Counter Intelligence Firms To Influence Elections (Canada And Abroad), Registered As Charities

This is a follow-up to an earlier article. Various groups, which claim to be fighting “misinformation” are actually run by political operatives in Canada. Some of the grants that Canadian taxpayers shell out are also listed. The previous piece will provide a lot of background.

Now the question remains: what do their finances look like? Since many of these groups are in fact registered charities, this information is freely available.

The description as “counter intelligence” is fitting here. While claiming to promote the idea of fairness and openness in the electoral process, these companies won’t ever give the full picture. They’ll never address topics like central banking, the climate change hoax, the “pandemic” psy-op, or many hard questions. In fact, some of these groups run “disinformation” campaigns to prevent the truth about CV from getting out.

The Cambridge Dictionary defines counter intelligence as: “secret action taken by a country to prevent another country from discovering its military, industrial, or political secrets”. However, instead of a struggle between 2 countries, it’s one between government and its people.

Lenin’s famous quote applies here: the best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves.

Ongoing programs:

[2019 tax information]
Receipted donations $5,000.00 (0.36%)
Non-receipted donations $14,580.00 (1.06%)
Gifts from other registered charities $220,520.00 (15.96%)
Government funding $1,064,684.00 (77.06%)
All other revenue $76,923.00 (5.57%)
Total revenue: $1,381,707.00

Charitable programs $1,174,140.00 (86.07%)
Management and administration $190,027.00 (13.93%)
Fundraising $0.00 (0.00%)
Political activities $0.00 (0.00%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $0.00 (0.00%)
Other $0.00 (0.00%)
Total expenses: $1,364,167.00

[2020 tax information]
Receipted donations $30,200.00 (1.35%)
Non-receipted donations $17,083.00 (0.76%)
Gifts from other registered charities $265,000.00 (11.86%)
Government funding $1,724,916.00 (77.21%)
All other revenue $196,872.00 (8.81%)
Total revenue: $2,234,071.00

Charitable programs $1,855,731.00 (88.87%)
Management and administration $232,460.00 (11.13%)
Fundraising $0.00 (0.00%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $0.00 (0.00%)
Other $0.00 (0.00%)
Total expenses: $2,088,191.00

The Apathy Is Boring Project claims to try to increase public participation in elections by producing educational content on how the process works.

Ongoing programs:
New programs:

[2018 tax information]
Receipted donations $51,570.00 (2.31%)
Non-receipted donations $83,463.00 (3.74%)
Gifts from other registered charities $550,846.00 (24.70%)
Government funding $1,536,915.00 (68.91%)
All other revenue $7,393.00 (0.33%)
Total revenue: $2,230,187.00

Charitable programs $2,429,729.00 (92.06%)
Management and administration $140,741.00 (5.33%)
Fundraising $68,780.00 (2.61%)
Political activities $0.00 (0.00%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $0.00 (0.00%)
Other $0.00 (0.00%)
Total expenses: $2,639,250.00

[2019 tax information]
Receipted donations $25,000.00 (0.49%)
Non-receipted donations $85,822.00 (1.67%)
Gifts from other registered charities $831,491.00 (16.16%)
Government funding $3,483,769.00 (67.70%)
All other revenue $719,631.00 (13.99%)
Total revenue: $5,145,713.00

Charitable programs $4,691,097.00 (94.81%)
Management and administration $162,708.00 (3.29%)
Fundraising $93,850.00 (1.90%)
Political activities $0.00 (0.00%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $0.00 (0.00%)
Total expenses: $4,947,655.00

CIVIX is a registered charity in Canada that claims to promote democracy in locally. Apparently, it’s also involved with elections in Colombia as well. Glad to know that public money is used to meddle with another country’s leadership.

