Category: World

Posted on

Using Artificial Scarcity, Product Placement, Market Manipulation, To Drive Up Demand

This article will get into some of the advertising and marketing techniques employed to get people to purchase products and services. There is quite a lot of science and research behind it.

1. Important Links

Alex Cattoni On Creating Scarcity Conditions
Justin Atlan On Scarcity To Create Sense Of Urgency
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_scarcity
Psychology Today: The Scarcity Mindset
Investopedia On Suggestive Selling
Product Placement Strategies, History
Marketing Plans Should Include Sponsorship
Psychology In Advertising: Common Methods
CTV: Culture Shift On Wearing Masks

2. Techniques To Create Scarcity Illusion

  1. Price Scarcity — the price will increase
  2. Quantity Scarcity — limited amount available
  3. Premium Scarcity — limited time bonuses
  4. Offer Scarcity — relaunching a temporary product

Now, these specific techniques can be used individually, or in some combination, depending on the circumstances. The point of this is to put pressure on people to act now, or else the offer will never be better. While the creator, Alex Cattoni, says to be honest, artificially creating scarcity can be very manipulative nature. This type of pressure can be applied almost universally, although the specific methods vary. Justin Atlan talks about using scarcity in order to drive up sales.

Of course, artificially creating scarcity can be done for many reasons, and several of them are quite valid and legitimate.

  • Cartels, monopolies and/or rentier capitalism
  • Competition regulation, where regulatory uncertainty and policy ambiguity deters investment.
  • Copyright, when used to disallow copying or disallow access to sources. Proprietary software is an example.
  • Copyleft software is a counterexample where copyleft advocates use copyright licenses to guarantee the right to copy, access, view, and change the source code, and allow others to do the same to derivatives of that code.
  • Patent
  • The Agricultural Adjustment Act
  • Hoarding, including cornering the market
  • Deliberate destruction
  • Paywalls
  • Torrent poisoning such as poisoning bittorrent with half broken copies of music and videos to drive up prices when instead streamed from places the author has deals with
  • Planned obsolescence
  • Decentralized digital currencies (e.g. Bitcoin)

    • This is from Wikipedia. There are perfectly valid reasons to engage in the creation of scarcity, such as intellectual property, and not undercutting your own prices. That said, there are unscrupulous ones as well.

    Economics is the study of how we use our limited resources (time, money, etc.) to achieve our goals. This definition refers to physical scarcity. In a recent book titled Scarcity, Mullainathan & Eldar (2013) broaden the concept of scarcity by asking the following questions: What happens to our minds when we feel we have too little? How does the context of scarcity shape our choices and our behaviors? They show that scarcity is not just a physical limitation. Scarcity affects our thinking and feeling. Scarcity orients the mind automatically and powerfully toward unfulfilled needs. For example, food grabs the focus of the hungry. For the lonely person, scarcity may come in poverty of social isolation and a lack of companionship.

    The scarcity mentality is well known by social psychologists. It forces being to think in finite terms, and to ask what they are missing out on. This can be good or bad, depending on the circumstances.

    3. Fear Of Missing Out On A Benefit

    FOMO, or the fear of missing out, is commonly used to pressure people into buying good and services now. Notice, it doesn’t have to be the product itself. It can just be having their life back to the way that it used to be. Perhaps something happened recently to change what was considered normal.

    4. Suggestive Selling/Upselling

    Understanding Suggestive Selling
    The idea behind the technique is that it takes marginal effort compared with the potential additional revenue. This is because getting the buyer to purchase (often seen as the most difficult part) has already been done. After the buyer is committed, an additional sale that is a fraction of the original purchase is much more likely.

    Typical examples of add-on sales are the extended warranties offered by sellers of household appliances such as refrigerators and washing machines, as well as electronics. A salesperson at an automobile dealership also generates significant add-on sales by suggesting or convincing a buyer sitting at their desk that the buyer would be much happier with the car with a few or several add-on options.

    Investopedia explains that upselling it often considered a better use of a person’s time that focusing solely on new customers. After all, the person is already buying something, so why not take the minimal amount of effort to see if they will purchase anything new?

    There is of course the idea of a volume discount. For example, take the BOGO (buy one, get one) free or greatly reduced. Often, people who may not have been willing to take multiple products now will, if it appears to reduce the price per unit.

    5. Product Placement As A Sales Strategy

    Product placement is a marketing strategy that has accidentally evolved a few decades ago. Nevertheless, the efficiency of the product placement has been spotted by professionals and since then various companies engage in product placement activities in various levels with varying efficiency. One of the main differences of product placement from other marketing strategies is the significance of factors contributing to it, such as context and environment within which the product is displayed or used.

    Implementing an efficient marketing strategy is one of the essential conditions for a product to be successful in the marketplace. Companies may choose different marketing strategies including advertising, channel marketing, internet marketing, promotion, public relations, product placement and others. Each of one of these marketing tools has its advantages and disadvantages and the rationale behind the choice among these tools relates to the type of the product, type of the market and the marketing strategy of the company.

    Product placement is a long recognized trick for getting a product into another production, without directly admitting that it is a form of advertising. This may be a substitute for more blatant ads, or may work in conjunction with it.

    6. Keep Repeating Your Talking Points

    This comment was (supposedly) in the context of pushing the climate change agenda on Canadians, but the principle can be applied much more broadly. It’s a variation of “if you tell a lie often enough, it becomes the truth”. Unfortunately, this is all too true.

    7. Including Sponsorship In Marketing Plan

    1. Shape consumer attitudes.
    2. Build brand awareness.
    3. Drive sales.
    4. Increase reach.
    5. Generate media exposure.
    6. Differentiate yourself from competitors.
    7. Take on a “corporate citizen” role.
    8. Generate new leads.
    9. Enhance business, consumer, and VIP relationships.

    Sponsoring a group or event can bring several benefits to your group, and those are outlined pretty well. Yes, the benefits are more intangible and difficult to measure, but it’s commonly believed to be an effective practice.

    8. Pay For Advertising, Sponsoring In Media

    (a) Subsidization Programs Available For Media Outlets (QCJO)
    (b) Political Operatives Behind Many “Fact-Checking” Groups
    (c) DisinfoWatch, MacDonald-Laurier, Journalists For Human Rights
    (d) Taxpayer Subsidies To Combat CV “Misinformation”
    (e) Postmedia Periodicals Getting Covid Subsidies
    (f) Aberdeen Publishing (BC, AB) Getting Grants To Operate
    (g) Other Periodicals Receiving Subsidies
    (h) Still More Media Subsidies Taxpayers Are Supporting
    (i) Media Outlets, Banks, Credit Unions, All Getting CEWS

    Paying for advertisements in newspapers, magazines, radio stations, and online, is a long accepted way of getting a message out. It’s an effective way to promote a product, service, or ideology. Of course, Governments can go the extra mile and just outright subsidize such outlets. It’s a way to create financial dependence, and ensure that they will be obedient to whatever is needed.

    9. Psychology Used In Selling To People

    1. Branding
    2. Give, Give, Give, Give, and Ask
    3. Power of Scarcity, FOMO
    4. Perceived Value & Pricing
    5. Power of Persuasion
    6. Power of Convenience
    7. Appeal To Morality
    8. Changing Language, Misusing Terms

    Advertising is much more complicated than simply being interesting and visually appealing. There are plenty of mental and psychological ways to do this. After this, it’s impossible to view ads in the same way ever again.

    10. Have Credible Actors Promote Message/Brand

    One of the keys to an effective marketing program is to have believable and realistic actors selling the message. Getting caught out like this doesn’t help at all. From a casting perspective, Ontario Deputy Medical Officer Barbara Yaffe was an extremely poor choice. Health Minister Christine Elliott wasn’t a great selection either.

