Category: Vaccines

Posted on

CV #25: De-Anonymizing The Anonymous Contact Tracing App

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

The rest of the series is here. Many lies, lobbying, conflicts of interest, and various globalist agendas operating behind the scenes. The Gates Foundation finances: the World Health Organization, the Center for Disease Control, GAVI, ID2020, John Hopkins University, Imperial College London, the Pirbright Institute, the British Broadcasting Corporation, and individual pharmaceutical companies. Also: there is little to no science behind what our officials are doing; they promote degenerate behaviour; the Australian Department of Health admits the PCR tests don’t work; the US CDC admits testing is heavily flawed; and The International Health Regulations are legally binding. See here, here, and here.

2. Disclaimer: Limited Personal Knowledge

To start out with a disclaimer, I am hardly any sort of expert on cell phone technology. So this article is written from a more lay perspective. Nonetheless, the announcement of the contact tracing app in Canada opens up a lot of hard questions that need to be answered. Can the Government (or any government) be trusted with this claim, and is it even feasible?

This isn’t meant to be an alarmist piece, but there are very real concerns and doubts about just how confidential all of this will remain. Consider the following.

3. Research Into Re-Identification, 2019

While rich medical, behavioral, and socio-demographic data are key to modern data-driven research, their collection and use raise legitimate privacy concerns. Anonymizing datasets through de-identification and sampling before sharing them has been the main tool used to address those concerns. We here propose a generative copula-based method that can accurately estimate the likelihood of a specific person to be correctly re-identified, even in a heavily incomplete dataset. On 210 populations, our method obtains AUC scores for predicting individual uniqueness ranging from 0.84 to 0.97, with low false-discovery rate. Using our model, we find that 99.98% of Americans would be correctly re-identified in any dataset using 15 demographic attributes. Our results suggest that even heavily sampled anonymized datasets are unlikely to satisfy the modern standards for anonymization set forth by GDPR and seriously challenge the technical and legal adequacy of the de-identification release-and-forget model.

De-identification, the process of anonymizing datasets before sharing them, has been the main paradigm used in research and elsewhere to share data while preserving people’s privacy. Data protection laws worldwide consider anonymous data as not personal data anymore allowing it to be freely used, shared, and sold. Academic journals are, e.g., increasingly requiring authors to make anonymous data available to the research community. While standards for anonymous data vary, modern data protection laws, such as the European General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), consider that each and every person in a dataset has to be protected for the dataset to be considered anonymous. This new higher standard for anonymization is further made clear by the introduction in GDPR of pseudonymous data: data that does not contain obvious identifiers but might be re-identifiable and is therefore within the scope of the law.

This was a research paper released in 2019, before the coronavirus planned-emic hit the world stage. While to long to into depth here, the researchers found and listed many examples of people being able to re-identify people using supposedly anonymized data sets. While original data had many modifiers removed, it was possible to reverse engineer it, and re-establish people’s identities using multiple sets of incomplete data.

Two of the biggest issues in the research were health care data and internet browsing data. They were initially anonymized, but then computers were able to piece together to data and provide names. While not always correct, these techniques were overall very accurate in re-establishing identities.

Research data is widely shared for many purposes. Laws in the West allow for personal information to be shared as long as it is “anonymized” first. However, if that can be undone, then an end run around privacy laws can be accomplished.

Now, this type of bypass of privacy has been underway for a long time. People have to ask whether it will continue (or even escalate), in the face of this so-called pandemic.

4. Governor William Weld’s Medical Info

Re-Identification_of_Welds_Medical_Information

This is an old case, but a good one. Former Massachusetts Governor William Weld was able to have his medical history re-identified from anonymized medical information. How so? State voter rolls provided birth date and zip code information. Being a public figure, people knew quite a bit about him. Even with redacted records, it was possible to piece it together.

But one doesn’t have to be a politician. With the information available from various databases, a computer scientist can easily piece profiles together.

Keep in mind this was done in 1997, and led to HIPPA, new privacy regulations coming into place. However, that was over 20 years ago, and computers have advanced a long way since. Moreover, internet usage has resulted in astronomical amounts of personal information being available online.

Now for some questions about this app.

5. Will The App Really Be Anonymous?

The first thing that people should be asking is whether claims that this app will be anonymous at all. A healthy distrust of the your government is helpful in all cases. Everything they say and promise should be met with some degree of skepticism.

Bear in mind, this is the same government that thought nothing of having Statistics Canada do data mining of over 500,000 Canadians. They then threw StatsCan under the bus when there was public backlash. It was just 2 years ago, and addressed in those articles.

Beyond distrust of the government, a follow-up must be asked. Even if this were anonymous, as advertised, can it be de-anonymized at a later point? Can the app makers use some decryption to identify users? What about other third parties?

How easy will it be to use AI or to combine partial data sets to re-identify people? What happens when the profiles are “Frankenstein-ed” together? Who gets the data? How will it be used, and will we even know?

6. What Qualifies As Contact?

Is passing someone on the street or in the grocery store sufficient to count as “coming in contact” with someone? is a few seconds enough? A minute? 5 minutes? Sure there is more information coming out, but having some standard would be nice. Knowing what the standard is would also help.

7. Positive Test Linked To Phone Number?

There are plenty of issues with the coronavirus testing itself. However, that is a piece for another day. This is about the privacy aspects.

Suppose you test positive for this virus. What happens then? Do you change the settings on your phone, or does the medical staff then insert your phone number or “random number” into a database of people who have tested positive? Is that result then connected to anything and anyplace you go, or that your phone is reported to have a connection to?

8. Lies About Phone Not Geo-Tagging?

There are claims that there will be no geo-tagging, or storing of locations. How exactly does that work though? How can a phone app determine that a user has been close to someone who has tested positive? It’s difficult to believe that phones would just start collecting the random assigned numbers of everyone it has been close to (though possible I guess), but not record any sort of geographical data?

Any sort of mainstream technology that has GPS tracking can find places, people or things, but does so with reference to spots on a map. How could this contact tracing app determine when phones are close to each other, but not have any geographical reference?

It seems possible that this government app could use geographical references, but then not store the data. However, considering outfits like Google are well ahead in tracking movements, it seems strange to develop this app to not record location data.

9. StatsCan Provides Microdata For Free

Unrestricted access to microdata
Statistics Canada offers Public Use Microdata Files (PUMFs) to institutions and individuals. They are non-aggregated data which are carefully modified and then reviewed to ensure that no individual or business is directly or indirectly identified. These can be accessed directly through the Data Liberation Initiative (DLI) or the PUMF Collection for a subscription fee. Individual files can also be requested at no cost.

For reference, a files can be ordered for free. A purchase of $5,000 per year, which gives unlimited access to all of the microdata used by StatCan in its various research and publications. The data is supposed to be anonymized, but one has to ask how easy it would be to piece together individual or businesses, based on this information, plus other available sources.

StatsCan already has plenty of CV-19 research released and available for the public. It isn’t too much of a stretch to think that searching for where people cluster, or amount of time spent in an area is researched.

10. StatsCan’s “Approved Microdata Linkages”

What does Statistics Canada do with your personal information?
.
We use it to its full potential
Whether Statistics Canada received your information directly from you or through a third party such as another government entity, we use it to its full potential. We avoid having to ask the same question more than once so that we can produce relevant, timely and accurate statistics. Linking Canadians’ information from different files enables Statistics Canada to produce more statistics and research, which are in turn used by decision makers. We will only link personal information when its value to the public good outweighs the intrusion of privacy. For example, we can take the answers you gave on a survey and link them to your tax record. The objective is to draw conclusions based on a large sample of the population. More information on all Approved microdata linkages.

StatsCan openly admits that it will combine data from various sources and combine it. So this “anonymizing” is only done AFTER various things are combined, if it even done at all.

Approved microdata linkages
.
The linking of separate records from different sources can be a very useful and cost-efficient technique in the design, production, analysis and evaluation of statistical data. It can lead to important savings in cost, time, and respondent burden, and, in some cases, it may be the only feasible way to obtain important statistical information. When possible, rather than conducting additional surveys, Statistics Canada uses the information that individuals, businesses and institutions have already provided to the Agency or to other government departments for methodological purposes, data enhancement and subject-matter studies. The following is a list of the microdata linkage submissions that have been reviewed and approved in accordance with the Statistics Canada Directive on Microdata Linkage, starting in January 2000. Choose any of the following titles to view a summary:

To be clear, Statistics Canada already has the system of combining various datasets (including information provided by other government agencies, schools, businesses and institutions. In fact, it has gone this for a good 20 years now. Presumably the anonymising is done AFTER this is compiled.

Looking at the approved microdata linking from 2019 (the most recent year), we get:

  • Evaluating the Information Content in the Business Outlook Survey (002-2019)
  • Evaluating the Information Content in the Business Outlook Survey (002-2019)
  • The impact of Intellectual Property on the Canadian Economy (003-2019)
  • The impact of Intellectual Property on the Canadian Economy (003-2019)
  • LASS 2016 to Census 2016, Census 2011 and NHS 2011 Linkage (004-2019)
  • LASS 2016 to Census 2016, Census 2011 and NHS 2011 Linkage (004-2019)
  • Linkage of the National Dose Registry to cancer and mortality outcomes, an update (005-2019)
  • Linkage of the National Dose Registry to cancer and mortality outcomes, an update (005-2019)
  • Municipal Wastewater Systems in Canada (MWSC): Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) Effluent Regulatory Reporting Information System (ERRIS) linkage to Census Data (006-2019)
  • Municipal Wastewater Systems in Canada (MWSC): Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) Effluent Regulatory Reporting Information System (ERRIS) linkage to Census Data (006-2019)
  • Adding Gender to the Corporations Returns Act (CRA) database (007-2019)
  • Adding Gender to the Corporations Returns Act (CRA) database (007-2019)
  • Between and within-firm earnings inequality in Canada (008-2019)
  • Between and within-firm earnings inequality in Canada (008-2019)
  • Indian Register linked to tax data, (Longitudinal Indian Register Database (LIRD)) (009-2019)
  • Indian Register linked to tax data, (Longitudinal Indian Register Database (LIRD)) (009-2019)
  • 2016 Census of Population linkage to income tax files and benefits records to monitor tax filing behaviour and take-up rate of various benefit programs (011-2019)
  • 2016 Census of Population linkage to income tax files and benefits records to monitor tax filing behaviour and take-up rate of various benefit programs (011-2019)
  • Linkage of the 2002 Canadian Community Health Survey – Mental Health and Well-being – Canadian Forces (CCHS-CF) to the 2018 Canadian Armed Forces Members and Veterans Mental Health Follow-up Survey (CAFVMHS) (021-2019)
  • Linkage of the 2002 Canadian Community Health Survey – Mental Health and Well-being – Canadian Forces (CCHS-CF) to the 2018 Canadian Armed Forces Members and Veterans Mental Health Follow-up Survey (CAFVMHS) (021-2019)
  • Socioeconomic and Ethnocultural Disparities in Perinatal Health in Canada: Current Pattern and Changes Over Time (023-2019)
  • Socioeconomic and Ethnocultural Disparities in Perinatal Health in Canada: Current Pattern and Changes Over Time (023-2019)
  • Linkage of the Canadian Housing Survey to historical income information, information on social and affordable housing, measures on proximity to services and measures on income dispersion in communities (024-2019)
  • Linkage of the Canadian Housing Survey to historical income information, information on social and affordable housing, measures on proximity to services and measures on income dispersion in communities (024-2019)
  • Linkage of Labour Force Survey with Longitudinal Workers File (025-2019)
  • Linkage of Labour Force Survey with Longitudinal Workers File (025-2019)
  • The Economic and Environmental Impacts of Voluntary Energy Conservation Programs: Evidence from the Canadian Industry Program for Energy Conservation (026-2019)
  • The Economic and Environmental Impacts of Voluntary Energy Conservation Programs: Evidence from the Canadian Industry Program for Energy Conservation (026-2019)

Since Statistics Canada already incorporates health information and combines various sets of data to make “more complete profiles”, it is clearly possible to add CV tests — both positive and negative as well. While calling for it publicly is political poison, who’s to say it won’t be quietly slipped in at some point?

