Author: Ronnie

Posted on

Heritage #3: Annexation Makes UNESCO Sites World’s 2nd Largest “Country”

1. Understanding Our History

(A) https://canucklaw.ca/un-declaration-on-rights-of-indigenous-peoples-bc-and-feds/
(B) https://canucklaw.ca/the-indian-act-of-canada/

2. Important Links

(1) https://whc.unesco.org/en/faq/23
(2) https://en.unesco.org/covid19/cultureresponse/monitoring-world-heritage-site-closures
(3) https://unesco.org.uk/national-value
(4) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_area
(5) https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/
(6) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/UN.new_.development.financing.2012.178pages.pdf
(7) http://www.clubdeparis.org/en/communications/page/debt-swap
(8) Debt for Nature Swaps _ UNDP (1)
(9) https://www.cov.com/en/news-and-insights/news/2004/08/covington-advises-on-debt-for-nature-swap-to-protect-unesco-world-heritage-site
(10) https://canucklaw.ca/ccs-14-uns-new-development-financing-the-bait-and-switch/

3. Who Actually Owns UNESCO Sites?

Who owns a site once it’s inscribed on the World Heritage List?
.
The site is the property of the country on whose territory it is located, but it is considered in the interest of the international community to protect the site for future generations. Its protection and preservation becomes a concern of the international World Heritage community as a whole.

An interesting explanation. So the host nation owns it, but is not allowed to do anything with it unless approved by the international community. Perhaps it’s like renting an apartment: it’s your space, but the interest of the landlord.

4. How Many UNESCO Sites Are There?

This includes the closure of natural and cultural World Heritage sites in the 167 countries they are located in. Please consider the following when reviewing the map:
The World Heritage Convention has been ratified by 193 States Parties but only 167 countries have properties on UNESCO’s World Heritage List;
The List includes a total of 1,121 natural, cultural and mixed World Heritage sites;
In some countries with federal systems there may be a different approach for certain areas within the country;
For some types of sites such as city centres, urban ensembles or agricultural landscapes access may be still possible to certain public areas of the sites, while other parts of the site may be closed, including site museums, visitor centres, religious or emblematic buildings;
For some countries, sites are being re-opened, such as in China;
While sites are closed, monitoring activities by site management may continue, especially for natural sites, including by anti-poaching units, monitoring by satellite images or drones and emergency interventions, for example in case of fires.

According to UNESCO, there are 1,121 UNESCO sites across the world. Now, it must be asked how big they are collectively.

5. How Large Are UNESCO Sites In Total?

The research demonstrates that UNESCO designations deliver the UK’s commitment to creating a more sustainable, peaceful and equitable future at a local, national and international level. It provides governments, stakeholders, communities, designations and the public an opportunity to understand the contribution a global network covering 12% of the UK, or 10 million km2 globally (equivalent to the size of Canada) makes.

According to UNESCO UK, 12% of Britain is considered a UNESCO heritage site. In total, approximately the area of Canada is formed by these different sites.

Rank Country, Region Area (square km)
1 Russia 17,098,246
n/a Antarctica 14,000,000
2 Canada 9,984,670
3 China 9,596,961
4 United States 9,833,517
5 Brazil 8,515,767
6 Australia 7,692,024
7 India 3,287,263

According to Wikipedia, the national land areas are distributed as such. If UNESCO heritage sites were combined, those 10 million square kilometers would actually make it the second largest mass, after Russia. Keep in mind, that while the countries still “own” the heritage sites, they are considered to be the interest of the international community.

6. Canada’s Various UNESCO Heritage Sites

Year Site
1978 Nahanni National Park
1978 L’Anse aux Meadows National Historic Site
1979 Dinosaur Provincial Park
1979/92/94 Tatshenshini-Alsek
1981 SGang Gwaay
1981 Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump
1983 Wood Buffalo National Park
1984/1990 Canadian Rocky Mountain Parks
1985 Historic District of Old Québec
1987 Gros Morne National Park
1995 Old Town Lunenburg
1995 Waterton Glacier International Peace Park
1999 Miguasha National Park
2007 Rideau Canal
2008 Joggins Fossil Cliffs
2012 Landscape of Grand Pré
2013 Red Bay Basque Whaling Station
2016 Mistaken Point
2019 Writing-on-Stone / Áísínai’pi

Over the last 50 years Canada has piece-by-piece been giving away parts of itself to UNESCO as “heritage sites”. And again, while it’s stated that we still own the property, it’s considered to be in the interest of the so-called global community. In reality, we don’t have control over them.

7. UN Debt-Land Conversion Mechanism: Usury

UN.new.development.financing.2012.178pages

(Page 88, 56 in document)
Debt-for-nature swaps Debt conversion first emerged, in the guise of debt-for-nature swaps, during the 1980s debt crisis, following an opinion article by Thomas Lovejoy, then Executive Vice-President of the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), in the New York Times in 1984. Lovejoy argued that a developing country’s external debt could be reduced (also providing tax relief to participating creditor banks) in exchange for the country’s taking measures to address environmental challenges. Estimates based on Sheikh (2010) and Buckley, ed. (2011) suggest that between $1.1 billion and $1.5 billion of debt has been exchanged through debt-for-nature swaps since the mid–1980s, although it is not possible to assess how much of this constitutes IDF, for the reasons discussed in box III.1

There have been two basic forms of debt-for-nature exchanges (Buckley and Freeland, 2011). In the first, part of a country’s external debt is purchased by an environmental non-governmental organization and offered to the debtor for cancellation in exchange for a commitment to protect a particular area of land. Such transactions occurred mainly in the late 1980s and 1990s and were generally relatively small-scale. An early example was a 1987 deal under which Conservation International, a Washington, D.C.-based environmental non-governmental organization, bought $650,000 of the commercial bank debt of Bolivia (now Plurinational State of Bolivia) in the secondary market for $100,000, and exchanged this for shares in a company established to preserve 3.7 million acres of forest and grassland surrounding the Beni Biosphere Reserve in the north-east part of the country.

In the second form, debt is exchanged for local currency (often at a discount), which is then used by local conservation groups or government agencies to fund projects in the debtor country. Swaps of this kind are generally much larger, and have predominated since the 1990s. The largest such swap came in 1991, when a group of bilateral creditors agreed to channel principal and interest payments of $473 million (in local currency) into Poland’s Ecofund set up to finance projects designed to counter environmental deterioration. The EcoFund financed 1,500 programmes between 1992 and 2007, providing grants for conservation projects relating to cross-border air pollution, climate change, biological diversity and the clean-up of the Baltic Sea (Buckley and Freeland, 2011).

This is nothing short of predatory lending and usury. Lending out large sums of money (often debt financed by donor countries), to other countries who can’t pay it back. The debts can be forgiven in return for consideration, such as rendering sections of land unavailable for use.

In short, these lands are taken away in return for debt forgiveness.
See the more sinister variation at the end.

It should be pointed out that UNESCO is not the only organization that is involved in debt swaps. There are private groups that do it too.

8. The Paris Club – Debt Swapper

The Paris Club is just one group that is involved in the debt swaps when countries can’t afford to make payments on their debts. While presented as harmless, it takes away national sovereignty. Keep in mind, that the average citizen isn’t responsible for racking up this debt.

9. UN Development Program

Debt for Nature Swaps _ UNDP (1)

The UN Development Program also runs a version of the same scheme. Here is a short guide they provide on the details.

10. Argentina Debt-For-Nature Swap

WASHINGTON, D.C., August 19, 2004 – The United States Government and the Government of Panama signed a debt-for-nature swap agreement today that will reduce the sovereign debt of the Government of Panama and help conserve 579,000 hectares (over 2,200 square miles) of tropical rainforest, an area larger than the State of Delaware. The deal will fund conservation efforts in a portion of the Darién National Park, an area of dense rainforest, sandy beaches, freshwater marshes and rocky coasts that is environmentally, anthropologically and historically rich.

The park has been officially recognized by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization as a World Heritage site and as a Biosphere Reserve. It is located in an ecologically vital area that forms a land-bridge between the North and South American continents. The region is home three major indigenous groups, the Emberá, Waunaan and Kunas, who continue to live by traditional practices. The Darién coast was explored by Christopher Columbus in 1502 and visited by Spanish conquistadors. The Darién Gap region is inhabited by numerous rare animal species, including the jaguar, white-lipped peccary, giant anteater, bush dog, mantled howler monkey and harpy eagle (Panama’s national bird).

And with that, a piece of land larger than the State of Delaware has been signed over to UNESCO, in return for having some of its debt reduced. Remember, while the land officially stays in the hands of the country, it is now considered the interest of the global community.

In addition to the debt-for-nature swaps, there are also debt-for-health swaps. These can be even more nefarious.

11. UN Debt-Vaccine Conversion Mechanism

Look familiar? In Part 14 we mentioned IFFIm, the International Finance Facility for Immunization. How this works is that nations make legally binding pledges to IFFIm. IFFIm then takes those pledges and issues bonds to the World Bank, who sells them on the open market. Money then goes to World Bank, who gives it to IFFIm, who in turn provides it to GAVI. GAVI (also funded by Gates), uses it for vaccine research and development.

