Google Lobbying: Smart Thermostats; Digital Taxes; Smart Cities; 5G Infrastructure; Content Regulation

Google has been officially registered to lobby the Federal Government since 2008. But don’t worry, it’s not like it will lead to major laws getting changed, or anything like that. Canuck Law is a serious site, and does not tolerate conspiracy theories.

1. Developments In Free Speech Struggle

There is already a lot of information on the free speech series on the site. Free speech, while an important topic, doesn’t stand on its own, and is typically intertwined with other categories. For background information for this, please visit: Digital Cooperation; the IGF, or Internet Governance Forum; ex-Liberal Candidate Richard Lee; the Digital Charter; big tech collusion in coronavirus; Dominic LeBlanc’s proposal, and Facebook lobbying.

2. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for Google & smart thermostats.
https://archive.is/TaD59

CLICK HERE, for Google’s major lobbying agenda.
https://archive.is/2NNky

CLICK HERE, for recent Google lobbying communications reports.
https://archive.is/v0jDY

CLICK HERE, for WHO working with social media to censor.
https://archive.is/VlN8K
CLICK HERE, for WHO launches Rakuten Viber misinfo app.
https://archive.is/fWfYY
CLICK HERE, for WHO launches Facebook misinfo app.
https://archive.is/PRIHD

3. Google And Smart Thermostats

Google is currently in talks with the Federal Government if they install energy efficient or “smart” thermostats, and potential rebates. Presumably, these rebates would be financed by tax dollars or additional debt.

4. Google Lobbying On Many Subjects

Subject Matter Details
Legislative Proposal, Bill or Resolution
-Copyright Act, in respect of amendments related to user rights and intermediary liability.
-Copyright Act, in respect of reforms to the Copyright Board of Canada
-Income Tax Act, in respect of a proposed ‘digital renovation tax credit’ for small and medium sized businesses.
-Income Tax Act, specifically expanding section 19 to cover digital advertising.
.
Policies or Program
Broadcasting policy, specifically related to governing online content.
COVID-19 pandemic, more specifically potential collaboration between the Government of Canada and Google on remote work practices, chatbots, community mobility reports, and network infrastructure.
-Consideration of the creation of a Government digital service, a central office to coordinate digital transformation of the Government of Canada
-Government of Canada consultation on Canadian Content in a Digital World
Immigration and visa policies, specifically policies that will promote and maintain a highly-skilled workforce.
-Innovation policy, specifically policies or programs related to the adoption of technology by small and medium-sized enterprises.
-Intellectual Property Strategy, as it relates to intangible assets.
-Internet advertising policy, specifically the adoption of digital media and advertising by government.
-Internet policy, specifically as it relates to cyber-security and national security.
-Internet policy, specifically the implementation of policy affecting the governance of the internet.
-Policies that would encourage growth of The Toronto-Waterloo Region Corridor, an 100-km stretch that is the second largest technology cluster in North America and is a global centre of talent, growth, innovation and discovery
-Procurement policy, specifically policy related to the provision of technology services by the Government of Canada.
-Providing feedback to a Canada Revenue Agency employee on draft government communications training program
-Public service polices to create greater digital skills
-Public service policies to encourage more open government
-Taxation policy, specifically proposed changes to the taxation of technology companies.
Technological developments related to artificial intelligence.
-Technology policy, specifically promoting the development of technological infrastructure through the Smart Cities Challenge.
.
Policies or Program, Regulation
The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), specifically provisions related to intellectual property and digital trade.

These are the things that Google is currently in talks with the Federal Government in order to implement.

It would be nice to have more information on what “network infrastructure” actually meant, but most people can probably guess what it is.

5. Google Lobbying Canadian Politicians

Former Facebook lobbyist, and current CPC leader, Erin O’Toole, was lobbied twice in 2018 by Google.

This is hardly an exhaustive list. Members of all parties have been lobbied for years by Google. There are some 300 communications reports listed in the Lobbying Registry.

6. WHO Partners With Social Media

WHO is working with manufacturers and distributors of personal protective equipment to ensure a reliable supply of the tools health workers need to do their job safely and effectively.

But we’re not just fighting an epidemic; we’re fighting an infodemic.

Fake news spreads faster and more easily than this virus, and is just as dangerous.

That’s why we’re also working with search and media companies like Facebook, Google, Pinterest, Tencent, Twitter, TikTok, YouTube and others to counter the spread of rumours and misinformation.

We call on all governments, companies and news organizations to work with us to sound the appropriate level of alarm, without fanning the flames of hysteria.

The World Health Organization openly admits to partnering with social media companies to “combat misinformation” related to this so-called pandemic. It was mid-February that this Munich Conference happened. On March 31, the Rakuten Viber app was launched by WHO, and on April 15, a Facebook app was set.

Misinformation, of course, is simply anything that conflicts with the ever-shifting official narrative.

7. Google Supports Free Speech On YouTube

Google demonstrates its commitment to free speech, by hiring 10,000 people to scrub videos from YouTube (which Google owns). Nothing to worry about, as only hateful and extremist content will be erased.

8. Nothing To See Here, People

Despite the vast array of subjects which Google is lobbying the Federal Government on, there is no need to be concerned. There is nothing malevolent about it. After all, Google would never lie or mislead.

In fact, social media companies are following the lead of the World Health Organization to ensure that only the official sources of information get released to the public.

Please move along.

UN Global Internet Governance Forum, Meeting Since 2006

Getting your own politicians to protect free speech is difficult enough. How does it work when the rules are being drafted by unelected officials in other countries?

1. Important Developments On Free Speech

There is already a lot of information on the free speech series on the site. Free speech, while an important topic, doesn’t stand on its own, and is typically intertwined with other categories. For background information for this, please visit: Digital Cooperation; ex-Liberal Candidate Richard Lee; the Digital Charter, big tech collusion in coronavirus, and Dominic LeBlanc’s proposal.

