Category: UN/WHO

Posted on

CV# 66(6): WHO Policy Paper On MANDATORY “Vaccines”, Admitting They’re Experimental

Less than a year ago, this was decried as a conspiracy theory cooked up by paranoid tinfoil hatters. Now, the World Health Organization is openly discussing policies of MANDATORY injections. And to clarify, all of these gene-replacement “vaccines” are still considered experimental. They are authorized for emergency measures, but are not actually approved.

WHO Paper On MANDATORY Vaccination April 13, 2021 (Original)
WHO Paper On MANDATORY Vaccination April 13, 2021 (Copy)
Section 30.1 Canada Food & Drug Act
September 2020 Interim Order From Patty Hajdu
https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/astrazeneca-covid-19-vaccine-pm-en.pdf
https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/janssen-covid-19-vaccine-pm-en.pdf
https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/covid-19-vaccine-moderna-pm-en.pdf
https://covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/pfizer-biontech-covid-19-vaccine-pm1-en.pdf

Testing Product Insert AstraZeneca Interim Authorization
Testing Product Insert Janssen Interim Authorization
Testing Product Insert Moderna Interim Authorization
Testing Product Insert Pfizer Interim Authorization

Before going any further, it is time to distinguish between 2 completely different ways medical devices and substances can be advanced.

(a) Approved: Health Canada has fully reviewed all the testing, and steps have been done, with the final determination that it can be used for the general population
(b) Interim Authorization: deemed to be “worth the risk” under the circumstances, doesn’t have to be fully tested. Allowed under Section 30.1 of the Canada Food & Drug Act. Commonly referred to as an emergency use authorization.

To be approved means that this thing has been rigorously tested, and has passed all safety measures, and that it has rigorously been examined. This is not what happened here. Instead, these “vaccines” were given interim authorization, because the Government has decided that it’s worth releasing it to the general public, and finishing the testing later. This is allowed under Section 30.1 of the Canada Food & Drug Act, and an Interim Order was signed by Patty Hajdu.

Think this is an exaggeration? Take a look at the paperwork available from Health Canada. Not once do they refer to them as approved. Instead, they are “authorized under an Interim Order”. These are not the same thing, and cannot be used interchangeably. Now, let’s get to the WHO paper.

Vaccines are one of the most effective tools for protecting people against COVID-19. Consequently, with COVID-19 vaccination under way or on the horizon in many countries, some may be considering whether to make COVID-19 vaccination mandatory in order to increase vaccination rates and achieve public health goals and, if so, under what conditions, for whom and in what contexts

Right off the bat, there is no semblance of neutrality. The World Health Organization starts off with the assumption that these are safe and effective. So legitimate concerns about testing, long term side effects, and the necessity of these “vaccines” is minimized.

It is not uncommon for governments and institutions to mandate certain actions or types of behaviour in order to protect the well-being of individuals or communities. Such policies can be ethically justified, as they may be crucial to protect the health and well-being of the public. Nevertheless, because policies that mandate an action or behaviour interfere with individual liberty and autonomy, they should seek to balance communal well-being with individual liberties. While interfering with individual liberty does not in itself make a policy intervention unjustified, such policies raise a number of ethical considerations and concerns and should be justified by advancing another valuable social goal, like protecting public health.
.
This document does not provide a position that endorses or opposes mandatory COVID-19 vaccination. Rather, it identifies important ethical considerations and caveats that should be explicitly evaluated and discussed through ethical analysis by governments and/or institutional policy-makers who may be considering mandates for COVID-19 vaccination.

Interesting. This paper attempts to take a neutral and academic approach towards the idea of forced vaccinations (or gene replacement therapy). How exactly does someone take a neutral stance on forcing millions, or billions, or people to take experimental drugs? Is this really necessary for safety?

How do you balance: (a) your right to self autonomy and control over your own body, and (b) the doomsday predictions of sociopathic politicians, and corrupt scientists?

1. Necessity and proportionality
Mandatory vaccination should be considered only if it is necessary for, and proportionate to, the achievement of an important public health goal (including socioeconomic goals) identified by a legitimate public health authority. If such a public health goal (e.g., herd immunity, protecting the most vulnerable, protecting the capacity of the acute health care system) can be achieved with less coercive or intrusive policy interventions (e.g., public education), a mandate would not be ethically justified, as achieving public health goals with less restriction of individual liberty and autonomy yields a more favourable risk-benefit ratio.
.
As mandates represent a policy option that interferes with individual liberty and autonomy, they should be considered only if they would increase the prevention of significant risks of morbidity and mortality and/or promote significant and unequivocal public health benefits. If important public health objectives cannot be achieved without a mandate – for instance, if a substantial portion of individuals are able but unwilling to be vaccinated and this is likely to result in significant risks of harm – their concerns should be addressed, proactively if possible. If addressing such concerns is ineffective and those concerns remain a barrier to achievement of public health objectives and/or if low vaccination rates in the absence of a mandate put others at significant risk of serious harm, a mandate may be considered “necessary” to achieve public health objectives. In this case, those proposing the mandate should communicate the reasons for the mandate to the affected communities through effective channels and find ways to implement the mandate such that it accommodates the reasonable concerns of communities. Individual liberties should not be challenged for longer than necessary. Policy-makers should therefore frequently re-evaluate the mandate to ensure it remains necessary and proportionate to achieve public health goals. In addition, the necessity of a mandate to achieve public health goals should be evaluated in the context of the possibility that repeated vaccinations may be required as the virus evolves, as this may challenge the possibility of a mandate to realistically achieve intended public health objectives.

Our “leaders” rely on computer modelling and data manipulation in order to drive these predictions. Therefore, the case of necessity can always be skewed. Liberties should not be challenged longer than necessary, yet the only way to achieve it — at some point — is to take experimental drugs.

Not only should we consider mandating these “vaccines”, we should also consider if more and more will be needed to deal with mutations of it.

There’s little to no concern about the long term effects of these “vaccines”. In fact, the authors parrot the talking points that they are safe and effective. The only issue seems to be about making it required if they cannot “educate” the public in sufficient numbers.

2. Sufficient evidence of vaccine safety
.
Data should be available that demonstrate the vaccine being mandated has been found to be safe in the populations for whom the vaccine is to be made mandatory. When safety data are lacking or when they suggest the risks associated with vaccination outweigh the risks of harm without the vaccine, the mandate would not be ethically justified, particularly without allowing for reasonable exceptions (e.g., medical contraindications). Policy-makers should consider specifically whether vaccines authorized for emergency or conditional use meet an evidentiary threshold for safety sufficient for a mandate. In the absence of sufficient evidence of safety, there would be no guarantee that mandating vaccination would achieve the goal of protecting public health. Furthermore, coercive exposure of populations to a potentially harmful product would violate the ethical obligation to protect the public from unnecessary harm when the harm the product might cause outweighs the degree of harm that might exist without the product. Even when the vaccine is considered sufficiently safe, mandatory vaccination should be implemented with no-fault compensation schemes to address any vaccine-related harm that might occur. This is important, as it would be unfair to require people who experience vaccine-related harm to seek legal remedy from harm resulting from a mandatory intervention. Such compensation would depend on countries’ health systems, including the extent of universal health coverage and how they address harm from vaccines that are not fully licensed (e.g., vaccines authorized for emergency or conditional use).
.
3. Sufficient evidence of vaccine efficacy and effectiveness
.
Data on efficacy and effectiveness should be available that show the vaccine is efficacious in the population for whom vaccination is to be mandated and that the vaccine is an effective means of achieving an important public health goal. For instance, if mandatory vaccination is considered necessary to interrupt transmission chains and prevent harm to others, there should be sufficient evidence that the vaccine is efficacious in preventing serious infection and/or transmission. Alternatively, if a mandate is considered necessary to prevent hospitalization and protect the capacity of the acute health care system, there should be sufficient evidence that the vaccine is efficacious in reducing hospitalization. Policy-makers should carefully consider whether vaccines authorized for emergency or conditional use meet evidentiary thresholds for efficacy and effectiveness sufficient for a mandate.

Here we get to the heart of it. The World Health Organization mentions that policy makers might consider a mandate, even if these gene replacement “vaccines” have only emergency or conditional authorization. As mentioned earlier, that is what status the chemicals in Canada have.

Vaccine compensation programs should be established, but that leaves out a key detail. It’s not the drug manufacturers who would be paying for such injuries. It would be funded by the public. Privatized profits, socialized losses.

There’s also the interesting question: if an experimental or emergency use “vaccine” is taken, who actually is responsible for it?

Mandatory COVID-19 vaccination in context
.
Authorized COVID-19 vaccines have been shown to be safe and efficacious in preventing severe disease and death, and it is clear that vaccine supply will continue to increase globally, albeit inequitably. That being said, the nature of the COVID-19 pandemic and evidence on vaccine safety, efficacy, and effectiveness continue to evolve (including with respect to variants of concern). Consequently, the six considerations identified above are described generally so that they can be applied at any point in time and in any context. For illustrative purposes, we now turn our attention to the application of these ethical considerations in three settings for which mandatory vaccination is commonly discussed: for the general public, in schools, and for health workers.

Within this paragraph, it’s stated that authorized vaccines (again, not approved), are safe and efficacious. Then, it immediately claims this will continue to evolve. In other words, these “safety” guarantees are worth nothing.

Conclusions
Vaccines are effective for protecting people from COVID-19. Governments and/or institutional policy-makers should use arguments to encourage voluntary vaccination against COVID-19 before contemplating mandatory vaccination. Efforts should be made to demonstrate the benefit and safety of vaccines for the greatest possible acceptance of vaccination. Stricter regulatory measures should be considered only if these means are not successful. A number of ethical considerations and caveats should be explicitly discussed and addressed through ethical analysis when considering whether mandatory COVID-19 vaccination is an ethically justifiable policy option. Similar to other public health policies, decisions about mandatory vaccination should be supported by the best available evidence and should be made by legitimate public health authorities in a manner that is transparent, fair, non-discriminatory, and involves the input of affected parties.

WHO Paper On MANDATORY Vaccination April 13, 2021 (Original)
WHO Paper On MANDATORY Vaccination April 13, 2021 (Copy)

Use arguments first. Mandate only if that doesn’t work. In other words, if we can’t persuade people to take it willingly, then consider forcing them. Funny how “involves the input of affected parties” gets in there. If these are mandated, then of course input is removed.

Don’t you love it when academic debate what our human rights should be, and what bodily autonomy we should have?

References
1. Nuffield Council on Bioethics. Public health: Ethical issues. London: Nuffield Council on Bioethics; 2007
(https://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/assets/pdfs/Public-health-ethical-issues.pdf).
2. Gravagna K, Becker A, Valeris-Chacin R, Mohammed I, Tambe S, Awan FA et al. Global assessment of national
mandatory vaccination policies and consequences of non-compliance. Vaccine. 2020;38:7865–73.
3. Colgrove J, Bayer R. Manifold restraints: Liberty, public health, and the legacy of Jacobson v Massachusetts. Am J Public
Health. 2005;95:571–6.
4. World Health Organization. COVID-19 virtual press conference 7 December 2020
(https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/covid-19-virtual-press-conference-transcript—7-december-2020).
5. World Health Organization. Interim position paper: Considerations regarding proof of COVID-19 vaccination for
international travellers. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2021 (https://www.who.int/news-room/articles-detail/interim-position-paper-considerations-regarding-proof-of-covid-19-vaccination-for-international-travellers).
6. Walkinshaw E. Mandatory vaccinations: The international landscape. Can Med Assoc J. 2011;183:e1167–8.
7. Gostin LO, Salmon DA, Larson HJ. Mandating COVID-19 vaccines. JAMA. 2020;325:532–3.
8. Halabi S, Heinrich A, Omer S. No-fault compensation for vaccine injury – The other side of equitable access to Covid-19
vaccines. N Engl J Med. 2020;383:e125.
9. Schwartz JL. Evaluating and deploying Covid-19 vaccines – The importance of transparency, scientific integrity, and
public trust. N Engl J Med. 2020;383:1703–5.
10. Shetty P. Experts concerned about vaccination backlash. Lancet. 2020;375:970–1.
11. Giubilini A. Chapter 3, Vaccination policies and the principle of least restrictive alternative: An intervention ladder. In
Giubilini A, The ethics of vaccination. Cham (CH): Palgrave Pivot; 2019.
12. Goldenberg M. Vaccine hesitancy: Public trust, expertise, and the war on science. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh
Press. 2021.
13. Opel DJ, Lo B, Peek ME. Addressing mistrust about COVID-19 vaccines among patients of color. Ann Intern Med.
2021;M21-0055. doi: 10.7326/M21-0055.
14. Colgrove J. Immunization and ethics: Beneficence, coercion, public health, and the state. In: Mastroianni AC, Kahn JP,
Kass NE, editors. The Oxford handbook of public health ethics, New York City (NY): Oxford University Press; 2020:435–
44.
15. Sutton EJ, Upshur REG. Are there different spheres of conscience? J Eval Clin Pract. 2010;16:338–43.
16. Harris J, Holm S. Is there a moral obligation not to infect others? BMJ. 1995;311:1215–7.
17. Gruben V, Siemieniuk RA, McGeer A. Health care workers, mandatory influenza vaccination policies and the law. Can
Med Assoc J. 2014;186:1076–80.
18. Krystal JH. Responding to the hidden pandemic for healthcare workers: Stress. Nat Med. 2020;26:639.
19. Van Buynder PG, Konrad S, Kersteins F, Preston E, Brown PD, Keen D, et al. Healthcare worker influenza immunization
vaccinate or mask policy: Strategies for cost effective implementation and subsequent reductions in staff absenteeism due
to illness. Vaccine. 2015;33:625–8.
20. Caplan A, Shah NR. Managing the human toll caused by seasonal influenza: New York State’s mandate to vaccinate or
mask. JAMA. 2013;310:1797–8.
21. World Health Organization. Mask use in the context of COVID-19 – Interim guidance. Geneva: World Health
Organization; 2020. (https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/advice-on-the-use-of-masks-in-the-community-duringhome-care-and-in-healthcare-settings-in-the-context-of-the-novel-coronavirus-(2019-ncov)-outbreak)

Posted on

Getting Government Certified In Contact Tracing: No Skill Or Patience Required

Do you have an hour to kill? Want to become a government certified contact tracer? Now it’s even easier than ever. No real skill, talent, or hard work required.
https://training-formation.phac-aspc.gc.ca/?lang=en
https://training-formation.phac-aspc.gc.ca/course/
https://training-formation.phac-aspc.gc.ca/course/view.php?id=296

Side note: I notice that several of the questions imply that you may have multiple sexual partners. Almost as if there was some agenda going on.

CONTACT TRACING INTERVIEWING

It turns out that turning in someone who’s here illegally is actually the wrong answer. One would think that border enforcement is a serious topic, but the Public Health Agency of Canada doesn’t see it that way.

SUPPLEMENTAL TRAINING

The supplemental sections did cram a lot of social justice nonsense into it, such as privilege and oppression. However, we have to power through it (or just keep hitting skip), in order to get move on.

The public health section has a lot of history lessons, but very little useful information. Yes, this entire article has basically just been trolling, but it wasn’t that painful.

Posted on

Who Is Ontario Deputy Medical Officer Barbara Yaffe?

The now infamous clip of Barbara Yaffe telling Ontario that these testing methods can result in 50% false positives. Amazingly, she has never faced real scrutiny from this.

It’s interesting how little information is available on Yaffe, considering she has been in a position of power for years. In some ways, this looks like another Theresa Tam.

https://www.linkedin.com/in/barbara-yaffe-b5395111/
https://archive.is/eaKt7
https://doctors.cpso.on.ca/DoctorDetails/Barbara-Ann-Yaffe/0026394-31217
https://opengovca.com/ontario-employee/Yaffe,_Barbara
https://mds.servicerating.ca/office/p-a-rostas-medicine-professional-corporation
https://academic.oup.com/pch/article/5/6/319/2655770?login=true
Canadian Journal Of Public Health
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa032111
https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/62/2/139/2462731?login=true
https://www.dlsph.utoronto.ca/faculty-profile/yaffe-barbara/
https://www.dlsph.utoronto.ca/faculty-profile/de-villa-eileen/
https://www.dlsph.utoronto.ca/faculty-profile/moloughney-brent/
CIHR Grants To Conduct Modelling, Other Research (2020)
Ottawa Announcing Grants For CV-19 Research
UofT “Modellers” Getting More Taxpayer Money (2021)
April 17, 2020 Memo To Ontario Doctors
National Collaborating Centre For Infectious Diseases
U of Toronto, McMaster Claim To Have Isolated Covid-19
Fluoride Free Peel On UofT Virus Isolation

Barbara Yaffe is more than just on the “Sunshine List” for Ontario. She’s taking in over $250,000 per year, plus a generous benefits program, courtesy of taxpayers. That’s in addition to the money she gets moonlighting as a Professor for the University of Toronto. For that kind of money, one would hope that the Province is getting a skilled professional. However, her work history isn’t all that impressive.

Yaffe is also part of the NCCID, which aims on implementing aspects of public health into all areas of life. She is a Member, and on the Advisory Board. However, it’s unclear what, if anything, she actually does.

Yaffe is still 1 of 2 registered shareholders of P.A. Rostas Medicine Professional Corporation, which “appears” to be a medical practice set up in 2008, but no information is available about it.

Not only is Yaffe paid quite well, it appears that the entire upper echelon of Ontario Health is making great salaries. Seems none of them have lost jobs, or been forced onto EI or CERB.

Keep in mind, Yaffe blurted out last December that she “only says what they write down for [her]”. This suggests she is little more than a puppet for the political masters. As for her education, she’s a lifer at U of T.

1974 – University of Toronto, General Science
1978 – University of Toronto, Medical Degree
1981 – University of Toronto, Masters of Public Health
1983 – University of Minnesota, Epidemiology (online?)
1984 – University of Toronto, Fellowship in Public Health and Preventative Medicine

That’s from the LinkedIn page. The CPSO profile simply lists medical school in 1978, and a specialty in “Community Medicine” in 1984. Is the LinkedIn page fake? Or is the professional CPSO profile missing information? Anyhow, the “ABOUT” section on LinkedIn states:

I am a public health physician with over 30 years of experience working in local public health in Toronto, Ontario, both as a Medical Officer of Health and as an Associate MOH. My current position is Director of Communicable Disease Control and Associate MOH with Toronto Public Health. My areas of interest include the prevention and control of infectious diseases and emergency preparedness and response, but also much broader areas of public health. My work has increasingly focused on identifying and helping to address the unique needs of our diverse populations and communities – new immigrants/refugees, the homeless, drug users etc. My work involves collaboration with multiple stakeholders (local, provincial and national), advocacy, policy development and program implementation. I am interested in contributing to public health at a national and international level as possible.

If this is to be taken at face value, Yaffe has been a political operative in Ontario for over 30 years. This means she hasn’t actually practiced medicine much, if at all. Yaffe’s talent seems to be in helping write papers on the topic of population control measures. More can be found on Google Scholar. Here are a few of them.

In September 2000, Yaffe co-authored a paper for Oxford Academic that outlined measures should a terrorist attack happen in Canada. If it wasn’t predictive programming, it’s quite the coincidence.

In 2004, Sheela V. Basrur, Barbara Yaffe and Bonnie Henry wrote for the Canadian Journal of Public Health outlining the quarantine, contact tracing and restrictions of movement around SARS.

In 2004, Yaffe co-authored (along with Bonnie Henry) a piece in the New England Journal of Medicine called: Public Health Measures to Control the Spread of the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome during the Outbreak in Toronto.

From the last 2004 SARS paper:

METHODS
We analyzed SARS case, quarantine, and hotline records in relation to control measures. The two phases of the outbreak were compared.
.
CONCLUSIONS
The transmission of SARS in Toronto was limited primarily to hospitals and to households that had had contact with patients. For every case of SARS, health authorities should expect to quarantine up to 100 contacts of the patients and to investigate 8 possible cases. During an outbreak, active in-hospital surveillance for SARS-like illnesses and heightened infection-control measures are essential.
.
QUARANTINE AND CALLS TO THE HOTLINE
During the outbreak, 23,103 contacts were identified as requiring quarantine (Figure 2). Of those in quarantine, 27 (0.1 percent) were issued a legally enforceable quarantine order owing to initial noncompliance. A breakdown of 316,615 calls to the Toronto Public Health SARS hotline is given in Table 1. The most common reason for calling was to discuss potential exposures.

Even back in 2003/2004, these public health officials were discussing and research details and methods related to quarantine and contact tracing. Not that it will ever be abused some day.

Yaffe is also an Associate Professor at the Dalla Lana School of Public Health at the University of Toronto. So is Eileen De Villa, Toronto Medical Health Officer. De Villa has her own backstory, as explained by Stormhaven and Diverge Media. Brent Moloughney is the Associate Medical Officer for Ottawa, and also a Dalla Lana Professor. Notice a trend?

In 2020, at least 9 people at the University of Toronto got grants from the CIHR, Canadian Institutes for Health Research, for Covid-19, some of it to conduct modelling.

  • Roy Gillis of the department of applied psychology and human development at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education: Responding to the stigma, fear, discrimination and misinformation related to the COVID-19 disease outbreak – a novel analyses and intervention for a novel coronavirus
  • Shaf Keshavjee of the department of surgery in the Faculty of Medicine and the University Health Network: Reducing the health-care resource burden from COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2) –Rapid diagnostics to risk-stratify for severity of illness
  • Robert Maunder of the department of psychiatry in the Faculty of Medicine and Sinai Health System: Peer champion support for hospital health-care workers during and after a novel coronavirus outbreak: It’s a marathon, not a sprint
  • Vijaya Kumar Murty of the department of mathematics in the Faculty of Arts & Science and the Fields Institute for Research in Mathematical Sciences: Agent-based and multi-scale mathematical modelling of COVID-19 for assessments of sustained transmission risk and effectiveness of countermeasures
  • James Rini of the departments of biochemistry and molecular genetics in the Faculty of Medicine: Neutralizing antibodies as SARS-CoV-2 therapeutics
  • Simron Singh of the Dalla Lana School of Public Health and the department of medicine in the Faculty of Medicine and Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre: Assessment of cancer patient and caregiver perspective on the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) and the impact on delivery of cancer care at an institution with a confirmed case of COVID-19
  • Darrell Tan of the Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation at the Dalla Lana School of Public Health and department of medicine in the Faculty of Medicine and St. Michael’s Hospital: COVID-19 ring-based prevention trial for undermining spread (CORPUS)
  • Xiaolin Wei of the Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation at the Dalla Lana School of Public Health: Developing integrated guidelines for health-care workers in hospital and primary health-care facilities in response to Covid-19 pandemic in low- and mddle-Income countries (LMICs)
  • Xiao-Yan Wen of the department of physiology in the Faculty of Medicine and St. Michael’s Hospital: Therapeutic development for COVID-19 coronavirus-induced sepsis and ARDS targeting vascular leakage

Even going back to March 2020, Ottawa was handing out money everywhere to conducting research on Covid-19. Overnight, it became a growth industry for researchers looking for work. The grants have continued into 2021.

This is nowhere near exhaustive, and a deeper dive will surely uncover far more grants being doled out.

Even as groups like the CIHR are shelling out money to conduct modelling and “response plans”, they are also funding efforts to convince people that vaccines are safe. A significant conflict of interest.

With lives at stake, and large amounts of taxpayer money, one would think that oversight and review mechanisms would be tighter.

Some of the research went to (at least allegedly) for isolating and purifying Covid-19. In fact, the University of Toronto proudly broadcast that achievement as a marvel of modern science. On March 13, 2020, a prominent article was posted on the University website.

While that sounds great, it doesn’t seem to withstand scrutiny. An organization called Fluoride Free Peel has been looking for proof isolation from all over the world. When presented with a freedom of information request, there were “no records available”. What happened? Was this contracted out to some 3rd party, or was there never any isolation to begin with?

The University of Toronto is receiving large amounts of money in the name of pandemic research. Barbara Yaffe (and Eileen De Villa), are both Faculty Members at U of T. At the same time, both are Medical Officers, with De Villa in Toronto, and Yaffe Provincially. They are able (at least in theory) to use their positions of power to prolong the narrative and keep and “pandemic bucks” going.

Last Spring, Health Minister Christine Elliott openly admitted that death “with the virus” are being conflated with deaths “from the virus”. The counting system is at best dysfunctional, and at worse, fruadulent. Moreover, Toronto Public Health made a similar admission and nothing came of it.

It really does go past the point of being absent minded. These medical experts have to be deliberately ignoring what is in front of their faces. More likely, they are fully complicit in perpetuating a hoax.

Yaffe seems to offer nothing productive about this “pandemic”, and only pushes continued medical tyranny. She’s never practiced as a doctor (unless it’s well hidden) and just writes papers and lectures at University of Toronto. Nor has she shown any interest in the myriad of legitimate concerns related to human rights violations. She simply acts to give Ford’s Government a cloak of legitimacy.

After all, she just says whatever they write down for her.

Posted on

Journalism Trust Initiative; Trusted News Initiative; Project Origin; The Trust Project

Having an open, independent and free media is essential to any functioning society. However, that is not the case here. Groups like the “Journalism Trust Initiative” sounds like something that might have been concocted in the Soviet Union. But no, it’s operational within the free world.

1. Important Links

(1) https://jti-rsf.org/en/
(2) https://jti-rsf.org/en/about
(3) RSF Sues Facebook, Claims Too LITTLE Censorship
(4) https://archive.is/A6847
(5) https://www.bbc.com/mediacentre/2020/trusted-news-initiative-vaccine-disinformation
(6) https://www.originproject.info/
(7) https://id2020.org/
(8) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdTTl-C4PTM
(9) https://firstdraftnews.org/latest/fake‐news‐complicated
(10) https://contentauthenticity.org
(11) https://www.partnershiponai.org
(12) https://www.partnershiponai.org/ai‐and‐media‐integrity‐steering‐committee
(13) https://www.wired.com/story/deepfakes‐getting‐better‐theyre‐easy‐spot
(14) https://arxiv.org/abs/2001.07886
(15) https://thetrustproject.org/
(16) https://thetrustproject.org/#indicators
(17) https://www.poynter.org/reporting-editing/2015/today-in-media-history-in-1947-the-press-reported-on-the-hutchins-commission-report/
(18) https://www.cbc.ca/news/editorsblog/editor-blog-trust-1.5936535
(19) https://cbc.radio-canada.ca/en/impact-and-accountability/local-news-directory

2. “News Trust” Groups To Investigate

There is something Orwellian or dystopian about organizations that have to stress so frequently that they are trustworthy sources. These are groups which are supposed to be doing this in journalism.

  • Journalism Trust Initiative
    1. Reporters Without Borders (RSF)
    2. European Broadcasting Union (EBU)
    3. Agence France Presse (AFP)
  • Trusted News Initiative
  • Project Origin
    1. British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC)
    2. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC)
    3. Radio-Canada
    4. Microsoft
    5. New York Times
  • The Trust Project
    1. Sally Lehrman
    2. Microsoft Defending Democracy Program
    3. The Peg and Rick Young Foundation
    4. the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation
    5. Trustworthy Journalism Initiative of Craig Newmark Philanthropies
    6. Bing
    7. Facebook
    8. Google

Who can forget the Q-Anon saying to “trust the plan”? After all, there was supposed to be some secret army ready to take out the Deep State, and put all of the pedophiles in jail. Also, “Operation Trust” was a scheme in the 1920s to keep the Communists in power in the Soviet Union, by letting people think there was a plot already underway.

This may seem crazy, but perhaps these “trust” groups operate in much the same way, and to achieve essentially the same purpose of deflating resistance to the current power structure.

There is another thread that runs through these NGOs. They all oppose what they call “misinformation” surrounding legitimate questions of this “pandemic”. Each one supports the official narrative.

3. Who’s Behind Journalism Trust Initiative

  • Reporters Without Borders (RSF) in partnership with:
  • European Broadcasting Union (EBU)
  • Agence France Presse (AFP)

Reporters Without Borders, the European Broadcasting Union, and Agence France Presse are the 3 main groups behind the Journalism Trust Initiative. That being said, their organization has grown considerably since the founding in 1985.

Here is a list of selected participants in the development stage of the JTI Standard included, in alphabetical order. Note: these names came directly from their website.

  • All-Russia State Television and Radio Broadcasting Company (VGTRK, Russia)
  • Associated Press (USA)
  • Association of Taiwanese Journalists (Taiwan)
  • Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni (AGCOM, Italy)
  • BBC (UK)
  • City University of New York (CUNY, USA)
  • Civil (USA)
  • Deutsche Presse Agentur (dpa, Germany)
  • Ethical Journalism Network (EJN)
  • European Association for the Co-ordination of Consumer Representation in Standardisation (ANEC)
  • Facebook (USA)
  • Fondation Hirondelle (Switzerland)
  • Free Press Unlimited (FPU, the Netherlands)
  • Gazeta Wyborcza (Poland)
  • Global Disinformation Index (GDI)
  • Google (USA)
  • The Independent Monitor for the Press (IMPRESS, UK)
  • Internews (UK)
  • Journalists Association of South Korea (JAK, South Korea)
  • NewsGuard (USA)
  • Norsk Rikskringkasting (NRK, Norway)
  • RTL Group (Luxembourg)
  • Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ, USA)
  • Swiss Press Council (Switzerland)
  • Tagesspiegel (Germany)
  • Tamedia (Switzerland)
  • Thomson Foundation (UK)
  • TT Nyhetsbyrån (Sweden)
  • World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
  • United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)

Some of these names should immediately stand out, such as Facebook, Google and UNESCO. Yes, 3 of the most powerful organizations are involved in this. As for the 3 behind JTI:

(a) Founded in 1985, Reporters Without Borders (RSF) became one of the world’s leading NGOs in the defence and promotion of freedom of information. RSF is registered in France as a non- profit organization based in Paris, with consultative status at the United Nations, UNESCO, the Council of Europe and the International Organization of the Francophonie (OIF). Our foreign sections, bureaux in ten cities, and a network of correspondents in 130 countries….

(b) The European Broadcasting Union (EBU) is the world’s foremost alliance of public service media (PSM). Our mission is to make PSM indispensable. We represent 117 media organizations in 56 countries in Europe, the Middle East and Africa; and have an additional 34 Associates in Asia, Africa, Australasia and the Americas. Our Members operate nearly 2,000 television and radio channels alongside numerous online platforms….

(c) Founded in 1835, Agence France-Presse (AFP) is the third largest international news agency in the world delivering fast, accurate, in-depth coverage of the events shaping our world, from conflicts to politics, economics, sports, entertainment and the latest breakthroughs in health, science and technology.

That is how they describe themselves. While there is nothing wrong with people in the industry collaborating, the concern comes when viewpoint diversity is stifled. Legitimate debate and contrary points of view can simply be disregarded.

We live in an era of the grand de-enlightenment.
.
On the Internet, algorithms tend to amplify the extremes – sensationalism, rumours, hate and falsehoods. Opinion and beliefs trump facts. The rule-makers in big-tech are not accountable to anyone. The rules of the game are in- transparent and change all the time.
.
On this rocky, tilting and ever turning playing field, journalism is unfairly disadvantaged, losing reputation, reach and revenues – which renders it even less competitive.
.
That logic needs to be reversed. Democracy dies without a fact-based discourse.

Everything in this section sounds entirely reasonable, and valid. The internet does tend to promote fake news and sensationalized nonsense over real journalism. And true, democracy is dead without a fact based discourse. However, what this group finds acceptable does not match with many others.

4. RSF Sues Facebook, Too LITTLE Censoring

This Complaint, filed in France, should terrify people. Reporters Without Borders is upset that Facebook isn’t doing enough to censor so-called misinformation on its platform. To repeat: the allegation is that Facebook SHOULD DO MORE to censor people spreading different views on the so-called pandemic.

Facebook has been notorious for its revised Terms of Service, and deplatforming, but that apparently wasn’t enough. RSF is taking action against a member of its own group.

Note: the Complaint itself doesn’t seem to be posted. RSF has been contacted for a copy of it.

For an example of how extensively Facebook already censors, consider this: Kevin Chan of Facebook Canada bragged to Canadian politicians that over 16 million pieces of “misinformation” had already been removed. But that apparently isn’t good enough.

5. Trusted News Initiative (TNI)

The Trusted News Initiative (TNI) was set up last year to protect audiences and users from disinformation, particularly around moments of jeopardy, such as elections. The TNI complements existing programmes partners have in place.
.
The partners currently within the TNI are: AP, AFP; BBC, CBC/Radio-Canada, European Broadcasting Union (EBU), Facebook, Financial Times, First Draft, Google/YouTube, The Hindu, Microsoft , Reuters, Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, Twitter, The Washington Post.
.
The TNI cooperative framework has been jointly developed amongst partners, and relates to only the most serious disinformation, which threatens life or the integrity of the electoral process. This is entirely separate from and does not in any way affect the editorial stance of any partner organisation.

At least we’re getting some honesty here. The Trusted News Initiative was set up primarily to counter “misinformation” of a serious nature. It specifically cites elections and this “pandemic”.

Although not explicitly stated, having these groups band together in such a way would be quite effective at censoring legitimate information. Of course, it would always be passed of as an emergency.

A cynic might wonder if Trump intentionally went on about election conspiracy theories in order to help justify the collusion of these “independent” media outlets. Perhaps this is reaching, but it would explain a lot.

Interestingly, although not surprisingly, Facebook and Google are both part of the Trusted News Initiative.

6. Project Origin — Microsoft A Partner

Project Origin was established to provide a platform for collaboration and discussion among a set of partners on the creation and adoption of a new media provenance tracking process, aimed initially at news and information content. At scale, this process could encompass traditional publishing (electronic and print), information technology, social media and consumer software. We are planning for a multiparty stakeholder, cross-organisational collaboration around combating disinformation.

Positive authentication of the provenance of legitimate news stories will help by making it easier to identify manipulated and synthetic audiovisual content. The Origin process is conceptually designed to work with text, video, images and audio content.

The Origin collaborators have agreed to develop a framework for an engineering approach, initially focusing on video, images, and audio. We hope this work could be helpful in developing a global standard for establishing content integrity.

CBC/Radio-Canada, the British Broadcasting Corporation and Microsoft are working together with what is called “Project Origin“. The stated goal is to be able to find the origin and background of news that is making its way onto public domains.

Never mind that Microsoft is heavily involved in ID2020, or that the BBC receives regular financing from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Forget about Gates’ ties to the pharmaceutical industry. Surely, this organization is about promoting truth and accuracy in media.

Project Origin offers a more technical way of finding the sources, such as tracing the image, or similar word patterns, or seeing where else it has been published. Consider it a form of cyber-sleuthing for content flagged as “misinformation”.

Media Provenance Countering Synthetic Media

SOURCES:
1. C. Wardle, “Fake news. It’s complicated”, First Draft, Feb. 2017. Available at:
https://firstdraftnews.org/latest/fake‐news‐complicated.
2. “Setting the industry standard for digital content attribution”, The Content Authenticity Initiative, 2019.
Available at: https://contentauthenticity.org.
3. The Partnership on AI. Available at: https://www.partnershiponai.org.
4. “AI and Media Integrity Steering Committee”, The Partnership on AI, 2019. Available at:
https://www.partnershiponai.org/ai‐and‐media‐integrity‐steering‐committee.
5. G. Barber, “Deepfakes Are Getting Better”, WIRED Magazine, May 2019. Available at
https://www.wired.com/story/deepfakes‐getting‐better‐theyre‐easy‐spot.
6. “News Provenance Project”, New York Times, 2018. Available at:
https://www.newsprovenanceproject.com/resources.
7. P. England et. al., “AMP: Authentication of Media via Provenance”, arXiv:2001.07886, Jan. 2020.
Available at https://arxiv.org/abs/2001.07886.
8. M Russinovich e.t al., “CCF: A Framework for Building Confidential Verifiable Replicated Services”,
Microsoft Research Technical Report MSR‐TR‐2019‐16, Apr. 2019. Available at
https://www.microsoft.com/en‐us/research/publication/ccf‐a‐framework‐for‐building‐confidential‐verifiable‐replicated‐services.

Project Origin does post a research paper going into extensive detail about how such a system may be organized. It would incorporate AI into it, flagging content deemed suspicious. How the metadata is actually used is explained in considerable deta in video as well.

7. The Trust Project, Social Media Grouping

The Trust Project is an organization of some 200 media outlets which conform to certain preset standards of journalism. The propagation and promotion of the their work across social media in influenced by Bing, Facebook and Google. Among the Canadian members are:

  • CBC
  • CTV
  • Globe & Mail
  • The Canadian Press
  • Toronto Star

The Trust Project does have its 8 Trust Indicators listings, and they are quite good. The problem is that these organizations don’t practice what they preach in terms of differing views. Specifically, contradictory information on this “pandemic” narrative are censored, and otherwise smeared as conspiracy theories.

At least on paper, there is nothing objectionable about this NGO. The issues arise when their behaviour in practice is considered.

The Trust Project references the 1947 Hitchens Commission to base this on. The report claims that democracy is in danger if there isn’t a free media, and that control in the hands of too few people is a danger. Instead of reading this as a warning, it appears to have become a roadmap, given how much media collusion we now have.

These trust groups function like a modern day Mockingbird Media. It really is one group that controls nearly everything.

8. CBC’s Efforts To “Rebuild Trust”

About a month ago, CBC, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, published an article that stated trust in it was waning. It emphasized that efforts were being undertaken to rebuild that trust, and went into significant detail.

  • CBC News is a member of the Journalism Trust Initiative (JTI), an effort to establish globally recognized standards of trustworthiness in news, led by Journalists without Borders, the European Broadcasting Union and Agence France-Presse. As part of a recent pilot, we submitted a 70-page questionnaire on our practices for an independent review and hope to share the results in the near future.
  • CBC/Radio-Canada has been a member of the Trusted News Initiative (TNI) since its inception in 2019. The TNI brings together global news organizations and tech platforms to combat disinformation. It created a real-time, early warning system to flag serious disinformation that may pose a threat to life or the integrity of the electoral process. It has been activated for the general elections in the U.K., Taiwan, Myanmar and the U.S., as well as the COVID-19 pandemic. The TNI will host a Trust in News conference later this month.
  • CBC/Radio-Canada has joined with the BBC, the New York Times and Microsoft in support of an effort to develop Project Origin, an open standard for confirming the authenticity of content from trusted sources to fight “deep fake” video news generated by artificial intelligence. This is a new application of established technology to digitally verify the authenticity of our news content when it appears on other online platforms.
  • CBC News is part of the Trust Project, an international partnership with tech and media companies to increase transparency and accuracy in online news. CBC policies on transparent labels, corrections, bylines and links to our JSP on our digital pages have become a model for other partners in the project.

While there are some legitimate steps in the article that CBC can take, it seems strange to partner up with so many other groups, such as the ones listed above. It takes away from the independence (or even the illusion of independence), to be so tightly interwoven with these “trust” groups.

CBC does have its own “directory” of trusted news groups, which seems Orwellian. Part of Canadians’ tax dollars are going towards creating a database of outlets that will not stray from permitted narratives.

9. Media, Social Media, Influence And Subsidies

CBC claims it wants to improve the trust it has among Canadians. However, it doesn’t raise any eyebrows when something like this happens: Dominic LeBlanc openly suggesting passing laws to combat “misinformation”. Since there is ideological alignment, this chilling statement goes largely unchallenged.

It seems that outlets like CBC wish to “appear” to be trustworthy, but have no interest in conducting themselves in ways that genuinely foster trust. How bad is the media bias?

(1) Unifor, Media, In Bed With Gov’t, $595M
(2) True North Canada A Fake Charity, Subsidized By Public
(3) Government Subsidizes Postmedia To Ensure Positive Coverage
(4) Aberdeen Publishing Takes Handouts, Ignores Real Issues
(5) More Periodicals Taking Grants, Parroting Gov’t Narrative
(6) Subsidized Fact-Check Outlets Run By Political Operatives
(7) Groups Funded By Tax Dollars To Combat “Misinformation”
(8) Even More Subsidies Canadian Outlets Are Dependent On
(9) DisinfoWatch Has Ties To Atlas Network/Koch, Liberal Party
(10) Media, Banks, CU, Getting CDA Emergency Wage Subsidies
(11) Advertising And Marketing In Promoting “Pandemic” Narrative
(12) NSERC/SSHRC/CIHR Grants In “Confidence”; Mandatory Vaxx
(13) Bill C-10; Open Collusion Between Ottawa, Social Media
(14) Facebook; Kevin Chan; Peter Donolo; Rachel Curran; Erin O’Toole

The unfortunate reality is that there are many legitimate reasons to not trust the media in Canada, and elsewhere. Coming together in these groups does little to conceal the lack of genuine interest in journalism. While it’s true that professionals so have to sell to make a living, it shouldn’t come at the expense of their integrity.

Posted on

CV #40(D): Kevin Chan, Facebook, Peter Donolo, Rachel Curran, Ottawa Colluding On “Pandemic” Narrative

Kevin Chan, the head of Facebook Canada, had a public meeting with members of the Canadian Government on March 31, 2021. The main topic of discussion was on how Facebook can be used as a tool to help promote the pandemic psy-op. At this point, they aren’t even bothering to hide the fact that they’re all working together.

1. Meeting With Public Health Officials

Chan brags about how effective Facebook has been at censoring opinions and information that contradict the ever changing official narrative. He claims that 16,000,000 pieces of “misinformation” have been removed for violating these terms of service. The entire event is publicly available. They don’t pretend to hide it, although they never really did.

in fact, even back in October (see 3:50), the Federal Government admitted in a very straightforward manner that it worked with social media outlets. This was to remove certain material, or at least manipulate the algorithm to such a degree it could not easily be found.

2. Important Links

facebook.com/facebookappCanada/videos/4191036604275048/
Kevin Chan, Office Of Lobbying Commissioner
Facebook Grants, Part 1
Facebook Grants, Part 2
Facebook Announces $8 Million In Spending
https://www.linkedin.com/in/kevin-chan-m-s-m-5a13b140/
https://archive.is/Ngbtb
https://www.linkedin.com/in/peter-donolo-b71244101/
Open Society “Global Member”, Michael Ignatieff
https://archive.is/qpIJ1
https://archive.is/DXsbT
Ottawa Funded Projects Against Disinformation
https://archive.is/VS3Fm
CIVIX Funding From Federal Government
https://civix.ca/who-we-are/
https://archive.is/qBJtQ
https://jhr.ca/about/the-team
https://archive.is/fppXt
https://jhr.ca/our-work/canada-combatting-misinformaton
https://archive.is/Tlhsb
https://disinfowatch.org/database/
https://archive.is/wfJxb
https://www.linkedin.com/in/chadrogerscrestviewstrategy/
https://archive.is/sDwy2
https://www.linkedin.com/in/rachel-curran-a99258109/
https://archive.is/kxqBE
Erin O’Toole Promotes “War Footing” In Canada
Erin O’Toole, Facebook Lobbyist
https://archive.is/CNa4I

3. Kevin Chan & Facebook Canada

Information about Kevin Chan‘s time in Public Office can be obtained by searching Facebook with the Lobbying Registry of Canada. From 2004 to 2009, he worked in the Privy Council Office, going as high as becoming Director. He was also in the Office of the Official Opposition from 2009-2011, when Michael Ignatieff and the Liberals would have held that spot. He also spent more than a year in the Privacy Commissioner’s Office. The following year, he joined Facebook Canada, and has been there that spot ever since.

These lobbying targets should raise red flags. Chan worked for the Privy Council for years, and went pretty far. Now he lobbies them. And while he worked for the Office of the Official Opposition from 2009 to 2011, some of those same people would now be in the Prime Minister’s Office. After all, there was a change in Government, at least on paper.

The Canadian public has indirectly been subsidizing Facebook for a number of years. One way is by giving out money to other companies to purchase ad space. See here and here. And the intrigue grows still.

Facebook Inc. pledged Friday to spend $8 million to support news publishing in Canada, just days before a senior executive is to appear in Ottawa to face questions from MPs on matters including compensation of traditional media companies for news displayed on the tech giant’s platform.

Kevin Chan, head of public policy for Facebook Canada, is expected to be grilled by members of the standing committee on Canadian heritage about why Facebook controversially pulled news off its platform in Australia last month as that country was putting the finishing touches on legislation to guarantee publishers would be compensated for featured news.

Last week, Chan pledged $8 million to support news publishing in Canada. Would that not create a financial dependency on Facebook.

There were also questions surrounding the Facebook in Australia pulling news off its platform altogether. Interesting, that if things become “unworkable”, certain information can simply be removed.

4. Peter Donolo: LPC Political Operative

Peter Donolo has been a political operative for Liberals for a very long time. He was in the Office of the Official Opposition for Jean Chretien. When Chretien took power, Donolo went to the PMO. He was back in the Office of the Official Opposition for Michael Ignatieff, and worked Provincially with the Kathleen Wynne Liberals in Ontario. He has also as a marketer and lobbyist in the private sector.

As an aside, after losing badly in the 2011 Federal Election, Ignatieff went to work for George Soros and the Open Society. He is currently a Global Board Member.

What’s disturbing is the recent proliferation of taxpayer funded groups whose stated purpose is to “combat misinformation”. It creates an inherent conflict of interest, particularly when political hacks are running them. It comes across as providing cover for colleagues.

GROUP YEAR AMOUNT
Agence Science-Presse 2019-2020 $129,345
Apathy is Boring 2018-2019 $100,000
Apathy is Boring 2019-2020 $340,000
Boys and Girls Clubs of Canada 2019-2020 $460,000
Canadian News Media Association 2019-2020 $484,300
CIVIX 2018-2019 $275,000
CIVIX 2019-2020 $400,000
Encounters with Canada 2018-2019 $100,000
Quebec Professional Journalists 2019-2020 $202,570
Global Vision 2019-2020 $260,000
Historica Canada 2019-2020 $250,000
Institute for Canadian Citizenship 2019-2020 $250,000
Journalists for Human Rights 2019-2020 $250,691
Journalists for Human Rights July 14, 2020 $1,479,856
Magazines Canada 2019-2020 $63,000
McGill University 2019-2020 $1,196,205
MediaSmarts 2019-2020 $650,000
New Canadian Media 2019-2020 $66,517
Ryerson University 2019-2020 $290,250
Samara Centre for Democracy 2019-2020 $59,200
Sask Weekly Newspapers Ass’n 2019-2020 $70,055
Simon Fraser University 2019-2020 $175,000
Vubble Inc. Unboxed project 2019-2020 $299,000

As addressed in an earlier piece, numerous groups are getting handouts from the Federal Government — or rather, taxpayers — to act as fact-checkers. Problem is that the media and fact checkers are supposed to act as a counter balance to Government. Here, we have Government Operatives like Donolo running the show. Huge conflict of interest.

Peter Donolo is on the Board of CIVIX, as is Rachel Curran of Facebook. They are involved in pushing their version of democracy in Canada.

Donolo is also a Director at JHR, Journalists for Human Rights. Chad Rogers is as well, and he also works for Crestview Strategy, a lobbying firm hired by GAVI, and co-founded by Rob Silver. JHR’s mission includes providing services to combat “misinformation” around the coronavirus.

More grants from the Federal Government can be found HERE. CIVIX has gotten funding for years.

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

Donolo’s LinkedIn page leaves out his ties to CIVIX and Journalists for Human Rights (JHR). How strange.

Donolo indirectly runs a group called “Disinfowatch“. This is another self proclaimed fact checking group, controlled by Journalists for Human Rights, and the Koch-funded MacDonald-Laurier Institute.

5. Rachel Curran: Facebook, Harper Operative

Rachel Curran worked in the Prime Minister’s Office when Harper was in power. She also is a Board Member at CIVIX along with Peter Donolo. She also works for Facebook Canada. She has previously been a CBC pundit and a professional lobbyist at Wellington Advocacy. What an interesting career this has been.

While working in the PMO, Curran was frequently lobbied by many different special interest groups.

For more background on the collusion between politics, the media, and “fact-checkers”, check out this other piece on the subject.

6. Erin O’Toole: CPC, Ex-Facebook Lobbyist

Now, Chan and Donolo have ties to the Liberal Party of Canada, but what about the Conservative Party? Will they step in and raise meaningful questions?

Prior to getting into politics, Erin O’Toole worked for the (now defunct) law firm, Heenan Blaikie. Its former partners include Pierre Trudeau and Jean Chretien. O’Toole also engaged in lobbying on behalf of Facebook, something not discussed during the recent CPC leadership campaign. And while campaigning, he openly called for a “war footing“, and emergency measures.

As a side note: Roy Heenan, co-Founder of Heenan Blaikie, used to be the Head of the Trudeau Foundation.

7. Media Influence And Subsidies

(1) Unifor, Media, In Bed With Gov’t, $595M
(2) Government Subsidizes Media To Ensure Positive Coverage
(3) Aberdeen Publishing Takes Handouts, Ignores Real Issues
(4) More Periodicals Taking Grants, Parroting Gov’t Narrative
(5) Subsidized Fact-Check Outlets Run By Political Operatives
(6) Groups Funded By Tax Dollars To Combat “Misinformation”
(7) Even More Subsidies Canadian Outlets Are Dependent On
(8) DisinfoWatch Has Ties To Atlas Network/Koch, Liberal Party
(9) Media, Banks, CU, Getting CDA Emergency Wage Subsidies (CEWS)
(10) Advertising And Marketing In Promoting “Pandemic” Narrative
(11) NSERC/SSHRC/CIHR Grants In “Confidence”; Mandatory Vaxx

Just a thought, but perhaps the media and social media outlets in Canada aren’t all that fair and unbiased. Just putting that out there. Maybe those “pandemic bucks” go a long way towards ensuring cooperation.

Posted on

CV #62(F): International — Or Global — Treaty For Pandemic Preparedness And Response Proposed

About 2 dozen world leaders have agreed, at least in principle, of setting up an international treaty to “deal with future pandemics”. Presumably, this would ultimately result in a World Government of sorts that could act in sweeping ways. But of course, it would all be done in the name of public health.

1. Important Links

https://www.who.int/news-room/commentaries/detail/op-ed—covid-19-shows-why-united-action-is-needed-for-more-robust-international-health-architecture
https://archive.is/pMWzw

(62.1) WHO International Health Regulations Legally Binding
(62.2) A Look At International Health Regulation Statements
(62.3) Quarantine Act Actually Written By WHO, IHR Changes
(62.4) Prov. Health Acts, Domestic Implementation Of WHO-IHR
(62.5) Prov. Health Acts, Domestic Implementation Of WHO-IHR, Part II

2. Text Of Letter Agreed By National Leaders

The COVID-19 pandemic is the biggest challenge to the global community since the 1940s. At that time, following the devastation of two world wars, political leaders came together to forge the multilateral system. The aims were clear: to bring countries together, to dispel the temptations of isolationism and nationalism, and to address the challenges that could only be achieved together in the spirit of solidarity and cooperation, namely peace, prosperity, health and security.

Today, we hold the same hope that as we fight to overcome the COVID-19 pandemic together, we can build a more robust international health architecture that will protect future generations. There will be other pandemics and other major health emergencies. No single government or multilateral agency can address this threat alone. The question is not if, but when. Together, we must be better prepared to predict, prevent, detect, assess and effectively respond to pandemics in a highly coordinated fashion. The COVID-19 pandemic has been a stark and painful reminder that nobody is safe until everyone is safe.

We are, therefore, committed to ensuring universal and equitable access to safe, efficacious and affordable vaccines, medicines and diagnostics for this and future pandemics. Immunization is a global public good and we will need to be able to develop, manufacture and deploy vaccines as quickly as possible.

This is why the Access to COVID-19 Tools Accelerator (ACT-A) was set up in order to promote equal access to tests, treatments and vaccines and support health systems across the globe. ACT-A has delivered on many aspects but equitable access is not achieved yet. There is more we can do to promote global access.

To that end, we believe that nations should work together towards a new international treaty for pandemic preparedness and response.

Such a renewed collective commitment would be a milestone in stepping up pandemic preparedness at the highest political level. It would be rooted in the constitution of the World Health Organization, drawing in other relevant organizations key to this endeavour, in support of the principle of health for all. Existing global health instruments, especially the International Health Regulations, would underpin such a treaty, ensuring a firm and tested foundation on which we can build and improve.

The main goal of this treaty would be to foster an all-of-government and all-of-society approach, strengthening national, regional and global capacities and resilience to future pandemics. This includes greatly enhancing international cooperation to improve, for example, alert systems, data-sharing, research, and local, regional and global production and distribution of medical and public health counter measures, such as vaccines, medicines, diagnostics and personal protective equipment.

It would also include recognition of a “One Health” approach that connects the health of humans, animals and our planet. And such a treaty should lead to more mutual accountability and shared responsibility, transparency and cooperation within the international system and with its rules and norms.

To achieve this, we will work with Heads of State and governments globally and all stakeholders, including civil society and the private sector. We are convinced that it is our responsibility, as leaders of nations and international institutions, to ensure that the world learns the lessons of the COVID-19 pandemic.

At a time when COVID-19 has exploited our weaknesses and divisions, we must seize this opportunity and come together as a global community for peaceful cooperation that extends beyond this crisis. Building our capacities and systems to do this will take time and require a sustained political, financial and societal commitment over many years.

Our solidarity in ensuring that the world is better prepared will be our legacy that protects our children and grandchildren and minimizes the impact of future pandemics on our economies and our societies.

Pandemic preparedness needs global leadership for a global health system fit for this millennium. To make this commitment a reality, we must be guided by solidarity, fairness, transparency, inclusiveness and equity.

Still think those “International Health Regulations” aren’t legally binding? Wrong, they will be used as the basis for asserting even more control. And it’s already largely done.

From the way things are going, it seems extremely unlikely that there will be any sort of referendum or democratic mandate to legitimize such a thing nationally.

When they say “coming together globally”, what does that really mean? Will there be a supra-national group to decide what sectors of the economy should be shut down? Will there be misinformation laws to punish or charge people for contradicting the narrative? Will they decide on mandatory vaccinations, or masks? What accountability, if any, will be in place?

3. Who Has Approved, At Least In Principle

  • Edi Rama, Prime Minister of Albania;
  • Sebastián Piñera, President of Chile;
  • Carlos Alvarado Quesada, President of Costa Rica;
  • J. V. Bainimarama, Prime Minister of Fiji;
  • Emmanuel Macron, President of France;
  • Angela Merkel, Chancellor of Germany;
  • Charles Michel, President of the European Council;
  • Kyriakos Mitsotakis, Prime Minister of Greece;
  • Joko Widodo, President of Indonesia;
  • Uhuru Kenyatta, President of Kenya;
  • Moon Jae-in, President of the Republic of Korea;
  • Mark Rutte, Prime Minister of the Netherlands;
  • Erna Solberg, Prime Miniser of Norway;
  • António Luís Santos da Costa, Prime Minister of Portugal;
  • Klaus Iohannis, President of Romania;
  • Paul Kagame, President of Rwanda;
  • Macky Sall, President of Senegal;
  • Aleksandar Vučić, President of Serbia;
  • Cyril Ramaphosa, President of South Africa;
  • Pedro Sánchez, Prime Minister of Spain;
  • Prayut Chan-o-cha, Prime Minister of Thailand;
  • Keith Rowley, Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago;
  • Kais Saied, President of Tunisia;
  • Volodymyr Zelensky, President of Ukraine;
  • Boris Johnson, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom;
  • Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Director-General of the World Health Organization.

Sure, Canada isn’t on that list — yet. However, there is certainly nothing to indicate that we won’t be forced to go along at some point. The people running this country aren’t exactly huge supporters of free speech.

*Disclaimers, Ethics* Proudly powered by WordPress