Nova Scotia FOI Request Shows Province REDUCED ICU Capacity In Recent Years

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, the lack of data for masks in schools, and the screwy definition of “cases”.

Does it really make sense that ICU capacity has been REDUCED in recent years?

2016 January 120
2016 February 120
2016 March 120
2016 April 126
2016 May 126
2016 June 126
2016 July 126
2016 August 126
2016 September 126
2016 October 126
2016 November 126
2016 December 126
2017 January 126
2017 February 126
2017 March 126
2017 April 126
2017 May 127
2017 June 127
2017 July 127
2017 August 127
2017 September 127
2017 October 127
2017 November 127
2017 December 127
2018 January 127
2018 February 127
2018 March 127
2018 April 127
2018 May 127
2018 June 127
2018 July 127
2018 August 127
2018 September 127
2018 October 127
2018 November 127
2018 December 127
2019 January 127
2019 February 127
2019 March 127
2019 April 120
2019 May 120
2019 June 120
2019 July 120
2019 August 120
2019 September 120
2019 October 120
2019 November 120
2019 December 120
2020 January 120
2020 February 120
2020 March 120
2020 April 121
2020 May 121
2020 June 121
2020 July 121
2020 August 121
2020 September 121
2020 October 121
2020 November 121
2020 December 121
2021 January 121
2021 February 121
2021 March 121
2021 April 117
2021 May 117
2021 June 117
2021 July 117
2021 August 117
2021 September 117

One would think that the Province would be working to expand those numbers. It went from 127 beds to 120 in just a few years. After all, this is supposedly the middle of a global pandemic. Makes you wonder what’s really going on here.

Strang said proof of vaccination will help keep communities safe, ensure children and youth can safely attend school, and protect the health-care system and its providers.

Strang and Premier Tim Houston did not call the system a vaccine passport — a measure introduced in other jurisdictions that has sparked debate over privacy and personal freedom versus public health. However, there doesn’t appear to be any difference between a vaccine passport and the Nova Scotia policy announced Wednesday.

Recently, it seems that Robert Strang was recently quoted as saying: “proof of vaccination will help keep communities safe, ensure children and youth can safely attend school, and protect the health-care system and its providers.” But it turns out this policy isn’t based on any evidence, nor does the Government know where any such proof can be found.

And a friendly reminder: public gatherings were previously banned for your safety.

Also, if you haven’t checked out Fluoride Free Peel, Christine Massey and her group have done a stunning amount of work proving that this “virus” has never actually been isolated. What is shown on television is just a computer simulation of what people claim they believe it looks like.

(1) Copy of FOIPOP 82 Data – Updated
(3) 2021-01663-HEA Decision Letter signed

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)
 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)
 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
≥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.

(3) Nova Scotia Package Response Redacted
(4) CADTH Implementation Panel Jan 14 2021
(5) Nova Scotia FOI Document Dump_compressed

Nova Scotia FOI Result: Province Refuses To Turn Over Data/Studies Justifying Masks In Schools

Thank you to a concerned Nova Scotia resident who took the time to contact the NS Department of Health and Wellness regarding masks in schools. The same person also went through the efforts to contact the Government asking for data about ICU hospitalizations and capacity going back to 2015. This earlier result is well worth a read.

Note: when scrubbing details, a few pages at the end turned out a bit wonky. Hopefully, that doesn’t detract from the overall information.

The Department of Health and Wellness received your application for access to information under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act) on June 22, 2021.
In your application, you requested a copy of the following records:
All scientific data, correspondence, studies, final briefing notes, risk-benefit analysis that justify and or support the government’s actions and decision-making that masking children in schools is necessary to reduce the spread of COVID-19 that are held by Dr. Strang Chief Medical Officer of Health. (Date Range for Record Search:
From 02/29/2020 To 06/21/2021)

This is a very reasonable request. If young children are going to be forced (or coerced) into wearing masks for 4 or 6 hours per day, then we need to see some justification for this. For all the rambling about following the science, let’s see some actual science.

