Sandra Finley

Mar 172018

Just checking the progress of the CRA (Revenue Canada) case against Cameco.

Related:   2013-05-01   Cameco’s $800-million tax battle, Globe & Mail

The uranium producer estimates it has avoided declaring $4.9-billion in Canadian income, saving it $1.4-billion in taxes, over the last 10 years.

Cameco has blocked the government’s attempt to force 25 of the company’s senior executives to attend oral interviews on the company’s tax strategies

Drew Hasselback
Drew Hasselback

Cameco’s Cigar Lake mine


Cameco Corp. has defeated the Canadian government’s attempt to force about 25 of the company’s senior executives to submit to questioning on how the company uses offshore entities to reduce its tax bill.

The Minister of National Revenue sought a federal court order that would have compelled a long list of the company executives, including current chief executive Tim Gitzel and former CEO Gerry Grandey, to be interviewed by Canada Revenue Agency staff.

The Minister’s request relates to audits of Cameco’s 2010, 2011 and 2012 tax returns. In particular, the CRA says it wants more information on how Cameco uses foreign subsidiaries to reduce its tax bills. The process is called “transfer pricing,” and Canada has rules on when and how it can be done.

Cameco and the Canadian government have already locked-horns over transfer pricing. In a separate and ongoing trial that has yet to be decided by a judge, Cameco is fighting its tax bills for the 2003, 2005 and 2006 tax years. Cameco denies the tax bills and says its dealings with foreign subsidiaries comply with Canadian law. Final arguments in the tax trial are expected in September, with a decision to follow 12 to 18 months after that.

The interview request decision, which was released August 10, is separate from the ongoing tax court trial, but still related to the transfer pricing issue.

In support of the motion for the order to question the executives, the Minister argued in the Federal Court of Canada that the CRA’s auditing power under the Income Tax Act includes the right to conduct on-the-record, oral interviews with all the executives it wants.

Cameco argued that while the CRA’s powers are broad, they’re not unlimited. The company was willing to accommodate the government’s requests in several ways. It was prepared to make a few executives available for interviews, and it offered to respond to written questions. But Cameco said it was unreasonable for the CRA to compel about 25 executives to answer questions in the presence of a court reporter. The judge agreed.

“If the Minister’s position is accepted, the CRA can compel oral interviews from as many persons as they see fit without any procedural limits,” wrote Justice Glennys McVeigh. “The time and cost involved in allowing the Minister to interview more than 25 Cameco personnel scattered across the world is not proportional to the information being sought.”

Financial Post

dhasselback  at

Mar 172018

With thanks to The Vaccine Reaction

the girl has a bright idea

Steering pro-vaccine messaging away from values like care/harm and fairness and

instead focusing on values of purity and liberty might “provide a potential mechanism for vaccine attitude formation and change.”

A new article in Scientific America titled “How to Understand, and Help, the Vaccine Doubters” frames empathetic understanding of vaccine doubters as a new way to convince said doubters of the folly of their ways. It seeks to explain why parents who question such issues as school vaccine mandates, injection of myriad vaccine chemicals into children, and vaccine pushing by Big Pharma are not swayed by “facts countering these claims.”1

The authors—two epidemiologists and a professor of business ethics—point out that attempts at changing vaccine hesitancy into compliance have previously focused on “educational interventions, appeals to altruism, and statistics,” when the real issue may lay with individual values. They set out to see if people who question the wisdom of vaccines place greater emphasis on different values from those who accept the mainstream doctrine, and they determined that the answer is yes.1

A two-part study was conducted using a “Moral Foundations” questionnaire, a social psychology tool that evaluates how humans subconsciously use their attitudes towards principles like authority, care, fairness, liberty, loyalty, and purity to help them make decisions about what is right or wrong. Because people prioritize different values, the questionnaire highlights which ones are most influential in a person’s decision-making processes. 1

The first study included more than 1,000 parents evaluated for both vaccine attitudes and moral foundations. Results of that study showed that values were similar among all the parents except in the measure of “purity.” Comparing most hesitant to least hesitant parents, they also found a disparity in attitude toward “liberty.” The conclusion was that “hesitant parents are more likely to strongly emphasize values of purity and liberty, and less likely to strongly emphasize values of authority, than non-hesitant parents.”1

Suspecting that people with such leanings might be more susceptible to such “anti-vaccine claims as ‘Vaccines contain poisons/toxins/contaminants’ and ‘Vaccine mandates are excessive government control’,” the second part of the study looked at how the strength of vaccine beliefs—one way or the other—might compare specifically to those core values of purity and liberty. That study confirmed what they had found already, that the higher the score on importance of purity and liberty, the higher the belief in vaccine claims that spoke to those values, “even if the claims themselves are factually inaccurate.” 1

The authors admit that, “accurately identifying a phenomenon doesn’t automatically translate to successful interventions.” Still, their conclusion is that steering pro-vaccine messaging away from values like care/harm and fairness and instead focusing on values of purity and liberty might “provide a potential mechanism for vaccine attitude formation and change.”1


 2 Responses to Study: How to Understand and Help the Vaccine Doubters
  1. Jo

    March 17, 2018 at 11:18 am

    would it be more kind to test all the vaccines required for infants, say, on politicians?
    And since they’re adults, they wouldn’t have to wait for a year or so, for standard schedule on all those goodies.

    I’m SURE Nancy “this wall is too tall” Pelosi & asso. would like to prove the vaccines are safe and effective, not merely profitable.

    THAT WOULD HELP A LOT, IN CONVINCING ‘doubters,’ ‘deniers’ & other scientists the folly of believing doctors, et al., NOT paid-off/detailed/captured by Big Pharma.

Mar 162018

UPDATE:   add this –   2018-03-21   Leaves no doubt who Natural Resources Canada works for.


With thanks to Gordon Edwards:

Friends & Colleagues – This is an English translation of a French-language article.

Ole Hendrickson did this quick translation for the benefit of those who do not read French.

The original French article appears below the translation.

Cheers, Gordon Edwards.


Climate:  Trudeau government is banking on nuclear power


Justin Trudeau’s government sees nuclear energy as “an important part of Canada’s current clean energy basket”

and is lobbying foreign nations to include it in climate change talks.


A text by Fannie Olivier, Radio-Canada, March 15, 2018


This is an unexpected turnaround because nuclear energy was not part of the climate plan tabled by Ottawa last year.


There is an opportunity to “put nuclear energy at the center of global efforts to combat climate change,” said Kim Rudd, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, Jim Carr.


In a speech to the Canadian Nuclear Association on February 22, of which Radio-Canada consulted the paper version, she pointed out that Canada has joined with the United States and Japan to include nuclear energy in the discussions of the Clean Energy Ministerial (CEM), a forum that looks at the transition to a green economy.


“The CEM is meeting again in Copenhagen in May and we have ensured that nuclear energy will have its place in a broad, high-level discussion on a global transition to a low-carbon economy,” he said. Kim Rudd. She added that Canada will host the forum in 2019. “You can already imagine what our priorities will be,” she told industry representatives.


In her speech, she praises CANDU reactors, which Canada is seeking to export, and small nuclear reactors, a technology currently under development. Both produce radioactive waste. The CANDUs also generate plutonium, which could be used for military purposes and contribute to nuclear proliferation.


A spokesperson for Natural Resources Canada confirmed by email that Ottawa has a positive view of this type of energy.

“Nuclear energy is an important part of Canada’s current clean energy basket and will continue to play a key role in achieving the country’s low-carbon future,” said Jerri Southcott.

Against a current


Ecologists do not understand this change of course in Ottawa at all. “I fell out of my chair. I have the impression that we are going back 20 years,” says Steven Guilbeault, from Equiterre. “There is hardly anyone who talks about nuclear as a solution to climate change. ”


Many countries have made a commitment in recent years to phase out the use of nuclear power. Germany, in particular, has declared the shutdown of all its nuclear power plants in the aftermath of the Fukushima disaster in Japan. In 2012, Quebec announced the dismantling of its only plant, Gentilly-2. Ottawa also sold the Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL) CANDU Reactor Division to the private sector in 2011.


In Steven Guilbeault’s view, nuclear energy is expensive, non-renewable and polluting. “It’s very worrying, because this is the first time the Trudeau government has talked about this,” he says.


Pierre-Olivier Pineau, Chair of Energy Management at HEC Montréal, sees this sudden interest of the federal government for nuclear energy in another way.


“Our societies have so much trouble changing their approaches, I think that saying that we must both fight against climate change and ban nuclear […] is completely utopian,” he said. I think it’s a lesser evil, to say that we will accept nuclear energy to be able to get fossil fuels out of our energy mix more quickly. ”


The professor, however, argues that it is imperative that more efforts be made in the renewable energy and energy efficiency sectors. He also admits that nuclear poses huge challenges in terms of social acceptability.


There are four nuclear power plants in operation in Canada: three in Ontario (Bruce, Pickering and Darlington) and one in New Brunswick (Point Lepreau). Ontario has recently made investments of $26 billion over 15 years to refurbish its reactors.


Canada remains the world’s second largest producer of uranium, the metal used as fuel in nuclear power plants. The deposits are located in northern Saskatchewan.


Climat : le gouvernement Trudeau mise aussi sur le nucléaire


Fannie Olivier, Radio-Canada, le 15 mars, 2018


Il s’agit là d’un revirement inattendu, car l’énergie nucléaire ne faisait pas partie du plan climat déposé par Ottawa l’an dernier.

Il existe une occasion à saisir de « placer l’énergie nucléaire au centre des efforts mondiaux pour lutter contre les changements climatiques », selon Kim Rudd, secrétaire parlementaire du ministre des Ressources naturelles, Jim Carr.

Dans un discours prononcé devant l’Association nucléaire canadienne le 22 février, dont Radio-Canada a consulté la version papier, elle a signalé que le Canada s’est allié aux États-Unis et au Japon pour que l’énergie nucléaire soit incluse dans les discussions du Clean Energy Ministerial (CEM), un forum qui se penche sur la transition vers une économie verte.

« Le CEM se réunit à nouveau à Copenhague en mai et nous nous sommes assurés que l’énergie nucléaire aura sa place dans le cadre d’une discussion large et de haut niveau sur une transition mondiale vers une économie faible en carbone », a indiqué Kim Rudd. Elle a ajouté que le Canada sera l’hôte du forum en 2019. « Vous pouvez déjà imaginer quelles seront nos priorités », a-t-elle lancé aux représentants de l’industrie.

Dans son allocution, elle vante les mérites des réacteurs CANDU, que le Canada cherche à exporter, et des petits réacteurs nucléaires, une technologie actuellement en développement. Les deux produisent des déchets radioactifs. Les CANDU génèrent par ailleurs du plutonium, qui pourrait être utilisé à des fins militaires et contribuer à la prolifération nucléaire.

Une porte-parole de Ressources naturelles Canada a confirmé par courriel qu’Ottawa voyait d’un bon œil ce type d’énergie.

« L’énergie nucléaire est un élément important du panier d’énergies propres actuel du Canada et elle continuera de jouer un rôle clé dans la réalisation de l’avenir sobre en carbone du pays », a indiqué Jerri Southcott.

Pourtant, le Cadre pancanadien sur la croissance propre et les changements climatiques, document phare du gouvernement Trudeau en environnement présenté en décembre 2016, n’évoque pas l’énergie nucléaire comme une façon de diminuer les gaz à effet de serre (GES) au pays ou à l’étranger.

À contre-courant

Chez les écologistes, on ne s’explique pas du tout ce changement de cap d’Ottawa.

« Ça m’a jeté en bas de ma chaise. J’ai l’impression qu’on retourne 20 ans en arrière, s’étonne Steven Guilbeault, de l’organisme Équiterre. Il n’y a à peu près plus personne qui parle du nucléaire comme d’une solution aux changements climatiques. »

De nombreux pays se sont engagés ces dernières années à cesser progressivement l’utilisation du nucléaire. L’Allemagne, notamment, a proclamé l’arrêt de toutes ses centrales nucléaires dans la foulée de la catastrophe de Fukushima, au Japon. Québec a annoncé en 2012 le démantèlement de son unique centrale, Gentilly-2. Ottawa a par ailleurs vendu la division réacteurs CANDU d’Énergie atomique du Canada limitée (EACL) au secteur privé en 2011.

Aux yeux de Steven Guilbeault, le nucléaire est une énergie coûteuse, non renouvelable et polluante. « C’est très préoccupant, parce que c’est la première fois que le gouvernement Trudeau parle de ça », signale-t-il.

Pierre-Olivier Pineau, de la Chaire de gestion du secteur de l’énergie de HEC Montréal, voit cet intérêt soudain du gouvernement fédéral pour le nucléaire d’un autre œil.

« Nos sociétés ayant tellement de difficulté à changer leurs approches, je crois que se dire qu’il faut à la fois lutter contre les changements climatiques et bannir le nucléaire […] est complètement utopique, a-t-il expliqué. Je pense que c’est un moindre mal, de dire qu’on va accepter du nucléaire pour pouvoir sortir plus rapidement des énergies fossiles de notre parc énergétique. »

Le professeur fait toutefois valoir qu’il est impératif que plus d’efforts soient déployés dans les secteurs des énergies renouvelables et de l’efficacité énergétique. Il admet par ailleurs que le nucléaire pose d’énormes défis sur le plan de l’acceptabilité sociale.

On compte quatre centrales nucléaires en activité au Canada : trois en Ontario (Bruce, Pickering et Darlington) et une au Nouveau-Brunswick (Point Lepreau). L’Ontario a récemment prévu des investissements de 26 milliards de dollars sur 15 ans pour remettre à neuf ses réacteurs.

Le Canada demeure le deuxième producteur mondial d’uranium, le métal utilisé comme combustible dans les centrales nucléaires. Les gisements sont situés dans le nord de la Saskatchewan.

Mar 132018

You might imagine why I help support Open Media!

From: OpenMedia
Subject: They’re afraid to air our ads


Radio stations are refusing to run our ads educating Canadians about Bell’s proposal for extrajudicial website blocking. Why? Because they’re afraid the ads would give the CRTC ammunition to remove their license.

What a cold and hard reminder of why it’s so critical to keep the Internet free of censorship like this, which makes it easy for a small handful of powerful entities to police what we can and can’t say online.

This is exactly why we can’t back down.

Our last message about this:

This just leaked: In a desperate attempt to front up public support for their Internet censorship proposal, Bell is asking its own employees to file pro-website blocking submissions to the Canadian Radio-television Telecommunications Commission (CRTC).1

The consequences of Bell’s manipulation could be far reaching:

– If the CRTC takes Bell’s side, it would force your Internet Service Provider to blacklist websites because Bell and a group of other corporations say those websites help promote pirated content. No judicial oversight would be involved in the process.

Can we trust a group of corporations, including shady players like Bell, to police what we can and can’t see online?

Absolutely not. That’s why we need to make sure opposition from the public is so overwhelming the CRTC doesn’t even bat an eye at Bell’s dirty attempt to win their favour. But we’re running out of time—the CRTC’s deadline for public comments is creeping up fast.

Will you donate today so we can buy key ads to flood the airwaves with your message?

Donate to Stop Bell’s Plans for Censorship

Bell is known for using dirty tactics to prop themselves up. In 2015, they paid a fine of $1.25 million after employees were encouraged to post favourable online reviews.2

This time, we can show them their tricks are no match for hundreds of thousands of Internet activists like us.

Thanks for all that you do,
The OpenMedia Team

[1] Michael Geist: Twitter
[2] Bell Canada reaches agreement with Competition Bureau over online reviews: Competition Bureau

We are an award-winning network of people and organizations working to safeguard the possibilities of the open Internet. We work toward informed and participatory digital policy.
You can follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook.

You have received this message, because you have subscribed to OpenMedia’s list.  . . .

Mar 132018
View this email in your browser

Forward to friends!

Note:  Click on the small text under the title of this posting,  Vaccinations (incl corruption of science & govt)  to generate a list of other postings in the same category.

March 13, 2018

Congress Receives Vaccine Safety Project Details Including Actions Needed for Sound Science and Transparency


World Mercury Project Note: Last week, 15 dedicated children’s health and medical choice advocates joined Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. on Capitol Hill to fulfill our promise to the community to provide crucial vaccine safety information to every member of Congress. Meetings with Congressional Members, Senators, and staff took place over a four-day time period to explain WMP’s six-step Vaccine Safety Project that details the actions necessary to introduce sound science and transparency to our vaccination program. Federally elected officials can no longer ignore the chronic health conditions—tied in no small part to adverse vaccine reactions—that currently affect over half of our nation’s children. Not only are these officials now aware of the conflicts of interest and inadequate science upon which the vaccine program is built, but they have been given a common-sense plan for enacting desperately needed changes that puts children’s health first.


By the World Mercury Project Team

The long-term health effects of our vaccine program are inadequately studied and our regulatory bodies are conflicted. Childhood health epidemics have mushroomed along with the childhood vaccine schedule.

Vaccines contain many ingredients, some of which are known to be neurotoxic, carcinogenic and cause autoimmunity. Vaccines injuries can and do happen. The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program of Health and Human Services (HHS) has awarded almost $4 billion for vaccine injuries since 1988.

Common sense dictates that these actions must be taken:

  1. Subject vaccines to a scientifically rigorous approval process.
  2. Require reporting of vaccine adverse events. Automate Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) and Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) databases for research.
  3. Ensure all parties involved with federal vaccine approvals and recommendations are free from conflicts of interest.
  4. Reevaluate all vaccines recommended by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) prior to the adoption of evidence-based guidelines.
  5. Study what makes some individuals more susceptible to vaccine injury.
  6. Support fully-informed consent and individual rights to refuse vaccination.

The Six Steps to Vaccine Safety

The details regarding each of the six steps to vaccine safety were discussed with members of Congress, Senators and staff to help them understand why they must act now to stop the childhood epidemics.

#1: Subject vaccines to a scientifically rigorous approval.

  • Vaccines are regulated by the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) division as “biologics” and are not always put through the same level of safety testing as new pharmaceuticals, which are regulated under the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER.)
  • Vaccines, which are given to healthy patients, should be tested more rigorously than drugs because they are not given to treat an existing disease.
  • Inadequate testing currently ensures that the true risk/benefit assessments for the safety and cost of vaccines are impossible to calculate accurately.
  • These vaccines are given to about 4 million American infants annually.

#2: Require reporting of vaccine adverse events. Automate Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) and Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) databases for research.

Reporting and study of adverse events after receipt of vaccines is currently haphazard and antiquated. Since these two databases are the primary sources of U.S. post-licensure surveillance, serious side effects of vaccination that were unclear or not seen in clinical trials will be missed.

The VAERS is the online system into which doctors and patients report adverse events after vaccination. HHS admits that the system likely records only about 1% of the actual adverse events but even after a three-year HHS/Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) study showed the feasibility of automating reports using electronic medical records, Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has been non-responsive to “multiple requests to proceed with testing and evaluation.”

  • Clinical trials for vaccines typically only enroll a few thousand patients in total. When vaccines are subsequently approved for use in populations of millions of healthy individuals, it is imperative that rates of known adverse events and any new or rare adverse events are monitored.
  • Without adequate safety follow-up, serious side effects may be missed entirely putting the public at risk (examples of the past importance of safety follow-up include hormone replacement therapy, Vioxx and amphetamines).
  • There has never been a comparative study of broad health outcomes in vaccinated vs. unvaccinated populations.

The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) requires healthcare providers to report:

  • Any adverse event listed by the vaccine manufacturer as a contraindication to further doses of the vaccine; or
  • Any adverse event listed in the VAERS Table of Reportable Events Following Vaccination that occurs within the specified time period after vaccination.

But, in practice, this doesn’t happen. There is no consequence for failing to report an injury. There is no mechanism for prosecution of non-compliance and, therefore, no incentive for a busy doctor to report vaccine safety problems.

The VSD is a collaborative project between CDC’s Immunization Safety Office and eight private health care organizations. The VSD was started in 1990 to monitor safety of vaccines and conduct studies about rare and serious adverse events following immunization. However, research is currently hampered by lack of broad access to this publicly-funded database, variability of reporting and the statistical structure of the database.

#3: Ensure all parties involved with federal vaccine approvals and recommendations are free from conflicts of interest.

FDA’s Vaccine and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) is responsible for licensing vaccines. CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) is responsible for adding vaccines to the recommended schedules.

  • CDC or NIH Employees whose names appear on vaccine patents can receive up to $150k in licensing fees per year (in perpetuity).
  • Regarding VRBAC, a House OGR Committee Report found that the “overwhelming majority of members, both voting members and consultants have substantial ties to the pharmaceutical industry,” and “committee members with substantial ties to pharmaceutical companies have been given waivers to participate in committee proceedings.”
  • A similar report on the ACIP found that, “The CDC grants blanket waivers to the ACIP members each year that allow them to deliberate on any subject, regardless of their conflicts, for the entire year.”

A 2009 HHS Office of the Inspector General report found that:

  • “CDC had a systemic lack of oversight of the ethics program.”
  • 97 percent of committee members’ conflict disclosures had omissions.
  • 58 percent had at least one unidentified potential conflict.
  • 32 percent had at least one conflict that remained unresolved.
  • CDC continued to grant broad waivers to members with conflicts.

All vaccine regulatory agencies must rigorously enforce their ethics policies to ensure that our vaccine program is free from financial conflicts of interest.

#4 Reevaluate all vaccines recommended by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) prior to the adoption of evidence-based guidelines.

A yes vote by ACIP results in:

  • Mandating the vaccine to millions of children.
  • Immunity from liability for the manufacturers.
  • Inclusion in the Vaccines for Children program.

However, prior to 2012, ACIP did not use evidence-based guidelines to evaluate their vaccine recommendations. Evidence Based Practice is “the conscientious, explicit and judicious use of current best evidence in making decisions about the care of the individual patient. It means integrating individual clinical expertise with the best available external clinical evidence from systematic research.” The final ACIP guidelines published in November of 2013 outlined clearly, for the first time, a standardized plan to evaluate the quality and strength of the research behind each recommendation for a vaccine for each population. ACIP’s recommendations include the populations, timing, spacing, number of doses, boosters and appropriate ages for each vaccine to be administered.

The CDC’s infant schedule, given to approximately 4 million babies a year, was largely adopted before these guidelines were in place. Vaccines recommended before the adoption of evidence-based guidelines should not have been “grandfathered” in. Earlier ACIP recommendations should be thoroughly reviewed in light of the new guidelines and current research.

#5 Study what makes some individuals more susceptible to vaccine injury.

The Institute of Medicine (now National Academy of Medicine) has issued three disturbing reports on the evidence for suspected and/or reported vaccine adverse events.

For 80% of the suspected vaccine adverse conditions investigated, there wasn’t enough research evidence to accept or reject vaccine causation. Of the reviews with sufficient evidence, 72% found that the vaccine did likely cause the injury.

In 2013, the IOM studied the entire Childhood Immunization Schedule and stated:

“No studies have compared the differences in health outcomes… between entirely unimmunized populations of children and fully immunized children… Furthermore, studies designed to examine the long-term effects of the cumulative number of vaccines or other aspects of the immunization schedule have not been conducted.”

The Vaccine Injury Compensation Program has paid out over $3.8 billion in compensation to victims of vaccine injury. The children and adults who have been compensated for injuries have never been studied to determine why they were injured, in an effort to make vaccines safer for everyone. Preventing vaccine injuries should be tackled as zealously as we tackle preventing infectious diseases.

Vaccine safety science, particularly long-term safety science, is inadequate to ensure children’s safety or to accurately assess risks for purposes of informed consent.

#6 Support fully-informed consent and individual rights to refuse vaccination.

The American Academy of Pediatrics statement on the ethics of informed consent includes the following stipulation, “patients should have explanations, in understandable language, of …; the existence and nature of the risks involved; and the existence, potential benefits, and risks of recommended alternative treatments (including the choice of no treatment).”

In the case of vaccination, informed consent is often ignored completely in real world settings.

By law, all health care providers in the United States who administer, to any child or adult, any of the following vaccines – diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, measles, mumps, rubella, polio, hepatitis A, hepatitis B, Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib), influenza, pneumococcal conjugate, meningococcal, rotavirus, human papillomavirus (HPV), or varicella (chickenpox) – shall, prior to administration of each dose of the vaccine, provide a copy to keep of the relevant current edition vaccine information materials that have been produced by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to the parent or legal representative of any child to whom the provider intends to administer such vaccine, or to any adult to whom the provider intends to administer such vaccine.”

In practice, particularly when multiple vaccines are administered on the same day, many parents report that they received the Vaccine Information Sheet (VIS) as they left and there was no explanation of information before a vaccine was given. It is also rare that medical history is thoroughly discussed to identify contraindications to a vaccine. For example, a patient with a family history of autoimmunity is likely at increased risk for an autoimmune reaction after vaccination.

The following are examples of the types of information that patients may learn after the fact from the Vaccine Information Sheets:

  • “Severe events have very rarely been reported following MMR vaccination, and might also happen after MMRV. These include: Deafness, long-term seizures, coma, lowered consciousness, brain damage.”
  • Or this from the Polio VIS and several others: “As with any medicine, there is a very remote chance of a vaccine causing a serious injury or death.”

Lack of informed consent encompasses vaccine advertising as well. While television drug ads disclose the side effect risks of that drug at length, vaccine advertising does not. The patient, again, is at a disadvantage.

World Mercury Project won’t stop until decisive action is taken.

Insistence on fully-informed consent and individual rights to refuse a vaccination become imperative given the lack of long-term follow-up and surveillance; only 1% adverse events are captured and reported; vaccine recommendations are tainted by financial conflicts of interest of regulators; the current childhood vaccine schedule was not approved using evidence-based science and policy; the childhood vaccine schedule has never been tested on fully vaccinated vs. unvaccinated; and there is sparse research into which patients are likely to experience an adverse event.

America is in the midst of many childhood epidemics. Over 50% of our children are chronically ill. We owe it to our children to examine what is happening to their health and correct it as soon as possible.

Watch this 8 minute trailer of RFK, Jr.’s Vaccine Safety Project video. The longer 45 minute version is accessible in the members-only section of the World Mercury Project website. A lifetime membership to WMP is only $10 which helps us achieve our goal of ending the childhood epidemics and working for families across the globe.



Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.: “Autism, ADHD, epilepsy, autoimmune disorders, deadly allergies, SIDS, juvenile rheumatoid arthritis, diabetes, learning disabilities and more have been increasing for over 25 years. Over 50% of our children are chronically ill. A new NIH study found that 49.5% of adolescents ages 13 to 18 have a mental disorder. This is unacceptable.”


Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the World Mercury Project. Your donation will help to support us in our efforts.







Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Delivers the Vaccine Safety Project to Congress

By the World Mercury Project Team

Last week,15 dedicated children’s health and medical choice advocates joined Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. on Capitol Hill to fulfill World Mercury Project’s promise to the community to provide crucial vaccine safety information to every member of Congress. Meetings with Congressional Members, Senators, and staff took place over a four-day time period to explain WMP’s six-step Vaccine Safety Project that details the actions necessary to introduce sound science and transparency to our vaccination program.

Federally elected officials can no longer ignore the chronic health conditions—tied in no small part to adverse vaccine reactions—that currently affect over half of our nation’s children. Not only are these officials now aware of the conflicts of interest and inadequate science upon which the vaccine program is built, but they have been given a common-sense plan for enacting desperately needed changes that puts children’s health first.


You Make It Possible!

World Mercury Project depends on
generous donations from our community.
Large or small, every donation gets us
closer to achieving our goals. Listen to
what RFK, Jr. has to say in the video
at the link below.

Donate Now

Copyright © 2018 World Mercury Project, All rights reserved.
You are receiving this email because you’ve shown an interest in World Mercury Project.Our mailing address is:World Mercury Project1227 North Peachtree Parkway, #202Peachtree City, GA 30269
Mar 082018

This posting makes an important point re Monsanto and the other chemical producers:

regulatory capture – – by the industry, of the Government agency responsible for regulating the industry.

It has been an issue for at least 20 years.   There has been no progress made by us (the insurgents!).   This petition names the PMRA (Pest Management Regulatory Agency),  that comes under Health Canada.  Real culprits for a long time, well-known by many.  I tackled it head on, when I was threatened with a lawsuit.  Many have challenged, lobbied, and circulated information.   All to no avail.   With regulatory capture, Big Business and Big Government are making the decisions behind the scenes.  The democracy is badly corrupted.   The Lord of the Manor is Corporate Profits, with no restrictions.

HOWEVER!   the power of social media was in its infancy then.   Today,  thanks to Friends of the Earth for this campaign.  Get on board!   We’re on a new round!

2004-04-10  Tom Wolf, Health Canada scientist threatens to sue me. Response – the mafia uses threat of broken bones.

Sorry about the following call to action, which is very good.  I can’t fix it; I’m out of time for trying.  And I can’t find an on-line version (a URL).

I can forward a copy of the email it’s on,  with the active links for registering dissent, with the Government.  Just send a request (use the Comments at bottom).

Or, contact info for FOE is at the bottom

The Friends of the Earth “issue” page on Bees is at   But I couldn’t find this particular campaign there.

The bees have a question.


You might want to ask Canadian government decision-makers the same question.


A week ago the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) released its report on the three most widely used neonicotinoid pesticides. After reviewing 1500 studies, EFSA concluded, “overall the risk to the three types of bees we have assessed is confirmed.” We expect that the European Union will vote to ban all three in the coming month.


Another important player, The Task Force on Systemic Pesticides – a team of independent scientists brought together by the International Union for Conservation of Nature – has been assessing peer-reviewed science on neonics for several years. After two rounds of comprehensive reviews, they say that neonics harm honeybees and many other species, including aquatic insects at the base of the food chain, earthworms and common birds.


Just before Christmas when Canadians were all focused on the holidays, Health Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) revealed their conclusions to five years of review conducted along with United States’ authorities. The North American conclusion, despite the documented poisoning of millions of bees, is that major uses of neonicotinoid pesticides are safe and can continue! Uses like coatings for corn, soy and sunflower seeds.


Here’s the question:


The bees are asking: How can Canadian authorities spend five years reviewing virtually the same scientific evidence as the Europeans and come up with a totally different conclusion?


Perhaps, the Ontario Beekeepers Association put it best: “Health Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) opted against bees in favour of pesticide manufacturers”.


Since the bees cannot ask the PMRA to explain – you and I have to do it for them.



Beatrice Olivastri, CEO

Friends of the Earth Canada

613 724 8690


John Bennett

Senior Policy Advisor

Friends of the Earth Canada

Mar 082018

(This comes after Avaaz’s successes in challenging Monsanto, especially over re-licensing of Roundup in the EU.   In response, Monsanto uses the Justice system as a tool for tying up the time, energy and money of a target.  Civilians fund the Justice system.  California and Ontario are two jurisdictions that have enacted anti-SLAPP legislation.   I wonder if this falls within, or outside that legislation?)

From: Ricken Patel – Avaaz
Subject: Monsanto subpoena for your email address?!


The response to this has been EPIC — and the media are calling to cover it — let’s tell them we crossed 100,000 donors to help defend Avaaz! Donate below —

Dear Avaazers,

We’ve just been hit with a 168-page court subpoena from Monsanto.

We have only days to respond, and it “commands” us to hand over every private email, note, or record we have regarding Monsanto, including the names and email addresses of Avaazers who have signed Monsanto campaigns!!

This is big. They’re a $50 billion mega-corporation, infamous for legal strong-arm tactics like this. They have unlimited resources. If they get their hands on all our private information, there’s no telling what they’ll use it for.

So we’re going to fight this. Because Monsanto may have unlimited resources to intimidate, but Avaaz has unlimited people power, and our members just aren’t afraid.

Our deadline to respond to the subpoena is just days away — donate to help defend our movement, and let’s send Monsanto a message: every time they come at us, they’ll only make us stronger —













We urgently need to hire outstanding lawyers to go up against Monsanto’s best. Just fighting this subpoena (read it here) will be costly, and it could be just the beginning.

We don’t know Monsanto’s plan, but we know one reason why this is coming — Avaaz has repeatedly beaten Monsanto in huge regulatory battles, including blocking the long-term relicensing of glyphosate, the herbicide that is the cornerstone of their chemical empire. We’re winning. So they’re changing the game.

The subpoena indicates that Monsanto needs all our private information to fight class-action lawsuits against them claiming that their glyphosate caused people’s cancer. If that seems absurd to you, you’re not alone. But they’ve gotten the authority of a US court behind them, and we urgently need the best lawyers behind us. Donate to help defend Avaaz, and let’s send a message of defiance to Monsanto:













There aren’t many corporations in the world that are more powerful than Monsanto. The fact that we really can defeat them, shows just how real our movement’s people power has become. If we stick together, with hope and determination, we really CAN change the world!

With hope and determination,

Ricken, Emma, Fatima, Danny, Hui-Ting, Spyro, Marigona and the entire Avaaz team

More information:

Glyphosate — Crushed it!! (Avaaz)

Campaign group Avaaz calls on EU to block Bayer’s Monsanto deal (Reuters)

Monsanto’s Harvest of Fear (Vanity Fair)

Patients: Roundup gave us cancer as EPA official helped the company (CNN)

Avaaz is a 46-million-person global campaign network
that works to ensure that the views and values of the world’s people shape global decision-making. (“Avaaz” means “voice” or “song” in many languages.) Avaaz members live in every nation of the world; our team is spread across 18 countries on 6 continents and operates in 17 languages. Learn about some of Avaaz’s biggest campaigns here, or follow us on Facebook or Twitter.

Mar 082018

Hugh Grant has been the CEO of Monsanto since 2003.

He should receive an achievement award – – for the most people in the world rallied against one company!

I had to laugh when I heard (Feb 15)  Monsanto, 168-page subpoena served on Avaaz demands names and addresses of Avaazers who have signed Monsanto campaigns

Avaaz ran an incredible campaign in the EU last year (other groups did, too), to stop the re-licensing of Roundup.  A petition of well over a million signatures was delivered, just one of the many tactics used.   They came close;  in the end, Monsanto was given a 5-year renewal, Monsanto had been expecting a 15-year renewal.   In 5 years, Monsanto will be going through everything all over again,  but it will be in the aftermath of the court cases in California (below), and other developments.   The “Avaaz + others” achievement, in cutting the licensed period from 15 years down to 5, is significant.

An aside, worth your while.  Ricken Patel (founder of Avaaz) is David to the giant, Hugh Grant.  And not only Hugh Grant:

The man behind Avaaz, Ricken Patel, Canadian  (Interview, CNN. Plus article, The Economist)


On this side of the Atlantic,  there are about 345 non-Hodgkin Lymphoma lawsuits waiting to go forward against Monsanto, in California.   The results of this one case in San Francisco, this week,  will affect what happens with the other cases:

2018-03-05  Monsanto says its pesticides are safe. Now, a court wants to see the proof,  The Guardian.

2018-03-05 Farmers vs. Monsanto: Glyphosate Showdown Comes to U.S. Court in San Francisco, List of the expert witnesses that will be called. Organic Consumers.


Bless CBAN (yet again).   All Canadians should be aware of the danger behind the mergers that are taking place.  Monsanto and Bayer are just one.

2018-03-05 Stop the Monsanto-Bayer Mega Merger, CBAN


The people working to save the pollinators, the bees and the wasps, on their flip side, are working to prevent more poisoning by Monsanto, Bayer and their colleagues.  Many different groups in many different places are fighting to save the bees.

An important, well-done action item that simultaneously addresses “regulatory capture” of the PMRA by the chemical industry, initiated by Friends of the Earth:

2018-03-08   The bees have a question.    And how about this – –

2017-12-05  Morgan Freeman converted his ranch into a bee refuge    ?!

Many of  these initiatives represent entirely different groups of people working in yet another way against Monsanto and what it represents.  A one day free listen this Sunday:

2018-03-07 Glyphosate (Monsanto, Roundup)  One day free listen,  Sunday March 11, interview     


I don’t think I told you:   the March Against Monsanto partnered with the Truth About Cancer.   Both of those movements have large on-line communities.  Finally getting through:  if you want to stop the cancer, you have to stop the poisons.

Does everyone know about the Marches Against Monsanto?  International.  It was started by a young mother in Utah who wanted safe food for her kids.   The next March is just 2 months away May 19th, 2018.  (The first one was May, 2013).

I’ll update, to help people find a nearby group,  the List of March Against Monsanto (MAM), No to GMO, & GE Free Groups, emphasis on Canada    A number of the facebook groups do a fantastic job of sharing information, self-educating, and drawing more people into the worldwide movement to stop the poisoning.

I will be marching on May 19th.  Having fun.   If you don’t have a March,  it will be equally helpful if you use opportunities to bring Monsanto into everyday conversations.  Tell a neighbour about the court cases in California, maybe?  Or the international marches on May 19th?  . . .

Monsanto will be  . . .  in court?!

2017-04-18 Legal opinion: Monsanto’s activities have negative impact on basic human rights

Arkansas Defies Monsanto, Moves To Ban Rogue Weedkiller (NPR)…

This miracle weed killer was supposed to save farms. Instead, it’s devastating them. (Washington Post)…

Monsanto Fighting Arkansas Dicamba Ban (Arkansas Matters)

Arkansas judge dismisses Monsanto lawsuit on dicamba ban,  ABC NewsFeb. 16, 2018

With our help,  the break-through will come.  It’s amazing already – – the above is just a small sampling of the mobilizations against Monsanto!

If you’d like to add to the list,  please use the “Comments” below.



Mar 072018

On Tuesday April 18th, 2017, the five international judges of the Monsanto Tribunal presented their legal opinion. They have come to important conclusions, both on the conduct of Monsanto and on necessary developments in international law.

The judges conclude that Monsanto has engaged in practices which have negatively impacted the right to a healthy environment, the right to food and the right to health. On top of that Monsanto’s conduct is negatively affecting the right to freedom indispensable for scientific research. These are very important and well-funded legal conclusions that can be of great help to the victims of Monsanto worldwide.

The judges also conclude that despite the development of many instruments to protect the environment, a gap remains between commitments and the reality of environmental protection. International law should be improved for better protection of the environment and include the crime of ecocide. The Tribunal concludes that if such a crime of ecocide were recognized in international criminal law, the activities of Monsanto could possibly constitute a crime of ecocide.

Finally, in the third and last part of the advisory opinion, the Tribunal focusses on the widening gap between international human rights law and corporate accountability. It strongly advises the United Nations to take action to make sure that human and environmental rights are protected by (international) laws and are not overruled by trade agreements. It should be made possible to prosecute multinational corporations in the International Criminal Court.

Find here on the “Results” page of our website the full text and the summary of the advisory legal opinion delivered by the Monsanto Tribunal judges in The Hague.

Mar 072018

Monsanto says its pesticides are safe. Now, a court wants to see the proof

crop spraying
‘Real lives are at stake in this and broader debates about pesticide risks to our health.’ Photograph: Dave Martin/AP

On Monday, a federal court hearing in San Francisco will turn a public spotlight on to the science surrounding the safety of one of the world’s most widely used pesticides, a weedkilling chemical called glyphosate that has been linked to cancer and is commonly found in our food and water, even in our own bodily fluids. Given the broad health and environmental implications tied to the use of this pesticide, we would be well served to pay attention.

As the active ingredient in Monsanto’s branded Roundup and hundreds of other herbicides, glyphosate represents billions of dollars in annual revenues for Monsanto and other companies, and is prominently used by farmers as an aid in food production. It’s also favored by cities for keeping public parks and playgrounds weed free, and by homeowners who want a tidy lawn. But the chemical was deemed a probable human carcinogen by the World Health Organization’s cancer experts in 2015 in a finding that has since triggered waves of liability lawsuits against Monsanto.

Heated debates over the safety – or lack thereof – of this popular pesticide have spanned the globe and sparked propaganda warfare with each side claiming the other has misrepresented the scientific record. Cancer victims allege Monsanto has “ghost” written research reviews, unduly influenced regulators and created front groups to falsely claim glyphosate safety. Monsanto, meanwhile, asserts multiple studies by international scientists are flawed and politically motivated, and says industry studies demonstrate the product is safe when used as intended.

This week’s events will mark the first time that the body of research, some that has been gathering dust in stuffy scientific journals or confidential corporate files, will be analyzed under oath for all to see.

It is no idle exercise. Real lives are at stake in this and broader debates about pesticide risks to our health. One in every two men and one in every three women are now expected to develop cancer in their lifetimes and childhood cancers are on the rise.

In children, pesticide exposure is linked not just to pediatric cancers, but also to decreased cognitive function, and behavioral problems. In adults, pesticides are linked to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, leukemia, brain, prostate and other cancers. More than 3,000 plaintiffs suing Monsanto allege exposure to the company’s glyphosate-based Roundup caused them or their family members to develop non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

Monsanto has tried to persuade US judge Vince Chhabria to throw out the litigation, and sought to keep secret the many internal documents it has been forced to turn over in discovery. But Chhabria has ordered that the hearing be video-recorded and shared publicly over the internet. And he has granted permission for plaintiffs to explore in open court such things as the ghostwriting of science as well as a controversial 1983 study that EPA scientists at the time said showed evidence of glyphosate’s cancer-causing potential.

The court has dubbed the 5-9 March events as “science week” because the only evidence to be presented will come from experts in cancer science, including epidemiologists, toxicologists and others called to analyze relevant research. There will be no crying cancer victims to tug on heart strings; just opposing sides presenting science to a judge who will decide if the lawsuits can move forward.

To bolster its defense, the company and chemical industry allies have been working to discredit cancer scientists and others who have been warning of danger. That effort was highlighted when members of the House committee on science, space and technology held a hearing in Washington on 6 February to air Monsanto’s complaints about the International Agency for Research on Cancer’s (IARC) classification of glyphosate as a probable carcinogen, and to threaten to strip funding from the scientific body.

The committee effort – effectively turning a war on cancer into a war on cancer science – was applauded by the chemical industry. Monsanto, along with lobbyist CropLife America and other agricultural organizations, has also sued California to stop environmental regulators from requiring cancer warnings on glyphosate products, and on 26 February they won an injunction blocking such a warning.

The debate over glyphosate is but the latest example of how industry efforts often focus not on scrutinizing scientific evidence of harm, but on discrediting the offending science. Last year, for instance, Dow Chemical successfully lobbied the Environmental Protection Agency leadership to ignore warnings from its own scientists (and others) about extensive research tying a profitable Dow pesticide called chlorpyrifos to brain development problems in children.

The public offering of expert testimony in San Francisco about Monsanto’s pervasive pesticide presents an important opportunity to separate the science from the spin. We all should be watching.