Ongoing programs:

New programs:
Operations Outside Canada
2 countries

[2019 tax information]
Receipted donations $238,781.00 (4.57%)
Non-receipted donations $1,268,590.00 (24.30%)
Gifts from other registered charities $0.00 (0.00%)
Government funding $3,553,256.00 (68.06%)
All other revenue $160,196.00 (3.07%)
Total revenue: $5,220,823.00

Charitable programs $4,595,568.00 (89.02%)
Management and administration $386,970.00 (7.50%)
Fundraising $180,044.00 (3.49%)
Political activities $0.00 (0.00%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $0.00 (0.00%)
Other $0.00 (0.00%)
Total expenses: $5,162,582.00

[2020 tax information]
Receipted donations $208,421.00 (7.00%)
Non-receipted donations $809,716.00 (27.20%)
Gifts from other registered charities $6,962.00 (0.23%)
Government funding $1,840,232.00 (61.81%)
All other revenue $112,074.00 (3.76%)
Total revenue: $2,977,405.00

Charitable programs $3,478,136.00 (86.56%)
Management and administration $371,785.00 (9.25%)
Fundraising $168,425.00 (4.19%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $0.00 (0.00%)
Other $0.00 (0.00%)
Total expenses: $4,018,346.00

Institute for Canadian Citizenship was started up by Adrian Clarkson, former Governor General of Canada. While claiming to promote citizenship for new Canadians, the NGO is active in gaslighting with claims of racism, and promoting the disinformation narrative. In short, it functions like a media arm of the Federal Government, while pretending to be neutral.

Programs and activities:
Ongoing programs:
Educate African journalists about human rights; Educate African public about human rights via media; Award journalists for excellent human rights reporting; Educate Canadian students about human rights; Educate Canadian Aboriginal journalists about human rights; Educate Canadian public about human rights through media; Educate Jordanian journalists about human rights; Educate Syrian journalists about human rights.

New programs:
Operations Outside Canada
11 countries

  • MALI
  • IRAQ

[2019 tax information]
Receipted donations $155,295.00 (5.29%)
Non-receipted donations $247,342.00 (8.42%)
Gifts from other registered charities $0.00 (0.00%)
Government funding $1,736,550.00 (59.10%)
All other revenue $799,066.00 (27.20%)
Total revenue: $2,938,253.00

Charitable programs $2,441,992.00 (85.63%)
Management and administration $245,459.00 (8.61%)
Fundraising $164,388.00 (5.76%)
Political activities $0.00 (0.00%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $0.00 (0.00%)
Total expenses: $2,851,845.00

[2020 tax information]
Receipted donations $211,784.00 (7.60%)
Non-receipted donations $17,110.00 (0.61%)
Gifts from other registered charities $0.00 (0.00%)
Government funding $1,866,127.00 (66.98%)
All other revenue $691,054.00 (24.80%)
Total revenue: $2,786,075.00

Charitable programs $2,621,360.00 (93.10%)
Management and administration $147,657.00 (5.24%)
Fundraising $46,742.00 (1.66%)
Political activities $0.00 (0.00%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $0.00 (0.00%)
Total expenses: $2,815,759.00

Journalists for Human Rights is another such group. While it may seem harmless enough to promote human rights abroad, it’s worth noting that these groups remain silent on what happens in Canada. They say nothing about the martial law and medical tyranny imposed on the people who help fund them.

JHR also helps fund “Disinfo Watch”, a supposedly independent website devoted to debunking conspiracy theories about the “pandemic”.

Simon Fraser University (BC) and Ryerson University (Ontario) are listed as being organizations to counter misinformation. Both are registered charities, according to the Canada Revenue Agency.

These are just some of the media influencers working in Canada to misinform and deceive the public. And they are partially funded with tax dollars.



More Pandemic Bucks For “Disinformation Prevention” Locally And Abroad; CIVIX

In addition to funding efforts to combat “misinformation” locally, Canadian taxpayers are apparently on the hook for efforts in the U.S., Colombia and Mali as well. Wonderful use of deficit spending.


