World Archives - Page 3 of 30

October 6, 2021October 6, 2021

Public Media Alliance, Brussels Declaration, Protecting Journalists & “Media Freedom”

The Public Media Alliance claims that harassment, threats, and violence towards journalists is a serious concern. This organization also thinks the media isn’t independent enough. While that is certainly true, it seems this NGO is less than sincere in what it states it supports.

For some even more Orwellian organizations, check this piece on: (a) Journalism Trust Initiative; (b) Trusted News Initiative; (c) Project Origin: and (d) The Trust Project. There’s also this article on the Coalition For Content Provenance And Authenticity.

So-called public service media, or PSM, refers to media outlets that are either run by, or heavily financed by the respective Governments. The PMA is quite blunt about this.

Financial models for public media organisations vary but an element of public funding is central. This is usually provided by either allocation from general government resources or via a general charge on users (licence fee). Public media organisations also supplement declining public resources with external revenue in order to maintain quality.

However, what will become clear is that the PMA doesn’t really advocate for a free and open media. Instead, it calls for media — and publicly funded ones — that operate within their own ideologies.

Within the PMA, there is a subgroup called the Global Task Force, or GTF.

The GTF claims its values are: access, accuracy, accountability, creativity, impartiality, independence and high standards of journalism. All these underpin an informed and healthy democracy. Many of these are under assault by various forces, both private and public.

It also says on its webpage that “public service media must develop a coordinated global response mechanism in order to defend and promote core values.” At face value, there is nothing that catches attention.

The Global Task Force exists to defend the values and the interests of Public Media.
.
The Global Task Force (GTF) was formed to develop a consensus and single, strong voice around the issues and challenges facing public media worldwide. An industry led initiative, the GTF offers a perspective that spans countries, languages and cultures.

The 8 members of the “Global Task Force” have openly supported the Brussels Declaration, which they claim is a new global initiative to protect journalists and media freedom.

David Anderson, Managing Director, ABC (Australia)
Thomas Bellut, Director General, ZDF (Germany)
Delphine Ernotte Cunci, President & CEO, France Télévisions (France)
Tim Davie, Director General, BBC (United Kingdom)
Jim Mather, Chair of the Board, RNZ (New Zealand)
Hanna Stjärne, Director General, SVT (Sweden)
Catherine Tait, President & CEO, CBC/Radio-Canada, GTF Chair (Canada)
Yang Sung-dong, President & CEO, KBS (South Korea)

This is by no means the entire list who endorsed the Brussels Declaration. In fact, dozens of broadcasters, mainly publicly funded, have already signed on to it. These include:

Radio-Télévision belge de la Communauté française (RTBF) – BEL
Vlaamse Radio- en Televisieomroeporganisatie (VRT) – BEL
Radio-Canada – CAN
CBC/Radio-Canada – CAN
France Télévisions – FRA
Radio France – FRA
British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) – GBR
Nederlandse Publieke Omroep (NPO) – NLD
European Broadcasting Union (EBU) – INT ORG
Public Media Alliance (PMA) – INT ORG
Les Médias Francophones Publics – INT ORG
Zweites Deutsches Fernsehen (ZDF) – DEU
Arbeitsgemeinschaft der öffentlich-rechtlichen Rundfunkanstalten der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (ARD) – DEU
International Federation of Journalists – INT ORG
European Federation of Journalists – INT ORG
Knowledge Network Corporation – INT ORG
Die Schweizerische Radio- und Fernsehgesellschaft (SRG SSR) – CHE
Médias multiplateforme éducatif et culturel du Québec – CAN
Sveriges Utbildningsradio – SWE
France Médias Monde – FRA
Yleisradio – FIN
Sveriges Television (SVT) – SWE
Asia – Pacific Broadcasting Organisation – INT ORG
Lituanian National Television and Radio – LTU
TV5 Québec Canada – CAN
TV5MONDE – FRA/INT ORG
Televisión América Latina (TAL, Union of Latinamerican Public, Educational and Cutlural Broadcasters) – INT ORG
Sindicato Nacional de Periodistas de Costa Rica – CRI
Korean Broadcasting System (KBS) – KOR
Radio New Zealand (RNZ) – NZL
Radio Télévision Suisse (RTS) – CHE
Radio and Television of Bosnia and Herzegovina – BIH
Österreichischer Rundfunk (ORF) – AUT
Rádio e Televisão de Portugal (RTP) – PRT
NHK (Japan Broadcasting Corporation) – JPN
Australian Broadcasting Corporation – AUS