A reasonable person may ask why not give the money directly to GAVI. That’s because other people can’t line their pocket it that happened.

Funnelling money through “vaccine bonds” does nothing except allow others to skim from it. Now, what happens to the money that actually does arrive? It’s used in another predatory way.

(Page 89, 57 in document)
Debt2Health Since the development of debt swaps in the 1980s, there has been a diversification of their uses to encompass social projects, most recently in the area of health under the Debt2Health initiative, which was launched by the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria in 2007 to harness additional resources for its programmes. Under Debt2Health, a donor country agrees to reduce part of a loan ineligible for debt relief under global initiatives such as the HIPC and Multilateral Debt Reduction Initiatives, in exchange for a commitment by the debtor to invest (in local currency) half of the nominal value of the debt in programmes approved by the Global Fund. The Global Fund is committed to devoting all of the funds thus generated to financing programmes in the country rather than overhead costs (Buckley, 2011c)

This is an alternative to the debt-for-nature swap. Want your debt forgiven? Take your sterilizing and possibly paralysing vaccines.

12. Taking Advantage Of Desperate People

A lot of the loans and conditional foreign aid are not free. They come with strings attached.

Loans are handed out with terms that cannot possibly be met. What happens afterwards is an “arrangement” to cancel or reduce the debt. This can require ceding control over part of the land to outsiders, or having to play along with a certain agenda.

A variation of that is the debt-for-health swap, where debt is forgiven in return for adopting certain health measures. This includes vaccines, which can cripple or kill.

One has to wonder how UNESCO got its 1,121 heritage sites.

Posted on

Plant Based Vaccine Being Developed By GSK & Medicago, And More

1. Plant-Based Vaccine In The Works

(Reuters) – The world’s largest vaccine-maker GSK has put its vaccine booster technology to work in a potential new COVID-19 shot, to be developed with a Canadian biopharmaceutical company backed by tobacco company Philip Morris.

Rather than developing its own vaccine in the global race to combat the pandemic, GSK has instead focused on contributing its adjuvant technology to at least seven other global companies, including Sanofi and China’s Clover.

There are no approved vaccines for the respiratory illness caused by the new coronavirus, but 19 vaccines are being trialed in humans globally and some treatments, such as Gilead’s remdesivir, have been approved in certain regions.

GSK said on Tuesday the companies aimed to make their vaccine available in the first half of next year and produce about 100 million doses by the end of 2021. An early-stage human trial of three different dosage levels is expected to begin in mid-July.

Medicago, headquartered in Quebec City, Canada, is privately owned. PMI has a 33% stake, and Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma holds the remainder.

This seems to be for real, a plant-based vaccine to the alleged CV pandemic. However, there are a lot of things to consider, especially who is behind this vaccine. It’s also worth looking at the lobbying and influence peddling that goes on.

In its press release, GSK outlined the agreement and pointed out that Medicago is 2/3 owned by Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma (MTPC), and 1/3 by Philip Morris International (PMI). Apparently Philip Morris — yes the cigarette company — is reconsidering its ownership stake in Medicago.

So GlaxoSmithKline and Medicago are going to develop a plant-based vaccine. Let’s take a look into them.

2. Gates Foundation A Regular Donor To GSK

Year Amount Purpose
Nov 2011 $16,956,274 HIV research
Nov 2012 $2,098,761 HIV research
Nov 2013 $2,347,273 TB/Malaria
Oct 2014 $1,281,469 Ebola vaccine
Nov 2014 $6,000,000 Adjuvanted vaccines
Nov 2014 $14,060,000 RTS,S, Malaria
Nov 2014 $1,199,441 Malaria/TB/HIV
Jan 2015 $1,291,432 Malaria/TB
Dec 2015 $10,799,189 Shigella vaccine
Oct 2016 $1,511,994 Malaria testing
Apr 2017 $687,790 Pathogen research
Aug 2017 $1,801,900 TB drugs
Nov 2017 $320,265 Malaria control
Nov 2018 $4,992,331 Shigella serotypes

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has donated millions to GSK, (GlaxoSmithKline), in recent years. Gates seems to be 100% behind the vaxx agenda.

The Gates Foundation Trust, which is a separate entity from the Foundation, holds millions in stocks and bonds of various pharmaceutical companies. Part 21 of this series laid out some of the vast financial ties Bill Gates has to the pharmaceutical industry.

It should also be noted that the Gates Foundation has heavily financed Imperial College London, and Neil Ferguson’s bogus computer models. It also owns virus patents, and is heavily involved in ID2020.

3. Gates/GSK Partnered In AbCellera Grant

This a bit of a side track, but worth mentioning briefly. It was covered in Part 14 of the series that the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and GlaxoSmithKline, were 2 of the partners in the May 2020 grant of $175.6 from the Canadian taxpayers to the company AbCellera.

4. Crestview Lobbyists Hired By GSK

At one time GlaxoSmithKline has 2 registered lobbyists from Crestview Strategy: Chad Rogers and Kate Moseley-Williams. However, there are no filed communications reports. A bit strange to recruit but not use them. However, looking at the other GSK records, there are over 200 reports filed from other people going back to 1996.

Why care about Crestview Strategy? Because they are the same firm that GAVI (funded by Gates), was using to lobby the Trudeau Government over the last few years.

However, Kate Moseley-William did lobby the Ontario Government in 2019 on behalf of GSK. And bit of information: on June 29, 2020, 8 lobbyists from GSK met with ON officials.

5. GSK’s Heavy Lobbying In U.S.

According to Open Secrets, GlaxoSmithKline spends a few million every year lobbying in the U.S., and has anywhere from 10 to 60 lobbyists on the payroll. But that probably has no influence on its ability to get FDA approval on its products.

6. Medicago ON VLP/Plant Technology

In very broad strokes, Medicago would be using plants to generate VLP (virus-like particles) which replicate CV and can be given to people to develop immunity. Replicating a previous technique for CV is essentially the partnership that GSK and Medicago would be involved in.

7. Crestview’s Jason Clark Now With Medicago

An interesting fact: Crestview Strategy lobbyist Jason Clark, previously lobbied both the Prime Minister’s Office, and the Office of the Official Opposition. Addressed in Part 4, this was done on behalf of GAVI, whom he proudly represented. Now, Clark is registered as a lobbyist with Medicago.

8. Ex-Crestview Lobbyist Jennifer Babcock

Jennifer Babcock has been a registered lobbyist both for GAVI, and for Medicago. Incidently, she has also been a lobbyist for Merck, and for the Alliance for Safe Online Pharmacies.

In fact many lobbyists for the firm Crestview Strategy have had Medicago as a client. Another firm, Magnet Strategy Group, has also worked with Medicago. As the information should make clear, the goal of the lobbying is getting funding from the various Governments.

9. Medicago Co-Owner PMI, Heated Cigs

On Tuesday, the FDA authorized Philip Morris’s IQOS, an electrically heated tobacco unit, to be marketed as an MRTP (modified risk tobacco product). IQOS is the first and only electronic nicotine product to get authorization from the FDA to be marketed as an MRTP. The company claims that the product is fundamentally different from other tobacco products and also a better choice for smokers.

The FDA stated that IQOS heats tobacco and doesn’t burn it. The process significantly reduces the production of harmful chemicals. Smokers will be less exposed to harmful chemicals by switching completely to IQOS. The FDA concluded that IQOS could benefit tobacco users and non-tobacco smokers based on the current evidence.

Philip Morris International (which owns 1/3 of Medicago) just received FDA approval to sell electronically heated tobacco, which they market as a healthier choice for smokers. Rather than get people off cigarettes, a new model is pitched.

There seems to be some cognitive dissonance here. This group helping to develop a vaccine to save lives is also developing a new form of smoking to help kill people. But business is business I guess.

Interestingly, Philip Morris has suggested selling its 1/3 share of Medicago.

10. WHO Considering Many Vaccines


who.proposed.vaccine.options

For some context, it must be noted that there are many companies working to develop a vaccine using different approaches. This was from the World Health Organization in April. There aren’t any plant based vaccines listed, but perhaps the revised list will change that.

Non-Replicating Viral Vector
Adenovirus Type 5 Vector
CanSino Biological Inc./Beijing Institute of Biotechnology

DNA DNA plasmid vaccine
Electroporation device
Inovio Pharmaceuticals

RNA
LNPencapsulated mRNA
Moderna/NIAID

DNA
DNA with electroporation
Karolinska Institute / Cobra Biologics (OPENCORONA Project)

DNA
DNA plasmid vaccine
Osaka University/ AnGes/ Takara Bio

DNA
DNA
Takis/Applied DNA Sciences/Evvivax

DNA
Plasmid DNA, Needle-Free Delivery
Immunomic Therapeutics, Inc./EpiVax, Inc./PharmaJet, Inc.

On second thought, considering what the World Health Organization is allowing to go forward, maybe a plant based virus isn’t as bad as some other options.

