Ronnie – Page 73 – Canuck Law

October 5, 2021January 5, 2026

Bill C-11: Parliamentary Hearing On Facial Recognition Technology (May 10, 2021)

This was from a May 10, 2021 Parliamentary Committee Meeting on Bill C-11, and facial recognition. In some sense this hearing is academic, as Parliament was was dissolved over the summer. Nevertheless, it’s entirely possible that it will be brought back once the new session starts.

Also, as this so-called “pandemic” drags on, and resistance builds, will facial recognition become the norm at protests? Will this be a way to identify and target peaceful demonstrators?

Another point: while law enforcement or Canadian intelligence may be barred from using this facial recognition, will they simply outsource it to private companies? A possible argument would be that the police aren’t actually violating privacy laws, but just taking advantage of others that do.

THE WORLD’S LARGEST FACIAL NETWORK
Clearview AI provides law enforcement agencies with greater insight and lead generation through the use of our investigative platform. Our platform includes the largest known database of 10+ billion facial images sourced from public-only web sources, including news media, mugshot websites, public social media, and many other open sources.
.
Agencies that use our platform can expect to receive high-quality leads with fewer resources expended. These leads, when supported by other evidence, can help accurately and rapidly identify suspects, persons of interest, and victims to help solve and prevent crimes.

HOW DOES CLEARVIEW AI’S FACIAL SEARCH TECHNOLOGY WORK?
Clearview AI provides law enforcement agencies with investigative opportunities through the use of our research tool. Our platform includes the largest known database of 10+ billion facial images sourced from public-only web sources, including news media, mugshot websites, public social media, and many other open sources.

Clearview is called out by name in the House of Commons meeting. It’s quite interesting. Remember those pictures with your college buddies from 10-15 years ago on Facebook? Guess what, those may have been copied, real names attached, and used as reference points in the near future.

Of course, some private companies have already been using this type of technology for years. It’s not exactly revolutionary at this point. Last October, the story about Cadillac Fairview using this without people’s knowledge or consent in Ontario was broken

Anyhow, this story will need to be followed up on. In the meantime, it’s pretty chilling to see how accepting and tolerant public officials have become about its use.

(1) https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/43-2/ETHI/meeting-34/evidence
(2) May 10 Facial Recognition Parliamentary Hearing
(3) https://parlvu.parl.gc.ca/Harmony/en/PowerBrowser/PowerBrowserV2/20210510/-1/35421?Language=English&Stream=Video
(4) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/432/ETHI/Evidence/EV11321905/ETHIEV34-E.PDF
(5) https://www.clearview.ai
(6) https://www.clearview.ai/law-enforcement
(7) https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2020/10/29/cadillac-fairview-broke-privacy-laws-by-using-facial-recognition-technology-at-malls-investigators-conclude.html

October 4, 2021October 4, 2021

Canadian Pharmacists Association: Campaigning At Taxpayer Expense To Grow Big Drug Industry

The Canadian Pharmacists Association has received money from the CEWS Program, which is the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy. Now, it doesn’t say how much, but that information is available elsewhere. According to the Federal Lobbying Registry, the CPA has received $191,387.49 from the Canada Revenue Agency. This group is expected to receive more in 2021. Now, as most people know, the CEWS is run by the CRA, so it’s fair to assume that the bulk (or all) or it is from CEWS.

Now, another group getting taxpayer subsidies is hardly news worthy. That being said, what the CPA is pushing for is definitely worth talking about.

Subject Matter Details
Legislative Proposal, Bill or Resolution
-CONTROLLED DRUGS AND SUBSTANCES ACT: Amending the CDSA to add pharmacists as practitioners (Opioids)
-Pre-budget consultation: Federal investments to improve the health care system and the health of Canadians
Legislative Proposal, Bill or Resolution, Regulation

The Cannabis Act, with respect to the medical cannabis regime and the role of pharmacists in dispensing and managing medical cannabis.

