Business
The Health Research Funding Scandal Costing Canadians Billions is Parading in Plain View

Why Can’t We See the Canadian Institutes for Health Research-Funded Research We Pay For?
Right off the top I should acknowledge that a lot of the research funded by the Canadian Institutes for Health Research (CIHR) is creative, rigorous, and valuable. No matter which academic category I looked at during my explorations, at least a few study titles sparked a strong “well it’s about time” reaction.
But two things dampen my enthusiasm:
- Precious few of the more than 39,000 studies funded by CIHR since 2011 are available to the public. We’re generally permitted to see no more than brief and incomplete descriptions – and sometimes not even that.
- There’s often no visible evidence that the research ever actually took place. Considering how more than $16 billion in taxpayer funds has been spent on those studies over the past 13 years, that’s not a good thing.
If you’ve been reading The Audit for a while, you know that I’ll often identify systems that appear vulnerable to abuse. As a rule though, I’m reluctant to invoke the “s” word. But here’s one place where I can think of no better description: the vacuum where CIHR compliance and enforcement should be is a national scandal.
Keep these posts coming: subscribe to The Audit.
I’ve touched on these things before. And even in that earlier post I acknowledged how:
…as a country, we have an interest in investing in industry sectors where there’s a potential for high growth and where releasing proprietary secrets can be counter productive.
So we shouldn’t expect access to the full results of every single study. But that’s surely not true for the majority of research. And there’s absolutely no reason that CIHR shouldn’t provide evidence that something (anything!) productive was actually done with our money.
Because a well-chosen example can sometimes tell the story better than huge numbers, I’ll focus on one particular study in just a moment. But for context, here are some huge numbers. What follows is an AI-powered breakdown by topic of all 39,751 research grants awarded by CIHR since 2011:
Those numbers shouldn’t be taken as anything close to authoritative. The federal government data doesn’t provide even minimal program descriptions for many of the grants it covers. And many descriptions that are there contain meaningless boilerplate text. That’s why the “Other – Uncategorized” category represents 72 percent of all award dollars.
Ok. Let’s get to our in-the-weeds-level example. In March 2016, Greta R. Bauer and Margaret L. Lawson (principal investigators) won a $1,280,540 grant to study “Transgender youth in clinical care: A pan-Canadian cohort study of medical, social and family outcomes”.
Now that looks like vital and important research. This is especially true in light of recent bans on clinical transgender care for minors in many European countries following the release of the U.K.’s Cass report. Dr. Cass found that such treatment involved unacceptable health risks when weighed against poorly defined benefits.
A website associated with the Bauer-Lawson study (transyouthcan.ca) provides a brief update:
As of December of 2021, we have completed all of our planned 2-year follow up data collection. We want to say thanks so much to all our participants who have continued to share their information with us over these past years! We have been hard at work turning data into research results.
And then things get weird. That page leads to a link to another page containing study results, but that one doesn’t load due to an internal server error.
Before we move on, I should note that I come across a LOT of research-related web pages on potentially controversial topics that suddenly go off-line or unexpectedly retire behind pay walls. Those could, of course, just be a series of unfortunate coincidences. But I’ve seen so many such coincidences that it’s beginning to look more like a pattern.
The good news is that earlier versions of those lost pages are nearly always available through the Internet Archive’s WayBackMachine. And frankly, the stuff I find in those earlier versions is often much more – educational – than whatever intentional updates would show me.
In the case of transyouthcan.ca, archived versions included a valid link to a brief PDF document addressing external stressors (which were NOT the primary focus of the original grant application). That PDF includes an interesting acknowledgment:
This project is being paid for by a grant from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR). This study is being done by a team of gender-affirming doctors and researchers who have many years of experience doing community-based trans research. Our team includes people who are also parents of trans children, trans adults, and allied researchers with a long history of working to support trans communities.
As most of the participants appear to have financial and professional interests in the research outcome, I can’t avoid wondering whether there might be at least the appearance of bias.
In any case, that’s where the evidence trail stopped. I couldn’t find any references to study results or even to the publication of a related academic paper. And it’s not like the lead investigators lack access to journals. Greta Bauer, for example, has 79 papers listed on PubMed – but none of them related directly to this study topic.
What happened here? Did the authors just walk off with $1.2 million of taxpayer funding? Did they do the research but then change their minds about publishing when the results came in because they don’t fit a preferred narrative?
But the darker question is why no one at CIHR appears to be even mildly curious about this story – and about many thousands of others that might be out there. Who’s in charge?
Keep these posts coming: subscribe to The Audit.
Business
Chinese firm unveils palm-based biometric ID payments, sparking fresh privacy concerns