IF you think that Canadian laws don’t do enough to protect free speech in general, or online free speech more specifically, just wait until it is regulated globally.

2. IGF Meetings Held Since 2006

2006: Athens, Greece, https://archive.is/g2NnZ
2007: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, https://archive.is/uiFsE
2008: Hyderabad, India, https://archive.is/6rV0k
2009: Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt, https://archive.is/dS2SO
2010: Vilnius, Lithuania, https://archive.is/uzC3U
2011: Nairobi, Kenya, https://archive.is/Dl71r
2012: Baku, Azerbaijan, https://archive.is/XUDaX
2013: Bali, Indonesia, https://archive.is/wksxQ
2014: Istanbul, Turkey, https://archive.is/XKnUe
2015: João Pessoa, Brazil, https://archive.is/1CiSE
2016: Jalisco, Mexico, https://archive.is/Rkazl
2017: Geneva, Switzerland, https://archive.is/mtw6w
2018: Paris, France, https://archive.is/zEsjK
2019: Berlin, Germany, https://archive.is/KGwzo

3. Important Issues Global IGF Discusses

What Key Issues are discussed at the IGF?
As an example, key issues discussed at the 12th meeting of the IGF in 2017 include:
.
– The impact of modern technologies on industry, society, and the economy;
– Multistakeholderism and Multilateralism and the setting of global norms;
– The new digital economy & sustainable development — providing opportunities or deepening divides?
– The role of government in policy making in the digital age;
– The emergence of a global, Internet society;
– Cybersecurity and cyber-threats;
Artificial intelligence (AI);
– Critical Internet resources;
– Blockchains and bitcoins;
Fake news;
– Access, inclusion and diversity;
– The pressing need for security in the Internet of Things;
– Digital divides;

https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/content/about-igf-faqs

Advocates of strong free speech laws will notice (in particular) the topics of the role of government, and fake news. Makes one wonder if various Heads of State will decide what is real news and what is fake.

4. Who Funds Global IGF?

How is the global Internet Governance Forum funded?
.
The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) Secretariat – based in Geneva, is sustained financially through the extra-budgetary Trust Fund Account managed by United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN DESA). The nature of the IGF Trust Fund is such that it is voluntary and multi-donor driven, with varying contributions from Governments and non-governmental organisations from the technical community, the private sector and the civil society. The IGF Trust Fund covers the administrative and operational costs of the IGF Secretariat including personnel, fellowships, and meeting costs (venues, interpretation, logistical costs, etc.); and funds the travel costs of MAG Members from developing countries. More details about the list of donors and funds received are available online. The Trust Fund also provides support to various intersessional activities, inter alia Best Practice Forums, major policy initiatives such as Connecting and Enabling the Next Billion(s), etc.

Each year, the organizational and conference cost of the annual meeting of the Internet Governance Forum is provided for by the Government of the host country, administered through a Host Country Agreement signed between the Government and the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs.

https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/content/about-igf-faqs

Donors to the Trust Fund (highest to lowest)

  • Government of Finland
  • Government of Germany
  • European Commission
  • Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
  • The Internet Society (ISOC)
  • Number Resource Organization (NRO)
  • Government of the Netherlands
  • Government of Switzerland
  • Government of the United States
  • Government of the United Kingdom
  • Government of Japan
  • Nominet UK
  • Tides Foundation
  • Verizon
  • IGFSA
  • Brazilian Internet Steering Committee
  • AT&T
  • China Energy Fund Committee
  • Verisign
  • Afilias Global Registry Services
  • Facebook
  • Government of Portugal – Fundacao Para a Ciencia e a Tecnologia
  • Microsoft Corporation
  • Siemens Aktiengesellschaft – Communications / Nokia Siemens Networks
  • Google
  • Government of Norway
  • Government of Sweden
  • Amazon
  • UNINETT Norid
  • The Swiss Education & Research Network (SWITCH)
  • The Walt Disney Company
  • European Registry for Internet domains
  • CISCO
  • auDA Australia’s Domain Name Administrator
  • International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) – Business Action to Support the Information Society (BASIS)
  • Coordination Center for TLD
  • Danish Internet Forum
  • Politecnico di Torino
  • Community DNS
  • Government of the Republic of Korea
  • European Telecommunication Network Operators’ Association
  • MCADE, LLC
  • NIC-MEXICO
  • Nic.at The Austrian Registry
  • Summit Strategies International
  • NIKKEI DigitalCORE
  • Ribose Inc.

In addition to the funding of various governments, the following names should be familiar to almost everyone: Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Disney, Amazon, AT&T, Verizon, and the Soros-funded Tides Foundation.

5. IGF And UNSG Panel On Digital Cooperation

>> FABRIZIO HOCHSCHILD: Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, dear friends and colleagues. We’re having this conversation under unusual circumstances at a pivotal moment in history.

In a world already fundamentally transformed by digital technologies, the onslaught of the COVID-19 pandemic and the need for social distancing have propelled the adoption of information and communications technologies and transformed the bedrock of humanity’s means of survival and prosperity: communication. To cooperate, we must communicate, and to communicate nowadays, we must use digital means. This is an important time for Internet governance.

COVID-19 has raised the stakes for global digital cooperation. Over the last few months, my office, in partnership with the international telecommunications unit, organized a series of webinars on digital cooperation in times of COVID-19 and beyond. These discussions considered challenges when urgent cooperation is required, such as with regard to the ongoing deficit in connectivity, with regard to human rights challenges and trust and security issues.

.
Health systems today don’t just have to treat the sick. They also have to deal with cyber attacks and the spread of dangerous, life-threatening misinformation.

In follow-up to the Secretary-General’s call for a global cease far, I also called for a digital cease fire. Global cooperation is necessary if we wish to overcome the pandemic without drastically compromising values like privacy and freedom of speech.

A few days ago, the Secretary-General presented his roadmap for digital cooperation which sets forth his vision for how the international community should engage on these and other key digital issues outlined in the report of the High-Level Panel on Digital Cooperation. The roadmap describes a range of actions for all stakeholders from the United Nations system to member states, the private sector, civil society organizations, and the technical community. The United Nations, including the IGF, the Internet Governance Forum, can truly serve as a platform for informed discussion and evidence-based decisions and practices.

The High-level Panel had noted, and I quote, “a great deal of dissatisfaction with existing digital cooperation arrangements, a desire for more tangible outcomes, more active and diverse participation by governments and the private sector, and more inclusive processes and better follow-up,” end of quote.

The IGF should be retooled to become more responsive and relevant to current digital issues. We must ensure that the IGF is a forum that governments value and want to attend while preserving the important space it represents for other stakeholder engagement.

The IGF’s coordinating and strategic role needs to be further strengthened. The roadmap includes a series of suggestions to further enhance the IGF, such as by improving fundraising, inclusion, and outcomes. I hope you will all be engaged in the follow-up of the action areas highlighted in the Secretary-General’s roadmap, and I hope you will all share your views specifically on how the IGF can be made even more responsive to the evolving challenges of digital cooperation.

Thank you for your engagement and support of the IGF and digital cooperation. We welcome and we need your ideas, your proposals, and your continued enthusiasm and support.
Thank you.

Don’t worry. It’s not like this will lead to a global body deciding what can or can’t be talked about or shared on the internet. This will absolutely never be abused.

6. Global Digital Cooperation Frameworks

The Global Internet Governance Forum goes on to propose several different ways that “digital cooperation” could be implemented on a world-wide scale. But don’t worry. It’s all just discussion, and nothing that gets suggested will ever become legally binding.

7. Canadian Internet Governance Forum

Save the date: The virtual Canadian IGF will be Nov. 24 and Nov. 25, 2020.
The Canadian Internet Governance Forum (IGF) is Canada’s leading multi-stakeholder forum on digital and internet policy issues.
.
The inaugural event took place last year in Toronto and brought together over 200 representatives from government, civil society, and the private sector to tackle pressing public policy issues facing the internet.
.
The Canadian IGF is a national initiative of the global United-Nations-convened Internet Governance Forum, which holds annual meetings at different locations around the world. The Canadian IGF will produce a report detailing the unique, regional priorities facing Canadian stakeholders in attendance. This report will then be fed into the global IGF.

2019.canadian.internet.governance.forum

This isn’t just some abstract UN group far off. There exists a Canadian branch of the Internet Governance Forum, and its agenda is pretty much what one would expect.

Throughout the discussions, several common themes emerged across subject areas. These
included trends towards increased regulation; the necessity for plain language content; and,
the need for education and digital literacy. For stakeholders engaging in Internet governance
domestically and abroad, priorities going forward include the need for:
• A transnational, multistakeholder approach to internet governance.
• Awareness of/education on the issues, and how users can participate in discussions
related to internet governance.
• Solutions developed by any stakeholder group that are thoughtful, evidence-based, and
proportionate.
• Transparency from both governments and businesses in order to promote public trust
and build the capacity of users.

These priorities are elaborated in the conclusion of this report.

That is from page 5 on the report. They explicitly state that they view internet regulation as a global concept.

Key Issues
• Fake news and misinformation.
• Hateful online speech.
• Global and domestic threats.
• Data security

Discussion Overview
The panel’s discussion surrounded three main topics: 1) While foreign actors are a threat, domestic actors are an equal or higher risk when it comes to the dissemination of fake news and the proliferation of hateful speech online. Social media platforms also have to balance discouraging fake news, while ensuring they are not censoring a legitimate group; 2) Political actors are increasingly using social media platforms as a tool to get messages out; and 3) In the aftermath of Cambridge Analytica, academics have seen social media platforms reduce their access to datasets to study the fake news problem.

A recent report on Canadians’ use of social media shows that 94% of internet users here in this country have at least one social media account. The exposure to potential misinformation and disinformation campaigns is enormous.

Both technological and policy-based solutions are needed to confront the fake news problem. Facebook, for instance, has a three-pronged strategy focusing on people, technology and, increasingly, partnerships. Facebook has gone from 10,000 to 30,000 people dedicated to working on this challenge. In Q2 and Q3 of last year, Facebook removed approximately 1.5 billion fake accounts. The development of digital literacy skills is required to help users discern between real and fake news. The need for civility among users was also stressed. Canada must decide on its approach to fake news and newer technology, generally. Do we want to follow the lead of the United States or Europe?

A void has been created in the news world because traditional journalism is fading quickly. Social media platforms have become a new distribution channel for news. Panelists disagreed on whether the problem can be solved through technology or if it is more deeply rooted in human causes for which technology has no response

2019.canadian.internet.governance.forum

From pages 18/19 in the report: it seems that outlets like Facebook have taken it upon themselves to determine what accounts are fake, and what counts as fake news.

The authors of this report, (and of IGF more broadly), keep referring to “international stakeholders”. It seems to imply that other parties should have some say over free speech on the internet, instead of Canadians themselves.

8. Canada Gov’t Bought Off Media (2018)

It’s interesting that the report talks about the decline of traditional media (which is true), but omits the tax-payer funded bailout that the Canadian Government gave. In effect, old-stock media in Canada is now subsidized even more so. Even without the IGF, the media is already pretty corrupt.

9. UNESCO Campaign Against Mis-Information

This was covered a few months ago, but UNESCO has been embarking on a serious campaign against what it calls “misinformation”. UNESCO reminds people to only trust official sources for information on coronavirus.

10. UN Wants Internet Ruled By International Law

Tremendous progress has been made internationally in accepting that international law and the UN Charter apply in cyberspace. He urged the private sector to be involved in countering the number of malevolent tools being deployed in cyberspace, especially in developing more secure software.

Combating Fake News and Dangerous Content in the Digital Age
.
The consensus from the session on Fake News was that part of the complexity to tackle disinformation was the challenge to define it. From election interference to stoking up hate or increase religious hatred, there are also other multilayered levels such as spam, and misleading types of content like opinion pieces masking as objective journalism.

Irene Poetrant, Senior Researcher for Citizen Lab of University of Toronto agreed, saying definitions matter and in order to maintain an open and democratic system, it is important for government, private sector, civil society and institutions to work together, and that fake news is not just a problem of the west but a global problem.

“Misinformation is the antithesis of Google’s mission”, said Jake Lucchi, Head of Online Safety and Social Impact. Partnering with journalists, governments, and third parties, they try to find product solutions to identify misinformation and find ways to surface authoritative content. “Young people need to have critical thinking and skills to be able to navigate the internet and check our sources.” Improved algorithms and having policies in place to prohibit hate speech are also key – providers have to ensure misinformation are not allowed on their platforms.

That page is from the November 2018 meeting is Paris. While it sounds benevolent on the surface, who exactly will be the arbitrator of what is “fake news”? Remember, UNESCO (as an example), repeatedly says that only official sources can be trusted. This comes in spite of a wealth of information that CONTRADICTS those narratives. This raises the question of can valid media be shut down if factual reporting is tagged as “misinformation”?

11. Digital Charter Long In The Making

Think that the “Digital Charter” was an idea suddenly concocted? It wasn’t. The UN Digital Cooperation Panel was launched in the Summer of 2018. When the New Zealand shooting happened in March 2019, the stage had already been set.

In a similar vein, the mass shooting in Nova Scotia appears to be a pretext for the Federal Government imposing a mass gun grab.

12. Calls To Expand Digital Cooperation

11 June 2020 – New York
United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres presented today a set of recommended actions for the international community to help ensure all people are connected, respected, and protected in the digital age. The Secretary-General’s Roadmap for Digital Cooperation is the result of a multi-year, multi-stakeholder, global effort to address a range of issues related to the Internet, artificial intelligence, and other digital technologies.

The Roadmap for Digital Cooperation comes at a critical inflection point for digital issues, with the COVID-19 pandemic accelerating digitization and magnifying both opportunities and challenges of digital technology.

digital.cooperation.roadmap.expand

But don’t worry. These resolutions and agreements won’t ever become legally binding, or anything like that. These are just ideas being thrown around.

CV #61: U.S. CDC Admits Serious Co-Morbidities For 94% Of Virus Deaths; Patents; Masks

The CDC has recently published an updated page to inform the public that a mere 6% of CV deaths were exclusively caused by this virus.

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

The rest of the series is here. There are many: lies, lobbying, conflicts of interest, and various globalist agendas operating behind the scenes, and much more than most people realize. For examples: The Gates Foundation finances many things, including, the World Health Organization, the Center for Disease Control, GAVI, ID2020, John Hopkins University, Imperial College London, the Pirbright Institute, and individual pharmaceutical companies. It’s also worth mentioning that there is little to no science behind what our officials are doing, though they promote all kinds of degenerate behaviour. Also, the Australian Department of Health admits the PCR tests don’t work, and the US CDC admits testing is heavily flawed.

2. August 26th Quote From CDC

Comorbidities
Table 3 shows the types of health conditions and contributing causes mentioned in conjunction with deaths involving coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). For 6% of the deaths, COVID-19 was the only cause mentioned. For deaths with conditions or causes in addition to COVID-19, on average, there were 2.6 additional conditions or causes per death. The number of deaths with each condition or cause is shown for all deaths and by age groups.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm?fbclid=IwAR0fUcThh_Dn2PL3FqFmpNqJPUX1pFJKkaw5oNtwZsiOn-xr96v9gnxhmYE#Comorbidities

It doesn’t get much worse than this. Only 6% of U.S. deaths were solely due to this virus. There were an average of 2.6 additional causes or underlying conditions. So that 150,000 deaths is actually about 9,000 due just to the virus. This is in a country of 330 million.

3. Vaccine Patents Held By CDC

The Mad Truther deserves a (belated) thanks for publishing in 2017 a list of vaccine patents held by the Center for Disease Control.

Preparation and use of recombinant influenza A virus M2 construct vaccines
https://patents.google.com/patent/US6169175

Thermal inactivation of rotavirus
https://patents.google.com/patent/US8357525

Synthetic peptides immunoreactive with hepatitis A virus antibodies
https://patents.google.com/patent/US7223535

Real-time PCR point mutation assays for detecting HIV-1 resistance to antiviral drugs
https://patents.google.com/patent/US8592146

Serologic correlates of protection against Bacillus anthracis infection
https://patents.google.com/patent/US9102742

Pan-lyssavirus vaccines against rabies
https://patents.google.com/patent/US9248179

Dengue serotype 2 attenuated strain
https://patents.google.com/patent/CA2611954C/

Chimeric west nile/dengue viruses
https://patents.google.com/patent/US8715689

Peptide vaccines against group A streptococci
https://patents.google.com/patent/US8637050

Recombinant lipidated psaa protein, methods of preparation and use
https://patents.google.com/patent/CA2319404C

Invasion associated genes from Neisseria meningitidis serogroup B
https://patents.google.com/patent/US6472518

Aerosol delivery systems and methods
https://patents.google.com/patent/US7954486

CD40 ligand adjuvant for respiratory syncytial virus
https://patents.google.com/patent/US8354115

This is by no means all of them. Check out the article by the Mad Truther for many, many more patents. Makes this a lucrative company to invest in it seems.

4. CDC Admits No Evidence Masks Work

Disposable medical masks (also known as surgical masks) are loose-fitting devices that were designed to be worn by medical personnel to protect accidental contamination of patient wounds, and to protect the wearer against splashes or sprays of bodily fluids (36). There is limited evidence for their effectiveness in preventing influenza virus transmission either when worn by the infected person for source control or when worn by uninfected persons to reduce exposure. Our systematic review found no significant effect of face masks on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza.

In a May 5 study that went largely unnoticed, the Center for Disease Control admitted that there was little evidence that masks worked, either on sick or healthy people.

5. Takeaways From This Piece

This was a shorter article than what usually comes out. Just remember 3 important points about the Center for Disease Control and Prevention.

  • The CDC admits 94% of CV deaths had underlying conditions
  • The CDC holds many vaccine patents
  • The CDC admits little evidence masks actually work

CV #49: WHO’s July 31 List On Vaccine Research Projects, Disclaims Any Liability


https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/diseases/coronavirus-disease-covid-19.html

This newest coronavirus is deadly and has no cure, hence the global push for a vaccine. This comes despite Health Canada consistently saying the vast majority of people in Canada who contracted it have already recovered.

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

For more on the fake “pandemic” that is taking over our lives, check out this series. Information on the: lies, lobbying, conflicts of interest, simulations, globalist interests are available. This is news that the mainstream media will never share.

2. WHO’s July 31 Vaccine Research List

july.31.vaccine.research.list

PLATFORM TYPE DEVELOPER
DNA DNA Vaccine Ege University
DNA DNA plasmid vaccine RBD&N Scancell/University of Nottingham/ Nottingham Trent University
DNA DNA plasmid vaccine S,S1,S2,RBD &N National Research Centre, Egypt
DNA DNA with electroporation Karolinska Institute / Cobra Biologics (OPENCORONA Project)
DNA DNA with electroporation Chula Vaccine Research Center
DNA DNA Takis/Applied DNA Sciences/Evvivax
DNA Plasmid DNA, Needle-Free Delivery Immunomic Therapeutics, Inc./EpiVax, Inc./PharmaJet
DNA DNA vaccine BioNet Asia
DNA msDNA vaccine Mediphage Bioceuticals/University of Waterloo
DNA DNA vaccine Entos Pharmaceuticals
DNA bacTRL-Spike Symvivo
RNA Self-amplifying RNA Gennova
RNA mRNA Selcuk University
RNA LNP-mRNA Translate Bio/Sanofi Pasteur
RNA LNP-mRNA CanSino Biologics/Precision NanoSystems
RNA LNP-encapsulated mRNA cocktail encoding VLP Fudan University/ Shanghai JiaoTong University/RNACure Biopharma
RNA LNP-encapsulated mRNA encoding RBD Fudan University/ Shanghai JiaoTong University/RNACure Biopharma
RNA Replicating Defective SARS-CoV-2 derived RNAs Centro Nacional Biotecnología (CNB-CSIC), Spain
RNA LNP-encapsulated mRNA University of Tokyo/ Daiichi-Sankyo
RNA Liposome-encapsulated mRNA BIOCAD
RNA Several mRNA candidates RNAimmune, Inc.
RNA mRNA FBRI SRC VB VECTOR, Rospotrebnadzor, Koltsovo
RNA mRNA China CDC/Tongji University/Stermina
RNA LNP-mRNA Chula Vaccine Research Center/University of Pennsylvania
RNA mRNA in an intranasal delivery system eTheRNA
RNA mRNA Greenlight Biosciences
RNA mRNA IDIBAPS-Hospital Clinic, Spain

This is by no means everyone on the list. Still, it should give people a cause for concern, just how widespread this vaccine research is.

DISCLAIMER:
These landscape documents have been prepared by the World Health Organization (WHO) for information purposes only concerning the 2019-2020 pandemic of the novel coronavirus. Inclusion of any particular product or entity in any of these landscape documents does not constitute, and shall not be deemed or construed as, any approval or endorsement by WHO of such product or entity (or any of its businesses or activities). While WHO takes reasonable steps to verify the accuracy of the information presented in these landscape documents, WHO does not make any (and hereby disclaims all) representations and warranties regarding the accuracy, completeness, fitness for a particular purpose (including any of the aforementioned purposes), quality, safety, efficacy, merchantability and/or non-infringement of any information provided in these landscape documents and/or of any of the products referenced therein. WHO also disclaims any and all liability or responsibility whatsoever for any death, disability, injury, suffering, loss, damage or other prejudice of any kind that may arise from or in connection with the procurement, distribution or use of any product included in any of these landscape documents.

Just so you know, the World Health Organization makes absolutely no guarantees that any of these products are safe, let alone that they work. Take at your own risk.

But don’t worry. Why should we have any reason to doubt the experts at the World Health Organization? After all, our local experts are reliable and trustworthy. And our politicians certainly have our best interests at heart, right?

3. Gates: “Super Painful” Is Not Serious

https://twitter.com/LegendaryEnergy/status/1287509508206391296

Gates told CBS in a rather indifferent way that reactions that are “super painful” are not serious. He doesn’t appear to give a damn how the Moderna trials have gone. This is from July 26.

4. Trudeau & Premiers Are Parroting Gates

(Bill Gates predicts no more mass gathering until vaccine developed.

(See 1:30 mark in this, or original video)

Okay, so it seems like they are all pushing the agenda for mass vaccination. But at least major decisions are being made based on solid medical and scientific research, right? At least we can have confidence in what our leaders are telling us about this pandemic. Granted these are earlier videos, but still, creepy to watch.

5. Barbara Yaffe Admits 50% Test Error Rate

Ontario’s Deputy Medical Officer Barbara Yaffe admits that there is up to a 50% error in the testing method that is being used. Obvious question: why are we using such a method when the results are so unreliable? Premier Doug Ford, even when called out, won’t give any sort of explanation.

6. Christine Elliott Admits Lying About C.O.D.

Health Minister Christine Elliott admits that people who die for reasons unrelated to CV are still being written up as CV deaths. This is deceptive and manipulative. And it seems that Toronto Public Health is no better when it comes to being transparent.

7. WHO’s Mask Recommendation Is Political

Also see this and this accompanying articles. The mask recommendations are completely political, and have no medical or scientific basis to them.

8. Bonnie Henry: No Science In What We Do

BC Provincial Health Officer Bonnie Henry repeatedly says there is no science in what they do. This video specifically referred to capping group sizes at 50 people, but the same sentiment can be applied more broadly. See the 1:00 mark in the video.

9. Shut Up And Take Your Vaccine

Free Trade #1: Thoughts On Potential Canada-China Free Trade Deal

(Tucker Carlson: Social Costs to Communities Most Important)

1. Offshoring, Globalization, Free Trade

CLICK HERE, for #1: thoughts on potential free trade with China.
CLICK HERE, for #2: NAFTA, lawsuits, job losses, sovereignty.
CLICK HERE, for #3: looking at NAFTA’s hidden/ignored costs.
CLICK HERE, for #4: Bill C-79, Trans-Pacific Partnership.
CLICK HERE, for #5: why Trump abandoned the T.P.P.
CLICK HERE, for #6: CANZUK erasing our sovereignty.
CLICK HERE, for #7: outsourcing, other trade deals, CANZUK.
CLICK HERE, for #8: professional outsourcing, wages, immigration.
CLICK HERE, for #9: EPI research on free trade social costs.

2. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for Canada’s trade deal consultations.
CLICK HERE, for archived link to Canada-China free trade.
CLICK HERE, for FAQ on Canada-China free trade deal.
CLICK HERE, for EPI study. Estimated 3.4M jobs lost from US to China 2001-2017.
CLICK HERE, for China’s currency manipulation.
CLICK HERE, for Stephen Harper supporting free trade with China.
CLICK HERE, for Justin Trudeau supporting free trade with China.
CLICK HERE, for Maxime Bernier endorsing free trade with China.
CLICK HERE, for NDP response to possible FTA.
CLICK HERE, for CATO Institute, Disciplining China.
CLICK HERE, for a CATO Institute brochure.

3. From Archived Pages

There have been many concerns with dealing with China. To name just some of them:

  1. Human rights abuses
  2. No respect for intellectual property
  3. Preferential treatment
  4. Unsafe products entering Canada

To put is bluntly, the answers are not reassuring. They are the political-talk we have come to expect that avoids giving concrete answers.

Canada has robust regulatory requirements and strong enforcement action can be taken on unsafe products entering the country. Regardless of country of origin, if the Canadian government identifies products that do not meet regulatory requirements, enforcement action will be taken. Enforcement action can take a number of forms, including recall.

Canada’s Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement (FIPA) with China works to protect Canadian investments in China, and is among the most ambitious investment agreements China has ever ratified.

A possible FTA could include provisions that would help to mitigate the risk of IP infringements. We would like to hear from you on your experience with IP rights in the context of the Canada-China commercial relationship. Additionally, Canadian firms are encouraged to raise any IP problems they have in China or other overseas market with the Canadian Trade Commissioner Service.

This all sounds lovely, but to a critical person, this seems more like an attempt to emotionally soothe than to persuade with facts.

4. Major Job Losses

Looking at the Economic Policy Institute Study, shown here, from 2001 to 2017, the US lost 3.4 million jobs to China as a result of a growing trade deficit. China can produce much cheaper and in much higher numbers.

Both increased imports and technical products have done a number on the US job market, who simply cannot compete.

While this is an American study, it would be wise to use it as a cautionary tale for Canada as well.

CURRENCY MANIPULATION EXPLAINED


One unfair way to gain an advantage over a foreign competitor is to manipulate the currency. China has been doing this for a long time, and it leads to an economic advantage that few can match. The Forbes article explains it well.

First, a bit of background. The Chinese currency, called the renminbi, is what’s known as a policy currency. That means that unlike the U.S. dollar, which rises and falls in value in free market trading, the currency’s value against the dollar is set by the People’s Bank of China, an arm of the Chinese government.

While the PBOC has gradually tried to make the value of the renminbi more reflective of market forces, setting trading bands in which the renminbi is allowed to fluctuate every day, in the last analysis it is still under government control. Put another way, the value of the renminbi is manipulated by the government and always has been. It’s just that when Beijing was manipulating the value so that the renminbi appreciated against the dollar in the last few years, nobody in Washington complained.

When the Chinese Government manipulates its currency, it does so in order to artificially cheapen the costs of its products, and to gain an advantage over competitors.

In a “free market” world, this sort of thing should never be allowed.

5. CATO Institute Hypocrisy

Note: CATO calls itself a public policy institute, dedicated to free trade, liberalization and free markets. It is based in the US. But its conflicting observations are disturbing. From their website, they post an article which contains these remarks:

The Trump administration believes that the international dispute settlement system of the World Trade Organization (WTO) offers no effective remedy for these practices, and prefers an approach that relies mostly on unilateral tariffs. The administration sees the issue as follows. China’s mercantilist state systematically discriminates against foreign products and foreign producers in China while forcing foreign companies to hand over their intellectual property (IP) as the price of access to China’s large and growing market. China engages in widespread cheating in its trade practices, including not only high tariffs, domestic content requirements, and other traditional forms of protectionism, but also rigged regulations that erect trade barriers by favoring Chinese companies and outright theft of foreign IP. And, Trump and his trade cohorts say repeatedly, there is virtually nothing the United States can do under current WTO rules to stop this predatory Chinese behavior.

Worth noting is that CATO doesn’t dispute the accuracy or factual basis of Donald Trump’s claims. They don’t dispute the one sided advantage that is posed here. However, there is an interesting brochure that CATO released:

Supporting China’s membership in the WTO in 2001 was not a mistake by the United States. All 163 other members of the WTO, including the United States, are much better off because China is inside the rules-based global trading system and has not been left outside it. China has made great strides since 2001 toward full compliance with the rules of the WTO trading system.

An organization which promotes liberalized trade is okay when one of its members blatantly acts against the rules and its principles. Okay.

6. Main Canadian Parties Support This

Despite all the problems outline above, it is:
SUPPORTED, by People’s Party.
SUPPORTED, by the Conservative Party.
SUPPORTED, by the Liberal Party

However, NDP acts as the voice of reason.

A potential free trade agreement raises many questions that are yet unanswered. China has no free press, torture is widespread, workers do not have a right to collective bargaining, and hundreds of human rights defenders and dissidents have been detained.

Environmental protections, labour standards, and human rights must be at the forefront of any trade and investment discussions, and any trade deal must support Canadian jobs, not just focus on selling Canadian resources to be processed abroad.

The Liberals have failed to take action to address steel dumping by Chinese companies which put Canadian businesses at a dangerous disadvantage. China also has a questionable record on currency manipulation and unfair trade practices, and does not have market economy status, which means it would be very difficult to have a level playing field in a free trade deal.

There are also concerns about protecting the intellectual property of Canadians and the behaviour of state-owned enterprises in China, including through the takeover of Canadian companies that work on sensitive technologies.
Before making a decision on whether to begin formal negotiations, the government needs to clearly address all these concerns, and consult with Canadians before rushing into a deal that is against their interests.”

What the hell? Why am I agreeing with the NDP on this? Since when did an openly socialist party become the voice of reason?

The again, a NATIONALIST approach would also conclude free trade with China is a bad idea.

7. Not Worth It

Watch the video with Tucker Carlson, at the top of the article. He explains that it is a better way to ensure stability of communities and jobs than to look at a purely profit motive. Well worth a watch. While the talk relates to automating vehicles — and putting truck drivers out of work — the same rationale can be applied here.

While there may be some benefits to an agreement with China, there are simply too many social costs to Canada that need to be seriously looked at:

  • How many jobs will be lost?
  • What will happen to communities with major job losses?
  • What about environmental protection?
  • Would we be rewarding sweatshop conditions?
  • Can we protect people’s intellectual property?
  • Will we be undercut by currency manipulation?
  • Is getting cheaper products worth the social cost?

It’s not all about GDP, stock prices, or corporate profits. What will a free trade agreement with China do to Canada?

OUR PEOPLE COME FIRST.

World Border Congress Meets In Morrocco, March 19-21

1. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for a link to their main page.
SPONSORS
CLICK HERE, for biometricupdate.com.
CLICK HERE, for findbiometrics.com.
CLICK HERE, for RapiScan.
CLICK HERE, for AS&E.
CLICK HERE, for Gemalto.
CLICK HERE, for Cellebrite.
CLICK HERE, for SITA.

2. Giving Some Context

CLICK HERE, for the UN’s response to repatriating terrorists.
CLICK HERE, for Border Security Report.

As a bit of a side note: Morocco is also where the UN Global Migration Compact was signed on December 10, 2018.

Also, I cannot be the only one who thinks such an organization is creepy as hell. Why is there a “global border management”? What happened to countries making their own decisions?

3. Who Are These People?

“The annual gathering of the international border management and protection community will take place in Casablanca, Morocco on 19th-21st March 2019.

Co-hosted by the Ministry of Interior and General Secretariat for Migration and Border Surveillance of Morocco (Directeur de la Migration at de la Surveillance des Frontieres), the World Border Security Congress is delighted to be welcomed back to the North African country and economic hub of the region.

The 2019 World Border Security Congress will see the largest international gathering of border security and management policymakers and practitioners from more than 50 countries gather for the 3 day meeting for some great discussions, meetings, workshops and networking with colleagues and peers from the global border security community.”

Okay, this seems to be a globalist love-fest.

From Their Main Page

Current Border Security Challenges:
– Migration Crisis Tests European Consensus and Governance (1)
– Migrants and refugees streaming into Europe from Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia (2)
– Big Business of Smuggling Enables Mass Movement of People for Enormous Profits (3)
– Climate Change and Natural Disasters Displace Millions, Affect Migration Flows (4)
– Europe and the United States Confront Significant Flows of Unaccompanied Child Migrants (5)
– Tackling Southeast Asia’s Migration Challenge (6)
– ISIS threatens to send 500,000 migrants to Europe (7)
– Border Skirmishes Resonate in National Domestic Politics (8)
– Women’s Labour Migration from Asia and the Pacific (9)

As we see the continued escalation of the global migration crisis, with mass movements of people fleeing the war zones of the Middle East as well as illegal economic immigration from Africa and elsewhere, international terrorism(10) shows every sign of increasing, posing real threats to the free movement of people.

The world is expected to see a continuation of the migration challenges for the border management and security community, as little sign of peace and security in the Middle East is apparent and porous borders in Africa continue to provide challenges.

International organised criminal gangs and human and drug trafficking groups exploit opportunities and increasingly use the internet and technology to enhance their activities.

Controlling and managing international borders in the 21st Century continues to challenge the border control and immigration agencies around the world. It is generally agreed that in a globalised world borders should be as open as possible, but threats continue to remain in ever evolving circumstances and situations.

Advancements in technology are assisting in the battle to maintain safe and secure international travel. The border security professional still remains the front line against these threats.

This reads like it was brought to you by the same people who pushed the UN Global Migration Compact. But let’s go through this list a bit. Starting with your points list:

1/ Testing European consensus and governance? There “is” no European consensus, unless one argues that Europeans are unhappy with what their governments have brought them

2/ Yes migrants ARE streaming into Europe from Africa, the Middle East and Asia. But you promote open borders, which makes this problem all that much worse.

3/ True, smuggling people IS big business. However, you fail to mention that mass migration, and promoting mass migration is also big business, and it has much the same effect (legal or not).

4/ Climate change: everyone’s favourite boogeyman. Mass migration has nothing to do with welfare and handouts that economic migrants can get by moving to the West and pretending to be refugees.

5/ Regarding all of these “unaccompanied child migrants”, it would be interesting to know just how many of them are actually children. This seems to be a widespread scam.

6/ Yes, Southeast Asia has a migrant crisis as well. However, mass migration to the west is not the solution. All it will do is drain Western nations and cause their collapse.

7/ ISIS threaten to sends 100,000 fighters to Europe, but globalist organizations like the UN say that we must be compassionate. They also don’t want countries rejecting “citizens” who fight for ISIS.

8/ If there are border skirmishes going on, all the more reason to shut down borders and heavily restrict, if not outright ban people from certain countries.

9/ Of course, it wouldn’t be complete without the feminist card.

10/ Strengthen borders to stop this from coming here.

11/ Technological advancements? Now that sounds interesting. Seems these people don’t actually want to PREVENT bad things from happening, rather they wish to PROFIT from it happening. In fact, 2 major sponsors: FIND BIOMETRICS, and BIOMETRIC UPDATE, could see a huge surge in business caused by mass migration.

Here is a quote from the report:

“Governments around the world need to continue to invest in their border security, as a wide range of threats, such as combating terrorism, controlling the movement of goods and monitoring personnel across international borders, continue to pose challenges requiring round the clock monitoring.”

What a coincidence: the sponsors of this conference are selling just the tools that governments will need to secure their borders.

This conference is sponsored by companies that sell:
A/ Biometric services
B/ Security screening devices
C/ Digital and mobile technology

Is it much of a surprise that mass migration would be PROMOTED by a group and its sponsors who will end up PROFITTING from it? Not really.

World Border Congress Has Sympathy For ISIS Fighters

From THIS REPORT:
“Despite the fact that it is illegal to make an individual stateless, there is strong public opinion in most countries that supports the idea of leaving them to fend for themselves, and it easy to understand why. Whatever prison sentences they receive and deradicalisation they undergo, they will have to be regarded as a potential threat for the remainder of their lives.

And of course, it is certain that at least some of them will go on to attempt to commit an atrocity sometime in the future.

So, for most people, stopping their return seems like plain common sense. But would it be the wisest choice? If you leave them stateless, what will happen to them and where will they go?

It is fairly certain that the Kurds won’t want to be responsible for them for any prolonged period. And the Turkish authorities certainly won’t want to inherit the problem. The most likely outcome is that they will gradually be quietly released or abscond and use underground trafficking routes, new documents and new identities to either return to Europe or go elsewhere to carry on the fight.”

This group glosses over legitimate security risks posed by mass migration. However, the risks that “do” exist can be managed by purchasing services from the conference’s many sponsors.

This is disturbing. Want to know what is actually worse?

4. UN Response To “Foreign Fighters”

Again, the report is available here.

3. The movement of people for the purposes of joining and supporting terrorist groups as well as their return to their countries of origin poses serious challenges to States in their efforts to prevent acts of terrorism. It is crucial that States adopt comprehensive long-term responses that deal with this threat and manage the return of fighters, and that in doing so they comply with their obligations under international human rights law. States have an obligation to protect the lives of individuals subject to their jurisdiction, and this includes the adoption of effective measures to counter the threat posed by foreign fighters.

13. In a limited set of circumstances, States may also take measures to temporarily derogate from certain international human rights law provisions. As noted by the Human Rights Committee, measures derogating from the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights must be of an exceptional and temporary nature. Two fundamental conditions must be met: the situation must amount to a public emergency which threatens the life of the nation; and the State party must have officially proclaimed a state of emergency. The obligation to limit any derogations to those strictly required by the exigencies of the situation reflects the principle of proportionality which is common to derogation and limitation powers.

16. International humanitarian law is also known as the law of war or the law of armed conflict and is applicable to both situations of international or non-international armed conflicts. These rules are enshrined in the four Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols, as well as in customary rules of international humanitarian law. International humanitarian law is a set of rules which seek, for humanitarian reasons, to limit the effects of armed conflict. It protects persons, civilians, who are not or are no longer participating in the hostilities as well as fighters hors de combat and restricts the means and methods of warfare.

18. States have used different measures, whether legislative, administrative or operational, to prevent the departure of foreign fighters to conflict areas as well as to prevent their return. These could include travel bans, the seizure, retention, withdrawal and non-renewal of passports or identity cards, the stripping of citizenship, restrictions on travel or entry to territory and various types of house arrests or preventive detention. All of these measures have a serious impact on a number of fundamental human rights, including the rights to personal liberty and freedom of movement. They also raise a number of serious due process concerns if, for example, decisions are taken following secretive proceedings, in absentia or on the basis of vaguely defined criteria without adequate safeguards to prevent statelessness.

The World Borders Congress states that it believes that fighters who go abroad have rights. It implies that the safety of the host populations must be “balances” against the rights of terrorists themselves. From the above passages, the UN is clearly on board with this proposal.

The UN is totally fine with mass migration and returning terrorists for IDEOLOGICAL reasons.

Sponsors of World Borders Congress is fine with mass migration and returning terrorists for FINANCIAL reasons.

A partnership made in hell.