CIVIX Feb. 23, 2021 $2,500,000
Dubois, Elizabeth Mar. 22, 2021 $19,145
Elnakouri, Abdelrahman Jan. 1, 2021 $10,000
Farokhi, Zeinab Jan. 1, 2021 $10,000
Gagnon, Marc-Andre Mar. 15, 2021 $20,000
Gauthier, Evelyne Jan. 1, 2021 $10,000
Hassanein, Khaled S. Mar. 15, 2021 $20,000
Hastings, Colin Jan. 1, 2021 $10,000
Henderson, Monica J. Jan. 1, 2021 $10,000
IFEX Dec. 14, 2020 $799,704
Jagayat, Arvin S. Jan. 1, 2021 $10,000
Levitin, Daniel J. Jan. 1, 2021 $395,909
Merkley, Eric Jan. 1, 2021 $10,000
Naffi, Nadia Jan. 1, 2021 $99,081
Petrina, Stephen Mar. 15, 2021 $20,000
Reed, Kathleen J. Jan. 1, 2021 $10,000
Russell, Gillian M. Jan. 1, 2021 $10,000
Search for Common Ground Dec. 16, 2020 $2,573,553
Smythe, Suzanne K.M. Jan. 1, 2021 $210,711
Stewart, Michelle Jan. 1, 2021 $339,783
Tilleczek, Kate C. Mar. 15, 2021 $20,000
United Nations Development Programme Mar. 30, 2021 $5,000,197
WITNESS Dec. 18, 2020 $1,000,197

Good to know that Canadians are forced to finance counter intelligence operations in other countries.

Locally, one of the biggest recipients of “misinformation prevention” grants is CIVIX. Now, who exactly is that?

CIVIX is a charity registered with the Canada Revenue Agency. This means that about half of the donations are a subsidy from taxpayers.

CIVIX Board Members

  • Francis LeBlanc – Chair, Former Executive Director, Canadian Association of Former Parliamentarians
  • Chris Wilkins – Past Chair, CEO, Edge Interactive
  • Robert Asselin, Senior Director, Public Policy, Blackberry
  • Megan Beretta, Policy Analyst, Canadian Digital Service
  • Rachel Curran, Public Policy Manager, Canada, Facebook
  • Peter Donolo, Vice-Chairman, Hill+Knowlton Strategies Canada
  • Dr. Elizabeth Dubois, Assistant Professor of Communication, University of Ottawa
  • Kathleen Monk, Principal, Earnscliffe Strategies

Peter Donolo is a longtime political operative with the Liberal Party of Canada. Rachel Curran spent years with the Conservative Party of Canada. Interesting.

CIVIX is a non-partisan, national registered charity dedicated to building the skills and habits of active and engaged citizenship among young Canadians. Our vision is a strong and inclusive democracy where all young people are ready, willing and able to participate.
CIVIX was born through a merger between Operation Dialogue and Student Vote – two non-partisan organizations with a significant history of engaging Canadian youth.
Student Vote was founded by Taylor Gunn and Lindsay Mazzucco in 2002 to develop the capacity for informed and engaged citizenship among young Canadians. Student Vote parallel elections were organized for students under the voting age coinciding with official elections.
Operation Dialogue was established by the late Warren Goldring of AGF Management in 1999 to promote good citizenship through information and dialogue with the goal of enhancing each individual Canadian’s appreciation of our country. Its flagship program was the annual ‘Talk About Canada Quiz,’ which encouraged young Canadians to be more informed about their country.
Operation Dialogue and Student Vote aligned their strengths and assets and worked together to achieve a larger vision. Following a collaborative approach during 2011-2012, the organizations formally merged operations in 2013 and created CIVIX.
Since 2013, CIVIX has continued to run the Student Vote program and has developed exciting new programs to reach students between elections.

While previously covered here, CIVIX is run by political hacks, who have bipartisan connections in Ottawa. This “counter-misinformation” group is anything but organic.