Policies or Program
-Distribution and administration of COVID-19 vaccinations
-Health Canada — Emergency Preparedness/Pandemic Planning with respect to implications for the practice of pharmacy
-Health Canada — Error reporting by community pharmacy into the the Canadian Medication Incident Reporting and Prevention System (CMIRPS)
-Health Canada — First Nations and Inuit Health – Non-Insured Health Benefits program (NIHB) with respect to implications for the practice of pharmacy
-Health Canada — Foreign Credential recognition Program, Health Canada Health Human Resources (HHR) Strategy – working with the department to understand the entry of foreign-trained pharmacists to Canada
-Health Canada — Post-market surveillance of pharmaceutical products with respect to implications for the practice of pharmacy
-Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, Finance Canada, Health Canada – Prescription drug cost containment strategies with respect to implications for the practice of pharmacy
-Supports and resources for pharmacists and health care practitioners in response to COVID-19.
-The implementation of pharmacare in Canada, with respect to the practice of pharmacy and the role of pharmacists in pharmacare

Policies or Program, Regulation
-Health Canada — Working with Health Canada to implement measures to respond to national drug shortages, and responding to US proposals on importation
-Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, Finance Canada, Health Canada — E-health / electronic health records policy with respect to implications for the practice of pharmacy

Regulation
-Health Canada – COVID-19 and the role of pharmacists in administering COVID-19 vaccinations
-Health Canada – Influenza vaccination and the role of pharmacists in administering flu vaccines in 2020

Something few know about, the CPA has long been a proponent of medical marijuana, and has also supported its legalization. The reasoning is simple: weed is a commodity from which money can be made.

A noteworthy item is that the CPA is pushing to make it easier to bring foreign trained pharmacists to Canada. Like with most professions, if you increase the supply, it ultimately drives down wages. And it’s not like have an abundance of university graduates who struggle to find well paid work.

For reference, here is what the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act currently says. It also explicitly defines a “practitioner” for the purpose of being exempt from punishment.

practitioner means a person who is registered and entitled under the laws of a province to practise in that province the profession of medicine, dentistry or veterinary medicine, and includes any other person or class of persons prescribed as a practitioner; (praticien)

If the CPA were to get its way, pharmacists would be able to prescribe, or at least renew prescriptions for things like opiods.

Back in August, the CPA sent out a media release that some 2,000 pharmacies were ready to provide rapid testing kits in various Provinces across Canada. Now, was this done with public safety in mind, or were they simply trying to push a very profitable product onto the market?

The CPA also weighed in on the recent Federal election. Presumably, they support electing candidates who will promise some or all of the following:

COVID testing: Creating a national testing strategy in parallel with Canada’s vaccine program that will provide Canadians with broad access to at-home rapid COVID-19 tests.
Opioids: Amending federal regulations to enable pharmacists to provide safe opioid-related care to patients by making the CDSA exemptions permanent and enhancing access to safe supply.
Indigenous health: Improving access to key health services through the Non-Insured Health Benefits (NIHB) program.
Pharmacare: Implementing a universal national pharmacare plan that features a blend of public and private plans.
Drug shortages: Addressing drug shortages by reducing the frequency of shortages and supporting health professionals in managing those that do occur.

Yeah, there’s no conflict of interest here at all.

Also, the CPA has spoken out about Ivermectin. They claim lack of proof that it works, and risks of side effects. Strangely, there seemed to be no objections over vaccines, and over the same issues. Now, there is also no proof this “virus” exists, but that has been covered elsewhere.

The CPA claims to have thousands of sponsors and industry partners, but doesn’t seem to actually name them. However, we can probably guess a lot of the names.

If one wants to be a “Gold Sponsor”, all it costs is $10,000. Seems pretty cheap, doesn’t it. As for the politicians that they gain access to (in Ottawa), this is quite the list.

Anyhow, this is what we have: a trade association lobbying for laws to grow their market. At the same time, the taxpayers are footing the bill to keep the lights on for them. One would think that Pfizer, Moderna or AstraZeneca would be able to fund that.

(1) https://apps.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/hacc/cews/srch/pub/bscSrch
(2) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=2&regId=914369
(3) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-38.8/fulltext.html
(4) https://www.pharmacists.ca/
(5) https://www.pharmacists.ca/news-events/news/more-than-2000-pharmacies-ready-to-provide-rapid-covid-19-tests-to-small-and-medium-employers-in-alberta-saskatchewan-manitoba-and-ontario/
(6) https://www.pharmacists.ca/industry-partners/sponsorships-affiliates/
(7) https://www.pharmacists.ca/industry-partners/
(8) CPA Lobbying In Ottawa

OTHER LOBBYING BY BIG PHARMA IN CANADA

October 2, 2021October 2, 2021

Kory Teneycke, Rubicon Strategy, And The Puppets That Are Ford, Kenney & Harper

Ever get the impression that all of the politicians belong to the same groups? Well, they do. They don’t even try to pretend anymore. If you want something done in government, your best bet is to write a cheque to the most connected lobbyists you can find.

