Category: Region

Posted on

Canada Gives Marie Stopes Another $25 Million For Foreign Abortions, Media Silent

There are 2 entries listed for Canada on recent foreign abortion spending. One was for $19,959,594.00 in Mali, and the other was for $4,985,000.00 in Ghana. Together, these grants make up nearly $25 million. The records are publicly available.

At a time when we are (allegedly) in the middle of a global pandemic, killing African children abroad is apparently still a priority for this Government. Interesting. How come this hasn’t been mentioned in the media, or by “opposition” parties? Are they unaware of this?

Marie Stopes International is a leading provider of family planning and reproductive healthcare globally. It works in 37 countries around the world delivering services to over 20 million women and men every year to ensure the rights of women to have children by choice, not by chance.
.
As a part of reproductive health services, MSI Reproductive Choices provides surgical abortions by using the safe and simple technique which called manual vacuum aspiration (MVA).
.
MS HEALTH PTY LTD is MSI wholly owned subsidiary in China and the exclusive distribution agent in China and overseas for Marie Stopes® MVA product line.
.
With mission to ensure women the rights of women to have children by choice, not by chance, MS Health is promoting the MVA products and other products on women reproductive health.

Marie Stopes International is an organization that provides birth control, but also has a significant enterprise in abortion. The terms of the Canadian grants specify that at least some of the money will be used for abortion. In 2018, Canadian taxpayers shelled out $15 million to this group

This organization holds several patents, including for equipment to perform abortions. It has been doing this for a very long time.

In 2009, Marie Stopes received a $50 million grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Gates Sr. is a former Head of Planned Parenthood in the U.S., so this ideologically lines up.

Marie Stopes would definitely be worth a deep dive, as she frequently gets compared to Margaret Sanger. However, that will have to be for another time.

And what are “conservatives” saying about this? It seems they don’t actually oppose the killing of children ideologically. However, they do try to score points for claiming to oppose sex-selective abortion. In other words, snuffing out children is okay, just don’t be a bigot.

(1) https://search.open.canada.ca/en/gc/
(2) https://search.open.canada.ca/en/gc/id/dfatd-maecd,064-2020-2021-Q4-00403,current
(3) https://search.open.canada.ca/en/gc/id/dfatd-maecd,064-2020-2021-Q4-00314,current
(4) https://search.open.canada.ca/en/gc/id/dfatd-maecd,GC-2018-Q4-00093,current
(5) http://www.mariestopeshealth.com/
(6) http://www.mariestopeshealth.com/about/
(7) https://www.gatesfoundation.org/ideas/media-center/press-releases/2009/06/unprecedented-scaleup-of-voluntary-male-circumcision-begins-in-swaziland-zambia
(8) https://www.hli.org/resources/who-was-marie-stopes/

Posted on

CV #27(C): Share Verified Uses Emotional Manipulation, Selective Truth To Promote Narrative

Not even Wikipedia is safe from being used as a staging ground to promote official narratives. Here, a volunteer brags about editing pages to be consistent with the “latest information”.

This piece will contain some overlap with the work from Civilian Intelligence Network. Go check out their article for extra information.

Share Verified works in a way that can be best described as emotional manipulation. In practice, the promote an appeal to authority, where only certain sources should be trusted. They attempt to dissuade real research by gaslighting such things as misinformation, but in a passive aggressive way.

As the world confronts its biggest challenge in living memory, there has never been a greater need for accurate, verified information. Like the virus itself, misinformation spreads from person-to-person, heightening the risk to health and spreading fear and division. The world cannot contain the disease and its impacts without access to trusted, accurate information that promotes science and real solutions – and builds solidarity within and between nations.

Verified is an initiative of the United Nations, in collaboration with Purpose, to provide content that cuts through the noise to deliver life-saving information, fact-based advice and stories from the best of humanity.

By promoting and sharing Verified content, everyday people can play a crucial role in the work of Verified by spreading reliable information about COVID-19 to their friends, families and social networks, with the goal of saving lives and countering misinformation. Organisations, businesses, civil society and media platforms partner with Verified to spread information that helps protect people, communities and forges connections across the planet.

Verified’s team of communicators, creatives and researchers produce content based on the latest information and guidance from the United Nations, the World Health Organisation and other UN agencies. We work with leading experts on misinformation First Draft.

Verified works with the support of Luminate, IKEA Foundation and UN Foundation and partners all over the world.

An important detail to point out is that Share Verified (a UN initiative) is not working alone. It has partnered with many other NGOs to collaborate on this narrative.

  • Luminate is funded by the Omidyar Group, named after Pierre Omidyar, the founder of eBay. Omidyar’s groups are involved in media manipulation, and include the NGOs “Reset”, and “Reset Australia”. Check the link for more information.
  • The IKEA Foundation seems like a bizarre one to be promoting this narrative. However, once you look at their partners, it makes sense. These include: Carbon Trust, Carnegie Council, Climate Analytics, Clinton Health Access Initiative, European Climate Foundation, UNCHR, UNICEF, UNDP and the World Bank Group.
  • First Draft News claims to be a news outlet devoted to countering misinformation on a variety of topics. Its donors include:
    1. Bernard and Anne Spitzer Charitable Trust
    2. Craig Newmark Philanthropies
    3. Democracy Fund
    4. Facebook Journalism Project
    5. Ford Foundation
    6. Google News Initiative
    7. John S. and James L. Knight Foundation
    8. The Klarman Family Foundation
    9. Media Democracy Fund
    10. The Newton and Rochelle Becker Charitable Trust
    11. Rita Allen Foundation
    12. Swiss Democracy Fund
    13. Open Society Foundations
    14. Wellcome Trust
  • Various UN Groups work with Share Verified, and in fact, it’s a branch of the organization. It could even be referred to as a media arm of the World Health Organization

Does anyone see anything wrong with a “medical doctor” spending her time online to edit pages on Wikipedia in order to influence the medical decisions of people who are not patients, and whom she has never examined? Really? Anyone?

The Vaccine Confidence Project, and the London School for Hygiene & Tropical Medicine receive funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and from drug companies. Just a thought, but perhaps they have an interest in pushing vaccines on the public.

Share Verified recommends pushing their talking points as a form of innoculation. They claim that people will be better able to sort through misinformation when the time comes.

In practice, in means prepping others with pre-set answers, so that questions or concerns (regardless of legitimacy) can be countered. A great way — although manipulative — to counter others is to simply attack the information as lies, but without addressing any key points.

Share Verified promotes the VCP, but who runs it?

A bit of background information here. The VCP, Vaccine Confidence Program, is part of the LSHTM, or London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine. Both receive extensive funding from pharmaceutical companies, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the World Health Organization, and Governments.

Who else is worth noting?

  • Board member, Carlos Alban (AbbVie)
  • Board member, Bill Anderson (Roche)
  • Board Member, Gabriel Baertschi (Grünenthal)
  • Board member, Anders Blanck (LIF)
  • Board Member, Olivier Charmeil (Sanofi)
  • Board Member, Alberto Chiesi (Chiesi)
  • Board member, Frank Clyburn (MSD)
  • Board Member, Eric Cornut (Menarini)
  • Board member, Richard Daniell (Teva Pharmaceutical Europe)
  • Board member, Johanna Friedl-Naderer (Biogen)
  • Board Member, Murdo Gordon (Amgen)
  • Board member, Peter Guenter (Merck)
  • Board member, Angela Hwang (Pfizer)
  • Board member, Enrica Giorgetti (Farmindustria)
  • Board member, Dirk Kosche (Astellas)
  • Board member, Jean-Luc Lowinski (Pierre Fabre)
  • Board member, Catherine Mazzacco (LEO Pharma)
  • Board member, Johanna Mercier (Gilead)
  • Board member, Luke Miels (GSK)
  • Board member, Gianfranco Nazzi (Almirall)
  • Board member, Oliver O’Connor (IPHA)
  • Board Member, Stefan Oelrich (Bayer)
  • Board member, Giles Platford (Takeda)
  • Board member, Antonio Portela (Bial)
  • Board member, Iskra Reic (AstraZeneca)
  • Board Member, Susanne Schaffert (Novartis)
  • Board member, Stefan Schulze (VIFOR PHARMA)
  • Board Member, Kris Sterkens (Johnson & Johnson)
  • Board member, Han Steutel (vfa)
  • Board member, Alfonso Zulueta (Eli Lilly)

One of the major donors of the Vaccine Confidence Project is the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA). It’s Board is made of up members representing major big pharma companies.

Another donor of VCP is the Innovative Medicine Institute. Salah-Dine Chibout is on the Governing Board of IMI, and also is the Global Head of Discovery and Investigational Safety at Novartis. Additionally, Paul Stoffels is the Chief Scientific Officer at Johnson & Johnson, Worldwide Chairman of Janssen Pharmaceutical Companies of Johnson & Johnson.

Share Verified promotes the VCP, which is funded by drug companies. Even the “independent” sponsors have ties to those same pharma organizations. Perhaps this is a serious conflict of interest.

And if that isn’t creepy enough, there is at least one (probably more) instruction manual on how to speak to people in order to get them to take vaccines. It gives plenty of tips on what type of emotional and psychological appeals to make, depending on the person.

Emotions to avoid

  • Sadness. Sadness can be helpful in gaining short-term engagement, but isn’t helpful over the long term. We are motivated to maintain a positive sense of ourselves, and tend to ignore information that makes us feel bad about our choices or doesn’t affirm our worldview.
  • Shame. It’s tempting to shame people for not choosing to get the vaccine. But as we’ve seen with mask wearing, shame activates people’s moral reasoning and they’ll find reasons why their choice is the right one to avoid feeling bad about themselves.

    • Fear. Using fear appeals can be effective when there’s a clear call to action, but in this case, it’s more likely that fear appeals will immobilize people. Fear motivates people to assess information systematically, so we may pay more attention to information when we are afraid. Public health scholars have found a relationship between fear and perceptions of personal or group risk. If the risk doesn’t seem relevant to an individual’s life, they won’t experience fear and are more likely to disengage from or discount the message. If people are seeing messages that suggest that the risks of COVID-19 are minimal, they’re unlikely to engage. People can experience fear when the consequences of risk are uncertain and they feel like they do not have control over the outcome. So using a fear-based message could damage more constructive efforts to demonstrate how taking the vaccine offers control.

We don’t want to shame people because they might thinking for themselves.

An interesting point: “FEAR MOTIVATES PEOPLE AT ASSESS INFORMATION SYSTEMATICALLY, SO WE MAY PAY MORE ATTENTION BECAUSE WE ARE AFRAID”. In other words, it’s recommended against using fear, but not out of human compassion. It’s because scared people are more likely to do their own research.

In case the term “emotional manipulation” may come off as hyperbolic, it’s not. These quotes are from pages 39 to 41 in the instruction manual. It was published by the University of Florida College of Journalism and Communications in partnership with Purpose and the United Nations Verified initiative.

And of course, if that doesn’t work, Dominic LeBlanc and other politicians seem to have no issues with just passing laws to ban whatever they call “misinformation”. Of course, the WHO is on board with such measures.

What is the takeaway from all of this? It’s that the pro-pandemic, pro-vaccine, pro-mask messages are a lot more planned, coordinated, and calculated that one might think. Now, go read the CIN article.

(1) https://civilianintelligencenetwork.ca/2021/05/30/global-public-relations-fountainhead-of-covid19-propaganda/
(2) http://shareverified.com
(3) https://content.shareverified.com/
(4) https://shareverified.com/en/about/
(5) https://vimeo.com/456733600
(6) https://vimeo.com/444943417
(7) https://vimeo.com/435078865
(8) https://canucklaw.ca/omidyar-group-luminate-reset-reset-australia-push-for-a-misinformation-ban/
(9) https://ikeafoundation.org/story/equal-access-to-covid-19-vaccines-and-hope/
(10) https://ikeafoundation.org/about/partners/
(11) https://firstdraftnews.org/
(12) https://firstdraftnews.org/about/
(13) https://www.un.org/en/coronavirus/%E2%80%98verified%E2%80%99-initiative-aims-flood-digital-space-facts-amid-covid-19-crisis
(14) https://www.vaccineconfidence.org/
(15) https://www.vaccineconfidence.org/team
(16) https://www.vaccineconfidence.org/partners-funders
(17) https://www.efpia.eu/about-us/who-we-are/
(18) https://www.imi.europa.eu/about-imi/governance/governing-board
(19) https://covid19vaccinescommunicationprinciples.org/?akid=198.9687.bN5LTs&rd=1&t=6
(20) https://covid19vaccinescommunicationprinciples.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/vaccine-principles_v16.pdf
(21) Guide To Covid Vaccine Communications

Posted on

CV #44(B): BBC’s “Disinformation Specialist Reporter”, Marianna Spring, Is Funded By Gates Money

Marianna Spring works for the BBC, British Broadcasting Corporation, and claims to be a “specialist reporter covering disinformation and social media”. However, after a look through what she covers (and omits), the only logical conclusion is that she is deliberately spreading lies.

As a bit of a side note: Spring doesn’t allow people to comment on her tweets unless she follows them, or has tagged them. For a journalist trying to reach the people, she certainly doesn’t seem to want to hear from them.

According to her profile, she was a full time reporter with BBC, until in March 2020, she was tapped to head up the misinformation coverage in the network. She claims to report and track conspiracy theories and false reporting.

However, there is an interesting omission. Spring doesn’t like to address the people who are funding her employer, the BBC. Specifically, she doesn’t address the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. While it’s far from the only donor, it is a major one, and a regular one at that.

Funding in recent years for the BBC is all freely available online. To their credit, the BBC is quite organized when it comes to their records.
BBC Financial Statement 2006 to 2007
BBC Financial Statement 2007 to 2008
BBC Financial Statement 2008 to 2009
BBC Financial Statement 2009 to 2010
BBC Financial Statement 2010 to 2011
BBC Financial Statement 2011 to 2012
BBC Financial Statement 2012 to 2013
BBC Financial Statement 2013 to 2014
BBC Financial Statement 2014 to 2015
BBC Financial Statement 2015 to 2016
BBC Financial Statement 2016 to 2017
BBC Financial Statement 2017 to 2018
BBC Financial Statement 2018 to 2019
BBC Financial Statement 2019 to 2020

YEAR PAGE AMOUNT (UK POUNDS)
2016-2017 35 2,800,000
2017-2018 12 2,150,000
2018-2019 14 2,003,000
2019-2020 17 1,569,000

Notwithstanding donations to her own employer, Spring has shown no interest in covering any of the financial connections between the Gates Foundation, big pharma, and the education industry. Just a thought: when covering conspiracy theories, it may be wise to see if there is any truth to them.

https://apps.irs.gov/app/eos/

Let’s clarify here: there are actually 2 separate entities. The Foundation is the group that distributes money to various organizations and institutions. The Foundation Trust, however, is concerned primarily about asset management.

BILL & MELINDA GATES FOUNDATION
EIN: 56-2618866
gates.foundation.taxes.2016
gates.foundation.taxes.2017
gates.foundation.taxes.2018

BILL & MELINDA GATES FOUNDATION TRUST
EIN: 91-1663695
gates.foundation.trust.taxes.2018

However, Spring will never get into any of this, nor will she report of the financial interests that drive this “pandemic”. The grants to the World Health Organization, GAVI, the Pirbright Institute, John Hopkins, and many more are instantly available. It’s hard to classify someone as a “journalist” when they are so blind to one side of a story.

Even disregarding Gates, the bulk of the BBC funding comes from the British Government, who supports these martial law measures 100%. Surely Spring and her people know who butters their bread.

“We offer partners a number of benefits which include:

  • Exclusive invites to networking events, receptions and dinners hosted by BBC correspondents
  • Getting behind-the-scenes at the BBC with private tours of New Broadcasting House
  • Exclusive recognition on our website and marketing materials
  • Case studies of how your donation has impacted our work, for you to use in both internal and external communications
  • Exclusive opportunities to see and help deliver our work in action, in country.”

The BBC offers partnerships with other organization, and currently, they include Facebook and Twitter. As far as cracking down on “misinformation”, they seem to be ideologically aligned.

The BBC covered the Atlantic Storm pandemic scenario in 2005. Footage is still available of it online. Has Spring not found it strange that all of these preparation cases have been going on for decades?

Facebook has also confirmed that it will be removing content and people that discourages vaccination, REGARDLESS of whether or not it’s true. This is about pushing an agenda, not a search for objective truth. Does Spring not see how precarious her position is if the only way to succeed is to shut down opposing views? After all, she “identifies” as a journalist.

This kind of censorship has a chilling effect, regardless of the subject being discussed.

Volunteers fight back
It was the pandemic’s wave of anti-vaccine content that prompted Dave and Richard to embark on their plan.
.
“I was out of work,” Dave says. “So I wanted to do something constructive.”
.
Although the duo have only met in real life once, they now run multiple “honeypot” Facebook groups that have thousands of members from all over the world.
.
Inside the groups, people who believe in vaccine and Covid-19 conspiracy theories are allowed by the moderators to post false and misleading articles.
.
Richard admits he’s conflicted about the deception.
.
“It was horrible having to lie to begin with,” he says.
.
After members initially joined the group, he says, the pair would observe what they shared, sometimes for weeks.
.
“And then it’d stop,” Richard says, “and we’d start questioning their narrative.”
.
Dave and Richard debunk myths and challenge people in comments under posts and via private message.

Ever get the impression that certain groups and people were honeypots (or feds), deliberately trying to mislead a conversation and steer others away from asking important questions? Turns out, it’s for real. The BBC published an article on doing exactly that.

Rather than condemn such underhanded tactics, Spring tweeted it out approvingly, saying that it was necessary to stop people from falling for conspiracy theories. Does a “misinformation specialist” see nothing wrong with deceiving and misleading the public? Spring is either a fraud, or is engaging in olympic level mental gymnastics.

The screenshot is from last year, but there is a valid point. The U.K. defines “Covid deaths” as:

Number of deaths of people who had had a positive test result for COVID-19 and died within 28 days of the first positive test. Data from the four nations are not directly comparable as methodologies and inclusion criteria vary. Data for the period ending 5 days before the date when the website was last updated with data for the selected area, highlighted in grey, is incomplete.

The death count is for people who’ve had a positive test (real or false positive), and then died within 28 days, irrespective of the cause. This kind of definition opens the door to abuse. If Spring really had been researching conspiracy theories and misinformation, she would have heard that claim repeatedly. Did she ignore it, or check, and simply report lies anyway?

The World Health Organization defines it in the following way:

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.

While there is a lot of garbage posted online (that part is true), isn’t it the job of a professional journalist to wade through, and sort out fact from fiction?

Listening to Spring talk, it does appear that she has much of an interest in fact checking anything that she calls a conspiracy theorist. She seems to take the Government narrative at face value.

In her own words, this is about “putting a human face” on trying to counter information the Government doesn’t like. This comes across as crass emotional manipulation.

Take a good look. This is the face of deception in the modern age.

(1) https://twitter.com/mariannaspring
(2) https://twitter.com/mariannaspring/status/1396858528900567041
(3) https://twitter.com/mariannaspring/status/1396859428226441225
(4) https://www.linkedin.com/in/marianna-spring-279439b6/
(5) https://archive.is/aL3iN
(6) https://apps.irs.gov/app/eos/
(7) https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaaction/about/annual-reports
(8) https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaaction/about/funding
(9) https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaaction/support-us/current-partnerships
(10) https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-57051691
(11) https://inews.co.uk/news/technology/social-media-boycott-football-sport-bbc-marianna-spring-dealing-with-trolls-978728
(12) https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3ct2dmc
(13) https://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/our-work/events-archive/
(14) https://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/our-work/events-archive/2005_atlantic_storm/atlantic-storm-BBC
(15) https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/deaths
(16) https://www.who.int/classifications/icd/Guidelines_Cause_of_Death_COVID-19.pdf?ua=1
(17) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVNlI0ewkBk

Posted on

Bill C-10 And “Conservative” Hypocrisy On Free Speech And Human Rights

So-called “conservatives” in Canada claim that they oppose Bill C-10, which has the potential to seriously erode free speech protections. While this is certainly true, the grandstanding comes across as hollow. This is because of their repeated refusal to protect the rights of Canadians.

Never forget that this party tried (only a decade ago) to make warrantless seizure of internet information legal with Bill C-30. Now, one might argue that they still support free speech, even if not privacy rights. Nope, it gets worse from here.

The top image is Liberal Dominic LeBlanc openly musing about passing laws to combat “misinformation”, which is anything the Government objects to. The bottom is “Conservative” Erin O’Toole demanding emergency measures to limit the freedoms of Canadians locally.

Opposing Bill C-10 under the current circumstances comes across as crass political opportunism. The “right wing” in Canada seems content to let freedom die, so what’s the point here? Perhaps a few more examples for clarity:

The Conservative Party of Canada, and Provincial counterparts, remain silent on basic rights being stripped away. However, O’Toole takes the time to pander over atrocities committed 80 years ago — across the globe. There’s no way to be this tone deaf.

Conservatives are openly condemning China for human rights violations which include forced sterilizations. However, they support pressuring mass vaccination on the Canadian public, even though high levels of sterilization is quite possible.

Jason Kenney panders by celebrating the 1945 victory over Germany in World War 2. However, he’s silent on the increasing human rights abuses at home, like freedom of religion and assembly.

Condemning Tamil genocide comes across as hollow here. After all, Ford is willing to let seniors be trapped in homes, shut down people’s livelihoods, impose stay-at-home orders, deny preventative care, and let the Province collapse.

Lets stop pretending that any of them care about free speech or human rights. Anyone willing to play along with this martial law program is an enemy of the Canadian public.

Lest anyone think that this is a partisan issue, the enemies of free speech must be called out, wherever they are. In Nova Scotia, Iain Rankin the Premier, just banned public gatherings altogether. That’s one way to shut down dissenting views.

While not directly related to free speech, BCPHO Bonnie Henry deserves a dishonourable mention. She allowed indoor wine tasting to continue. Seems like an odd exemption, until you realize she co-owns a winery in Keremeos. This isn’t about public safety, but about protecting her business interests.

It’s also worth pointing out that at these daily “press conferences”, the callers and questions are screened ahead of time. This ensures that no one will be rocking the boat.

Freedom to assemble, gather and protest is being erased, mostly by “Conservative” Premiers. Now, the Trudeau Liberals are about to censor the internet. Does it seem like these people actually oppose each other?

These people all need to go.
None of them are on our side.

(1) https://www.conservative.ca/cpc/stop-bill-c10/
(2) https://nationalpost.com/opinion/vic-toews-draws-line-on-lawful-access-youre-with-us-or-the-child-pornographers
(3) https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/covid-misinformation-disinformation-law-1.5532325
(4) https://toronto.citynews.ca/2020/03/16/otoole-calls-for-war-footing-mackay-suggests-tax-changes-to-address-covid-19/
(5) https://thenationaltelegraph.com/opinion/erin-otoole-and-conservatives-silence-on-grace-life-is-deafening
(6) https://twitter.com/erinotoole/status/1384154709343162374
(7) https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56163220
(8) https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/opinon-i-wanted-the-liberals-to-succeed-on-vaccines-sadly-theyre-now-failing-us
(9) https://www.facebook.com/kenneyjasont/videos/177369714168773/
(10) https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/judge-rules-alberta-pastor-accused-of-violating-health-orders-to-remain-in-jail-1.5938362
(11) https://twitter.com/fordnation/status/1394697084482342914
(12) https://canadians.org/analysis/mike-harris-raking-profits-long-term-care-system-he-helped-create
(13) https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/province-gets-injunction-to-block-planned-anti-mask-rally-1.6026894
(14) https://www.keremeosreview.com/news/similkameen-winery-co-owned-by-dr-bonnie-henry/
(15) https://globalnews.ca/news/7732090/indoor-wine-tastings-bc-covid-restrictions/

Posted on

CV #66(H): Selective Reporting, The Fraud And Deception Behind VAER Systems

In order for the true effects of a vaccine (or any pharmaceutical) to be fully known, it’s important to have all of the side effects documented and compiled. This is so members of the public can give informed consent, or refuse a product if they see it as unsafe. However, we are getting everything but the truth here.

Normally, clear thinking people would be able to see through such nonsense. However, politicians and hack “journalists” do what they can to keep the public uninformed. A quick example:

In order to keep this “pandemic” psy-op going, it’s necessary that the people in charge engage in mental gymnastics. In particular, the dangers must be exaggerated, and the dangers of the agenda minimized. Never mind that Alberta had zero flu deaths, as the variants are overrunning the Province.

This is done with the gene replacement therapies as well. They are not really “vaccines” as. Now, we can’t have the true scale of problems coming out. Broadly speaking, this is concealed in 2 ways:

  1. Intentionally inflating Covid-19 deaths
  2. Deliberate lowballing Of vaccine effects

Both points will be addressed below.

1. Intentionally Inflating Covid-19 Deaths

There is really no way to deny at this point that public officials are flat out lying about virus deaths, and artificially driving up the counts in order to keep the psy-op going. Check out this article for many more examples of this happening. Never mind that the virus has never been isolated, and that the PCR tests are completely useless for this job.

Skeptics may reasonably ask where the emergency if these death waves aren’t materializing. Better to gaslight such people as crazies and not answer. And never mind the fact that the flu and influenza seem to have coincidently disappeared.

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

In fairness, this can’t entirely be blamed on politicians like Doug Ford, Christine Elliott, Jason Kenney, John Horgan, or Patty Hajdu. The guidelines are written up in such a way (intentionally?) that it positively invites death count inflation

2. Deliberate Lowballing Of Vaccine Effects

In November 2003, there was the International Conference on Harmonization of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharamaceuticals for Human Use. Their report is publicly available. Now there are some worthwhile parts in this. One of them is the attempt to create universal standards for reporting side effects of medications.

So, what exactly is worth reporting during drug trials, or once its already on the market?

4. STANDARDS FOR EXPEDITED REPORTING
4.1 What Should Be Reported?
4.1.1 Serious ADRs
Cases of adverse drug reactions that are both serious and unexpected are subject to expedited reporting. The reporting of serious expected reactions in an expedited manner varies among countries. Non-serious adverse reactions, whether expected or not, would normally not be subject to expedited reporting. For reports from studies and other solicited sources, all cases judged by either the reporting healthcare professional or the MAH as having a possible causal relationship to the medicinal product would qualify as ADRs. For purposes of reporting, spontaneous reports associated with approved drugs imply a suspected causal relationship.

4.1.2 Other Observations
In addition to single case reports, any safety information from other observations that could change the risk-benefit evaluation for the product should be communicated as soon as possible to the regulatory authorities in accordance with local regulation. Examples include any significant unanticipated safety findings from an in vitro, animal, epidemiological, or clinical study that suggest a significant human risk, such as evidence of mutagenicity, teratogenicity, carcinogenicity, or lack of efficacy with a drug used in treating a life-threatening or serious disease.

4.1.2.1 Lack of Efficacy
Evidence of lack of efficacy should not normally be expedited, but should be discussed in the relevant periodic safety update report. However, in certain circumstances and in some regions, individual reports of lack of efficacy are considered subject to expedited reporting. Medicinal products used for the treatment of life-threatening or serious diseases, vaccines, and contraceptives are examples of classes of medicinal products where lack of efficacy should be considered for expedited reporting. Clinical judgment should be used in reporting, with consideration of the local product labeling and disease being treated.

Apparently if reactions are serious and unexpected (not just serious), then it’s grounds for reporting in an expedited fashion. Otherwise, then there’s no rush.

It’s also interesting that it says “clinical judgement should be used” in reporting. Are these health care providers to act as a form of gatekeeper to this information getting out? And what is the standard for how that judgement should applied?

The Canadian standard for reporting isn’t much (if any) better.

Should all AEFIs be reported?

No. During their development, vaccines undergo rigorous testing for safety, quality, and efficacy. During these “pre-licensure trials” efforts are made to capture every single adverse event that follows immunization.

By the time a vaccine is authorized for marketing, the safety profile for common adverse events such as vaccination site reactions or mild fever is well known. It is always important to counsel vaccinees or their guardians regarding the possible occurrence of such reactions, but there is no need to report such expected events unless they are more severe or more frequent than expected.

Does this seem bizarre? A drug manufacturer claims that they intend to document and compile all of the data for side effects during clinical trials, but it’s not a big deal once the product is on the market?!

In fairness, the page does immediately contradict itself right after afterwards and say that events should be reported if it can’t be explained otherwise.

The Canadian Government’s own guidelines state that not all AEFI, or adverse effects following immunization, should be reported. The stated reasoning is that (presumably) minor reactions are already to be expected. In other words, these kinds of reactions are EXPECTED to happen, and shouldn’t be reported if minor.

The first problem is that this standard is incredibly subjective, and prone to both human error. Second, the people involved may not want the full truth about the side effects of their products to get out.

The page goes on to say that the preferred way of reporting is to Municipal or Provincial Health Units. The results are then forwarded along. Now, that can create a problem, if the people involved simply don’t view such reactions are worthwhile, or are instructed not to.

According to Public Health Ontario [Page 9] “all deaths temporally associated with receipt of vaccines that have been reported to public health units are thoroughly investigated and reported to PHO.” That’s interesting, since the Ontario Government doesn’t take issue with classifying Covid deaths simply from having the virus. See Christine Elliott above. Remember, WHO’s definition is death from a clinically compatible illness in a probable or confirmed case.

The BC Centre for Disease Control advises not to report on side effects if they are “known to occur” from the vaccine. With this standard in mind, how many legitimate complaints would have been turned away, since these were expected? Alberta also allows for “expected” reactions to bypassed being classified as AEFI.

The obvious questions to ask here: how accurate are the various reporting systems in Canada, and elsewhere? If patients are told not to report certain expected side effects, do we really know the true prevalence? If there is discretion by District Health Units on what to report, how wisely is it being used? How honest are the people who end up using the information at the end anyway?

Very common: may affect more than 1 in 10 people
 injection site pain
 tiredness
 headache
 muscle pain
 chills
 joint pain
 fever
 diarrhea

Common: may affect more than 1 in 100 and up to 1 in 10 people
 injection site redness
 injection site swelling
 nausea
 vomiting

Uncommon: may affect up to 1 in 100 people
 enlarged lymph nodes
 feeling unwell
 arm pain

Non-severe allergic reactions (such as rash, itching, hives or swelling of the face) and severe allergic reactions have been reported.

These are not all the possible side effects you may have when taking Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine. If you experience any side effects not listed here, tell your healthcare professional.
There is a remote chance that Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine could cause a severe allergic
reaction. A severe allergic reaction would usually occur within a few minutes to one hour after
getting a dose of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine. For this reason, your vaccination provider
may ask you to stay at the place where you received your vaccine for monitoring after
vaccination. Should you develop any serious symptoms or symptoms that could be an allergic
reaction, seek medical attention right away. Symptoms of an allergic reaction include:
 hives (bumps on the skin that are often very itchy)
 swelling of the face, tongue or throat
 difficulty breathing
 a fast heartbeat
 dizziness and weakness

For reference, the above list is what is or can be “expected” from the Pfizer vaccine. Once more, this mRNA “vaccine” is not approved by Health Canada, and only has interim authorization. Still feeling like a champ?

And all of this, for a virus that’s never been proven to exist, using testing methods never designed for infection detection.

As a final thought, just remember the people manufacturing these concoctions are indemnified from legal liability. It you are injured or killed, it’s your problem.

(1) https://globalnews.ca/news/7460952/alberta-influenza-zero-cases-hospitalizations/
(2) https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/alberta-third-wave-pandemic-variants-1.5972869
(3) https://www.who.int/classifications/icd/Guidelines_Cause_of_Death_COVID-19.pdf?ua=1
(4) https://database.ich.org/sites/default/files/E2A_Guideline.pdf
(5) Adverse Effect Reporting Guidelines World Health Org
(6) https://vaccine-safety-training.org/tl_files/vs/pdf/report-of-cioms-who-working-group.pdf
(7) WHO Vaccine Safety Training Manual
(8) https://www.publichealthontario.ca/-/media/documents/ncov/epi/covid-19-aefi-report.pdf?la=en
(9) Adverse Effect Reporting Guidelines Ontario
(10) https://www.health.gov.on.ca/en/pro/programs/publichealth/oph_standards/docs/aefi_cd.pdf
(11) Adverse Effects Case Definitions Ontario
(12) https://www.publichealthontario.ca/-/media/documents/ncov/epi/covid-19-aefi-report.pdf?la=en
(13) http://www.bccdc.ca/health-professionals/clinical-resources/adverse-events-following-immunization
(14) https://www.albertahealthservices.ca/info/Page16187.aspx
(15) Health Canada Reporting Adverse Reactions
(16) https://archive.is/Uz0hx
(17) https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/immunization/reporting-adverse-events-following-immunization/user-guide-completion-submission-aefi-reports.html
(18) Health Canada On Vaccine Safety
(19) https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/reports-publications/canada-communicable-disease-report-ccdr/monthly-issue/2014-40/ccdr-volume-40-s-3-december-4-2014/ccdr-volume-40-s-3-december-4-2014-2.html
(20) https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/phac-aspc/migration/phac-aspc/publicat/ccdr-rmtc/14vol40/dr-rm40s-3/assets/pdf/ccdrv40is3a05-eng.pdf
(21) Vaccine Vigilance Working Group Report
(22) https://canucklaw.ca/cv-26c-exposing-the-lies-of-the-inflated-death-tolls/
(23) https://canucklaw.ca/cv-37h-bccdc-admitted-a-year-ago-pcr-tests-dont-work-as-advertised/
(24) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/FOI-Fluroide-Free-Peel-Compilation.pdf

Posted on

Vijaya Kumar Murty, PerfectCloudIO, Smart Villages & Covid Restrictions

Vijaya Kumar Murty, works for the Ontario Science Table, conducting mathematical modelling to “guide” the resposes of politicians on taking away our rights. Now, this group appears to be well meaning academics, but there is a lot of information not in the public arena. And Murty is another example of this happening.

Some questions are worth asking.

The OST is already a questionable organization given: (a) rampant ties the the University of Toronto; (b) conflicts of interest with its partners and members; (c) the brainchild of PHAC works for them; (d) the former research chief of the Ontario UBI pilot project works for them; and (e) the groundwork for OST was laid out in 2019.

Ontario Deputy Medical Officer, Barbara Yaffe, is worth a long hard look. She has climbed the ranks and gained power, despite never practicing as a doctor. Another one is Michael Warner, who financially benefits from prolonged lockdowns. It’s also disturbing that NSERC/CIHR are actually paying people to act as vaccine salesmen, and cloak it as research.

The Canadian Institutes for Health Research (CIHR) handed out $666,667 in 2020 to Murty and his associates to conduct modelling for CV cases and deaths. It was to last for 2 years. In 2021, he received a couple more grants of $100,000 each. One was to conduct modelling on the effectiveness of countermeasures. The other was modelling the risk to health care workers.

https://archive.is/ImPxE
https://archive.is/fIeqK
https://archive.is/FMLH5

The large February 2020 grant is explained as:

The Fields Institute for Research in Mathematical Sciences, in collaboration with the Pacific Institute of Mathematical Sciences and the Atlantic Association for Research in Mathematical Sciences, together with the Public Health Agency of Canada and international partners, is assembling a national COVID-19 Mathematical Modelling Rapid Response Task Force. Our goal is to mobilize a national network of infectious disease modellers to develop mathematical technologies to assess transmission risk of COVID-19, project outbreak trajectories, evaluate public health interventions for its prevention and control, and inform public health policy makers as well as multi-scale modelling to assist in the development of effective treatment strategies. Such a network functioned during SARS and was successful in providing real-time advice to public health officials. In the case of COVID-19, in addition to the mathematical modellers drawn from across Canada, we have the partnership of the Public Health Agency of Canada and its Coronavirus Modelling Group, Vaccine and Infectious Disease Organization at the University of Sasketchawan, the Advanced Disaster, Emergency and Rapid Response Simulation facility at York University and several research institutes in China including one at Xi’an Jiaotong University.

To be clear, computer modelling is not evidence of anything. They are predictions, and limited by both the knowledge and bias of the people involved. And as outlined earlier, the “independent” Ontario Science Table will be being both the modelling, and make the decisions what to do about it. Quite the conflict of interest.

April 2018: the Fields Institute, part of the University of Toronto, hosted a seminar on “smart villages”. The idea is self explanatory, as it would involve bringing even small and remote areas into the digital sphere. Murty was one of the speakers.

September 2018: Murty gave a speech for the Atlantic Association for Research in the Mathematical Sciences, or AARMS.

May 2019: Murty was chosen to be the head of the Fields Institute. The timing is interesting, as that’s also when the Centre for Vaccine Preventable Diseases was launched by the University of Toronto.

The decision to appoint Professor Murty received unanimous approval of the Fields Institute Board of Directors. Professor Murty will lead the Institute’s continuing efforts to advance research and development of the mathematical sciences in Canada and abroad.

June 2019: The Fields Institute held a conference on the topic of “smart villages”. It was cohosted by the Canada-India Foundation, and Process Research ORTECH Inc. Murty gave a speech on innovation, inequality, and smart villages.

Quite the coincidence: the Fields Institute is pushing for smart villages, and a greater online connectedness. Murty is helping make that happen. However, Murty is also largely responsible for the alarmist computer modelling that is shutting down society, and forcing everything online.

Will PerfectCloudIO benefit from such a societal change?

It turns out that Murty is a Co-Founder and CTO of PerfectCloudIO. Although there are broken links on the Leadership section, his Wikipedia page is linked from his biography.

PerfectCloud is a Canadian cloud company developing innovative technologies to make the cloud safer. We are headquartered in Toronto, Ontario with offices in NY, USA and New Delhi, India. Our services are hosted with Firehost who have data centers located in London, Amsterdam, Singapore, and Dallas.

The website goes on to explain what Perfect Cloud is, and what they are selling to the public. Two of the products they offer are:

  • SmartSignin: the most secure way to manage access to your cloud applications for SSO for your employees, customers or partners, across multiple devices. Includes a Single Sign-On solution, Federated Identity Management, Authorization & Authentication, and Access Control & Audit.
  • SmartCryptor: encrypt your data and store it securely on desktop or cloud storage applications. Share your files or revoke access to any shared documents anytime, using any device. You have the full control over your critical data and who can access it.

In order for a company to be successful, it needs customers, and a growing base.

  • First, by promoting the doomsday computer modelling as fact, he can convince the Ontario Government (and elsewhere) to impose more restrictions. That means more people are stuck at home, and more people will be looking at computer services.
  • Second, by pushing the “Smart Villages” initiative, Murty is able to grow the market. In order to connect people the way he wants, they will need digital hookups, like the kinds of services that Perfect Cloud offers.

Far from being alone, Perfect Cloud partners with several organizations, all of whom stand to profit from the increased computerization of our society. This is mentioned on his OST disclosures. He is listed as an investor, although not active in the day to day operations.

Perfect Cloud also publishes the identities of some of its major clients. This suggests this isn’t just some start up, but a well established company.

While his association with the Fields Institute is listed, it is never made clear that advancing the Smart Villages initiative is a major goal of theirs. He’s calling for policies that will benefit him financially, even if they are against the best interests of society. Martial law in Ontario certainly is against the public interest, which is likely why this connection isn’t readily available. Not exactly transparent, is it?