Remember as well, these profiles are combined, and only then anonymized. However, the more information in the profile, the easier it would be for researchers to reverse engineer the anonymizing techniques to restore identities. In fact, it’s quite possible that the algorithm and techniques will be readily available.

Remember, StatsCan allows people to order individual files for free. It you want a full 1-year subscription, it costs a mere $5,000. If you are interested in real data mining, it’s pocket change.

11. Shopify & Blackberry Develop App

Canada will launch a nationwide contact tracing app using the Apple-Google Exposure Notification framework, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said Thursday.

The Apple-Google Exposure Notification API exited beta in May. It allows public health authorities to build deeply integrated, cross-platform contact tracing apps to track and curb the spread of coronavirus.

The Canadian app was developed by Shopify, BlackBerry and the government of Ontario. As is required by Apple and Google, the app will be completely voluntary, will only store data in a decentralized manner and will be led by the Canadian Digital Service Initiative, iPhoneInCanada reported.

Blackberry and Shopify developed the app for use in Canada. Companies like Google are well known for obtaining huge amounts of data on their users so this is a huge red flag. How do we know there isn’t some sort of back door built into the platform?

By contrast, a few countries, like Norway, have banned such an app, out of privacy concerns.

12. Government Already Compiles The Info

As seen in earlier sections, StatsCan already combines sources to build “more complete” profiles of the people it wants to survey. Even your credit isn’t safe if StatsCan wants it. As for the finished project, the information can be bought, and individual files requested for free. How difficult would it be to take the raw data provided, and cross reference across other social media or other databases? How long until the original names are restored to the profiles?

With all this data compilation, it won’t be difficult to link a positive test to a real name, an address, or a date of birth. The suggestion that all of this will remain completely anonymous flies in the face of what the government and StatsCan do.

It also isn’t much of a stretch to see the “anonymized” results sold or given to third parties to conduct their own research. Stay away from the app would be some good advice. It would be nice to just take at face value the claims that there are no privacy issues. However, that’s very naïve.

Again, this is not meant to send people into a panic, but much more has to be known and discussed to make such an app a real solution, if it is at all.

Posted on

CV #24: Gates Financing Of Imperial College London, And Their Modelling

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

The rest of the series is here. Many lies, lobbying, conflicts of interest, and various globalist agendas operating behind the scenes. The Gates Foundation finances: the World Health Organization, the Center for Disease Control, GAVI, ID2020, John Hopkins University, Imperial College London, the Pirbright Institute, the British Broadcasting Corporation, and individual pharmaceutical companies. Also: there is little to no science behind what our officials are doing; they promote degenerate behaviour; the Australian Department of Health admits the PCR tests don’t work; the US CDC admits testing is heavily flawed; and The International Health Regulations are legally binding. See here, here, and here.

2. Alternate Theory On Models

Epidemiologist Neil Ferguson has (justifiably) taken a lot of criticism for his doomsday computer modelling of how the coronavirus “planned-emic” was supposed to play out.

Considering Ferguson’s laughable failures in other predictions before, people are wondering why anyone still takes this man seriously. That is a fair question to ask.

But consider an alternate theory. Let’s suppose these doomsday scenarios were cooked up on purpose. Perhaps this modelling INTENTIONALLY led to overhyped conclusions and estimates. It wasn’t incompetence, but deliberate.

Why would someone do this? To answer this, think about where Imperial College London gets a good amount of its financing from. There are many vested interests who would stand to make a fortune if countries around the world were desperate for a vaccine. In this scenario, Ferguson’s modelling should not be taken as research, but as a calculated effort at propaganda.

Disclaimer: I don’t have any hard evidence to support such a theory. However, it is interesting that Ferguson’s work is financed by people who would greatly benefit from him reaching a doomsday conclusion. It’s reasonable to assume he would become more cautious after his repeated failure, but he hasn’t.

3. Gates Grants To Imperial College London

This chart was compiled from information posted on the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation website. The following grants are just those provided to Imperial College London. Note: it seems that computer modelling is just one small part of what they do.

DATE AMOUNT PURPOSE
June 2002 $31,928,231 Schistosomiasis Control
July 2002 $30,000,000 HIV Prevention
Jan 2003 $200,000,000 AIDS, Malaria, Other Diseases
July 2005 $12,501,971 Tuberculosis
Oct 2005 $8,636,543 Test CD4+, T-lymphnodes
Nov 2005 $8,600,000 AIDS Testing
June 2006 $9,185,813 Novel Recombinant Adenovirus
Oct 2006 $9,826,566 Health Package in Dev. World
Dec 2006 $46,700,000 Neglected Tropical Diseases
Sept 2007 $3,565,073 Neglected Tropical Dis.
Oct 2007 $47,616 STD, Infections
Oct 2008 $100,000 Prevent TB Replication
Oct 2008 $7,344,583 HIV/AIDS Research
Feb 2009 $7,300,000 HIV/AIDS Research
Feb 2009 $871,544 Collab W/Euro Partners
Sept 2009 $16,529,688 Feeding Prog in Africa
Oct 2009 $100,000 “Homing Factors” As Vax Adjuvants
Oct 2009 $100,000 Enzymes, Malaria Parasites
Nov 2009 $1,200,000 Nutrition Research
Sept 2010 $2,692,835 Euro Agri Development
Oct 2010 $3,044,244 HIV Computer Modelling***
Oct 2010 $1,648,585 Neglected Tropical Disease
Nov 2010 2.7M (pounds) Agricultural Research
Dec 2010 $1,500,000 Disease From Livestock
Apr 2011 $100,000 Polio Vaccine, India
Oct 2011 $100,000 Self-Replicating Biosensor
Oct 2011 $2,724,038 Malaria Blocker Research
May 2012 $3,018,257 Oral Polio Vaccine
Oct 2012 $3,589,972 Malaria Computer Models***
Oct 2012 $1,132,773 HIV, Hormone Contraceptives
June 2013 $5,194,767 HIV, Intervention, Planning
June 2013 $1,397,325 Merger, Computer Modelling***
oct 2013 $1,894,953 Advocacy, EU Donors
Oct 2013 $648,060 Product Development, Misc.
Nov 2013 $772,341 Polio Computer Modelling***
Nov 2013 $2,054,944 DNA Vaccine, HIV
Nov 2013 $582,541 TB Computer Modelling***
Nov 2013 $2,743,052 Health Care Consulting
Sept 2014 $74,433 Information Dissemination
Oct 2014 $36,752 Vaxx Research Meetings
Oct 2014 $98,934 Cell Phones, Meals
Oct 2014 $181,868 Cost Estimates, Vaccines
Apr 2015 $100,000 Meals Or Shoes For Vaxx
May 2015 $249,549 Optical Imaging, Gut Lesions
July 2015 $1,271,423 HIV/AIDS Testing
Nov 2015 $180,000 Child Health, Africa
Dec 2015 $15,558,425 Global Health Care
Apr 2016 $100,000 Vaxx for HIV, mucosal
May 2016 $37,468,960 Stop Malaria Transmission
Nov 2016 $100,000 Malaria Tracing Modelling***
Nov 2016 $5,625,310 Vaxx Computer Modelling***
Nov 2016 $3,752,342 Mosquito Tampering
Nov 2017 $736,222 Malaria Tracking
May 2018 $1,320,030 HIV Prevention
Sept 2018 $505,207 HIV/Reprod Modelling***
Sept 2018 $292,318 Mosquito Sporozoites
Nov 2018 $326,707 TB Computer Modelling***
May 2019 $100,000 Crop Viruses
July 2019 $11,300 Attend Mosquito Summit
Nov 2019 $959,389 Typhoid Surveillance
Mar 2020 $79,006,570 Malaria Control, Africa
May 2020 $52,180 Testing Gene Drives
May 2020 $2,699,443 Degradable Contraceptive Implant
June 2020 $3,375,098 Population Replacement In Genes

As for just the funds directly provided to Imperial College London for computer modelling, these are the donations listed on the site.

DATE AMOUNT PURPOSE
Oct 2010 $3,044,244 HIV Computer Modelling***
Oct 2012 $3,589,972 Malaria Computer Models***
June 2013 $1,397,325 Merger, Computer Modelling***
Nov 2013 $772,341 Polio Computer Modelling***
Nov 2013 $582,541 TB Computer Modelling***
Nov 2016 $100,000 Malaria Tracing Modelling***
Nov 2016 $5,625,310 Vaxx Computer Modelling***
Sept 2018 $505,207 HIV/Reprod Modelling***
Nov 2018 $326,707 TB Computer Modelling***

Yes, the Gates Foundation directly finances a lot of the computer modelling that Imperial College London is involved with. Some $16 million or so directly granted for these computer models.

But do these doomsday models actually work? Are they supposed to? Perhaps not. After all, if they predicted that there weren’t deadly pandemic, then there would be no need to develop a vaccine.

4. From Gates Foundation Tax Records, ICL

BILL & MELINDA GATES FOUNDATION
EIN: 56-2618866
gates.foundation.taxes.2016
gates.foundation.taxes.2017
gates.foundation.taxes.2018

Don’t worry. It’s not like this is any major conflict of interest, or anything like that.

5. Imperial College London Admits Grants

Even a quick look of the website for Imperial College London will show many grants from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

6. GAVI Funded By Gates Foundation

This is probably the most well known link in the chain. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation helped found GAVI, the Global Vaccine Alliance in 1999, and has made regular contributions to it. The foundation essentially runs the show.

The Global Vaccine Alliance, as the name suggests, is an organization devoted to pushing vaccinations on the public all across the world. Bill Gates has long been a proponent of mass vaccinations.

One of (but certainly not the only) lobbyist for the vaccine agenda is a firm called Crestview Strategy. They lobbied the Federal Government on behalf of GAVI, on 20 separate occasions. See Part 4 in the series.

7. Gates/GAVI Issuing Vaccine Bonds

(Information on what the International Finance Facility for Immunization, or IFFIm, really is and does)

This was covered in Part 18 of the series. Vaccine bonds are now a real thing, and GAVI is involved in running the operation. Of course, the bonds market would completely dry up if there weren’t a pandemic to deal with. Pretty convenient.

8. Gates Influence In Pharma Industry

BILL & MELINDA GATES FOUNDATION
EIN: 56-2618866
gates.foundation.taxes.2016
gates.foundation.taxes.2017
gates.foundation.taxes.2018

BILL & MELINDA GATES FOUNDATION TRUST
EIN: 91-1663695
gates.foundation.trust.taxes.2018

Company Type Of Stock Shares Total Value
Eli Lilly Corp Bonds – $952,265
Gilead Sciences Common 21,250 $1,329,188
Gilead Sciences Corp Bonds – $3,297,777
Laobaixing Pharma Common 831,829 $5,719,831
Merck Common 27,200 $2,078,352
Novartis Common 70,330 $5,995,662
Pfizer Common 39,500 $1,724,175
Roche Common 37,881 $9,353,059
Sichuan Kelun Common 2,818,448 8,480,098
Sinopharm Common 394,080 $1,655,978
Tasly Pharma Common 8,114,941 $22,693,515
Teva Fin BV Corp Bonds – $819,555
Teva Fin IV Corp Bonds – $9,465
Teva Pharma NE Corp Bonds – $1,106,435

While this is by no means an exhaustive list, the point is clear. See Part 21 in the series. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Trust (which is separate from the Foundation), owns stocks and bonds in many pharmaceutical companies that are pushing the Federal Government for money to develop a vaccine.

9. Gates Funding WHO & CDC

It’s pretty well known at this point that the World Health Organization and Center for Disease Control in the U.S. both are heavily funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Consequently, they toe the line that coronavirus is a deadly pandemic, and that vaccines are necessary.