This time, we will look at Kory Teneycke, and his lobbying firm, Rubicon Strategy. The article doesn’t really need much in the way of commentary. Their own profiles list the “leaders” whose strings they pull.

Our digital campaigns have elected Premiers in Ontario and Alberta. When you need to win online, we are ready. Whether it’s shaping public opinion, building blazing fast websites, or converting prospects into customers, we get the job done.

This is a quote directly from the Rubicon website. The Premiers they reference are most likely Jason Kenney (Alberta), and Doug Ford (Ontario). Of course, one has to ask what favours are expected from people like Ford and Kenney in return for taking power. Dance, puppets! Dance!

Kory Teneycke
Co-founder and CEO
If you’re in a tough fight, Kory is the guy you want on your side.
.
With two decades in public affairs, Kory has served as the Director of Communications to the Prime Minister of Canada, managed the cable news channel “Sun News”, and served as Executive Director of the Renewable Fuels Association. Kory was the manager of the 2018 campaign that saw Doug Ford become Premier of Ontario, and is now on a leave of absence to manage the 2022 campaign for the Ontario PC Party.

Jan O’Driscoll
Senior Vice President
When the game is on the line, you want Jan on your side.
.
With years of experience leading tactical communications and tough policy files, Jan is a straight shooter that gets the job done. He’s held senior leadership roles in the private sector as well as with several federal cabinet ministers in Harper’s government. Most recently, Jan served as Chief of Staff in several key ministries in Premier Ford’s government where he drove transformational initiatives to get wins for the people of Ontario.

Sarah Letersky
Vice President
Sarah knows government decision making.
.
As a war room operative she helped elect Doug Ford as Premier of Ontario. As a Chief of Staff in Premier Ford’s government, Sarah built an impressive network of peers, and successfully managed communications on a number of contentious files. If you need something at Queen’s Park, Sarah knows who to talk to and how to get it done.

Emrys Graefe
Vice President, Digital
Emrys is one of Canada’s foremost digital campaign strategy experts.
.
Obsessed with improving online performance, Emrys headed the digital campaign that made Doug Ford leader of the Ontario PC Party. His digital campaigns then won majority governments for the Ontario PCs in 2018 and Alberta’s United Conservative Party in 2019. In 2009 he started his career in federal politics inside Stephen Harper’s government, eventually becoming the Deputy Director of Political Operations of the Conservative Party of Canada. Emrys is an expert at influencing and leveraging public opinion.

Stephanie Delorme
Director of Operations
Stephanie is a strategic thinker and problem solver.
.
With extensive experience in the private and public sectors, in think tanks and politics, Stephanie’s range of experience gives her an innate understanding of a range of policy issues and creative approaches to solving them. Stephanie has worked in federal politics in the Opposition Leader’s office, on the provincial campaign in Ontario seeing Doug Ford elected as Premier, and in local politics in Ottawa.

Cole Hogan
Director of Creative
Others make content. Cole makes art.
.
Having played a leading role in the merging of Alberta’s Wildrose and Progressive Conservative parties, Cole is a highly talented communications professional. Cole is responsible for some of the most innovative advertisements seen in Canadian politics and played a key role in electing Doug Ford as Premier of Ontario and Jason Kenney as Premier of Alberta.

Christine Simundson
Senior Consultant
Christine wins campaigns.
.
Christine’s experience in the legal profession coupled with her experience in marketing and promotions gives her an edge when it comes to grassroots activism. Before joining Rubicon, Christine was active in the Ontario PC Party War Room during the 2018 Provincial election. Christine’s guidance elected 17 of the PC MPPs in Peel Region, Halton, Toronto and Northern Ontario. Christine was the PC Party Organizer for Peel Region and played a senior role in organizing the PC Leadership race of 2018.

Of course, have a read through the site to take it all in. Pretty sickening when corruption and cronyism is marketed as being “effective” in these roles.