It’s also interesting the ETFO, the Elementary Teachers Federation of Ontario, and OSSTF, the Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation, are supporters. Do their members know about this?

One project that CIVIX runs is CTRL-F, and it’s funded by the Canadian Government. This is supposed to help people become more aware in checking out source material.

Admittedly, CTRL-F/CIVIX do produce some quality videos on the topic of verifying sources. However, they remain silent on the topic of media censorship by government and tech companies. Easy to be pro-journalism when one has their thumb on the scale.

Jun. 13, 2014 $100,000
Jul. 24, 2014 $100,000
Apr. 30, 2015 $75,000
Feb. 17, 2016 $75,000
Mar. 24, 2016 $25,000
Feb. 24, 2017 $75,000
Feb. 24, 2017 $225,000
Apr. 1, 2017 $25,000
Mar. 23, 2018 $165,000
Apr. 1, 2018 $400,000
Apr. 1, 2018 $175,000
Nov. 15, 2018 $23,000
Dec. 10, 2018 $100,000
Apr. 1, 2019 $540,000
Jan. 1, 2020 $494,320
Apr. 1, 2020 $132,500
Apr. 1, 2020 $192,300
Feb. 23, 2021 $2,500,000

In case you think this group is harmless, just remember, tax money is used to finance this group. We pay to push political agendas here and abroad, and were never asked about this.


Bill C-36: Red Flag Laws In The Name Of Preemptively Combatting Hate Speech

Bill C-36 has been introduced into the House of Commons. It would be fair to describe portions of this as a “red flag” law. People can be subjected to Court restrictions simply based on the suspicion that they may engage in hate speech or hate propaganda.

Welcome to the Pre-Crime Unit, and the Minority Report

Fear of hate propaganda offence or hate crime
810.‍012 (1) A person may, with the Attorney General’s consent, lay an information before a provincial court judge if the person fears on reasonable grounds that another person will commit
(a) an offence under section 318 or subsection 319(1) or (2);
(b) an offence under subsection 430(4.‍1); or
(c) an offence motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or any other similar factor.

(2) The provincial court judge who receives an information under subsection (1) may cause the parties to appear before a provincial court judge.

(3) If the provincial court judge before whom the parties appear is satisfied by the evidence adduced that the informant has reasonable grounds for the fear, the judge may order that the defendant enter into a recognizance to keep the peace and be of good behaviour for a period of not more than 12 months.

Duration extended
(4) However, if the provincial court judge is also satisfied that the defendant was convicted previously of any offence referred to in subsection (1), the judge may order that the defendant enter into the recognizance for a period of not more than two years.

Refusal to enter into recognizance
(5) The provincial court judge may commit the defendant to prison for a term of not more than 12 months if the defendant fails or refuses to enter into the recognizance.

Conditions in recognizance
(6) The provincial court judge may add any reasonable conditions to the recognizance that the judge considers desirable to secure the good conduct of the defendant, including conditions that
(a) require the defendant to wear an electronic monitoring device, if the Attorney General makes that request;
(b) require the defendant to return to and remain at their place of residence at specified times;
(c) require the defendant to abstain from the consumption of drugs, except in accordance with a medical prescription, of alcohol or of any other intoxicating substance;
(d) require the defendant to provide, for the purpose of analysis, a sample of a bodily substance prescribed by regulation on the demand of a peace officer, a probation officer or someone designated under paragraph 810.‍3(2)‍(a) to make a demand, at the place and time and on the day specified by the person making the demand, if that person has reasonable grounds to believe that the defendant has breached a condition of the recognizance that requires them to abstain from the consumption of drugs, alcohol or any other intoxicating substance;
(e) require the defendant to provide, for the purpose of analysis, a sample of a bodily substance prescribed by regulation at regular intervals that are specified, in a notice in Form 51 served on the defendant, by a probation officer or a person designated under paragraph 810.‍3(2)‍(b) to specify them, if a condition of the recognizance requires the defendant to abstain from the consumption of drugs, alcohol or any other intoxicating substance; or
(f) prohibit the defendant from communicating, directly or indirectly, with any person identified in the recognizance, or refrain from going to any place specified in the recognizance, except in accordance with the conditions specified in the recognizance that the judge considers necessary.

Conditions — firearms
(7) The provincial court judge shall consider whether it is desirable, in the interests of the defendant’s safety or that of any other person, to prohibit the defendant from possessing any firearm, cross-bow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition or explosive substance, or all of those things. If the judge decides that it is desirable to do so, the judge shall add that condition to the recognizance and specify the period during which it applies.

Surrender, etc.
(8) If the provincial court judge adds a condition described in subsection (7) to a recognizance, the judge shall specify in the recognizance how the things referred to in that subsection that are in the defendant’s possession shall be surrendered, disposed of, detained, stored or dealt with and how the authorizations, licences and registration certificates that are held by the defendant shall be surrendered.

(9) If the provincial court judge does not add a condition described in subsection (7) to a recognizance, the judge shall include in the record a statement of the reasons for not adding it.

Variance of conditions
(10) A provincial court judge may, on application of the informant, the Attorney General or the defendant, vary the conditions fixed in the recognizance.

Other provisions to apply
(11) Subsections 810(4) and (5) apply, with any modifications that the circumstances require, to recognizances made under this section.

-A person can be ordered to appear before a Provincial Court
-A Judge can order a person to enter into a Recognizance for 12 months
-That Recognizance can last for 24 months if there is a prior conviction
-A person can be jailed for 12 months for refusing a Recognizance
-A person can be ordered to wear an electronic monitoring device
-A person can be subjected to a curfew
-A person can be ordered to abstain from alcohol
-A person can be subjected to drug/alcohol testing
-That drug/testing can be ordered at regular intervals
-A person can be subjected to a no contact order (of 3rd parties)
-A person can be prohibited from going to certain places
-A person may be subjected to other conditions

Keep in mind, all of these conditions can be imposed, simply because of the SUSPICION that a hate crime will be committed, or hate propaganda will be distributed.

Not only is the Canadian Criminal Code to be amended, but the Canadian Human Rights Code will be as well, to implement fines and cessation orders. There doesn’t seem to be real standard for what counts as hate speech.

Canadian Human Rights Act
Amendments to the Act
2013, c. 37, s. 1
12 Section 4 of the Canadian Human Rights Act is replaced by the following:
Orders regarding discriminatory practices
4 A discriminatory practice, as described in sections 5 to 14.‍1, may be the subject of a complaint under Part III and anyone found to be engaging or to have engaged in a discriminatory practice may be made subject to an order as provided for in section 53 or 53.‍1.
13 The Act is amended by adding the following after section 12:
Communication of hate speech
13 (1) It is a discriminatory practice to communicate or cause to be communicated hate speech by means of the Internet or other means of telecommunication in a context in which the hate speech is likely to foment detestation or vilification of an individual or group of individuals on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.
Continuous communication
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), a person who communicates or causes to be communicated hate speech continues to do so for as long as the hate speech remains public and the person can remove or block access to it.

Complaint substantiated — section 13
53.‍1 If at the conclusion of an inquiry the member or panel conducting the inquiry finds that a complaint relating to a discriminatory practice described in section 13 is substantiated, the member or panel may make one or more of only the following orders against the person found to be engaging or to have engaged in the discriminatory practice:
(a) an order to cease the discriminatory practice and take measures, in consultation with the Commission on the general purposes of the measures, to redress the practice or to prevent the same or a similar practice from recurring;
(b) an order to pay compensation of not more than $20,000 to any victim personally identified in the communication that constituted the discriminatory practice, for any pain and suffering that the victim experienced as a result of that discriminatory practice, so long as that person created or developed, in whole or in part, the hate speech indicated in the complaint;
(c) an order to pay a penalty of not more than $50,000 to the Receiver General if the member or panel considers it appropriate having regard to the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the discriminatory practice, the wilfulness or intent of the person who is engaging or has engaged in the discriminatory practice, any prior discriminatory practices that the person has engaged in and the person’s ability to pay the penalty.
Award of costs
53.‍2 A member or panel conducting an inquiry into a complaint filed on the basis of section 13 may award costs for abuse of process in relation to the inquiry.

