Canada Archives - Page 55 of 141

June 27, 2021March 17, 2022

More Pandemic Bucks For “Disinformation Prevention” Locally And Abroad; CIVIX

In addition to funding efforts to combat “misinformation” locally, Canadian taxpayers are apparently on the hook for efforts in the U.S., Colombia and Mali as well. Wonderful use of deficit spending.

RECENT GRANTS TO COMBAT “MISINFORMATION”:

NAME	DATE	AMOUNT
CIVIX	Feb. 23, 2021	$2,500,000
Dubois, Elizabeth	Mar. 22, 2021	$19,145
Elnakouri, Abdelrahman	Jan. 1, 2021	$10,000
Farokhi, Zeinab	Jan. 1, 2021	$10,000
Gagnon, Marc-Andre	Mar. 15, 2021	$20,000
Gauthier, Evelyne	Jan. 1, 2021	$10,000
Hassanein, Khaled S.	Mar. 15, 2021	$20,000
Hastings, Colin	Jan. 1, 2021	$10,000
Henderson, Monica J.	Jan. 1, 2021	$10,000
IFEX	Dec. 14, 2020	$799,704
Jagayat, Arvin S.	Jan. 1, 2021	$10,000
Levitin, Daniel J.	Jan. 1, 2021	$395,909
Merkley, Eric	Jan. 1, 2021	$10,000
Naffi, Nadia	Jan. 1, 2021	$99,081
Petrina, Stephen	Mar. 15, 2021	$20,000
Reed, Kathleen J.	Jan. 1, 2021	$10,000
Russell, Gillian M.	Jan. 1, 2021	$10,000
Search for Common Ground	Dec. 16, 2020	$2,573,553
Smythe, Suzanne K.M.	Jan. 1, 2021	$210,711
Stewart, Michelle	Jan. 1, 2021	$339,783
Tilleczek, Kate C.	Mar. 15, 2021	$20,000
United Nations Development Programme	Mar. 30, 2021	$5,000,197
WITNESS	Dec. 18, 2020	$1,000,197

Good to know that Canadians are forced to finance counter intelligence operations in other countries.

Locally, one of the biggest recipients of “misinformation prevention” grants is CIVIX. Now, who exactly is that?

CIVIX is a charity registered with the Canada Revenue Agency. This means that about half of the donations are a subsidy from taxpayers.

CIVIX Board Members

Francis LeBlanc – Chair, Former Executive Director, Canadian Association of Former Parliamentarians
Chris Wilkins – Past Chair, CEO, Edge Interactive
Robert Asselin, Senior Director, Public Policy, Blackberry
Megan Beretta, Policy Analyst, Canadian Digital Service
Rachel Curran, Public Policy Manager, Canada, Facebook
Peter Donolo, Vice-Chairman, Hill+Knowlton Strategies Canada
Dr. Elizabeth Dubois, Assistant Professor of Communication, University of Ottawa
Kathleen Monk, Principal, Earnscliffe Strategies

Peter Donolo is a longtime political operative with the Liberal Party of Canada. Rachel Curran spent years with the Conservative Party of Canada. Interesting.

CIVIX is a non-partisan, national registered charity dedicated to building the skills and habits of active and engaged citizenship among young Canadians. Our vision is a strong and inclusive democracy where all young people are ready, willing and able to participate.
.
CIVIX was born through a merger between Operation Dialogue and Student Vote – two non-partisan organizations with a significant history of engaging Canadian youth.
.
Student Vote was founded by Taylor Gunn and Lindsay Mazzucco in 2002 to develop the capacity for informed and engaged citizenship among young Canadians. Student Vote parallel elections were organized for students under the voting age coinciding with official elections.
.
Operation Dialogue was established by the late Warren Goldring of AGF Management in 1999 to promote good citizenship through information and dialogue with the goal of enhancing each individual Canadian’s appreciation of our country. Its flagship program was the annual ‘Talk About Canada Quiz,’ which encouraged young Canadians to be more informed about their country.
.
Operation Dialogue and Student Vote aligned their strengths and assets and worked together to achieve a larger vision. Following a collaborative approach during 2011-2012, the organizations formally merged operations in 2013 and created CIVIX.
.
Since 2013, CIVIX has continued to run the Student Vote program and has developed exciting new programs to reach students between elections.