11. Saini’s M-132 Ensures Canada’s Participation

It was outlined in Part 7 and Part 9 of the series how Motion M-132 was introduced in the fall of 2017. Hearings were held with lobbyists in 2018, and the findings were formally adopted in March 2019. This motion ensures Canada will be continuously funding vaccine research for Canada and the world. What convenient timing to clear legislative hurdles.

Of course the murders of Barry and Honey Sherman in late 2017 were convenient as well. We wouldn’t want any possible virus cure being readily available. Where’s the profit in that?

(1) https://money.usnews.com/investing/news/articles/2020-07-07/gsk-philip-morris-venture-tie-up-for-potential-covid-19-shot
(2) https://us.gsk.com/en-us/media/press-releases/gsk-and-medicago-announce-collaboration-to-develop-a-novel-adjuvanted-covid-19-candidate-vaccine/
(3) https://twitter.com/medicagoinc
(4) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/who.proposed.vaccine.options-1.pdf
(5) http://lobbyist.oico.on.ca/
CLICK HERE, for the Federal Lobbying Registry.
(6) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=366144&regId=897841#regStart
(7) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=361856&regId=878369&blnk=1
(8) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=362841&regId=888951
(9) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=362892&regId=885889&blnk=1
(10) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=363869&regId=886566
(11) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=363846&regId=886416.
(12) https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/clients/summary?cycle=2018&id=D000000133
(13) https://www.medicago.com/en/technologies/#production-platform
(14) https://marketrealist.com/2020/07/philip-morris-stock-rises-fda-approves-iqos/
(15) https://www.who.int/news-room/detail/13-04-2020-public-statement-for-collaboration-on-covid-19-vaccine-development

Posted on

The New USMCA & Its Globalist Provisions

On July 1, 2020, the United States, Mexico & Canada Agreement (USMCA) replaced the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

Some may wonder why this deal had to be replaced. However, upon reading the new treaty, it becomes clear that USMCA is far more reaching and covers areas which NAFTA didn’t. In short, this is not merely an alteration of NAFTA, but a new agreement which contains many more globalist provisions. This is far more than a trade agreement.

This review will not address all of the points of USMCA, just the more alarming or interesting ones.

1. National Treatment Provisions

Article 2.3: National Treatment
1. Each Party shall accord national treatment to the goods of another Party in accordance with Article III of the GATT 1994, including its interpretative notes, and to this end, Article III of the GATT 1994 and its interpretative notes are incorporated into and made part of this Agreement, mutatis mutandis.
.
2. The treatment to be accorded by a Party under paragraph 1 means, with respect to a regional level of government, treatment no less favorable than the most favorable treatment that regional level of government accords to any like, directly competitive, or substitutable goods, as the case may be, of the Party of which it forms a part.

Article 14.4: National Treatment
1. Each Party shall accord to investors of another Party treatment no less favorable than that it accords, in like circumstances, to its own investors with respect to the establishment, acquisition, expansion, management, conduct, operation, and sale or other disposition of investments in its territory.
.
2. Each Party shall accord to covered investments treatment no less favorable than that it accords, in like circumstances, to investments in its territory of its own investors with respect to the establishment, acquisition, expansion, management, conduct, operation, and sale or other disposition of investments.

Article 17.3: National Treatment
1. Each Party shall accord to investors of another Party treatment no less favorable than that it accords to its own investors, in like circumstances, with respect to the establishment, acquisition, expansion, management, conduct, operation, and sale or other disposition of financial institutions, and investments in financial institutions in its territory.
.
2. Each Party shall accord to financial institutions of another Party, and to investments of investors of another Party in financial institutions, treatment no less favorable than that it accords to its own financial institutions, and to investments of its own investors in financial institutions, in like circumstances, with respect to the establishment, acquisition, expansion, management, conduct, operation, and sale or other disposition of financial institutions and investments.

Article 20.8: National Treatment
1. In respect of all categories of intellectual property covered in this Chapter, each Party shall accord to nationals of another Party treatment no less favorable than it accords to its own nationals with regard to the protection of intellectual property rights.

So what’s the problem here? Why would it be wrong to enforce rules that ensure equal treatment between the parties?

Quite simply, it makes protecting your own industries and businesses illegal. In fact, the Canadian Government has been sued –successfully — in the 1990s. This was because NAFTA meant that we could no longer enforce things like environmental laws if they were bad for business.

Governments (should) take steps to ensure that people are able to have decent work in their communities. However, that becomes much harder when foreign companies can come in and undercut local merchants. This works in a similar way when mass migration creates downward pressure on wages.

While this may result in lower costs for good and services, there is a bigger picture to consider. Decimating communities that are dependent on a few big employers is not offset by having cheaper products at Walmart.

However, this concern for society becomes a thing of the past. Note: these provisions were in other trade deals as well such as NAFTA and the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

2. Ch #14: Investments And Corporations

Article 14.11: Senior Management and Boards of Directors
1. No Party shall require that an enterprise of that Party that is a covered investment appoint to senior management positions a natural person of a particular nationality.
.
2. A Party may require that a majority of the board of directors, or any committee thereof, of an enterprise of that Party that is a covered investment, be of a particular nationality, or resident in the territory of the Party, provided that the requirement does not materially impair the ability of the investor to exercise control over its investment.

While much of the chapter is okay, this is rather disturbing. The reason is that appointing foreigners to head a corporation (much like putting foreigners in government), leads to a conflict of interest. In order to ensure the well being of a company — and its employees — it’s important to have people loyal to the country in question.

Call it bigoted, but I don’t believe this dual loyalty can be resolved in a way that benefits society as a whole.

3. Ch #16: Temporary Entries Must Be Allowed

It has been discussed here many times how Canada is experiencing a flood of people coming under: (a) Temporary Foreign Worker Program; (b) International Mobility Program; (c) student visas; and (d) other programs. However, USMCA contains provisions in Chapter 16 for this to happen on an even bigger scale (at least regarding workers).

usmca.chapter.16.temporary.entry

Article 16.4: Grant of Temporary Entry
2. A Party may refuse to grant temporary entry or issue an immigration document authorizing employment to a business person where the temporary entry of that person might adversely affect:
.
(a) the settlement of a labor dispute that is in progress at the place or intended place of employment; or
.
(b) the employment of a person who is involved in that dispute.

Article 16.7: Dispute Settlement
1. A Party may not initiate proceedings under Article 31.5 (Commission Good Offices, Conciliation, and Mediation) regarding a refusal to grant temporary entry under this Chapter or a particular case arising under Article 16.3(1) unless:
.
(a) the matter involves a pattern of practice; and
.
(b) the business person has exhausted the available administrative remedies regarding the particular matter.

It should be pointed out there are a few good provisions in this chapter. These include not importing workers to cross picket lines, and limiting ability to challenge refusals. That being said, there are many bad provisions.

Article 16.2: Scope
1. This Chapter applies to measures affecting the temporary entry of business persons of a Party into the territory of another Party.
.
2. This Chapter does not apply to measures affecting natural persons seeking access to the employment market of another Party, nor does it apply to measures regarding citizenship, nationality, residence or employment on a permanent basis.
.
3. Nothing in this Agreement prevents a Party from applying measures to regulate the entry of natural persons of another Party into, or their temporary stay in, its territory, including those measures necessary to protect the integrity of, and to ensure the orderly movement of natural persons across, its borders, provided that those measures are not applied in a manner as to nullify or impair the benefits accruing to any Party under this Chapter.

While this sounds great in theory, the reality is that Canada offers many options to “temporary” workers and students to remain in the country much longer and work towards permanent residence. This just lowers the threshold for getting the foot in the door.

Article 16.5: Provision of Information
1. Further to Article 29.2 (Publication), each Party shall publish online or otherwise make publicly available explanatory material regarding the requirements for temporary entry under this Chapter that will enable a business person of another Party to become acquainted with them.

On the surface, nothing wrong with this. However, it is unsettling to publish or make available instructions for how to bring hordes of people into the country.

Article 16.6: Temporary Entry Working Group
1. The Parties hereby establish a Temporary Entry Working Group, comprising representatives of each Party, including representatives of immigration authorities.
.
2. The Working Group shall meet at least once each year to consider:
.
(a) the implementation and administration of this Chapter;
.
(b) the development of measures to further facilitate temporary entry of business persons on a reciprocal basis;
.
(c) the waiving of labor certification tests or procedures of similar effect for spouses of business persons who have been granted temporary entry for more than one year under Section B, C or D of Annex 16-A (Temporary Entry for Business Persons);
.
(d) proposed modifications of or additions to this Chapter; and
.
(e) issues of common interest related to the temporary entry of business persons, such as the use of technologies related to processing of applications, that can be further explored among the Parties in other fora.

While this is presented as a very limited admission for business, it makes it pretty clear that it include bringing spouses along, and can be modified to include other groups of workers. How difficult would it be to lower the requirements so that entry level workers can be added?

Looking at the list of “professionals” who qualify for temporary entry, one has to wonder how this will effect wages and job prospects of locals. After all, flooding the market with more workers (supply) has consequences to the wages (demand) of those already here.

