOAL CENSORSHIP
In Issue 27, Canadian Shareable News linked to this breaking news story:
Evidence of Global Collusion on Censorship Documents recently uncovered show NATO, G7, UK, US agencies working jointly & systematically on “countering hate” & “disinformation” using Big Tech censorship to “criminalize dissent”. worldcouncilforhealth.substack.com/p/breaking-international-governments-f33
Likewise, as reported by this independent Substack writer, millions of dollars were spent to on “marketing" campaigns and censorship projects
It is crucial that policy makers NOT LIMIT themselves to news and analysis only from government and corporate backed media outlets, “trusted news” initiatives, “fact checkers”, “misinformation gurus” and the like. We at Canadian Shareable News have been linking to many who are breaking open the stronghold that information has in this country on a wide range of topics. And we are highlight those people and initiatives that provided non-compromised evidence based data and analysis. In our latest issue, for example, we featured the https://totalityofevidence.com/ which is an excellent resource for anyone seeking to understand what was known when re: evidence based research on COVID-19.
ADDENDUM - a selection of UNANSWERED QUESTIONS re: HERC, Bill C-293, pandemic mitigation and more
QUESTIONS
Is HERC intended to be the “coordinator” refereed to in the last section of Bill C-293? Or is yet another “coordinator” to be planned? Where & when should Canadians expect to find information re: the cost and scope of HERC (and ?) this additional coordinator?
Who prepared the draft of Bill C-293? Was it staff in the office of MP Nathan Erskine-Smith? Did they have the assistance of others? Was this bill promoted internally within the Liberal Caucus, or did it MP Erskine-Smith solely promote it as his own bill? Does MP Erskine-Smith have connections to the World Health Organization in any way? How did he come to decide to promote this bill? Given that Private Members Bills so rarely progress to this stage, what was it about this bill that it moved this far?
Health Canada relied upon advice from the National Advisory Committee on IMMUNIZATION for its COVID-19 polices, but not on any advisory committee related to the well-known “dimensions of health”. Given the lack of focus on mental health and well-being as governments were rolling out COVID-19 mitigation strategies on the population, would it not stand to reason that future action plans around pandemic planning would include all the dimensions of wellness? What role have the Integrative Medicine or Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) professionals played in developing Canada’s plans to deal with future pandemics or other health emergencies?
Before Bill C-293 can be passed by the Senate, questions should be asked around what is MISSING in the Bill? When and where and by whom and how will proven pandemic preparation measures be implemented in Canada? Why were they not referenced at all in the Bill? Why are they not referenced in the WHO’s own Joint Plan of Action? Will these measures be considered as part of the mandate of the newly announced HERC? What will be the lines of authority between HERC and those overseeing the work in the National Center for Foreign Animal Disease in Winnipeg? Will HERC have the authority to shut down research there?
Given that all “gain of function research” is occurring in contravention of the 1972 UN Biological Weapons Convention and given this partnership between Health Canada (who’s aim is to promote population health) and Innovation Science and Development Canada (whose aim it is to promote the economic interests) which department has priority? If it is determined that economic interests impede population health, can Health Canada pull rank to put a halt to “biological risks from anthropic sources”? Can any other Ministry entrusted with ensuring Canada follows international Conventions investigate into the nature of work being done in Bioweapons labs in Canada?
Why is there no reference to such risks in any of the documentation around One Health both in the WHO’s Joint Plan of Action and in Bill C-293?
Given the 71 instances of "biological risks from anthropic sources” have occurred between 1975 and 2016 alone, if Canada is to manage pandemics by reducing the risk of animal to human transfer of pathogens can anyone point to research showing MORE instances of pandemic illness arising naturally from this transfer than from biowarfare related instances? In other words, how ill are Canadians falling from “natural” encounters with animal pathogens in unaltered (non-manipulated, non-gain of function) states?
A major “lesson learned” from COVID-19 is what can go wrong when one relies on a flawed testing protocol. Canada experienced a “case-decmic” more than an actual “pandemic” with so many people being quarantined following a “positive COVID test” when it was known that at higher than optimal cycle levels the majority of tests were false positives. What measures does HERC undertake to ensure that the health emergency engendered by rampant false positive testing does not recur?
Where is the line of authority between Health Canada and HERC? Which determinations like “we will NOT use PCR testing” fits in which department?
To what degree is the formation of HERC driven by corporate interests? For that matter, to what degree is pharmaceutical investment at universities (for example in the case of Moderna and the University of Toronto) driving the advice coming from the experts Health Canada has been drawing upon for guidance? How will conflict of interest issues be avoided at the new HERC? Which mechanisms will be established so that Canadians can clearly “follow the money”? Why even have a partnership between a health emergency management system and the “innovation” branch which so clearly is a mechanism for industry to benefit from declared emergencies? Why not have Health Emergencies alined with the people who work in the area of Disaster Management instead? https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/mrgnc-mngmnt/index-en.aspx What have the people involved in Canada’s National Emergency Response System been saying re: being left out of the design of HERC? (Or were they involved?) Why were they left out of the entire COVID-19 response scenario? Has anyone spoken with those professional emergency response planners who testified at the independently run National Citizens Inquiry (Dean Beaudry and Lt. Col. David Redman speaking twice) to get their professional commentary on what happened in the past and what could happen with HERC at the helm to address possible future pandemics and other global shocks with health consequences (issues around extend drought, rain, heat, wildfires, cyber attacks resulting in prolonged power/water service disruptions, etc. etc.)? Which vital areas of expertise appear not to be incorporated into the proposed structure of HERC?
How is it that documents originating from “philanthropic” investors of transnational companies who work through non-governmental agencies like the WHO, end up on the desks of Canadian lawmakers in the first place? For example: the WHO on its One Health initiative, see https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/epi-win-digest-4-emerging-zoonotic-diseases-and-the-one-health-approach or the World’s largest corporate lobby group, the WEF, and its guide for those in government who are actually tasked with carrying out product approvals for WEF members? https://www.weforum.org/about/agile-regulation-for-the-fourth-industrial-revolution-a-toolkit-for-regulators/? When did the government start “outsourcing” policy development to commercial and private interests?