While previously covered here, CIVIX is run by political hacks, who have bipartisan connections in Ottawa. This “counter-misinformation” group is anything but organic.

It’s also interesting the ETFO, the Elementary Teachers Federation of Ontario, and OSSTF, the Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation, are supporters. Do their members know about this?

One project that CIVIX runs is CTRL-F, and it’s funded by the Canadian Government. This is supposed to help people become more aware in checking out source material.

Admittedly, CTRL-F/CIVIX do produce some quality videos on the topic of verifying sources. However, they remain silent on the topic of media censorship by government and tech companies. Easy to be pro-journalism when one has their thumb on the scale.

DATE	AMOUNT
Jun. 13, 2014	$100,000
Jul. 24, 2014	$100,000
Apr. 30, 2015	$75,000
Feb. 17, 2016	$75,000
Mar. 24, 2016	$25,000
Feb. 24, 2017	$75,000
Feb. 24, 2017	$225,000
Apr. 1, 2017	$25,000
Mar. 23, 2018	$165,000
Apr. 1, 2018	$400,000
Apr. 1, 2018	$175,000
Nov. 15, 2018	$23,000
Dec. 10, 2018	$100,000
Apr. 1, 2019	$540,000
Jan. 1, 2020	$494,320
Apr. 1, 2020	$132,500
Apr. 1, 2020	$192,300
Feb. 23, 2021	$2,500,000

In case you think this group is harmless, just remember, tax money is used to finance this group. We pay to push political agendas here and abroad, and were never asked about this.

June 26, 2021June 26, 2021

CV #26(H): Region Of Peel Lies About Infertility, Deaths, Approval

Let’s do a little math here: a normal pregnancy is 9 months.

These so-called “vaccines” started being injected back in December 2020, and this tweet comes in June 2021. That is about 6 months difference. By this logic, there wouldn’t have been enough time for women to have taken this “concoction”, gotten pregnant, and then had full term pregnancies.

Also, the quote, “millions of people including pregnant women” seems nonsensical. Who else gives birth?

Even if there had been some, Peel Health lies by omission by not mentioning the miscarriages or unintended abortions that have resulted from drug.

Like so many jurisdictions, Peel dishonestly conflates “dying with” and “dying from”. Setting aside the fact that this so-called virus has never been isolated, this is extremely dishonest.

Peel deliberately misrepresents the status of these “vaccines”. Currently, they have interim authorization under an emergency order, but are not approved. This cannot be a mistake in wording.

These people are not to be trusted.

(1) https://twitter.com/regionofpeel/status/1408789646046281730
(2) https://twitter.com/regionofpeel/status/1408365853360357379
(3) https://twitter.com/TOPublicHealth/status/1275888390060285967
(4) https://www.laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/F-27/page-8.html#h-234517
(5) https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-health-products/covid19-industry/drugs-vaccines-treatments/interim-order-import-sale-advertising-drugs.html#a2.3
(6) https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/astrazeneca-covid-19-vaccine-pm-en.pdf
(7) https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/janssen-covid-19-vaccine-pm-en.pdf
(8) https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/covid-19-vaccine-moderna-pm-en.pdf
(9) https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/pfizer-biontech-covid-19-vaccine-pm1-en.pdf

June 26, 2021December 6, 2021

Canadian Immunization Research Network, Which Evaluates Vaccines, Is Funded By Big Pharma

The Canadian Immunization Research Network is a group that receives substantial funding from drug companies, as well as Canadian taxpayers. Part of their mandate is evaluating vaccine effectiveness. Now, here’s where things start to get interesting.