A section of Chapter 17, specifically 17.5(1)(d)(iv), provides a loophole in that there are no limits to the number of employees a company may have. Theoretically, a company can have an almost endless number of workers who need to cross the border

1. No Party shall adopt or maintain with respect to:

(d) imposes a limitation on:

(iv) the total number of natural persons that may be employed in a particular financial service sector or that a financial institution or cross-border financial service supplier may employ and who are necessary for, and directly related to, the supply of a specific financial service in the form of numerical quotas or the requirement of an economic needs test; or

usmca.chapter.17.financial.services

Section 139 of the Conservative Party Policy Declaration promotes generating more pilot programs for mass migration, and converting “temps” to permanent residents where possible.

Section 152 of the Conservative Party Policy Declaration refers to CANZUK, an open border scheme that may be extended beyond just Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom.

cpc.policy.declaration

In fact, once (almost) free movement is factored in alongside this free trade, it begins to look like a North American version of CANZUK. That of course is official CPC policy.

Of course, even when there is a fake pandemic, and millions of Canadians are unemployed, our government still finds it necessary to import hundreds of thousands of workers. Seriously, if the Government won’t protect Canadians’ jobs in a time like this, they won’t ever do it.

4. Ch #19: Social Media, Interactive Services

Article 19.17: Interactive Computer Services
1. The Parties recognize the importance of the promotion of interactive computer services, including for small and medium-sized enterprises, as vital to the growth of digital trade.

2. To that end, other than as provided in paragraph 4, no Party shall adopt or maintain measures that treat a supplier or user of an interactive computer service as an information content provider in determining liability for harms related to information stored, processed, transmitted, distributed, or made available by the service, except to the extent the supplier or user has, in whole or in part, created, or developed the information.

3. No Party shall impose liability on a supplier or user of an interactive computer service on account of:
(a) any action voluntarily taken in good faith by the supplier or user to restrict access to or availability of material that is accessible or available through its supply or use of the interactive computer services and that the supplier or user considers to be harmful or objectionable; or
(b) any action taken to enable or make available the technical means that enable an information content provider or other persons to restrict access to material that it considers to be harmful or objectionable.

Doesn’t look too good for protecting free speech and viewpoint diversity. No consequences for deplatforming people with dissident viewpoints.

5. Ch #20: Intellectual Property Rights

Article 20.7: International Agreements
1. Each Party affirms that it has ratified or acceded to the following agreements:
.
(a) Patent Cooperation Treaty, as amended on September 28, 1979, and modified on February 3, 1984;
.
(b) Paris Convention;
.
(c) Berne Convention;
.
(d) WCT; and
.
(e) WPPT

2. Each Party shall ratify or accede to each of the following agreements, if it is not already a party to that agreement, by the date of entry into force of this Agreement:
.
(a) Madrid Protocol;
.
(b) Budapest Treaty;
.
(c) Singapore Treaty;
.
(d) UPOV 1991;
.
(e) Hague Agreement; and
.
(f) Brussels Convention.

usmca.chapter.20.intellectual.property

This isn’t merely a trade agreement we have signed. It also forces to be committed to 11 different international treaties on intellectual property. Essentially, this is setting a global standard for I.P. In fairness, Canada is a party to many of them already. However, what will happen when people with Canadian patents are forced to compete with people holding similar patents elsewhere?

Considering that patenting genes and other biological material is already a reality, what will happen to health care currently available?

6. Ch #22: State Owned Enterprises

1. Each Party shall ensure that each of its state-owned enterprises, when engaging in commercial activities:
.
(a) acts in accordance with commercial considerations in its purchase or sale of a good or service, except to fulfil the terms of its public service mandate that are not inconsistent with subparagraphs (b) or (c)(ii);
.
(b) in its purchase of a good or service:
.
(i) accords to a good or service supplied by an enterprise of another Party treatment no less favorable than it accords to a like good or a like service supplied by enterprises of the Party, of any other Party or of a non-Party, and
.
(ii) accords to a good or service supplied by an enterprise that is a covered investment in the Party’s territory treatment no less favorable than it accords to a like good or a like service supplied by enterprises in the relevant market in the Party’s territory that are investments of investors of the Party, of another Party or of a non-Party; and
.
(c) in its sale of a good or service:
.
(i) accords to an enterprise of another Party treatment no less favorable than it accords to enterprises of the Party, of any other Party or of a non-Party, and
.
(ii) accords to an enterprise that is a covered investment in the Party’s territory treatment no less favorable than it accords to enterprises in the relevant market in the Party’s territory that are investments of investors of the Party, of another Party or of a non-Party

usmca.chapter.22.state.owned.enterprises

While this “sounds” okay, consider that state owned enterprises are typically funded by taxpayer dollars. They typically mean Crown Corporations and branches of the Government. Under the national treatment rules, these public groups will have to compete with foreigners, and treat them no worse. This comes despite the fact that foreigners don’t pay the taxes that keep them going. This is, in effect, a tax subsidy.

7. Ch #23: International Labour Org. (UN Group)

usmca.chapter.23.labour

Article 23.2: Statement of Shared Commitments
1. The Parties affirm their obligations as members of the ILO, including those stated in the ILO Declaration on Rights at Work and the ILO Declaration on Social Justice for a Fair Globalization (2008).
.
2. The Parties recognize the important role of workers’ and employers’ organizations in protecting internationally recognized labor rights.
.
3. The Parties also recognize the goal of trading only in goods produced in compliance with this Chapter.

The International Labour Organization (ILO) is a UN group which Canada, the U.S., and Mexico are all part of. In essence, this gives the UN a very large role in setting the agenda for work standards on the continent.

Article 23.14: Labor Council
1. The Parties hereby establish a Labor Council composed of senior governmental representatives at the ministerial or other level from trade and labor ministries, as designated by each Party.
.
2. The Labor Council shall meet within one year of the date of entry into force of this Agreement and thereafter every two years, unless the Parties decide otherwise.
.
3. The Labor Council may consider any matter within the scope of this Chapter and perform other functions as the Parties may decide.
.
4. In conducting its activities, including meetings, the Labor Council shall provide a means for receiving and considering the views of interested persons on matters related to this Chapter. If practicable, meetings will include a public session or other means for Council members to meet with the public to discuss matters relating to the implementation of this Chapter.
.
5. During the fifth year after the date of entry into force of this Agreement, or as otherwise decided by the Parties, the Labor Council shall review the operation and effectiveness of this Chapter and thereafter may undertake subsequent reviews as decided by the Parties.
.
6. Labor Council decisions and reports shall be made by consensus and be made publicly available, unless the Council decides otherwise.
.
7. The Labor Council shall issue a joint summary report or statement on its work at the end of each Council meeting.

This Council is to be made up of members chosen by the governments. There’s no indication that the public will have any say in choosing them. Decisions don’t have to be made public, which means we may never see what goes on. Meetings are to take place once every 2 years (as a default). Not very accountable.

UN SDGs International Labour Organization Partnered With

  • BORDERLESS SUSTAINABLE INITIATIVES FORUM
  • Economic inclusion and sustainable development of Andean grain producers in Ayacucho and Puno
  • Equal Pay International Coalition
  • FarmBiz Youth
  • Global Partnership for Sustainable Development Data
  • Improving transitions from school to work through engaging youth in policy dialogue
  • Japanese Technical Cooperation Project for Promotion of Regional Initiative on Solid Waste Management in Pacific Island Countries (J-PRISM)
  • Pacific Financial Inclusion Programme (PFIF)
  • Pacific Youth Development Framework Partnership (PYDF Partnership)
  • Solutions for Youth Employment (S4YE)
  • Strengthening Women’s Ability for Productive New Opportunities (SWAPNO) in Bangladesh
  • Sustainable Week
  • United Nations Pacific Interagency Task Force on Noncommunicable Disease Prevention and Control (UN PIATF)

It’s beyond the scope of this article to go into each group that ILO partners with. However, take a look at the webpage to see for yourself what ILO does with the rest of its time. Anyhow, this is the group whose labour standards we must now comply with.

8. Ch #24: UNSDA Environmental Agenda

Article 24.1: Definitions
For the purposes of this Chapter:
environmental law means a statute or regulation of a Party, or provision thereof, including any that implements the Party’s obligations under a multilateral environmental agreement, the primary purpose of which is the protection of the environment, or the prevention of a danger to human life or health, through:
.
(a) the prevention, abatement, or control of the release, discharge, or emission of pollutants or environmental contaminants;

Article 24.2: Scope and Objectives
1. The Parties recognize that a healthy environment is an integral element of sustainable development and recognize the contribution that trade makes to sustainable development.
.
2. The objectives of this Chapter are to promote mutually supportive trade and environmental policies and practices; promote high levels of environmental protection and effective enforcement of environmental laws; and enhance the capacities of the Parties to address trade-related environmental issues, including through cooperation, in the furtherance of sustainable development.

