Sent: December 17, 2021 7:39 PM
To: ‘publichealth@islandhealth.ca’
Subject: TO: Dr. Richard Stanwick

TO:   Chief Medical Health Officer, Vancouver Island

(With edits, mostly formating)

Dr. Richard Stanwick,

I think you have not been told the following, but most everyone in my networks has been told, or will soon know:

(1)   2021-12-14   BC Restaurant wins court case. Open to everyone, no vaccine passport needed.

(https://sandrafinley.ca/blog/?p=26304)

(2)   The protest in Victoria on Dec 9th;  3,000 people.

A convoy of vehicles from up-island started in Campbell R, joined with others in Courtenay, towns along the way, down the way to Nanaimo . . . Victoria, big posters on their vehicles.  One theme was: stay away from our kids.  (They are well-informed people.  It is hubristic to think otherwise, IMHO!)

An estimated 3,000 were in attendance in Victoria.

You can’t be expected to know about it:  the lack of reporting is stunning.  But almost irrelevant because people are reporting to each other.

I try to “get it right”:  I’ve been doing this work for 20 years (all my life, actually).  I can’t afford to lose my credibility.  The people I work with through networks are competent, discerning, well-informed, and thoroughly dedicated to the public good.

(3)   Maybe you do not know, but most people in the networks know:  ivermectin has been used for at least 5 decades with very beneficial results.  It’s sin?  Ivermectin IS OFF-PATENT a long time ago.  There are many generic production centres around the world.  You know what that means.

Ivermectin was thoroughly propagandized and gotten rid of in western democracies in particular – – because Anthony Fauci and his cronies are intent on making billions of dollars on their vaccines and drugs (patented, of course).  They’ve done no end of harm.  I am grateful that the truth is getting out.

(4)    In case you are unfamiliar with HOW the information is getting out, just one example, recent (from my blog):

BRIEF BACKGROUND 

A group of scientists and doctors sued the FDA over the Pfizer covid vaccine.

The plaintiffs are Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency.

A part of the lawsuit is a FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) on the FDA

for documents from Pfizer

that the FDA used to license the vaccine (e.g. test results).

(Aside:  the equivalent in Canada to a FOIA is an ATI, Access to Information)

The Plaintiffs are making the Pfizer documents they receive available through their website.

Canadian Dr. Nagase has analyzed Pfizer pages posted by the Plaintiffs.  He explains them to Western Standard reporter Melanie Risdon.

The word “shocking” is appropriate.

From the posting

2021-12-09 Dr Daniel Nagase Shocking Stats from Pfizer Documents  AND

We’ll all be dead before FDA releases full COVID vaccine record, plaintiffs say

(https://sandrafinley.ca/blog/?p=26260):  

Pfizer documents from clinical trials

          IMPORTANT INTERVIEW BY MELANIE RISDON

Dr Daniel Nagase Shocking Stats from Pfizer Documents 

https://rumble.com/vqid0m-bc-doctor-reviews-shocking-stats-from-re

There has been a legal battle over the FOIA to get to this point.  Aaron Siri (lawyer representing the plaintiffs) called it

“dystopian for the government to give Pfizer billions, mandate Americans to take its product, prohibit Americans from suing for harms, but yet refuse to let Americans see the data underlying its licensure.”

(5)  And the court cases underway in Canada:  how many of them are you aware of?  All that stuff that comes down to us from the Doctors’ trials, a subset of the Nuremberg Trials?  You will be able to find information if you aren’t up-to-speed.

(6)  The call for a Constitutional Reference?

I would welcome a conversation with you.

You may have questions – – there’s probably more of which you are unaware?   – –

(7)   “The Pandemic Papers” is a new publication, excellent.  “First Edition December 9, 2021 on the 75^th Anniversary of the Nuremberg Doctors’ Trial (December 9, 1946)”.

From outside North America, recent:

(8)  2021-12-13 Japan’s health ministry officially WARNS of myocarditis heart inflammation as a side-effect of Moderna and Pfizer COVID vaccines  (as compared to Canada . . .)

https://sandrafinley.ca/blog/?p=26277   

The relationship to myocarditis and related heart afflictions has, of course, been known for a long time now.  The “as compared to Canada” bit only adds to the dilemma:

“When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law.”

I was heartened by the legal decision on the Restaurant case.

I was heartened by the judge’s decision re the Fairy Creek Old Growth injunction.

There will be more than 2 enlightened judges in Canada!  Which reminds me:

Jeff Rath, an Alberta lawyer who is representing a group of Alberta doctors, plaintiffs in a case against the Alberta College of Physicians and Surgeons over forced inoculation, has an exceptional amount of experience in successful argument of cases in the Supreme Court of Canada.  He isn’t the only constitutional lawyer with a case on its way to the Supreme Court.

Brian Peckford,  one-time Premier of Newfoundland-Labrador, as you may know, is the main voice teaching the Canadian tool of a Constitutional Reference to short-circuit lengthy court proceedings in divisive matters.

I am thinking that a difficult area for you will be the common sense question (among others):  why would anyone confine people with a contagious case of covid in a long term care facility with people who do NOT have the disease?   

Equally problematic will be, if the Courts do their job:  I don’t think you have authority to do what you are doing.   A “Section 1 Over-ride” which is what you are relying on, properly pursued (and there’s enough on the line to help ensure that it is properly pursued) requires that the criteria set out in the Oakes Test for an override of Constitutional Rights be argued in a Court of Law.

The Court will or will not grant the Over-ride based on the argument presented.  The Oakes Test is brief and easy to understand;  I mean, do YOU think you can satisfy the criteria?

I am happy to answer questions, if I can.

I offer because I have friends who are being severely and wrongly impacted by what you are doing.

Maybe it doesn’t have to be?

But maybe you will not want to speak with me?

Best wishes,  (Sandra)

 Shutterstock

The judge’s late-November decision was in response to President Joe Biden’s September 9 announcement of a series of vaccine mandates for public and private sectors, including one with no testing option for millions of healthcare workers employed by medical facilities that receive Medicare and Medicaid funding.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has subsequently announced it will temporarily halt enforcement of its healthcare worker mandate pending appeal of a federal injunction blocking the measure.

“I don’t think the mandates were helpful and I think the court in Louisiana did everyone a service,” Alan Levine, chief executive officer of Ballad Health, told The Journal. 

Levine, who told the newspaper his company employs about 14,000 people, of whom roughly 2,000 have opted not to get the shot, said firing “[t]hat many people … would have been devastating to our system.”

Before the Louisiana judge blocked the mandate, at least 22 states had joined a duo of joint lawsuits against the Biden administration over the rule.

States, companies, and private individuals have filed a raft of lawsuits taking issue not only with the mandate for healthcare workers but also the mandate for federal contractors and another for businesses with 100 or more employees.

In early November, a federal court blocked the mandate for large businesses, just two days after it was published. The mandate would have used the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to impose massive fines on noncompliant companies and individuals for failing to get the experimental shots.

By early December, all three of the Biden administration’s private sector jab mandates were stalled by federal judges.

The latest mandate to be blocked was halted December 7 by a federal judge who sided with South Carolina’s attorney general and Republican governor and stopped the Biden administration’s COVID-19 jab mandate for federal contractors, freezing the requirement nationwide and marking the third federal injection mandate to be blocked across all 50 states.

A shift in public policy toward the reversal of coercive jab mandates comes as many Americans remain concerned that the experimental drugs on the market have not been sufficiently studied for negative effects given their accelerated clinical trials. Many also harbor serious moral reservations about the use of cells from aborted babies in the development of the shots.

Still others simply consider the injections unnecessary given COVID-19’s high survivability among most groups, low risk of asymptomatic spread, and research indicating that post-infection natural immunity is either just as protective against reinfection or provides even greater protection.

BRIEF BACKGROUND

A group of scientists and doctors sued the FDA over the Pfizer covid vaccine.

The plaintiffs are Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency.

A part of the lawsuit is a FOIA (Freedom of Information Act on the FDA for documents from Pfizer that the FDA used to license the vaccine (e.g. test results).

(Aside:  the equivalent in Canada to a FOIA is an ATI, Access to Information)

The Plaintiffs are making what Pfizer documents they receive available through their website.

Canadian Dr. Nagase (item #1 below), has analyzed Pfizer pages posted by the Plaintiffs.  He explains them to Western Standard reporter Melanie Risdon.

The word “shocking” is appropriate.  If you have read RFK’s book, “The Real Anthony Fauci” you might be less shocked.

There has been a legal battle over the FOIA to get to this point.  Aaron Siri (lawyer representing the plaintiffs) called it

“dystopian for the government to give Pfizer billions, mandate Americans to take its product, prohibit Americans from suing for harms, but yet refuse to let Americans see the data underlying its licensure.”

  – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

1.  Pfizer documents from clinical trials

          IMPORTANT INTERVIEW BY MELANIE RISDON

Dr Daniel Nagase, Shocking Stats from Pfizer Documents 

https://rumble.com/vqid0m-bc-doctor-reviews-shocking-stats-from-re

2.  December 13:  Reuters

We’ll all be dead before FDA releases full COVID vaccine record, plaintiffs say

By Jenna Greene

(Reuters) – In advance of a court hearing before a federal judge in Fort Worth, Texas, Tuesday, the Food and Drug Administration has offered by the end of January to make public 12,000 pages of data that it relied on to license Pfizer-BioNTech’s COVID-19 vaccine.

At first glance, that sounds like a lot of material.

Except a group of scientists and doctors who’ve sued the agency under the Freedom of Information Act is seeking an estimated 400,000-plus additional pages of information about the vaccine’s approval. Under the FDA’s proposed schedule – the agency pledges to release “a minimum” of 500 pages a month after the initial dump – the full trove might not be made public until the year 2097.

Or as Aaron Siri of Siri & Glimstad, who represents the plaintiffs Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency, put it in court papers, the rate is “so slow that the documents will not be fully produced until almost all of the scientists, attorneys, and most of the Americans that received Pfizer’s product, will have died of old age.”

The FDA, which is represented by lawyers from the Department of Justice, doesn’t dispute in legal filings that it’s obligated to make the vaccine data public. The only issue before U.S. District Judge Mark Pittman, who was appointed to the bench in 2019 by former President Donald Trump, is timing.

The DOJ did not respond to a request for comment. In court papers filed Monday, it suggested that the judge could proceed by approving its 12,000-page offer and “then revisit the issue of a longer-term processing and production schedule with both parties in February 2022.”

I wrote last month about the brewing FOIA fight, when the FDA first revealed it could take 55 years to produce all the responsive documents.

It turns out that there’s even more information responsive to the FOIA request. The plaintiffs estimate that under the agency’s proposed timeline, it could actually take up to 76 years to process and release all of the documents and spreadsheet data they’re seeking.

(This is me banging my head on my desk.)

The plaintiffs want all the information in 108 days – the same amount of time they say it took the FDA to approve the vaccine.

That’s almost surely unrealistic, since the material must first be reviewed to make sure, for example, that no personal information about clinical trial participants or commercial trade secrets are inadvertently revealed.

“It is important for the FDA to perform a careful line-by-line, word-by-word review of all responsive records before producing them in response to a FOIA request,” said Suzann Burk, who heads the FDA’s Division of Disclosure and Oversight Management, in a declaration filed with the court.

She estimates that such a close review takes eight minutes per page. She also notes the FDA office that handles FOIA requests has just 10 employees and is swamped with other work, too.

So yes, it’s understandable that the FDA needs some time to produce all the vaccine-related documents. But 76 years?

Pointing to prior FOIA fights, the plaintiffs make a strong argument that the government is capable of moving at least 20 times faster than 500 pages a month.

For example, in Seife v. FDA, they say the agency in 2020 agreed to produce an average of 10,000 pages per month, for a total of 45,000 pages of material in about four months.

The plaintiffs in that case sought information about the testing and approval process for a drug that treats a rare neuromuscular disease – records that Siri writes are “substantially similar to those at issue in this case, many requiring redaction.”

Likewise, in Treatment Action Group v. FDA, which concerned the approval of two hepatitis C drugs, the agency produced 82,668 pages and 1,045 electronic files in about seven months, for an average production rate of 11,800 pages per month.

Why can’t the FDA at least match these rates for producing the COVID vaccine documents?

In court papers, the DOJ argues that the request doesn’t warrant expedited treatment, “particularly in light of the copious information that FDA and other federal agencies have already made public regarding the Pfizer vaccine.” Also, she argues that the FDA “must handle its substantial volume of FOIA requests equally and fairly.”

But Siri, in an emailed comment, called it “dystopian for the government to give Pfizer billions, mandate Americans to take its product, prohibit Americans from suing for harms, but yet refuse to let Americans see the data underlying its licensure.”

To be clear, I’m not interested in casting aspersions on the vaccine. I trust the overwhelming consensus by federal, state and local public health officials that unvaccinated people are more likely to get infected, hospitalized and die of COVID. Personally, I’m relieved to be double-vaxxed and boosted.

But you don’t have to look far to find people who are far more uneasy about the jab.

Indeed, several of the plaintiffs – a group that now includes more than 200 doctors, scientists, professors, public health professionals and journalists from around the world – have publicly questioned the efficacy of lockdown policies, mask mandates and the vaccine itself.

While some members may have their own agendas, the group as a whole has pledged to publish all the information it receives from the FDA on its website and says it “takes no position on the data other than that it should be made publicly available to allow independent experts to conduct their own review and analyses.”

To me, the key issue here is good government and transparency. By slow-walking document production, the FDA fuels suspicions that the vaccine review process was somehow flawed.

A better approach would be to release the information as quickly as possible and use it as an opportunity to assuage the concern of vaccine skeptics.

Opinions expressed here are those of the author. Reuters News, under the Trust Principles, is committed to integrity, independence and freedom from bias.