Our Focus
CIRN’s goals remain consistent with that of PCIRN, however, the network will not be limited to influenza research alone. Rather, CIRN will cover a broader scope of research pertaining to all areas of vaccine, immunization, and infectious diseases. The network will strive to achieve the following goals:
.
(1) Continue to perform vaccine research to inform health policy in Canada.
(2) Maintain an active research network capable of immediate response to infectious disease threats in Canada.
(3) Further develop collaborations between Canadian vaccine experts.
(4) Train the next generation of pandemic vaccine researchers.
(5) Perform applied public health research and vaccine evaluations of high priority for Canadian health decision makers.

In their “focus section“, the CIRN mentions that evaulating vaccines of high priority for Canadian decision makers is something they do. So, are these the people who ensured these experimental “vaccines” got interim authorization.

Also, considering that Pfizer/BioNtech is one of the products that got the emergency authorization, isn’t this a conflict of interest? After all, Pfizer is one of the major donors.

According to their financial statements, almost $24 million of the $59 million that the CIRN has received since 2009 has come from industry sources. Considering that Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline and Sanofi are listed as partners, the bulk of it probably was from them.

Pfizer has been lobbying Ottawa for years to get its products distributed here. One of its officials, Steven Hogue, worked in the Prime Minister’s Office back when Jean Chretien was in charge.

GlaxoSmithKline is another one that’s busy in Ottawa. Lobbyists for the company have ties to both the Liberal and Conservative Parties of Canada. In fact, Amber Ruddy, the Secretary of the National Council of the CPC, used to be a GSK lobbyist. Sanofi is involved in this as well.

This should be red flag for people. Pharmaceutical companies, involved in lobbying Ottawa and trying to sell products, are also financing the “independent” group that evaluates their effectiveness.

CIRN conducts a variety of research studies throughout the year, and many of these studies are multi-year projects. Often there are opportunities for members of the public to participate in studies in their local area; the Research Studies descriptions provide an overview of the study and indicate whether the study is active and recruiting.
.
Each research study funded by the CIRN Network will address one or more of the 5 following research area priorities:
.
(1) Rapid evaluation of candidate vaccines for safety and immunogenicity in persons of all ages;
(2) Population based methods to evaluate vaccine effectiveness and safety following release for general use;
(3) Vaccine hesitancy and evaluation of strategies to address hesitancy;
(4) Vaccine coverage, including isolated communities and cohorts of concern; and
(5) Adverse events following immunization.

CIRN funds research into a variety of subtopics, including vaccine hesitancy. This refers to the normal reluctance to put strange medications into one’s body. They are also involved in trying to convince pregnant women to take it. Research has also been done into proper messaging for Public Health Officials, as in, what lines or scripts are most effective. Another was using the internet to explain to why large portions of the public may be reluctant to take this.

Considering the amount of money CIRN gets from drug companies, there is an obvious dual loyalty presented here.

It’s not a stretch to call these “vaccine hesitancy” projects a form of marketing. Pfizer, GSK and Sanofi are studying their target markets, to see what techniques work.

CIRN has also received a number of grants from PHAC and the CIHR. Some of that is listed below.

June 25, 2021June 25, 2021

Bill C-36: Red Flag Laws In The Name Of Preemptively Combatting Hate Speech

Bill C-36 has been introduced into the House of Commons. It would be fair to describe portions of this as a “red flag” law. People can be subjected to Court restrictions simply based on the suspicion that they may engage in hate speech or hate propaganda.

Welcome to the Pre-Crime Unit, and the Minority Report

Fear of hate propaganda offence or hate crime
810.‍012 (1) A person may, with the Attorney General’s consent, lay an information before a provincial court judge if the person fears on reasonable grounds that another person will commit
(a) an offence under section 318 or subsection 319(1) or (2);
(b) an offence under subsection 430(4.‍1); or
(c) an offence motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or any other similar factor.
Appearances

(2) The provincial court judge who receives an information under subsection (1) may cause the parties to appear before a provincial court judge.

Adjudication
(3) If the provincial court judge before whom the parties appear is satisfied by the evidence adduced that the informant has reasonable grounds for the fear, the judge may order that the defendant enter into a recognizance to keep the peace and be of good behaviour for a period of not more than 12 months.