According to the revisions in the Act, “hate speech” will be ongoing as long as the material is available publicly, and could be removed. A person can also be ordered to be $20,000 to each victim, and $50,000 to the panel itself.

Problem with all of this, “hate speech” is disturbingly vague. It could be applied subjectively, depending on the politics of the parties involved.


PHAC Supporting “Science Up First”, Online Counter-Misinformation Group

Hey there. Ever get the feeling that the Government may be behind a lot of the propaganda that is going on? Well, there may be something to that. Meet the group Science Up First.

  1. Blast the media with our own narrative
  2. Eliminate information that contradicts our narrative

The goal of #ScienceUpFirst is to get people to consider the available science first before sharing content online.
We understand that in the age of social media there is a growing need for science-informed content. We hope to inspire people to amplify the distribution of expert-written and reviewed content and to help stop the spread of COVID-19 related misinformation throughout the internet.
#ScienceUpFirst is both good practice and a call to action!
Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic there has been a marked rise in misinformation and conspiracy theories related to Health information and governments’ response to the outbreak. The WHO has classified this as a global infodemic. According to experts conspiracy, misinformation and conspiracy theories are rapidly spreading on social media and represent a threat to the Health and Safety of Canadians.
As a result, there is an identified need for national cooperation and mobilization of independent scientists, researchers, information experts, health care providers and science communicators to come together to collaboratively create and disseminate quality health-related information available to the public.

In other words, we don’t need people fact checking and reviewing our work. We need people to uncritically amplify it on their social media. Now, who runs the show?


  • Carrie Bourassa: Professor in the Department of Community Health & Epidemiology at the University of Saskatchewan in Saskatoon and the Scientific Director of the CIHR Institute of Indigenous Peoples’ Health
  • Marie-Eve Carignan: Associate Professor at the Department of Communication of the University of Sherbrooke and Head of Media Division, UNESCO Chair in Prevention of Radicalization and Violent Extremism (UNESCO-PREV Chair)
  • Timothy Caulfield: Canada Research Chair in Health Law and Policy, Univ. Alberta
  • Imogen Coe: Professor, Chemistry & Biology, Faculty of Science; Dimensions Chair Member, Institute for Biomedical Engineering, Science and Technology (iBEST) at Ryerson University & St. Michael’s Hospital; President, Canadian Society for Molecular Biosciences 2020-2022
  • Amber Mac (MacArthur): President, AmberMac Media Inc.
  • Marianne Mader : Executive Director, Canadian Association of Science Centers
  • Anthony Morgan: Founder, Science Everywhere; Science Communicator
  • Tara Moriarty: Associate Professor, University of Toronto (Infectious Disease research); Co-lead: COVID-19 Resources Canada; Executive team member: CanCOVID; Diagnostics Pillar lead, Canadian Lyme Disease Research Network
  • David M. Patrick: Director of Research and Medical Epidemiology Lead for AMR, British Columbia Centre for Disease Control; Professor, UBC School of Population and Public Health
  • Krishana Sankar: Biological Scientist; COVID-19 Resources Canada Science Communication Lead and Volunteer Programs Director
  • Joe Schwarcz: Director, McGill Office for Science and Society
  • Marva Sweeney-Nixon: Professor and Chair, Department of Biology; Faculty of Science, University of Prince Edward Island
  • Fatima Tokhmafshan: Geneticist, Bioethicist, Research Institute of McGill University Health Centre, COVID-19 Resources Canada Science Communication Lead, Canadian Science Policy Centre Social Media Chair
  • Samantha Yammine: Director, Science Sam Media

#ScienceUpFirst Coalition

  • Lisa Barrett: Assistant professor, Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, Department of Microbiology & Immunology, Department of Pathology, Dalhousie University
  • Chantal Barriault: Director, Science Communication Graduate Program, School of the Environment, Laurentian University
  • Tyler Black: Clinical Assistant Professor, University of BC
  • Isaac Bogoch: Assistant Professor, Department of Medicine, University of Toronto; Infectious disease specialist; Clinician Investigator, Toronto General Hospital Research Institute
  • Colette Brin: Professor at Université Laval’s Département d’information et de communication and the Director of the Centre d’études sur les médias
  • Tania Bubela: Professor and Dean, Faculty of Health Sciences, Simon Fraser University
  • Tracy Calogheros: CEO, Exploration Place Museum & Science Centre, BC
  • Christine Chambers: Canada Research Chair (Tier 1) in Children’s Pain and Killam Professor of Pediatrics and Psychology & Neuroscience; Scientific Director, CIHR’s Institute of Human Development, Child and Youth Health
  • Naheed Dosani: Palliative Care Physician & Health Justice Activist
  • Kathryn Hill: Executive Director, MediaSmarts
  • Jonathan Jarry: Science Communicator, McGill Office for Science and Society
  • Eoghan Moriarty: Solutions Architect, LabCrunch
  • Alex Munter: CEO, CHEO
  • Ubaka Ogbogu: Assistant Professor, Faculties of Law and Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Law Centre, University of Alberta
  • Jonathan N. Stea: Clinical Psychologist, Adjunct Assistant Professor University of Calgary
  • Heidi Tworek: Associate Prof, Public Policy & History, UBC

Interesting, how the bulk of these people are university professors. Is their funding in any way tied to the efforts they make? Now, Science Up First does provide, in broad strokes, the method of how they go about doing this:

(1) Provide science from trusted and credible sources, particularly those that note the scientific consensus on the relevant topic.
(2) Highlight rhetorical and logic gaps used to push misinformation (e.g., relying on anecdotes & testimonials, misrepresenting risk).
(3) Use (and create) clear and shareable content that is relevant to a range of audiences (meeting people where they are and considering unique concerns, etc.).
(4) Emphasize content that is respectful, inclusive, authentic, accessible, and kind in tone.
(5) Aim for creative and engaging content that highlights the facts.
(6) Emphasize inclusive messaging for a general audience and/or tailored to meet needs of specific communities

Of course, they’ll never directly address serious issues such as vaccine manufacturers being indemnified, or their products receiving “interim authorization” instead of approval. They won’t address the mass censorship on Facebook and Twitter of conflicting information.

That said, if you are willing to uncritically signal boost the (ever changing) narrative, then Science Up First may be an option for you.

For a specific example, the issue of heart problems is discussed on the Twitter account. It’s too big to simply ignore altogether, so the people posting try to let you know how rare it is. Now, some may find it unsettling to post information randomly telling people to ignore such concerns. However, that is the state of “science” these days.


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.

(21) Guide To Covid Vaccine Communications

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

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

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

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

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

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

2016-2017 35 2,800,000
2017-2018 12 2,150,000
2018-2019 14 2,003,000
2019-2020 17 1,569,000

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

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.

EIN: 56-2618866

EIN: 91-1663695

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

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

“We offer partners a number of benefits which include:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The World Health Organization defines it in the following way:

A death due to COVID-19 is defined for surveillance purposes as a death resulting from a clinically compatible illness, in a probable or confirmed COVID-19 case, unless there is a clear alternative cause of death that cannot be related to COVID disease (e.g. trauma). There should be no period of complete recovery from COVID-19 between illness and death.

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

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

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

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