And no, this isn’t being used to exclusively bash the conservatives. Here are 2 people from Rubicon who served in the Ontario Government when it was run by Kathleen Wynne and Dalton McGuinty. Another was involved with both the Federal and New Brunswick Liberals.

Very interesting. Another operative for Rubicon was Maxime Bernier’s old campaign manager when he ran for the leadership of the Conservative Party of Canada in 2016/2017. Anyhow, the rampant ties shouldn’t surprise anyone at this point, as all parties have dirty hands.

Now, looking briefly at the Ontario Lobbying Registry:

Of course, this is just what’s on file in Ontario. Pretty obvious that they are involved in promoting big pharma and vaccinations.

As for Innovative Medicines Canada, it has quite the member list, including a lot of common names. It describes itself as “the national association representing the voice of Canada’s innovative pharmaceutical industry”. Thank you Karen for clarifying this in the comments.

I.M.C. states that it works “with governments, insurance companies, healthcare professionals and stakeholders to advance the field and enhance the wellbeing of Canadians. We are committed to being valued partners in Canada’s healthcare system.” It also claims to “form effective alliances, support policies…” to widen access to medicines across Canada.

The Vice-Chair is Cole Pinnow, of Pfizer Canada, who has been very busy lobbying both Federally and across Provinces. The Treasurer is a representative from Gilead.

Everywhere one looks, there are more and more connections between big pharma, and the political class who pushes for policies to promote this. Actual science, medicine, and honest discourse seems to fall by the wayside. Check this article from Real Reason for more information.

Of course, all of this is only what’s on paper. There is likely a lot that goes on behind the scenes.

It’s curious that Rubicon also pushes its ties to the defense industry. Really makes one wonder why Federal Conservatives claim that much more military spending is needed. Are they really concerned about the troops, or is this about generating more business for their handlers?

No, this isn’t just one rogue person, or one rogue firm that behaves like this. Conflicts of interest between politics and business are rampant. Below are some of the examples previously covered on this site. Take the plunge, if you dare.

Also consider: Rubicon, like other firms, has operatives in multiple parties in the same area. For specific examples: the firm has ties to the Ontario Liberals and Conservatives, as well as the Federal Liberals and Conservatives. Doesn’t really matter who wins the election.

September 30, 2021

Indemnified Manufacturers: Adam v. GlaxoSmithKline Inc., 2019 ONSC 7066 (CanLII)

This will be a short article, and briefly cover one case: Adam v. GlaxoSmithKline Inc., 2019 ONSC 7066 (CanLII). It dealt with a lawsuit against drug maker, GlaxoSmithKline, and whether they were liable for their products. The point is that the ruling very closely parallels what’s happening now.

To sum it up: no one is responsible for maiming or killing people with experimental drugs. The buck gets passed and passed, so no one has to face it.

Of course, this is of no comfort to people who have lost loved ones. It’s sickening to see that the rules are stacked against the average person.

[17] In the summer of 2009, the WHO called for manufacturers to begin clinical trials for a vaccine to combat H1N1.

[18] GSK developed two vaccines to combat H1N1: Arepanrix and Pandemrix. Both are substantially similar. Pandemrix was manufactured and distributed in Europe. Arepanrix was manufactured and distributed in Canada. Clinical trials for Arepanrix began in 2008 but had not been completed when the pandemic was declared.

[19] The federal Minister of Health authorized the sale of the Arepanrix vaccine pursuant to an interim order dated October 13, 2009. Human trials of the vaccine were still underway. The Minister of Health is empowered to make interim orders if immediate action is required because of a danger to health, safety or the environment. In issuing the interim order, Health Canada deemed the risk profile of Arepanrix to be favourable for an interim order. The authorization was based on the risk caused by the current pandemic threat and its danger to human health. As part of the interim order process, Health Canada agreed to indemnify GSK for any claims brought against it in relation to the administration of the Arepanrix vaccine.

[20] Although human trials of Arepanrix were not finished by the time Health Canada authorized its use, the vaccine was not without clinical history.

The point of this: GlaxoSmithKline was indemnified from any liabilities that their “interim authorized” vaccines might have led to. Guess they don’t really stand behind their work. Does any of this sound familiar?

Does the lack of transparency also sound familiar?

[35] The plaintiffs began their challenge about disclosure with the evidence of Ms. Hyacenth who testified that she was not told that: (i) the vaccine had not been tested through the usual route, (ii) the vaccine had been subject to a hastened approval process by Health Canada, (iii) adjuvants had never been used in children, (iv) the Government of Canada was indemnifying the vaccine manufacturer; and (v) some countries refused to make the vaccine available because of safety concerns. Ms. Hyacenth says that had she been told about these things she would not have risked having her children vaccinated.

[36] Part of the challenge of the plaintiffs’ inadequate disclosure case is that Ms. Hyacenth was not the direct purchaser of the vaccine. Vaccines are administered through a “learned intermediary,” in this case, her family physician. The issue is significant because any disclosures GSK makes are made in product monographs or inserts that accompany each vial of vaccine. The patient getting the vaccine does not receive the box containing the vaccine and whatever disclosure document it contains. It is the physician who receives this.

[37] GSK did disclose in its Product Information Leaflet for the Arepanrix vaccine and in its product monograph that Health Canada had authorized the sale of the vaccine based on only limited clinical testing and no clinical experience at all with children. Dr. Ledesma-Cadhit believes she knew this from the Health Canada website. She was also aware that Arepanrix was authorized through a special process because of the pandemic.

[38] The product monograph for Arepanrix disclosed that there was limited clinical experience with an investigational formulation of another adjuvanted vaccine but no clinical experience with children. In addition, the product information leaflet and product monograph disclosed a number of risks.

[39] Ms. Hyacenth says that Dr. Ledesma-Cadhit did not advise her of these risks. Although Dr. Ledesma-Cadhit was originally a defendant in the action, the plaintiffs released her from the action after being unable to find an expert who would opine that Dr. Ledesma-Cadhit breached her standard of care in administering the vaccine.

It gets interesting since there is in fact no agreement between the drug manufacturer and the patient. By this logic, GlaxoSmithKline wouldn’t be liable even without the indemnification agreement.

Even worse, the “learned intermediary”, the physician, isn’t really responsible either, since they were just following the advice of Health Canada. Remember, it doesn’t matter what your doctors are saying, because they are not responsible for whatever happens to you.

As for Government Officials (such as the Health Minister), they aren’t responsible either. As long as they claim these decisions are made for the good of society, they are pretty much untouchable as well.

Read the entire decision. The case is enlightening, for a few different reasons. If you think you have recourse if a loved one dies or gets seriously injured, think again.

(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2019/2019onsc7066/2019onsc7066.html
(2) Adam V GlaxoSmithKline 2019 ONSC 7066

September 29, 2021January 5, 2026

Coalition For Content Provenance And Authenticity (C2PA), Project Origin, Content Authenticity Initiative

The “Content Authenticity Initiative” claims to be setting the standard for digital content attribution. There are a few groups that seem to be working together to promote this. The CAI …. sounds a bit like CIA, doesn’t it?

The major goals involve being able to instantly and accurately trace a piece of media to its source. Photographs, images, videos, words, and other elements are to be encoded, and be able to get tracked. Welcome to Project Origin.

While this is sold as some sort of trust in media, there is another, more disturbing way to look at things. Will this not also directly connect people to things that are shared online? Won’t it mean the end to anonymous sharing of important information? Will it now become easier to track people for their thoughtcrimes?

1.2 Background At Adobe MAX 2019, the Content Authenticity Initiative (CAI) was announced by Adobe in partnership with The New York Times Company and Twitter. Since that time, this group has collaborated with a wide set of representatives from commercial organizations (software tools, publishers, social media), human rights organizations and academic research to produce this paper and the approach it describes.

5.1.3 Establishing Trust One key component in establishing trust in the CAI system comes from the entities whose certificates are used for signing the claim. To ensure that only assets signed by trusted actors can be considered properly attributed, it is necessary to create a list of trusted certificates or their certification authorities (CAs). Similar to the EU Trust List, the Adobe Approved Trust List, and similar lists used by web browsers and operating systems, the members of the CAI will establish their own Trust List of certificates that can be used to sign claims. Details on the governance of the Trust List is outside the scope of this paper. In many cases, the holder of the certificate will not the individual who created (or edited) an asset, but instead will be the entity responsible for the hardware or software that they used. The signing certificate belongs to the actor (e.g. Truepic Camera, Adobe Photoshop, BBC, etc.) that performed the actions on behalf of someone else. This model allows CAI to provide anonymity (and/or pseudonymity) where desired. For scenarios where the certificate holder is able to reliably establish the identity of the individual, and the individual wishes their identity associated with an asset, an identity assertion is used.

