Rockefeller; WEF; The Commons Project; CommonTrust Network; Health Passes

The Commons Project Foundation (CPF), and the World Economic Forum (WEF), are collaborating to run this so-called CommonTrust Network, and some other initiatives. There are many other partners as well. Now, we know (roughly) who Klaus Schwab and the WEF are. But who exactly is behind the CPF, and who finances it?

According to its own website, the Commons Project Foundation is a non-profit public trust established with support from the Rockefeller Foundation. It claims to have a mission of “build[ing] and operat[ing] digital platforms and services for the common good”. That sounds lovely, although we may have different ideas of what the common good is.

The Commons Project Foundation is accurate about having non-profit status with the IRS, EIN: 83-3933549. Its 2019 tax information is publicly available.

This is hardly an old organization. The CPF was only founded in 2019, as was its first project, CommonHealth. Later on it developed CommonPass, a data sharing structure, which is set to be used a framework for a global digital vaccine passport. And what a coincidence, 2019. It was launched just in time to save us from a global pandemic.

It’s also prominently listed on the World Economic Forum‘s site. Paul Meyer, the CEO, has quite the interesting biography.

Co-Founder and Chief Executive Officer, The Commons Project, a non-profit public trust, established with support from the Rockefeller Foundation, to build digital services that put people first. CommonHealth is the Android platform that lets people collect and manage their personal health data and share it with the health services, organizations and apps they trust. Began career doing advance work on Bill Clinton’s 1992 campaign. Then joined the White House staff as speechwriter. Then Chief Operating Officer, Endeavor. Then joined the International Rescue Committee. Co-founded IPKO which began as a wireless internet provider serving the United Nations and humanitarian agencies. Also co-founded the IPKO Foundation. Then Senior Fellow, Markle Foundation. 2001, co-founded and served as Chief Executive Officer, Voxiva. 2016, merged Voxiva with Sense Health to form Wellpass and served as Wellpass Chief Executive Officer. 2018, Wellpass was acquired by Welltok, served as President of the Public & Community Markets. 2019, co-founded The Commons Project. Member: IPKO Foundation Board; Advisory Board, BlueStar Families. Former Member, U.S. Advisory Committee on Voluntary Foreign Aid. Degree in Law, Yale; BA, Pomona College; studied politics, philosophy and economics, Oxford. Young Global Leader, World Economic Forum. Henry Crown Fellow, Aspen Institute. Term Member, Council on Foreign Relations.

Meyer is very well connected politically, and associated with all of the globalist organizations to ensure that his system is the one that is used.

The Commons Project lists 4 projects that it’s currently involved with:

  • CommonHealth
  • CommonPass
  • CommonTrust Network
  • SMART Health Read Verifier

CommonHealth appears to be a platform that people can use to download their health information. It’s compatible with systems like iOS and Android. Now it’s being offered for free to individuals — isn’t that nice — but the hope is that health care providers will take it as well.

Considering that this is essentially open source software, one has to wonder how any money is being made in all of this. Perhaps there are some interested donors contributing.

CommonHealth also offers SMART Health Cards, which appear to be a paper or digital version of clinical information. That kind of sounds like the forms that a vaccine passport would take.

CommonPass works in principle much the same way that CommonHealth does. Health information can be downloaded — say to a phone — and taken with a person wherever they go.

This differs in that it’s a way to cross borders (or police checkpoints). In essence, this is “halt and show your papers”. It’s difficult to see how this could be implemented in any consistent manner, unless there was some global system to work from. Then again, this sort of thing has long be decried as a conspiracy theory.

CommonPass explains in broad strokes how these movement licenses are supposed to work. And no, this wasn’t developed recently. Even in 2020 this type of tracking was already being openly advertised.

Also, what happens when the requirements change? First, it was a single vaccine for a cure to this “deadly disease”. Then it was 2 shots to be fully immunized. Now, the discussion is on 3rd shots, boosters, and possibly pills and supplements. Talk about shifting the goalposts.

The CommonTrust Network also has a map of the countries that are already part of it. To be fair, it doesn’t explicitly state if Canada itself if part of it, or just Provinces (like B.C.) within it. So there is a bit of room for interpretation here, but it’s most likely national.

So, Canada is part of the “Common Trust Network“, which its website describes as a growing global network of testing providers, vaccination providers, and public health registries. That’s interesting. Did you know we were part of this? Do you remember voting in any election, or referendum to get involved in this? Yeah, I didn’t either.

Provinces all across Canada are rolling out vaccine passports, and a national one is in the works. Are they all collaborating with the CT Network? What data exactly will they have, and who will have access to it?

Now, the technology wouldn’t be complete without a downloadable app that can go on people’s phones. Apple and Google now have them available. Isn’t that thoughtful of them?

Interestingly, in the last question of the FAQ section, it’s admitted that this platform might eventually be used to store more data.

These are hardly the only examples of NGOs getting to close for comfort, or meddling in public affairs. Addition to the above, a lot of these same organizations keep getting involved in interrelated efforts. A few examples of this are:

  • The Rockefeller Foundation is one of the founding partners of ID2020, along with Microsoft and GAVI. This group was formed in 2016, with the goal of creating a digital identity for everyone. Also, Mastercard is both a general partner of ID2020, and the Common Trust Network.
  • The Rockefeller Foundation has also been a major donor to the University of Toronto, and help launch public health at that school. Something rarely discussed in the halls of academia is where the money comes from.
  • As previously mentioned on this site, the Vaccine Credential Initiative is working to set universal standards for vaccine passports. Microsoft is involved, as is the Ontario Ministry of Health, and many of the other partners in the Common Trust Network.
  • Back in 2019, MIT had looked into the concept of storing medical data below the skin, sort of like a tattoo.
  • Also, is it a bad time to mention that Chrystia Freeland, the Deputy Prime Minister, is a Trustee at the World Economic Forum? So are many prominent names

It’s mind boggling to know that the vast majority of people in the world don’t get it. They don’t realize that all of this is planned and coordinated. The The ones doing this don’t even bother to hide it — they throw it in our faces.

(21) Commons Project Foundation 2019 Taxes

Facedrive/Microsoft Partner For TraceSCAN Distribution (Wearable Contact Tracing Equipment)

A company called Facedrive has gotten together with the University of Waterloo to create a wearable device to aid in contact tracing. Now that it appears to be operational, it’s ready to sell in collaboration with Microsoft. You remember Microsoft, they helped launched ID2020 back in 2016. Their ex-CEO, Bill Gates, wants to vaccinate the planet.

[Facedrive] is pleased to announce that its contact-tracing platform TraceSCAN has achieved co-sell ready status on the Microsoft Partner Network. Achieving ‘co-sell ready’ status will provide Facedrive TraceSCAN with a significant scaling opportunity by gaining access to Microsoft global customer and partner base. Furthermore, ‘co-sell ready’ status will enable Facedrive and Microsoft teams to collaborate globally on promoting TraceSCAN as a holistic connected health solution powered by Microsoft Azure technology stack. Specifically, Microsoft sales and consulting teams will be able to offer TraceSCAN contact-tracing to their corporate customers as an integrated feature within the enterprise business applications powered by Microsoft products. The greater choice and flexibility provided by being part of the Microsoft Partner’s Network will provide Facedrive TraceSCAN customers with a richer set of options in implementing their contact tracing programs.

It seems that a business deal with Microsoft has been in the works for a while. Considering Gates’ many ties to globalism and this “pandemic”, associations with his former company are worth careful scrutiny.

July 2020, Microsoft announced that TraceSCAN wearables would be available, but distribution would be limited to partners only, for now. This was a sort of soft launch for the product. In September, commercial distribution of the the tracking units started.

December 2020, TraceSCAN received Federal certification from Innovation, Science and Economic Development of Canada (ISED). This used to be known as Industry Canada.

Facedrive appears to incorporate Artificial Intelligence (or AI) into its platform. The company claims that this will assist in forecasting the spread of COVID-19 and predicting any further outbreaks of the virus. In a sense, this device on your wrist would be used to help drive new modelling to make predictions for further lockdowns and martial law.

The AI algorithms will help detect of infected individuals that have not been in direct contact with a positive case but might have been a 2nd or 3rd-degree contact. As with everything, the devil’s in the details, and we would have to know what assumptions and calculations are being made.

The creepiness factor keeps going from there. TraceSCAN’s contact tracing wearables are also a means to track and trace children (even very young children) in their daily movements. Of course, this is being sold as safety and security.

Facedrive itself explains in broad strokes how their technology would work. This amounts to putting a GPS tracker on your wrist, and having your movements and medical conditions tracked. At the same time, this could be done to hundreds, or thousands of other people. This isn’t quite microchipping the cattle, but it’s getting pretty close.

What can this technology be used for? Facedrive gives a list of possibilities:

  • Secure access to facilities
  • Linking to existing services
  • Time tracking
  • Attendance notification
  • Immunization passport
  • Remote monitoring of health metrics

Have to admire how blunt this company is about being able to repurpose their product for more general purposes. At least they don’t lie like the politicians claiming that these trackers will only be limited to this so-called pandemic.

Even back in July 2020, the Ontario Government announced support for this company. As with most things in politics, the magic handshake is needed to get results. From the Provincial database, we are able to see who’s been pulling Ford’s strings this time.

With a quick visit to the Ontario Lobbying Registry, we can see that Facedrive has been active in recent months, using connected lobbyists to get the Government interested in their technology. And it may have helped this company secure a $2.5 million payment from Toronto.

It’s worth a reminder that Microsoft and the Ontario Ministry of Health are both part of the Vaccine Credential Initiative.

VCI is working to enable individuals vaccinated for COVID-19 to access their vaccination records in a secure, verifiable and privacy-preserving way. The Coalition is developing a standard model for organizations administering COVID-19 vaccines to make credentials available in an accessible, interoperable, digital format. empower consumers to conveniently access, store, and share digital COVID-19 vaccination records

Ontario is working towards both a contact tracing system which far expands any legitimate use, and a universal vaccine certification. Anyone remember when this was just 2 weeks to flatten the curve?

Now, who were the people behind the scenes, pulling the strings of Doug Ford? It should surprise no one that the lobbyists involved have ties to the Conservatives both in Ontario, and Federally.

Stephanie Dunlop was involved in both of Erin O’Toole’s runs for the CPC leadership (2017 and 2020). She was also the Candidate Support Lead for the PC Party in 2018. This helped install Doug Ford as Premier of Ontario.

James Lin worked in the Government of Doug Ford, before going over to Hill + Knowlton. He was in the Ministry of Transportation, as a Policy Director. Additionally, he was an Advisor in the Ministry of Tourism, Culture & Sport. He was also involved in the Toronto City Council when Rob and Doug Ford were there. February 2021, she lobbied the Manitoba Government of Brian Pallister over the same contact-tracing platform.

Laura Grossman spent 5 years working for the Government of Canada during the Harper reign.

Also worth noting, Natalie Sigalet, a Senior Account Director at the lobbying firm, Hill + Knowlton, has reached out to the Alberta Government of Jason Kenney. She worked in the Office of the Premier of Alberta when Allison Redford was in charge. Presumably, she’s still pretty connected.

Looking at the Federal Registry, Facedrive is listed there several times. Interestingly, in their 2020 registrations, they list no Government (taxpayer) funding in 2019. However, there is expected to be some coming up from Finance Canada and the Ontario Centre of Excellence. This appears to reference the $2.5 million secured from Ford.

In what should surprise no one, Facedrive has been receiving CEWS, the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy. Makes sense, as they are very much invested in promoting the pandemic narrative.

In the Azure Marketplace, Microsoft outlines the main goals of this product:
[1] Case Investigation
[2] Contact Tracing
[3] Contact Support
[4] Self Quarantine

Now all of this may sound harmless enough, especially since the self-quarantine is recommended. However, what happens when it becomes mandatory, and wearing this device isn’t a choice? Also, who will be monitoring this system, and what teeth will there be?

This system is just a few short steps away from becoming a Government run chipping and monitoring system. While this may sound hyperbolic, consider where we were even a year ago.

From the looks of things, Microsoft will be used as a hosting platform for which Facedrive is able to launch its product on a much larger scale. However, MS is also eligible to sell units of TraceSCAN under the terms of the arrangement with Facedrive. Of course, that leads to all kinds of privacy and security issues, including who will have access to this data.

And a serious question: what happens if the hosting or management of this system (or part of it) gets sold or outsourced to someone else? What privacy considerations will there be?

Just looking at the products and services offered by Azure, it includes: AI, analytics, blockchain and mixed reality. For people who value any semblance of bodily autonomy and privacy, this needs to be seriously looked into before ever signing on.

And no, this isn’t something new. Even in April 2020, the early days of this psy-op, Microsoft had partnered with the University of Washington. How strange that tracking people was their immediate response.

(19) Facedrive Registration Alberta Sheila Wisniewski
(24) Azure Marketplace Facedrive TraceSCAN

Action4Canada Statement Of Claim Fatally Defective, Will Never Make It To Trial

Action4Canada and several others recently filed a Statement of Claim (or SoC) against the B.C. Government, BCPHO Bonnie Henry, Premier John Horgan, Health Minister Adrian Dix, Solicitor General and Public Safety Minister Mike Farnworth, and several others. The Plaintiffs are being represented by Rocco Galati and Lawrence Wong.

While this should be cause for excitement, that is not the case here. The SoC is filled with obvious defects which will lead to it getting thrown out, if the Government ever decides to challenge it.

Just looking at Rules 3-1 and 3-7 of the British Columbia Supreme Court Civil Rules, it already becomes clear that there will be issues with the pleading. These aren’t minor problems, but ones that seriously and repeatedly violate basic rules of the B.C. Supreme Court.

And no, this isn’t “infighting”. It’s difficult to believe that “Canada’s top constitutional lawyer” could draft such garbage unless it was done intentionally. People are being asked to donate to a case that doesn’t stand a chance in hell of going ahead. And maybe that was the point all along.

To begin the critique, let’s first look at a few parts of the Rules Of Civil Procedure for B.C. Although not identical to Ontario, they are quite similar, and set up much the same way. And Lawrence Wong is a lawyer in B.C., so presumably he’s familiar with how things are done in that Province.

For reference, B.C. provides a template for such documents. This is done for all forms, in all Courts across Canada. Just fill out the appropriate sections.

  • Part 1: Statement of Facts
  • Part 2: Relief Sought
  • Part 3: Legal Basis

Rule 3-1 — Notice of Civil Claim
Notice of civil claim
(1) To start a proceeding under this Part, a person must file a notice of civil claim in Form 1.
Contents of notice of civil claim
(2) A notice of civil claim must do the following:
(a) set out a concise statement of the material facts giving rise to the claim;
(b) set out the relief sought by the plaintiff against each named defendant;
(c) set out a concise summary of the legal basis for the relief sought;
(d) set out the proposed place of trial;
(e) if the plaintiff sues or a defendant is sued in a representative capacity, show in what capacity the plaintiff sues or the defendant is sued;
(f) provide the data collection information required in the appendix to the form;
(g) otherwise comply with Rule 3-7.

Rule 3-7 is quite long, but here are some of the more relevant portions which apply to this Statement of Claim. The reasons will soon become obvious.

Rule 3-7 — Pleadings Generally
Content of Pleadings
Pleading must not contain evidence
(1) A pleading must not contain the evidence by which the facts alleged in it are to be proved
Documents and conversations
(2) The effect of any document or the purport of any conversation referred to in a pleading, if material, must be stated briefly and the precise words of the documents or conversation must not be stated, except insofar as those words are themselves material.
When presumed facts need not be pleaded
(3) A party need not plead a fact if
(a) the fact is presumed by law to be true, or
(b) the burden of disproving the fact lies on the other party.

Assuming that this SoC doesn’t just sit indefinitely, like both with Vaccine Choice Canada are, it’s most likely to be struck when challenged. Rule 9-5 lays out how and why Pleadings are thrown out. Going through the SoC, it becomes clear it could happen for many reasons.

Rule 9-5 — Striking Pleadings
Scandalous, frivolous or vexatious matters
(1) At any stage of a proceeding, the court may order to be struck out or amended the whole or any part of a pleading, petition or other document on the ground that
(a) it discloses no reasonable claim or defence, as the case may be,
(b) it is unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious,
(c) it may prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial or hearing of the proceeding, or
(d) it is otherwise an abuse of the process of the court,
and the court may pronounce judgment or order the proceeding to be stayed or dismissed and may order the costs of the application to be paid as special costs.
[am. B.C. Reg. 119/2010, Sch. A, s. 22.]
Admissibility of evidence
(2) No evidence is admissible on an application under subrule (1) (a).

Now, let’s address specific criticisms of the SoC.

1. No Concise Set Of Material Facts Provided In Statement Of Claim

Rule 3-1(2)(a) says that a Claim should have a concise set of material facts. This does not. Instead, this is a rambling, redundant, horribly repetitive monster that should have been gutted a long time ago. 391 pages was not needed, as this could have been done in a fraction of that. The SoC — if ever challenged — is likely to be struck because of the exceptionally poor writing alone.

Paragraphs in SoC are typically supposed to contain 1 main idea or fact. This makes it easy for the other side to simply “admit” or “deny”. But throughout this, many are crammed full of other information, which complicates things.

Moreover, many of the allegations are things that each Defendant could claim they had no knowledge of. And there are plenty of bald assertions, without underlying facts being pleaded.

2. Section On Relief Sought Is A Complete Mess

Rule 3-1(2)(b) states that a Claim shall “set out the relief sought by the plaintiff against each named defendant”. In this filing, that section starts at page 312, and ends at 356. Yes, it takes 44 pages to outline what is being asked for in the Claim. It’s incredibly redundant and repetitive.

At page 341, we finally get to monetary damages.
-$1,000,000: Action4Canada
-$2,000,000: Kimberly Woolman
-$2,000,000: Estate of Jaqueline Woolman
-$200,000: Brian Edgar
-$200,000: Amy Muranetz
-$2,000,000: Jane Doe #2
-$2,000,000: Valerie Ann Foley
-$250,000: Linda Morken
-$250,000: Gary Morken
-$500,000: Pastor Randy Beatty
-$500,000: Ilona Zink
-$750,000: Federico Fuoco
-$750,000: Fire Productions Limited, and F2 productions Incorporated
-$250,000: Michael Martinz
-$250,000: Makhan S. Parhar
-$750,000: North Delta Real Yoga Real Hot Yoga Limited
-$250,000: Melissa Anne Neubauer
-$750,000: Jane Doe #3

$14.65 million (if this is added up correctly), is the amount being sought by individuals and organizations. But there is more to this. Although some private parties are named, it’s unclear who exactly is supposed to be paying these people the Charter damages they seek. A number of Government Officials are named. It seems that the Judge would just be expected to figure it out for himself.

On page 355, it is stated that $20 million is sought against CBC. However, it’s not clear who would get it. Would the Plaintiffs share it, or is that the lawyer fees?

$14.65 million for the Plaintiffs, and $20 million for who exactly?

3. No Concise Summary Of The Legal Basis For Claim

Rule 3-1(2)(c) requires that the SoC “set out a concise summary of the legal basis for the relief sought”. The legal basis starts on page 356, and ends at page 384. Obviously, this is far from being concise. But beyond that, the SoC isn’t really stating a legal basis. Instead, it mostly rehashes the declaratory relief sought in Part 2 of the SoC. It looks like it was just a cut-and-paste job, done without anyone checking to see if it made sense.

What SHOULD have been include was a list of the various laws and statues that would be relied on at Trial. If necessary, the relevant parts can be quoted. Instead of that, Part 3 just goes through the same demands made earlier.

At times, it also appears that conclusions are being drawn, when it should just be stating the law.

4. Evidence Being Pleaded In Statement Of Claim

Rule 3-7(1) explains that an SoC should not plead evidence. Nonetheless, this document spends a lot of time pleading just that This isn’t supposed to happen at this stage. The SoC should outline the facts that the Plaintiff(s) are trying to establish.

Additionally, the bulk of the evidence cited wouldn’t be allowed in even if it were okay to include here. Going through the SoC, a good chunk of the citations are media articles. That may be fine for research, or for other publication, but Courts do have a higher standard.

5. Long Quotes Listed In Statement Of Claim

Rule 3-7(2) tell us that: “The effect of any document or the purport of any conversation referred to in a pleading, if material, must be stated briefly and the precise words of the documents or conversation must not be stated, except insofar as those words are themselves material.” Throughout the SoC there are very long quotes of conversations and documents. Sure, references are fine, and short bits of text, but entire paragraphs are devoted to this purpose.

6. Content That Is Unnecessary, Vexatious, Delay Proceedings

Rule 9-5(1) allows for Pleadings to be struck if they contain any of the following elements:

(b) it is unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious,
(c) it may prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial or hearing of the proceeding, or
(d) it is otherwise an abuse of the process of the court,

Starting at page 188, the SoC goes on and on about Bill Gates, GAVI, the World Economic Forum, Alan Dershowitz, and media collusion. Granted, the bulk of this is completely true. However, unless these people and organizations are either being sued, or called as witnesses, their presence doesn’t help. Moreover, it’s not just a brief mention, but entire pages.

Are these lawyers unaware that the Defendants are entitled to challenge every statement and allegation made? This is just asking for such a Motion.

7. Proofreading Not Exactly Up To Par

This is from page 118. Sure, it’s very minor in the scheme of things, but shouldn’t lawyer fees come with an expectation of proofreading? Jagmeet Singh and Jason Kenney aren’t being sued, so why are they even in here? Singh is the head of a 3rd Party Federally, and Kenney is Premier of Alberta.

This last error is more a nuisance than anything. However, the other ones could (by themselves) get the SoC struck if anyone ever challenged it. These are not minor errors or oversights, and are not something that could be cured by Amendment, or a revised Statement.

Also, starting on page 122, Denis Rancourt is listed and discussed as an expert. Considering that he “is” an expert witness is the police case and the schools case, and also a Plaintiff in the July 6, 2020 case, there may be some conflict of interest here. Beginning on page 128, there is the pleading of expert opinion. If they are, or ever became witnesses, this would be more pleading of evidence, in violation of Rule 3-7(1).

And this is nitpicking, but Bonnie Henry co-owns a winery in Keremeos, not Keremios. See page 121.

But hey, at least the service addresses were included this time, so take that as a small victory.

Now, this is a (non expert) look at things, but R. v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd., 2011 SCC 42 (CanLII), [2011] 3 SCR 45 seems to be the standard for Motions striking out Pleadings. It uses the “plain and obvious” test for making that determination. The SoC violates the Rules in glaringly obvious ways, and there isn’t any real fix possible.

Why draft a Claim this badly? One possible explanation is that this is never intended to go to Trial. See here for background information.

Consider, for example, the July 6, 2020 Claim from Vaccine Choice Canada. It contained the same defects as this. Despite those problems, it has never been challenged by Trudeau, Ford, Tory or anyone else. No default judgement was ever sought either, despite having no response in over a year. The only plausible explanation is collusion, where the parties agreed to leave it in limbo, for whatever reason.

However, donors pump money into these cases, unaware that there is no urgency in bringing them forward. In fact, it doesn’t seem they (the lawyers) ever planned to take any of them to Trial, despite the hype. This diverts money, energy, hope and time into Court challenges designed to go nowhere. By taking on all these cases — and letting them sit — the Great Reset moves ahead relatively unopposed. Not that the people in the comments would notice.

Vladimir Lenin is famously quoted as saying: “The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves”. And that’s exactly what this looks like.

(5) Action4Canada Statement Of Claim

WHO Paper On Vaccine Passport Implementation & Specifications Funded By Gates, Rockefeller

Despite the claim of “VACCINE PASSPORTS” being dismissed as a lunatic conspiracy theory in 2020, the World Health Organization has put out its own guidelines for establishing such a system. This issue isn’t just being discussed, but has been studied and written about. Here is the paper they just released. It covers technical specifications and implementation guidance.

Then again, WHO published a paper on MANDATORY VACCINATION back in April 2021, despite repeatedly saying that such predictions were conspiracy theories. Absurdly, WHO admits these so-called vaccines only have emergency use authorization, but were still open to the idea of making them compulsory.

Reading through this paper, disturbing, yet unsurprising things emerge.

Page v: Contributors to this paper are named. These include: Beth Newcombe (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada); Maxwell J Smith (University of Toronto); Stephen Wilson (Lockstep Group); Beverly Knight (ISO TC215 Health Informatics Canadian Mirror Committee); all members and observers of the Smart Vaccination Certificate
Working Group.

Lockstep Group is an interesting name, considering that this “pandemic” is heavily based on the Lockstep Narrative that was laid out a decade ago. Of course, that document came from none other than the Rockefeller Foundation.

And a WHO operative working at the University of Toronto? Who would ever have seen that one coming? It’s not like Rockefeller was a major donor to that school, or was heavily involved in starting up the public health industry.

Page vi: For starters, the funders of this project are listed very briefly. “This work was funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Government of Estonia, Fondation Botnar, the State of Kuwait, and the Rockefeller Foundation. The views of the funding bodies have not influenced the content of this document.”

This work was funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Government of Estonia, Fondation Botnar, the State of Kuwait, and the Rockefeller Foundation. The views of the funding bodies have not influenced the content of this document.

Then again, GAVI (which Gates finances), Microsoft (which Gates used to run), and the Rockefeller Foundation all contributed to the launch of ID2020, a global digital identification initiative. This was started back in 2016. But connecting the obvious dots is probably a conspiracy theory.

Microsoft is also a partner (along with the Ontario Ministry of Health), of the Vaccine Credential Initiative. But again, nothing to see here.

As for Fondation Botnar: it claims to: “champion the use of AI and digital technology to improve the health and wellbeing of children and young people in growing urban environments around the world. We do this by supporting research, catalysing diverse partners, and investing in scalable solutions.” Not that there would be a business angle here, or anything.

Page xiv: Not too long ago, there was heavy criticism when it was predicted that vaccination would become a requirement for work, education, or international travel? Instead, those uses, are explicitly suggested by WHO as places to implement them.

The primary target audience of this document is national authorities tasked with creating or overseeing the development of a digital vaccination certificate solution for COVID-19. The document may also be useful to government partners such as local businesses, international organizations, non-governmental organizations and trade associations, that may be required to support Member States in developing or deploying a DDCC:VS solution.

Page 2, Section 1.2: This isn’t just some academic piece or philosophical musings. The authors of this paper fully intend for this to be used by Governments. Furthermore, businesses and trade organizations will be expected to help out in the support of this. We would have a few of those, right? See here and here for some examples.

Page 5, Section 1.5: Remember those International Health Regulations, which Governments insist are not legally binding? Turns out they actually are, and formed part of the basis for this guidance document. Also, the 2005 Quarantine Act was in fact based on anticipated rules of the 3rd Edition WHO-IHR, which came out that year.

Also, those papers which comes as a result of those emergency meetings (8 so far) are binding on countries as well. They are instructions — or at least guidelines — for how to run internal affairs.

As with any digital solution, there are ethical considerations, such as potential impacts on equity and on equitable access, and data protection principles that need to inform the design of the technical specifications, as well as provide guidance on how resulting solutions can be ethically implemented. The following sections discuss some key ethical considerations and data protection principles that Member States are encouraged to – and, where they have legal obligations, must – include in their respective deployments of any DDCC:VS. These ethical considerations and data protection principles have also informed the design criteria for a DDCC:VS outlined in the following section

Page 6, Chapter 2: We start getting into the ethical issues at this point. Strangely, there doesn’t seem to be any mention that these “vaccines” are only authorized by a continued emergency status. Also, there is apparently no moral dilemma over policies that amount to coercion.

While COVID-19 vaccines may eventually be widely accessible, current global distribution is inequitable and there are populations that vaccination programmes may struggle to reach due to, for example, geography, terrain, transient or nomadic movement, war and conflict, or illegal or insecure residency status. These hard-to-reach populations (e.g. refugees, asylum seekers, internally displaced persons) are disproportionately less likely to have an opportunity to be vaccinated and obtain a DDCC:VS.

Page 8, Section 2.1.1: Although there seems to be no concern with coercion of unproven injections onto the general public, they are concerned about people being in the country illegally. Now, this is not because this is morally wrong, but since it will make such people harder to reach.

Chapter 2 goes on and on about privacy of information, but intentionally omits mentioning how wrong it is to pressure people into taking these concoctions in the first place. WHO seems to be very partial and selective about what issues are worth considering. And no, this topic hasn’t been “settled” or anything of the sort.

Chapters 3 through 6 go into considerable detail about technical requirements for how to implement such a system, and how to ensure everyone getting injected has a record of it. The particulars are beyond the scope of this review, but yes, they are building national (and most likely international) databases of vaccinations.

Chapter 7 goes into national considerations, and how countries can implement systems that each other can trust. Apparently, a central authority is to be trusted to maintain and update these records. It also addresses the revocation of vaccination status, not that it will ever be abused.

Chapter 8 gets into short and long term goals. Score another one for the conspiracy nuts, but WHO talks about how this system, once fully implemented, could be used for OTHER health records and databases. It’s almost as if this was meant as some sort of bait-and-switch.

  • SHORT-TERM DDCC:VS SOLUTION: Deploy a short-term DDCC:VS solution to address the immediate need of the pandemic that includes a clearly established end date and a roadmap towards discontinuing the DDCC:VS solution once COVID-19 is no longer considered a Public Health Emergency of International Concern under the IHR.
  • LONG-TERM DDCC:VS SOLUTION: Deploy a DDCC:VS solution to address the immediate needs of the pandemic but also to build digital health infrastructure that can be a foundation for digital vaccination certificates beyond COVID-19 (e.g. digital home-based records for childhood immunizations) and support other digital health initiatives.

Page 60: The references used are listed. It’s worth mentioning that the first few have to do with people making counterfeit records. This seems designed to push the narrative that such things are unreliable, and that only a digital system can be run.

Page 60: Reference #13 stands out. It is actually a paper published in 2015, concerning home-based vaccination records as a way to advance immunizations, particularly for children. Now, this was mainly manual (not digital) at the time, but now we are in the next generation.

Page 63: the paper outlines an example of what a digital pass would look like. A QR code would be visible, but inside, there would be the personal information about what shots the person had. Interesting that it’s referred to as a National Vaccine Card. That was something else previously dismissed as a tin-foil hat ranting.

Back in December 2020, the WHO put out a call for nominations for “experts” for the Smart Vaccination Certificate technical specifications and standards of an incoming vaccine passport system. In an Orwellian twist, these passports (or digital passes, or whatever name one wants) are framed as a sort of human rights issue. Even as the WHO and their puppets are reassuring people that these “movement licenses” are a fantasy, they are recruiting people to look at the feasibility.

At what point can it no longer be denied that all of this is very well planned and coordinated?

(2) WHO Vaccine Passport Specifications Guidelines
(7) WHO Paper On MANDATORY Vaccination April 13, 2021 (Original)
(8) WHO Paper On MANDATORY Vaccination April 13, 2021 (Copy)

Poynter: Self Claimed “Factchecking Group” Funded By Media Giants

Ever get the impression that all major media is controlled by a few people? Well, meet Poynter, the factchecking group that is financed by media conglomerates. There’s no conflict of interest here.

In short, these groups act as a form of counterintelligence groups. Their mission being to discredit and deflect from real truth, in order to promote what Governments and corporations are saying. This is little more than propaganda in today’s society.

By supporting the Poynter Institute, you fortify journalism’s role in a free society. Poynter champions freedom of expression, civil dialogue and compelling journalism that helps citizens participate in healthy democracies. We prepare journalists worldwide to hold powerful people accountable and promote honest information in the marketplace of ideas.

Founded in 1975, Poynter is an inspirational place but also a practical one, connecting the varied crafts of journalism to its higher mission and purpose. From person-to-person coaching and intensive hands-on seminars to interactive online courses and media reporting, Poynter helps journalists sharpen skills and elevate storytelling throughout their careers.

We bring together Poynter faculty and industry experts to explore the intersection of journalism, technology and the public interest. Poynter specializes in:
-Ethics and fact-checking
-Reporting and storytelling
-Developing journalism’s leaders
-Advancing newsroom diversity
-Strengthening local news companies

Poynter claims it prepares journalists to hold powerful people accountable. That’s interesting, considering who their donors are. Also, if truth is important, why the focus on storytelling? This group is noticeably silent on the topic of media and social media censorship. As an example, Kevin Chan of Facebook Canada bragged about removing 16 million pieces of information in 2020.

This group is part of the Coronavirus Facts Alliance, whose mission it is to route out “misinformation”, which is pretty much anything that contradicts the official narrative.

As for their major donors, at least they are open about it:


  • Charles Koch Foundation
  • Democracy Fund
  • Environmental Defense Fund
  • Facebook
  • Foundation to Promote Open Society
  • Gill Foundation
  • Google News Initiative
  • Institute for War and Peace Reporting
  • John S. and James L. Knight Foundation
  • Lumina Foundation
  • MacArthur Foundation
  • Miami Foundation
  • National Endowment for Democracy
  • Newmark Philanthropies
  • Newton & Rochelle Becker Charitable Trust
  • Omidyar Network | Luminate
  • Rita Allen Foundation
  • Robert R. McCormick Foundation


  • American Society of Business Publication Editors
  • Charles Koch Institute
  • ESPN
  • Facebook
  • Huffington Post
  • Marketplace
  • MRC Media
  • Middle East Broadcasting Networks
  • National Public Radio
  • Newsweek
  • New York Times
  • Pinellas County School District
  • Southern Newspapers Publishers Association
  • The Washington Post
  • TikTok
  • USA Today Network
  • Vice
  • Voice of America – Broadcasting Board of Governors

Do you get it now? This is just another group of fact checkers doing what they can to ensure that the “correct” opinions and points of view are promoted. These aren’t independents, or even quasi independents.

(1) ttps://

Getting Started With Researching Registered Canadian Charities

In both Canada and the United States, registered charities are open to at least some degree of scrutiny by members of the public. This is of importance since a surprising number of NGOs who try to influence your life are actually charities. In addition to meddling, these groups are being subsidized with your tax money. The upside is that it makes it much easier to look into them.

Also in this series, we covered: (a) research, investigative journalism for beginners; (b) FOI/ATIP filings; (c) court record searches; and (d) lobbyist registrations. This is meant as introductory lessons, and not to include everything.

While the focus on this is Canadian charities, you should be aware that it’s possible to search the finances of American ones in much the same way. The information is made public by the Canada Revenue Agency, and Internal Revenue Service, respectively.

A disclaimer: it’s probably best to go into this with an open mind. Surely, the bulk of these groups operate in a completely transparent manner. That said, groups that few have heard of have a disproportionate impact on our lives. Be curious, but willing to have beliefs changed. Also, a great many of these organizations have revenue of just a few thousand or tens of thousands per year. They aren’t pulling too many strings.

Referring to the Canadian site: checking out if a company is registered as a charity is about as complicated as running a Google search. Simply type in the name, or part of a name. It is actually quite surprising the amount of places that are charities. This includes colleges, universities and many public health “authorities”.

Now, let’s try an example:

Searching with the term “public health“, we get 6 hits. The Public Health Association of British Columbia is one of those on that list, so let’s take a look at that.

Basic information about the PHABC (and other groups) are instantly available. Typically, the last 5 years of financial data will be available, although one can ask the CRA for filings from further back. They will also list the number of employees, and typically the salary ranges of the top 10 highest paid. Usually, these are executives. While this certainly does not include everything, it’s a great starting point when investigating charities.

(Anecdotally) it seems very common that a large part of the revenue is from “other” sources. It would be nice to know specifically what that involved. Perhaps some assets were sold off to make it happen?!

While non-profits are subject to many of the same laws, the financial information isn’t so readily available. Just a clarification here.

The CRA Charity Page works well in conjunction with Corporations Canada. From here, one can look up which groups are registered, and obtain many of their filings. These are free. If a corporation is set up provincially, the filings can be obtained that way, although some charge for copies.

When you know who the Directors are — either from the CRA or a corporate search — do a little digging. Have they sat in Government before? Have they held any public office? Do they have relatives, close friends, or business associates who are in a position to influence policies? While this approach may make some uncomfortable, realize that this is how things work in the real world. It’s not Bills or Motions, but secret handshakes that often determine how things go.

As for formal meetings, check the piece on getting started with lobbyist registries. It’s amazing how much information is out there.

Now, why would a corporation structure itself as a charity? The most obvious explanation is for the tax benefits. Since donations are tax deductible — almost 50% in most cases — it provides an incentive for donors, as the public will actually help finance it. Also, charities are taxes by the CRA in a more generous way than other businesses, or even non-profits. But, there is a trade off: more forced transparency.

Can a person call up a charity to ask for information? Yes, absolutely. In fact, depending on how easy going you are, you may learn about things that never crossed your mind.

This isn’t to suggest that all charities are run with some nefarious purpose. Far from it. However, it’s important to know what you are helping to fund, and if and how they are trying to influence public policy.

Then of course, we have “charities” like the Century Initiative who promote genocidal policies of population replacement with open borders initiatives. Ones like this are definitely worth a deep dive.

Now, if the entity being researched is not a registered charity, then this article will have no impact. That said, a stunning number of them are, so it’s at least worth a look.

One other thing to point out: programs run through the CRA — like the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy and various sickness programs — post a lot of their data online. If nothing else, there’s a significant amount of information available.

Is this a lot of work? It can be, but with practice, it gets much easier. And this is what this series is trying to underscore: self reliance. Instead of depending on some blogger, or YouTuber, or podcast, “you” are your own most reliable source of information. Figure out what’s true and what’s not.