Duration extended
(4) However, if the provincial court judge is also satisfied that the defendant was convicted previously of any offence referred to in subsection (1), the judge may order that the defendant enter into the recognizance for a period of not more than two years.

Refusal to enter into recognizance
(5) The provincial court judge may commit the defendant to prison for a term of not more than 12 months if the defendant fails or refuses to enter into the recognizance.

Conditions in recognizance
(6) The provincial court judge may add any reasonable conditions to the recognizance that the judge considers desirable to secure the good conduct of the defendant, including conditions that
(a) require the defendant to wear an electronic monitoring device, if the Attorney General makes that request;
(b) require the defendant to return to and remain at their place of residence at specified times;
(c) require the defendant to abstain from the consumption of drugs, except in accordance with a medical prescription, of alcohol or of any other intoxicating substance;
(d) require the defendant to provide, for the purpose of analysis, a sample of a bodily substance prescribed by regulation on the demand of a peace officer, a probation officer or someone designated under paragraph 810.‍3(2)‍(a) to make a demand, at the place and time and on the day specified by the person making the demand, if that person has reasonable grounds to believe that the defendant has breached a condition of the recognizance that requires them to abstain from the consumption of drugs, alcohol or any other intoxicating substance;
(e) require the defendant to provide, for the purpose of analysis, a sample of a bodily substance prescribed by regulation at regular intervals that are specified, in a notice in Form 51 served on the defendant, by a probation officer or a person designated under paragraph 810.‍3(2)‍(b) to specify them, if a condition of the recognizance requires the defendant to abstain from the consumption of drugs, alcohol or any other intoxicating substance; or
(f) prohibit the defendant from communicating, directly or indirectly, with any person identified in the recognizance, or refrain from going to any place specified in the recognizance, except in accordance with the conditions specified in the recognizance that the judge considers necessary.

Conditions — firearms
(7) The provincial court judge shall consider whether it is desirable, in the interests of the defendant’s safety or that of any other person, to prohibit the defendant from possessing any firearm, cross-bow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition or explosive substance, or all of those things. If the judge decides that it is desirable to do so, the judge shall add that condition to the recognizance and specify the period during which it applies.

Surrender, etc.
(8) If the provincial court judge adds a condition described in subsection (7) to a recognizance, the judge shall specify in the recognizance how the things referred to in that subsection that are in the defendant’s possession shall be surrendered, disposed of, detained, stored or dealt with and how the authorizations, licences and registration certificates that are held by the defendant shall be surrendered.

Reasons
(9) If the provincial court judge does not add a condition described in subsection (7) to a recognizance, the judge shall include in the record a statement of the reasons for not adding it.

Variance of conditions
(10) A provincial court judge may, on application of the informant, the Attorney General or the defendant, vary the conditions fixed in the recognizance.

Other provisions to apply
(11) Subsections 810(4) and (5) apply, with any modifications that the circumstances require, to recognizances made under this section.

-A person can be ordered to appear before a Provincial Court
-A Judge can order a person to enter into a Recognizance for 12 months
-That Recognizance can last for 24 months if there is a prior conviction
-A person can be jailed for 12 months for refusing a Recognizance
-A person can be ordered to wear an electronic monitoring device
-A person can be subjected to a curfew
-A person can be ordered to abstain from alcohol
-A person can be subjected to drug/alcohol testing
-That drug/testing can be ordered at regular intervals
-A person can be subjected to a no contact order (of 3rd parties)
-A person can be prohibited from going to certain places
-A person may be subjected to other conditions

Keep in mind, all of these conditions can be imposed, simply because of the SUSPICION that a hate crime will be committed, or hate propaganda will be distributed.

Not only is the Canadian Criminal Code to be amended, but the Canadian Human Rights Code will be as well, to implement fines and cessation orders. There doesn’t seem to be real standard for what counts as hate speech.