A lot of the content here looks like it was cut and pasted directly from Agenda 2030. There are also references to pollution and emissions, which one can assume refers to the Paris Accord and the climate change scam. Quite the long read.

usmca.chapter.24.environmental.regulations

9. Ch #26: Focus On Competitiveness

Article 26.1: North American Competitiveness Committee
1. Recognizing their unique economic and commercial ties, close proximity, and extensive trade flows across their borders, the Parties affirm their shared interest in strengthening regional economic growth, prosperity, and competitiveness.

2. With a view to promoting further economic integration among the Parties and enhancing the competitiveness of North American exports, the Parties hereby establish a North American Competitiveness Committee (Competitiveness Committee), composed of government representatives of each Party.

3. Each Party shall designate a contact point for the Competitiveness Committee, notify the other Parties of the contact point, and promptly notify the other Parties of any subsequent changes. Recognizing the need for a comprehensive and coordinated approach to enhance North American competitiveness, each Party’s contact point shall coordinate with its relevant government departments and agencies.

usmca.chapter.26.competitiveness.committee

There is to be a committee to enhance competitiveness. In practice, it means a committee devoted to goods and services at the lowest possible cost. Certainly this group will ensure that countries aren’t able to enact any protectionist policies to aid their own people.

10. Ch #27: Anticorruption Measures

6. In order to prevent corruption, each Party shall adopt or maintain measures as may be necessary in accordance with its laws and regulations, regarding the maintenance of books and records, financial statement disclosures, and accounting and auditing standards, to prohibit the following acts carried out for the purpose of committing the offenses described in paragraph 1:
.
(a) the establishment of off-the-books accounts;
(b) the making of off-the-books or inadequately identified transactions;
(c) the recording of non-existent expenditure;
(d) the entry of liabilities with incorrect identification of their objects;
(e) the use of false documents; and
(f) the intentional destruction of bookkeeping documents earlier than foreseen by the law.

usmca.chapter.27.corruption

While these certainly are good things to prohibit, it’s unclear why this is being put into a trade agreement. It’s also ambiguous how there would be any real enforcement of such clauses.

11. USMCA A New Level Of Globalism

USMCA is touted as NAFTA 2.0, or the New NAFTA. However, much of its contents have nothing to do with trade, but enforcing other areas of society.

Chapter 2 (and elsewhere), make local protection impossible
Chapter 14 focuses on “investments”, which is extremely broad
Chapter 16 makes it easier to being people across the borders for work purposes. Touted as temporary, but we all know this isn’t the case
Chapter 17 allows for an unlimited number of workers
Chapter 19 restricts free speech protections online
Chapter 20 is uniform intellectual property laws
Chapter 22 undermines government agencies and organization
Chapter 23 forces compliance with ILO social justice agenda
Chapter 24 brings back all the environmental agendas
Chapter 26 focuses on competitiveness (lowest cost) over protectionism
Chapter 27 focuses on corruption.

Of course this is not all of USMCA’s content, but the more important parts. Canada, the U.S. and Mexico are signing away large parts of their (remaining) autonomy with this deal.

CLICK HERE, for USMCA on US Trade/Commerce site.
CLICK HERE, for ILO labour standards.
CLICK HERE, for SDGs that ILO is partnered with.

usmca.chapter.02.national.treatment
usmca.chapter.14.investments
usmca.chapter.16.temporary.entry
usmca.chapter.17.financial.services
usmca.chapter.20.intellectual.property
usmca.chapter.22.state.owned.enterprises
usmca.chapter.23.labour
usmca.chapter.24.environmental.regulations
usmca.chapter.26.competitiveness.committee
usmca.chapter.27.corruption

cpc.policy.declaration

Posted on

CV #26: Toronto Public Health Admits To Falsifying Cause Of Death In “Victims”

According to Toronto Public Health: “Individuals who have died with COVID-19, but not as a result of COVID-19 are included in the case counts for COVID-19 deaths in Toronto.”
https://twitter.com/TOPublicHealth/status/1275888390060285967
https://archive.vn/oS0Po

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

For the very extensive effort to expose the coronavirus hoax, see the previous two dozen articles on the subject. Much of it includes the lobbying efforts, and the money changing hands. Once you understand the money and influence peddling behind the scenes, things start to make sense.

2. Toronto Public Health “Claims” 1,100 Deaths


https://twitter.com/TOPublicHealth/status/1278062510717964288

In a June 30 tweet, Toronto Public Health claimed that there were 1,093 (nearly 1,100) deaths due to coronavirus. Interestingly, they neglect to mention that they consider all deaths where a person HAS this virus to be CAUSED by the virus.

These are not the same thing. If a person was run over by a drunk driver and die, the cause of death would be some sort of blood loss or blunt force trauma. Even if he or she had the virus or some other disease, that is not the cause of death. Saying otherwise is fraudulent.

3. TPH Retweets John Tory’s Mask Hoax


https://twitter.com/JohnTory/status/1277966131446247425

Toronto Mayor John Tory made it mandatory for residents to begin wearing masks, and Toronto Public Health obviously promoted the decision. However, the whole mask demands are about getting the citizens to submit, rather than any real health benefits. No one demonstrates the dishonesty more than Anthony Fauci, the “top doctor” in the U.S.

Anthony Fauci later claimed he only recommended against masks in order to prevent a buying spree which would have left no masks available for health care workers. Motives aside, he blatantly lied to the public. In the third video, he appears to take the mask off as soon as the cameras are off. But remember, trust the experts and official sources.

4. More Lies From Toronto Public Health

The Toronto Public Health feed is full of tweets like this, tracking total deaths. However, it is all based on deception, since Toronto (as many other surely do) treats people who HAVE the coronavirus — or any of these viruses — as if it CAUSED their deaths.

5. City Of Toronto Lies About Virus Deaths

The City of Toronto continues to respond to COVID-19. Torontonians are reminded to continue adhering to Toronto Public Health’s advice to wash their hands often, stay within their social circle of no more than 10 people, and practise physical distancing, or wear a face covering or non-medical mask to protect others when in settings where physical distancing cannot be maintained.

There are 14,134 cases of COVID-19 in the city, an increase of 40 cases since yesterday. There are 233 people hospitalized, with 60 in ICU. In total, 12,215 people have recovered from COVID-19, an increase of 88 cases since yesterday. To date, there have been 1,072 COVID-19 deaths in Toronto. Case status data can be found on the City’s reporting platform.

Provincial Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act orders, the City bylaw on physical distancing, and laws prohibiting consumption of alcohol on City property and in unlicensed public areas remain in effect. Yesterday, the City received 103 complaints related to parks use and physical distancing. Officers have spoken to or cautioned more than 6,600 people this month. Bylaw officers issued nine tickets yesterday in City parks or squares.
The City’s website is updated daily with the latest health advice and information about City services, social supports and economic recovery measures. Check toronto.ca/covid-19/ for answers to common questions before contacting the Toronto Public Health COVID-19 Hotline or 311.

Toronto is home to more than 2.9 million people whose diversity and experiences make this great city Canada’s leading economic engine and one of the world’s most diverse and livable cities. As the fourth largest city in North America, Toronto is a global leader in technology, finance, film, music, culture and innovation, and consistently places at the top of international rankings due to investments championed by its government, residents and businesses. For more information visit toronto.ca or follow us on Twitter at twitter.com/CityofToronto , on Instagram at instagram.com/cityofto or on Facebook at facebook.com/cityofto .

Toronto has 2.9 million residents, and has had 1,100 deaths due to this so-called virus. And there has clearly been some inflation to get it that high. Even if it were true, it would mean that 1 our of every 3,000 or so people have died from CV. It’s obviously completely overblown.

Yet nowhere in this press release is it stated that people who simply have the virus and die are presumed to have died because of it. A little transparency would be nice.

6. Ontario Government Supports Falsification

In a very roundabout way, the Ontario Government admits that on at least one occasion, a person who did not die of CV-19 was classified as that being the cause of death. This woman died in a car crash, but it was still attributed to this virus.

7. CDC (U.S.) Inflating Death Totals


Alert-1-Guidance-for-Certifying-COVID-19-Deaths

The CDC, the Center for Disease Control (U.S.), has been making it easy to lie and FALSELY CLAIM that a person had died of Covid-19 when it is unknown. Take a look.

It is important to emphasize that Coronavirus Disease 2019 or COVID-19 should be reported on the death certificate for all decedents where the disease caused or is assumed to have caused or contributed to death. Other terminology, e.g., SARS-CoV-2, can be used as long as it is clear that it indicates the 2019 coronavirus strain, but we would prefer use of WHO’s standard terminology, e.g., COVID-19. Specification of the causal pathway leading to death in Part I of the certificate is also important. For example, in cases when COVID-19 causes pneumonia and fatal respiratory distress, both pneumonia and respiratory distress should be included along with COVID-19 in Part I. Certifiers should include as much detail as possible based on their knowledge of the case, medical records, laboratory testing, etc. If the decedent had other chronic conditions such as COPD or asthma that may have also contributed, these conditions can be reported in Part II. Here is an example:

Look at how it is worded. “disease caused or is assumed to have caused or contributed to death”. It doesn’t say that the virus caused the death, but rather assumed to have caused or contributed to death. That is a much, much lower standard.

Why would doctors misdiagnose someone on purpose? A cynic might wonder if it has to do with the extra federal funds that are available for coronavirus patients. Supposedly $39,000 dollars (USD) if it is a covid patient.

Yes, this information has been out for quite a while. Still, it’s worth a reminder about just how deceitful the system is when it’s rewarded financially.

8. Death Tolls Artificially Inflated

If the only way to get the numbers up is to falsify the cause of death (or just not properly determine it), then it’s clear that governments are lying to their citizens. Toronto Public Health has admitted that people who test positive for this virus after death are attributed to the virus, even if that wasn’t the actual cause of death. The Ontario Government has admitted to doing it, and only because they got caught. This goes on elsewhere as well.

This pandemic is a hoax. People need to wake up.

Posted on

CV #25: De-Anonymizing The Anonymous Contact Tracing App

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

The rest of the series is here. Many lies, lobbying, conflicts of interest, and various globalist agendas operating behind the scenes. The Gates Foundation finances: the World Health Organization, the Center for Disease Control, GAVI, ID2020, John Hopkins University, Imperial College London, the Pirbright Institute, the British Broadcasting Corporation, and individual pharmaceutical companies. Also: there is little to no science behind what our officials are doing; they promote degenerate behaviour; the Australian Department of Health admits the PCR tests don’t work; the US CDC admits testing is heavily flawed; and The International Health Regulations are legally binding. See here, here, and here.

2. Disclaimer: Limited Personal Knowledge

To start out with a disclaimer, I am hardly any sort of expert on cell phone technology. So this article is written from a more lay perspective. Nonetheless, the announcement of the contact tracing app in Canada opens up a lot of hard questions that need to be answered. Can the Government (or any government) be trusted with this claim, and is it even feasible?

This isn’t meant to be an alarmist piece, but there are very real concerns and doubts about just how confidential all of this will remain. Consider the following.

3. Research Into Re-Identification, 2019

While rich medical, behavioral, and socio-demographic data are key to modern data-driven research, their collection and use raise legitimate privacy concerns. Anonymizing datasets through de-identification and sampling before sharing them has been the main tool used to address those concerns. We here propose a generative copula-based method that can accurately estimate the likelihood of a specific person to be correctly re-identified, even in a heavily incomplete dataset. On 210 populations, our method obtains AUC scores for predicting individual uniqueness ranging from 0.84 to 0.97, with low false-discovery rate. Using our model, we find that 99.98% of Americans would be correctly re-identified in any dataset using 15 demographic attributes. Our results suggest that even heavily sampled anonymized datasets are unlikely to satisfy the modern standards for anonymization set forth by GDPR and seriously challenge the technical and legal adequacy of the de-identification release-and-forget model.

De-identification, the process of anonymizing datasets before sharing them, has been the main paradigm used in research and elsewhere to share data while preserving people’s privacy. Data protection laws worldwide consider anonymous data as not personal data anymore allowing it to be freely used, shared, and sold. Academic journals are, e.g., increasingly requiring authors to make anonymous data available to the research community. While standards for anonymous data vary, modern data protection laws, such as the European General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), consider that each and every person in a dataset has to be protected for the dataset to be considered anonymous. This new higher standard for anonymization is further made clear by the introduction in GDPR of pseudonymous data: data that does not contain obvious identifiers but might be re-identifiable and is therefore within the scope of the law.

This was a research paper released in 2019, before the coronavirus planned-emic hit the world stage. While to long to into depth here, the researchers found and listed many examples of people being able to re-identify people using supposedly anonymized data sets. While original data had many modifiers removed, it was possible to reverse engineer it, and re-establish people’s identities using multiple sets of incomplete data.

Two of the biggest issues in the research were health care data and internet browsing data. They were initially anonymized, but then computers were able to piece together to data and provide names. While not always correct, these techniques were overall very accurate in re-establishing identities.

Research data is widely shared for many purposes. Laws in the West allow for personal information to be shared as long as it is “anonymized” first. However, if that can be undone, then an end run around privacy laws can be accomplished.

Now, this type of bypass of privacy has been underway for a long time. People have to ask whether it will continue (or even escalate), in the face of this so-called pandemic.

4. Governor William Weld’s Medical Info

Re-Identification_of_Welds_Medical_Information

This is an old case, but a good one. Former Massachusetts Governor William Weld was able to have his medical history re-identified from anonymized medical information. How so? State voter rolls provided birth date and zip code information. Being a public figure, people knew quite a bit about him. Even with redacted records, it was possible to piece it together.

But one doesn’t have to be a politician. With the information available from various databases, a computer scientist can easily piece profiles together.

Keep in mind this was done in 1997, and led to HIPPA, new privacy regulations coming into place. However, that was over 20 years ago, and computers have advanced a long way since. Moreover, internet usage has resulted in astronomical amounts of personal information being available online.

Now for some questions about this app.

5. Will The App Really Be Anonymous?

The first thing that people should be asking is whether claims that this app will be anonymous at all. A healthy distrust of the your government is helpful in all cases. Everything they say and promise should be met with some degree of skepticism.

Bear in mind, this is the same government that thought nothing of having Statistics Canada do data mining of over 500,000 Canadians. They then threw StatsCan under the bus when there was public backlash. It was just 2 years ago, and addressed in those articles.

Beyond distrust of the government, a follow-up must be asked. Even if this were anonymous, as advertised, can it be de-anonymized at a later point? Can the app makers use some decryption to identify users? What about other third parties?

How easy will it be to use AI or to combine partial data sets to re-identify people? What happens when the profiles are “Frankenstein-ed” together? Who gets the data? How will it be used, and will we even know?

6. What Qualifies As Contact?

Is passing someone on the street or in the grocery store sufficient to count as “coming in contact” with someone? is a few seconds enough? A minute? 5 minutes? Sure there is more information coming out, but having some standard would be nice. Knowing what the standard is would also help.

7. Positive Test Linked To Phone Number?

There are plenty of issues with the coronavirus testing itself. However, that is a piece for another day. This is about the privacy aspects.

Suppose you test positive for this virus. What happens then? Do you change the settings on your phone, or does the medical staff then insert your phone number or “random number” into a database of people who have tested positive? Is that result then connected to anything and anyplace you go, or that your phone is reported to have a connection to?

8. Lies About Phone Not Geo-Tagging?

There are claims that there will be no geo-tagging, or storing of locations. How exactly does that work though? How can a phone app determine that a user has been close to someone who has tested positive? It’s difficult to believe that phones would just start collecting the random assigned numbers of everyone it has been close to (though possible I guess), but not record any sort of geographical data?

Any sort of mainstream technology that has GPS tracking can find places, people or things, but does so with reference to spots on a map. How could this contact tracing app determine when phones are close to each other, but not have any geographical reference?

It seems possible that this government app could use geographical references, but then not store the data. However, considering outfits like Google are well ahead in tracking movements, it seems strange to develop this app to not record location data.

9. StatsCan Provides Microdata For Free

Unrestricted access to microdata
Statistics Canada offers Public Use Microdata Files (PUMFs) to institutions and individuals. They are non-aggregated data which are carefully modified and then reviewed to ensure that no individual or business is directly or indirectly identified. These can be accessed directly through the Data Liberation Initiative (DLI) or the PUMF Collection for a subscription fee. Individual files can also be requested at no cost.

For reference, a files can be ordered for free. A purchase of $5,000 per year, which gives unlimited access to all of the microdata used by StatCan in its various research and publications. The data is supposed to be anonymized, but one has to ask how easy it would be to piece together individual or businesses, based on this information, plus other available sources.

StatsCan already has plenty of CV-19 research released and available for the public. It isn’t too much of a stretch to think that searching for where people cluster, or amount of time spent in an area is researched.

10. StatsCan’s “Approved Microdata Linkages”

What does Statistics Canada do with your personal information?
.
We use it to its full potential
Whether Statistics Canada received your information directly from you or through a third party such as another government entity, we use it to its full potential. We avoid having to ask the same question more than once so that we can produce relevant, timely and accurate statistics. Linking Canadians’ information from different files enables Statistics Canada to produce more statistics and research, which are in turn used by decision makers. We will only link personal information when its value to the public good outweighs the intrusion of privacy. For example, we can take the answers you gave on a survey and link them to your tax record. The objective is to draw conclusions based on a large sample of the population. More information on all Approved microdata linkages.

StatsCan openly admits that it will combine data from various sources and combine it. So this “anonymizing” is only done AFTER various things are combined, if it even done at all.

Approved microdata linkages
.
The linking of separate records from different sources can be a very useful and cost-efficient technique in the design, production, analysis and evaluation of statistical data. It can lead to important savings in cost, time, and respondent burden, and, in some cases, it may be the only feasible way to obtain important statistical information. When possible, rather than conducting additional surveys, Statistics Canada uses the information that individuals, businesses and institutions have already provided to the Agency or to other government departments for methodological purposes, data enhancement and subject-matter studies. The following is a list of the microdata linkage submissions that have been reviewed and approved in accordance with the Statistics Canada Directive on Microdata Linkage, starting in January 2000. Choose any of the following titles to view a summary:

To be clear, Statistics Canada already has the system of combining various datasets (including information provided by other government agencies, schools, businesses and institutions. In fact, it has gone this for a good 20 years now. Presumably the anonymising is done AFTER this is compiled.

Looking at the approved microdata linking from 2019 (the most recent year), we get:

  • Evaluating the Information Content in the Business Outlook Survey (002-2019)
  • Evaluating the Information Content in the Business Outlook Survey (002-2019)
  • The impact of Intellectual Property on the Canadian Economy (003-2019)
  • The impact of Intellectual Property on the Canadian Economy (003-2019)
  • LASS 2016 to Census 2016, Census 2011 and NHS 2011 Linkage (004-2019)
  • LASS 2016 to Census 2016, Census 2011 and NHS 2011 Linkage (004-2019)
  • Linkage of the National Dose Registry to cancer and mortality outcomes, an update (005-2019)
  • Linkage of the National Dose Registry to cancer and mortality outcomes, an update (005-2019)
  • Municipal Wastewater Systems in Canada (MWSC): Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) Effluent Regulatory Reporting Information System (ERRIS) linkage to Census Data (006-2019)
  • Municipal Wastewater Systems in Canada (MWSC): Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) Effluent Regulatory Reporting Information System (ERRIS) linkage to Census Data (006-2019)
  • Adding Gender to the Corporations Returns Act (CRA) database (007-2019)
  • Adding Gender to the Corporations Returns Act (CRA) database (007-2019)
  • Between and within-firm earnings inequality in Canada (008-2019)
  • Between and within-firm earnings inequality in Canada (008-2019)
  • Indian Register linked to tax data, (Longitudinal Indian Register Database (LIRD)) (009-2019)
  • Indian Register linked to tax data, (Longitudinal Indian Register Database (LIRD)) (009-2019)
  • 2016 Census of Population linkage to income tax files and benefits records to monitor tax filing behaviour and take-up rate of various benefit programs (011-2019)
  • 2016 Census of Population linkage to income tax files and benefits records to monitor tax filing behaviour and take-up rate of various benefit programs (011-2019)
  • Linkage of the 2002 Canadian Community Health Survey – Mental Health and Well-being – Canadian Forces (CCHS-CF) to the 2018 Canadian Armed Forces Members and Veterans Mental Health Follow-up Survey (CAFVMHS) (021-2019)
  • Linkage of the 2002 Canadian Community Health Survey – Mental Health and Well-being – Canadian Forces (CCHS-CF) to the 2018 Canadian Armed Forces Members and Veterans Mental Health Follow-up Survey (CAFVMHS) (021-2019)
  • Socioeconomic and Ethnocultural Disparities in Perinatal Health in Canada: Current Pattern and Changes Over Time (023-2019)
  • Socioeconomic and Ethnocultural Disparities in Perinatal Health in Canada: Current Pattern and Changes Over Time (023-2019)
  • Linkage of the Canadian Housing Survey to historical income information, information on social and affordable housing, measures on proximity to services and measures on income dispersion in communities (024-2019)
  • Linkage of the Canadian Housing Survey to historical income information, information on social and affordable housing, measures on proximity to services and measures on income dispersion in communities (024-2019)
  • Linkage of Labour Force Survey with Longitudinal Workers File (025-2019)
  • Linkage of Labour Force Survey with Longitudinal Workers File (025-2019)
  • The Economic and Environmental Impacts of Voluntary Energy Conservation Programs: Evidence from the Canadian Industry Program for Energy Conservation (026-2019)
  • The Economic and Environmental Impacts of Voluntary Energy Conservation Programs: Evidence from the Canadian Industry Program for Energy Conservation (026-2019)

Since Statistics Canada already incorporates health information and combines various sets of data to make “more complete profiles”, it is clearly possible to add CV tests — both positive and negative as well. While calling for it publicly is political poison, who’s to say it won’t be quietly slipped in at some point?

Remember as well, these profiles are combined, and only then anonymized. However, the more information in the profile, the easier it would be for researchers to reverse engineer the anonymizing techniques to restore identities. In fact, it’s quite possible that the algorithm and techniques will be readily available.

Remember, StatsCan allows people to order individual files for free. It you want a full 1-year subscription, it costs a mere $5,000. If you are interested in real data mining, it’s pocket change.

11. Shopify & Blackberry Develop App

Canada will launch a nationwide contact tracing app using the Apple-Google Exposure Notification framework, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said Thursday.

The Apple-Google Exposure Notification API exited beta in May. It allows public health authorities to build deeply integrated, cross-platform contact tracing apps to track and curb the spread of coronavirus.

The Canadian app was developed by Shopify, BlackBerry and the government of Ontario. As is required by Apple and Google, the app will be completely voluntary, will only store data in a decentralized manner and will be led by the Canadian Digital Service Initiative, iPhoneInCanada reported.

Blackberry and Shopify developed the app for use in Canada. Companies like Google are well known for obtaining huge amounts of data on their users so this is a huge red flag. How do we know there isn’t some sort of back door built into the platform?

By contrast, a few countries, like Norway, have banned such an app, out of privacy concerns.

12. Government Already Compiles The Info

As seen in earlier sections, StatsCan already combines sources to build “more complete” profiles of the people it wants to survey. Even your credit isn’t safe if StatsCan wants it. As for the finished project, the information can be bought, and individual files requested for free. How difficult would it be to take the raw data provided, and cross reference across other social media or other databases? How long until the original names are restored to the profiles?

With all this data compilation, it won’t be difficult to link a positive test to a real name, an address, or a date of birth. The suggestion that all of this will remain completely anonymous flies in the face of what the government and StatsCan do.

It also isn’t much of a stretch to see the “anonymized” results sold or given to third parties to conduct their own research. Stay away from the app would be some good advice. It would be nice to just take at face value the claims that there are no privacy issues. However, that’s very naïve.

Again, this is not meant to send people into a panic, but much more has to be known and discussed to make such an app a real solution, if it is at all.

Posted on

CV #24: Gates Financing Of Imperial College London, And Their Modelling

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

The rest of the series is here. Many lies, lobbying, conflicts of interest, and various globalist agendas operating behind the scenes. The Gates Foundation finances: the World Health Organization, the Center for Disease Control, GAVI, ID2020, John Hopkins University, Imperial College London, the Pirbright Institute, the British Broadcasting Corporation, and individual pharmaceutical companies. Also: there is little to no science behind what our officials are doing; they promote degenerate behaviour; the Australian Department of Health admits the PCR tests don’t work; the US CDC admits testing is heavily flawed; and The International Health Regulations are legally binding. See here, here, and here.

2. Alternate Theory On Models

Epidemiologist Neil Ferguson has (justifiably) taken a lot of criticism for his doomsday computer modelling of how the coronavirus “planned-emic” was supposed to play out.

Considering Ferguson’s laughable failures in other predictions before, people are wondering why anyone still takes this man seriously. That is a fair question to ask.

But consider an alternate theory. Let’s suppose these doomsday scenarios were cooked up on purpose. Perhaps this modelling INTENTIONALLY led to overhyped conclusions and estimates. It wasn’t incompetence, but deliberate.

Why would someone do this? To answer this, think about where Imperial College London gets a good amount of its financing from. There are many vested interests who would stand to make a fortune if countries around the world were desperate for a vaccine. In this scenario, Ferguson’s modelling should not be taken as research, but as a calculated effort at propaganda.

Disclaimer: I don’t have any hard evidence to support such a theory. However, it is interesting that Ferguson’s work is financed by people who would greatly benefit from him reaching a doomsday conclusion. It’s reasonable to assume he would become more cautious after his repeated failure, but he hasn’t.

3. Gates Grants To Imperial College London

This chart was compiled from information posted on the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation website. The following grants are just those provided to Imperial College London. Note: it seems that computer modelling is just one small part of what they do.

