Category: UN/WHO

Posted on

CV #37(G): No Science Behind Determining A “Variant” Of Coronavirus, Just Make Assumptions

Do we have actual “experts” and “professionals” in charge? Or, are we being ruled by a group of actors being paid to read from a script? More and more, it appears to be the latter. There’s little reason or justification behind a lot of what they do, and no science.

1. Remember: Listen To The “Experts” For Advice

So-called “experts” here and here talk about need for more lockdowns. It’s interesting how many of these interviews are softballs. Instead of pushing hard for a justification, these “journalists” seem content to parrot the talking points. Is there a lockdown or martial law area of expertise in epidemiology? How is it they are all completely on the same page when it comes to imposing restrictions?

Fauci: Just assume these variants are more dangerous. Don’t worry about proof or testing, just guess and make predictions. It’s shocking that anyone still takes this quack seriously, considering how wrong he has been about everything.

When he says (at 0:36) that the Pfizer and Moderna seem to continue to be effective against the mutant strain, what is he basing this on? Was there research and testing, or is he making more assumptions? Likewise, what is the basis of his claims of vaccine efficacy being reduced?

(At 1:22) he talks about modifying and upgrading vaccines. In that case, what is the point of vaccinating everyone now if it will become obsolete at a later point?

Also, never forget: Anthony Fauci was previously on the Scientific Advisory Council in collaboration with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and the World Health Organization.

The so-called “top doctors” in Alberta and British Columbia, Deena Hinshaw and Bonnie Henry, have a great scientific method for determining whether you have a variant. To heck with confirmation sequencing. They say you should just assume you have it.

2. Definitions Of CV Cases And Deaths

2. DEFINITION FOR DEATHS DUE TO COVID-19
A death due to COVID-19 is defined for surveillance purposes as a death resulting from a clinically compatible illness, in a probable or confirmed COVID-19 case, unless there is a clear alternative cause of death that cannot be related to COVID disease (e.g. trauma). There should be no period of complete recovery from COVID-19 between illness and death.
.
A death due to COVID-19 may not be attributed to another disease (e.g. cancer) and should be counted independently of preexisting conditions that are suspected of triggering a severe course of COVID-19

Never mind that the BC Centre for Disease Control admits that these tests can’t determine if it’s actually an infection. Simply finding traces of genetic material (after many amplification cycles) does not in any way mean a disease has been detected.

(a) https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/WHO-2019-nCoV-Surveillance_Case_Definition-2020.2
(b) https://www.who.int/classifications/icd/Guidelines_Cause_of_Death_COVID-19.pdf?ua=1
(c) http://www.bccdc.ca/Health-Professionals-Site/Documents/COVID19_InterpretingTesting_Results_NAT_PCR.pdf

3. Fluoride Free Peel On Virus Isolation

An honourable mention to Fluoride Free Peel, and them filing literally dozens of freedom of information requests. If the “original” virus has never been isolated, how can there be any legitimate assumption that variants have been identified?

4. Lack Of Science Behind What “Experts” Doing

(A) Bonnie Henry Admits No Science In Anything She Does
(B) ARTICLE: Lack Of Real Science In “Global Pandemic”
(1) WHO Supports Mask Use, Admits No Real Evidence
(2) WHO “Still” Recommends Masks Despite Little Evidence
(3) WHO’s Records Show PCR Testing Always Was A Fraud
(4) WHO Distorts On Cases, Deaths, Surveillance Information
(5) WHO Promotes Masks For Children As Young As 6
(6) RT-PCR Tests For A Gene, Not A Virus

If you still think this is all about a virus, and that people are acting in good faith, there is no hope. Fortunately, the readers seem far more skeptical.

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.

Posted on

CCS #6(C): Supreme Court Rules Carbon Tax Constitutional, No Real Opposition From “Conservatives”

The Supreme Court of Canada, in a 6-3 decision, confirmed that the Carbon tax is constitutional. This is not surprising in the slightest, considering there was no real opposition. All parties parroted the sentiments that climate change was an urgent threat that needed dealt with. In short, they agreed with the underlying facts, so there wasn’t much to argue.

The “resistance”, pictured above, did nothing but orchestrate a dog-and-pony show. It duped plenty of people into convincing them that these politicians were actually fighting.

1. Debunking The Climate Change Scam

The entire climate change industry, (and yes, it is an industry) is a hoax perpetrated by the people in power. See the other articles on the scam, the propaganda machine in action, and some of the court documents in Canada. Carbon taxes are just a small part of the picture, and conservatives are intentionally sabotaging their court cases.

2. The Supreme Court Of Canada Ruling

[7] Global climate change is real, and it is clear that human activities are the primary cause. In simple terms, the combustion of fossil fuels releases greenhouse gases (“GHGs”) into the atmosphere, and those gases trap solar energy from the sun’s incoming radiation in the atmosphere instead of allowing it to escape, thereby warming the planet. Carbon dioxide is the most prevalent and recognizable GHG resulting from human activities. Other common GHGs include methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, sulfur hexafluoride and nitrogen trifluoride.

[8] At appropriate levels, GHGs are beneficial, keeping temperatures around the world at levels at which humans, animals, plants and marine life can live in balance. And the level of GHGs in the atmosphere has been relatively stable over the last 400,000 years. Since the 1950s, however, the concentrations of GHGs in the atmosphere have increased at an alarming rate, and they continue to rise. As a result, global surface temperatures have already increased by 1.0°C above pre-industrial levels, and that increase is expected to reach 1.5°C by 2040 if the current rate of warming continues.

This appears to be almost cut and paste directly from Ontario’s Factum during their Provincial challenge.

[9] These temperature increases are significant. As a result of the current warming of 1.0°C, the world is already experiencing more extreme weather, rising sea levels and diminishing Arctic sea ice. Should warming reach or exceed 1.5°C, the world could experience even more extreme consequences, including still higher sea levels and greater loss of Arctic sea ice, a 70 percent or greater global decline of coral reefs, the thawing of permafrost, ecosystem fragility and negative effects on human health, including heat-related and ozone-related morbidity and mortality.

[10] The effects of climate change have been and will be particularly severe and devastating in Canada. Temperatures in this country have risen by 1.7°C since 1948, roughly double the global average rate of increase, and are expected to continue to rise faster than that rate. Canada is also expected to continue to be affected by extreme weather events like floods and forest fires, changes in precipitation levels, degradation of soil and water resources, increased frequency and severity of heat waves, sea level rise, and the spread of potentially life-threatening vector-borne diseases like Lyme disease and West Nile virus.

[11] The Canadian Arctic faces a disproportionately high risk from climate change. There, the average temperature has increased at a rate of nearly three times the global average, and that increase is causing significant reductions in sea ice, accelerated permafrost thaw, the loss of glaciers and other ecosystem impacts. Canada’s coastline, the longest in the world, is also being affected disproportionately by climate change, as it experiences changes in relative sea level and rising water temperatures, as well as increased ocean acidity and loss of sea ice and permafrost. Climate change has also had a particularly serious effect on Indigenous peoples, threatening the ability of Indigenous communities in Canada to sustain themselves and maintain their traditional ways of life.

[12] Climate change has three unique characteristics that are worth noting. First, it has no boundaries; the entire country and entire world are experiencing and will continue to experience its effects. Second, the effects of climate change do not have a direct connection to the source of GHG emissions. Provinces and territories with low GHG emissions can experience effects of climate change that are grossly disproportionate to their individual contributions to Canada’s and the world’s total GHG emissions. In 2016, for example, Alberta, Ontario, Quebec, Saskatchewan and British Columbia accounted for approximately 90.5 percent of Canada’s total GHG emissions, while the approximate percentages were 9.1 percent for the other five provinces and 0.4 percent for the territories. Yet the effects of climate change are and will continue to be experienced across Canada, with heightened impacts in the Canadian Arctic, coastal regions and Indigenous territories. Third, no one province, territory or country can address the issue of climate change on its own. Addressing climate change requires collective national and international action. This is because the harmful effects of GHGs are, by their very nature, not confined by borders.

B. Canada’s Efforts to Address Climate Change
.
[13] Canada’s history of international commitments to address climate change began in 1992 with its ratification of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, U.N. Doc. A/AC.237/18 (Part II)/Add.1, May 15, 1992 (“UNFCCC”). After failing to meet its commitments under multiple UNFCCC agreements, including the Kyoto Protocol, U.N. Doc. FCCC/CP/1997/L.7/Add.1, December 10, 1997, and the Copenhagen Accord, U.N. Doc. FCCC/CP/2009/11/Add.1, December 18, 2009, Canada agreed to the Paris Agreement in 2015. Recognizing that “climate change represents an urgent and potentially irreversible threat to human societies and the planet and thus requires the widest possible cooperation by all countries”, the participating states agreed to hold the global average temperature increase to well below 2.0°C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit that increase to 1.5°C: United Nations, Framework Convention on Climate Change, Report of the Conference of the Parties on its twenty-first session, U.N. Doc. FCCC/CP/2015/10/Add.1, January 29, 2016, at p. 2; Paris Agreement, art. 2(1)(a). Canada ratified the Paris Agreement in 2016, and the agreement entered into force that same year. Canada committed to reducing its GHG emissions by 30 percent below 2005 levels by 2030.

This has been a bipartisan effort, to entangle Canada with more and more UN treaties. Each one erodes more sovereignty.

[14] Under the Paris Agreement, states are free to choose their preferred approaches for meeting their nationally determined contributions. In Canada, the provinces and the federal government agreed to work together in order to meet the country’s international commitments. In March 2016, before Canada had ratified the Paris Agreement, all the First Ministers met in Vancouver and adopted the Vancouver Declaration on clean growth and climate change (“Vancouver Declaration”): Canadian Intergovernmental Conference Secretariat, March 3, 2016 (online). In that declaration, the First Ministers recognized the call in the Paris Agreement for significant reductions in GHG emissions and committed to “[i]mplement[ing] GHG mitigation policies in support of meeting or exceeding Canada’s 2030 target of a 30% reduction below 2005 levels of emissions, including specific provincial and territorial targets and objectives”: ibid, at p. 3. In the Vancouver Declaration, the First Ministers also recognized the importance of a collaborative approach between provincial and territorial governments and the federal government to reducing GHG emissions and noted that “the federal government has committed to ensuring that the provinces and territories have the flexibility to design their own policies to meet emission reductions targets”: ibid.

[15] The Vancouver Declaration resulted in the establishment of a federal-provincial-territorial Working Group on Carbon Pricing Mechanisms (“Working Group”) to study the role of carbon pricing mechanisms in meeting Canada’s emissions reduction targets. The Working Group included at least one representative from each provincial and territorial government as well as the federal government. Its final report identified carbon pricing as one of the most efficient policy approaches for reducing GHG emissions and outlined three carbon pricing options: (1) a single form broad-based carbon pricing mechanism that would apply across Canada, an option that would not be supportive of existing or planned provincial or territorial pricing policies; (2) broad-based carbon pricing mechanisms across Canada, an option that would give each province and territory flexibility as to the choice of instruments; and (3) a range of broad-based carbon pricing mechanisms in some jurisdictions, while the remaining jurisdictions would implement other mechanisms or policies designed to meet GHG emissions reduction targets within their borders: Working Group on Carbon Pricing Mechanisms, Final Report, 2016 (online), at pp. 1, 44-47 and 50.

[16] Carbon pricing, or GHG pricing, is a regulatory mechanism that, in simple terms, puts a price on GHG emissions in order to induce behavioural changes that will lead to widespread reductions in emissions. By putting a price on GHG emissions, governments can incentivize individuals and businesses to change their behaviour so as to make more environmentally sustainable purchasing and consumption choices, to redirect their financial investments, and to reduce their GHG emissions by substituting carbon-intensive goods for low-GHG alternatives. Generally speaking, there are two different approaches to GHG pricing: (1) a carbon tax that entails setting a price on GHG emissions directly, but not setting a cap on emissions; and (2) a cap-and-trade system that prices emissions indirectly by placing a cap on GHG emissions, allocating emission permits to businesses and allowing businesses to buy and sell emission permits from and to other businesses. A carbon tax sets an effective price per unit of GHG emissions. In a cap-and-trade system, the market sets an effective price per unit of GHG emissions, but a cap is placed on permitted emissions. Both approaches put a price on GHG emissions. I also find it worthwhile to note that while “carbon tax” is the term used among policy experts to describe GHG pricing approaches that directly price GHG emissions, it has no connection to the concept of taxation as understood in the constitutional context.

Losing the case at the Supreme Court of Canada was not surprising in the least. At no point during this challenge, or the Saskatchewan, Onatario, or Alberta challenges, so these so-called “conservatives” ever deny that climate change is a threat to humanity. They agree almost word for word with the UN agendas. Since there is no real opposition on the “facts”, the Court is only asked to address the case on narrow legal grounds.

Regarding the 1992 framework on climate change, it’s worth pointing out that “Conservative” Brian Mulroney was in power then, and had a large majority government. He didn’tt have to do this.

Also, the 2009 Copenhagen Accord was signed by “Conservative” Stephen Harper. He also signed Agenda 2030 in September 2015. Had he been reelected the following month, he almost certainly would have signed the Paris Agreement as well.

This is the “opposition” Trudeau had to contend with?

3. CPC Still Supports Climate Scam

Does any of this look like Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe actually opposes the agenda? He is fully on board with it, and just has a disagreement over the best way to proceed. Likewise with the other Premiers.

It’s amusing that Moe complains about being double crossed by Trudeau, as that is exactly what he did to his supporters in Saskatchewan.

4. CPC Still Supports Climate Scam

CPC Policy Declaration, August 2018

UN globalist Erin O’Toole seems to be fully on board with the climate agenda. Even if he were Prime Minister, it seems unlikely he would have done anything differently. The Paris Agreement is all about wealth transfer, and it’s disingenuous to claim otherwise.

Also, take a read through this earlier piece on the various Carbon tax challenges. They were doomed from the start.

Posted on

CV #66(D): Call-In Centers Are Wrongly Telling People “Vaccines” Were Approved

Mass vaccination centers have opened across Canada. The goal is to inject largely untested substances into people, under the pretense of a public health emergency. Now, these aren’t really “vaccines”, but are gene-replacement therapy, and 99% of people don’t need them, but that’s another story. This is to get into the misrepresentation that is going on with the call in centers set up.

1. “Vaccines” Not Health Canada Approved

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

  • 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. Also known as emergency authorization.
  • 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.

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.

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

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.

2. Recordings From Booking Centers

Fraser Health Booking

Interior Health Booking

Island Health Booking

Northern Health Booking

Vancouver Health Booking

Saskatchewan Booking

Manitoba Booking

Ontario Booking

In each inquiry made, the person on the other end conflated “approved” with an “interim or temporary authorization”. Now, it possible — even likely — that they don’t know the difference and are not attempting to deceive. But the result is the same. Average citizens call in, and won’t know the difference.

Pardon the less than stellar quality. Speaker phones aren’t the best for this sort of thing.

The 5 recordings here are from each of the 5 health zones in BC. But surely, this is going on elsewhere as well. People don’t ask the necessary questions.

3. Calls To Various Government Lines

Health Canada

Public Health Agency of Canada (Their # anyway)

811 Phone Support In BC

Manitoba Health Services

The people booking not seem to know. Not only that, various Government bodies apparently don’t have a clue either. Not very reassuring.

4. Trudeau’s Two-Faced Claims

Here, we get the standard answer of “Health Canada tests and insures the safety of all vaccines that are APPROVED”. While this sounds fine on the surface, these were never approved, they were given interim authorization. The Government hopes you won’t know the difference.