Canadian Human Rights Act
Amendments to the Act
2013, c. 37, s. 1
12 Section 4 of the Canadian Human Rights Act is replaced by the following:
Orders regarding discriminatory practices
4 A discriminatory practice, as described in sections 5 to 14.‍1, may be the subject of a complaint under Part III and anyone found to be engaging or to have engaged in a discriminatory practice may be made subject to an order as provided for in section 53 or 53.‍1.
.
13 The Act is amended by adding the following after section 12:
Communication of hate speech
.
13 (1) It is a discriminatory practice to communicate or cause to be communicated hate speech by means of the Internet or other means of telecommunication in a context in which the hate speech is likely to foment detestation or vilification of an individual or group of individuals on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.
Continuous communication
.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), a person who communicates or causes to be communicated hate speech continues to do so for as long as the hate speech remains public and the person can remove or block access to it.

Complaint substantiated — section 13
53.‍1 If at the conclusion of an inquiry the member or panel conducting the inquiry finds that a complaint relating to a discriminatory practice described in section 13 is substantiated, the member or panel may make one or more of only the following orders against the person found to be engaging or to have engaged in the discriminatory practice:
(a) an order to cease the discriminatory practice and take measures, in consultation with the Commission on the general purposes of the measures, to redress the practice or to prevent the same or a similar practice from recurring;
(b) an order to pay compensation of not more than $20,000 to any victim personally identified in the communication that constituted the discriminatory practice, for any pain and suffering that the victim experienced as a result of that discriminatory practice, so long as that person created or developed, in whole or in part, the hate speech indicated in the complaint;
(c) an order to pay a penalty of not more than $50,000 to the Receiver General if the member or panel considers it appropriate having regard to the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the discriminatory practice, the wilfulness or intent of the person who is engaging or has engaged in the discriminatory practice, any prior discriminatory practices that the person has engaged in and the person’s ability to pay the penalty.
Award of costs
53.‍2 A member or panel conducting an inquiry into a complaint filed on the basis of section 13 may award costs for abuse of process in relation to the inquiry.

According to the revisions in the Act, “hate speech” will be ongoing as long as the material is available publicly, and could be removed. A person can also be ordered to be $20,000 to each victim, and $50,000 to the panel itself.

Problem with all of this, “hate speech” is disturbingly vague. It could be applied subjectively, depending on the politics of the parties involved.

(1) https://www.parl.ca/LegisInfo/BillDetails.aspx?Language=E&billId=11452710
(2) https://parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/43-2/bill/C-36/first-reading
(3) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-69.html#docCont
(4) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-91.html#h-122977

June 24, 2021June 24, 2021

Ontario’s “Re-Education” Training For Health Care Workers Refusing “Vaccines”

Pretty Orwellian, isn’t is? The above video is from a health care worker in Ontario, one who has been forced to undergo “reeducation” as a result of refusing the experimental, unapproved “vaccine”. While it’s impossible to 100% verify that this is authentic, it’s consistent with the programming that Ford has already sent out.

Thank you to whoever produced this.

TORONTO — Workers at long-term care homes who chose not to receive a COVID-19 vaccine will soon have to participate in an educational program on the benefits of vaccination, unless they can provide proof of a medical reason for refusing the shot.

The Doug Ford government has announced that all 626 long-term care homes in Ontario will have to have immunization polices in place for staff that will, at a minimum, require workers who do not get both doses of the COVID-19 vaccine to “participate in an educational program about the benefits of vaccination and the risks of not being vaccinated.

The policy takes effect July 1 and the only exception will be for staff who can provide a “documented medical reason for not being vaccinated,” the province say.

Welcome to the Ministry Of Truth.

It’s important to note: these are not “approved vaccines”. They are given interim authorization as a result of an emergency order. They aren’t really vaccines either.

This tutorial, and other government propaganda, don’t bother to mention that there are no long term studies about the effects. Nor do they discuss the testing deficiencies, such as no testing for pregnant women, nursing mothers, children, carcinogenicity, or toxicity. No evidence of fertility issues…. yes, because testing for it was never done.

