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

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

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

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

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

Emotions to avoid

  • Sadness. Sadness can be helpful in gaining short-term engagement, but isn’t helpful over the long term. We are motivated to maintain a positive sense of ourselves, and tend to ignore information that makes us feel bad about our choices or doesn’t affirm our worldview.
  • Shame. It’s tempting to shame people for not choosing to get the vaccine. But as we’ve seen with mask wearing, shame activates people’s moral reasoning and they’ll find reasons why their choice is the right one to avoid feeling bad about themselves.
  • Fear. Using fear appeals can be effective when there’s a clear call to action, but in this case, it’s more likely that fear appeals will immobilize people. Fear motivates people to assess information systematically, so we may pay more attention to information when we are afraid. Public health scholars have found a relationship between fear and perceptions of personal or group risk. If the risk doesn’t seem relevant to an individual’s life, they won’t experience fear and are more likely to disengage from or discount the message. If people are seeing messages that suggest that the risks of COVID-19 are minimal, they’re unlikely to engage. People can experience fear when the consequences of risk are uncertain and they feel like they do not have control over the outcome. So using a fear-based message could damage more constructive efforts to demonstrate how taking the vaccine offers control.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Guest Post: Blaise Vanne On Uselessness Of Masks, Death Rates, Pollution Buildup

WHO WAS THAT MASKED MAN?
Part 1 in an on-going series on the greatest scam this side of the Crab Nebula
There is utterly unfounded public hysteria, driven by the media and politicians… this is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on an unsuspecting public.”
– Dr. Roger Hodkinson, Pres., Alberta Society of Laboratory Physicians, studies completed at Cambridge Univ.

Before we start on the vaccine – more properly, the gene therapy shot – some words on mask usage. Remember the world-wide calls to stop plastic straw usage? According to Strawless Ocean, there will be more plastic in the ocean by weight than fish in 2050. Frontiers of Environmental Science & Engineering cites research that estimates that three million face masks are throw in the trash every minute across the globe – that’s equivalent to about 129 billion face masks per month (or 3 million a minute). An article in Natural Health 365 concludes “In their paper, the team of researchers, who hail from both Princeton and the University of Southern Denmark, note that disposable face masks are not biodegradable and contain minuscule plastic fibers, microplastics, and nanoplastics. Once these masks are thrown away and end up in the environment, masks are exposed to solar radiation and heat and start to break down to some degree. However, the degradation of plastics within the masks is slow to virtually non-existent – causing them to accumulate in our soil and water. And while there’s not enough data about the true impact of these masks on the environment yet, the researchers strongly suspect that the rampant use of disposable face masks are causing harmful biological and chemical substances to spread and pose health hazards to animals, humans, and the ecosystem. Where do all these face masks go? Among other places, straight into our oceans.”

GreenMedInfo adds: “Not only are masks not being recycled, but their materials make them likely to persist and accumulate in the environment. Because masks may be directly made from micro-sized plastic fibers with a thickness of 1 mm to 10 mm, they may release micro-sized particles into the environment more readily — and faster — than larger plastic items, like plastic bags. Of course, all this is ingested by sea life, impacting their health (save the whales!) as well as the health of all that consume them (birds, sea mammals, humans). Microbes from your mouth, known as oral commensals, frequently enter your lungs, where they have been linked to advanced stage lung cancer; wearing a mask could potentially accelerate this process. The “new normal” of widespread masking is affecting not only the environment but also the mental and physical health of humans.” Specifically, GreenMed tells us “Most disposable face masks contain three layers — a polyester outer layer, a polypropylene or polystyrene middle layer and an inner layer made of absorbent material such as cotton. Polypropylene is already one of the most problematic plastics, as it is widely produced and responsible for large waste accumulation in the environment, as well as being a known asthma trigger. Further, the researchers noted: “Once in the environment, the mask is subjected to solar radiation and heat, but the degradation of polypropylene is retarded due to its high hydrophobicity, high molecular weight, lacking an active functional group, and continuous chain of repetitive methylene units. These recalcitrant properties lead to the persistence and accumulation in the environment.” Of course, once these masks get weathered, they create micro-sized polypropylene particles in a matter of weeks, then break down further into nanoplastics that are less than 1 mm in size.

But then new masks go one worse says GreenMed: “Made from microsized plastic fibers with a thickness of 1 mm to 10 mm, they may release microsized particles into the environment more readily — and faster — than larger plastic items, like plastic bags. Further, “Such impacts can be worsened by a new-generation mask, nanomasks, which directly use nanosized plastic fibers (e.g., diameter <1 mm) and add a new source of nanoplastic pollution.” A report by OceansAsia further estimated that 1.56 billion face masks may have entered the world’s oceans in 2020, based on a global production estimate of 52 billion masks manufactured that year, and a loss rate of 3%, which is conservative…. Based on this data, and an average weight of 3 to 4 grams for a single-use polypropylene surgical mask, the masks would add 4,680 to 6,240 additional metric tons of plastic pollution to the marine environment, which, they note, “will take as long as 450 years to break down.”

Going further down the rabbit hole Greenmed opened up in the link above, “Such plastics also contain contaminants, such as polycyclic hydrocarbons (PAHs), which may be genotoxic (i.e., causing DNA damage that could lead to cancer), along with dyes, plasticizers and other additives linked to additional toxic effects, including reproductive toxicity, carcinogenicity and mutagenicity. Aside from the chemical toxicity, ingestion of microplastics from degraded masks and other plastic waste is also toxic due to the particles themselves as well as the potential that they could carry pathogenic microorganisms. Another issue that’s rarely talked about is the fact that when you wear a mask, tiny microfibers are released, which can cause health problems when inhaled. The risk is increased when masks are reused. This hazard was highlighted in a performance study to be published in the June 2021 issue of Journal of Hazardous Materials, where researchers from Xi’an Jiaotong University said scientists, manufacturers and regulators need to assess the inhalation of microplastic and nanoplastic debris shed from masks — both disposable and cloth.”

Then there is the issue of commensals from the mask furthering lung cancer and impacting fetuses. Again, from GreenMed: “Not only that, but researchers from New York University (NYU) Grossman School of Medicine revealed that when these oral commensals are “enriched” in the lungs, it’s associated with cancer. Specifically, in a study of 83 adults with lung cancer, those with advanced-stage cancer had more oral commensals in their lungs than those with early-stage cancer. Those with an enrichment of oral commensals in their lungs also had decreased survival and worsened tumor progression”; then re. the unborn “t’s also known that microplastics exist in human placentas, and animal studies show that inhaled plastic particles pass through the placenta and into the heart and brains of fetuses. The fetuses exposed to the microplastics also gained less weight in the later part of the pregnancy. “We found the plastic nanoparticles everywhere we looked — in the maternal tissues, in the placenta and in the fetal tissues. We found them in the fetal heart, brain, lungs, liver and kidney,” lead researcher and Assistant Professor Phoebe Stapleton of Rutgers University told The Guardian.” You can read the study directly yourself at Rutgers.edu here.

So here is what we get from masks, per Dr. Jim Meehan:
– Medical masks adversely affect respiratory physiology and function
– Medical masks lower oxygen levels in the blood
– Medical masks raise carbon dioxide levels in the blood
– SAR-CoV-2 has a “furin cleavage” site that makes it more pathogenic, and the virus enters cells more easily when arterial oxygen levels decline, which means wearing a mask could increase COVID-19 severity
– Medical masks trap exhaled virus in the mouth/mask, increasing viral/infectious load and increasing disease severity
– SARS-CoV-2 becomes more dangerous when blood oxygen levels decline
– The furin cleavage site of SARS-CoV-2 increases cellular invasion, especially during low blood oxygen levels
– Cloth masks may increase the risk of contracting COVID-19 and other respiratory infections
– Wearing a face mask may give a false sense of security
– Masks compromise communications and reduce social distancing
– Untrained and inappropriate management of face masks is common
– Masks worn imperfectly are dangerous
– Masks collect and colonize viruses, bacteria and mold
– Wearing a face mask makes the exhaled air go into the eyes
– Contact tracing studies show that asymptomatic carrier transmission is very rare
– Face masks and stay at home orders prevent the development of herd immunity
– Face masks are dangerous and contraindicated for a large number of people with pre-existing medical conditions and disabilities

Oh yes. According to the past president of the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons, Dr. Lee Merritt, MD, typical ear loop “masks will not provide any protection against COVID-19 (coronavirus) or other viruses or contaminants” in that the viruses are too small for a typical mask. Just like we don’t use a chain link fence to keep out mosquitos, so too masks don’t keep out viruses. Worse, a review of scientific reports, up to February 2021, suggests that universal masking seriously harms people and society without any notable benefit. The author of the review, Denis G. Rancourt, points out multiple ways masks inflict damage and undermine our health. Some of the mask-related adverse health effects reported in a systematic review and meta-analysis were discomfort, irritation, psychological impact, and mask contamination. Pathogens can rapidly accumulate in improperly used masks, and can actually increase the risk of spreading viruses – including SARS-CoV-2 – to others. And what masks are doing to children – who now have more suicide deaths than Covid deaths – is disgusting: Says NaturalHealth 365 “The psychological and developmental implications of mask-wearing are particularly detrimental to children. Numerous studies show that face masks impair face recognition, verbal and non-verbal communication, block emotional signaling and diminish children’s ability to bond and emotionally connect with others.” As of this report in April, 2021 (numbers change monthly, but the reality will not) CDC stats tell us a total of 134 children under the age of 15 died in the USA from COVID. In contrast for the 2019–2020 flu season, 188 children died from the annual flu.). 134 out of around 28,171 kids that age who have died altogether in the past year. I slept through junior high math class, but if you divide 134 by 28,171, that’s 0.45%. And no doubt of those 134 kids, there is no doubt most, if not all, had serious co-morbidities.

More to follow!

(1) https://www.studyfinds.org/3-million-face-masks-thrown-out/
(2) https://www.naturalhealth365.com/face-masks-new-plastic-3776.html
(3) https://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/masks-are-ticking-time-bomb?utm_campaign=Daily%20Newsletter%3A%20Masks%20Are%20a%20Ticking%20Time%20Bomb%20%28SbtDRV%29&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Daily%20Newsletter&_ke=eyJrbF9jb21wYW55X2lkIjogIksydlhBeSIsICJrbF9lbWFpbCI6ICJqdmFubmVAY29tY2FzdC5uZXQifQ%3D%3D
(4) https://oceansasia.org/covid-19-facemasks/
(5) https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304389420329460
(6) https://www.technocracy.news/masks-are-a-ticking-time-bomb-for-humans-and-environment/
(7) https://eohsi.rutgers.edu/eohsi-directory/name/phoebe-stapleton/
(8) https://www.naturalhealth365.com/unmasking-the-truth-about-face-masks-3772.html
(9) https://www.naturalhealth365.com/unmasking-the-truth-about-face-masks-3772.html
(10) https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7014e1.htm
(11) https://www.cdc.gov/flu/spotlights/2019-2020/2019-20-pediatric-flu-deaths.htm
(12) https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7014e1.htm

CV #37(I): Tri-City News Pulls Article Where Bonnie Henry Admits False Positives Could Overwhelm System

A year ago, BCPHO “Babbling Bonnie” Henry publicly advised AGAINST the mass testing of employees at jobs. Her reasoning is that the possibility of mass false positives could overwhelm the health care system.

To repeat: she recommended against mass testing, since a high level of false positives would overwhelm the healthcare system.

Then again, the BC Centre for Disease Control also admitted a year ago that the PCR tests don’t actually work as advertised, and they don’t know the true error rate.

The article has since been deleted, but thankfully, there are committed people who will not let the truth disappear quite so easily.

B.C.’s provincial health officer has warned businesses against independent testing of asymptomatic employees for the COVID-19 virus.
.
“At this time, it is recommendation that only people with symptoms or people otherwise identified by a health professional should be tested for COVID-19,” Dr. Bonnie Henry said in a June 17 letter to the province’s business community.
.
Henry said B.C.’s approach to testing is evolving based on epidemiology, testing capacity and methodology and a growing understanding of the virus.
.
She said routine testing of people -including those in schools, prior to surgery or other procedures, or as a condition of employment or for travel – is not recommended.
.
“It is important to understand that testing can result in false positive and false negatives, particularly in asymptomatic people and in people who are very early on in the illness or who may be incubating the disease,” Henry said in the letter.
.
She said serological tests for the virus causing COVID19 is recommended only to focus on informing the public health response and for clinical research investigations.
.
“If large numbers of false positive tests were to occur through routine testing of asymptomatic people, this could create a significant burden for the public health system and would provide little value in protecting your business and could impede our ability to protect the health of all British Columbians,” Henry said.
.
The doctor acknowledged some business may wish to conduct precautionary testing of asymptomatic employees as part of their business operations.
.
But, she said, it’s “critically important to remember that asymptomatic testing does not replace other measures to prevent transmission, including ensuring handwashing stations are stocked and available, monitoring of employees for symptoms and ensuring employees stay home when feeling ill, and providing space for safe physical distancing, putting up physical barriers when appropriate.”
.
However, she added, businesses need to know private testing of asymptomatic individuals is against the public health guidances.
.
Those wishing to do it must establish processes and fund related infrastructure to meet legislative requirements related to testing and public health follow up for a reportable health condition, Henry said.
.
Such work by businesses could involve hiring people to conduct contact tracing under public health direction for employees who test positive and ensuring employee contact details are available to public health.
.
“For private laboratory testing, businesses must, at their own expense, use an existing or establish a new private laboratory to conduct testing. Private laboratories must be accredited under the Diagnostic Accreditation Program, operate per the stipulations set out under the Laboratory Services Act, align with provincial privacy and security requirements, and conform to related policies and regulations,” Henry said.

That article has since been removed, and mass testing is more of a priority. Anyone wonder why that may be the case? Here is one possibility.

Just putting it out there, but perhaps almost a quarter million worth of “pandemic bucks” would explain why such an article is no longer available. This is why Government subsidizing journalism is a problem: the conflict of interest is always there.

(1) https://www.tricitynews.com/bonnie-henry-warns-businesses-against-covid-testing-1.24156860 (REMOVED)
(2) Archive.is
(3) Wayback Machine
(4) https://search.open.canada.ca/en/gc/
(5) https://search.open.canada.ca/en/gc/id/pch,016-2020-2021-Q2-1334155,current

Executives Of Public Health “Charities” Drawing Huge Salaries To Lock You Down

It seems that most, if not all, of these “public health” organizations are actually registered charities. This is likely structured that way to encourage private donations. After all, a person isn’t really making the entire payment if they are submitting receipts to the Canada Revenue Agency.

While this article starts off with the Nova Scotia Health Authority, the pattern here can be applied to its counterparts elsewhere.

Looking at the most recent tax information available, the NSHA took in some $2.5 billion in revenues, and approximately 90% of it was Government (or rather taxpayer) funded. Approximately 10% came from some other sources. Also makes one wonder what “other sources” could be, if it isn’t gifts, donations (with or without a receipt), or Government money.

As for the expenses, administrative costs is a pretty self explanatory title. However, 92%, presumably what was spent on health care, is actually listed as “charitable programs”. $1.7 billion was spent on salaries, and $24.5 million on consulting fees.

By the way, whatever happened to that $83 million classified as “other” spending? Did it end up in someone’s pocket, or some offshore bank account?

[March 2016] Compensated full-time positions:
$250,000 to $299,999: 7
$300,000 to $349,999: 1
$350,000 and over: 2
.
[March 2017] Compensated full-time positions:
$200,000 to $249,999: 6
$250,000 to $299,999: 3
$300,000 to $349,999: 1
.
[March 2018] Compensated full-time positions:
$200,000 to $249,999: 5
$250,000 to $299,999: 3
$300,000 to $349,999: 1
$350,000 and over: 1
.
[March 2019] Compensated full-time positions:
$200,000 to $249,999: 3
$250,000 to $299,999: 6
$350,000 and over: 1
.
[March 2020] Compensated full-time positions:
$200,000 to $249,999: 3
$250,000 to $299,999: 4
$300,000 to $349,999: 2
$350,000 and over: 1

It certainly seems that the executives were paid very well for what they do. And nothing screams competent quite like locking down an entire Province for a year (and counting). No one has been fired, or forced onto CERB or EI.

Never forget that tyrants like Rankin and Strang are willing to use secret court hearings in order to shut down the ability of people to peacefully voice their unhappiness.

Just a thought: perhaps the groups who are so interested in lobbying the Nova Scotia Government to buy large quantities of their products are also making donations to the NS Health Authority. It may be worth considering.

This is hardly limited to Nova Scotia. Taking a look at the tax records of the British Columbia Provincial Health Services Authority, BCPHSA, we get this:

[March 2016] Compensated full-time positions:
$200,000 to $249,999: 2
$250,000 to $299,999: 6
$300,000 to $349,999: 1
$350,000 and over: 1
.
[March 2017] Compensated full-time positions:
$200,000 to $249,999: 1
$250,000 to $299,999: 7
$300,000 to $349,999: 1
$350,000 and over: 1
.
[March 2018] Compensated full-time positions:
$200,000 to $249,999: 3
$250,000 to $299,999: 6
$350,000 and over: 1
.
[March 2019] Compensated full-time positions:
$350,000 and over: 10
.
[March 2020] Compensated full-time positions:
$350,000 and over: 10

Next we turn to Alberta Health Services. Remember, Jason Kenney is a “conservative” and claims to support freedom. As for the people running the AHS, it’s interesting that there are always 10 people listed. Or perhaps it just refers to the top 10 earners.

[March 2016] Compensated full-time positions:
$350,000 and over: 10
.
[March 2017] Compensated full-time positions:
$350,000 and over: 10
.
[March 2018] Compensated full-time positions:
$350,000 and over: 10
.
[March 2019] Compensated full-time positions:
$350,000 and over: 10
.
[March 2020] Compensated full-time positions:
$350,000 and over: 10

The Saskatchewan Health Authority is no better, paying its top executives more than $350,000 each. They also support lockdowns, and pushing experimental poison on their citizens. Way to promote public health.

[March 2016] Compensated full-time positions:
$350,000 and over: 10
.
[March 2017] Compensated full-time positions:
$350,000 and over: 10
.
[March 2018] Compensated full-time positions:
$350,000 and over: 10
.
[March 2019] Compensated full-time positions:
$350,000 and over: 10
.
[March 2020] Compensated full-time positions:
$350,000 and over: 10

Next up is the Winnipeg Regional Health Authority, which is separate from the Manitoba Government, although subjected to the rules imposed Provincially.

[March 2016] Compensated full-time positions:
$350,000 and over: 10
.
[March 2017] Compensated full-time positions:
$350,000 and over: 10
.
[March 2018] Compensated full-time positions:
$350,000 and over: 10
.
[March 2019] Compensated full-time positions:
$350,000 and over: 10
.
[March 2020] Compensated full-time positions:
$350,000 and over: 10

Anyone notice a pattern here? The top executives are making large amounts of money, often in excess of $300,000 per year. While others are told that their jobs and businesses are “non-essential”, the decision makers are still drawing their salaries. There hasn’t been a single notice of such a person getting laid off. The damage they cause seems to be irrelevant.

See what else is listed as a charity.
It’s quite surprising.

Depending on the Province, and amount given, tax rebates are possible in the area of around 50%. This means that the public will be subsidizing these “donations”.

Remember that $5 million donation from the Como Foundation to Trillium Health Partners? Como is a company whose business skyrocketed after mask mandates were imposed. The Canadian public, and in particular, Ontarians, will be picking up the tab.

As a final thought, it’s not just health care institutions that are structured as charities. Countless colleges and universities are either structured the same way, or have a foundation that is. Every time they get donations, the public is forced to subsidize it.

And it’s worth pointing out, many schools receive grants from pharmaceutical companies. Sometimes it’s in the form of scholarships, sometimes as research funding.

(1) Nova Scotia Health Authority Charity Page
(2) https://novascotia.ca/sns/Lobbyist/default.asp
(3) BC Provincial Health Services Authority
(4) BCCDC Foundation For Population & Public Health
(5) Alberta Health Services
(6) Saskatchewan Health Authority
(7) Winnipeg Regional Health Authority
(8) https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/charities-giving/giving-charity-information-donors/claiming-charitable-tax-credits/charitable-donation-tax-credit-rates.html

Repost: Asking 10 Tough Questions And Exposing Vaccine Genocide

This is a repost from Exposing Vaccine Genocide, by Dr. Leonard Horowitz. Here are 10 hard questions that need to be asked and answered, in order to get a more complete picture of what’s going on. Go check out the site itself.

https://exposingvaccinegenocide.org/10-tough-questions-we-asked/

(1) Why is vaccination risk data always neglected or concealed by officials?

(2) With no tracking (and no published long-term studies) of vaccination risks; including injuries, illnesses and deaths, how can we be sure vaccines are not killing and maiming more people than we may be helping or saving with “immunizations”?

(3) Why are exploding cancer rates never linked to the common vaccine contaminants such as the Epstein Barr Virus (“EBV”) known to prompt cancers?

(4) Why does Bill Gates lecture on vaccines reducing the world’s population by 15% if they are so “safe and effective” and are meant to “save lives”?

(5) With nearly 40 million people having died from HIV/AIDS since 1978, why haven’t officials refuted the many experts who evidence that AIDS sourced from hepatitis B vaccines containing SIVcpz (chimpanzee AIDS virus)?*

(6) Why, after the Merck Drug Co.’s all time leading vaccine developer, Dr. Maurice Hilleman, stated during an interview in 1982 on PBS that he unwittingly brought the AIDS virus into North America while unknowingly developing AIDS-laced vaccines for Merck, has science and the media neglected this frightening admission?

(7) How much money does the drug industry and “modern medicine” make from vaccine side effects?

(8) How much money in “perks” and “bribes,” in total, is paid to lawmakers and medical doctors by Big Pharma to promote vaccinations?

(9) Why, if scholars are required to reveal their conflicting financial interests before being permitted to publicly speak promoting their products at medical conferences or scientific symposiums is the mainstream media not required to similarly inform viewers and readers how much money they received from drug and vaccine advertisers?

(10) Why have federal prosecutors neglected unfair and deceptive trade practices in healthcare evidenced by the widespread monopolization of health science and medicine, including heavy suppression and disparagement of natural health products and providers, such as chiropractors, acupuncturists and homeopathic physicians?

Footnotes:

  • Pursuant to exposing vaccine genocide, these hepatitis B vaccines were injected into gay men in NYC, Willowbrook State School mentally retarded children on Staten Island in New York, and Black sex workers in central Africa from 1972 thru 1974–that is, 2-4 years before the first AIDS cases were discovered in these precise places and exact groups.

Most sensible people would agree that these are important questions. So why aren’t they being openly addressed?

Twenty Twenty-One Is Now Available

https://www.amazon.ca/dp/B095Y515XK

Twenty Twenty-One is now posted on Amazon, as a Kindle product. It covers a lot of the backstory of the “pandemic” which isn’t being covered by any mainstream outlet. The option of paperback is being looked into.

Yes, it would be nice to give it away, however, research and reporting are very time consuming. Thank you to everyone who has helped support the site, and helped keep this going.

If you have friends or family who would be interested in this kind of information, please share it with them.

The content on Canuck Law is still available for all.

A shoutout to Fred, Andy, and the folks at Civilian Intelligence Network.