    When the stakes are high, it’s essential to have actors and actresses who have read and understood their scripts. They will be better able to improvise when asked difficult questions. See here and here. Remember, even though the media questions are screened, sometimes they will accidently be curveballs.

    BC Provincial Health Officer Bonnie Henry is also a bizarre choice. While she seems likeable, and has the fake trembling nailed, she frequently jokes about the “no science” part. Perhaps she was never informed that this is serious.

    Alberta Premier Jason Kenney may have topped them all. He admits there could be 90% error — and hence, no pandemic — but then defers to the experts.

    Granted, these are difficult roles to play, given the scrutiny they are under. But still, the casting left a lot to be desired.

    11. Why Does This Marketing Info Matter?

    Even back in May 2020, the MSM in Canada was openly talking about “shifting the culture” to get everyone wearing masks for the foreseeable future. Of course, this sort of predictive programming is not limited to masks, but spread to other areas.

    Imagine a group of people not driven by money, but by ideology. They wanted to convince the general population to inject — en masse — an experimental mRNA vaccine, to cure a disease they don’t know exists.

    Such a task would be very difficult to accomplish, without using brute force. An alternative solution would be to apply some of the techniques outlined above, and get people to take it willingly.

    As for appealing to morality, does this sound familiar?
    “My mask protects you, and your mask protects me”.

    Words and terms are redefined in false and misleading ways.
    It’s not “martial law”, it’s “sheltering in place”.

    Healthy people should not be viewed as normal.
    Instead, they are “potential asymptomatic spreaders”.

    The Federal and Provincial Governments are not buying off media outlets and businesses into compliance. Instead, they are handing out “emergency relief”. See the difference?

    FOMO, or fear of missing out is being applied as a hardball tactic to get more people into taking the vaccine. After all, who isn’t desperate for some return to a normal life? If there aren’t enough to go around, doesn’t that create artificial scarcity?

    Covid internment camps are a conspiracy theory. Those “mandatory isolation centres” are not at all the same thing, and people need to stop misrepresenting the truth.

    No one is trying to trick citizens into taking the vaccine. Instead, they are just conducting research into ways to overcome “hesitancy”. See Part #1, #2, #3, #4 and #5.

    Regarding hope for the future: an astute person will note that Canada has ANNOUNCED a program to compensate people for injury or death caused by vaccines. However, there have been no DETAILS of what it will look like. It could be the Government falling behind, or it could be tat they have no intention of implementing anything.

    Posted on

    Gates, Trudeau Using Other People’s Money To Finance Genocide Globally

    It’s bad enough that successive Governments waste the public’s money. It’s far worse when used to finance the genocide of babies, both domestically and abroad. Instead of being direct about this, it’s cloaked in misleading labels like “reproductive health”. Here are some specific cases.

    Bill Gates believes there are too many people on the planet. It’s also the case that aborted fetal tissue, (from dead babies), is also used in manufacturing vaccines. If only there was a common solution to all of these problems.

    Gates Funds Planned Parenthood Groups

    DATE GROUP AMOUNT
    April 1998 PP Federation Of America $115,000
    April 1998 PP of Western Washington $500,000
    June 1998 PP Federation Of America $2,600,000
    August 1998 International PP Federation $1,730,000
    November 1998 International PP Federation $1,492,400
    August 1999 PP Canada $569,000
    April 1999 PP Federation Of America $5,000,000
    August 1999 International PP Worldwide $2,845,268
    November 1999 International PP Federation $1,492,400
    June 2000 PP of Central Washington $75,000
    October 2000 PP Federation of America $3,000,000
    January 2001 International PP Worldwide $8,865,000
    November 2002 International PP Worldwide $800,000
    December 2002 International PP worldwide $800,000
    September 2005 PP of Western Washington $1,000,000
    November 2005 International PP Europe $3,024,011
    June 2006 International PP Worldwide $10,000
    December 2006 PP Of Western Wshington $200,000
    July 2007 International PP Europe $7,023,160
    July 2007 International PP Worldwide $14,990,698
    September 2008 International PP Europe $23,000
    November 2010 International PP Europe $7,298,377
    October 2011 International PP Worldwide $250,000
    October 2013 International PP Europe $6,973,371
    November 2014 International PP Europe $431,947
    August 2016 International PP Europe $11,021,872
    July 2018 International PP Worldwide $490,000
    September 2018 International PP Worldwide $99,000
    October 2018 International PP Worldwide $250,000
    October 2018 Shanghai Institute of PP Research $1,628,290
    July 2019 International PP Worldwide $500,000
    October 2019 International PP Europe $599,221
    March 2020 International PP Worldwide $500,000

    These dates and amounts are available directly from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation website. They’ve been at this for over 20 years now. And in case someone thinks that this doesn’t financially cost Canadians, we pay for groups like GAVI.

    Canadian Taxpayers Funding Abortion Abroad

    DATE ORGANIZATION AMOUNT
    Oct. 1, 2014 MCPHAIL, Deborah $230,130
    Apr. 15, 2020 International Rescue Committee $1,900,000
    Jul. 1, 2015 Loutfy, Mona R $1,586,064
    Dec. 15, 2015 UN Population Fund $54,200,000
    Jan. 20, 2016 Plan International Canada $59,406,343
    Feb. 8, 2016 ADRA – Adventist $25,820,973
    Mar. 8, 2016 World Vision Canada $46,185,312
    Mar. 10, 2016 L’Oeuvre Léger $8,975,663
    Mar. 15, 2016 Primate’s World Relief $19,683,960
    Mar. 17, 2016 CARE Canada $22,217,442
    Mar. 10, 2017 Ministry of Finance (Tanzania) $87,300,000
    Mar. 30, 2017 University of Saskatchewan $16,986,886
    May 1, 2017 Carew, Jenna N. $17,500
    Jan. 29, 2018 CCISD $8,799,485
    Feb. 26, 2018 CCISD-CHUM $20,850,786
    Feb. 28, 2018 Pathfinder International $18,500,000
    Mar. 2, 2018 UN Population Fund $25,000,000
    Mar. 23, 2018 UN Population Fund $21,354,000
    May 7, 2018 Action Against Hunger – Spain $2,000,000
    Aug. 9, 2018 Oxfam Canada $17,959,000
    Oct. 22, 2018 The George Small Project Foundation Inc $19,912
    Mar. 1, 2019 Money, Deborah M $24,906
    May 3, 2019 Doctors Without Borders $1,000,000
    May 4, 2019 Canadian Red Cross $1,500,000
    May 6, 2019 UN Population Fund $1,000,000
    May 7, 2019 Action Against Hunger $3,000,000
    May 29, 2019 CARE Canada $2,500,000
    May 30, 2019 International Rescue Committee $4,000,000
    Jul. 3, 2019 Partners In Health Canada $11,149,825
    Jul. 25, 2019 UN Population Fund $10,000,000
    Sep. 9, 2019 UN Population $57,000,000
    Sep. 30, 2019 Canadian Red Cross $9,000,000
    Oct. 30, 2019 CAUSE Canada $1,903,735
    Dec. 3, 2019 Ghana Rural Integrated Development $1,331,880
    Dec. 20, 2019 WHO – World Health Organization $2,000,000
    Dec. 20, 2019 Canadian Red Cross $9,000,000
    Jan. 31, 2020 Action Canada for Sexual Health and Rights $10,887,328
    Feb. 19, 2020 World Relief Canada $4,000,000
    Feb. 24, 2020 CARE Canada $4,500,000
    Feb. 25, 2020 World Vision Canada $2,000,000
    Mar. 10, 2020 Doctors of the World Canada $4,500,000
    Mar. 11, 2020 University of Calgary $3,449,579
    Mar. 27, 2020 Action Against Hunger $3,000,000
    Mar. 27, 2020 CCISD $19,970,246
    Mar. 28, 2020 Development and Peace $2,000,000
    Mar. 20, 2020 CARE Canada $4,800,000
    Mar. 30, 2020 UN Population Fund $4,650,000
    Mar. 30, 2020 UN Population Fund $4,650,000
    Apr. 6, 2020 Université de Montréal $19,998,232
    Apr. 15, 2020 International Rescue Committee $1,900,000
    Apr. 21, 2020 UN Population Fund $1,500,000
    Apr. 23, 2020 Doctors Without Borders $1,000,000
    Apr. 23, 2020 CARE Canada $1,250,000
    May 13, 2020 Doctors Without Borders $2,600,000
    May 13, 2020 Doctors Without Borders $1,500,000
    May 13, 2020 Doctors Without Borders $1,000,000
    May 18, 2020 Rise Up Feminist Digital Archive $24,990
    Jul. 9, 2020 UN Development Programme $3,000,000
    Sep. 4, 2020 UN Population Fund $1,000,000
    Nov. 10, 2020 World Health Organization $2,236,000

    While these groups do serve other purposes, they will often include terms like “sexual rights”, or “reproductive care”. These are euphemisms for abortion most times.

    Conservative Cuckery On Abortion

    This is the sad state of “conservatism” in Canada. There’s no moral or ideological objection to infanticide. Instead, they choose to virtual signal about how it’s wrong to do if it’s based on sex. Apparently being viewed as a misogynist is worse than being a murderer.

    Males and females are to be treated equally, and apparently that applies to them being equally expendable.

    Euthanasia, Medical Assistance In Dying

    DATE GROUP AMOUNT
    Jul. 20, 2017 Canadian Association for Community Living $399,895
    Mar. 9, 2018 Western Canada Livestock Dev. Corp. $854,250
    May 1, 2018 Moon, Christine $150,000
    Oct. 1, 2018 Li, Madeline $818,550
    Nov. 30, 2018 ADJEF, NB $14,000
    Sep. 1, 2019 Western Canada Livestock Dev. Corp. $854,250
    Sep. 2, 2019 ADJEF, NB $49,626

    While we’re at it, let’s see what has been spent Federally on the topic of MAiD, or medical assistance in dying, or euthanasia. 2 of the grants apparently cover mass euthanasia of cattle, and other farm animals.

    Definitely some strange uses of taxpayer money.

    Posted on

    Hypocrisy In Declaration Against Arbitrary Detention in State-to-State Relations

    Declaration Against Arbitrary Detention

    59 countries endorses the Declaration Against Arbitrary Detention in State-to-State Relations. This was designed to prevent the rights of foreign nationals from being abused for political reasons. However, there are some issues to address.

    1. Declaration Sounds Fine On The Surface


    https://twitter.com/JosepBorrellF/status/1361332231378243588

    The arbitrary arrest or detention of foreign nationals to compel action or to exercise leverage over a foreign government is contrary to international law, undermines international relations, and has a negative impact on foreign nationals traveling, working and living abroad. Foreign nationals abroad are susceptible to arbitrary arrest and detention or sentencing by governments seeking to compel action from other States. The purpose of this Declaration is to enhance international cooperation and end the practice of arbitrary arrest, detention or sentencing to exercise leverage over foreign governments.

    Recognising a pressing need for an international response to the prevalence of these practices, and guided by international law and the principles of the Charter of the United Nations:

    1. We reaffirm that arbitrary arrests and detentions are contrary to international human rights law and instruments, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and other international and regional human rights instruments;

    2. We express grave concern about the use of arbitrary arrest or detention by States to exercise leverage over foreign governments, contrary to international law;

    3. We are deeply concerned that arbitrary arrest, detention, or sentencing to exercise leverage over foreign governments undermines the development of friendly relations and cooperation between States, international travel, trade and commerce, and the obligation to settle international disputes by peaceful means;

    4. We are alarmed by the abuse of State authority, including judicial authority, to arbitrarily arrest, detain or sentence individuals to exercise leverage over foreign governments. We call on States to respect their obligations related to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal;

    5. We urge all States to refrain from arbitrary arrest, detention, or sentencing to exercise leverage over foreign governments in the context of State-to-State relations;

    6. We reaffirm the fundamental importance of the rule of law, independence of the judiciary, respect for human rights, and respect for the obligation to provide consular access in accordance with international law, including the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations and other applicable international instruments;

    7. We call upon States to take concrete steps to prevent and put an end to harsh conditions in detention, denial of access to counsel, and torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment of individuals arbitrarily arrested, detained or sentenced to exercise leverage over foreign governments. We reaffirm the urgent need to provide these individuals with an effective remedy consistent with international human rights law, and call for their immediate release;

    8. We stand in solidarity with States whose nationals* have been arbitrarily arrested, detained or sentenced by other States seeking to exercise leverage over them and acknowledge the need to work collaboratively to address this issue of mutual concern at the international level.

    This Declaration remains open to endorsement.
    .
    (*) Including dual nationals in accordance with endorsing countries’ laws on nationality.

    On the surface, there is nothing wrong with any of this. People’s rights shouldn’t be denied or abused in order to make some geopolitical power play. The text of the treaty sounds fine. However, there are some problems that need to be addressed.

    Of course, how would such a treaty be enforced? Who and where would it be enforced? Could a country simply withdraw and go about business as usual? How could anyone scrutinize or investigate possible violations?

    2. China Is The Elephant In The Room

    There seems to be no mention of China, who has been holding 2 Canadians as prisoners for years. This of course, refers to Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor. This happened in retaliation for Canada arresting a Huawei executive. Also, what about the mass arrests and persecutions of religious minorities that China has long been accused of committing?

    What is really the purpose of this Declaration? Is it to send a message? Is it to appear virtuous? Of course, appearing virtuous is not the same thing as being virtuous. It can’t be for ideological reasons, given the following issue:

    3. Arbitrary Detention In So-Called Pandemic

    For any of these countries to be taken seriously, what about the human rights abuses that are going on domestically against their own citizens? Is it okay, or less wrong, when it’s done locally? Do any of these sound familiar?

    • Forced quarantine detentions
    • Forced curfews
    • Forced stay-at-home orders
    • Forced closures of businesses
    • Forced closures of religious services
    • Forced masks on adults
    • Forced masks on children
    • Forced nasal rape for bogus tests
    • Peaceful assembly banned
    • Banning free speech as “misinformation”
    • Arrests for violating any of the above

    While these 59 countries are crowing about how virtuous they are, many have implemented some or all of the above measures. Of course, this is done in the name of “public safety”. Are they not stripping their own people’s rights in order to implement political agendas? Shouldn’t human rights be applied universally, not just when travelling abroad?

    Although it’s still just a proposal, public officials in Canada have openly suggested the idea of passing laws to ban what they call “misinformation”. Of course, this refers to people who will research and expose their lies.

    Posted on

    Provincial Health Acts Are Really Just WHO-IHR Domestically Implemented

    Bill C-12 is the 2005 Quarantine Act, passed by Canada’s Parliament. It was heavily based on presumed changes to the International Health Regulations that the World Health Organization imposed. However, the problem has filtered down to the Provinces as well.

    Strangely, it was only the Bloc Quebecois who voted against this. All other parties supported this Bill.

    1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

    The rest of the series is here. Many lies, lobbying, conflicts of interest, and various globalist agendas operating behind the scenes, obscuring the vile agenda called the GREAT RESET. The Gates Foundation finances: the WHO, the US CDC, GAVI, ID2020, John Hopkins University, Imperial College London, the Pirbright Institute, the BBC, and individual pharmaceutical companies. The International Health Regulations are legally binding. The Postmedia empire and the “independent” media are paid off, as are the fact-checkers. The virus was never isolated, PCR tests are a fraud, as are forced masks, social bubbles, and 2m distancing.

    2. Important Links

    https://www.ourcommons.ca/Committees/en/HESA/StudyActivity?studyActivityId=981075
    https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/38-1/HESA/report-2/

    (AB) https://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/Acts/P37.pdf
    (SK) https://www.canlii.org/en/sk/laws/stat/ss-1994-c-p-37.1/11022/ss-1994-c-p-37.1.html
    (MB) https://web2.gov.mb.ca/laws/statutes/ccsm/p210e.php
    (ON) https://healthunit.org/wp-content/uploads/Health_Protection_and_Promotion_Act.pdf

    3. Canada’s Quarantine Act Written By WHO

    As mentioned earlier, the International Health Regulations (IHR), that the WHO issues are legally binding on all Member States. Countries are expected to follow the directives that are sent, even if they are very much against national self interest.

    In declaring this “pandemic”, Trudeau activated the 2005 Quarantine Act, a piece of legislation that violates many basic rights in the name of “public health”. However, Bill C-12 was actually written by the World Health Organization. What this means is that the Bill was drafted in anticipation of changes to the 3rd Edition of the IHR, which remain legally binding today.

    But what about the Provinces? What is the situation with their Public Health Acts? Turns out that many of the clauses from the Quarantine Act are included, almost word for word?

    4. British Columbia Public Health Act

    Preventive measure
    16 (1) Preventive measures include the following:
    (a) being treated or vaccinated;
    (b) taking preventive medication;
    (c) washing with, applying or ingesting a substance, or having a substance injected or inserted;
    (d) undergoing disinfection and decontamination measures;
    (e) wearing a type of clothing or other personal protective equipment, or changing, removing or altering clothing or personal protective equipment;
    (f) using a type of equipment or implementing a process, or removing or altering equipment or processes.
    .
    (2) A person subject to a regulation requiring preventive measures must not be in a place or do a thing that is prohibited by the regulation until the person has
    (a)taken preventive measures as set out in the regulation, or
    (b)if permitted by the regulation, made an objection under subsection (4).

    General emergency powers
    Division 2 — Order of the Minister
    Minister may order temporary quarantine facility
    .
    26 (1)The minister may by order designate a place as a quarantine facility if the minister reasonably believes that the temporary use of the place for the purposes of isolating or detaining infected persons is necessary to protect public health.
    .
    (2) A person who has control of a place designated as a quarantine facility must provide the place to the minister or a medical health officer.

    Division 3 — Orders Respecting Infectious Agents and Hazardous Agents
    When orders respecting infectious agents and hazardous agents may be made
    27 (1) A medical health officer may issue an order under this Division only if the medical health officer reasonably believes that
    (a) a person
    (i) is an infected person, or
    (ii) has custody or control of an infected person or an infected thing, and
    (b) the order is necessary to protect public health.
    .
    (2) An order may be issued based on clinical findings or a person’s or thing’s circumstances or medical history, even if the person or thing has been examined and the examination did not reveal the presence of an infectious agent or a hazardous agent.

    General powers respecting infectious agents and hazardous agents
    .
    28 (1) If the circumstances described in section 27 [when orders respecting infectious agents and hazardous agents may be made] apply, a medical health officer may order a person to do anything that the medical health officer reasonably believes is necessary for either or both of the following purposes:
    (a) to determine whether an infectious agent or a hazardous agent exists, or likely exists;
    (b) to prevent the transmission of an infectious agent or a hazardous agent.

    (2 ) A medical health officer may, in respect of an infected thing,
    (a) make any order, with any necessary modifications, that can be made under this Division as if the infected thing were an infected person, and
    (b) direct the order to any person having custody or control of the infected thing.

    Specific powers respecting infectious agents and hazardous agents
    .
    29 (1) An order may be made under this section only
    (a) if the circumstances described in section 27 [when orders respecting infectious agents and hazardous agents may be made] apply, and
    (b) for the purposes set out in section 28 (1) [general powers respecting infectious agents and hazardous agents].
    .
    (2) Without limiting section 28, a medical health officer may order a person to do one or more of the following:
    .
    (a) remain in a specified place, or not enter a place;
    (b) avoid physical contact with, or being near, a person or thing;
    (c) be under the supervision or care of a specified person;
    (d) provide to the medical health officer or a specified person information, records, samples or other matters relevant to the person’s possible infection with an infectious agent or contamination with a hazardous agent, including information respecting persons who may have been exposed to an infectious agent or a hazardous agent by the person;
    (e) be examined by a specified person, including
    (i) going to a specified facility for examination, and
    (ii) being examined before a particular date or according to a schedule;
    (f) submit to diagnostic examination, including going to a specified facility or providing the results to a specified person;
    (g) take preventive measures, including
    (i) going to a specified facility for preventive measures,
    (ii) complying with preventive measures set out in the order, specified by a medical practitioner or nurse practitioner, or both, and
    (iii) beginning preventive measures before a particular date, and continuing until a particular date or event;
    (h) provide evidence of complying with the order, including
    (i) getting a certificate of compliance from a medical practitioner, nurse practitioner or specified person, and
    (ii) providing to a medical health officer any relevant record;

    (I ) take a prescribed action.
    .
    (3) For greater certainty, this section applies even if the person subject to the order is complying with all terms and conditions of a licence, a permit, an approval or another authorization issued under this or any other enactment.

    54 (1) A health officer may, in an emergency, do one or more of the following:
    (a) act in a shorter or longer time period than is otherwise required;
    (b) not provide a notice that is otherwise required;
    (c) do orally what must otherwise be done in writing;
    (d) in respect of a licence or permit over which the health officer has authority under section 55 [acting outside designated terms during emergencies] or the regulations, suspend or vary the licence or permit without providing an opportunity to dispute the action;
    (e) specify in an order a facility, place, person or procedure other than as required under section 63 [power to establish directives and standards], unless an order under that section specifies that the order applies in an emergency;
    (f) omit from an order things that are otherwise required;
    (g) serve an order in any manner;
    (h) not reconsider an order under section 43 [reconsideration of orders], not review an order under section 44 [review of orders] or not reassess an order under section 45 [mandatory reassessment of orders];
    (i) exempt an examiner from providing examination results to an examined person;
    (j) conduct an inspection at any time, with or without a warrant, including of a private dwelling;
    (k) collect, use or disclose information, including personal information,
    (i) that could not otherwise be collected, used or disclosed, or
    (ii) in a form or manner other than the form or manner required.

    Under Section 54 the B.C. Public Health Act, during emergencies (or self-identified emergencies), Health Officers can have any place inspected at any time. A person can be examined, and the results of that exam withheld from him/her. Business can be shut down, without any recourse to challenge it. Health Officers can do things with oral only notice, or with no notice at all, and these privileges can be extended longer than need be.

    Under Section 16 of the Act, a person can be ordered to be: vaccinated; medicated; ingest or insert something, and other invasive procedures. Section 26 of the Act allows the Health Minister to take any property and convert it into a quarantine facility. Sections 27 through 29 allows a Medical Health Officer – in this case, Bonnie Henry – virtual dictatorial powers over other people’s lives and livelihoods.

    Worth clarifying, these “Health Officers” or “Medical Officers” are not elected by the public in any capacity. They cannot be voted out of their positions, regardless of the sentiments of the general population.
    The Act of course is much, much longer than this. However, it is truly stunning just how much power unelected Health Officers are given over other people’s lives. And in B.C., all parties are apparently okay with handing over their duties.

    Sure, the B.C. Public Health Act gives bureaucrats that power, but who wrote the Act in the first place? Who was responsible for handing over that power to begin with? This Act was written and voted on by MLAs (Members of Legislative Assembly), who are, in theory, accountable to voters.

    A cynic might wonder if MLAs made this law in order to avoid making themselves accountable for decisions they make. Here at least, they can claim it’s not them, and that they are simply following the advice of health professionals.

    It’s interesting that the B.C Health Act was assented to (made law) in 2008. The 3rd Edition of WHO’s International Health Regulations came into effect in 2005, and Canada’s 2005 Quarantine Act was heavily based on those IHR. The B.C. Act contains much of the same information and powers as the WHO/Federal documents, and it’s fair to assume that the content was derived from them.

    Of course, this is hardly limited to B.C. Other Provinces have their own version of a Provincial Health Act, and they carry many of the same powers. This includes: Alberta , Saskatchewan , Manitoba , among others. What these Acts all have in common is they give broad, sweeping powers to bureaucrats who are not elected by the public, and who cannot be voted out. Looking at Alberta:

    5. Alberta Public Health Act

    Powers of Chief Medical Officer
    .
    14(1) The Chief Medical Officer
    .
    (a) shall, on behalf of the Minister, monitor the health of Albertans and make recommendations to the Minister and regional health authorities on measures to protect and promote the health of the public and to prevent disease and injury,
    .
    (b) shall act as a liaison between the Government and regional health authorities, medical officers of health and executive officers in the administration of this Act,
    .
    (c) shall monitor activities of regional health authorities, medical officers of health and executive officers in the administration of this Act, and
    .
    (d) may give directions to regional health authorities, medical officers of health and executive officers in the exercise of their powers and the carrying out of their responsibilities under this Act.

    (2) Where the Chief Medical Officer is of the opinion that a medical officer of health or executive officer is not properly exercising powers or carrying out duties under this Act in respect of a matter, the Chief Medical Officer may assume the powers and duties of the medical officer of health or executive officer in respect of the matter and act in that person’s place.

    Isolation, Quarantine and Special Measures
    .
    Isolation and quarantine
    .
    29(1) A medical officer of health who knows of or has reason to suspect the existence of a communicable disease or a public health emergency within the boundaries of the health region in which the medical officer of health has jurisdiction may initiate an investigation to determine whether any action is necessary to protect the public health.
    (2) Where the investigation confirms the presence of a communicable disease, the medical officer of health
    (a) shall carry out the measures that the medical officer of health is required by this Act and the regulations to carry out, and
    (b) may do any or all of the following:
    (i) take whatever steps the medical officer of health considers necessary
    (A) to suppress the disease in those who may already have been infected with it,
    (B) to protect those who have not already been exposed to the disease,
    (C) to break the chain of transmission and prevent spread of the disease, and
    (D) to remove the source of infection;
    (ii) by order
    (A) prohibit a person from attending a school,
    (B) prohibit a person from engaging in the person’s occupation, or
    (C) prohibit a person from having contact with other persons or any class of persons for any period and subject to any conditions that the medical officer of health considers appropriate, where the medical officer of health determines that the person’s engaging in that activity could transmit an infectious agent;
    .
    (iii) issue written orders for the decontamination or destruction of any bedding, clothing or other articles that
    have been contaminated or that the medical officer of health reasonably suspects have been contaminated.
    (2.1) Where the investigation confirms the existence of a public health emergency, the medical officer of health
    (a) has all the same powers and duties in respect of the public health emergency as he or she has under subsection (2) in the case of a communicable disease, and
    (b) may take whatever other steps are, in the medical officer of health’s opinion, necessary in order to lessen the impact of the public health emergency.

    Sections 13 to 15 of Alberta’s Public Health Act outline how a Medical Health Officer is appointed, and the vast powers available to that person. In Alberta, that is currently Deena Hinshaw. Like Bonnie Henry, she is not elected, and cannot be held directly liable to the public for anything that she does.

    Pages 25 through 31 of the most recent version of that Act relate to quarantine measures, epidemics, and how the average person’s rights can be suspended almost indefinitely under the pretense of “public safety”. It reads like the Provincial counterpart to the Quarantine Act, which of course, was dictated by the WHO.

    Pages 39 through 51 cover Section 52 of the Alberta Public Health Act. It gives sweeping powers to unelected bureaucrats in the name of safety. The content of that Section reads almost beat for beat identical to that of the Quarantine Act. Moving on to Saskatchewan, we get this piece of legislation:

    6. Saskatchewan Public Health Act

    CONTROL OF EPIDEMICS Orders
    .
    45(1) The minister may make an order described in subsection (2) if the minister believes, on reasonable grounds, that:
    .
    (a) a serious public health threat exists in Saskatchewan; and (b) the requirements set out in the order are necessary to decrease or eliminate the serious public health threat. (2) An order pursuant to this section may: (a) direct the closing of a public place;
    .
    (b) restrict travel to or from a specified area of Saskatchewan;
    .
    (c) prohibit public gatherings in a specified area of Saskatchewan;
    .
    (d) in the case of a serious public health threat that is a communicable disease, require any person who is not known to be protected against the communicable disease:
    (i) to be immunized or given prophylaxis where the disease is one for which immunization or prophylaxis is available; or
    (ii) to be excluded from school until the danger of infection is past where the person is a pupil;
    .
    (e) establish temporary hospitals;
    .
    (f) require a local authority, a medical health officer or a public health officer to investigate matters relating to the serious public health threat and report to the minister the results of the investigation;
    .
    (g) require any person who, in the opinion of the minister or medical health officer, is likely to have information that is necessary to decrease or eliminate the serious public health threat to disclose that information to the minister or a medical health officer;
    .
    (h) authorize public health officers, peace officers or prescribed persons to confiscate substances or other materials found in any place, premises or vehicle, if those substances or materials are suspected by the public health officer, peace officer or prescribed person of causing or contributing to a serious public health threat or packages, containers or devices containing or suspected of containing any of those substances or materials;
    .
    (i) in the case of a serious public health threat that is a communicable disease, require any person to be isolated from other persons until a medical health officer is satisfied that isolation is no longer necessary to decrease or eliminate the transmission of a communicable disease.

    Preventive detention order
    45.1(1) If a person fails to comply with an order pursuant to clause 45(2)(i) and a medical health officer believes on reasonable grounds that the person is endangering the lives, safety or health of the public because the person is or probably is infected with, or has been or might have been exposed to, a communicable disease, the medical health officer may detain the person for a period not exceeding the prescribed period of transmissibility of the disease.

    (2) A person detained by a medical health officer pursuant to subsection (1) may request a review of his or her detention by application to the Court of Queen’s Bench served on the minister, and the court may make any order with respect to the detention or the release of the person that the court considers appropriate, having regard to the danger to the lives, safety or health of the public.

    In similar fashion, Saskatchewan has their own Public Health Act, which has undergone several revisions since the 1990s. It allows for freedoms and liberties to be suspended on even the vaguest suspicion that a person may have an infectious disease. It also allows for property to be seized, and people to be detained.

    Things like public gatherings, and freedom of citizens to travel can also be suspended indefinitely under the guise of safety.

    Note: as with all of these cases, it’s not the politicians doing the dirty work. It’s the various “experts” who call themselves Chief Medical Officers (or similar titles). This provides cover to elected officials, who want to stamp out civil rights, but don’t want to get their own hands dirty in the process. Now, about Manitoba:

    7. Manitoba Public Health Act

    PART 6
    PUBLIC HEALTH EMERGENCY
    Public health emergency
    67(1) The chief public health officer may take one or more of the special measures described in subsection (2) if he or she reasonably believes that
    (a) a serious and immediate threat to public health exists because of an epidemic or threatened epidemic of a communicable disease; and
    (b) the threat to public health cannot be prevented, reduced or eliminated without taking special measures.

    Special measures
    67(2) The chief public health officer may take the following special measures in the circumstances set out in subsection (1):
    (a) issue directions, for the purpose of managing the threat, to a regional health authority, health corporation, health care organization, operator of a laboratory, operator of a licensed emergency medical response system, health professional or health care provider, including directions about
    (i) identifying and managing cases,
    (ii) controlling infection,
    (iii) managing hospitals and other health care facilities and emergency medical response services, and
    (iv) managing and distributing equipment and supplies;
    (a.1) issue an order prohibiting or restricting persons from travelling to, from or within a specified area, or requiring persons who are doing so to take specified actions;
    (b) order the owner, occupant or person who appears to be in charge of any place or premises to deliver up possession of it to the minister for use as a temporary isolation or quarantine facility;
    (c) order a public place or premises to be closed;
    (d) order persons not to assemble in a public gathering in a specified area;
    (d.1) order persons to take specified measures to prevent the spread of a communicable disease, including persons who arrive in Manitoba from another province, territory or country;
    (e) order a person who the chief public health officer reasonably believes is not protected against a communicable disease to do one or both of the following:
    (i) be immunized, or take any other preventive measures,
    (ii) refrain from any activity or employment that poses a significant risk of infection, until the chief public health officer considers the risk of infection no longer exists;
    (f) order an employer to exclude from a place of employment any person subject to an order under subclause (e)(ii).

    Manitoba’s Public Health Act allows the Chief Medical Officer, and the operatives, to effectively suspend basic civil rights indefinitely. Of course this is “for your safety”, the ever present excuse. Basic liberties such as free association, freedom to peacefully assemble, and freedom to earn a livelihood can be stopped.

    Note: the Act was assented to on June 13, 2006, a year after the Federal Quarantine Act, and the 3rd Edition of the International Health Regulations were implemented. The obvious implication is that this Act is just Manitoba enacting its own version.

    Section 10 of the Act mandates that a Chief Medical Officer be named. Currently, that is Brent Roussin. In November, he caused a scandal when he openly admitted that public health orders don’t apply to public officials. Not leading by example.

    8. Ontario Health Protection & Promotion Act

    PART VI.1 PROVINCIAL PUBLIC HEALTH POWERS
    .
    Chief Medical Officer of Health may act where risk to health
    .
    77.1 (1) If the Chief Medical Officer of Health is of the opinion that a situation exists anywhere in Ontario that constitutes or may constitute a risk to the health of any persons, he or she may investigate the situation and take such action as he or she considers appropriate to prevent, eliminate or decrease the risk. 2007, c. 10, Sched. F, s. 15.
    .
    Same (2) For the purpose of subsection
    .
    (1), the Chief Medical Officer of Health,
    .
    (a) may exercise anywhere in Ontario,
    (i) any of the powers of a board of health, including the power to appoint a medical officer of health or an associate medical officer of health, and (ii) any of the powers of a medical officer of health; and
    .
    (b) may direct a person whose services are engaged by a board of health to do, anywhere in Ontario, whether within or outside the health unit served by the board of health, any act,
    (i) that the person has power to do under this Act, or
    (ii) that the medical officer of health for the health unit served by the board of health has authority to direct the person to do within the health unit. 2007, c. 10, Sched. F, s. 15.
    .
    Authority and duty of person directed to act
    (3) If the Chief Medical Officer of Health gives a direction under clause (2) (b) to a person whose services are engaged by a board of health, (a) the person has authority to act, anywhere in Ontario, whether within or outside the health unit served by the board of health, to the same extent as if the direction had been given by the medical officer of health of the board of health and the act had been done in the health unit; and (b) the person shall carry out the direction as soon as practicable. 2007, c. 10, Sched. F, s. 15. Section 22 powers
    .
    (4) For the purpose of the exercise by the Chief Medical Officer of Health under subsection (2) of the powers of a medical officer of health, a reference in section 22 to a communicable disease shall be deemed to be a reference to an infectious disease. 2007, c. 10, Sched. F, s. 15. Application to judge where risk to health 77.2 (1) If the Chief Medical Officer of Health is of the opinion that a situation exists anywhere in Ontario that constitutes or may constitute a risk to the health of any persons, he or she may apply to a judge of the Superior Court of Justice for an order under subsection (2). 2007, c. 10, Sched. F, s. 15.

    Possession of premises for temporary isolation facility
    .
    77.4 (1) The Minister, in the circumstances mentioned in subsection (3), by order may require the occupier of any premises to deliver possession of all or any specified part of the premises to the Minister to be used as a temporary isolation facility or as part of a temporary isolation facility. 2007, c. 10, Sched. F, s. 15.
    .
    Extension
    (2) An order under subsection (1) shall set out an expiry date for the order that is not more than 12 months after the day of its making and the Minister may extend the order for a further period of not more than 12 months. 2007, c. 10, Sched. F, s. 15.
    .
    Grounds for order
    (3) The Minister may make an order under subsection (1) where the Chief Medical Officer of Health certifies in writing to the Minister that, (a) there exists or there is an immediate risk of an outbreak of a communicable disease anywhere in Ontario; and (b) the premises are needed for use as a temporary isolation facility or as part of a temporary isolation facility in respect of the communicable disease. 2007, c. 10, Sched. F, s. 15.

    Ontario has the 2007 Health Protection and Promotion Act. The wording and powers are very similar to other Provinces, and to the Federal Quarantine Act. The timing is also suspicious, given that this was implemented soon after the 2005 International Health Regulations and the Federal legislation.

    In Ontario, the Chief Medical Officer is David Williams, and the Deputy Medical Officer is Barbara Yaffe. As with the other so-called experts, these people are not elected, and have no real accountability to the public. Both have made very interesting statements about how dangerous this “pandemic” really is. More on them later.

    9. These Acts Strip Away Basic Rights

    At no time is there a requirement for there to be PROOF of a public health emergency to act on these powers. These Chief Medical Officers can simply claim that they “reasonably believe”, and that is sufficient.

    Provincially and Federally, politicians write laws that allow unelected bureaucrats almost free reign to impose whatever measures they want. Of course, they don’t write content of the laws, but follow the instructions of a supra-national body that is accountable to no one.

    This only covers 5 Provinces, however, they all have similar laws. If there is time, a Part II will be published to cover the others.

    Posted on

    Omidyar Group; Luminate; Reset; Reset Australia; Push For A Misinformation Ban

    The Omidyar Group, started by e-Bay Founder, Pierre Omidyar, is involved in many areas of social change. To address the elephant in the room: it does appear there are legitimate areas that the Omidyar Group and its many affiliates are involved with. However, there is one in particular that needs to be looked at. NGOs are pushing to ban what they call “misinformation” around the so-called “pandemic”.

    1. Important Links

    https://www.omidyargroup.com/
    https://luminategroup.com/
    https://www.sandlerfoundation.org/
    https://www.fidelitycharitable.org/
    https://twitter.com/ausreset/status/1353402187762847746
    https://au.reset.tech/
    https://www.reset.tech/about/
    https://www.reset.tech/people/
    https://archive.is/AuwcW
    https://www.weforum.org/people/pia-mancini

    2. Omidyar Group: Finance Independent Media

    Omidyar Group was launched by Pierre Omidyar (who founded e-Bay in 1995), and his Wife, Pam. This NGO has several interests, including promoting a “more informed citizenry”, which sounds fine on the surface. The organizations that Omidyar funds include:

    • Democracy Fund
    • First Look Media
    • Flourish
    • Hopelab
    • Humanity United
    • Imaginable Futures
    • Luminate
    • Omidyar Network
    • Omidyar Network India
    • Ulupono Initiative

    The Democracy Fund
    The Democracy Fund’s Public Square program invests in innovations and institutions that are reinventing local media and expanding the “public square” to ensure that people can access diverse sources of information and different points of view. The Public Square program supports efforts to combat misinformation deepen individuals’ engagement in civic life though new venues for reasoned debate and deliberation.

    First Look Media
    First Look Media – a bold independent media company that empowers the most ambitious voices in journalism, arts and entertainment. Launched by eBay founder and philanthropist, Pierre Omidyar, First Look Media today operates across several areas, including an entertainment studio, Topic, which develops, produces and finances feature films, documentaries, television and digital content; the newly launched digital storytelling destination, Topic.com; the award-winning investigative journalism outlet, The Intercept; the critically acclaimed documentary film unit, Field of Vision; and the popular political satire cartoon, The Nib. The company’s first feature film, “Spotlight,” won the 2016 Academy Award® for Best Picture.

    Honolulu Civil Beat
    Honolulu Civil Beat is an award-winning investigative and watchdog online media enterprise aimed at informing and engaging community members through public affairs and investigative reporting on topics of critical importance to Hawaii.

    Humanity United
    Humanity United engages and supports media partners, reporters and storytellers to raise awareness and educate key audiences about important social issues. Humanity United supports The Guardian’s media platform titled “Modern Day Slavery in Focus,” a series investigating human trafficking and exploitation around the world.

    Luminate
    Luminate supports organizations that are committed to defending a vibrant, free press that uncovers the truth and holds power to account. It also works to enable people to shape the decisions that affect their lives and access the services they need, with a focus on those groups that are marginalised or underserved.

    Omidyar Network India
    Omidyar Network India supports independent journalism that reports on issues concerning citizens and civil society through support such as equity investments in new business models.

    The World Post
    An advocate for quality journalism, Pierre Omidyar serves on the editorial board of the World Post, a platform for understanding current events through a global lens.

    To be clear, there is nothing wrong with bringing new voices into the public discussion. Viewpoint diversity is a great thing. However, when such initiatives are used to shut down or gaslight others, there is a serious problem. Omidyar funds Luminate, who in turn funds Reset. It’s unclear if the goals got corrupted, or if this was always the purpose.

    It’s also a bit misleading to think that these outfits are really independent, considering they are controlled by the same people.

    3. Luminate: Fund For Public Interest Media

    Luminate funds and supports non-profit and for-profit organisations and advocates for policies and actions that can drive change. We prioritise delivering impact in four connected areas that underpin strong societies: Civic Empowerment, Data & Digital Rights, Financial Transparency, and Independent Media.

    A free press gives people the information they need to participate in the issues shaping their lives. But press freedom is at a low ebb. Research by Freedom House shows that less than 20 percent of the world now benefits from a truly independent media. Journalists are being imprisoned and killed for reporting the truth, while ‘fake news laws’, ostensibly created to prevent misinformation, are instead being used to censor and silence.

    Changes in the media market are contributing to the crisis. Dominant ad-driven models reward tech platforms such as Google and Facebook over publications and journalists. Driven by clicks, these models often favour sensationalism over considered reportage, contributing to declining trust in the media, the spread of misinformation, and the increasing polarisation of communities.

    A world without depth, independence, and plurality in the media is vulnerable to corruption and authoritarianism. Now, more than ever, we need a strong fourth estate, free from vested interests.

    Thankfully, we are seeing shoots of recovery. Innovative business models, such as membership-driven news sites, are emerging that can support editorially independent media outlets. These models are focused on building trust with audiences and improving coverage representation. Meanwhile, data scientists and journalists are increasingly collaborating to uncover stories of public importance hidden within vast tracts of newly available data. This represents an exciting wave of innovation in independent media.

    What we do
    We support independent media wherever press freedom is under threat. We do this by investing in courageous investigative journalism, fact-checking organisations, and financial models able to support news outlets free from vested interests.

    While all of this sounds fine, the devil is in the details. It all really depends if the groups getting these funds are interested in objective truth, or whether they are interested in promoting a narrative they have decided is truth. One such group they fund is Reset (which also funds Reset Australia).

    Luminate is in control of many groups, which again, leads to questions about how independent any of this is.

    4. Reset’s Censorship Agenda

    We are an initiative engaged in programmatic work on technology and democracy. We provide grants and contracts while working alongside partners with a shared policy, technology, and advocacy goal in countries with immediate opportunities for change. We operate internationally to ensure that the commercial interests of Big Tech companies are compatible with the values of robust and resilient democracies.

    We must reset the rules to stop Big Tech companies profiting from public harm. We can redirect their ambition and innovation to achieve better goals. Code can be changed, markets can be regulated, democracy can be strengthened.
    .
    Every other major industry – automotive, pharmaceutical, telecommunications, banking – must follow rules that protect the public interest. The Big Tech companies which now have a huge impact on so much of our daily lives should be no different. Yes, businesses should pursue commercial success. But they should do well by doing good.
    .
    We believe the internet can once again become a force for good, not a marketplace for manipulation by the highest bidder.

    We work to combat digital threats to democracy in two ways.
    .
    First, we develop and promote a public policy agenda that sets fair rules and standards for Big Tech companies. Our integrated and comprehensive strategy drives policy reform across content moderation, data privacy, competition, elections, security, taxation, education and public service media. We support research that builds the case for change.
    .
    Second, we work to develop and communicate a vision of the internet that serves democracy – explaining problems, offering solutions, prototyping new technologies and engaging in education and activism.

    To make this clear, Reset doesn’t put forward good ideas that will better shape how society is run. There would be nothing wrong with this. Instead, Reset wants to change the rules of the internet — namely shut down dissenting views — in order to ensure that their ideas win out. This is censorship, plain and simple.

    Luminate, a major donor prides itself on funding independent media. Makes one wonder if they have no idea about this, or they know, but support the agenda.

    5. Mancini/Wood, World Economic Forum

    Pia Mancini
    Democracy activist, open source technology sustainer, co-founder & CEO at Open Collective and Chair of DemocracyEarth Foundation. Pia worked in politics in Argentina and developed technology for democracy around the world. Y Combinator Alum, Forum of Young Global Leaders (World Economic Forum), globe-trotter, and Roma’s mum

    Poppy Wood
    As a consultant on public policy, Poppy leads on Reset’s UK policy and political strategy. Combining her expertise in policy and technology, Poppy’s mission is to maximise Reset’s impact in the UK, and driving its powerful policy agenda. As well as having run multiple technology advisory businesses, supporting some of the world’s leading technology companies and start-ups, Poppy also worked in Downing Street for two years where she was an advisor on public appointments and tech policy. Poppy is a World Economic Forum “Global Shaper” and in 2018 was recognised in Brummell Magazine’s “Ones to Watch” list celebrating London’s high-potential talent.

    Interesting that 2 women pushing to prevent criticism (globally), of “misinformation” surrounding the coronavirus are also part of the World Economic Forum, which is promoting lockdowns.

    6. Reset Australia, Branch Of RESET

    We work to raise awareness and advocate for better policy to address digital threats to Australian democracy in two ways:
    .
    First, we develop and promote a public policy agenda that sets fair rules and standards for Big Tech companies that align with democratic values in Australia. Our integrated strategy drives policy reform across content moderation, data privacy, elections, security, child safety and protection from foreign interference. We support research that builds the case for change.
    .
    Second, we work to build public support for an internet that serves democracy – explaining the issues, co-creating solutions and building public support for change.
    .
    We are an Australian affiliate of Reset, an initiative working to counter digital threats to democracy across the world. Reset Australia is a not-for-profit charity registered in Australia with close ties to our international partner. We share a common mission and organisational values. Our teams are coordinated in our goals and activities, and we benefit from the knowledge, relationships, and financial resources of Reset’s international network.

    Just like their parent company, Reset Australia seems to have little interest in searching for truth. Instead, the media in general — and social media in particular — must change their behaviour in order to comply with how things ought to be. And who is running the organization?

    Simon Goff
    Simon has deep experience working on some of the world’s most complex problems – crafting new ways to channel the power of culture toward positive social change. Through his career he has built unique partnerships to harness the potential of powerful storytelling to mobilise people to action. He is currently Managing Director and Partner at Purpose, where he has led projects with clients including The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the LEGO Foundation, the Children’s Investment Fund Foundation, Google, Unilever, the World Health Organization, the Red Cross, AGL, and The Fred Hollows Foundation on issues including early childhood development, digital rights, climate change, avoidable blindness, and women’s empowerment.

    Ben Scott
    Ben is executive director at Reset, where he is responsible for strategic direction, overseeing the coordination of policy, technology and civic engagement work, providing expert counsel on policy development and advocacy. His mission is to push financial, knowledge and relational resources into a global network of organisations working to achieve shared aims. Before starting Reset, he co-led the Stiftung Neue Verantwortung (SNV) in Berlin, helping develop the organisation into a leading tech policy voice in German politics. He was also a Senior Adviser to New America in Washington DC, helping design the Public Interest Technology Initiative, and led the technology policy advisory group for the 2016 Clinton US presidential campaign.

    Amit Singh
    Amit Singh is a consultant specialising in economics and policy and advises clients in financial services, government and the tech sector. He is a managing director at the consultancy, AlphaBeta. He was previously head of global economic and work policy at Uber in San Francisco. He has also served as senior economic adviser to two Australian Prime Ministers. Earlier in his career, he worked as a capital markets lawyer and co-founded a consumer aggregator with over 350,000 members. He has delivered papers and presentations on digital marketplaces and the future of work at the OECD and ILO.

    These aren’t some nobodies here. These people have real connections, and some real political clout. So, if they want to shut down criticism of the Covid-19 narrative, under the guise of “fighting misinformation”, they have a real chance to make it law.

    7. Reset Australia’s Censorship Drive

    The above screenshots of Reset Australia’s Twitter feed is just a small sample of that they are tweeting and retweeting. They are clearly, unambiguously, and repeatedly calling for censorship under the guise of public safety.

    Posted on

    World Economic Forum And Emotional Manipulation To Boost “Vaccine Confidence”

    It’s interesting the claim that 73% of people globally support getting the vaccine, while this video is ratioed pretty hard. Small sample size, but still. And if everyone is proud of the work they do, why exactly is the video unlisted?

    1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

    The rest of the series is here. Many lies, lobbying, conflicts of interest, and various globalist agendas operating behind the scenes, obscuring the vile agenda called the GREAT RESET. The Gates Foundation finances: the WHO, the US CDC, GAVI, ID2020, John Hopkins University, Imperial College London, the Pirbright Institute, the BBC, and individual pharmaceutical companies. The International Health Regulations are legally binding. The media is paid off. The virus was never isolated, PCR tests are a fraud, as are forced masks, social bubbles, and 2m distancing.

    2. Important Links

    YouTube Webinar On Increasing Vaccine Confidence
    IRS Charity Tax Records Search
    Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
    Heidi Larson’s LinkedIn Page
    Vaccine Confidence Project Leadership
    Imperial College London And Their Gates Funding
    Vaccine Impact Modelling Consortium, Gates FinancingVaccine Confidence Project Twitter Account
    Ben Page’s LinkedIn Page
    Tan Chuan’s Profile Page For Yale
    Mustafa Alrawi’s LinkedIn Page

    3. WEF Talk On Increasing Vaccine Confidence

    This 1/2 hour talk was filled with lots of important information. Let’s pull some of the main points out.

    To address the elephant in the room: at no point does this panel address vaccine safety, or ways to make them more safe. Instead, it’s all about PERSUADING people that they already are safe. A huge difference.

    Heidi Larson works for both the Vaccine Confidence Project, and the London School for Hygiene & Tropical Medicine. Those organizations have ties to big pharma, including the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

    Larson openly admits that she works with Facebook, monitoring what she calls “misinformation”. She encourages social media companies to delete certain topics under the guise of “safety”.

    Providing information no longer enough. In order to convince people, “telling stories” may be seen as a more effective technique to pitch the vaccines.

    The best time to “build trust” is supposedly in between pandemics. Does this imply that more are to come?

    People who question the official narrative are conspiracy theorists, pushing deliberate and harmful misinformation.

    What matters is having a consistent message.

    Trust is important, insofar as it enables one to proceed with their agenda without hurdles. It must be maintained, not for altruistic reasons, but to make future acts easier to sell.

    4. Gates Foundation Tax Returns

    Link to search IRS charity tax records:
    https://apps.irs.gov/app/eos/

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

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

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

    Is it unfair to vilify the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation for their role in advancing the big pharma agenda and mass vaccinations? Not really, once one looks at the actual money involved.

    5. Heidi Larson: LSHTM & VCP Operative

    Heidi Larson, who appeared on this talk, is both a Professor at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, and the Director of the Vaccine Confidence Project.

    The London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine has long been a recipient of big money from Gates. Of course, this also applies to Imperial College London, and to VIMC, Vaccine Impact Modelling Consortium.

    Funders of Vaccine Confidence Project

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

    Partners of the Vaccine Confidence Project

    • Brighton Collaboration
    • Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC)
    • Chatham House
    • European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC)
    • European Commission
    • European Medicines Agency
    • Facebook
    • Gallup International
    • Imperial College London
    • International Pediatric Association
    • International Vaccine Institute
    • LVCT Kenya
    • National University of Singapore
    • ProMED
    • Public Health England (PHE)
    • Public Health Foundation of India
    • Sabin Vaccine Institute
    • World Health Organization (WHO)

    Do any of the these partners and funders for the Vaccine Confidence Project looks familiar? Many of the names should set off alarms. While the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation isn’t specifically listed, many of the partners are funded by Gates.

    Is there any separation between Vaccine Confidence Project and London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine? Aside from overlap in donors, they have many of the same people

    • Prof. Heidi Larson
    • Dr. Pauline Paterson
    • Valerie Heywood
    • Emilie Karafillakis
    • Fiona Sun
    • Kristen de Graaf
    • Simon Piatek
    • Dr. Leesa Lin
    • Gillian McKay
    • Penda Johm
    • Caroline Marshall

    Two separate organizations, but many of the same personnel, donors and partners. And they serve to advance the same goals.

    6. Ben Page, Chief Executive Ipsos MORI

    Interesting omission from Page. Not only is he in charge of Ipsos MORI, a global research firm, he’s also a Council Member of the World Economic Forum. He has in interesting work history, to put it mildly.

    7. Professor Tan Chorh Chuan

    Chief Health Scientist and Executive Director, Office for Healthcare Transformation, Ministry of Health, Singapore
    .
    Professor Tan Chorh Chuan was appointed as the inaugural Chief Health Scientist and concurrently, Executive Director of the new Office for Healthcare Transformation in Singapore’s Ministry of Health with effect from 1 January 2018.

    Professor Tan’s concurrent appointments include the Chairman of the Board of the National University Health System; member, Board of Directors of the Monetary Authority of Singapore; and member, Board of Directors of Mandai Park Development.

    Professor Tan served as President of the National University of Singapore (NUS) from 2008 to 2017. He held the positions of NUS Provost, then Senior Deputy President from 2004 to 2008. He was former Dean of the NUS Faculty of Medicine and served as the Director of Medical Services, Ministry of Health, from 2000 to 2004, in which capacity he was responsible for leading the public health response to the 2003 SARS epidemic. As the inaugural Chief Executive of the National University Health System in 2008, he brought the NUS Medical and Dental Schools and the National University Hospital under single governance. As NUS president, he oversaw the formation of Yale-NUS College.

    This is certainly an interesting mix of people: university professor and propagandist (Larson), a Government Official in Singapore (Chuan), a researcher and pollster (Page), and a journalist (Alrawi).

    8. Mustafa Alrawi, Assistant Editor, The National

    Alrawi has been in various media outlets across the globe over the last 2 decades. Side note: he is formerly a production assistant in 2000 for the BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation), which receives regular funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

    9. This is Psychological Warfare

    Nothing in this talk shows any concern that people might be seriously harmed by these experimental vaccines. Instead, the focus is on “pitching” it to the public. Sympathy is feigned, but only for the purposes of learning how other people’s minds work.

    *Disclaimers, Ethics* Proudly powered by WordPress