That is quite the list, and it will surely grow in time.

Now, what is the Brussels Declaration? Primarily, it revolves around 5 points and commitments, claiming to want to protect a free and independent media worldwide.

[1] We improve the safety of journalists and other media staff
[2] We stand up for the independence of public broadcasters
[3] We encourage well-informed democratic debate
[4] We support a strong and diverse news media landscape
[5] We promote diversity, fairness and inclusion within our own organisation and in the society we serve

On the surface, there is nothing objectionable about any of this. In fact, these are great goals to work towards. However, when we see these principles applied in practice, and the rampant double standards, questions start to come up.

Each point could be an entire article by itself, but we will try to make this short, and more manageable. Considering the content of the Brussels Declaration, it’s fair to ask who wrote certain parts of Trudeau’s legislation over the last several years.

1. Enhancing the safety of journalists, crews and media professionals

All journalists, crew members and media professionals need to be able to safely perform their duties. To that end, the signatories commit to providing the resources and support their employees need to protect themselves from physical violence and online harassment, while raising public awareness about the impact of those attacks on democracy.

No one supports having physical harm come to journalists. However, legitimate criticism (and trolling) is often conflated with violence or attacking. By doing this, it undermines efforts to hold reporters accountable for what they publish, especially things that are provably false.

That said, there is little to no coverage of protests in Australia, Europe, and elsewhere. Nor do mainstream outlets cover police brutality towards peaceful demonstrators. It’s almost as if there was a certain narrative to push.

2. Standing up for the independence of public service media

The signatories commit to publicly condemning any attempt to undermine the independence of public service media — whether it’s through political pressure, financial threats or retribution, harassment or attacks against employees, or antimedia rhetoric. They also commit to improving understanding of the distinction between public and state broadcasters.

Public service media is independent? Watch 2:25 to 4:40 in particular, from this October 2020 video. Not a peep from any of the “journalists” there. Tam openly admits that: (a) journalists are asked to promote their agenda; (b) social media directs people to certain sites; (c) taking down content; (d) demonetizing content; and (c) manipulating the algorithm to bury certain content . However, not only are there no objections, but no one seems even the slightest bit surprised by this.

As for the independence of public service media, would it be too much to ask that it be made obvious that the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is a major donor of the BBC? It’s not like this was difficult to find, or that it’s even much of a secret at this point.

3. Fostering an informed and civil democratic debate

In response to the global disinformation crisis, the signatories commit to providing trusted news and information, supporting fact-checking initiatives, boosting media literacy, and monitoring and removing hate speech from their platforms. They also pledge to call on social media companies and regulators to eradicate online hate on third-party platforms.

Calling on social media companies to remove “hate”, whatever that is? This raises the obvious question of who actually writes legislation in Parliament to call for such things.

Should the Government be financing the fact-check organizations that keep it in line? Moreover, should political operatives be running such groups? How is there real accountability when the media and the groups monitoring them are funded by the same people? Isn’t it just a dog-and-pony show at that point? It’s not independent if funding depends on pushing a narrative — regardless of who’s pushing it. While too numerous to name here, below are recent articles on exactly this subject.

4. Supporting a strong news ecosystem with a diversity of sources

A diverse mix of public, community and private news media is fundamental to a strong news ecosystem and healthy democracy. Consequently, the signatories commit to collaborating with other domestic media outlets to protect local journalism — including sharing best practices on journalist safety and speaking with one voice on common challenges.

Quite interesting. Last April, CBC reported that Dominic LeBlanc, President of the Privy Council, was openly considering laws to ban “misinformation” around the so-called pandemic. Although nothing seems to have happened (yet), this is absolutely chilling. Nonetheless, CBC seemed relatively uninterested, and only gave this a passing mention. Moreover, these outlets seem rather blase about the steady erosion of civil rights, and the ever changing narratives.

Also, how is it exactly that there is a diversity of sources, when they are all being financed to some degree by the Government? Just like the fact-checkers, the media itself is bought off. This extends to many smaller and “independent” news sources. See below.

5. Promoting diversity, equity and inclusion within our organizations and in the societies we serve

In order to uphold the ideals of pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness that underpin democratic societies, the signatories commit to more accurately reflecting the diverse makeup and perspectives of the populations they serve, both in their programming and workforce — while also leading efforts to make their workplace inclusive for everyone.

This presumably means forced diversity. In the West, it means less whites, and in particular, less white men. And that’s pretty twisted, considering how few whites there are in general in the mainstream press.

(a) https://canucklaw.ca/press-forward-anti-white-independent-media-controlled-and-funded-by-the-establishment/
(b) https://canucklaw.ca/hirebipoc-replacing-whites-in-the-media-industry-all-at-taxpayer-expense/

In any event, it’s great news knowing that the CBC and some other outlets have signed the Brussels Declaration. It’s so relieving to know that strong, independent media will continue for the years to come.

Sarcasm aside, it doesn’t appear that the Public Media Alliance, the Global Task Force, or any of these groups actually care about having an independent media. This seems more like an effort to protect their dominance, while ignoring the assault on true reporters.

(1) https://www.publicmediaalliance.org/
(2) https://www.publicmediaalliance.org/global-task-force/
(3) https://www.publicmediaalliance.org/about-us/what-is-psm/
(4) https://www.publicmediaalliance.org/about-us/what-is-psm/content/
(5) https://www.publicmediaalliance.org/brussels-declaration-pma-joins-public-media-and-international-organisations-to-call-for-journalist-safety-and-media-freedom/
(6) https://brusselsdeclaration2021.com/
(7) https://brusselsdeclaration2021.com/declaration
(8) https://canucklaw.ca/journalism-trust-initiative-trusted-news-initiative-project-origin-the-trust-project/
(9) https://canucklaw.ca/coalition-for-content-provenance-and-authenticity-c2pa-project-origin-content-authenticity-initiative/
(10) https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/covid-misinformation-disinformation-law-1.5532325
(11) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Jr_rkzzr2Q
(12) https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaaction/about/annual-reports

September 29, 2021

Coalition For Content Provenance And Authenticity (C2PA), Project Origin, Content Authenticity Initiative

The “Content Authenticity Initiative” claims to be setting the standard for digital content attribution. There are a few groups that seem to be working together to promote this. The CAI …. sounds a bit like CIA, doesn’t it?

The major goals involve being able to instantly and accurately trace a piece of media to its source. Photographs, images, videos, words, and other elements are to be encoded, and be able to get tracked. Welcome to Project Origin.

While this is sold as some sort of trust in media, there is another, more disturbing way to look at things. Will this not also directly connect people to things that are shared online? Won’t it mean the end to anonymous sharing of important information? Will it now become easier to track people for their thoughtcrimes?

1.2 Background At Adobe MAX 2019, the Content Authenticity Initiative (CAI) was announced by Adobe in partnership with The New York Times Company and Twitter. Since that time, this group has collaborated with a wide set of representatives from commercial organizations (software tools, publishers, social media), human rights organizations and academic research to produce this paper and the approach it describes.

5.1.3 Establishing Trust One key component in establishing trust in the CAI system comes from the entities whose certificates are used for signing the claim. To ensure that only assets signed by trusted actors can be considered properly attributed, it is necessary to create a list of trusted certificates or their certification authorities (CAs). Similar to the EU Trust List, the Adobe Approved Trust List, and similar lists used by web browsers and operating systems, the members of the CAI will establish their own Trust List of certificates that can be used to sign claims. Details on the governance of the Trust List is outside the scope of this paper. In many cases, the holder of the certificate will not the individual who created (or edited) an asset, but instead will be the entity responsible for the hardware or software that they used. The signing certificate belongs to the actor (e.g. Truepic Camera, Adobe Photoshop, BBC, etc.) that performed the actions on behalf of someone else. This model allows CAI to provide anonymity (and/or pseudonymity) where desired. For scenarios where the certificate holder is able to reliably establish the identity of the individual, and the individual wishes their identity associated with an asset, an identity assertion is used.

5.1.4 Identity One of the assertion types that can be present in a claim is Identity. This digital identity (also sometimes referred to as a Subject or an Entity) is present when an individual (or organization) is making a clear statement about their association with this claim. Digital identity fundamentally requires digital identifiers — strings or tokens that are unique within a given scope (globally or locally within a specific domain, community, directory, application, etc.). In order to support a variety of use cases, including those where identity might be anonymous or pseudonymous, it is important that various schemes for the identifiers are available for use. Fortunately, most common identity formats such as Decentralized Identifiers-DID, WebIDs, OpenID, ORCiD and others are all based on URIs. This enables an identity assertion to be expressed in the standard format described in RFC 3986.

5.1.6 Redaction of Assertions: In many workflows, there is a need for assertions to be removed by subsequent processes, either because publishing the assertion would be problematic (e.g. the identity of the person who captured a video) or the assertion is no longer valid (e.g. an earlier thumbnail showing something that has since been cropped out). The CAI allows for the redaction of these assertions in a verifiable way that is also part of the provenance of the asset. In the process of redacting an assertion, a record that something was removed is added to the claim. Because each assertion’s reference includes the assertion type, it is clear what type of information (eg. thumbnail, location, etc.) was removed. This enables both humans and machines to apply rules to determine if the removal is acceptable. NOTE: Assertion redacted only applies to assertions that are part of the CAI data. It does not have anything to do with removal of other metadata (XMP, EXIF, etc.).

9 Conclusion: The collaborators on this paper have explored the challenges of inauthentic media through problem definition, system design and use case research. The results of the exploration are expressed in the design of the CAI provenance system. To achieve widespread adoption we have based the design on existing standards and established techniques, and acknowledge that the system will need to include simple and intuitive user experiences. However, even an optimally designed system cannot ultimately succeed in a vacuum. We now begin the important work of deeper, more expansive collaboration with leaders in technology, media, academia, advocacy and other disciplines. With this first step towards an industry standard for digital content attribution, we look optimistically to a future with more trust and transparency in media.

The CAI white paper is certainly worth a read.

Microsoft and the BBC explain Project Origin in their own words. It all sounds so harmless, doesn’t it? It’s all about ensuring that people can trust what they observe in the media is accurate and reliable. Who could possibly disagree with that?

This “coalition” claims to be interested in being able to authenticate media images, videos, and bits of data to identify where it came from. If one was to work in a a vacuum, this sounds completely reasonable and well intentioned.

However, what all too often gets left out of the equation is the rampant corruption, collusion, and financial interests pushing certain narratives. Authenticating photos, while ignoring the bias and fake narratives leaves out the bigger picture. No way is this done by accident.

Have a look through some of the articles at the bottom. These are the bigger issues that so often get (unsurprisingly) ignored. Hard to have an independent media when they are all on the public dole. Even harder when political operatives work within many of them.

But hey, things like a global vaccine passport, are just crazy conspiracy theories, right? Just like the Vaccine Credential Initiative, or the ID2020 Project.

IMPORTANT LINKS:
(1) https://c2pa.org/
(2) https://c2pa.org/about/charter/
(3) https://contentauthenticity.org/
(4) https://www.originproject.info/
(5) https://c2pa.org/about/resources/
(6) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_W3Om9Xbj2k
(7) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdTTl-C4PTM
(8) Content Authenticity Initiative WhitePaper

September 8, 2021September 8, 2021

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.

(1) https://thecommonsproject.org/
(2) https://thecommonsproject.org/about
(3) https://thecommonsproject.org/commonhealth
(4) https://www.weforum.org/organizations/commons-project
(5) https://www.weforum.org/agenda/authors/paul-meyer
(6) https://www.commonhealth.org/
(7) https://www.commonhealth.org/smart-health-cards
(8) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oAI14DOUQM&
(9) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJGYNvNUMJk
(10) https://thecommonsproject.org/commonpass
(11) https://www.commontrustnetwork.org/
(12) https://www.commontrustnetwork.org/network
(13) https://thecommonsproject.org/smart-health-card-verifier
(14) https://smarthealth.cards/faq.html
(15) https://id2020.org/alliance
(16) https://www.chancellorscircle.utoronto.ca/members/the-rockefeller-foundation/
(17) https://canucklaw.ca/vaccine-credential-initiative-passports-digital-health-passes-ontario-ford/
(18) https://news.mit.edu/2019/storing-vaccine-history-skin-1218
(19) https://www.weforum.org/about/leadership-and-governance
(20) https://apps.irs.gov/app/eos/
(21) Commons Project Foundation 2019 Taxes
(22) https://www2.gov.bc.ca/vaccinecard.html

August 30, 2021September 4, 2021

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?

August 30, 2021October 2, 2021

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:

BIGGEST FUNDERS

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

LARGEST CUSTOM TRAINING PARTNERS IN 2019-2021

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://www.poynter.org/
(2) https://www.poynter.org/major-funders/
(3) https://www.poynter.org/about/

July 21, 2021December 31, 2021

Bit Of History: University Of Toronto, Public Health, Funded With Rockefeller Money

[Reprinted without permission]

The Rockefeller Foundation’s contributions to the University of Toronto have been an important part of its global philanthropic agenda in support of health, food, employment, cities, energy and innovation over the past century.

Established in 1913, the Rockefeller Foundation has disbursed more than US$17 billion in today’s dollars. Among its achievements, the foundation played a role in the founding of the field of public health, developed vaccines for diseases such as yellow fever and malaria, and led a global transformation of agriculture that has saved millions of lives.

Created by American industrialist John D. Rockefeller, the foundation is also a major supporter of educational institutions. It established the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, and schools of public health at both Harvard and Johns Hopkins Universities. It became a major benefactor of the University of Toronto following the discovery of insulin in 1921 by Frederick Banting and Charles Best.

The following year, the foundation donated several million dollars to U of T for a chair of surgery and to fund construction of anatomy and pathology labs. The foundation also helped establish the School of Hygiene, which housed the Departments of Hygiene and Preventive Medicine, Public Health Nursing, Epidemiology and Biometrics, and Physical Hygiene, as well as a Division of Industrial Hygiene. It incorporated the existing Connaught Laboratories, then a global leader in the development and manufacture of vaccines.

In 1933, further contributions helped create the School of Nursing, transforming the program at U of T from a diploma course for existing nurses into a fully-fledged bachelor’s degree program in a new departmental building at Queen’s Park Crescent. Other Rockefeller gifts helped found programs in Chinese Studies in 1934, and the Department of Slavic Studies in 1949.

The foundation’s leadership in global philanthropy for more than a century has had a tremendous impact. Its support for education and research at U of T has played a major role in building our impressive global legacy.

Certainly not the only major donor. However, no one else has given anywhere close to $17 billion places like the University of Toronto (adjusted for inflation). Check out other major names. Correction: an earlier interpretation of the announcement thought it was $17B exclusively to this school.

Kind of makes one wonder who financed the various outlets at the school, such as the Centre for Vaccine-Preventable Diseases, the WHO Collaboration Centre.

One notable set of donors are William (Bill) Graham and Catherin Graham. Bill is a former Defense Minister of Canada, former Foreign Affairs Minister, and former Interim Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada. In total, they have contributed from $10.4 million.

This is quite the rabbit hole, but a few points to consider:

While this may be coincidental, the U.S. Federal Reserve came into existence in 1913. This led to the latest iteration of debt based currency, and debt slavery in that country.

The Rockefeller Foundation recently announced a $13.5 million grant, mostly for the U.S., to be spent on combatting misinformation.

The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine is listed as being founded by Rockefeller. From their own website: “The Rockefeller Foundation invented an international health system virtually overnight in 1914, simultaneously launching a pilot project throughout Central America and the British Caribbean to treat hookworm disease and lay the foundations of permanent departments of health under the auspices of its International Health Board.”

The LSHTM, much like Imperial College London, and the Vaccine Impact Modelling Consortium, receive heavy financing from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

European Commission
European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA)
Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI)
GlaxoSmithKline
Merck
University College London
Johnson & Johnson
UNICEF

The Vaccine Confidence Project, headed by Heidi Larson, is run by the LSHTM. Unsurprisingly, pharma companies are the biggest donors. After all, VCP is generating newer and larger markets for their products.

Johns Hopkins University has been running pandemic “scenarios” for many years. Makes one wonder how much of any of this is actually real.

In 2016, the ID2020 group was started. Among its initial partners are the Rockefeller Foundation, Microsoft, and GAVI, the Global Vaccine Alliance.

Rockefeller founded (along with others), the Climate Bonds Initiative. And this is hardly the only organization. Those carbon taxes people hate paying are going to make a limited number of people very rich.

And as mentioned before, UofT is structured as a charity.

Some interesting bits of information that most people probably never think about.

(1) https://www.chancellorscircle.utoronto.ca/members/the-rockefeller-foundation/
(2) https://archive.is/8r2eH
(3) Wayback Machine
(4) https://www.utoronto.ca/news/u-t-opens-groundbreaking-centre-strengthen-vaccine-confidence-through-collaboration
(5) https://www.dlsph.utoronto.ca/who-collaborating-centre-on-health-promotion/
(6) https://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/our-work/events-archive/2001_dark-winter/index.html
(7) https://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/our-work/events-archive/2005_atlantic_storm/index.html
(8) https://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/our-work/events/2018_clade_x_exercise/index.html
(9) https://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/event201/
(10) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Rockefeller.Foundation.lockstep.2010.pdf
(11) https://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/news/the-rockefeller-foundation-commits-13-5-million-in-funding-to-strengthen-public-health-response-efforts/
(12) https://id2020.org/alliance
(13) https://www.lshtm.ac.uk/newsevents/events/rockefeller-foundation-parasitism-and-peripheral-origins-global-health
(14) https://www.vaccineconfidence.org/
(15) https://www.vaccineconfidence.org/partners-funders
(16) https://canucklaw.ca/cv-24-gates-financing-of-imperial-college-london-and-their-modelling/
(17) https://canucklaw.ca/cv-24b-london-school-of-hygiene-tropical-medicine-more-modelling-financed-by-gates/
(18) https://canucklaw.ca/cv-24c-vaccine-impact-modelling-consortium-more-bogus-science/
(19) https://www.climatebonds.net/about/funders

Category: World

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

Like this:

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

Like this:

Bit Of History: University Of Toronto, Public Health, Funded With Rockefeller Money

Like this:

1. Enhancing the safety of journalists, crews and media professionals

2. Standing up for the independence of public service media

3. Fostering an informed and civil democratic debate

4. Supporting a strong news ecosystem with a diversity of sources

5. Promoting diversity, equity and inclusion within our organizations and in the societies we serve

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this: