Category: World

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 #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?

Posted on

Former Ontario UBI Pilot Research Chief, Kwame McKenzie, Part Of Ontario Science Table

In 2017, Ontario announced they would be doing a UBI, or universal basic income, pilot project in a few cities. Among the progress made was “Striking a Research and Evaluation Advisory Committee, led by Dr. Kwame McKenzie, CEO of the Wellesley Institute and Special Advisor to the Ontario Basic Income Pilot, which will provide advice and recommendations on the evaluation of the pilot.” A serious study with well known researchers.

At the time, the initiative from then Premier, “Liberal” Kathleen Wynne, got a lot of pushback. However, it’s being brought back in different form under “Conservative” Doug Ford.

Dr. Kwame McKenzie, who headed the UBI pilot project, is currently on the “Mental Health Working Group” of the Ontario Science Table. Now, the OST recommends more and more business shut downs. This will predictably cripple more of them, and force more people into dependence on the Government.

For more on the Ontario Science Table, check out the University of Toronto monopoly, the rampant conflicts-of-interest, and PHAC brain trust Robert Steiner. So much is easily available, yet not reported by the mainstream media in Ontario, or elsewhere in Canada.

Dr. Kwame McKenzie is CEO Of Wellesley Institute an international expert on the social causes of mental illness, suicide and the development of effective, equitable health systems.

Dr. McKenzie is also Director of Health Equity at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH), a Full Professor in the Department of Psychiatry at the University of Toronto and a consultant working with the World Health Organization on equity.

As a policy advisor, clinician and academic with over 250 papers, 5 books, and numerous awards he has worked across a broad spectrum to improve population health and health services for three decades.

He is a Co-Chair of the Expert Task Force on Substance Misuse, a member of the National Advisory Council on Poverty, a member of Canada’s Expert Advisory Panel on COVID-19 and Mental Health, the Minister of Health’s Covid-19 Testing and Tracing Advisory and was a member of Canada’s Delegation to the High Level Political Forum on the Social Development Goals.

Dr. McKenzie was previously a Human Rights Commissioner for Ontario and Chair of the Research and Evaluation Advisory Committee of Ontario’s Basic Income Pilot. In addition to his academic, policy and clinical work, Kwame has been a columnist for the Guardian, Times-online and Toronto Star and a past BBC Radio presenter.

McKenzie is one of many doctors in that group, whose purpose seems to be to provide cover to the Government of Doug Ford to ride roughshod over the rights of residents.

The project did end in 2018, shortly after Ford became Premier of Ontario. McKenzie expressed his unhappiness with the decision, suggesting it was done prior to there being enough data to make a definitive conclusion.

“Kwame McKenzie, CEO of the Toronto-based Wellesley Institute, an urban health think-tank, and a special adviser who worked with the former Liberal government on the pilot, said researchers and policy-makers all over the world were looking forward to the results from the biggest basic income project ever rolled out.

“There were people from high-income countries, literally all over the world, ringing, saying, ‘When can we get the results? How can we work with you?’ So everybody was interested in knowing how this would end up,” he said.”

However, it seems as though McKenzie will ultimately get his wish to see it play out. The Ontario Science Table is recommending measures that will inevitably lead to the collapse of the middle class. The only option at that point will be some form of UBI.

Nor was the Ontario UBI project his only project involving societal change. His biography lists many such efforts. Has no one in the Canadian media noticed this yet? Has anyone cared to look?

Interesting timing: while the UBI project started in 2017, McKenzie was appointed to be a Human Rights Commissioner in Ontario in 2016. In the press release it was noted he’s “a professor and the co-director of the Equity Gender and Population Division at the University of Toronto’s department of psychiatry.” Quite the situation here. A man who believes in vast wealth redistribution is also given significant power to spread equity at the OHRT. When he eventually joined Ontario Science Table, it became a way to further expand his goals.

As for other work, in 2011, McKenzie co-authored a paper titled: Moving the Mental Health Equity Dialogue Forward: The Promise of a Social Entrepreneur Framework. It’s a common theme throughout much of his work, that differences in health outcomes must be dealt with.

Summer of 2020, McKenzie shared a plan, available with the World Health Organization.

In November 2020, McKenzie participated in a World Health Organization panel dealing with inequities in Covid-19 risks and mortality. Perhaps the virus is racist for not harming everyone in exactly the same way.
Kwame McKenzie Improving National Health Equity
Inequities In Covid-19 Infection November 2020

McKenzie has many publications to his name, which can be found with a quick search.

On some level, the health equity wouldn’t be a bad concept. Theoretically, if we could guarantee a basic level of health care for everyone, humanity would be better off.

The problem is the deception involved. This “Covid-19” psy-op is being forced upon unwilling victims globally, and is being used as a scheme to remake the world. Never mind the collateral damage from shutdowns — which Ontario Science Table fully endorses. Forget about the loss of basic freedoms, or the death waves that will result from untested, UNAPPROVED gene-replacement therapy.

Now we have communists being important advisory roles, being able to mask their true agendas as a health crisis.

Posted on

Journalism Trust Initiative; Trusted News Initiative; Project Origin; The Trust Project

Having an open, independent and free media is essential to any functioning society. However, that is not the case here. Groups like the “Journalism Trust Initiative” sounds like something that might have been concocted in the Soviet Union. But no, it’s operational within the free world.

1. Important Links

(1) https://jti-rsf.org/en/
(2) https://jti-rsf.org/en/about
(3) RSF Sues Facebook, Claims Too LITTLE Censorship
(4) https://archive.is/A6847
(5) https://www.bbc.com/mediacentre/2020/trusted-news-initiative-vaccine-disinformation
(6) https://www.originproject.info/
(7) https://id2020.org/
(8) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdTTl-C4PTM
(9) https://firstdraftnews.org/latest/fake‐news‐complicated
(10) https://contentauthenticity.org
(11) https://www.partnershiponai.org
(12) https://www.partnershiponai.org/ai‐and‐media‐integrity‐steering‐committee
(13) https://www.wired.com/story/deepfakes‐getting‐better‐theyre‐easy‐spot
(14) https://arxiv.org/abs/2001.07886
(15) https://thetrustproject.org/
(16) https://thetrustproject.org/#indicators
(17) https://www.poynter.org/reporting-editing/2015/today-in-media-history-in-1947-the-press-reported-on-the-hutchins-commission-report/
(18) https://www.cbc.ca/news/editorsblog/editor-blog-trust-1.5936535
(19) https://cbc.radio-canada.ca/en/impact-and-accountability/local-news-directory

2. “News Trust” Groups To Investigate

There is something Orwellian or dystopian about organizations that have to stress so frequently that they are trustworthy sources. These are groups which are supposed to be doing this in journalism.

  • Journalism Trust Initiative
    1. Reporters Without Borders (RSF)
    2. European Broadcasting Union (EBU)
    3. Agence France Presse (AFP)
  • Trusted News Initiative
  • Project Origin
    1. British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC)
    2. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC)
    3. Radio-Canada
    4. Microsoft
    5. New York Times
  • The Trust Project
    1. Sally Lehrman
    2. Microsoft Defending Democracy Program
    3. The Peg and Rick Young Foundation
    4. the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation
    5. Trustworthy Journalism Initiative of Craig Newmark Philanthropies
    6. Bing
    7. Facebook
    8. Google

Who can forget the Q-Anon saying to “trust the plan”? After all, there was supposed to be some secret army ready to take out the Deep State, and put all of the pedophiles in jail. Also, “Operation Trust” was a scheme in the 1920s to keep the Communists in power in the Soviet Union, by letting people think there was a plot already underway.

This may seem crazy, but perhaps these “trust” groups operate in much the same way, and to achieve essentially the same purpose of deflating resistance to the current power structure.

There is another thread that runs through these NGOs. They all oppose what they call “misinformation” surrounding legitimate questions of this “pandemic”. Each one supports the official narrative.

3. Who’s Behind Journalism Trust Initiative

  • Reporters Without Borders (RSF) in partnership with:
  • European Broadcasting Union (EBU)
  • Agence France Presse (AFP)

Reporters Without Borders, the European Broadcasting Union, and Agence France Presse are the 3 main groups behind the Journalism Trust Initiative. That being said, their organization has grown considerably since the founding in 1985.

Here is a list of selected participants in the development stage of the JTI Standard included, in alphabetical order. Note: these names came directly from their website.

  • All-Russia State Television and Radio Broadcasting Company (VGTRK, Russia)
  • Associated Press (USA)
  • Association of Taiwanese Journalists (Taiwan)
  • Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni (AGCOM, Italy)
  • BBC (UK)
  • City University of New York (CUNY, USA)
  • Civil (USA)
  • Deutsche Presse Agentur (dpa, Germany)
  • Ethical Journalism Network (EJN)
  • European Association for the Co-ordination of Consumer Representation in Standardisation (ANEC)
  • Facebook (USA)
  • Fondation Hirondelle (Switzerland)
  • Free Press Unlimited (FPU, the Netherlands)
  • Gazeta Wyborcza (Poland)
  • Global Disinformation Index (GDI)
  • Google (USA)
  • The Independent Monitor for the Press (IMPRESS, UK)
  • Internews (UK)
  • Journalists Association of South Korea (JAK, South Korea)
  • NewsGuard (USA)
  • Norsk Rikskringkasting (NRK, Norway)
  • RTL Group (Luxembourg)
  • Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ, USA)
  • Swiss Press Council (Switzerland)
  • Tagesspiegel (Germany)
  • Tamedia (Switzerland)
  • Thomson Foundation (UK)
  • TT Nyhetsbyrån (Sweden)
  • World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
  • United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)

Some of these names should immediately stand out, such as Facebook, Google and UNESCO. Yes, 3 of the most powerful organizations are involved in this. As for the 3 behind JTI:

(a) Founded in 1985, Reporters Without Borders (RSF) became one of the world’s leading NGOs in the defence and promotion of freedom of information. RSF is registered in France as a non- profit organization based in Paris, with consultative status at the United Nations, UNESCO, the Council of Europe and the International Organization of the Francophonie (OIF). Our foreign sections, bureaux in ten cities, and a network of correspondents in 130 countries….

(b) The European Broadcasting Union (EBU) is the world’s foremost alliance of public service media (PSM). Our mission is to make PSM indispensable. We represent 117 media organizations in 56 countries in Europe, the Middle East and Africa; and have an additional 34 Associates in Asia, Africa, Australasia and the Americas. Our Members operate nearly 2,000 television and radio channels alongside numerous online platforms….

(c) Founded in 1835, Agence France-Presse (AFP) is the third largest international news agency in the world delivering fast, accurate, in-depth coverage of the events shaping our world, from conflicts to politics, economics, sports, entertainment and the latest breakthroughs in health, science and technology.

That is how they describe themselves. While there is nothing wrong with people in the industry collaborating, the concern comes when viewpoint diversity is stifled. Legitimate debate and contrary points of view can simply be disregarded.

We live in an era of the grand de-enlightenment.
.
On the Internet, algorithms tend to amplify the extremes – sensationalism, rumours, hate and falsehoods. Opinion and beliefs trump facts. The rule-makers in big-tech are not accountable to anyone. The rules of the game are in- transparent and change all the time.
.
On this rocky, tilting and ever turning playing field, journalism is unfairly disadvantaged, losing reputation, reach and revenues – which renders it even less competitive.
.
That logic needs to be reversed. Democracy dies without a fact-based discourse.

Everything in this section sounds entirely reasonable, and valid. The internet does tend to promote fake news and sensationalized nonsense over real journalism. And true, democracy is dead without a fact based discourse. However, what this group finds acceptable does not match with many others.

4. RSF Sues Facebook, Too LITTLE Censoring

This Complaint, filed in France, should terrify people. Reporters Without Borders is upset that Facebook isn’t doing enough to censor so-called misinformation on its platform. To repeat: the allegation is that Facebook SHOULD DO MORE to censor people spreading different views on the so-called pandemic.

Facebook has been notorious for its revised Terms of Service, and deplatforming, but that apparently wasn’t enough. RSF is taking action against a member of its own group.

Note: the Complaint itself doesn’t seem to be posted. RSF has been contacted for a copy of it.

For an example of how extensively Facebook already censors, consider this: Kevin Chan of Facebook Canada bragged to Canadian politicians that over 16 million pieces of “misinformation” had already been removed. But that apparently isn’t good enough.

5. Trusted News Initiative (TNI)

The Trusted News Initiative (TNI) was set up last year to protect audiences and users from disinformation, particularly around moments of jeopardy, such as elections. The TNI complements existing programmes partners have in place.
.
The partners currently within the TNI are: AP, AFP; BBC, CBC/Radio-Canada, European Broadcasting Union (EBU), Facebook, Financial Times, First Draft, Google/YouTube, The Hindu, Microsoft , Reuters, Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, Twitter, The Washington Post.
.
The TNI cooperative framework has been jointly developed amongst partners, and relates to only the most serious disinformation, which threatens life or the integrity of the electoral process. This is entirely separate from and does not in any way affect the editorial stance of any partner organisation.

At least we’re getting some honesty here. The Trusted News Initiative was set up primarily to counter “misinformation” of a serious nature. It specifically cites elections and this “pandemic”.

Although not explicitly stated, having these groups band together in such a way would be quite effective at censoring legitimate information. Of course, it would always be passed of as an emergency.

A cynic might wonder if Trump intentionally went on about election conspiracy theories in order to help justify the collusion of these “independent” media outlets. Perhaps this is reaching, but it would explain a lot.

Interestingly, although not surprisingly, Facebook and Google are both part of the Trusted News Initiative.

6. Project Origin — Microsoft A Partner

Project Origin was established to provide a platform for collaboration and discussion among a set of partners on the creation and adoption of a new media provenance tracking process, aimed initially at news and information content. At scale, this process could encompass traditional publishing (electronic and print), information technology, social media and consumer software. We are planning for a multiparty stakeholder, cross-organisational collaboration around combating disinformation.

Positive authentication of the provenance of legitimate news stories will help by making it easier to identify manipulated and synthetic audiovisual content. The Origin process is conceptually designed to work with text, video, images and audio content.

The Origin collaborators have agreed to develop a framework for an engineering approach, initially focusing on video, images, and audio. We hope this work could be helpful in developing a global standard for establishing content integrity.

CBC/Radio-Canada, the British Broadcasting Corporation and Microsoft are working together with what is called “Project Origin“. The stated goal is to be able to find the origin and background of news that is making its way onto public domains.

Never mind that Microsoft is heavily involved in ID2020, or that the BBC receives regular financing from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Forget about Gates’ ties to the pharmaceutical industry. Surely, this organization is about promoting truth and accuracy in media.

Project Origin offers a more technical way of finding the sources, such as tracing the image, or similar word patterns, or seeing where else it has been published. Consider it a form of cyber-sleuthing for content flagged as “misinformation”.

Media Provenance Countering Synthetic Media

SOURCES:
1. C. Wardle, “Fake news. It’s complicated”, First Draft, Feb. 2017. Available at:
https://firstdraftnews.org/latest/fake‐news‐complicated.
2. “Setting the industry standard for digital content attribution”, The Content Authenticity Initiative, 2019.
Available at: https://contentauthenticity.org.
3. The Partnership on AI. Available at: https://www.partnershiponai.org.
4. “AI and Media Integrity Steering Committee”, The Partnership on AI, 2019. Available at:
https://www.partnershiponai.org/ai‐and‐media‐integrity‐steering‐committee.
5. G. Barber, “Deepfakes Are Getting Better”, WIRED Magazine, May 2019. Available at
https://www.wired.com/story/deepfakes‐getting‐better‐theyre‐easy‐spot.
6. “News Provenance Project”, New York Times, 2018. Available at:
https://www.newsprovenanceproject.com/resources.
7. P. England et. al., “AMP: Authentication of Media via Provenance”, arXiv:2001.07886, Jan. 2020.
Available at https://arxiv.org/abs/2001.07886.
8. M Russinovich e.t al., “CCF: A Framework for Building Confidential Verifiable Replicated Services”,
Microsoft Research Technical Report MSR‐TR‐2019‐16, Apr. 2019. Available at
https://www.microsoft.com/en‐us/research/publication/ccf‐a‐framework‐for‐building‐confidential‐verifiable‐replicated‐services.

Project Origin does post a research paper going into extensive detail about how such a system may be organized. It would incorporate AI into it, flagging content deemed suspicious. How the metadata is actually used is explained in considerable deta in video as well.

7. The Trust Project, Social Media Grouping

The Trust Project is an organization of some 200 media outlets which conform to certain preset standards of journalism. The propagation and promotion of the their work across social media in influenced by Bing, Facebook and Google. Among the Canadian members are:

  • CBC
  • CTV
  • Globe & Mail
  • The Canadian Press
  • Toronto Star

The Trust Project does have its 8 Trust Indicators listings, and they are quite good. The problem is that these organizations don’t practice what they preach in terms of differing views. Specifically, contradictory information on this “pandemic” narrative are censored, and otherwise smeared as conspiracy theories.

At least on paper, there is nothing objectionable about this NGO. The issues arise when their behaviour in practice is considered.

The Trust Project references the 1947 Hitchens Commission to base this on. The report claims that democracy is in danger if there isn’t a free media, and that control in the hands of too few people is a danger. Instead of reading this as a warning, it appears to have become a roadmap, given how much media collusion we now have.

These trust groups function like a modern day Mockingbird Media. It really is one group that controls nearly everything.

8. CBC’s Efforts To “Rebuild Trust”

About a month ago, CBC, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, published an article that stated trust in it was waning. It emphasized that efforts were being undertaken to rebuild that trust, and went into significant detail.

  • CBC News is a member of the Journalism Trust Initiative (JTI), an effort to establish globally recognized standards of trustworthiness in news, led by Journalists without Borders, the European Broadcasting Union and Agence France-Presse. As part of a recent pilot, we submitted a 70-page questionnaire on our practices for an independent review and hope to share the results in the near future.
  • CBC/Radio-Canada has been a member of the Trusted News Initiative (TNI) since its inception in 2019. The TNI brings together global news organizations and tech platforms to combat disinformation. It created a real-time, early warning system to flag serious disinformation that may pose a threat to life or the integrity of the electoral process. It has been activated for the general elections in the U.K., Taiwan, Myanmar and the U.S., as well as the COVID-19 pandemic. The TNI will host a Trust in News conference later this month.
  • CBC/Radio-Canada has joined with the BBC, the New York Times and Microsoft in support of an effort to develop Project Origin, an open standard for confirming the authenticity of content from trusted sources to fight “deep fake” video news generated by artificial intelligence. This is a new application of established technology to digitally verify the authenticity of our news content when it appears on other online platforms.
  • CBC News is part of the Trust Project, an international partnership with tech and media companies to increase transparency and accuracy in online news. CBC policies on transparent labels, corrections, bylines and links to our JSP on our digital pages have become a model for other partners in the project.

While there are some legitimate steps in the article that CBC can take, it seems strange to partner up with so many other groups, such as the ones listed above. It takes away from the independence (or even the illusion of independence), to be so tightly interwoven with these “trust” groups.

CBC does have its own “directory” of trusted news groups, which seems Orwellian. Part of Canadians’ tax dollars are going towards creating a database of outlets that will not stray from permitted narratives.

9. Media, Social Media, Influence And Subsidies

CBC claims it wants to improve the trust it has among Canadians. However, it doesn’t raise any eyebrows when something like this happens: Dominic LeBlanc openly suggesting passing laws to combat “misinformation”. Since there is ideological alignment, this chilling statement goes largely unchallenged.

It seems that outlets like CBC wish to “appear” to be trustworthy, but have no interest in conducting themselves in ways that genuinely foster trust. How bad is the media bias?

(1) Unifor, Media, In Bed With Gov’t, $595M
(2) True North Canada A Fake Charity, Subsidized By Public
(3) Government Subsidizes Postmedia To Ensure Positive Coverage
(4) Aberdeen Publishing Takes Handouts, Ignores Real Issues
(5) More Periodicals Taking Grants, Parroting Gov’t Narrative
(6) Subsidized Fact-Check Outlets Run By Political Operatives
(7) Groups Funded By Tax Dollars To Combat “Misinformation”
(8) Even More Subsidies Canadian Outlets Are Dependent On
(9) DisinfoWatch Has Ties To Atlas Network/Koch, Liberal Party
(10) Media, Banks, CU, Getting CDA Emergency Wage Subsidies
(11) Advertising And Marketing In Promoting “Pandemic” Narrative
(12) NSERC/SSHRC/CIHR Grants In “Confidence”; Mandatory Vaxx
(13) Bill C-10; Open Collusion Between Ottawa, Social Media
(14) Facebook; Kevin Chan; Peter Donolo; Rachel Curran; Erin O’Toole

The unfortunate reality is that there are many legitimate reasons to not trust the media in Canada, and elsewhere. Coming together in these groups does little to conceal the lack of genuine interest in journalism. While it’s true that professionals so have to sell to make a living, it shouldn’t come at the expense of their integrity.