DATE AMOUNT PURPOSE
June 2002 $31,928,231 Schistosomiasis Control
July 2002 $30,000,000 HIV Prevention
Jan 2003 $200,000,000 AIDS, Malaria, Other Diseases
July 2005 $12,501,971 Tuberculosis
Oct 2005 $8,636,543 Test CD4+, T-lymphnodes
Nov 2005 $8,600,000 AIDS Testing
June 2006 $9,185,813 Novel Recombinant Adenovirus
Oct 2006 $9,826,566 Health Package in Dev. World
Dec 2006 $46,700,000 Neglected Tropical Diseases
Sept 2007 $3,565,073 Neglected Tropical Dis.
Oct 2007 $47,616 STD, Infections
Oct 2008 $100,000 Prevent TB Replication
Oct 2008 $7,344,583 HIV/AIDS Research
Feb 2009 $7,300,000 HIV/AIDS Research
Feb 2009 $871,544 Collab W/Euro Partners
Sept 2009 $16,529,688 Feeding Prog in Africa
Oct 2009 $100,000 “Homing Factors” As Vax Adjuvants
Oct 2009 $100,000 Enzymes, Malaria Parasites
Nov 2009 $1,200,000 Nutrition Research
Sept 2010 $2,692,835 Euro Agri Development
Oct 2010 $3,044,244 HIV Computer Modelling***
Oct 2010 $1,648,585 Neglected Tropical Disease
Nov 2010 2.7M (pounds) Agricultural Research
Dec 2010 $1,500,000 Disease From Livestock
Apr 2011 $100,000 Polio Vaccine, India
Oct 2011 $100,000 Self-Replicating Biosensor
Oct 2011 $2,724,038 Malaria Blocker Research
May 2012 $3,018,257 Oral Polio Vaccine
Oct 2012 $3,589,972 Malaria Computer Models***
Oct 2012 $1,132,773 HIV, Hormone Contraceptives
June 2013 $5,194,767 HIV, Intervention, Planning
June 2013 $1,397,325 Merger, Computer Modelling***
oct 2013 $1,894,953 Advocacy, EU Donors
Oct 2013 $648,060 Product Development, Misc.
Nov 2013 $772,341 Polio Computer Modelling***
Nov 2013 $2,054,944 DNA Vaccine, HIV
Nov 2013 $582,541 TB Computer Modelling***
Nov 2013 $2,743,052 Health Care Consulting
Sept 2014 $74,433 Information Dissemination
Oct 2014 $36,752 Vaxx Research Meetings
Oct 2014 $98,934 Cell Phones, Meals
Oct 2014 $181,868 Cost Estimates, Vaccines
Apr 2015 $100,000 Meals Or Shoes For Vaxx
May 2015 $249,549 Optical Imaging, Gut Lesions
July 2015 $1,271,423 HIV/AIDS Testing
Nov 2015 $180,000 Child Health, Africa
Dec 2015 $15,558,425 Global Health Care
Apr 2016 $100,000 Vaxx for HIV, mucosal
May 2016 $37,468,960 Stop Malaria Transmission
Nov 2016 $100,000 Malaria Tracing Modelling***
Nov 2016 $5,625,310 Vaxx Computer Modelling***
Nov 2016 $3,752,342 Mosquito Tampering
Nov 2017 $736,222 Malaria Tracking
May 2018 $1,320,030 HIV Prevention
Sept 2018 $505,207 HIV/Reprod Modelling***
Sept 2018 $292,318 Mosquito Sporozoites
Nov 2018 $326,707 TB Computer Modelling***
May 2019 $100,000 Crop Viruses
July 2019 $11,300 Attend Mosquito Summit
Nov 2019 $959,389 Typhoid Surveillance
Mar 2020 $79,006,570 Malaria Control, Africa
May 2020 $52,180 Testing Gene Drives
May 2020 $2,699,443 Degradable Contraceptive Implant
June 2020 $3,375,098 Population Replacement In Genes

As for just the funds directly provided to Imperial College London for computer modelling, these are the donations listed on the site.

DATE AMOUNT PURPOSE
Oct 2010 $3,044,244 HIV Computer Modelling***
Oct 2012 $3,589,972 Malaria Computer Models***
June 2013 $1,397,325 Merger, Computer Modelling***
Nov 2013 $772,341 Polio Computer Modelling***
Nov 2013 $582,541 TB Computer Modelling***
Nov 2016 $100,000 Malaria Tracing Modelling***
Nov 2016 $5,625,310 Vaxx Computer Modelling***
Sept 2018 $505,207 HIV/Reprod Modelling***
Nov 2018 $326,707 TB Computer Modelling***

Yes, the Gates Foundation directly finances a lot of the computer modelling that Imperial College London is involved with. Some $16 million or so directly granted for these computer models.

But do these doomsday models actually work? Are they supposed to? Perhaps not. After all, if they predicted that there weren’t deadly pandemic, then there would be no need to develop a vaccine.

4. From Gates Foundation Tax Records, ICL

BILL & MELINDA GATES FOUNDATION
EIN: 56-2618866
gates.foundation.taxes.2016
gates.foundation.taxes.2017
gates.foundation.taxes.2018

Don’t worry. It’s not like this is any major conflict of interest, or anything like that.

5. Imperial College London Admits Grants

Even a quick look of the website for Imperial College London will show many grants from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

6. GAVI Funded By Gates Foundation

This is probably the most well known link in the chain. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation helped found GAVI, the Global Vaccine Alliance in 1999, and has made regular contributions to it. The foundation essentially runs the show.

The Global Vaccine Alliance, as the name suggests, is an organization devoted to pushing vaccinations on the public all across the world. Bill Gates has long been a proponent of mass vaccinations.

One of (but certainly not the only) lobbyist for the vaccine agenda is a firm called Crestview Strategy. They lobbied the Federal Government on behalf of GAVI, on 20 separate occasions. See Part 4 in the series.

7. Gates/GAVI Issuing Vaccine Bonds

(Information on what the International Finance Facility for Immunization, or IFFIm, really is and does)

This was covered in Part 18 of the series. Vaccine bonds are now a real thing, and GAVI is involved in running the operation. Of course, the bonds market would completely dry up if there weren’t a pandemic to deal with. Pretty convenient.

8. Gates Influence In Pharma Industry

BILL & MELINDA GATES FOUNDATION
EIN: 56-2618866
gates.foundation.taxes.2016
gates.foundation.taxes.2017
gates.foundation.taxes.2018

BILL & MELINDA GATES FOUNDATION TRUST
EIN: 91-1663695
gates.foundation.trust.taxes.2018

Company Type Of Stock Shares Total Value
Eli Lilly Corp Bonds – $952,265
Gilead Sciences Common 21,250 $1,329,188
Gilead Sciences Corp Bonds – $3,297,777
Laobaixing Pharma Common 831,829 $5,719,831
Merck Common 27,200 $2,078,352
Novartis Common 70,330 $5,995,662
Pfizer Common 39,500 $1,724,175
Roche Common 37,881 $9,353,059
Sichuan Kelun Common 2,818,448 8,480,098
Sinopharm Common 394,080 $1,655,978
Tasly Pharma Common 8,114,941 $22,693,515
Teva Fin BV Corp Bonds – $819,555
Teva Fin IV Corp Bonds – $9,465
Teva Pharma NE Corp Bonds – $1,106,435

While this is by no means an exhaustive list, the point is clear. See Part 21 in the series. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Trust (which is separate from the Foundation), owns stocks and bonds in many pharmaceutical companies that are pushing the Federal Government for money to develop a vaccine.

9. Gates Funding WHO & CDC

It’s pretty well known at this point that the World Health Organization and Center for Disease Control in the U.S. both are heavily funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Consequently, they toe the line that coronavirus is a deadly pandemic, and that vaccines are necessary.

10. Immunization 2030, ID2020

This was addressed in Part 3. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is heavily involved in both ID2020 and Immunization Agenda 2030. The Foundation also supports some version of a “vaccine certification” which would be needed to go about life in the new normal.

Of course, advancing these agendas depends on there being a pandemic (or perceived pandemic). Good thing Ferguson was so completely off in his computer modelling. Make no mistake, it’s not only helpful that the death rates be inflated, but essential that they are.

11. Models Supposed To Be Wrong?

Ferguson was behind the disputed research that sparked the mass culling of eleven million sheep and cattle during the 2001 outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. Charlotte Reid, a farmer’s neighbor, recalls: “I remember that appalling time. Sheep were left starving in fields near us. Then came the open air slaughter. The poor animals were panic stricken. It was one of the worst things I’ve witnessed. And all based on a model — if’s but’s and maybe’s.”

In 2002, Ferguson predicted that, by 2080, up to 150,000 people could die from exposure to BSE (mad cow disease) in beef. In the U.K., there were only 177 deaths from BSE.

In 2005, Ferguson predicted that up to 150 million people could be killed from bird flu. In the end, only 282 people died worldwide from the disease between 2003 and 2009.

In 2009, a government estimate, based on Ferguson’s advice, said a “reasonable worst-case scenario” was that the swine flu would lead to 65,000 British deaths. In the end, swine flu killed 457 people in the U.K.

Last March, Ferguson admitted that his Imperial College model of the COVID-19 disease was based on undocumented, 13-year-old computer code that was intended to be used for a feared influenza pandemic, rather than a coronavirus. Ferguson declined to release his original code so other scientists could check his results. He only released a heavily revised set of code last week, after a six-week delay.

Could it be that Ferguson is truly incompetent, and has no clue what he is doing? Or, are his predictions exaggerated on purpose? There’s no reason to take him or his models seriously, yet governments still do.

While this all sounds like an absurd conspiracy theory, consider what else is going on. Would there be a growing vaccine bonds industry without this so-called pandemic? Would it be easy to get the public on board with implanting a vaccine certificate, or pushing Immunization 2030? How else could one get the public on board with making mask wearing seem normal?

It is possible that there is nothing malevolent here, and that Ferguson is just a serial screwup. But it’s undeniable that these screwups help advance other parts of the agenda.

Nothing is as it seems.
Question everything.

*Disclaimers, Ethics* Proudly powered by WordPress