5.1.4 Identity One of the assertion types that can be present in a claim is Identity. This digital identity (also sometimes referred to as a Subject or an Entity) is present when an individual (or organization) is making a clear statement about their association with this claim. Digital identity fundamentally requires digital identifiers — strings or tokens that are unique within a given scope (globally or locally within a specific domain, community, directory, application, etc.). In order to support a variety of use cases, including those where identity might be anonymous or pseudonymous, it is important that various schemes for the identifiers are available for use. Fortunately, most common identity formats such as Decentralized Identifiers-DID, WebIDs, OpenID, ORCiD and others are all based on URIs. This enables an identity assertion to be expressed in the standard format described in RFC 3986.

5.1.6 Redaction of Assertions: In many workflows, there is a need for assertions to be removed by subsequent processes, either because publishing the assertion would be problematic (e.g. the identity of the person who captured a video) or the assertion is no longer valid (e.g. an earlier thumbnail showing something that has since been cropped out). The CAI allows for the redaction of these assertions in a verifiable way that is also part of the provenance of the asset. In the process of redacting an assertion, a record that something was removed is added to the claim. Because each assertion’s reference includes the assertion type, it is clear what type of information (eg. thumbnail, location, etc.) was removed. This enables both humans and machines to apply rules to determine if the removal is acceptable. NOTE: Assertion redacted only applies to assertions that are part of the CAI data. It does not have anything to do with removal of other metadata (XMP, EXIF, etc.).

9 Conclusion: The collaborators on this paper have explored the challenges of inauthentic media through problem definition, system design and use case research. The results of the exploration are expressed in the design of the CAI provenance system. To achieve widespread adoption we have based the design on existing standards and established techniques, and acknowledge that the system will need to include simple and intuitive user experiences. However, even an optimally designed system cannot ultimately succeed in a vacuum. We now begin the important work of deeper, more expansive collaboration with leaders in technology, media, academia, advocacy and other disciplines. With this first step towards an industry standard for digital content attribution, we look optimistically to a future with more trust and transparency in media.

The CAI white paper is certainly worth a read.

Microsoft and the BBC explain Project Origin in their own words. It all sounds so harmless, doesn’t it? It’s all about ensuring that people can trust what they observe in the media is accurate and reliable. Who could possibly disagree with that?

This “coalition” claims to be interested in being able to authenticate media images, videos, and bits of data to identify where it came from. If one was to work in a a vacuum, this sounds completely reasonable and well intentioned.

However, what all too often gets left out of the equation is the rampant corruption, collusion, and financial interests pushing certain narratives. Authenticating photos, while ignoring the bias and fake narratives leaves out the bigger picture. No way is this done by accident.

Have a look through some of the articles at the bottom. These are the bigger issues that so often get (unsurprisingly) ignored. Hard to have an independent media when they are all on the public dole. Even harder when political operatives work within many of them.

But hey, things like a global vaccine passport, are just crazy conspiracy theories, right? Just like the Vaccine Credential Initiative, or the ID2020 Project.

IMPORTANT LINKS:
(1) https://c2pa.org/
(2) https://c2pa.org/about/charter/
(3) https://contentauthenticity.org/
(4) https://www.originproject.info/
(5) https://c2pa.org/about/resources/
(6) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_W3Om9Xbj2k
(7) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdTTl-C4PTM
(8) Content Authenticity Initiative WhitePaper

September 24, 2021October 24, 2021

More FOI Requests From Nova Scotia, Trying To Get Answers On This “Pandemic”

Our friend in Nova Scotia is back at it again, digging up dirt and information about the tyranny of Robert Strang. Here are some of the latest finds. Previously, there was the hospitalization scam debunked, and the lack of data for masks in schools.

For a nearly 2,000 page compilation of documents (although a lot is redacted), have a good read through this file. Unfortunately, due to a variety of reasons (such as privilege or public policy), a lot is not disclosed.

Included in the disclosure is this little gem from CADTH and Health Canada. Worth a read.

Looking below at some of these definitions, these are identical to what is released by the World Health Organization. See page 3. Additionally, their “case definition” is certainly worth a look. This is Orwellian Newspeak, with very misleading usage. Also worth noting, if the vaccine kills you, but does so in under 14 days, you are considered “unvaccinated”.

Deceased case
 A probable or confirmed COVID-19 case whose death resulted from a clinically compatible illness, unless there is a clear alternative cause of death identified (e.g., trauma, poisoning, drug overdose).
 A Medical Officer of Health, relevant public health authority, or coroner may use their discretion when determining if a death was due to COVID-19, and their judgement will supersede the above-mentioned criteria.
 A death due to COVID-19 may be attributed when COVID-19 is the cause of death or is a contributing factor.

Confirmed case
A person with confirmation of infection with SARS-CoV-2 documented by:
 The detection of at least 1 specific gene target by a validated laboratory-based nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) assay (e.g. real-time PCR or nucleic acid sequencing) performed at a community, hospital, or reference laboratory (the National Microbiology Laboratory or a provincial public health laboratory)
or
 The detection of at least 1 specific gene target by a validated point-of-care (POC) NAAT that has been deemed acceptable to provide a final result (i.e. does not require confirmatory testing)
or
 Seroconversion or diagnostic rise (at least 4-fold or greater from baseline) in viral specific antibody titre in serum or plasma using a validated laboratory-based serological assay for SARSCoV-2

Notice that at no time do they ever say that they are testing for a virus.

According to other definitions:
Unvaccinated: Individuals meeting the national confirmed case definition of COVID-19 and having illness onset:
<14 days post first dose of any COVID-19 vaccine
After having received 0 doses of any COVID-19 vaccine
Partially vaccinated: Individuals meeting the national confirmed case definition of COVID-19 and have illness
onset:
≥14 days post first dose of any COVID-19 vaccine or <14 days post second dose of any COVID-19 vaccine Fully vaccinated: Individuals meeting the national confirmed case definition of COVID-19 and have illness onset: ≥14 days post second dose of any COVID-19 vaccine

Anyhow, thank you to the committed people who try to bring out the truth. Your work is sincerely appreciated, even by the silent masses. What’s disturbing is just how little truth is shared by our “leaders”.

If you think this issue is limited to Nova Scotia, please check out Ontario and Alberta.

And while you’re at it, go visit Fluoride Free Peel. This deadly virus has never been isolated, anywhere in the world. The narrative is built entirely on lies.

(1) https://canucklaw.ca/nova-scotia-foi-response-tacitly-admits-there-is-no-wave-of-hospitalizations/
(2) https://canucklaw.ca/nova-scotia-foi-result-province-refuses-to-turn-over-data-studies-justifying-masks-in-schools/
(3) Nova Scotia Package Response Redacted
(4) CADTH Implementation Panel Jan 14 2021
(5) Nova Scotia FOI Document Dump_compressed
(6) https://www.who.int/classifications/icd/Guidelines_Cause_of_Death_COVID-19.pdf
(7) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/WHO-Case-Definition-Guidelines.pdf
(8) https://canucklaw.ca/1-year-later-media-silent-on-christine-elliotts-admission-deaths-with-covid-and-deaths-from-covid-conflated/
(9) https://canucklaw.ca/cv-43b-jason-kenney-shrugs-off-potential-90-error-rate-in-pcr-tests/
(10) https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/fois-reveal-that-health-science-institutions-around-the-world-have-no-record-of-sars-cov-2-isolation-purification/

Author: Ronnie

Bill C-11: Parliamentary Hearing On Facial Recognition Technology (May 10, 2021)

Like this:

Canadian Pharmacists Association: Campaigning At Taxpayer Expense To Grow Big Drug Industry

Like this:

Kory Teneycke, Rubicon Strategy, And The Puppets That Are Ford, Kenney & Harper

Our digital campaigns have elected Premiers in Ontario and Alberta. When you need to win online, we are ready. Whether it’s shaping public opinion, building blazing fast websites, or converting prospects into customers, we get the job done.

Like this:

Indemnified Manufacturers: Adam v. GlaxoSmithKline Inc., 2019 ONSC 7066 (CanLII)

Like this:

More FOI Requests From Nova Scotia, Trying To Get Answers On This “Pandemic”

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Our digital campaigns have elected Premiers in Ontario and Alberta. When you need to win online, we are ready. Whether it’s shaping public opinion, building blazing fast websites, or converting prospects into customers, we get the job done.

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this: