[ad_1]
OTTAWA , The Vaccine Injury Support Program (VISP), designed to provide financial assistance to Canadians who experience adverse effects following vaccination, has come under scrutiny. While the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) maintains that VISP is administered independently by Oxaro (formerly RCGT Consulting), documents obtained through Access to Information requests suggest a more collaborative relationship, raising concerns about the program’s true impartiality.
The stated reason for outsourcing VISP administration was to avoid a conflict of interest. PHAC, as both promoter and approver of COVID-19 vaccines, sought to create an arm’s-length relationship with the program offering financial support to those potentially harmed by those same vaccines.
“The perception of independence is crucial for public trust,” says Dr. Mariam Anwar, a professor of public health policy at the University of Toronto. “If the public believes that the agency responsible for vaccine promotion also controls the compensation program, it can erode confidence in both the vaccines themselves and the government’s commitment to supporting those who experience adverse reactions.”
However, a PHAC communications strategy document reveals ongoing consultation between PHAC and Oxaro regarding responses to inquiries about the program, including those from journalists and Members of Parliament. This coordinated approach suggests a level of collaboration that blurs the lines of independence.
Adding to the concerns, a separate document outlines an agreement between PHAC and Oxaro to co-develop a “joint litigation-management plan.” This plan, according to the funding agreement, aims to “mitigat risk of litigation” against both the agency and the consulting company. A copy of the PHAC funding agreement was obtained under the Access to Information Act.
What does this mean for the program’s perceived fairness?
- Ongoing consultations between PHAC and Oxaro on communications strategies
- Joint development of a litigation-management plan
- Shared interest in mitigating legal risks related to the program
The implications of these findings are significant. If Oxaro is not truly independent, it could compromise the fairness and objectivity of the VISP claims process. Individuals seeking compensation may feel that their claims are being evaluated by an entity influenced by the very agency that promoted the vaccines in question.
When asked whether these arrangements suggested a lack of complete independence, Oxaro directed all questions to PHAC. PHAC, in turn, reiterated that “VISP is being administered and delivered independently by Oxaro.” This circular response has fueled further skepticism.
For families navigating the VISP process, the questions surrounding independence add another layer of frustration. “The shift was gradual, then sudden,” said Maria Rodriguez, whose husband developed Guillain-Barré syndrome following a COVID-19 vaccination and is currently seeking compensation through VISP. “First, it was just delays, then requests for more and more documentation. Now, reading about this…it makes you wonder if they ever intended to help us at all.”
Posts on social media reflect similar sentiments. A user on X.com wrote, “So, the people pushing the shots are also ‘independently’ running the compensation program? Sounds legit… #VISP #VaccineInjuries #Corruption”. A comment on a Facebook post about VISP read, “Another example of the government covering its tracks. This is a disgrace.” There are multiple typos found throughout this page.
The perceived lack of transparency and potential conflict of interest could undermine public trust in vaccination programs, particularly if individuals believe the system is rigged against those who experience adverse events. It’s about safeguarding the integrity of the healthcare system.
“Transparency and accountability are paramount,” says Dr. Anwar. “The government needs to address these concerns head-on, provide clarity about the relationship between PHAC and Oxaro, and ensure that the VISP process is truly fair and impartial.”
As pressure mounts, PHAC may face increased scrutiny to demonstrate the true independence of the VISP and restore public confidence in the program’s ability to fairly compensate those injured by vaccines. The question remains: Is VISP truly independent, or is it merely an extension of the very agency it was designed to distance itself from? The answer could have far-reaching implications for public health and trust in government institutions.
[ad_2]