By Ken Macon
Alipay’s biometric PL1 scanner uses vein and palm-print data for processing payments, raising security concerns over the storage and use of permanent biometric data.
Alipay, the financial arm of Alibaba, has introduced a new palm-based biometric terminal, dubbed the PL1, which enables individuals to make purchases simply by presenting their hand – no phone, card, or PIN required. Positioned as a faster, touch-free alternative for payment, this system reflects a growing industry shift toward frictionless biometric transactions.
At the core of the PL1 is a dual-mode recognition system that combines surface palm print detection with internal vein mapping. This multi-layered authentication relies on deeply unique biological signatures that are significantly harder to replicate than more common methods like fingerprints or facial scans. Alipay reports that the device maintains a false acceptance rate of less than one in a million, suggesting a substantial improvement in resisting identity spoofing.
Enrollment is designed to be quick: users hover their palm over the sensor and link their account through a QR code. Once registered, purchases are completed in around two seconds without physical interaction. During early trials in Hangzhou, this system reportedly accelerated checkout lines and contributed to more hygienic point-of-sale environments.
The PL1 arrives at a time of rapid expansion in the biometric payments sector. Forecasts estimate that more than 3 billion people will use biometrics for transactions by 2026, with total payments surpassing $5 trillion. Major players are already onboard: Amazon has integrated palm authentication across U.S. retail and healthcare facilities, while JP Morgan is gearing up for a national deployment in the same year.
Alipay envisions the PL1’s use extending well beyond checkout counters. It is exploring applications in public transit, controlled access facilities, and healthcare check-ins, reflecting a broader trend toward embedding biometric systems in daily infrastructure. However, while domestic deployment benefits from favorable policy conditions, international expansion may be constrained by differing legal standards, particularly in jurisdictions that enforce stringent rules on biometric data usage and consent.
Despite the technological advancements and convenience the PL1 offers, privacy remains a major point of contention. Unlike passwords or cards that can be reset or replaced, biometric data is immutable. If compromised, individuals cannot simply “change” their palm patterns or vein structures. This permanence heightens the stakes of any potential data breach and raises long-term concerns about identity theft and surveillance.
Alipay’s approach, storing encrypted biometric templates locally on devices and restricting data flow within national border, does address certain regulatory demands, especially within China, but the broader implications of biometrics are likely to be a growing privacy and surveillance concern in the coming years.
Business
Trump considers $5K bonus for moms to increase birthrate

MxM News
Quick Hit:
President Trump voiced support Tuesday for a $5,000 cash bonus for new mothers, as his administration weighs policies to counter the country’s declining birthrate. The idea is part of a broader push to promote family growth and revive the American family structure.
Key Details:
- Trump said a reported “baby bonus” plan “sounds like a good idea to me” during an Oval Office interview.
- Proposals under consideration include a $5,000 birth bonus, prioritizing Fulbright scholarships for parents, and fertility education programs.
- U.S. birthrates hit a 44-year low in 2023, with fewer than 3.6 million babies born.
Diving Deeper:
President Donald Trump signaled his support Tuesday for offering financial incentives to new mothers, including a potential $5,000 cash bonus for each child born, as part of an effort to reverse America’s falling birthrate. “Sounds like a good idea to me,” Trump told The New York Post in response to reports his administration is exploring such measures.
The discussions highlight growing concern among Trump administration officials and allies about the long-term implications of declining fertility and family formation in the United States. According to the report, administration aides have been consulting with pro-family advocates and policy experts to brainstorm solutions aimed at encouraging larger families.
Among the proposals: a $5,000 direct payment to new mothers, allocating 30% of all Fulbright scholarships to married applicants or those with children, and launching federally supported fertility education programs for women. One such program would educate women on their ovulation cycles to help them better understand their reproductive health and increase their chances of conceiving.
The concern stems from sharp demographic shifts. The number of babies born in the U.S. fell to just under 3.6 million in 2023—down 76,000 from 2022 and the lowest figure since 1979. The average American family now has fewer than two children, a dramatic drop from the once-common “2.5 children” norm.
Though the birthrate briefly rose from 2021 to 2022, that bump appears to have been temporary. Additionally, the age of motherhood is trending older, with fewer teens and young women having children, while more women in their 30s and 40s are giving birth.
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt underscored the administration’s commitment to families, saying, “The President wants America to be a country where all children can safely grow up and achieve the American dream.” Leavitt, herself a mother, added, “I am proud to work for a president who is taking significant action to leave a better country for the next generation.”
-
2025 Federal Election2 days ago
Ottawa Confirms China interfering with 2025 federal election: Beijing Seeks to Block Joe Tay’s Election
-
COVID-192 days ago
Nearly Half of “COVID-19 Deaths” Were Not Due to COVID-19 – Scientific Reports Journal
-
2025 Federal Election2 days ago
How Canada’s Mainstream Media Lost the Public Trust
-
2025 Federal Election2 days ago
BREAKING: THE FEDERAL BRIEF THAT SHOULD SINK CARNEY
-
2025 Federal Election2 days ago
Real Homes vs. Modular Shoeboxes: The Housing Battle Between Poilievre and Carney
-
International1 day ago
New York Times publishes chilling new justification for assisted suicide
-
2025 Federal Election2 days ago
POLL: Canadians want spending cuts
-
2025 Federal Election22 hours ago
Mark Carney Wants You to Forget He Clearly Opposes the Development and Export of Canada’s Natural Resources