FOI Request Archives - Page 2 of 5

August 31, 2022August 31, 2022

Nova Scotia FOIs: Miscellaneous Findings On Freedom Restrictions

A peruse through Nova Scotia’s FOI database reveals some interesting things.

Also, the database shows how many people have been viewing these results. Typically there are 50-100, which shows that at least some are concerned enough to look. The documents have been anonymized, so that names and addresses are removed.

As a starting point, it seems that the Nova Scotia Government did no research whatsoever to see what effects lockdown policies would have on suicides, depression, alcoholism, substance abuse or bankruptcies. In other words, they couldn’t be bothered to look into the harsher effects these martial law measures would have.

When asked to justify stay-at-home orders, travel restrictions, border closures, and other measures, the Nova Scotia Government refused to provide anything. They simply replied that they rely on the World Health Organization, and PHAC, the Public Health Agency of Canada.

The Province also admitted the 1,883 surgeries were cancelled between April and December 2020. However, most of the correspondence sought was redacted.

There’s no evidence to support the claim choir singing spreads Covid, at least according to records that are available. Therefore, closing or otherwise restricting religious services was done for ideological reasons, not health ones.

Even though the peons (or average people) had their movements restricted over the last few years, the Chief Medical Officer of Health granted countless exemptions when it was deemed necessary. So much for equality under the law.

Another request for evidence to justify restrictions was denied because: (a) it would reveal advice given or draft regulations; or (b) it was available via W.H.O. or PHAC.

Nova Scotia was asked about the actuarial (or statistical) data for invoking and extending the emergency orders over the last few years. No records are available, meaning that no such research had been conducted prior to, or afterwards.

A separate request for analysis of suicide rates, depression, bankruptcies, substance abuse, other health care, etc… was redacted to the point that it was pretty much useless.

Noticing a pattern here?

And if you haven’t seen Christine Massey’s work with Fluoride Free Peel, go do that. There are some 200 or so FOIs showing that no one, anywhere in the world, has ever isolated this “virus”. It’s never been proven to exist. There’s no point having a discussion on what treatments are beneficial, until the existence of this is demonstrated. Other interesting reads are apocalypticyoga, by Bill Huston, Stormhaven, by William Ray, and What’s Up Canada by Wayne Peters.

(1) FOI NS 2021-00135-HEA_PublicPackage Lockdown Studies
(2) FOI NS 2021-01216-HEA_PublicPackage Justify Stay At Home
(3) FOI NS 2021-01769-HEA_PublicPackage Surgeries
(4) FOI NS 2021-02375-HEA_PublicPackage Choir Singing
(5) FOI NS 2021-00085-HEA_PublicPackage Travel Restrictions
(6) FOI NS 2021-01201-HEA_PublicPackage Risk Benefit
(7) FOI NS 2021-01273-HEA_PublicPackage Actuarial
(8) FOI NS 2021-00102-EXE_PublicPackage Lockdown Justification Redacted

August 28, 2022August 28, 2022

Nova Scotia FOI: Another Data Dump On Cases/Vaxx Rates

More information is coming out of Nova Scotia, thanks to a few dedicated researchers. First, we will get into the correlation between vaxx status and cases, hospitalizations, ICU admissions, and deaths. The data is actually pretty interesting, and can be presented with little comment.

Of course, there is no virus, but that’s another issue.

COVID CASES BY IMMUNIZATION STATUS
MONTH REPORTED	PUREBLOODS	1 DOSE <14 DAYS	1 DOSE >14 DAYS	2+ DOSES
January 2022	341	43	149	2,649
February 2022	281	18	154	1,475
March 2022	244	3	106	1,363
April 2022	338	1	110	1,231

HOSPITALIZATIONS BY IMMUNIZATION STATUS
MONTH REPORTED	PUREBLOODS	1 DOSE <14 DAYS	1 DOSE >14 DAYS	2+ DOSES
August 2021	1	0	0	0
September 2021	16	2	10	5
October 2021	3	1	6	8
November 2021	13	1	7	9
December 2021	5	0	2	34
January 2022	32	5	10	110
February 2022	36	1	5	58
March 2022	23	0	2	16
April 2022	30	0	4	28

ICU ADMISSIONS BY IMMUNIZATION STATUS
MONTH REPORTED	PUREBLOODS	1 DOSE <14 DAYS	1 DOSE >14 DAYS	2+ DOSES
August 2021	0	0	0	0
September 2021	2	0	2	2
October 2021	2	1	1	0
November 2021	3	1	4	5
December 2021	2	0	1	5
January 2022	6	4	1	21
February 2022	9	0	2	12
March 2022	7	0	1	2
April 2022	6	0	1	9

DEATHS BY IMMUNIZATION STATUS
MONTH REPORTED	PUREBLOODS	1 DOSE <14 DAYS	1 DOSE >14 DAYS	2+ DOSES
August 2021	0	0	0	0
September 2021	2	0	0	3
October 2021	2	0	0	1
November 2021	2	0	1	7
December 2021	1	0	1	7
January 2022	15	0	1	51
February 2022	17	2	4	21
March 2022	9	0	2	18
April 2022	17	0	1	17

ADVERSE REACTIONS
MONTH REPORTED	SERIOUS	NON-SERIOUS	TOTAL
August 2021	57	5	62
September 2021	23	6	29
October 2021	39	8	47
November 2021	28	11	39
December 2021	26	5	31
January 2022	27	3	30
February 2022	24	27	51
March 2022	36	8	44
April 2022	65	14	79

And how many people typically die in a year in Nova Scotia? Keep in mind, it’s around 1,000,000 people, so several thousands should be expected annually. Keep in mind, this encompasses all causes of death.

TOTAL DEATHS
MONTH	Y2019	Y2020	Y2021	Y2022
January	920	888	862	873
February	804	821	812	230*
March	936	888	850	–
April	807	865	759	–
May	783	847	874	–
June	774	716	790	–
July	767	805	776
August	791	757	816	–
September	701	802	837	–
October	807	813	881	–
November	818	883	907	–
December	864	879	908	–
Total	9,772	9,964	10,072	1,103*

Here’s another document, almost 60 pages, that is worth a quick look. There’s too much to properly address everything in this one article. Also, yet one more is available. Now, for some disclaimers that everyone should be familiar with:

A death due to COVID-19 is defined for surveillance purposes as a death resulting from a clinically compatible illness, in a probable or confirmed COVID-19 case, unless there is a clear alternative cause of death that cannot be related to COVID disease (e.g. trauma). There should be no period of complete recovery from COVID-19 between illness and death.

This has been covered before, but is worth a going over. The definition of a “Covid death” is nothing short of fraud. The original has been moved or deleted, but the archive is still available.

As a reminder, the WHO said in its March 2020 guidance (page 3), and September 2020 guidance (page 8) that virus isolation is not recommended for routine diagnostic procedures.

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 sequendng) 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 SARS-CoV-2

In fact, given the testing “requirements” provided, it doesn’t appear that any proof of a virus is required in any stage.

(1) 2022-00626-HEA Response Package
(2) 2022-00445-HEA Response Package Test Results Nova Scotia Redacted
(3) Decision – 2022-00455-Long Redacted

OTHER IMPORTANT LINKS
(1) https://www.who.int/classifications/icd/Guidelines_Cause_of_Death_COVID-19.pdf (Original)
(2) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/WHO-Guidelines-Classification-Of-Death.pdf
(3) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/WHO-COVID-19-laboratory-Testing-March-17-2020.pdf
(4) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/WHO-2019-nCoV-laboratory-September-11-2020-Guidelines.pdf

August 27, 2022August 27, 2022

Nova Scotia FOI: Gov’t Data On Deaths By Age/Vaxx Status

People in Nova Scotia continue to dig for information about this so-called pandemic. The full listings to date are below. This piece involves official death statistics in that area.

The demographic and place of residence data for Nova Scotians who died from COVID-19 since January 1, 2022. Date of death. Vaccination status.

Before getting into the statistics, a few disclaimers are needed. The most obvious of which is that no virus has ever been proven to exist.

This has been covered before, but is worth a going over. The definition of a “Covid death” is nothing short of fraud. The original has been moved or deleted, but the archive is still available.

It’s also interesting that a “Medical Officer of Health”, who doesn’t even practice, is able to overrule local authorities in determining the cause of death. These deaths can also be attributed to “Covid” as long as there is believed to be some contributing factor. Pretty subjective.

Now, onto the data provided by Nova Scotia:

MONTH	DEATH TOTAL
January 1 -31, 2022	67
February 1 – 28, 2022	61
March 1 – 31, 2022	44
April 1 – 30, 2022	85
May 1 – 31, 2022	65
June 1 – 20, 2022	13
TOTALS	335

# OF SHOTS	DEATH TOTAL
0 (Purebloods)	58
1	9
2	96
3 or more	172
TOTALS	335

The FOI response adds in a disclaimer that no real conclusion can be drawn between vaccine efficacy and other factors. One would think that they don’t want people thinking these shots are useless (at best) or harmful (at worst).

SEX	DEATH TOTAL
Male	189
Female	146
Combined	335

Seems that none of the other 167 genders have fatalities to report in this deadly pandemic. What a strange observation we have here.

AGE GROUP	DEATH TOTAL
0 – 9	0
10 – 19	Less Than 5
20 – 29	0
30 – 39	Less Than 5
40 – 49	7
50 – 59	13
60 – 69	33
70 – 79	86
80 – 89	125
Over 90	69

The overwhelming majority of deaths are people who have had at least 2 shots. The majority are also seniors 70 years of age and older. Keep in mind, Nova Scotia has a population of approximately 1,000,000 people. Even if 1,000 people were to have died (with a direct causal link), it would be only 0.1% of the population. And we see just how flexible these people are with their definitions.

It’s almost as if there’s no virus, and that there’s no discernible health benefit to taking these experimental vaccines.

As a reminder, the WHO said in its March 2020 guidance (page 3), and September 2020 guidance (page 8) that virus isolation is not recommended for routine diagnostic procedures.

(1) 2022-00956-HEA_PublicPackage Nova Scotia
(2) https://www.who.int/classifications/icd/Guidelines_Cause_of_Death_COVID-19.pdf
(3) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/WHO-Guidelines-Classification-Of-Death.pdf
(4) “https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/fois-reveal-that-health-science-institutions-around-the-world-have-no-record-of-sars-cov-2-isolation-purification/
(5) https://apocalypticyoga.substack.com/
(6) https://stormhaven.blog/
(7) https://www.whatsupcanada.org/

August 4, 2022August 4, 2022

Some Thoughts On The Virus/No-Virus Challenges Going On

This brief piece was inspired by a recent article that was forwarded here. Many are not aware of a growing divide within the larger movement of freedom supporters. Broadly speaking these can be classified as two factions:

(1) Those who are opposed to various medical martial law measures, including lockdowns, business closures, curfews, vaccine passports, masks, and other intrusions, but who otherwise support the concepts of viruses and vaccines; and

(2) Those who think that this virus — and viruses more broadly — are a work of fiction to push various social and political agendas.

Yes, there has been the argument that all of this is pointless, and distracts from the larger picture. However, it could also be said that demonstrating there’s no way to properly isolate a virus would by default render all freedom restrictions unnecessary.

This isn’t, of course, to suggest that everyone who believes in viruses (or a specific one) is a fraud or a shill. Many good people do.

That being said, the implications are huge if the second group turns out to be correct. Much of modern medicine would collapse if it was shown to be founded on false pretenses. Anyhow:

Without getting too much into the nitty gritty, tensions seem to be rising over efforts to debunk virology, and germ theory as a whole.

One of the more interesting items is “flaw #22” on the page, specifically the asymmetric burden of proof.

Asymmetrical burden of proof. Among other things, the bar for “proof” that they set for themselves is unreasonably low, while the bar that they set for everyone else is unreasonably high. And it appears that the only judges whom they will be willing to accept are themselves.

There’s more of course, but this is worth addressing. The argument seems to be that a thesis can only be debunked if a stronger and more credible one can take it’s place. That not how things work. Consider these examples:

In criminal court, a judge or jury never actually rules a defendant to be innocent. Either the prosecution has sufficiently proven culpability (guilty), or they they haven’t (not guilty). There’s no requirement for a defendant to prove someone else committed a crime, though it would certainly be beneficial.
When inspecting an automobile, it’s not really proven to be safe. Instead, the mechanic or other person searches for common sources of damage, or defective operation. If nothing is found, then the result comes back okay.
University students have likely seen hypothesis testing in statistics. The goal isn’t to prove what the mean or variance is, but rather to debunk the assumption. The methods may prove your belief (reject the asserted mean or variance), or there may be insufficient proof (fail to reject). That said, there’s no demand to provide alternative answers

In the linked article, Steve Kirsch laments there is a double standard. People wishing to argue the existence of a specific virus, or viruses in general, must provide concrete proof. However, someone who wants to debunk that only need to find sufficient errors, not formulate a better answer.

Common criticisms for virus isolation include: improper (or no) controls, lack of replicability, and adding things like monkey kidney cells or fetal bovine tissue.

A favourite on this site is the screwy definition of a “Covid death”, which stands any sense of honesty and integrity on its head. The rampant pharma connections are also difficult to ignore. Sometimes, it’s not science, but common sense that should cause people to second guess.

Yes, there is a double standard when it comes to the evidence required for “prove v.s. debunk”. And that’s quite okay.

(1) https://stevekirsch.substack.com/
(2) https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/sam-baileys-very-disingenuous-settling
(3) https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/fois-reveal-that-health-science-institutions-around-the-world-have-no-record-of-sars-cov-2-isolation-purification/
(4) https://canucklaw.ca/a-death-resulting-from-a-clinically-compatible-illness/

June 5, 2022August 6, 2022

Taking That Last Step To See Through The Lies….

Credit for the artwork goes to Bill Huston, and please visit his website. Also, this confrontation with Andrew Kaufman and Judy Mikovits is very much worth the watch. The full livestream is available online and mirrored for anyone wanting it.

Plenty of decent people across the world are fully aware that their freedoms have been crushed in a planned and deliberate manner since 2020. They see that these “conspiracy theories” of using a so-called pandemic to implement societal control turned out to be accurate. Kudos to them for that.

But, there’s one step many won’t take: admit there’s no virus.

Why does this last step matter? Because it’s the pipeline to realizing how deep the pharma rabbit hole goes. If there’s no “Covid-19”, then it means all of the testing equipment is completely faulty and invalid. Moreover, all of the other “viruses” discovered over the years would be immediately suspect. If no viruses have ever been proven to exist, then virology — and germ theory itself — come crashing down. In order to preserve the medical industry, then this lie needs to be protected at all costs.

Why are theories of lab leak and/or bioweapon promoted? Because they attempt to explain the origins of this “virus”, rather than look into whether it’s even real.

How is a “case” defined, according to the World Health Organization? (See archive).

Notwithstanding how vague “suspected” and “probable” cases are, the definitions for so-called confirmed cases are equally dubious.

A person with a positive Nucleic Acid Amplification Test (NAAT)
A person with a positive SARS-CoV-2 Antigen-RDT AND meeting either the probable case definition or suspect criteria A OR B
An asymptomatic person with a positive SARS-CoV-2 Antigen-RDT who is a contact of a probable or confirmed case.

NAAT testing doesn’t prove anything, which will be addressed later. Also, everyone, including the WHO, admits these tests aren’t reliable.

Not only is there the issue of no isolation, WHO recommends in its March 2020 (see page 3), and September 2020 (see page 8), guidance NOT to isolate for routine testing.

Perhaps WHO just doesn’t want proper testing done normally to save money?! Well, not really, their own paperwork (see archive) indicates that they view testing for just a gene to be sufficient.

If no virus has even been isolated or shown to exist, then what have doctors been prescribing over the years? Are they morons, or just being paid off?

Admittedly, it wasn’t really a topic addressed here for quite a while. However, the time has long come for hitting this home. And what is the definition of a “Covid death”? According to the World Health Organization, it is:

2. DEFINITION FOR DEATHS DUE TO COVID-19
A death due to COVID-19 is defined for surveillance purposes as a death resulting from a clinically compatible illness, in a probable or confirmed COVID-19 case, unless there is a clear alternative cause of death that cannot be related to COVID disease (e.g. trauma). There should be no period of complete recovery from COVID-19 between illness and death.
.
A death due to COVID-19 may not be attributed to another disease (e.g. cancer) and should be counted independently of preexisting conditions that are suspected of triggering a severe course of COVID-19.

Unfortunately, this isn’t satire. The WHO actually provides this incredibly vague and meaningless definition. Only a complicit and deliberately obtuse media wouldn’t expose this. (See archive), as the original has either been deleted or moved.

The BC Centre for Disease Control (BCCDC), admitted in April 2020 that these tests can’t actually determine active infection. (See original). Also, the 30% error rate is apparently just a commonly quoted statistic, not the result of real research.

There was an article in June 2020 (now deleted), where BCPHO Bonnie Henry warned against mass testing, as false positives could overburden hospitals. See archives here and here.

To repeat: considering that there is no virus isolation, and these tests aren’t designed for infection anyway, what exactly is being tested for?

Why is this virus pushed, despite lack of proof it exists?
Why have other viruses been pushed, despite lack of proof they exist?
Why does WHO recommend against isolation in regular testing?
Why does WHO see testing for a gene as sufficient?
Why is the definition of “Covid death” so convoluted?
Why does Bonnie Henry admit false positives could flood hospitals?
Why does the BCCDC admit these tests can’t determine infection?

These are just a few of the core problems.

There’s also all kinds of proof that this was planned in advance. And people should wonder about connections like the Rockefeller Foundation to the University of Toronto.

Of course, this isn’t to say that everyone who still believes in germ theory or viruses is a grifter or shill. Plenty of well meaning people are still caught up in that. They RIGHTLY recognize martial law being imposed, but can’t bring themselves to admit that it’s all been a lie.

Many accept that 90-95% of this is a lie, but can’t come to that last part.

That being said, there are still some basic questions that need answering.

Simply saying: “I oppose masks, vaccine passports and lockdowns” is a safe position to take. It doesn’t address the depth of the hoax.

And if you haven’t checked out the work from Fluoride Free Peel, go do that. This deadly “virus” hasn’t been isolated or proven to exist, anywhere in the world. Additionally, it doesn’t appear that any others have been either. There’s also a pretty interesting set of Google docs available from A Warrior Calls, worth checking out.

(1) https://www.bitchute.com/video/qm1z7PhGXnGe/
(2) https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/WHO-2019-nCoV-Surveillance_Case_Definition-2020.2
(3) WHO-2019-nCoV-Surv_Case_Definition-2020.
(4) https://www.who.int/classifications/icd/Guidelines_Cause_of_Death_COVID-19.pdf
(5) https://www.who.int/classifications/icd/Guidelines_Cause_of_Death_COVID-19.pdf
(6) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/WHO-Guidelines-Classification-Of-Death.pdf
(7) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/WHO-COVID-19-laboratory-Testing-March-17-2020.pdf
(8) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/WHO-2019-nCoV-laboratory-September-11-2020-Guidelines.pdf
(9) https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/protocol-v2-1.pdf
(10) Diagnostic detection of 2019-nCoV by real-time RT-PCR
(11) https://www.bitchute.com/video/iKXqxr8RgNQz/
(12) https://odysee.com/@CanuckLaw:8/Definitions-Matter:d
(13) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/BC-COVID19_InterpretingTesting_Results_NAT_PCR.pdf
(14) http://www.bccdc.ca/Health-Professionals-Site/Documents/COVID19_InterpretingTesting_Results_NAT_PCR.pdf
(15) https://www.glaciermedia.ca/bc-news/bonnie-henry-warns-businesses-against-covid-testing-4682197
(16) https://archive.ph/U2k6g
(17) Wayback Machine
(18) https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/fois-reveal-that-health-science-institutions-around-the-world-have-no-record-of-sars-cov-2-isolation-purification/
(19) https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1BZ7kHlWeg5pcvLMFvC-Hao8pIc4hiM-o
(20) https://www.youtube.com/c/BillHustonPodcast
(21) https://www.chancellorscircle.utoronto.ca/members/the-rockefeller-foundation/

May 4, 2022

Nova Scotia FOI: More Deaths As Vaccination Numbers Climb

A reader to the site recently brought up a freedom of information request release related to “Covid deaths”. Nova Scotia is a province that releases their FOIs after they are sent off — with personal information redacted, of course.

There were zero (0) so-called “Covid deaths” in the period of November 1, 2020 until February 28, 2021.

By contrast, there were 105 so-called “Covid deaths” in the period of November 1, 2021 until February 28, 2022. This would be the period where vaccine passports were implemented.

Of course, this “virus” isn’t real, and germ theory is a hoax. That being said, it’s pretty interesting when Nova Scotia’s own data shows that there are more deaths resulting well after the vaccine release. Even their information would lead reasonable people to question the side effects of these shots.

The definition of a “Covid death” has also been covered on this site. It amounts to nothing less than medical and scientific fraud.

(1) 2022-00335-HEA_PublicPackage.pdf Deaths by age ranges
(2) https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/fois-reveal-that-health-science-institutions-around-the-world-have-no-record-of-sars-cov-2-isolation-purification/

Category: FOI Request

Nova Scotia FOIs: Miscellaneous Findings On Freedom Restrictions

Like this:

Nova Scotia FOI: Another Data Dump On Cases/Vaxx Rates

Like this:

Nova Scotia FOI: Gov’t Data On Deaths By Age/Vaxx Status

Like this:

Some Thoughts On The Virus/No-Virus Challenges Going On

Like this:

Taking That Last Step To See Through The Lies….

Like this:

Nova Scotia FOI: More Deaths As Vaccination Numbers Climb

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: