Who’s Pulling Jason Kenney’s Strings?

Alberta Premier doesn’t seem all that concerned that a possible 90% of positive cases in the Province could be due to error. One would think he’d be happy to know that. Here is the full interview with Danielle Smith, from November 2020. The above clip starts at about 28:30.

Don’t forget, Kenney previously attended Bilderberg. Therefore, globalist ties must at least be assumed at this point. And he does nothing to dispel the suspicions.

Now, why would Kenney be so vaxx happy if there is such a prevalence of false positives? One possibility is that his interests lie elsewhere. Let’s see who he’s been talking to in the last year or so. According to the Alberta Lobbying Registry, the following meetings happened:

  • January 13, 2020 (Pfizer)
  • February 14, 2020 (Novartis)
  • February 29, 2020 (Innovative Medicines Canada)
  • February 29, 2020 (Innovative Medicines Canada)
  • March 6, 2020 (Innovative Medicines Canada)
  • March 24, 2020 (Innovative Medicines Canada)
  • April 7, 2020 (Pfizer)
  • April 15, 2020 (Novartis)
  • April 24, 2020 (AstraZeneca)
  • May 13, 2020 (Janssen)
  • June 30, 2020 (AstraZeneca)
  • August 25, 2020 (Novartis)
  • August 28, 2020 (Innovative Medicines Canada)
  • August 31, 2020 (Innovative Medicines Canada)
  • September 3, 2020 (Janssen)
  • September 29, 2020 (Novartis)
  • October 6, 2020 (Innovative Medicines Canada)
  • October 13, 2020 (Pfizer)
  • October 19, 2020 (AstraZeneca)
  • October 27, 2020 (Innovative Medicines Canada)
  • November 2, 2020 (Innovative Medicines Canada)
  • November 2, 2020 (Janssen)
  • November 2, 2020 (Novartis)
  • November 12, 2020 (Novartis)
  • November 26, 2020 (Innovative Medicines Canada)
  • November 26, 2020 (Janssen)
  • November 26, 2020 (Novartis)
  • December 4, 2020 (AstraZeneca)
  • December 4, 2020 (Pfizer)
  • December 15, 2020 (Innovative Medicines Canada)
  • December 15, 2020 (Janssen)
  • December 15, 2020 (Novartis)
  • January 4, 2021 (Astellas Pharma Canada Inc.)
  • January 15, 2021 (Applied Pharmaceutical Innovation)
  • January 15, 2021 (Astellas Pharma Canada Inc.)
  • January 15, 2021 (Entos Pharmaceuticals)
  • January 28, 2021 (Entos Pharmaceuticals)
  • February 18, 2021 (Vertex Pharmaceuticals)
  • February 19, 2021 (Innovative Medicines Canada)
  • February 23, 2021 (Emergent BioSolutions)
  • February 28, 2021 (Janssen)
  • March 1, 2021 (Purdue Pharma)
  • March 19, 2021 (Entos Pharmaceuticals)
  • March 19, 2021 (Neighbourhood Pharmacy Association of Canada)
  • March 30, 2021 (Pfizer)
  • April 12, 2021 (Alberta Pharmacists’ Association)
  • April 28, 2021 (AstraZeneca)
  • May 3, 2021 (Novartis)
  • May 28, 2021 (Innovative Medicines Canada)
  • June 2, 2021 (Innovative Medicines Canada)
  • June 30, 2021 (Innovative Medicines Canada)
  • June 30, 2021 (Janssen)
  • June 30, 2021 (Novartis)
  • August 31, 2021 (Innovative Medicines Canada)
  • September 6, 2021 (Janssen)
  • September 7, 2021 (AstraZeneca)
  • September 7, 2021 (Novartis)
  • September 29, 2021 (Alberta Pharmacists’ Association)
  • October 3, 2021 (Neighbourhood Pharmacy Association of Canada)
  • October 4, 2021 (Novartis)

It should go without saying that there are more instances of lobbying not listed here.

This is particularly interesting since it’s not the Provinces who do the purchasing of vaccines. That is handled by the Federal Government. Of course, this is quite the list. Now, who are some of the people who have been wanting to push big pharma onto Kenney and Alberta?

1. Hal Danchilla, Kenney’s (Former?) Campaign Strategist

Almost every political event in Alberta over the last 30 years has been shaped, advised, managed, directed, or informed by Hal. He has managed and advised leadership and election campaigns at all levels of government.
Most notably, Hal served as a political advisor during the Klein administration, provided strategic advice to Stephen Mandel’s successful underdog campaign to become Mayor of Edmonton and, along with Jason Kenney, chaired and managed the leadership and national campaign for Stockwell Day and the Canadian Alliance. Recently, Hal has become a trusted advisor and campaign strategist for now Premier Kenney.
Since 1998, Hal has delivered results to clients, not just in government relations, but in strategic and crisis communications, negotiations, advocacy and influencing public opinion.
Hal has led many challenging projects, including the reclamation of contaminated sites, forming new industry associations, securing access for rare pharmaceuticals and guiding professional compensation strategies.
Hal is a frequent media commentator and panellist, executive and board speaker, and guest lecturer at the University of Alberta

Either this guy really likes to grandstand, or Alberta politicians are all just puppets. Danchilla brags about influencing Municipal, Provincial, and Federal politics. This veteran handler is now a pharmaceutical lobbyist whose name is all over these registrations.

2. Christian Macher, Novartis Manager

Going back to his days at Proctor & Gamble, AstraZeneca, Innovative Medicines Canada, and Novartis, this man has had a lengthy career in the pharmaceutical industry.

3. Margaret Wing, Alberta Pharmacists’ Association

Even pharmacists need someone fighting in their corner. It’s not like the drug companies themselves have vested interests in seeing their products being sold en masse.

4. David Pidduck, Purdue Pharma

Nothing says important quite like getting the Chief Executive Officer down to make that personal connection with the politicians.

5. Philip Dewan, Emergent BioSolutions

Most interesting. Before getting into lobbying, Dewan was the Chief of Staff for the Ontario Liberal Party. As for other dirt on Counsel Public Affairs, see: here, here, here, here and here. It’s quite the cesspit.

6. Randy Pettipas (Various Groups)

Randy Pettipas has a reputation for providing strong strategic policy advice and solid results in all major industries such as energy, natural resources, telecommunications and transportation, among others. He is a trusted advisor to the leaders of many of Canada’s largest corporations. As CEO, Randy provides strong leadership and guides the overall growth strategy for Global Public Affairs. Since Randy joined the firm in 1997, Global has expanded its reach beyond Ottawa, establishing offices across Canada. Global now operates in federal, provincial and municipal jurisdictions, providing team-based government relations and communications services offering to clients across Canada and internationally.
Randy previously held senior positions in the federal government, serving as a Minister’s Chief of Staff and a senior advisor on issues in Western Canada, both in the Office of the Leader of the Official Opposition and the Prime Minister’s Office, from 1990 to 1997.
Randy currently serves on the advisory board of the Canada Institute at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, DC. He is also actively involved as a volunteer in the Calgary community, currently serving on the boards of the Calgary Zoo, Arts Commons and the Calgary Chapter of the Institute of Corporate Directors (ICD). Randy is also past board chair of Hospice Calgary.

Pettipas has spent time inside the Federal Government, and was a Chief of Staff for a Minister (although it doesn’t list which one). His biography explains a lot.

For some background on Alberta Health Services, check out this piece. This organization isn’t quite what most people think it is.

Of course, Kenney got an honourable mention in the piece about Rubicon Strategy. Kory Teneycke is currently acting as a handler for Ontario Premier Doug Ford.

This list is far from exhaustive, but should provide some insight into just who has been pulling Jason Kenney’s strings as of late. There are certainly others, but the pharmaceutical industry listings seem very abundant recently. Kenney appears to serve almost everyone except Albertans.

(1) https://www.facebook.com/kenneyjasont/videos/1065515287297927
(2) https://www.albertalobbyistregistry.ca/
(3) https://www.linkedin.com/in/hal-danchilla-057a1331/
(4) https://www.cdnstrategy.com/hal-danchilla
(5) https://archive.is/oEwXu
(6) https://www.linkedin.com/in/christian-macher-5a2251/
(7) https://www.linkedin.com/in/margaret-wing-7954331a5/
(8) https://www.linkedin.com/in/philip-dewan-65a29918/
(9) https://www.linkedin.com/in/davidpidduck/
(10) https://www.linkedin.com/in/philip-dewan-65a29918/
(11) https://www.linkedin.com/in/philip-dewan-65a29918/
(12) https://globalpublicaffairs.ca/staff/randy-pettipas-2/

Public Media Alliance, Brussels Declaration, Protecting Journalists & “Media Freedom”

The Public Media Alliance claims that harassment, threats, and violence towards journalists is a serious concern. This organization also thinks the media isn’t independent enough. While that is certainly true, it seems this NGO is less than sincere in what it states it supports.

For some even more Orwellian organizations, check this piece on: (a) Journalism Trust Initiative; (b) Trusted News Initiative; (c) Project Origin: and (d) The Trust Project. There’s also this article on the Coalition For Content Provenance And Authenticity.

So-called public service media, or PSM, refers to media outlets that are either run by, or heavily financed by the respective Governments. The PMA is quite blunt about this.

Financial models for public media organisations vary but an element of public funding is central. This is usually provided by either allocation from general government resources or via a general charge on users (licence fee). Public media organisations also supplement declining public resources with external revenue in order to maintain quality.

However, what will become clear is that the PMA doesn’t really advocate for a free and open media. Instead, it calls for media — and publicly funded ones — that operate within their own ideologies.

Within the PMA, there is a subgroup called the Global Task Force, or GTF.

The GTF claims its values are: access, accuracy, accountability, creativity, impartiality, independence and high standards of journalism. All these underpin an informed and healthy democracy. Many of these are under assault by various forces, both private and public.

It also says on its webpage that “public service media must develop a coordinated global response mechanism in order to defend and promote core values.” At face value, there is nothing that catches attention.

The Global Task Force exists to defend the values and the interests of Public Media.
The Global Task Force (GTF) was formed to develop a consensus and single, strong voice around the issues and challenges facing public media worldwide. An industry led initiative, the GTF offers a perspective that spans countries, languages and cultures.

The 8 members of the “Global Task Force” have openly supported the Brussels Declaration, which they claim is a new global initiative to protect journalists and media freedom.

  • David Anderson, Managing Director, ABC (Australia)
  • Thomas Bellut, Director General, ZDF (Germany)
  • Delphine Ernotte Cunci, President & CEO, France Télévisions (France)
  • Tim Davie, Director General, BBC (United Kingdom)
  • Jim Mather, Chair of the Board, RNZ (New Zealand)
  • Hanna Stjärne, Director General, SVT (Sweden)
  • Catherine Tait, President & CEO, CBC/Radio-Canada, GTF Chair (Canada)
  • Yang Sung-dong, President & CEO, KBS (South Korea)

This is by no means the entire list who endorsed the Brussels Declaration. In fact, dozens of broadcasters, mainly publicly funded, have already signed on to it. These include:

  • Radio-Télévision belge de la Communauté française (RTBF) – BEL
  • Vlaamse Radio- en Televisieomroeporganisatie (VRT) – BEL
  • Radio-Canada – CAN
  • CBC/Radio-Canada – CAN
  • France Télévisions – FRA
  • Radio France – FRA
  • British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) – GBR
  • Nederlandse Publieke Omroep (NPO) – NLD
  • European Broadcasting Union (EBU) – INT ORG
  • Public Media Alliance (PMA) – INT ORG
  • Les Médias Francophones Publics – INT ORG
  • Zweites Deutsches Fernsehen (ZDF) – DEU
  • Arbeitsgemeinschaft der öffentlich-rechtlichen Rundfunkanstalten der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (ARD) – DEU
  • International Federation of Journalists – INT ORG
  • European Federation of Journalists – INT ORG
  • Knowledge Network Corporation – INT ORG
  • Die Schweizerische Radio- und Fernsehgesellschaft (SRG SSR) – CHE
  • Médias multiplateforme éducatif et culturel du Québec – CAN
  • Sveriges Utbildningsradio – SWE
  • France Médias Monde – FRA
  • Yleisradio – FIN
  • Sveriges Television (SVT) – SWE
  • Asia – Pacific Broadcasting Organisation – INT ORG
  • Lituanian National Television and Radio – LTU
  • TV5 Québec Canada – CAN
  • Televisión América Latina (TAL, Union of Latinamerican Public, Educational and Cutlural Broadcasters) – INT ORG
  • Sindicato Nacional de Periodistas de Costa Rica – CRI
  • Korean Broadcasting System (KBS) – KOR
  • Radio New Zealand (RNZ) – NZL
  • Radio Télévision Suisse (RTS) – CHE
  • Radio and Television of Bosnia and Herzegovina – BIH
  • Österreichischer Rundfunk (ORF) – AUT
  • Rádio e Televisão de Portugal (RTP) – PRT
  • NHK (Japan Broadcasting Corporation) – JPN
  • Australian Broadcasting Corporation – AUS

That is quite the list, and it will surely grow in time.

Now, what is the Brussels Declaration? Primarily, it revolves around 5 points and commitments, claiming to want to protect a free and independent media worldwide.

[1] We improve the safety of journalists and other media staff
[2] We stand up for the independence of public broadcasters
[3] We encourage well-informed democratic debate
[4] We support a strong and diverse news media landscape
[5] We promote diversity, fairness and inclusion within our own organisation and in the society we serve

On the surface, there is nothing objectionable about any of this. In fact, these are great goals to work towards. However, when we see these principles applied in practice, and the rampant double standards, questions start to come up.

Each point could be an entire article by itself, but we will try to make this short, and more manageable. Considering the content of the Brussels Declaration, it’s fair to ask who wrote certain parts of Trudeau’s legislation over the last several years.

1. Enhancing the safety of journalists, crews and media professionals

All journalists, crew members and media professionals need to be able to safely perform their duties. To that end, the signatories commit to providing the resources and support their employees need to protect themselves from physical violence and online harassment, while raising public awareness about the impact of those attacks on democracy.

No one supports having physical harm come to journalists. However, legitimate criticism (and trolling) is often conflated with violence or attacking. By doing this, it undermines efforts to hold reporters accountable for what they publish, especially things that are provably false.

That said, there is little to no coverage of protests in Australia, Europe, and elsewhere. Nor do mainstream outlets cover police brutality towards peaceful demonstrators. It’s almost as if there was a certain narrative to push.

2. Standing up for the independence of public service media

The signatories commit to publicly condemning any attempt to undermine the independence of public service media — whether it’s through political pressure, financial threats or retribution, harassment or attacks against employees, or antimedia rhetoric. They also commit to improving understanding of the distinction between public and state broadcasters.

Public service media is independent? Watch 2:25 to 4:40 in particular, from this October 2020 video. Not a peep from any of the “journalists” there. Tam openly admits that: (a) journalists are asked to promote their agenda; (b) social media directs people to certain sites; (c) taking down content; (d) demonetizing content; and (c) manipulating the algorithm to bury certain content . However, not only are there no objections, but no one seems even the slightest bit surprised by this.

As for the independence of public service media, would it be too much to ask that it be made obvious that the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is a major donor of the BBC? It’s not like this was difficult to find, or that it’s even much of a secret at this point.

3. Fostering an informed and civil democratic debate

In response to the global disinformation crisis, the signatories commit to providing trusted news and information, supporting fact-checking initiatives, boosting media literacy, and monitoring and removing hate speech from their platforms. They also pledge to call on social media companies and regulators to eradicate online hate on third-party platforms.

Calling on social media companies to remove “hate”, whatever that is? This raises the obvious question of who actually writes legislation in Parliament to call for such things.

Should the Government be financing the fact-check organizations that keep it in line? Moreover, should political operatives be running such groups? How is there real accountability when the media and the groups monitoring them are funded by the same people? Isn’t it just a dog-and-pony show at that point? It’s not independent if funding depends on pushing a narrative — regardless of who’s pushing it. While too numerous to name here, below are recent articles on exactly this subject.

(a) https://canucklaw.ca/media-subsidies-to-counter-online-misinformation-groups-led-by-political-operatives/
(b) https://canucklaw.ca/taxpayer-grants-to-fight-misinformation-in-media-including-more-pandemic-bucks/
(c) https://canucklaw.ca/counter-intelligence-firms-to-influence-elections-canada-and-abroad-registered-as-charities/
(d) https://canucklaw.ca/more-pandemic-bucks-for-disinformation-prevention-locally-and-abroad-civix/
(e) https://canucklaw.ca/phac-supporting-science-up-first-online-counter-misinformation-group/
(f) https://canucklaw.ca/rockefeller-spends-13-5-million-to-combat-misinformation-in-u-s-elsewhere/
(g) https://canucklaw.ca/poynter-self-claimed-factchecking-group-funded-by-media-giants/
(h) https://canucklaw.ca/disinfowatch-ties-to-atlas-network-connected-to-lpc-political-operatives/

4. Supporting a strong news ecosystem with a diversity of sources

A diverse mix of public, community and private news media is fundamental to a strong news ecosystem and healthy democracy. Consequently, the signatories commit to collaborating with other domestic media outlets to protect local journalism — including sharing best practices on journalist safety and speaking with one voice on common challenges.

Quite interesting. Last April, CBC reported that Dominic LeBlanc, President of the Privy Council, was openly considering laws to ban “misinformation” around the so-called pandemic. Although nothing seems to have happened (yet), this is absolutely chilling. Nonetheless, CBC seemed relatively uninterested, and only gave this a passing mention. Moreover, these outlets seem rather blase about the steady erosion of civil rights, and the ever changing narratives.

Also, how is it exactly that there is a diversity of sources, when they are all being financed to some degree by the Government? Just like the fact-checkers, the media itself is bought off. This extends to many smaller and “independent” news sources. See below.

(a) https://canucklaw.ca/media-in-canada-obedient-to-govt-covid-narrative-largely-because-of-subsidies/
(b) https://canucklaw.ca/postmedia-subsidies-connections-may-explain-lack-of-interest-in-real-journalism/
(c) https://canucklaw.ca/postmedia-gets-next-round-of-pandemic-bucks-from-taxpayers-in-2021/
(d) https://canucklaw.ca/nordstar-capital-torstar-corp-metroland-media-group-more-subsidies-pandemic-bucks/
(e) https://canucklaw.ca/aberdeen-publishing-sells-out-takes-those-pandemic-bucks-to-push-narrative/
(f) https://canucklaw.ca/many-other-periodicals-receiving-the-pandemic-bucks-in-order-to-push-the-narrative/
(g) https://canucklaw.ca/cv-37i-tri-city-news-pulls-article-where-bonnie-henry-admits-false-positives-could-overwhelm-system/
(h) https://canucklaw.ca/canada-emergency-wage-subsidy-bailing-out-banks-credit-unions-media-companies/
(i) https://canucklaw.ca/media-5-the-origins-of-true-north-canada-which-its-founder-hides/

5. Promoting diversity, equity and inclusion within our organizations and in the societies we serve

In order to uphold the ideals of pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness that underpin democratic societies, the signatories commit to more accurately reflecting the diverse makeup and perspectives of the populations they serve, both in their programming and workforce — while also leading efforts to make their workplace inclusive for everyone.

This presumably means forced diversity. In the West, it means less whites, and in particular, less white men. And that’s pretty twisted, considering how few whites there are in general in the mainstream press.

(a) https://canucklaw.ca/press-forward-anti-white-independent-media-controlled-and-funded-by-the-establishment/
(b) https://canucklaw.ca/hirebipoc-replacing-whites-in-the-media-industry-all-at-taxpayer-expense/

In any event, it’s great news knowing that the CBC and some other outlets have signed the Brussels Declaration. It’s so relieving to know that strong, independent media will continue for the years to come.

Sarcasm aside, it doesn’t appear that the Public Media Alliance, the Global Task Force, or any of these groups actually care about having an independent media. This seems more like an effort to protect their dominance, while ignoring the assault on true reporters.

(1) https://www.publicmediaalliance.org/
(2) https://www.publicmediaalliance.org/global-task-force/
(3) https://www.publicmediaalliance.org/about-us/what-is-psm/
(4) https://www.publicmediaalliance.org/about-us/what-is-psm/content/
(5) https://www.publicmediaalliance.org/brussels-declaration-pma-joins-public-media-and-international-organisations-to-call-for-journalist-safety-and-media-freedom/
(6) https://brusselsdeclaration2021.com/
(7) https://brusselsdeclaration2021.com/declaration
(8) https://canucklaw.ca/journalism-trust-initiative-trusted-news-initiative-project-origin-the-trust-project/
(9) https://canucklaw.ca/coalition-for-content-provenance-and-authenticity-c2pa-project-origin-content-authenticity-initiative/
(10) https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/covid-misinformation-disinformation-law-1.5532325
(11) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Jr_rkzzr2Q
(12) https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaaction/about/annual-reports

Indemnified Manufacturers: Adam v. GlaxoSmithKline Inc., 2019 ONSC 7066 (CanLII)

This will be a short article, and briefly cover one case: Adam v. GlaxoSmithKline Inc., 2019 ONSC 7066 (CanLII). It dealt with a lawsuit against drug maker, GlaxoSmithKline, and whether they were liable for their products. The point is that the ruling very closely parallels what’s happening now.

To sum it up: no one is responsible for maiming or killing people with experimental drugs. The buck gets passed and passed, so no one has to face it.

Of course, this is of no comfort to people who have lost loved ones. It’s sickening to see that the rules are stacked against the average person.

[17] In the summer of 2009, the WHO called for manufacturers to begin clinical trials for a vaccine to combat H1N1.

[18] GSK developed two vaccines to combat H1N1: Arepanrix and Pandemrix. Both are substantially similar. Pandemrix was manufactured and distributed in Europe. Arepanrix was manufactured and distributed in Canada. Clinical trials for Arepanrix began in 2008 but had not been completed when the pandemic was declared.

[19] The federal Minister of Health authorized the sale of the Arepanrix vaccine pursuant to an interim order dated October 13, 2009. Human trials of the vaccine were still underway. The Minister of Health is empowered to make interim orders if immediate action is required because of a danger to health, safety or the environment. In issuing the interim order, Health Canada deemed the risk profile of Arepanrix to be favourable for an interim order. The authorization was based on the risk caused by the current pandemic threat and its danger to human health. As part of the interim order process, Health Canada agreed to indemnify GSK for any claims brought against it in relation to the administration of the Arepanrix vaccine.

[20] Although human trials of Arepanrix were not finished by the time Health Canada authorized its use, the vaccine was not without clinical history.

The point of this: GlaxoSmithKline was indemnified from any liabilities that their “interim authorized” vaccines might have led to. Guess they don’t really stand behind their work. Does any of this sound familiar?

Does the lack of transparency also sound familiar?

[35] The plaintiffs began their challenge about disclosure with the evidence of Ms. Hyacenth who testified that she was not told that: (i) the vaccine had not been tested through the usual route, (ii) the vaccine had been subject to a hastened approval process by Health Canada, (iii) adjuvants had never been used in children, (iv) the Government of Canada was indemnifying the vaccine manufacturer; and (v) some countries refused to make the vaccine available because of safety concerns. Ms. Hyacenth says that had she been told about these things she would not have risked having her children vaccinated.

[36] Part of the challenge of the plaintiffs’ inadequate disclosure case is that Ms. Hyacenth was not the direct purchaser of the vaccine. Vaccines are administered through a “learned intermediary,” in this case, her family physician. The issue is significant because any disclosures GSK makes are made in product monographs or inserts that accompany each vial of vaccine. The patient getting the vaccine does not receive the box containing the vaccine and whatever disclosure document it contains. It is the physician who receives this.

[37] GSK did disclose in its Product Information Leaflet for the Arepanrix vaccine and in its product monograph that Health Canada had authorized the sale of the vaccine based on only limited clinical testing and no clinical experience at all with children. Dr. Ledesma-Cadhit believes she knew this from the Health Canada website. She was also aware that Arepanrix was authorized through a special process because of the pandemic.

[38] The product monograph for Arepanrix disclosed that there was limited clinical experience with an investigational formulation of another adjuvanted vaccine but no clinical experience with children. In addition, the product information leaflet and product monograph disclosed a number of risks.

[39] Ms. Hyacenth says that Dr. Ledesma-Cadhit did not advise her of these risks. Although Dr. Ledesma-Cadhit was originally a defendant in the action, the plaintiffs released her from the action after being unable to find an expert who would opine that Dr. Ledesma-Cadhit breached her standard of care in administering the vaccine.

It gets interesting since there is in fact no agreement between the drug manufacturer and the patient. By this logic, GlaxoSmithKline wouldn’t be liable even without the indemnification agreement.

Even worse, the “learned intermediary”, the physician, isn’t really responsible either, since they were just following the advice of Health Canada. Remember, it doesn’t matter what your doctors are saying, because they are not responsible for whatever happens to you.

As for Government Officials (such as the Health Minister), they aren’t responsible either. As long as they claim these decisions are made for the good of society, they are pretty much untouchable as well.

Read the entire decision. The case is enlightening, for a few different reasons. If you think you have recourse if a loved one dies or gets seriously injured, think again.

(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2019/2019onsc7066/2019onsc7066.html
(2) Adam V GlaxoSmithKline 2019 ONSC 7066

More FOI Requests From Nova Scotia, Trying To Get Answers On This “Pandemic”

Our friend in Nova Scotia is back at it again, digging up dirt and information about the tyranny of Robert Strang. Here are some of the latest finds. Previously, there was the hospitalization scam debunked, and the lack of data for masks in schools.

For a nearly 2,000 page compilation of documents (although a lot is redacted), have a good read through this file. Unfortunately, due to a variety of reasons (such as privilege or public policy), a lot is not disclosed.

Included in the disclosure is this little gem from CADTH and Health Canada. Worth a read.

Looking below at some of these definitions, these are identical to what is released by the World Health Organization. See page 3. Additionally, their “case definition” is certainly worth a look. This is Orwellian Newspeak, with very misleading usage. Also worth noting, if the vaccine kills you, but does so in under 14 days, you are considered “unvaccinated”.

Deceased case
 A probable or confirmed COVID-19 case whose death resulted from a clinically compatible illness, unless there is a clear alternative cause of death identified (e.g., trauma, poisoning, drug overdose).
 A Medical Officer of Health, relevant public health authority, or coroner may use their discretion when determining if a death was due to COVID-19, and their judgement will supersede the above-mentioned criteria.
 A death due to COVID-19 may be attributed when COVID-19 is the cause of death or is a contributing factor.

Confirmed case
A person with confirmation of infection with SARS-CoV-2 documented by:
 The detection of at least 1 specific gene target by a validated laboratory-based nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) assay (e.g. real-time PCR or nucleic acid sequencing) performed at a community, hospital, or reference laboratory (the National Microbiology Laboratory or a provincial public health laboratory)
 The detection of at least 1 specific gene target by a validated point-of-care (POC) NAAT that has been deemed acceptable to provide a final result (i.e. does not require confirmatory testing)
 Seroconversion or diagnostic rise (at least 4-fold or greater from baseline) in viral specific antibody titre in serum or plasma using a validated laboratory-based serological assay for SARSCoV-2

Notice that at no time do they ever say that they are testing for a virus.

According to other definitions:
Unvaccinated: Individuals meeting the national confirmed case definition of COVID-19 and having illness onset:
<14 days post first dose of any COVID-19 vaccine
After having received 0 doses of any COVID-19 vaccine
Partially vaccinated: Individuals meeting the national confirmed case definition of COVID-19 and have illness
≥14 days post first dose of any COVID-19 vaccine or <14 days post second dose of any COVID-19 vaccine Fully vaccinated: Individuals meeting the national confirmed case definition of COVID-19 and have illness onset: ≥14 days post second dose of any COVID-19 vaccine

Anyhow, thank you to the committed people who try to bring out the truth. Your work is sincerely appreciated, even by the silent masses. What’s disturbing is just how little truth is shared by our “leaders”.

If you think this issue is limited to Nova Scotia, please check out Ontario and Alberta.

And while you’re at it, go visit Fluoride Free Peel.

(1) https://canucklaw.ca/nova-scotia-foi-response-tacitly-admits-there-is-no-wave-of-hospitalizations/
(2) https://canucklaw.ca/nova-scotia-foi-result-province-refuses-to-turn-over-data-studies-justifying-masks-in-schools/
(3) Nova Scotia Package Response Redacted
(4) CADTH Implementation Panel Jan 14 2021
(5) Nova Scotia FOI Document Dump_compressed
(6) https://www.who.int/classifications/icd/Guidelines_Cause_of_Death_COVID-19.pdf
(7) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/WHO-Case-Definition-Guidelines.pdf
(8) https://canucklaw.ca/1-year-later-media-silent-on-christine-elliotts-admission-deaths-with-covid-and-deaths-from-covid-conflated/
(9) https://canucklaw.ca/cv-43b-jason-kenney-shrugs-off-potential-90-error-rate-in-pcr-tests/
(10) https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/fois-reveal-that-health-science-institutions-around-the-world-have-no-record-of-sars-cov-2-isolation-purification/

Facedrive/Microsoft Partner For TraceSCAN Distribution (Wearable Contact Tracing Equipment)

A company called Facedrive has gotten together with the University of Waterloo to create a wearable device to aid in contact tracing. Now that it appears to be operational, it’s ready to sell in collaboration with Microsoft. You remember Microsoft, they helped launched ID2020 back in 2016. Their ex-CEO, Bill Gates, wants to vaccinate the planet.

[Facedrive] is pleased to announce that its contact-tracing platform TraceSCAN has achieved co-sell ready status on the Microsoft Partner Network. Achieving ‘co-sell ready’ status will provide Facedrive TraceSCAN with a significant scaling opportunity by gaining access to Microsoft global customer and partner base. Furthermore, ‘co-sell ready’ status will enable Facedrive and Microsoft teams to collaborate globally on promoting TraceSCAN as a holistic connected health solution powered by Microsoft Azure technology stack. Specifically, Microsoft sales and consulting teams will be able to offer TraceSCAN contact-tracing to their corporate customers as an integrated feature within the enterprise business applications powered by Microsoft products. The greater choice and flexibility provided by being part of the Microsoft Partner’s Network will provide Facedrive TraceSCAN customers with a richer set of options in implementing their contact tracing programs.

It seems that a business deal with Microsoft has been in the works for a while. Considering Gates’ many ties to globalism and this “pandemic”, associations with his former company are worth careful scrutiny.

July 2020, Microsoft announced that TraceSCAN wearables would be available, but distribution would be limited to partners only, for now. This was a sort of soft launch for the product. In September, commercial distribution of the the tracking units started.

December 2020, TraceSCAN received Federal certification from Innovation, Science and Economic Development of Canada (ISED). This used to be known as Industry Canada.

Facedrive appears to incorporate Artificial Intelligence (or AI) into its platform. The company claims that this will assist in forecasting the spread of COVID-19 and predicting any further outbreaks of the virus. In a sense, this device on your wrist would be used to help drive new modelling to make predictions for further lockdowns and martial law.

The AI algorithms will help detect of infected individuals that have not been in direct contact with a positive case but might have been a 2nd or 3rd-degree contact. As with everything, the devil’s in the details, and we would have to know what assumptions and calculations are being made.

The creepiness factor keeps going from there. TraceSCAN’s contact tracing wearables are also a means to track and trace children (even very young children) in their daily movements. Of course, this is being sold as safety and security.

Facedrive itself explains in broad strokes how their technology would work. This amounts to putting a GPS tracker on your wrist, and having your movements and medical conditions tracked. At the same time, this could be done to hundreds, or thousands of other people. This isn’t quite microchipping the cattle, but it’s getting pretty close.

What can this technology be used for? Facedrive gives a list of possibilities:

  • Secure access to facilities
  • Linking to existing services
  • Time tracking
  • Attendance notification
  • Immunization passport
  • Remote monitoring of health metrics

Have to admire how blunt this company is about being able to repurpose their product for more general purposes. At least they don’t lie like the politicians claiming that these trackers will only be limited to this so-called pandemic.

Even back in July 2020, the Ontario Government announced support for this company. As with most things in politics, the magic handshake is needed to get results. From the Provincial database, we are able to see who’s been pulling Ford’s strings this time.

With a quick visit to the Ontario Lobbying Registry, we can see that Facedrive has been active in recent months, using connected lobbyists to get the Government interested in their technology. And it may have helped this company secure a $2.5 million payment from Toronto.

It’s worth a reminder that Microsoft and the Ontario Ministry of Health are both part of the Vaccine Credential Initiative.

VCI is working to enable individuals vaccinated for COVID-19 to access their vaccination records in a secure, verifiable and privacy-preserving way. The Coalition is developing a standard model for organizations administering COVID-19 vaccines to make credentials available in an accessible, interoperable, digital format. empower consumers to conveniently access, store, and share digital COVID-19 vaccination records

Ontario is working towards both a contact tracing system which far expands any legitimate use, and a universal vaccine certification. Anyone remember when this was just 2 weeks to flatten the curve?

Now, who were the people behind the scenes, pulling the strings of Doug Ford? It should surprise no one that the lobbyists involved have ties to the Conservatives both in Ontario, and Federally.

Stephanie Dunlop was involved in both of Erin O’Toole’s runs for the CPC leadership (2017 and 2020). She was also the Candidate Support Lead for the PC Party in 2018. This helped install Doug Ford as Premier of Ontario.

James Lin worked in the Government of Doug Ford, before going over to Hill + Knowlton. He was in the Ministry of Transportation, as a Policy Director. Additionally, he was an Advisor in the Ministry of Tourism, Culture & Sport. He was also involved in the Toronto City Council when Rob and Doug Ford were there. February 2021, she lobbied the Manitoba Government of Brian Pallister over the same contact-tracing platform.

Laura Grossman spent 5 years working for the Government of Canada during the Harper reign.

Also worth noting, Natalie Sigalet, a Senior Account Director at the lobbying firm, Hill + Knowlton, has reached out to the Alberta Government of Jason Kenney. She worked in the Office of the Premier of Alberta when Allison Redford was in charge. Presumably, she’s still pretty connected.

Looking at the Federal Registry, Facedrive is listed there several times. Interestingly, in their 2020 registrations, they list no Government (taxpayer) funding in 2019. However, there is expected to be some coming up from Finance Canada and the Ontario Centre of Excellence. This appears to reference the $2.5 million secured from Ford.

In what should surprise no one, Facedrive has been receiving CEWS, the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy. Makes sense, as they are very much invested in promoting the pandemic narrative.

In the Azure Marketplace, Microsoft outlines the main goals of this product:
[1] Case Investigation
[2] Contact Tracing
[3] Contact Support
[4] Self Quarantine

Now all of this may sound harmless enough, especially since the self-quarantine is recommended. However, what happens when it becomes mandatory, and wearing this device isn’t a choice? Also, who will be monitoring this system, and what teeth will there be?

This system is just a few short steps away from becoming a Government run chipping and monitoring system. While this may sound hyperbolic, consider where we were even a year ago.

From the looks of things, Microsoft will be used as a hosting platform for which Facedrive is able to launch its product on a much larger scale. However, MS is also eligible to sell units of TraceSCAN under the terms of the arrangement with Facedrive. Of course, that leads to all kinds of privacy and security issues, including who will have access to this data.

And a serious question: what happens if the hosting or management of this system (or part of it) gets sold or outsourced to someone else? What privacy considerations will there be?

Just looking at the products and services offered by Azure, it includes: AI, analytics, blockchain and mixed reality. For people who value any semblance of bodily autonomy and privacy, this needs to be seriously looked into before ever signing on.

And no, this isn’t something new. Even in April 2020, the early days of this psy-op, Microsoft had partnered with the University of Washington. How strange that tracking people was their immediate response.

(1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KX_vdNM33Ug&
(2) https://id2020.org/alliance
(3) https://health.facedrive.com/
(4) https://health.facedrive.com/press-release/facedrives-tracescan-achieves-co-sell-ready-status-with-microsoft/
(5) https://health.facedrive.com/press-release/facedrives-tracescan-wearables-app-now-available-on-microsoft-store-for-partners/
(6) https://health.facedrive.com/press-release/tracescan-starts-shipping-wearable-devices/
(7) https://health.facedrive.com/press-release/facedrive-healths-contact-tracing-technology-tracescan-secures-federal-certification-from-innovation-science-and-economic-development-of-canada-ised/
(8) https://health.facedrive.com/how-it-works/
(9) https://health.facedrive.com/tracescan-ai-platform/
(10) https://health.facedrive.com/school-industry/
(11) https://twitter.com/FacedriveHealth
(12) https://health.facedrive.com/press-release/facedrives-covid-19-tracescan-app-receives-support-of-ontario-government/
(13) https://canucklaw.ca/vaccine-credential-initiative-passports-digital-health-passes-ontario-ford/
(14) http://lobbyist.oico.on.ca/Pages/Public/PublicSearch/Default.aspx
(15) https://www.linkedin.com/in/stephdunlop/
(16) https://registry.lobbyistregistrar.mb.ca/lra/reporting/public/registrar/view.do?method=get&registrationId=414590
(17) https://www.linkedin.com/in/jameslin16/
(18) https://www.linkedin.com/in/laura-grosman-7331a28b/
(19) Facedrive Registration Alberta Sheila Wisniewski
(20) https://www.linkedin.com/in/natalie-sigalet-83b5556a/
(21) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=367466&regId=904875
(22) https://apps.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/hacc/cews/srch/pub/bscSrch
(23) https://query.prod.cms.rt.microsoft.com/cms/api/am/binary/RWIzL5
(24) Azure Marketplace Facedrive TraceSCAN
(25) https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/services/
(26) https://www.geekwire.com/2020/uw-microsoft-release-contact-tracing-app-aiming-battle-covid-19-preserving-privacy/

WHO Paper On Vaccine Passport Implementation & Specifications Funded By Gates, Rockefeller

Despite the claim of “VACCINE PASSPORTS” being dismissed as a lunatic conspiracy theory in 2020, the World Health Organization has put out its own guidelines for establishing such a system. This issue isn’t just being discussed, but has been studied and written about. Here is the paper they just released. It covers technical specifications and implementation guidance.

Then again, WHO published a paper on MANDATORY VACCINATION back in April 2021, despite repeatedly saying that such predictions were conspiracy theories. Absurdly, WHO admits these so-called vaccines only have emergency use authorization, but were still open to the idea of making them compulsory.

Reading through this paper, disturbing, yet unsurprising things emerge.

Page v: Contributors to this paper are named. These include: Beth Newcombe (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada); Maxwell J Smith (University of Toronto); Stephen Wilson (Lockstep Group); Beverly Knight (ISO TC215 Health Informatics Canadian Mirror Committee); all members and observers of the Smart Vaccination Certificate
Working Group.

Lockstep Group is an interesting name, considering that this “pandemic” is heavily based on the Lockstep Narrative that was laid out a decade ago. Of course, that document came from none other than the Rockefeller Foundation.

And a WHO operative working at the University of Toronto? Who would ever have seen that one coming? It’s not like Rockefeller was a major donor to that school, or was heavily involved in starting up the public health industry.

Page vi: For starters, the funders of this project are listed very briefly. “This work was funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Government of Estonia, Fondation Botnar, the State of Kuwait, and the Rockefeller Foundation. The views of the funding bodies have not influenced the content of this document.”

This work was funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Government of Estonia, Fondation Botnar, the State of Kuwait, and the Rockefeller Foundation. The views of the funding bodies have not influenced the content of this document.

Then again, GAVI (which Gates finances), Microsoft (which Gates used to run), and the Rockefeller Foundation all contributed to the launch of ID2020, a global digital identification initiative. This was started back in 2016. But connecting the obvious dots is probably a conspiracy theory.

Microsoft is also a partner (along with the Ontario Ministry of Health), of the Vaccine Credential Initiative. But again, nothing to see here.

As for Fondation Botnar: it claims to: “champion the use of AI and digital technology to improve the health and wellbeing of children and young people in growing urban environments around the world. We do this by supporting research, catalysing diverse partners, and investing in scalable solutions.” Not that there would be a business angle here, or anything.

Page xiv: Not too long ago, there was heavy criticism when it was predicted that vaccination would become a requirement for work, education, or international travel? Instead, those uses, are explicitly suggested by WHO as places to implement them.

The primary target audience of this document is national authorities tasked with creating or overseeing the development of a digital vaccination certificate solution for COVID-19. The document may also be useful to government partners such as local businesses, international organizations, non-governmental organizations and trade associations, that may be required to support Member States in developing or deploying a DDCC:VS solution.

Page 2, Section 1.2: This isn’t just some academic piece or philosophical musings. The authors of this paper fully intend for this to be used by Governments. Furthermore, businesses and trade organizations will be expected to help out in the support of this. We would have a few of those, right? See here and here for some examples.

Page 5, Section 1.5: Remember those International Health Regulations, which Governments insist are not legally binding? Turns out they actually are, and formed part of the basis for this guidance document. Also, the 2005 Quarantine Act was in fact based on anticipated rules of the 3rd Edition WHO-IHR, which came out that year.

Also, those papers which comes as a result of those emergency meetings (8 so far) are binding on countries as well. They are instructions — or at least guidelines — for how to run internal affairs.

As with any digital solution, there are ethical considerations, such as potential impacts on equity and on equitable access, and data protection principles that need to inform the design of the technical specifications, as well as provide guidance on how resulting solutions can be ethically implemented. The following sections discuss some key ethical considerations and data protection principles that Member States are encouraged to – and, where they have legal obligations, must – include in their respective deployments of any DDCC:VS. These ethical considerations and data protection principles have also informed the design criteria for a DDCC:VS outlined in the following section

Page 6, Chapter 2: We start getting into the ethical issues at this point. Strangely, there doesn’t seem to be any mention that these “vaccines” are only authorized by a continued emergency status. Also, there is apparently no moral dilemma over policies that amount to coercion.

While COVID-19 vaccines may eventually be widely accessible, current global distribution is inequitable and there are populations that vaccination programmes may struggle to reach due to, for example, geography, terrain, transient or nomadic movement, war and conflict, or illegal or insecure residency status. These hard-to-reach populations (e.g. refugees, asylum seekers, internally displaced persons) are disproportionately less likely to have an opportunity to be vaccinated and obtain a DDCC:VS.

Page 8, Section 2.1.1: Although there seems to be no concern with coercion of unproven injections onto the general public, they are concerned about people being in the country illegally. Now, this is not because this is morally wrong, but since it will make such people harder to reach.

Chapter 2 goes on and on about privacy of information, but intentionally omits mentioning how wrong it is to pressure people into taking these concoctions in the first place. WHO seems to be very partial and selective about what issues are worth considering. And no, this topic hasn’t been “settled” or anything of the sort.

Chapters 3 through 6 go into considerable detail about technical requirements for how to implement such a system, and how to ensure everyone getting injected has a record of it. The particulars are beyond the scope of this review, but yes, they are building national (and most likely international) databases of vaccinations.

Chapter 7 goes into national considerations, and how countries can implement systems that each other can trust. Apparently, a central authority is to be trusted to maintain and update these records. It also addresses the revocation of vaccination status, not that it will ever be abused.

Chapter 8 gets into short and long term goals. Score another one for the conspiracy nuts, but WHO talks about how this system, once fully implemented, could be used for OTHER health records and databases. It’s almost as if this was meant as some sort of bait-and-switch.

  • SHORT-TERM DDCC:VS SOLUTION: Deploy a short-term DDCC:VS solution to address the immediate need of the pandemic that includes a clearly established end date and a roadmap towards discontinuing the DDCC:VS solution once COVID-19 is no longer considered a Public Health Emergency of International Concern under the IHR.
  • LONG-TERM DDCC:VS SOLUTION: Deploy a DDCC:VS solution to address the immediate needs of the pandemic but also to build digital health infrastructure that can be a foundation for digital vaccination certificates beyond COVID-19 (e.g. digital home-based records for childhood immunizations) and support other digital health initiatives.

Page 60: The references used are listed. It’s worth mentioning that the first few have to do with people making counterfeit records. This seems designed to push the narrative that such things are unreliable, and that only a digital system can be run.

Page 60: Reference #13 stands out. It is actually a paper published in 2015, concerning home-based vaccination records as a way to advance immunizations, particularly for children. Now, this was mainly manual (not digital) at the time, but now we are in the next generation.

Page 63: the paper outlines an example of what a digital pass would look like. A QR code would be visible, but inside, there would be the personal information about what shots the person had. Interesting that it’s referred to as a National Vaccine Card. That was something else previously dismissed as a tin-foil hat ranting.

Back in December 2020, the WHO put out a call for nominations for “experts” for the Smart Vaccination Certificate technical specifications and standards of an incoming vaccine passport system. In an Orwellian twist, these passports (or digital passes, or whatever name one wants) are framed as a sort of human rights issue. Even as the WHO and their puppets are reassuring people that these “movement licenses” are a fantasy, they are recruiting people to look at the feasibility.

At what point can it no longer be denied that all of this is very well planned and coordinated?

(1) https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/343361
(2) WHO Vaccine Passport Specifications Guidelines
(3) https://www.who.int/news-room/articles-detail/world-health-organization-open-call-for-nomination-of-experts-to-contribute-to-the-smart-vaccination-certificate-technical-specifications-and-standards-application-deadline-14-december-2020
(4) https://id2020.org/
(5) https://www.who.int/about/ethics/declarations-of-interest
(6) https://www.who.int/news/item/04-06-2021-revised-scope-and-direction-for-the-smart-vaccination-certificate-and-who-s-role-in-the-global-health-trust-framework
(7) WHO Paper On MANDATORY Vaccination April 13, 2021 (Original)
(8) WHO Paper On MANDATORY Vaccination April 13, 2021 (Copy)
(9) https://www.who.int/news/item/23-01-2020-statement-on-the-meeting-of-the-international-health-regulations-(2005)-emergency-committee-regarding-the-outbreak-of-novel-coronavirus-(2019-ncov)
(10) https://www.who.int/news/item/30-01-2020-statement-on-the-second-meeting-of-the-international-health-regulations-(2005)-emergency-committee-regarding-the-outbreak-of-novel-coronavirus-(2019-ncov)
(11) https://www.who.int/news/item/01-05-2020-statement-on-the-third-meeting-of-the-international-health-regulations-(2005)-emergency-committee-regarding-the-outbreak-of-coronavirus-disease-(covid-19)
(12) https://www.who.int/news/item/01-08-2020-statement-on-the-fourth-meeting-of-the-international-health-regulations-(2005)-emergency-committee-regarding-the-outbreak-of-coronavirus-disease-(covid-19)
(13) https://www.who.int/news/item/30-10-2020-statement-on-the-fifth-meeting-of-the-international-health-regulations-(2005)-emergency-committee-regarding-the-coronavirus-disease-(covid-19)-pandemic
(14) https://www.who.int/news/item/15-01-2021-statement-on-the-sixth-meeting-of-the-international-health-regulations-(2005)-emergency-committee-regarding-the-coronavirus-disease-(covid-19)-pandemic
(15) https://www.who.int/news/item/19-04-2021-statement-on-the-seventh-meeting-of-the-international-health-regulations-(2005)-emergency-committee-regarding-the-coronavirus-disease-(covid-19)-pandemic
(16) https://www.who.int/news/item/15-07-2021-statement-on-the-eighth-meeting-of-the-international-health-regulations-(2005)-emergency-committee-regarding-the-coronavirus-disease-(covid-19)-pandemic