You are entitled to part of the records requested. However, we have removed some of the information from the records according to subsection 5(2) of the Act. The severed information is exempt from disclosure under the Act for the following reasons:
• Section 14(1): The head of a public body may refuse to disclose to an applicant information that would reveal advice, recommendations or draft regulations developed by or for a public body.
• Section 20(1): The head of a public body shall refuse to disclose personal information to an applicant if the disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of a third party’s personal privacy.

The Province is redacting part of the information, claiming that it would force them to reveal regulations currently being drafted. They also allege some 3rd party invasion of privacy. It’s scant on details, so there’s really no way to verify this.

We are refusing access to a portion of the records for the following reason pursuant to subsection 4(2) of the Act:
• The Act does not apply to the following kinds of information in the custody or control of a public body: published information, material available for purchase and material that is a matter of public record.

As an additional ground, no information can be released, since apparently it’s already in the public domain. Now, there are links provided on the next page, but this doesn’t really help narrow down where exactly that information is.

Information that is not responsive to the scope of your requests has been removed from the
records package.

Dude, you haven’t provided any information. Does the Chief Medical Officer of Health in Nova Scotia not have any records related to the health of children in schools, and how masks would impact them?

Nova Scotia’s Covid -19 response actions have been based on national and international guidance from the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) and the World Health Organization (WHO). As the leading agencies for pandemic response nationally and internationally, both PHAC and WHO are continuously reviewing the evolving scientific evidence regarding COVID-19 and the effectiveness of various measures. These reviews are used to form their guidance, position statements, and other documents all of which are in the public domain.

This is the typical self-congratulations, that doesn’t really answer the question being asked. Now, there are another 10 pages attached, mostly redacted. The information provided is pretty useless. Now, if there truly was a scientific and medical basis for the decision to push masks on the public (and especially on kids) why not share it openly?

There has to be far more information that the pages (even the redacted ones) provided. This is a major decision, and not something that can be done on a whim. What are they really hiding?

And since we’re on FOIs, go visit Fluoride Free Peel. Amazing work done there by Christine Massey to expose the scam of this so-called virus. It’s never been isolated, anywhere, ever, by anyone in the world.

(1) Nova Scotia Masks At School FOI

Getting Started With Your Own Freedom Of Information/Access To Information Requests

This article is going to be different. Instead of dropping a bunch of research, today we will get into conducting your own research. Specifically, how to go about filing freedom of information (or access to information) requests. FOI/ATI are essentially the same thing, a request for documents.

You don’t have to be a journalist, reporter, or researcher to file these requests. Anyone who is curious or concerned with what’s going on, or if they have a personal issue, can file one.

Now, this is just general information of filing such requests, and how it works. Take this article as a starting place, rather than as some gospel.

Depending on the jurisdiction and/or information sought, there may or may not be a fee. Also, the fee can go up if the the search is overly broad. As a general guideline: Government bodies will typically give a person their own information for free, but may charge for general information. Also, they typically won’t hand over SOMEONE ELSE’S private information without a signed waiver or agreement.

Depending on many factors, an FOI can take anywhere from a few days, to several months for a response. There’s no one answer for how long you will wait. Now, what will the agency you file with do?

In short, a few different outcomes can happen:
(a) Government body discloses records being sought
(b) Government body ignores or delays the request
(c) Government body admits that it has no such records
(d) Government body admits having records, but refuses to release them, for some reason. More on that later.

All 4 outcomes have happened to FOI requests from here. The success rate at getting meaningful data has (anecdotally) been about 50%. That being said, these are still a valuable tool for truth seekers. If nothing else, these are quite easy to file.

A tip for making FOI requests: write it up in such a way that it’s clear you are asking for records. You likely won’t get a helpful response if this involves open ended questions. As an example:

Instead of: “Has anyone studied the physical or psychological consequences of forcing young children to wear masks?”

Try this: “I request records of any studies involving the physical or psychological effects of forcing young children to wear masks”

This may sound nitpicky and silly, but the wording does make a difference. If records are sought on a controversial topic, this could be used as an excuse to deny it, or at least delay it.

What kinds of documents can be requested?

  • Records of meetings, minutes
  • Names of people involved in a committee, study, or research
  • Conflict of interest disclosures
  • Studies or research conducted
  • Amounts of money paid to people or groups
  • Sources of funding
  • Reports filed publicly

Now, this should be commonsense, but if you wish to post your findings, consider scrubbing — removing — your personal details beforehand. At a minimum, don’t have your address splashed all over the internet, but even your name is important.

It’s worth pointing out that filing a formal FOI request may not always be necessary. Sometimes, if the information is already posted (or easy to find), just calling or emailing the Ministry or group in question may be enough to get it sent to you.

Also, if you don’t want to pay fees, or just don’t want to wait for a formal reply, see if someone has already made a similar request. In some jurisdictions, FOI results get posted online, in order to avoid duplication. If you do find what you want (from someone else), use that data. If you’re going to publish it, go ahead. Now, their personal info shouldn’t be disclosed, however, if it is, removing it would be appreciated. Their earlier work did you a favour after all.

  • Section 12: Cabinet confidences
  • Section 13: Advice or recommendations
  • Section 14: Legal advice
  • Section 15: Harm to law enforcement
  • Section 16: Harm to intergovernmental relations or negotiations
  • Section 17: Harm to financial or economic interests of a public body
  • Section 18: Harm to conservation of heritage sites
  • Section 19: Harm to individual or public safety
  • Section 20: Information to be published or released within 60 days
  • Section 21: Harm to business interests of a third party
  • Section 22: Harm to personal privacy
  • Section 22.1: Information relating to abortion services

It’s worth mentioning that Governments can (and often do) either refuse to release records, or redact parts of it. Using the BC FOIPP Act as an example, many items have exclusions (at least partially). Now, just because it’s a reason stated, doesn’t mean it’s legitimate.

When you get the results of the FOI request back, this might not be the end. There will almost always be some wording at the bottom saying that you can appeal, or request a review. Take this opportunity — especially if you’ve paid money or waited a long time — and ask for clarification on anything not understood.

As a closing thought, any readers who get something worthwhile are always welcome to submit their findings to Canuck Law. Results will be posted, with personal info removed.

P.S. Go check out Fluoride Free Peel for an extreme case on how to use FOIs to disprove a scam sprung onto the public.

(a) Contact FOIP TO See If Records Already Available
(b) Service Alberta: Making A FOIP Request
(c) Alberts eServices: Make FOIP Request
(d) Freedom Of Information & Privacy Protection Act

(a) Previously Released FOI Responses
(b) Getting Started With FOI Requests
(c) Submit General FOI Request
(d) Freedom Of Information & Protection Of Privacy Act

(a) Listings Of Previously Received FOI Requests
(b) Freedom Of Information Main Portal
(c) Freedom Of Information & Privacy Protection Act

(a) Getting Started Searching For Information
(b) List Of Bodies Subject To FOI Requests
(c) Right To Information & Protection Of Privacy Act

(a) Previously Released ATIPP Results
(b) Filing Your Own Access To Information Requests
(c) ATIPP Coordinators
(d) Access To Information & Protection Of Privacy Act

(a) ATIPP Reviews Posted
(b) ATIPP Main Page
(c) Access To Information request Forms
(d) Access To Information And Protection Act

(a) Searching Previously Disclosed Access To Information Results
(b) Getting Started With Access To Information
(c) Guidelines For FOI And Privacy Requests
(d) Freedom Of Information & Protection Of Privacy Act

(a) How To Place ATIPP Request

(a) Directory Of Records
(b) Access To Information Forms
(c) Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, Provincial
(d) Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, Municial

(a) Making A Request Under FOIPP
(b) List Of Public Bodies Covered Under Act
(c) Freedom Of Information & Protection Of Privacy Act

(a) Previous ATIPP Disclosures — French Only
(b) How To Make An Access Request
(c) General Information On ATIPP
(d) Act Respecting Access to Documents Held By Public Bodies

(a) Access To Information — Provincial And Municipal Acts

(a) Searching Archives Of ATIPP Requests
(b) Access to Information Registry
(c) ATIPP Request For Access To Information
(d) ATIPP Coordinators

(a) Search Existing Access To Information Requests
(b) Access to Information and Privacy (ATIP) Online Request
(c) Complete List Of Institutions
(d) List Of ATIP Coordinators

Nova Scotia FOI Response Tacitly Admits There Is No Wave Of Hospitalizations

The following information came as a result of a freedom of information request (FOI), that a concerned resident of Nova Scotia obtained. Also, this review from is worth a look as well.

For privacy reasons, personal information has been scrubbed. However, the data obtained (in an Excel spreadsheet), is quite telling. This covers the range from January 2015, up to and including May 2021. There has been no death wave, despite the media hype.

Iain Rankin and Robert Strang are constantly leading the Nova Scotia public to believe that there is some wave of hospitalizations as a result of this so-called “pandemic”. However, going back to 2015, it seems that the ICU (intensive care unit), has always hovered about 100% capacity. If there is some capacity issue, and lack of beds, this is a problem that dates back many years.

The ICU incidents of hospitalization hasn’t shot up either. Aside from March/April 2020, when the hospitals were emptied, it has averaged around 700 to 800 per month.

Keep in mind, the data for the FOI only goes are as far as May 2021 (hence the apparent drop). Nonetheless, this doesn’t look like some wave that we all need to be scared about. The above tables show combined data from all Nova Scotia hospitals. But even separating the data out, there isn’t some big surge anywhere. Even using the Province’s own data — assuming it’s accurate — there is no cause to be alarmed about this “pandemic”.

Do any of these regional data charts show any “waves” of ICU hospitalization in 2020 or 2021? True, this isn’t all of them, but look at the raw data. There’s no surge in any of them.

Note: this isn’t about debating whether this “virus” exists, as there is no proof it does. Instead, this is about showing Nova Scotia’s own reported data. Even taking everything they say at face value, there is no pandemic. There is no wave of hospitals being overrun. Sure, they may be understaffed, but that’s a problem that goes back years.

One really has to wonder why the Province’s “Top Doctor”, who looks like an unhealthy slob, keeps pushing the narrative that there is a health crisis. Makes one ponder the true reason they wanted protests and gathering shut downs.

Thank you to the person who took the time to file this, and then share the FOI data. It’s been informative, although not surprising.

Since we’re on the topic of FOIs, do check out the work by Fluoride Free Peel. This group has been trying to prove (or disprove) the claims this “virus” has ever been isolated. The results are pretty shocking.

(1) Nova Scotia FOI Summer 2021 Data
(2) Copy of FOIPOP 82 Data
(3) Nova Scotia Hospitalization Data – Sorted

BC Covid Modelling: Open Source Software Hosted By GitHub (Microsoft’s People), Run By SFU/UBC Academics

Ever get the feeling that the Government in British Columbia just makes it up as they go along? Suspect that there really is no rational or scientific basis for anything that they do?

As for the term “Bayesian”, it refers to: being, relating to, or involving statistical methods that assign probabilities or distributions to events (such as rain tomorrow) or parameters (such as a population mean) based on experience or best guesses before experimentation and data collection and that apply Bayes’ theorem to revise the probabilities and distributions after obtaining experimental data. (From Merriam)

By itself, a Bayesian approach isn’t too bad. The problem is when garbage data and assumptions go in, the inevitable result is garbage outcomes.

Apart from BC Provincial Health Officer Bonnie Henry’s repeated admissions of there being no scientific basis, the BCCDC has also revealed that information. They really do just make it up, and no one in the mainstream press bothers to call out any of this.

And what about the modelling that Bonnie is referring to? Who’s cooking up the models that are being used to strip away the rights of Canadians?

Previously On BC Government Reporting…..

Thank you for your email of March 11, 2021. The Honourable Adrian Dix, Minister of Health has asked me to respond to your email regarding COVID-19 modelling. I am pleased to respond on his behalf. I apologies for the delayed response.

COVID-19 modelling in British Columbia (BC) is undertaken by the BC Centre for Disease Control (BCCDC). BCCDC projections for COVID-19 are done using a dynamic compartmental model fit to reported case data using a Bayesian Framework:
• Published model: Anderson et al. 2020. PLoS Comp. Biol. 16(12) e1008274
• Publicly available software:
• Model enhancements incorporating vaccination and variants of concern (VoC) are currently being prepared for publication

The BCCDC generates provincial and regional model fits to current data and projected numbers of new cases, hospitalizations, and deaths; and provincial and regional time-varying estimates of average daily transmission rate (Rt). Projections incorporate the current BC vaccination schedule and variable rates of contact and susceptibility by age. Vaccination is modeled using the current proposed one dose schedule by age group, with all eligible age groups vaccinated by end of June 2021, adjusting for age-dependent impact on transmission. A 15 percent vaccine hesitancy is assumed for all age groups.

According to the results of a freedom of information request, BC’s “Covid modelling” comes from a group of academics, primarily from the University of British Columbia, and Simon Fraser University. They also use open-source software from GitHub, which can be freely accessed.

The BCCDC tacitly admitted there was no science behind any of the measures they implemented. Instead, they deflected as it being “a rational approach”. But how rational can it be when there’s no hard science to support it?

While the software seems to be hosted on GitHub, bought in 2018 by Microsoft, it’s unclear who actually developed it, since the specific program isn’t listed. In any event, GitHub is a forum where software can be given a platform.

Who Are The People Running GitHub?

Many of the people running GitHub have ties to Microsoft and Google. Not too shocking since the $7.5 billion acquisition. That is quite interesting indeed, considering their respective roles in the “pandemic”. Both companies are part of VCI, the Vaccine Credential Initiative, and Microsoft helped launch ID2020 back in 2016. Same company that wants to give everyone a digital ID is also pushing the doomsday modelling to help justify the measures.

What else is GitHub up to? Here are just a few of their recent projects:
-An app to track vaccination bookings
-A notification system for vaccination bookings
-A vaccine passport app
-More on a vaccine passport
-A contact tracing app for Switzerland
QR codes to prove vaccination status
QR decoder for Quebec contact tracing app

It’s interesting that the modelling software is open source. Just a theory, but perhaps it’s done in order to drive business to the more lucrative side projects.

Who Are The “Experts” Doing The Modelling?

  • Sean C. Anderson – Pacific Biological Station, Fisheries and Oceans Canada
  • Andrew M. Edwards – Department of Biology, University of Victoria
  • Madi Yerlanov – Department of Mathematics, Simon Fraser University
  • Nicola Mulberry – Department of Mathematics, Simon Fraser University
  • Jessica E. Stockdale – Department of Mathematics, Simon Fraser University
  • Sarafa A. Iyaniwura – BCCDC, Department of Mathematics, University of British Columbia
  • Rebeca C. Falcao – BCCDC, Department of Mathematics, University of British Columbia
  • Michael C. Otterstatter – BCCDC, School of Public Health, University of British Columbia
  • Michael A. Irvine – British Columbia Children’s Hospital Research Institute
  • Naveed Z. Janjua – BCCDC, School of Public Health, University of British Columbia
  • Daniel Coombs – Department of Mathematics, University of British Columbia
  • Caroline Colijn – Department of Mathematics, Simon Fraser University

In the link provided in the FOI response, these are the people involved in conducting the computer modelling. University professors. People who spend their lives in institutions (and not the real world), produce predictions that the Government uses to justify medical tyranny.

And what do they use? Open source software hosted by a company owned by Microsoft and with Google associates. Hard data is lacking, and is replaced by assumptions.