10. Immunization 2030, ID2020

This was addressed in Part 3. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is heavily involved in both ID2020 and Immunization Agenda 2030. The Foundation also supports some version of a “vaccine certification” which would be needed to go about life in the new normal.

Of course, advancing these agendas depends on there being a pandemic (or perceived pandemic). Good thing Ferguson was so completely off in his computer modelling. Make no mistake, it’s not only helpful that the death rates be inflated, but essential that they are.

11. Models Supposed To Be Wrong?

Ferguson was behind the disputed research that sparked the mass culling of eleven million sheep and cattle during the 2001 outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. Charlotte Reid, a farmer’s neighbor, recalls: “I remember that appalling time. Sheep were left starving in fields near us. Then came the open air slaughter. The poor animals were panic stricken. It was one of the worst things I’ve witnessed. And all based on a model — if’s but’s and maybe’s.”

In 2002, Ferguson predicted that, by 2080, up to 150,000 people could die from exposure to BSE (mad cow disease) in beef. In the U.K., there were only 177 deaths from BSE.

In 2005, Ferguson predicted that up to 150 million people could be killed from bird flu. In the end, only 282 people died worldwide from the disease between 2003 and 2009.

In 2009, a government estimate, based on Ferguson’s advice, said a “reasonable worst-case scenario” was that the swine flu would lead to 65,000 British deaths. In the end, swine flu killed 457 people in the U.K.

Last March, Ferguson admitted that his Imperial College model of the COVID-19 disease was based on undocumented, 13-year-old computer code that was intended to be used for a feared influenza pandemic, rather than a coronavirus. Ferguson declined to release his original code so other scientists could check his results. He only released a heavily revised set of code last week, after a six-week delay.

Could it be that Ferguson is truly incompetent, and has no clue what he is doing? Or, are his predictions exaggerated on purpose? There’s no reason to take him or his models seriously, yet governments still do.

While this all sounds like an absurd conspiracy theory, consider what else is going on. Would there be a growing vaccine bonds industry without this so-called pandemic? Would it be easy to get the public on board with implanting a vaccine certificate, or pushing Immunization 2030? How else could one get the public on board with making mask wearing seem normal?

It is possible that there is nothing malevolent here, and that Ferguson is just a serial screwup. But it’s undeniable that these screwups help advance other parts of the agenda.

Nothing is as it seems.
Question everything.

Posted on

Media Culture Shift Well Underway To Accepting Wearing Mandatory Masks

What do these women have in common? They are all wearing mind control devices on their heads. It’s meant not just to control their thoughts and actions, but that of those around them, demonstrating their submission. Also see this and see this for those articles. More on the Muslims at the end.

Post of some random commenter on Toronto Star article.

1. The Media Is Not Loyal To The Public

Truth is essential in society, but the situation in Canada is worse than people imagine. In Canada (and elsewhere), the mainstream media, periodicals, and fact-checkers are subsidized, though they deny it. Post Media controls most outlets in Canada, and many “independents” have ties to Koch/Atlas. Real investigative journalism is needed, and some pointers are provided.

2. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

The rest of the series is here. See the lies, lobbying, conflicts of interest, and various globalist agendas operating behind the scenes. There is a lot more than most people realize. For background, check this and this article. The Gates Foundation finances many things, including: the World Health Organization, the Center for Disease Control, GAVI, ID2020, John Hopkins University, Imperial College London, the Pirbright Institute, and individual pharmaceutical companies.

3. Important Links

(1) https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/non-medical-masks-covid-19-spread-1.5523321
(2) http://archive.is/cLhZw
(3) https://ottawa.ctvnews.ca/culture-shift-needed-to-accept-wearing-masks-dr-etches-1.4947650
(4) http://archive.is/97RPc
(5) https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/it-s-now-recommended-that-canadians-wear-face-masks-1.4946752
(6) http://archive.is/RBGB3
(7) https://globalnews.ca/news/6941527/coronavirus-alberta-public-mask-program/
(8) http://archive.is/z9kFu
(9) https://www.cp24.com/news/legault-urges-mask-wearing-but-stops-short-of-mandatory-use-in-public-transit-1.4936767
(10) http://archive.is/I7QmQ
(11) “https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/17/quebec-masks-mandatory-veil-ban-coronavirus
(12) http://archive.is/Es9BB
(13) https://atlantic.ctvnews.ca/mobile/no-new-cases-of-covid-19-in-n-b-face-coverings-mandatory-in-buildings-open-to-public-1.4971381
(14) http://archive.is/4Rnno
(15) https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/province-reverses-decision-to-make-masks-mandatory-in-public-buildings/ar-BB158m9i
(16) http://archive.is/d6QF0
(17) https://montreal.ctvnews.ca/montreal-suburb-of-cote-st-luc-becomes-first-municipality-in-canada-to-make-masks-mandatory-1.4965896?cache=yes%3FclipId%3D89680%3FclipId%3D373266%3FclipId%3D89680%2F5-things-to-know-for-thursday-october-31-2019-1.4663743
(18) http://archive.is/EcftZ
(19) https://truepundit.com/fauci-changes-tune-now-says-second-covid-19-wave-may-never-happen-and-mask-wearing-is-symbolic/
(20) http://archive.is/8QXqs
(21) https://www.businessinsider.com/neil-ferguson-transformed-uk-covid-response-oxford-challenge-imperial-model-2020-4?op=1
(22) http://archive.is/zBK0P
(23) https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/n7j8zw/amazon-whole-foods-instacart-workers-organize-a-historic-mass-strike
(24) http://archive.is/6fmIm
(25) https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/lockdown-lunacy-the-thinking-persons-guide/
(26) http://archive.is/q3zAY
(27) https://www.eutimes.net/2019/02/european-girls-in-vienna-are-wearing-headscarves-to-avoid-assaults-by-muslim-migrants/
(28) http://archive.is/5NqIG

4. Following Content Involves Speculation

This should go without saying, but I don’t know 100% that this is what they have in mind. Am trying to make sense of otherwise bizarre and random series of events. So take everything you read from that perspective.

5. Why Cover This Subject?

This may come off as alarmist, but will address it anyway. After seeing events unfold, it’s impossible to believe that events unfolding are not being done for public SAFETY, but for public CONTROL instead.

It’s really brilliant strategy. Shut down entire sectors of society and strip away civil rights. Inflict mental, financial and psychological stress to such a degree that people will be desperate to end it. BY end it, this means go back to the “new normal” as they call it, but ceding that certain rights will be gone forever.

Why do this? If people are willing to wear masks full time (and accept the health risks associated with them), then they will submit to nearly anything. Seeing widespread use in public will have the psychological effect of convincing doubters that there is a real health emergency.

Of course, there is a self-fulfilling prophecy element here. Wearing masks for a long time can cause breathing problems, or make existing ones worse. As such, it may be reported that more people are getting sick, presumably of this virus. Hence the need for more draconian measures.

When other more drastic events happen, such as protests over “systemic racism” across the Western World, the mask issue will get lost in the noise. This of course is done on purpose. Although no government official came out and said publicly this will be permanent, the end result is that it will be. That is of course, unless people stand up to it, and soon.

This is not about public safety, but about public control. And if people are willing to accept a “culture shift” where this becomes normal, what else would they accept?

Does this sound paranoid? Perhaps, but consider the following sections and topics before you decide.

6. Real Reason Tam Flip Flopped

Theresa Tam had been questioned why this change of heart happened. Cynics suggested she downplayed the situation to buy time so that China (where she’s from) could purchase Canadian supplies. While plausible, there is another possible motive, a psychological one.

If face masks had been made mandatory early on, there would likely have been public backlash. This is especially true since the death waves didn’t materialize. So the opposite approach was taken.

By intentionally causing a shortage of PPE, the Canadian Government can cause a panic in claiming that more cases are coming. This takes longer, but makes the shift a lot less obvious. Of course, people are desperate to get their livelihoods back after months long shutdown.

People can get back to work, but only if they wear a mask. And only if they accept other conditions, and conditions to be named later.

7. Culture Shift Is A Major Goal

OTTAWA — Ottawa’s top doctor suggests a “culture shift” is needed to accept people wearing masks or face coverings during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Medical Officer of Health Dr. Vera Etches has been recommending Ottawa residents wear masks to protect themselves from COVID-19 for several weeks.

Now, Ontario’s Ministry of Health and Canada’s Chief Public Health Officer Dr. Theresa Tam are recommending Canadians wear non-medical face masks when maintaining a two-metre distance isn’t possible.

During a Town Hall with Ottawa’s Board of Trade on Wednesday afternoon, Dr. Etches suggested a “culture shift” is needed to accept wearing a face mask to protect yourself and others from COVID-19.

Speaking on Newstalk 580 CFRA’s Ottawa Now with Kristy Cameron, Dr. Etches said wearing a mask or face covering is a “new behaviour” Canadians have never been asked to do before.

“It’s a new behaviour that we want to make more normal. So shifting the culture,” said Dr. Etches.

“Typically, previously before if we saw someone wearing a mask we’d wonder ‘oh, are they sick’ and be kind of concerned. I think what we’re looking for now is to recognize that people are wearing masks to protect others.”

Ottawa’s Emergency and Protective Services General Manager Anthony Di Monte told reporters on Wednesday afternoon that OC Transpo and Ottawa Public Health are working together on developing a policy for masks on OC Transpo buses and the O-Train.

Di Monte added he doesn’t think the city wants to explore a bylaw mandating people wear face masks in public places and businesses.

The Chair of the Board of Health, Councillor Keith Egli says Ottawa wants to get “buy-in” from the public on wearing masks, just like how everyone bought in to the need for physical distancing to reduce the spread of COVID-19.

“We’ve seen from the actions of our citizens in the past that they get the importance of physical distancing, and I’m confident they’ll get the importance of wearing a mask when that’s impossible.”

You heard it straight from the source. The goal is “shifting the culture” so that Canadians get used to wearing a mask in public. They would rather not push a law to mandate it, but instead get people to accept it internally.

Perhaps we are just animals who need to be trained in a new behaviour. Seems to be where things are going.

Why they would prefer to “shift the culture” as opposed to making such things mandatory? Quite simply, less backlash or chances to be challenged if the masses can be manipulated into doing it willingly.

8. Provinces Jump On Board

She said Public Health will be posting the updated recommendations on medical masks online today, noting that the recommendation isn’t mandatory and will allow for public health officers across Canada to consider their area’s needs.

In the hours after her announcement, public health officers from various provinces began echoing the recommendation. Dr. David Williams, Ontario’s Chief Medical Officer of Health, said that as people continue to enter public settings they should be wearing non-medical masks.

“In certain situations such as transit where you cannot be assured that you’ll be able to guarantee that two metre or six foot distance, and we are recommending, strongly recommending the use of [a] facial covering, non-medical, in that time so as to prevent any further transmission to others and to respect their space as well as your space in that regard,” Williams said.

Quebec’s Deputy Premier Genevieve Guilbault also encouraged her province’s residents to adopt the habit of wearing a non-medical mask when in public.

“It’s a new habit that we’re going to have to develop and cultivate. It’s not instinctive for us and perhaps doesn’t come naturally for us yet to wear a face covering when you leave your home, but we must absolutely develop that habit,” she said, speaking in French.

Infectious Disease Specialist Dr. Abdu Sharkawy said the latest recommendation is a prudent one, but cautioned that Canadians should not ease up on other public health efforts.

Whether they are complicit in the scam, or just useful idiots, Provincial politicians and officials are once again parroting the talking points of Theresa Tam. This comes despite her repeatedly giving contradictory information.

Forget the conflicting advice. Forget the computer modelling that has been laughably wrong. Forget about the people who have recovered and internally developed antibodies. Don’t stop to think that if this virus (assuming it exists) was anywhere near as deadly as predicted, people would be dropping like flies.

9. Alberta Begins Mask Program

Quebec is asking its residents to wear a mask if they leave their house. Alberta’s chief medical officer of health Dr. Deena Hinshaw said her recommendation is for Albertans to wear a mask if they are going somewhere where they will be two metres from another person.

Hinshaw also stressed that wearing a mask does not replace public health measures.
.
“Even if someone is wearing a mask, it’s still really important to try and maintain that distancing as much as possible. There may be a mistaken impression that if a group of friends want to get together and have a party, as long as everyone is wearing a cloth mask, they can do so and there’s no problem at all,” she said.

Yes, people should be wearing masks, but don’t assume you would otherwise still enjoy your freedoms.

10. Quebec “Strongly Recommends” Masks

Premier Francois Legault, his health minister and the public health director all donned masks as they entered a media briefing in Quebec City – the first time they have done so. “A good way to greatly reduce the contagion is to wear a mask,” Legault said. “We strongly recommend that you do so.

But Legault said the province won’t make masks mandatory for now, unlike such places as France and New York State, where they are required while using public transit.

Legault said the government doesn’t want to discriminate against those who are unable to buy or make their own masks. Legault also said it would be difficult legally to order that masks be worn, because they haven’t been proven to be 100 per cent effective in stopping the spread of the virus.

But Montreal civil rights lawyer Julius Grey said the mask doesn’t need to be perfectly effective to be made mandatory. It is enough that the benefit be “reasonably probable” to gain an exemption under Section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms – which outlines a balance between the rights of the individual and the interests of society, he said.

Grey said forcing people to wear masks might infringe on individual rights but it would be considered a “reasonable limit” as long as the mask rules were not too draconian.

“It’s only common sense,” Grey said. “These are charter rights, but they can be limited for something as serious as COVID.”Grey noted that the Quebec government’s own secularism law prohibits certain public servants deemed to be in positions of authority – including teachers, judges and police officers – from wearing religious symbols, such as turbans, kippas and hijabs.

“How is it they can prohibit the hijab, but they can’t mandate and enforce the mask for public safety?” Grey asked with a laugh.

Grey noted that most physical distancing measures introduced since COVID-19 raise charter issues. He said that’s likely to repeat when a vaccine for coronavirus emerges, given there are many opposed to vaccination despite the need to protect society as a whole.

Quebec’s public health department last month began offering instructions for homemade masks. And last week, Montreal’s transit authority announced it would distribute 600,000 masks in the coming weeks to transit users, saying they would not be obligatory because it wouldn’t be able to enforce the rule.

Quebec public health director Dr. Horacio Arruda said Tuesday he wouldn’t hesitate to make masks compulsory if necessary. “But when we make it mandatory, we will make sure that people who cannot afford them cannot be discriminated against compared to those who can,” Arruda told reporters.

So it’s not being made mandatory in Quebec, at least for now. However the goal is to apply social pressure to people into conforming, to get the public to force skeptics into compliance.

Masks are being given out for free. Of course they are. If you want someone to submit to absurd demands, then make it as easy as possible for them to do so.

Interestingly, this puts Quebec in the strange position of proposing mandatory masks for health reasons, even as they banned face coverings for being a security risk, and diluting their culture.

It’s rather disturbing to see this article. While it is cloaked in the language of “strongly recommended”, it also clearly talks about making it mandatory, and whether it would survive a Charter challenge in court.

11. New Brunswick & Mandatory Masks

The province also announced new rules for wearing face masks.
.
“When outside of the home, and in any location in which physical distancing of 2 metres is not possible, people must wear a face covering that covers their mouth and nose,” the government said in a news release. “Effective June 9, everyone entering a building open to the general public must wear a face covering. Children under the age of two, children of any age while attending licensed early education and childcare facilities, and those unable to wear face coverings due to medical issues are exempt from these requirements.”

On June 5th, the New Brunswick Government announced that masks would be mandatory for entering any public building as of June 9th. That was reversed a day later, which sounds great. However, the reversal was not one of principle, but of putting extra burdens on people. Potentially it could still happen later.

11. Cities Implementing Mask Use

Toronto Mayor John Tory has given consideration to the idea, but hasn’t made it law yet.

MONTREAL — A municipality on the island of Montreal is boasting that it has become the first jurisdiction in Canada to make wearing a mask mandatory for anyone entering a business or a city-owned building.

Cote St-Luc Mayor Mitchell Brownstein said his council passed the bylaw on Monday, and businesses have two weeks to comply. Fines for businesses and individuals who violate the bylaw range from $100 to $500, he said.

Brownstein said all business owners will be required to post a sign provided by the city alerting clients to wear a mask upon entry. He said exceptions will be made for people with asthma or other health conditions or disabilities preventing them from wearing masks.

He said his office researched the situation across the country and found no other town or province that has gone this far. “We want to make Cote St-Luc the safest place for people to shop, and hopefully the provinces in Canada will follow,” Brownstein said in an interview Tuesday.

On Monday, Ottawa’s transit commission voted to make mask-wearing on public transit mandatory starting June 15, but officials said they will not prohibit unmasked people from boarding.

Cote St-Luc has gone further and made masks mandatory. Let’s see how long this lasts.

Even within businesses, this mind control can be implemented. By denying people access without masks, such as Whole Foods, Longo’s, it makes submission more and more likely

Granted, retailers may ease up. However, it’s chilling to see them risk losing customers to this hoax. But as long as the businesses are doing it voluntarily, it’s not government overreach.

An article by VICE inadvertently looks at the issue in a different light. Could demanding your own subjugation be viewed as a human right worth striking over?

And no, this is by no means limited to Canada. Parts of the United States and other countries are also implementing various degrees of the same program.

That one is from New Mexico, but the same idea applies.

12. Mandatory Masks On Travel

COVID-19 is a global public health challenge that has changed the daily lives of people around the world, and ensuring the safety and security of Canadians remains the Government of Canada’s top priority.

Today, the Minister of Transport, the Honourable Marc Garneau, announced new measures requiring all air passengers to have a non-medical mask or face covering to cover their mouth and nose during travel. These measures come into effect at noon EDT on April 20, 2020.

Domestic travel has now been somewhat reopened. The catch? Submitting to wearing a mask. This on top of the other nonsense that is pushed on passengers.

This is also being done by ebus.

Brampton Mayor Patrick Brown, who “identifies” as a conservative, announced on June 3rd that face masks will be mandatory for public transit. It was such as urgent matter it won’t actually be implemented until July 2nd.

This is problem isn’t just in Canada. Take a look at our Southern neighbour, and you will see some of the same behaviour.

Certainly images like this (forcing people off buses), create bad optics for officials, but there are other ways to achieve the same goals.

13. Anthony Fauci Flip Flops On Masks

https://twitter.com/MeetThePress/status/1246790212694487040
https://twitter.com/Surgeon_General/status/1246210376351592448
https://twitter.com/Surgeon_General/status/1244020292365815809

Not only have Canadian officials been laughably incompetent, but so have the American ones. Fauci of course is the public face, but the Surgeon General seems to toe the line. However, one might ask if this had been calculated ahead of time: to appear to be unprepared in order to frighten the public.

Dr. Anthony Fauci now says that a second wave of COVID-19 may not even happen and that wearing a mask is largely symbolic at this point.

In a Wednesday interview with CNN’s “Newsroom,” Fauci — member of the White House’s coronavirus task force — said that a second COVID-19 wave is not necessarily inevitable.

“We often talk about the the possibility of a second wave, or of an outbreak when you’re reopening,” Fauci explained. “We don’t have to accept that as an inevitability.”

Anthony Fauci has finally admitted that masks really are just symbolic, and that the dreaded “repeat waves” were just speculation. So the U.S. was largely shut down on guesswork.

14. Press Briefings Are Hoax

These press conferences are a farce in the sense that the reporters are wearing masks strictly for show. They take them off as soon as the camera is off. And the President doesn’t even bother.

Despite the obvious signs that this is a hoax, on the state level, mask requirements are piling up. The site, MASKS4ALL.CO tracks it by state level. So far, 14 have statewide orders. The website also recommends contacting your Member of Congress to push for wider laws.

15. Worthless Computer Modelling

Imperial-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020

To long to go into here, but the computer modelling used to make these predictions has been debunked. In fact, the researchers have a long history of overinflated predictions. To be clear, modelling isn’t proof of anything — it’s guesswork. Yet major decisions are made because of it.

For a great summary of this, Jill Colton did a video on it. She drops a lot of truth bombs in it.

16. Shift To Race Riot Psy-Op

The murder of George Floyd by Derek Chauvin made international news. The video is still widely available online, which is strange considering the censorship levels that YouTube and other outlets engage in.

Another obvious thing: it wasn’t Derek Chauvin that did this. Look at the side by side pictures (one of the perpetrator, the other of Derek Chauvin’s mugshots. They look nothing alike, yet the media is being silent on it. Chauvin isn’t the man responsible, and in retrospect, we don’t even know that Floyd is dead, or that it was even him.

One would think that having the police department burned down would cause someone to speak out publicly that the man who allegedly killed Floyd wasn’t the officer in question. If telling the crowd that “it wasn’t one of our people” doesn’t work, what approach would you take?

Of course, don’t expect the mainstream media to cover this story properly. Here is Jennifer Mayerle perpetuating the coronavirus psy-op with her mask, while she covers the George Floyd psy-op in her talk. Mayerle clearly has trouble breathing with her mask on (just listen to her), but the act must keep going.

This is from NBC News. How messed up is it to be forced play along with the “pandemic” psy-op, while being charged with serious crimes resulting from the Floyd psy-op?

See how effective this has been? By intentionally shutting down entire sectors of society, governments have made people desperate to return to normal. And they can, if a few freedoms are permanently given away.

Now that the media attention is focused on rioting (from the psy-op listed earlier), the media has a new crisis to focus on. Wearing masks is “the new normal”. We need to move on and focus on the systemic racism that is breaking our nations apart.

17. Tam Supports Protest, Wear A Mask

https://twitter.com/CPHO_Canada/status/1267623514258976768
https://twitter.com/CPHO_Canada/status/1267623515311747076
https://twitter.com/CPHO_Canada/status/1267623516389736455
https://twitter.com/CPHO_Canada/status/1267623517362814976

Forget all that “social distancing” that was all the rage before. Forget about staying at home whenever possible, and avoiding crowds. None of that matters anymore. Protesting is totally fine, just WEAR A MASK.

18. Protesting Exemption For Racism

This is disturbing on many levels. Then man pretending to be Trudeau, and his adoring public, are wearing useless masks to protect themselves from a fake pandemic. While doing that, they are taking a knee to atone for the non-existent problem of systemic racism. Of course, the real Trudeau has worn blackface several times, and openly calls Canadians “racist”.

It’s hard to tell how many people actually are taking this seriously. Nonetheless, it is chilling to see Canada, or anyone, go down this path.

Nonetheless, there has been a very successful bait and switch performed here. The “planned-emic” started out in slow motion, but then more and more rights were taken away. The economy is slowing being allowed to reopen, but in a controlled fashion. The new normal is one where face coverings will be expected, if not required or legislated.

Of course the obvious question has to be asked: why in the world would Tam, or anyone RECOMMEND that people attending protests on these loaded subjects conceal their faces? Is the goal to create anarchy and chaos?

19. Make Public Submission Easy/Affordable

Alberta plans, at least for now, to make free masks available virtually everywhere to encourage their use. Make Albertans think these free gifts are for their benefit.

There’s actually a trend that is emerging: deny a person access to a place of business, but provide free masks at the entrance. The reason? To make it “easier” for people to go about their day. Just one catch: they must agree to a face covering.

The plan of course being to change behaviour and culture in the long term.

20. Parallel With Islamic Head Coverings

Okay, we finally get to the topic of contrasting the forced wearing of face masks with forcing girls and women to wear the hijab. There are a lot of the same techniques at play here.

  • Wear a hijab as part of 1 world vision
  • Wear a hijab to show you’re not a bigot
  • Wear a hijab as an act of solidarity
  • Wear a hijab to avoid harassment/rape
  • Wear a hijab to avoid being arrested
  • Wear a hijab to avoid being killed

World Hijab Day is a real thing: it’s to celebrate the head coverings, even for people who aren’t Muslims. Of course, this all looks fine and dandy. Never mind the very real fact that in many countries, women don’t have the choice, but are forced to wear one.

Then there is this approach: if you won’t wear a hijab in order to avoid harassment or sexual assault, do it to avoid Islamophobia and show tolerance. Remember, not all Muslims are bad people, and you should be more accepting of them.

Yes, wearing a hijab to show solidarity with the group is something that has been suggested by both Muslims, and non-Muslim useful idiots.

According to the EU Times, even in 2016, Austrian girls were putting the hijab on to prevent assault and harassment from Muslim men. Despite the girls not being Muslim, or having anything to do with that culture, they WILLINGLY put the headscarf on in order to protect themselves. Many would say that not allowing such incompatible people in would be a great idea. Many would support deporting such people. Instead, the pressure is put on locals to conform for their own safety.

Also see this video by One America News Network.

In other countries, women are actually arrested for refusing to wear the hijab. Punishment can come in the forms of a fine, lashings, imprisonment, or a combination thereof. Remember, in the West, people are told to embrace the hijab as empowerment.

Not the first honour killing to happen. A 16 year old was killed by her brother and father, at least partially, for refusing to wear a hijab. This happened in Canada.

Many women will say they wear it willingly, but are they really? Some will yes, but is fear of harassment, abuse, rape, or arrest contributing to many more wearing it? Is it really a choice when it is made under duress? How much is due to family pressure?

21. Consequence Of Mask Refusal

The comparison of face masks to the Muslim head scarf may seem absurd on the surface, but consider what is happening already in parts of the West.

  • People are being fined for refusing to wear one
  • People are prohibited from taking public transit
  • People are prohibited from flying without a mask
  • People are prohibited from entering certain stores
  • Certain jobs now require a mask at all times

Certainly, there isn’t an exact duplication, but there are parallels. Even in the West, women began “willingly” wearing the headscarf to avoid physical and emotional attacks.

The virus mask, on the other hand, seems to be enforced with a more Chinese style “social credit” type of way. Restrict things that the public is allowed to access without it.

In both cases, mental manipulation is required to sustain it.

Posted on

CV #21: Pharma Lobbying In Canada Flooded With Gates’ Proxies/Allies

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

The rest of the series is here. See the lies, lobbying, conflicts of interest, and various globalist agendas operating behind the scenes. There is a lot more than most people realize. For background, check this and this article. The Gates Foundation finances many things, including: the World Health Organization, the Center for Disease Control, GAVI, ID2020, John Hopkins University, Imperial College London, the Pirbright Institute, and individual pharmaceutical companies.

2. Important Links

(1) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/advSrch
(2) https://www.gatesfoundation.org
(3) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=366216&regId=898133#regStart
(4) http://archive.is/7w15g
(5) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=12241&regId=880634#regStart
(6) http://archive.is/MljjW
(7) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=365218&regId=892723
(8) http://archive.is/zE7UT
(9) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/advSrch?keywords=gilead+sciences&keywordsOp=AND&documentType=both&adv_1001_level1common=&adv_2002_level1reg=&adv_3003_level1comlog=&srch=
(10) http://archive.is/t9ZUY
(11) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=15599&regId=896896#regStart
(12) http://archive.is/zNBIw
(13) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=15283&regId=898856#regStart
(14) http://archive.is/fdk5U
(15) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=5088&regId=891566
(16) http://archive.is/Pfv86
(17) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=4887&regId=875507
(18) http://archive.is/szVu6
(19) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/advSrch?keywords=teva+canada&keywordsOp=PHRASE&documentType=both&adv_1001_level1common=&adv_2002_level1reg=&adv_3003_level1comlog=&srch=
(20) http://archive.is/dBTxv
(21) https://sif.gatesfoundation.org/news-and-updates/press-release-inactivated-polio-vaccines-broadly-available-worlds-children-drive-toward-polio-eradication/
(22) http://archive.is/TXd3c
(23) https://www.gatesfoundation.org/Media-Center/Press-Releases/2020/03/Life-Science-Companies-Commit-to-the-Fight-Against-COVID-19-Pandemic-alongside-Gates-Foundation
(24) http://archive.is/OZ8qr
(25) https://apps.irs.gov/app/eos/

3. Context For This Piece

The topic of lobbying has been addressed in earlier pieces in the series, but let’s show just how big it is. The truth is, one can’t honestly discuss the vaccine push in Canada (or elsewhere), without getting into the influence peddling behind the scenes.

This is by no means everything. This is just the tip of iceberg. Still, it’s necessary for the public to see, in order to understand what’s going on.

Bill Gates Jr., is the face behind the vaccine industry today. He is a well known proponent for population reduction. He is also the son of Bill Gates Sr., former head of Planned Parenthood.

The companies listed below are lobbying the Federal Government (and Provinces too), to push the for vaccine research. Why? In part because The Gates Foundation Trust owns stock in several of these organizations. The Gates Foundation — a separate entity, but not really — spends money on these groups as well. In short, pharma bucks help push the agenda.

And what is the result of this?

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

(See 1:30 mark in this, or original video). Trudeau claims that “normalcy will not return without a vaccine that is widely available, and that could be a very long way off”.

(From March 30, 2020 public announcement). The Government of Alberta is stating is may very well be a year to develop a vaccine.

(Ontario Premier Doug Ford pushes Vaxx agenda)

Does anyone notice that they all seem to be pushing the same talking points? It’s all about pushing a vaccine, and keeping some form of restriction or lockdown until that happens. Why are these people all talking the exact same way? It’s all about the pharma money.

Follow the money.

4. Gates Foundation Tax Returns

Link to search IRS charity tax records:
https://apps.irs.gov/app/eos/

Let’s clarify here: there are actually 2 separate entities. The Foundation is the group that distributes money to various organizations and institutions. The Foundation Trust, however, is concerned primarily about asset management.

BILL & MELINDA GATES FOUNDATION
EIN: 56-2618866
gates.foundation.taxes.2016
gates.foundation.taxes.2017
gates.foundation.taxes.2018
gates.foundation.taxes.2019

BILL & MELINDA GATES FOUNDATION TRUST
EIN: 91-1663695
gates.foundation.trust.taxes.2018

What does the Gates Foundation Trust Own?

Company Type Of Stock Shares Total Value
Eli Lilly Corp Bonds – $952,265
Gilead Sciences Common 21,250 $1,329,188
Gilead Sciences Corp Bonds – $3,297,777
Laobaixing Pharma Common 831,829 $5,719,831
Merck Common 27,200 $2,078,352
Novartis Common 70,330 $5,995,662
Pfizer Common 39,500 $1,724,175
Roche Common 37,881 $9,353,059
Sichuan Kelun Common 2,818,448 8,480,098
Sinopharm Common 394,080 $1,655,978
Tasly Pharma Common 8,114,941 $22,693,515
Teva Fin BV Corp Bonds – $819,555
Teva Fin IV Corp Bonds – $9,465
Teva Pharma NE Corp Bonds – $1,106,435

Why does Bill Gates promote the health and well being of these companies? It could (and probably does) have to do with that fact that he is a stockholder in them. Plainly put, he is part owner of these pharmaceutical companies.

Of course, this is only a tiny portion of the total assets within the trust. There are stocks and bonds in a wide array of industries and companies.

Interesting side note: There is almost $11 million of stock in SNC Lavalin owned by the Trust, $1.25M in Goldman Sachs, and about $14M in Blackrock’s various groups.

5. Lobbying And Pharmaceutical Money

  • Ablynx (a Sanofi company)
  • Autolus
  • Denali Therapeutics
  • Eli Lilly and Company
  • Gilead Sciences
  • GlaxoSmithKline
  • Global Health Foundation (Gates Foundation)
  • Kodiak Sciences
  • Lyell
  • Merck (MSD)
  • Novartis Pharmaceuticals
  • Pfizer Inc.
  • Sanofi Pasteur
  • Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd.

It was addressed in Part 14, the AbCellera grant, how many of the firm’s partners have been involved with the Gates Foundation, and some of the lobbying behind the scenes.

In addition to those partners in the above list, consider the following, as they also have direct or indirect ties to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation:

  • AbCellera itself
  • Apotex Pharmaceuticals
  • Bayer
  • GAVI, the Global Vaccine Alliance
  • VIDO-InterVac

6. AbCellera Biologics

As of March 2020, AbCellera is registered with the Lobbying Commissioner’s Office. There are no communication reports — yet — but AbCellera is set up and ready to go and start lobbying. Also worth noting is that AbCellera received $289,116.00 from Western Economic Diversification Canada last year, and expects to receive more this year.

In November 2016, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation gave AbCellera $645,000 to help develop antibodies to treat the tuberculosis infection. So when AbCellera is getting the current grant from the Canadian Government, is it really the Gates Foundation that is getting the money?

7. Apotex Pharmaceuticals

Apotex was involved in a scandal in 2017, where it’s alleged that there was illegal lobbying in 2015 of then-Candidate Justin Trudeau. Apotex owners Barry and Honey Sherman were murdered in 2017, around the time that M-132 was introduced in the Federal Parliament. While Apotex lobbying on the Federal sphere may have stopped, it is a very different story Provincially.

Apotex has a manufacturing base in Ontario, so it’s no surprise that they would try to influence the Government there. This will be the topic of a separate article, but the Apotex owners (Honey and Barry Sherman), were murdered in 2017. This was while there was an ethics investigation for illegal lobbying, and around the time that M-132 started up. M-132 was a motion for Canada to fund pharma research and distribute cheap drugs to Canadians — AND THE WORLD.

8. Bayer

Bayer has lobbied the Ontario Government several times in the last few years. Bayer is one of the partners that the Gates Foundation announced would help with CV vaccine research.

9. GAVI, The Vaccine Alliance

This has been addressed in earlier parts of the series, but the Gates funded GAVI (Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunizations) has been lobbying the Federal Government since 2018. There are 20 communications reports on file.

This is probably the most well known link in the chain. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation helped found GAVI, the Global Vaccine Alliance in 1999. There was an initial grant of $750 million, and the Gates Foundation made regular contributions to GAVI, about $4 billion in total. The foundation essentially runs the show.

The Global Vaccine Alliance, as the name suggests, is an organization devoted to pushing vaccinations on the public all across the world. Bill Gates has long been a proponent of mass vaccinations.

Just 3 weeks ago, May 4, 2020, the Gates foundation released a press report for another $50 million worth of funding going to GAVI.

10. Gilead Sciences Canada

According to records from the Lobbying Commissioner’s Office, Gilead had 42 various registrations over the years, but has only lobbied the Federal Government 10 times. Seems a bit odd.

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Trust owns stocks and bonds in Gilead. And the Foundation has contributed to Gilead’s research in recent years.

11. GlaxoSmithKline (GSK)

There are 187 communications reports on file with the Office of the Lobbying Commissioner. Also noteworthy is that GlaxoSmithKline lobbies Provincially as well.

Year Company Amount
2011 GSK Biologicals $16,956,274
2012 GSK Biologicals $2,890,159
2013 GlaxoSmithKline $2,347,273
2014 GSK Biologicals $1,199,441
2014 GSK Biologicals $6,000,000
2014 GSK Biologicals $14,060,000
2014 GSK Biologicals $1,281,469
2015 GSK Biologicals $1,281,432
2016 GlaxoSmithKline $1,511,994
2016 GSK Biologicals $15,100,417
2017 GlaxoSmithKline $322,663
2017 GlaxoSmithKline $1,801,901
2017 GlaxoSmithKline $320,265

12. Merck Canada Inc.

Merck has been lobbying the Federal Government since 2001, on a variety of pharmaceutical related issues. There are 103 listed communications reports. And they are a major partner for AbCellera Biologics.

SEATTLE — The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation today announced that Richard Henriques has been appointed chief financial officer, effective April 19, 2010. He will be based in Seattle, Washington at the foundation’s headquarters.

Henriques will join the foundation from Merck, where he has served as senior vice president of finance and corporate controller since 2006. In this position, he focused on operations, governance, strategic planning, performance measurement, and cost management within the pharmaceutical and pharmacy benefit management industries.

Interesting side note: in 2010, the Gates Foundation scooped Richard Henriques from Merck, where he was a Senior VP.

Year Company Amount
2013 Merck KGAA $1,142,794

According to the most recent tax return, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Trust owns over $2 million worth of common stock in Merck. Presumably they’d like it to do well.

13. Novartis Pharmaceuticals

Novartis has been lobbying the Federal Government since 2007, and is one of AbCellera’s partners. There are 13 communications reports filed with the registry.

Year Company Amount
2016 Novartis Vaxx Diag. $1,537,375
2016 Novartis Pharma $659,154
2017 Novartis Biomed $1,541,000

According to the most recently available tax return, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Trust owns about $6 million worth of common stock in Novartis. Novartis lobbies the Canadian Government for causes that benefit Gates.

14. Pfizer Canada

Since 2007, Pfizer, one of AbCellera’s partners, has 143 communications reports filed with the Lobbying Commissioner’s Office. It has operated under a few different corporate titles though.

Year Company Amount
2016 Pfizer $1,813,282

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Trust owns about $1.7 million worth of common stock in Pfizer. Pfizer lobbies the Canadian Government for pharma related issues.

15. Sanofi Pasteur Ltd.

Sanofi is yet another one of AbCellera’s partners that has long been lobbying the Federal Government. Could have contributed to why AbCellera was able to get that $175.6 million contract from Ottawa.

Press Release: Inactivated Polio Vaccines Broadly Available for the World’s Children in the Drive toward Polio Eradication
.
Sanofi Pasteur
.
February 28, 2014
Sanofi Pasteur, the vaccines division of Sanofi (EURONEXT: SAN and NYSE: SNY), announced today its further commitment to the international community’s efforts to complete polio eradication. UNICEF, the organization that procures the vaccine to meet global needs, announced it will purchase significant quantities of Inactivated Polio Vaccine (IPV) from Sanofi Pasteur and make it available based on country needs and vaccination plans. To achieve the goal of polio eradication by 2018, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommends that by end 2015, all children receive routinely at least one dose of IPV in over 120 countries that solely use Oral Polio Vaccine.
.
In order to support rapid and widespread adoption of IPV, Sanofi Pasteur – the world’s largest producer of IPV – and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation have developed a joint price support mechanism, including a financial contribution from both organizations.

In 2014, a partnership was announced between Sanofi Pasteur and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. This was to promote more widespread polio vaccines, and work out a pricing scheme.

Year Company Amount
2015 Sanofi Pasteur $1,663,388
2016 Sanofi Pasteur $722,071

16. TEVA Canada Ltd.

Since becoming a registered lobbyist, there have been 94 communications made with various officials of the Federal Government, according to records in the Registry.

Year Company Amount
2015 Teva Pharmaceuticals $11,418,031

Friendly reminder: the Gates Foundation Trust owns at least a few million dollars worth of corporate bonds in various Teva branches.

17. VIDO-InterVac, Vaccine Center

The International Vaccine Institute (IVI) is a not-for-profit International Organization established in 1997 as an initiative by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). It is among the few organizations in the world dedicated to vaccines and vaccination for global health.

IVI is involved in all aspects of bringing a vaccine to reality: discover new technologies to make new vaccines or improve existing ones; develop promising vaccine candidates for licensure and World Health Organization (WHO) prequalification by transferring the technology to manufacturers and partnering with them on clinical development; deliver licensed vaccines in low-income countries by generating scientific data on the need for vaccines and the impact of vaccination for decision makers; building capacity in vaccinology in developing countries through technical assistance and training to promote self-sufficiency and sustainability in vaccines and vaccination; and building partnerships in Asia and globally for vaccines and global health.

This has long been a partner with InterVac (University of Saskatchewan). It is funded by the United Nations. However, it does get some hefty grants, from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

18. World Health Organization

This was addressed in Part 0, Part 3, and Part 13. Theresa Tam (who has no real biographical information available), is both a high ranking official with the World Health Organization, and Canada’s Chief Public Health Officer.

Canada is a member of the World Health Organization, and a regular contributor. As such, it seems to dictate Canadian health policies.

19. Major Gates Partnership Announced

SEATTLE, March 25, 2020 – Today, a consortium of life sciences companies announced an important collaboration to accelerate the development, manufacture, and delivery of vaccines, diagnostics, and treatments for COVID-19. The life sciences industry brings a range of assets, resources, and expertise needed to identify effective and scalable solutions to the pandemic, which is affecting billions worldwide. The impact on health systems, economies, and livelihoods is profound, and an effective response requires an unprecedented collaboration across governments, academia, the private sector, and the philanthropic community.

“This is an encouraging start in a critical area, because if any of these compounds are shown to be effective against COVID-19, it dramatically accelerates the path to product approval and scale up,” said Suzman. “While each of the consortium’s partners will also be pursuing independent efforts with national governments and others, we are optimistic that this unprecedented collaboration will provide a platform for a fundamentally different kind of partnership to help address this global health emergency.”

Companies participating in the collaboration include Bayer, BD, bioMérieux, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Gilead, GSK, Johnson & Johnson, Merck (known as MSD outside the U.S. and Canada), Merck KGaA, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sanofi.

About the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
Guided by the belief that every life has equal value, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation works to help all people lead healthy, productive lives. In developing countries, it focuses on improving people’s health and giving them the chance to lift themselves out of hunger and extreme poverty. In the United States, it seeks to ensure that all people—especially those with the fewest resources—have access to the opportunities they need to succeed in school and life. Based in Seattle, Washington, the foundation is led by CEO Mark Suzman and Co-chair William H. Gates Sr., under the direction of Bill and Melinda Gates and Warren Buffett.

Announced in March 2020, this is a press release unveiling a major collaboration between the Gates Foundation, and a number of major pharmaceutical companies. Who’s on the list?

  • Bayer
  • BD
  • bioMérieux
  • Boehringer Ingelheim
  • Bristol-Myers Squibb
  • Eisai
  • Eli Lilly
  • Gilead Sciences
  • GlaxoSmithKline (GSK)
  • Johnson & Johnson
  • Merck
  • Novartis
  • Pfizer
  • Sanofi Pasteur

An astute person will recognize several of these names as partners from the $175.6 million AbCellera grant awarded just a month ago. From the previous sections on lobbying the Federal Government, these same parties are trying to influence government policy. It’s clear that it really is Gates’ partners who are doing a lot of the legwork.

Also, several of these names are companies that the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Trust owns stock in, and that the Foundation (again, 2 separate entities) spends money on.

20. Other Honourable Mentions

Yes, Gates donates to the Aga Khan Foundation.

Year Company Amount
2016 Pirbright Inst. $44,598
2016 Pirbright Inst. $385,144
2016 Pirbright Inst. $525,826
2017 Pirbright Inst. $100,000
2018 Pirbright Inst. $311,878

For a walk down memory lane: Pirbright became infamous a while back when it was learned they had patented a new group of coronaviruses and were funded by Gates.

Year Company Amount
2014 Microchip Biotech $7,717,271

There are other firms whose work could conceivably be used to advance the ID2020 agenda. This is just one of them.

21. Gates Is Behind Pharma Lobbying

While it obviously isn’t exclusively the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, they do play a very prominent role in pushing the vaccine agenda across the world. It should come as no surprise, given the amount of money they have tied up in this industry.

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Trust owns stocks and bonds in many pharmaceutical companies. The Gates Foundation (yes, the Foundation and trust are separate), gives/spends money on those same pharma businesses — and others. There’s no altruism behind it, but rather a business decision.

It also would surprise no one, given the Gates Family has long had a love of eugenics, or population reduction. So one has to wonder what else will be slipped into these vaccines, when they are finally available.

BILL & MELINDA GATES FOUNDATION
EIN: 56-2618866
gates.foundation.taxes.2016
gates.foundation.taxes.2017
gates.foundation.taxes.2018

BILL & MELINDA GATES FOUNDATION TRUST
EIN: 91-1663695
gates.foundation.trust.taxes.2018

Take a look at the documents for yourself. The full list can be found here, just search for the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Those 2 organizations will pop up.

The above sections are only a tiny piece of what is really going on. There are many, MANY companies and grants that are in the tax returns, but not listed in the article. For practical purposes, it can’t be done in a single article, or even a few. The returns run to hundreds of pages each.

Posted on

The Vaccine Confidence Project, And “Vaccine Hesitancy”

Refusing to inject yourself (and family) with chemicals created by outsiders is apparently just a relationship problem. Nothing to do with what is actually in them, or the history of destroyed lives.

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

The rest of the series is here. Many lies, lobbying, conflicts of interest, and various globalist agendas operating behind the scenes. The Gates Foundation finances: the World Health Organization, the Center for Disease Control, GAVI, ID2020, John Hopkins University, Imperial College London, the Pirbright Institute, the British Broadcasting Corporation, and individual pharmaceutical companies. Also: there is little to no science behind what our officials are doing; they promote degenerate behaviour; the Australian Department of Health admits the PCR tests don’t work; the US CDC admits testing is heavily flawed; and The International Health Regulations are legally binding. See here, here, and here.

2. Important Links

(1) https://www.vaccineconfidence.org/
(2) http://archive.is/szSHr
(3) https://www.vaccineconfidence.org/partners-funders
(4) http://archive.is/Ah9Pw
(5) https://www.vaccineconfidence.org/vcp-mission
(6) http://archive.is/saio2
(7) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=5088&regId=892445&blnk=1
(8) http://archive.is/xxQJe
(9) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=3653&regId=895048&blnk=1
(10) http://archive.is/AYdhO
(11) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=12241&regId=880634&blnk=1
(12) http://archive.is/GH1Cy
(13) https://twitter.com/vaccine_trust

3. Context For This Article

The topic of vaccine hesitancy was introduced in Part 8 of the coronavirus series. Now will explore a more organized group, which is the Vaccine Confidence Project. As the name implies, the group is researching in ways to make vaccines an easier sell to the public.

Note: They are not researching ways to MAKE vaccines more safe. Instead they are researching ways to CONVINCE people that they are safe. The goals are really quite different.

Also worth noting that several of the groups funding this project also have lobbying and financial ties to the Canadian Government. The conflicts on interest here cannot be downplayed.

In the next section the VCP group states — in their own words — what the goals of the program are. Just know that this project is being funded by the pharmaceutical industry, and other vested interests.

Also worth pointing out: this project is not just an isolated case. There are many, MANY more groups conducting research into vaccine hesitancy. Consider this as glorified market research.

4. What Is Vaccine Confidence Project?

Vaccine confidence concerns the belief that vaccination – and by extension the providers and range of private sector and political entities behind it – serves the best health interests of the public and its constituents. The Oxford English Dictionary defines confidence as “the mental attitude of trusting in or relying on a person or thing”. In light of that, we are not examining the well-studied domain of supply and access barriers to vaccination, but rather what is typically called the “demand” side of immunisation. However, our focus on confidence takes the “demand” rubric a step further than the more traditional notion of building demand through increasing knowledge and awareness of vaccines and immunisation to understanding what else drives confidence in vaccines, and the willingness to accept a vaccine, when supply, access and information are available. In other words, understanding vaccine confidence means understanding the more difficult belief-based, emotional, ideological and contextual factors whose influences often live outside an immunisation or even health programme but affect both confidence in and acceptance of vaccines.

The purpose of the project is to monitor public confidence in immunisation programmes by building an information surveillance system for early detection of public concerns around vaccines; by applying a diagnostic tool to data collected to determine the risk level of public concerns in terms of their potential to disrupt vaccine programmes; and, finally, to provide analysis and guidance for early response and engagement with the public to ensure sustained confidence in vaccines and immunisation. This initiative also defines a Vaccine Confidence Index™ (VCI) as a tool for mapping confidence globally.

Despite the historic success of immunisation in reducing the burden of childhood illness and death, episodes of public concerns and rumours around vaccines have occurred around the world, spreading quickly and sometimes seriously eroding public confidence in immunisation and ultimately leading to vaccine refusals and disease outbreaks.

This project seeks to address these unmet needs and monitor public confidence in immunisation programs by listening for early signals of public distrust and questioning and providing risk analysis and guidance to engage the public early and pre-empting potential programme disruptions.

In their own website, CVP describes their work as “information surveillance for early detection of public concerns”. In other words, the focus isn’t on creating safe and effective vaccines, but rather on convincing people that they are. The techniques involve amount to little more than emotional and psychological manipulation.

5. Partners/Funders Of Vaxx Confidence

Funders of Vaccine Confidence Project

  • European Commission
  • European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA)
  • Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI)
  • GlaxoSmithKline
  • Merck
  • University College London

Partners of the Vaccine Confidence Project

  • Brighton Collaboration
  • Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC)
  • Chatham House
  • European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC)
  • European Commission
  • European Medicines Agency
  • Gallup International
  • Imperial College London
  • International Pediatric Association
  • International Vaccine Institute
  • LVCT Kenya
  • National University of Singapore
  • ProMED
  • Public Health England (PHE)
  • Public Health Foundation of India
  • Sabin Vaccine Institute
  • World Health Organization (WHO)

Yes, we have spent considerable time recently in this registry. This is the Office of the Lobbying Commissioner. Keep in mind, this only applies to people/groups who are lobbying at the Federal level. It doesn’t cover Provincial or Municipal influence peddling.

According to registry records, Yoo-Seok Hong, President of GlaxoSmithKline, has lobbied the Federal Government 187 times since becoming registered in 1996. GSK is listed as a funder of the Vaccine Confidence Project.

Looking at the same registry, Merck Canada is listed as having lobbied the Federal Government 103 times since they became registered in 2001.

This was addressed in Part 2 of the series, but worth bringing up again. VIDO-InterVac has partnered with the International Vaccine Institute. The IVI is based in South Korea, and gets funding from the Gates Foundation and the United Nations. VIDO-InterVac and IVI have their partnership working with the University of Saskatchewan.

This was covered in Part 13 of the series, but repeated here. Theresa Tam sits on the Independent Oversight and Advisory Committee for the WHO Health Emergencies Programme. In other words, she sits on a World Health Organization Board at the same time she is the Chief of Public Health in Canada. Her colleague, Geeta Rao Gupta, previously worked for the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. In fact, after the United States, the Gates Foundation is the largest contributor to the World Health Organization.


efpia-health-collaboration-guide_2019_final

The European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations lists many partner organizations, several of whom have lobbied governments in Canada.

This was previously covered in Part 4 and Part 5 in the coronavirus series. GAVI, the Global Vaccine Allience (funded largely by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation), lobbied the Federal Government 20 times between 2018 and 2020.

Additionally, the Center for Disease Control (CDC), located in the United States, is heavily funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. It greatly influences their decision making.

To repeat from before: this project has nothing to do with MAKING vaccinations safe or effective. Instead, the effort is to CONVINCE people that vaccines are safe and effective. This has nothing to do with conducting any sort of medical research whatsoever.

6. VCP’s Twitter Page

To begin with, the account was only created in February 2020, and has an extremely low following. But let’s take a look and see who they are connected to on Twitter.

https://twitter.com/VaxPsychStrath
https://twitter.com/trevormundel
https://twitter.com/IFPMA
https://twitter.com/voice_evidence

This is just a few of them. However, there is nothing to see here, and we should all just move along.

7. Tricks To Beat “Vaccine Hesitancy”

The World Health Organization has done considerable research on the subject of “vaccine hesitancy”. This of course is the natural reaction of people to be reluctant to put needles of unknown substances into their bodies.

Improving vaccination demand and addressing hesitancy
Increasing and maintaining vaccination uptake is vital for vaccines to achieve their success. Addressing low vaccination requires an adequate understanding of the determinants of the problem, tailored evidence-based strategies to improve uptake, and monitoring and evaluation to determine the impact and sustainability of the interventions.

Hesitancy in relation to vaccination may affect motivation, causing people to reject it for themselves or their children. Hesitancy can be caused by individual, group, and contextual influences, as well as any vaccine-specific issues.

Given the potential for hesitancy to rapidly undermine vaccination coverage in specific settings, it is important that all countries take steps to understand both the extent and nature of hesitancy at a local level, on a continuing basis. Accordingly, each country should develop a strategy to increase acceptance and demand for vaccination, which should include ongoing community engagement and trust-building, active hesitancy prevention, regular national assessments of concerns, and crisis response planning

It’s fair to take from this, that the efforts to understand hesitancy do not at all seem rooted in any altruistic motivation. Rather, they seem designed to form the basis to manipulate and otherwise persuade people into taking something that could be extremely harmful to them.

Meeting participants, from left to right: Kerrie Wiley, Neetu Abad, Gilla Shapiro, Alina Lack, Wenfeng Gong, Nick Sevdalis, Julie Leask, Monica Jain, Gustavo Correa, Noel Brewer, Saad Omer, Cornelia Betsch, Charles Wiysonge, Gillian SteelFisher, Lisa Menning, Eve Dubé

In May 2019, a group of people got together to come up with ways to make mass vaccination an easier sell to the public. Read the report and decide whether this is harmless enough.

The World Health Organization has released several other papers and research findings into vaccine hesitancy. Either they are moronic, or they truly think that what they are doing is for the best of humanity.
hesitancy.research
hesitancy.research.02
hesitancy.research.strategies.for.addressing
hesitancy.conclusions.for.addressing

In addition to the above research, there are questionnaires that are available. Asking and probing for certain types of information will give the illusion that you are concerned with the person’s well being.

hesitancy.survey.questionnaires

In January 2015, this paper was released, giving insight into the various reasons people are likely to avoid taking vaccines. It also provided helpful information to convincing the subject that it was still in their best interest.

hesitancy.recommendations.to.correct

There is of course more research available on the subject. But the point is that it has been extensively studied. A cynic might wonder if the WHO spends more effort researching ways to pitch vaccines to the public than they do researching to see if they are actually safe.

8. Programs Operate In Canada

Several such programs are already in operation in Canada, and are funded. Yes, Canada already has programs to combat “vaccine hesitancy”.

9. Tip Of The Iceberg

This article just scratches the surface of what is out there. Do a simple search, or go on YouTube and look up videos under the heading “vaccine hesitancy”. It is shocking the number of hits that will come up.

Why is there so much research being done on overcoming “vaccine hesitancy”? Quite simply, it is economics. Vaccines that are used globally are worth a lot of money. Therefore, considerable money and resources must be spent in convincing potential customers that it is a worthwhile product. Think of it as a glorified marketing strategy.

In the various videos, you may notice that the marketers never address the legitimate concerns people have about the safety of vaccines. Rather, they are going through the motions of “appearing to address” the concerns. Not the same thing.

Understand that this is little more than psychological manipulation in order to push an agenda. The well being of the people involved is a secondary concern — if it is one at all.

Posted on

Ottawa Sends IFFIm Money For “Vaccine Bonds”; GAVI/GPEI Grants

(Information on what the International Finance Facility for Immunization, or IFFIm, really is and does)

Several articles in the Canuck Law series on the CV “planned-emic” have focused on the lobbying and influence peddling behind the vaccine agenda. This one covers the recent plans to hand out more money under that guise. However, there is an interesting twist here.

The Federal Government recently announced it will be giving $790 million of taxpayers’ money to 3 separate institutions. 2 of the grants (the recipients are GAVI/GPEI) are for vaccine initiatives. The other is to for so-called “vaccine bonds”, (issued by IFFIm). Of course Canada doesn’t have the money to send abroad, but that doesn’t seem to be a problem.

The specific grants:

  1. $125M for Int’l Finance Facility for Immunisation (IFFIm)
  2. $475M for GAVI, Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization (GAVI)
  3. $190M for Global Polio Eradication (GPEI)

It’s the first item on this list that is the most concerning. The $125 million to IFFIm contribution won’t be paid directly for research and development. Instead, the IFFIm will issue bonds to the World Bank, who in turn will put those bonds on the market. The World Bank will pay money back to IFFIm, less profits that the bond holders will be making on the bonds.

Obvious question: Why aren’t we giving the money targeted for the IFFIm directly to GAVI, if that’s who will use it? Why are we including at least 3 middlemen (IFFIm, World Bank, and Investors)? Why is taxpayer money — or taxpayer debt — being used to help private interests advance their stock portfolios?

We know that GAVI is heavily financed by the Gates Foundation. Also, it turns out that IFFIm has its administrative costs heavily funded by GAVI. By extension, this means that the Gates Foundation is financing the operation of IFFIm. GAVI is just being used as an intermediary here.

1. Vaccine Bonds A Growth Industry

IFFIm is a role model for socially responsible investing in global development, which faces constant funding challenges and unpredictability. Vaccine Bonds provide investors with a unique opportunity to realise an attractive and secure rate of return and diversify their portfolios while helping save young lives. It’s not a donation, it’s an investment. IFFIm has been so successful, it has changed the face of global development funding.

IFFIm’s unique financing model for global health is built upon partnerships. IFFIm receives long term, legally binding pledges from donor countries and, with the World Bank acting as Treasury Manager, turns these pledges into bonds. The money raised via Vaccine Bonds provides immediate funding for Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance. Since, 2000 Gavi has dramatically improved access to new and underused vaccines for children living in the world’s poorest countries.

So how does this work? Let’s go through the steps:

  • Nations make binding pledges to pay IFFIm at a later date
  • The IFFIm uses those pledges to generate bonds
  • The IFFIm then sells bonds to the World Bank for cash
  • The IFFIm gives its new money to GAVI for vaccines.
  • The World Bank sells bonds to outside investors
  • Investors make profits on their bonds (presumably)
  • Nations (over time) pay their commitments to IFFIm

Something is missing from this list, correct? Investors are making money off of their bonds, or else they wouldn’t buy them. There are also salaries and administrative costs to factor in. So where is the extra money coming from?

Hypothetically, bond owners can resell the bonds to other people. That does actually happen in practice. However, that would only work for a limited time. Furthermore, the market for such bonds is fairly limited.

One option is that the IFFIm would be selling the bonds at a discount to the World Bank (but still expecting full price from the donor nations). For example, Spain might issue a pledge for $10 million, and IFFIm will sell a bond to the World Bank for $9 million. The investor(s) will get $10 million back. In this scenario, GAVI ends up with $9 million, and investors with $1 million. Of course administrative costs need to be factored in.

Another option is that the donor nations will end up footing the bill for the returns that investors get. Using Spain again, they will pledge $10 million over a period of years, but then have to pay the full bonds plus perhaps another million in interest.

Either case is horribly inefficient. By adding these middlemen, it means that nowhere near the full amount of donor money is receiving its intended target. Either money is skimmed off the initial pledge, or the pledge turns out to be far more expensive than originally thought.

This isn’t to endorse GAVI’s agenda, but giving them the money directly would have meant they actually get the full amount. This setup means that a large percentage will never be received.

Much like with the climate bonds industry, vaccine bonds don’t actually contribute to public well being. In both cases, it allows private parties to profit off of the slush funds that are generated. These bonds don’t make the weather, or vaccines, any better. The two cases have considerable overlap.

The main difference is that while the climate change industry is simply a gigantic waste of public money, the vaccines that ultimately result can do incredible harm to the people who take it.

2. A Look At IFFIm’s Financials

According to the latest financial statement, IFFIm is sitting on $1.198 billion in equity (or assets minus liabilities). That being said, it’s difficult to see how much solvent this operation is. The bulk of their “assets” are pledges from nations down the road.

Disclaimer: This is not professional accounting information, just a lay impression from reading through the reports.

IFFIm 2006 Trustees Report and Financial Statements
IFFIm 2007 Trustees Report and Financial Statements
IFFIm 2008 Trustees Report and Financial Statements
IFFIm 2009 Trustees Report and Financial Statements
IFFIm 2010 Trustees Report and Financial Statements
IFFIm 2011 Trustees Report and Financial Statements
IFFIm 2012 Trustees Report and Financial Statements
IFFIm 2013 Trustees Report and Financial Statements
IFFIm 2014 Trustees Report and Financial Statements
IFFIm 2015 Trustees Report and Financial Statements
IFFIm 2016 Trustees Report and Financial Statements
IFFIm 2017 Trustees Report and Financial Statements
IFFIm 2018 Trustees Report and Financial Statements

According to the most recent IFFIm annual report, these were the trustees of the company at the time.

These aren’t doctors or any sort of scientists or medical professionals. These are bankers whose job it is to turn the slush fund into a very profitable venture.

Various nations (Canada is now one) are pledging money to the IFFIm, who then turns around and issues bonds which it sells to the World Bank. Those bonds are then sold to private investors.

The steps for this were outlined in the last section. Again, what benefit does this give to donor nations? Either the bonds are sold at a discount, or donor nations will be paying the interest as well (or perhaps both). But this does generate a nice slush fund for the banker to play around with.

According to the last financial statement, on page 18, GAVI contributed $1 million (in U.S. dollars) to the Int’l Finance Facility for Immunization for administrative costs. Essentially this means that GAVI is funding the operation of IFFIm, or rather that the Gates Foundation is.

Nation Date Years Of Bond Amount ($USD)
Australia 2011 19 $176,463,000
Australia 2016 5 $26,469,000
Brazil 2018 20 $20,000,000
France 2006 15 $426,931,000
France 2007 19 $993,072,000
France 2017 5 $171,780,000
France 2017 5 $171,780,000
Italy 2006 20 $542,195,000
Italy 2011 14 $29,203,000
Netherlands 2017 5 $91,616,000
Netherlands 2009 7 $66,667,000
Norway 2006 5 $127,000,000
Norway 2010 10 $172,829,000
South Africa 2007 20 $20,000,000
Spain 2006 5 $217,015,000
Sweden 2006 20 $30,851,000
UK 2010 19 $319,225,000

Those listings are the “legally binding” pledges that various nations have made to IFFIm over the last 15 years. Doubtful that any nation ever held a referendum.

In February 2019, the IFFIm board issued a new indicative funding confirmation to Gavi of US$ 50 million comprised of US$ 45 million to help in the funding of new and underused vaccine support programmes and US$ 5 million to help in the funding of health systems strengthening programmes.

In March 2019, the IFFIm board approved a proposal for Gavi to support the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovation through the issuance of IFFIm bonds backed by a new pledge from the Kingdom of Norway to IFFIm. CEPI is a global public-private partnership whose mission is to accelerate the development of vaccines against emerging infectious diseases and enable equitable access to these vaccines for people during outbreaks. The approved arrangement will accelerate the availability of funding for programmes by drawing on capacity to raise financing on international capital markets based on long-term pledges from its Grantors.

This is from page 23 of the latest report. IFFIm approved a proposal by GAVI…. Okay, so does GAVI need to get permission from IFFIm? Bonds were issued to back a new pledge from Norway.

Considering how long this whole thing has been going on for, one has to ask if the current “pandemic” is just an excuse to upscale the existing industry.

It doesn’t get much more cliché than this: The IFFIm is using 2 (yes 2) limited liability corporations (LLCs) in the Cayman Islands to issue certificates to run IFFIm’s operations. Now, the Cayman Islands is notorious for their bank secrecy laws. If the IFFIm is a completely legitimate organization, one has to wonder why they didn’t simply set up an LLC — or a trust — in the UK, where they are based.

3. Canada To Fund Global Vaxx Agenda

Canada is pledging $600 million to a global public-private partnership that works on vaccination campaigns in the world’s poorest countries, International Development Minister Karina Gould announced today.

In addition to the funding for Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, Canada is committing $47.5 million annually over four years to support the Global Polio Eradication Initiative’s strategy, Gould said.

Gould made the announcement at the launch of the Group of Friends of Solidarity for Global Health Security virtual meeting, which she co-hosted with her counterparts from Denmark, Qatar, South Korea and Sierra Leone.

Money aside, there is something else to note: Karina Gould makes it clear that it is (supposedly) Canada’s job to provide vaccinations for the entire world.

“As a global community, we must work to ensure that those most vulnerable, including women and children, have access to vaccinations to keep them healthy wherever they live,” Gould said.

“COVID-19 has demonstrated that viruses do not know borders. Our health here in Canada depends on the health of everyone, everywhere.”

How convenient for Canada that all of the parliamentary hurdles have already been cleared for this. Raj Saini introduced M-132 back in November 2017. Hearings took place in the fall of 2018. Parliament formally adopted the recommendations in March 2019. See this piece and also this piece. The timing certainly worked out well.

Now the same pharmaceutical companies that were previously pushing for the passage of M-132 will be able to reap the rewards: Government contracts to develop vaccines. In a recent move, AbCellera received a $175.6 million grant to work on a coronavirus cure.

Rest assured, many more Government contracts will be handed out soon enough.

4. GAVI Gets Funding From Gates

This is probably the most well known link in the chain. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation helped found GAVI, the Global Vaccine Alliance in 1999, and has made regular contributions to it. The foundation essentially runs the show.

The Global Vaccine Alliance, as the name suggests, is an organization devoted to pushing vaccinations on the public all across the world. Bill Gates has long been a proponent of mass vaccinations.

It was addressed in part 4 and part 5 how GAVI gets some of their funding, and that GAVI has been lobbying the Federal Government for 2 years. Between March 2018 and January 2020, there are 20 communications reports, according to records from the Office of the Lobbying Commissioner. Part 6 of the series shows that many of the lobbied bureaucrats follow Bill Gates.

Crestview Strategy lobbyists have ties to various political parties across the spectrum, including the Conservative Party of Canada. This lobbying seems to have paid off, as GAVI’s fees for paid influencers have resulted in a significant Government contract.

With this announcement, the Trudeau Government will be handing $475 million to GAVI. This means that it will actually be giving $475 for Gates to control. Considering that the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation remains one of the biggest donors to GAVI, no one can deny that Gates has significant influence over it.

5. GPEI Partners With Gates/GAVI

From its own website, it appears that the Global Polio Eradication Initiative partners with several prominent groups including:

  • World Health Oranization
  • Rotary
  • Center for Disease Control
  • UNICEF
  • Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
  • GAVI (Global Vaccine Alliance)

On paper, it looks like Canada is giving $190 million ($47.5M annually for 4 years), to a separate organization, but these groups all work together.

6. World Bank A Full Partner

From this 2018 speech, the World Bank outlined just how varied and widespread its goals really were.

As you know, UNCTAD estimates that achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGS) by 2030 will require $3.9 trillion to be invested in developing countries each year. It also notes that with annual investment of only $1.4 trillion, the annual investment gap is $2.5 trillion. Let me therefore take this opportunity thank the Group of Friends of SDG Finance for your leadership on mobilizing private finance to achieve these important goals. At the World Bank Group, we have equally strengthened our focus on mobilizing the private sector for development.

We have this dream of what the world should be like, and we only need $3.9 trillion per year to make it a reality. The article to too long to quote in its entirety, but there are some sections that need to be addressed.

Last year, the World Bank issued the world’s first global pandemic bond that will channel surge funding to developing countries facing the risk of a pandemic. It was designed to prevent another Ebola crisis, and was the first time that pandemic risk in low income countries was transferred to the financial markets. Such a facility, will enable the world to respond more promptly than it did when the 2013-2014 Ebola crisis happened, thereby minimizing the death toll and the negative impact on the economy.

To date we have provided $3.9 billion in catastrophe and weather risk transactions, of which nearly $2 billion has been executed in the last ten months. We have seen increased demand from clients as the frequency of extreme weather events has increased. Cat bonds that transfer risk to the capital markets have become an important complement to emergency funds, budget reserves, and contingent credit lines because it allows countries to leverage their budgets to offer greater protection when disasters strike.

Yes, pandemic bonds a are real thing, and they operate as a form of insurance. People are willing to buy these bonds when times are good, and returns are assured. However, when a pandemic (or multiple pandemics) occur, the funds get depleted pretty quickly. Hence the reluctance to payout initially.

New initiatives that we are also exploring include innovative mechanisms to expand financing for education, famine and World Bank seasoned loans to institutional investors. Examples are:
.
1) The Education Commission’s International Financing Facility for Immunization, IFFEd, a fund that will not only reduce the cost to developing countries of financing education projects but also increase the capacity of multilateral institutions to lend for education projects. IFFEd is supported by the World Bank and regional development banks. IFFEd has raised $2 billion for education with a goal of $10 billion. It is expected that every billion of aid will leverage $4 billion from development banks. On May 11, 2018 IFFEd was endorsed by the UN Secretary General.

Is the IFFed related to the IFFIm? Are funds just being moved around, or is this really the same group?

In this respect we partnered with Japan’s Government Pension Investment Fund (GPIF) on research with respect to sustainable fixed income investing. We expect this research to promote strategies for including sustainability criteria in investment decisions. We are equally conducting research for the G20 by engaging investors to come up with concrete actions to scale up long-term sustainable investments and support the SDGs.

This is rather creepy. If anyone in Japan ever reads this article, consider pulling your money out of the pension plan.

The World Bank is buying bonds from IFFIm, and those bonds are based on pledges from donor nations. Considering the globalist nature of many World Bank Initiatives, is this an underhanded way to get nations to fund projects they otherwise couldn’t sell to the public.

7. Gov’t Is Throwing Money Away

The $125 million pledge that is going to the Int’l Finance Facility for Immunisation (IFFIm), is essentially being used to create bonds for bankers to sell privately. Canadian taxpayer debt is being used to finance a portion of this slush fund, which doesn’t actually help improve global health.

The vaccine bonds in many ways parallel the climate bonds. Nations pledge large sums of money, and the handlers use those pledges to create bonds which are sold on the private market. Neither benefit the public at large, but they do make some people extremely wealthy.

As for the grants to GAVI and to GPEI, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation heavily finances both organizations. It is foolish to think that they are independent. Noted early, GAVI has been using the lobbying firm Crestview Strategy to push their agenda for the last 2 years. There are 20 communications reports on file.

The Federal Government has quite bluntly stated that they see providing “global health care” as critical to keeping Canadians healthy. Effectively, this is free health care for the world, paid for by Canadians. Or at least that is what Ottawa claims it believes.

Of course, mainstream outlets like the CBC won’t give you the entire story. Their job is to ensure Canadians don’t see the big picture.

(1) “https://www.kff.org/news-summary/canada-commits-cad-600m-to-gavi-cad-190m-to-gpei-over-4-years/
(2) https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/vaccination-canada-gavi-covid-pandemic-1.5566532
(3) http://archive.is/RxcxT
(4) https://iffim.org/about-iffim
(5) http://archive.is/BCjMe
(6) https://iffim.org/investor-centre/vaccine-bonds
(7) http://archive.is/lPUOc
(8) http://polioeradication.org/
(9) http://archive.is/NTy9J (2013 archive)
(10) http://archive.is/iEvNd (2020 archive)
(11) https://www.worldbank.org
(12) http://archive.is/iHVTJ (2019 archive)
(13) http://archive.is/IPLo5 (Current)
(14) https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/speech/2018/05/15/leveraging-innovative-finance-for-realizing-the-sustainable-development-goals
(15) http://archive.is/Cpx4c
(16) https://canucklaw.ca/ccs-7-climate-bonds-a-100t-industry-intl-econ-forum-of-the-americas/
(17) https://canucklaw.ca/ccs-16-dr-shiva-ayyadurai-on-how-the-carbon-tax-works/

*Disclaimers, Ethics* Proudly powered by WordPress