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.

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
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
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
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
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.

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)
• 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 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.

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

(1) (Original)


British Columbia’s Convoluted Stance On Drugs And Safety

This article is going to be a little disjointed, but the purpose is to show how convoluted and illogical drugs policies are becoming in the Province of British Columbia.

B.C. is the first province in Canada to receive a three-year exemption from the federal government to remove criminal penalties for people who possess small amounts of illicit drugs for personal use. Decriminalization of people who use drugs will reduce the fear and shame that keeps people silent and leads so many to hide their drug use and avoid treatment and support. Reducing the stigma of drug use is a vital part of B.C.’s work to build a comprehensive system of mental health and substance use care. Decriminalization will become effective Jan. 31, 2023, and the Province will work with a broad cross-section of partners to make sure police are trained and health authorities are prepared for this change.

The B.C Government got a 3 year exemption from Ottawa for possession of narcotics — any narcotics — that are in small enough quantities, and for personal use.

The (outgoing) Premier sent his condolences for deaths that resulted from a poisoned supply. Of course, it’s a bit rich considering that these drugs are poison to begin with. Perhaps they were just killing off the customers too quickly.

Just 2 years ago, Horgan actually recommended staying home and smoking pot as a way to stay safe during the so-called pandemic. There was even a “Good Times” website up in the Summer of 2020. It’s since been removed, but the archived version is still available.

The BCCDC, or B.C. Centre for Disease Control, has guidelines surrounding illicit drug use. Note: it doesn’t appear that stopping is a major objective. Here’s an archived version of it.

Some initiatives to combat drug abuse include:

  • Decriminalization
  • Access to prescribed safer supply, a Canadian first
  • Overdose prevention and supervised consumption services
  • Lifeguard App
  • Take-home naloxone kits
  • New beds for addictions and recovery care
  • Expanded scope of nursing practice, a Canadian first (RN prescriptions)
  • Expanded opioid agonist treatment

Now, there are also programs at various stages for emergency responses and expanded treatment options. However, considering the efforts untaken to expand drug use in this Province, efforts to stop the problem seem insincere.

Of course, the BC Centre for Disease Control is compromised, to put it mildly. The BCCDC Foundation is a registered charity, and gets major tax breaks. Its donors include drug companies, creating a serious conflict of interest. (Archive here). Should the organizations impacting public policy be getting donations from the same companies who profit from — vaccine mandates?

Our $75,000 – $250,000 Donors

  • GlaxoSmithKline
  • Julie Glover
  • Pfizer Canada Inc.
  • Unbounded Canada Foundation
  • Vancouver Foundation

$25,000 – $74,999.99 Donors

  • British Columbia Association for Sexual Health
  • Merck Canada Inc.
  • Pacific Blue Cross
  • Teradici Corp

$5,000 – $24,999.99 Donors

  • AbbVie Canada Corp.
  • Associated Canadian Theological Schools Society
  • BC Teachers’ Federation
  • Ben and Lilac Milne
  • BlueSky Properties
  • Chef Ann Kirsebom’s Gourmet Sauces / BBQ Ltd.
  • Connor, Clark & Lunn Foundation
  • Gilead Sciences Canada Inc.
  • Imperial Medical Group Inc.
  • Leith Wheeler Investment Counsel Ltd.
  • LifeLabs
  • London Drugs Limited
  • Orbis Investments Canada Ltd.
  • Sanofi
  • Vancouver Dispensary Society
  • Vard Electro Canada Inc.

Just a thought: but perhaps the pharma money that the BCCDC Foundation receives contributes to the fact that it’s so pro-pharma. This cannot be ignored. Nor can the charity status of the B.C. Provincial Health Services Authority.

In 2018, B.C. began a class-action lawsuit on behalf of all federal, provincial and territorial governments in Canada and enacted the Opioid Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act. The aim of the class action and legislation is to recover health-care costs that resulted from wrongful conduct of opioid manufacturers, distributors and their consultants.

B.C. alleges that opioid manufacturers, distributors and their consultants engaged in deceptive marketing practices with a view to increase sales, resulting in increased rates of addiction and overdose. Purdue Canada is one among over 40 manufacturers and distributors named in the class action commenced in 2018 and scheduled for a certification hearing in the next year.

The proposed settlement with Purdue Canada has been agreed to by all federal, provincial and territorial governments and totals $150 million in monetary benefits, plus additional benefits including access to information and documents relevant to the lawsuit. This settlement was reached very early in the litigation process, before the allegations against Purdue Canada have been proven in court. This is the largest settlement of a governmental health claim in Canadian history. The proposed agreement is still subject to final approval by the courts, expected in the next few months.

At the end of June 2022, the B.C. announced a proposed $150 million settlement with Purdue Canada over its business practices.

Taxpayers are on the hook for the extra health care costs, and it seems unlikely that court rulings will come close to compensating the public. Of course, this only speaks to the financial burdens, not the societal and personal losses.

This is pretty convoluted to think that drug laws are getting watered down, resulting in easier access to drugs. Meanwhile, society is plagued by the results of legal drugs (opioids). It’s not just deaths, but ruined lives and families that are the collateral damages.

Will this settlement result in these pharmaceuticals being taken off the market, at least for the most part? Or will these court actions simply be viewed as the cost of doing business?

It’s difficult to see that the Government here is serious about ending drug problems in this Province. Then again, maybe the goal is not to stop it, but just to control it.


ONSC Rules Child Cannot Be Forced To Take Injections

An Ontario Superior Court Judge dismissed an application to essentially force a minor to get a shot against her will.

Parents were in the midst of divorce and custody issues, and the topic of the “vaccines” came up. The father was insistent that the daughter get it, while the mother said she would respect the girl’s own choices. The girl, who is 12 years old, has outright refused to get it.

Throughout the decision, the term “taken judicial notice” comes up again and again. What this means is that a court will not look into an issue, simply because some other court or adjudication body has already done so. While there is a certain logic to it, garbage rulings can also simply be accepted on this basis.

[1] The respondent father brings this motion seeking an order directing that the applicant mother ensure that their daughter is vaccinated against COVID-19 and that she receives any further and additional scheduled vaccinations in accordance with provincial recommendations, failing which the father shall be permitted to return this matter to seek sole decision-making authority over all aspects of the child’s medical care.

[11] Unfortunately, Mr. Tonge was not able to provide the opinion requested. By letter to the parties dated February 22, 2022, Mr. Tonge stated that he understood he was requested and agreed to assist S. in reconnecting with her father and not to undertake an assessment of parental influence. He was unaware of the vaccination issue until it was raised by S.. Mr. Tonge could not comment on the “presence or absence of parental influence and the understanding, capacity and maturity of this child to make a decision” as he was not asked to, nor did he agree to conduct such an assessment.

[15] The respondent father’s position is that it is presumptively in S.’s best interest that she be vaccinated against the COVID-19 virus and mother has provided no evidence to rebut this presumption. The apparent objections of S. do not stem from any sound medical evidence or opinion. Mother has improperly left the decision up to S. who is not old enough, mature enough, or knowledgeable enough to make such a major health decision. Thus, it falls on this court to step in and protect the child’s best interests, to make sure that she receives her COVID-19 vaccination to protect her and to protect her classmates, her friends, her neighbours, and family.

[37] The issue before the court in taking judicial notice of scientific facts is not assessing whether the science is “fake science”, but whether scientific facts that would normally require expert opinion to be admitted, may be judicially noticed without proof. This issue was recently addressed by Breithaupt Smith J. in R.S.P. v. H.L.C. 2021 ONSC 8362 in which she provided what has been described as a timely warning (J.N. v. C.G., 2022 ONSC 1198 at para 65):

[42] I am not prepared to take judicial notice of any government information with respect to COVID-19 or the COVID-19 vaccines.

[43] Even if I were to take judicial notice of the “safety” and “efficacy” of the vaccine, I still have no basis for assessing what that means for this child. I must still determine how safe, how efficacious the vaccine is for this child. Does safe mean there are no side effects? Is the vaccine effective in protecting her from contracting COVID-19, from spreading it, from dying from it, from severity of symptoms? As with informed consent, there are many factors that must be carefully considered in weighing risks and benefits.

[58] I am mindful in considering S’s best interests that an order that mother ensure she is vaccinated would have irreversible consequences, if S. was vaccinated as a result. One cannot be unvaccinated. In that respect, it is a final order.

[59] Finally, I am satisfied that S. is a “mature minor” as explained by Abella J. in A.C. v. Manitoba (Director of Child and Family Services), 2009 SCC 30 at para 47. S. is capable with respect to treatment pursuant to s. 4 of the Health Care Consent Act, 1996, SO 1996, c 2, Sch A. She is mature enough to accept or refuse treatment.

There is a certain logic to it. If young children are “mature” enough to get the shot, then they should be mature enough to make the decision to refuse it.

The court also makes the observation that a person cannot ever be “unvaccinated”. That alone should be enough to give pause before pushing these injections. It was also noted that the “evidence” seems to keep changing, which is another reason to not take the matter as settled.

This adolescent girl seems to have more sense than either of her parents, but at least the mother was willing to respect her personal choices.


M.M. v. W.A.K., 2022 ONSC 4580

Recent Statistics On Euthanasia (Assisted Suicide) In Canada

Some statistics are available for the totals of assisted suicide, a.k.a. euthanasia. Nearly 20,000 people have been put down, according to data from StatsCan. It will be interesting to see if there is a major spike in 2021, given harsher lockdown measures and vaccine passports.

Given the prolonged (and intentional) infliction of mental, emotional and financial harms, how many otherwise normal and healthy people have been driven to the point where this is seriously contemplated as an option?

2017 2,838
2018 4,478
2019 5,425
2020 7,383

It’s interesting that this is pushed so heavily by liberals, who pretend to be adamantly in favour of protecting the rights of vulnerable people. There’s considerable overlap with supporting abortion, and the LGBTQ agenda. These are all things that have the effect of driving down the population.

In 2020, this increased to 7,383 deaths (2.4% of all deaths in Canada), representing a 36.0% increase in the number of MAID recipients from 2019 to 2020. As for the reasons Canadians are supposedly seeking early death, these are listed:

67.5% Cancer
12.4% Cardiovascular
11.2% Chronic Respiratory

There’s also some data for people who’ve changed their minds. The numbers don’t add up to 100%, as many checked off more than 1 reason.

66.4% Changed Their Mind
47.8% Palliative Measures Are Sufficient
12.1% Family Members Don’t Support MAiD
1.3% Unknown Reason

In 2020, approximately 2.5% of people who previously applied for euthanasia changed their minds. It’s worth pointing out that withdrawal (of consent) immediately before MAID was 22.0%, or nearly a quarter of those.

It gets worse. New changes are expected to take place in 2023 which will allow mentally ill people to be euthanized (even if that was their only condition).

If a mental illness is the only medical condition leading you to consider MAID, you are not eligible to seek MAID at this time. Under the new changes made to the law, the exclusion will remain in effect until March 17, 2023.

This temporary exclusion provides the Government of Canada and health professional bodies more time to consider how MAID can be provided safely to those whose only medical condition is a mental illness.

To support this work, the government initiated an expert review to provide recommendations on protocols, guidance and safeguards for those with a mental illness seeking MAID.

After March 17, 2023, people with a mental illness as their sole underlying medical condition will have access to MAID if they meet all of the eligibility requirements and the practitioners fulfill the safeguards that are put in place for this group of people.

If you have a mental illness along with other medical conditions, you may be eligible to seek MAID.

Eligibility is always assessed on an individual basis, taking into account all of the relevant circumstances. However, you must meet all the criteria to be eligible for medical assistance in dying.

In other words, it will soon be legal to euthanize people SOLELY for having mental illnesses. People who have them can still receive MAiD today, as long as there is additionally some other condition that qualifies.

Of course, this raises all sorts of other issues, such as exploitation and informed consent. Who will really be making these decisions?


World Health Organization Constitution: Have You Actually Read It?

The World Health Organization Constitution is just one document that Canadians were subjected to, and this being done without knowledge or consent. Was there ever a referendum or election campaign run on this? Probably not.

The full text is available with a quick internet search. Below are some sections which might be the most troubling to any nationalist or patriot.

Article 4
Members of the United Nations may become Members of the Organization by signing or otherwise accepting this Constitution in accordance with the provisions of Chapter XIX and in accordance with their constitutional processes.

This part cannot be overemphasized. If a country wants to be part of the WHO, then they necessarily have to sign onto their constitution. The Federal Government did this on their own, with a signature. And as we go through it, the problems with this become obvious.

Article 7
If a Member fails to meet its financial obligations to the Organization or in other exceptional circumstances, the Health Assembly may, on such conditions as it thinks proper, suspend the voting privileges and services to which a Member is entitled. The Health Assembly shall have the authority to restore such voting privileges and services.

So, being part of this group is voluntary. However, if you don’t pay your bills, WHO can suspend your voting rights. They can also be removed under the undefined “exceptional circumstances”. Sounds a bit undemocratic, doesn’t it?

Article 19
The Health Assembly shall have authority to adopt conventions or agreements with respect to any matter within the competence of the Organization. A two-thirds vote of the Health Assembly shall be required for the adoption of such conventions or agreements, which shall come into force for each Member when accepted by it in accordance with its constitutional processes.

Article 20
Each Member undertakes that it will, within eighteen months after the adoption by the Health Assembly of a convention or agreement, take action relative to the acceptance of such convention or agreement. Each Member shall notify the Director-General of the action taken, and if it does not accept such convention or agreement within the time limit, it will furnish a statement of the reasons for non-acceptance. In case of acceptance, each Member agrees to make an annual report to the Director-General in accordance with Chapter XIV

The Health Assembly has the right to determine its own conventions and agreement, and it can be done with a 2/3 vote. By this rationale, Canada could easily be forced into adopting policies that it fundamentally disagrees with. And to state the obvious, there was never any domestic vote or referendum over this.

Members are also obligated to go along with any convention or agreement. If they refuse, written reasons have to be provided.

Article 21
The Health Assembly shall have authority to adopt regulations concerning:
(a) sanitary and quarantine requirements and other procedures designed to prevent the international spread of disease;
(b) nomenclatures with respect to diseases, causes of death and public health practices;
(c) standards with respect to diagnostic procedures for international use;
(d) standards with respect to the safety, purity and potency of biological, pharmaceutical and similar products moving in international commerce;
(e) advertising and labelling of biological, pharmaceutical and similar products moving in international commerce.

Article 22
Regulations adopted pursuant to Article 21 shall come into force for all Members after due notice has been given of their adoption by the Health Assembly except for such Members as may notify the Director-General of rejection or reservations within the period stated in the notice.

W.H.O.’s constitution makes it clear that quarantine measures fall under their purview. Quarantine, of course, is code for movement and population control. Strange how none of the freedom fighters in the media or politics ever mention this.

As for the standards and nomenclature of pharmaceuticals, this includes vaccines that are pushed on the public despite only having emergency authorization. There’s also a reference to testing, such as the PCR tests, which can’t determine anything.

W.H.O. names diseases as well, including ones that have never been proven to exist.

It doesn’t appear that Canada ever rejected or opted-out of any of this. As such, we are compelled to play along with this globalist organization.

Article 54
The Pan American Sanitary Organization represented by the Pan American Sanitary Bureau and the Pan American Sanitary Conferences, and all other inter-governmental regional health organizations in existence prior to the date of signature of this Constitution, shall in due course be integrated with the Organization. This integration shall be effected as soon as practicable through common action based on mutual consent of the competent authorities expressed through the organizations concerned.

All other organizations that use “public health” as a means of population control will eventually become integrated with W.H.O. Guess it keeps everything centralized.

Article 59
Each Member shall have one vote in the Health Assembly.

Article 60
(a) Decisions of the Health Assembly on important questions shall be made by a two-thirds majority of the Members present and voting. These questions shall include: the adoption of conventions or agreements; the approval of agreements bringing the Organization into relation with the United Nations and inter-governmental organizations and agencies in accordance with Articles 69, 70 and 72; amendments to this Constitution.
(b) Decisions on other questions, including the determination of additional categories of questions to be decided by a two-thirds majority, shall be made by a majority of the Members present and voting.
(c) Voting on analogous matters in the Board and in committees of the Organization shall be made in accordance with paragraphs (a) and (b) of this Article.

This becomes a numbers game, where decisions that are detrimental to some nations can be adopted simply because the majority overall vote for it. With this mechanism in mind, there really is no sovereignty to rely on.

Article 66
The Organization shall enjoy in the territory of each Member such legal capacity as may be necessary for the fulfilment of its objective and for the exercise of its functions.

Article 67
(a) The Organization shall enjoy in the territory of each Member such privileges and immunities as may be necessary for the fulfilment of its objective and for the exercise of its functions.
(b) Representatives of Members, persons designated to serve on the Board and technical and administrative personnel of the Organization shall similarly enjoy such privileges and immunities as are necessary for the independent exercise of their functions in connexion with the Organization.

Article 68
Such legal capacity, privileges and immunities shall be defined in a separate agreement to be prepared by the Organization in consultation with the Secretary-General of the United Nations and concluded between the Members

All employees and other workers are given immunity from legal action as part of their contracts with W.H.O. That’s a pretty good deal. They can’t be sued, charged, or have recourse taken against them, as long as they were doing their jobs. There doesn’t even seem to be a requirement that they be acting in good faith.

Article 69
The Organization shall be brought into relation with the United Nations as one of the specialized agencies referred to in Article 57 of the Charter of the United Nations. The agreement or agreements bringing the Organization into relation with the United Nations shall be subject to approval by a two-thirds vote of the Health Assembly.

The W.H.O. would be subject to U.N. control. It’s pretty clear that the ultimate goal is to merge all of these organizations into a single, centralized institution of power.

Article 71
The Organization may, on matters within its competence, make suitable arrangements for consultation and co-operation with non-governmental international organizations and, with the consent of the Government concerned, with national organizations, governmental or non-governmental

On its own, this doesn’t sound too bad, but the devil is always in the details. Which groups would be consulted? How would they be screened? Would their recommendations become binding on members?

Article 72
Subject to the approval by a two-thirds vote of the Health Assembly, the Organization may take over from any other international organization or agency whose purpose and activities lie within the field of competence of the Organization such functions, resources and obligations as may be conferred upon the Organization by international agreement or by mutually acceptable arrangements entered into between the competent authorities of the respective organizations.

The W.H.O. constitution gives itself the power to take over from any “international organization or agency” within its designated scope, as long as there is a 2/3 majority vote from the Health Assembly.

Sure, it’s done “on consent”, but who are the people that are really consenting?

Article 79
(a) States may become parties to this Constitution by:
(i) signature without reservation as to approval;
(ii) signature subject to approval followed by acceptance; or
(iii) acceptance.
(b) Acceptance shall be effected by the deposit of a formal instrument with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

Article 80
This Constitution shall come into force when twenty-six Members of the United Nations have become parties to it in accordance with the provisions of Article 79.

This isn’t everything, but just more eye-opening parts. The full text of the W.H.O. constitution is freely available. (Here’s the highlighted version). Look it up, read it, and see what exactly we have been signed onto without any sort of democratic mandate.

Rest assured, there are a lot more than 26 countries now. This means the constitution has come into force. And if anyone hasn’t gone through the chronology of events, it’s all laid out here:

1908: International Public Health Office to be created
1926: International Sanitary Convention was ratified in Paris.
1946: WHO’s Constitution was signed, and it’s something we’ll get into in more detail.
1951: International Sanitary Regulations adopted by Member States.
1969: International Health Regulations (1st Edition) replaced ISR. These are legally binding on all Member States.
2005: International Health Regulations 3rd Edition of IHR were ratified.

Being part of the World Health Organization means submitting to their rules and control. It’s laid out in their own constitution. To be clear, sovereignty will never be possible as long as Canada is part of this entity.

As has been outlined here before, the 2005 Quarantine Act, Bill C-12, was really just domestic implementation of the 3rd Edition of the International Health Regulations.

We’ve also gone heavily into the creation of PHAC, which is essentially just a branch of the World Health Organization. It was created at WHO’s instigation. It takes over (to a large degree) what Health Canada had been doing. The timeline is laid out, and worth a read.

The W.H.O. Constitution is a major step is the erasure of nations — under the guise of public health. Anyone serious about “freedom” in Canada, or elsewhere, needs to address this. Far too many are propped up as heroes, but who ignore the underlying legislation and treaties.

(1B) WHO Constitution Full Document MARKED

Sports Groups That Took CEWS Money To Enforce Masks, Vaxx Pass

Ever wonder why so many sports groups, including youth sports, were all too willing to enforce masks and vaccine orders? Maybe, just maybe, it’s because of the CEWS handouts they’ve been getting. CEWS is of course the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy. Of course, it’s not practical to add each agency, so searching the registry for individual names is probably the best.

Even at the NHL level, it seems that subsidies were too tempting rather than just treat people normally.

Wild idea, but with so many playing along, perhaps society isn’t worth saving.


Hotel, Restaurant Groups Getting Wage/Rental Subsidies
Liberals, Conservatives, NDP All Getting Bailout Money
Lawyers, Bar Associations Receiving CEWS Money
Conflicting Out? Lawyers Getting More Than Just CEWS
Churches Are Charities, Getting CEWS, Subsidies & Promoting Vaccines
Trucking Alliance Grants Raising many Eyebrows
Chambers Of Commerce Subsidized By Canadians, Want Open Borders
Banks, Credit Unions, Media Outlets All Getting CEWS
Publishing Industry Subsidized By Taxpayer Money
Gyms And Fitness Centers Getting Subsidies To Push Vaxx Pass
Chapters-Indigo Getting Millions In Subsidies To Discriminate
Jordan Peterson Shills For Vaxx, Suspension Of Civil Rights
Toronto Region Board Of Trade Pushing Vaxx Passports