Also noteworthy: there’s no mention that the manufacturers are indemnified against liability. This means they cannot be sued, regardless of what damages can be proven.

Interesting that there is the statement that death soon after injection doesn’t necessarily mean the vaccine was responsible. That distinction was never made for “Covid deaths”.

No mention of the fact that even from the Government of Canada’s own data, the overwhelming majority of cases get better on their own.

These are just a few of the questions that aren’t addressed.

Ever get the sense they are trying too hard?

(1) https://rumble.com/vis5wt-propaganda-course-for-ltc-in-ontario-if-you-refuse-the-vax.html?fbclid=IwAR2SO_d7nEjKJQ3GF-EONMLr_zEig3tudLL8wIyh6GECF_M-VZ02ErFdbY4
(2) https://www.facebook.com/groups/137204671811144/permalink/144676727730605/
(3) https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/unvaccinated-ontario-long-term-care-workers-will-have-to-participate-in-educational-program-1.5450034
(4) https://www.hrreporter.com/focus-areas/safety/ontario-mandates-immunization-policies-for-long-term-care-homes/356705

June 23, 2021October 6, 2021

PHAC Supporting “Science Up First”, Online Counter-Misinformation Group

Hey there. Ever get the feeling that the Government may be behind a lot of the propaganda that is going on? Well, there may be something to that. Meet the group Science Up First.

Blast the media with our own narrative
Eliminate information that contradicts our narrative

WHY #SCIENCEUPFIRST?
The goal of #ScienceUpFirst is to get people to consider the available science first before sharing content online.
.
We understand that in the age of social media there is a growing need for science-informed content. We hope to inspire people to amplify the distribution of expert-written and reviewed content and to help stop the spread of COVID-19 related misinformation throughout the internet.
.
#ScienceUpFirst is both good practice and a call to action!
Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic there has been a marked rise in misinformation and conspiracy theories related to Health information and governments’ response to the outbreak. The WHO has classified this as a global infodemic. According to experts conspiracy, misinformation and conspiracy theories are rapidly spreading on social media and represent a threat to the Health and Safety of Canadians.
.
As a result, there is an identified need for national cooperation and mobilization of independent scientists, researchers, information experts, health care providers and science communicators to come together to collaboratively create and disseminate quality health-related information available to the public.

In other words, we don’t need people fact checking and reviewing our work. We need people to uncritically amplify it on their social media. Now, who runs the show?

STEERING COMMITTEE

Carrie Bourassa: Professor in the Department of Community Health & Epidemiology at the University of Saskatchewan in Saskatoon and the Scientific Director of the CIHR Institute of Indigenous Peoples’ Health
Marie-Eve Carignan: Associate Professor at the Department of Communication of the University of Sherbrooke and Head of Media Division, UNESCO Chair in Prevention of Radicalization and Violent Extremism (UNESCO-PREV Chair)
Timothy Caulfield: Canada Research Chair in Health Law and Policy, Univ. Alberta
Imogen Coe: Professor, Chemistry & Biology, Faculty of Science; Dimensions Chair Member, Institute for Biomedical Engineering, Science and Technology (iBEST) at Ryerson University & St. Michael’s Hospital; President, Canadian Society for Molecular Biosciences 2020-2022
Amber Mac (MacArthur): President, AmberMac Media Inc.
Marianne Mader : Executive Director, Canadian Association of Science Centers
Anthony Morgan: Founder, Science Everywhere; Science Communicator
Tara Moriarty: Associate Professor, University of Toronto (Infectious Disease research); Co-lead: COVID-19 Resources Canada; Executive team member: CanCOVID; Diagnostics Pillar lead, Canadian Lyme Disease Research Network
David M. Patrick: Director of Research and Medical Epidemiology Lead for AMR, British Columbia Centre for Disease Control; Professor, UBC School of Population and Public Health
Krishana Sankar: Biological Scientist; COVID-19 Resources Canada Science Communication Lead and Volunteer Programs Director
Joe Schwarcz: Director, McGill Office for Science and Society
Marva Sweeney-Nixon: Professor and Chair, Department of Biology; Faculty of Science, University of Prince Edward Island
Fatima Tokhmafshan: Geneticist, Bioethicist, Research Institute of McGill University Health Centre, COVID-19 Resources Canada Science Communication Lead, Canadian Science Policy Centre Social Media Chair
Samantha Yammine: Director, Science Sam Media

#ScienceUpFirst Coalition

Lisa Barrett: Assistant professor, Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, Department of Microbiology & Immunology, Department of Pathology, Dalhousie University
Chantal Barriault: Director, Science Communication Graduate Program, School of the Environment, Laurentian University
Tyler Black: Clinical Assistant Professor, University of BC
Isaac Bogoch: Assistant Professor, Department of Medicine, University of Toronto; Infectious disease specialist; Clinician Investigator, Toronto General Hospital Research Institute
Colette Brin: Professor at Université Laval’s Département d’information et de communication and the Director of the Centre d’études sur les médias
Tania Bubela: Professor and Dean, Faculty of Health Sciences, Simon Fraser University
Tracy Calogheros: CEO, Exploration Place Museum & Science Centre, BC
Christine Chambers: Canada Research Chair (Tier 1) in Children’s Pain and Killam Professor of Pediatrics and Psychology & Neuroscience; Scientific Director, CIHR’s Institute of Human Development, Child and Youth Health
Naheed Dosani: Palliative Care Physician & Health Justice Activist
Kathryn Hill: Executive Director, MediaSmarts
Jonathan Jarry: Science Communicator, McGill Office for Science and Society
Eoghan Moriarty: Solutions Architect, LabCrunch
Alex Munter: CEO, CHEO
Ubaka Ogbogu: Assistant Professor, Faculties of Law and Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Law Centre, University of Alberta
Jonathan N. Stea: Clinical Psychologist, Adjunct Assistant Professor University of Calgary
Heidi Tworek: Associate Prof, Public Policy & History, UBC

Interesting, how the bulk of these people are university professors. Is their funding in any way tied to the efforts they make? Now, Science Up First does provide, in broad strokes, the method of how they go about doing this:

(1) Provide science from trusted and credible sources, particularly those that note the scientific consensus on the relevant topic.
(2) Highlight rhetorical and logic gaps used to push misinformation (e.g., relying on anecdotes & testimonials, misrepresenting risk).
(3) Use (and create) clear and shareable content that is relevant to a range of audiences (meeting people where they are and considering unique concerns, etc.).
(4) Emphasize content that is respectful, inclusive, authentic, accessible, and kind in tone.
(5) Aim for creative and engaging content that highlights the facts.
(6) Emphasize inclusive messaging for a general audience and/or tailored to meet needs of specific communities

Of course, they’ll never directly address serious issues such as vaccine manufacturers being indemnified, or their products receiving “interim authorization” instead of approval. They won’t address the mass censorship on Facebook and Twitter of conflicting information.

That said, if you are willing to uncritically signal boost the (ever changing) narrative, then Science Up First may be an option for you.

For a specific example, the issue of heart problems is discussed on the Twitter account. It’s too big to simply ignore altogether, so the people posting try to let you know how rare it is. Now, some may find it unsettling to post information randomly telling people to ignore such concerns. However, that is the state of “science” these days.

(1) https://www.scienceupfirst.com/
(2) https://www.scienceupfirst.com/en/who
(3) https://www.scienceupfirst.com/en/why
(4) https://www.scienceupfirst.com/en/how#guidelines
(5) https://twitter.com/scienceupfirst
(6) https://twitter.com/ScienceUpFirst/status/1405972418812841991
(7) https://www.instagram.com/scienceupfirst/
(8) https://www.facebook.com/Science-Up-First-104308078247296

Category: Canada

CV #26(H): Region Of Peel Lies About Infertility, Deaths, Approval

Like this:

Canadian Immunization Research Network, Which Evaluates Vaccines, Is Funded By Big Pharma

Like this:

Ontario’s “Re-Education” Training For Health Care Workers Refusing “Vaccines”

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this: