Social media is full of unsupported claims just like yours, and that's all that turns up when I search. I though maybe you had some relevant information. Sorry.
Yeah i'm quite far removed from the machinations of power of that world. I also realize that its natural to be skeptical of far-reaching claims. But follow the timeline and you'll see our federal health entities following CDC and WHO recommendations to the letter, with no questions nor misgivings. Forgive my causticity, its just annoying when you proffer an idea that feels logically connected and some tard (not you) says Sauce? Sauce? instead of doing their own digging and research. Like I wrote earlier, condensing hours of reading into a succinct post with links is far too much backtracking over something that by now has surely revealed itself as self-evident.
Thanks for that. It's good to know that 15 years ago a drug company refused to donate $10,000 to the WHO because the only way they could do it might look like they were bypassing the WHO's donation guidelines.
It is undeniable that all industries promote their business interests, and some of the methods of some of the industries are not ethical. But if you think a question asked 15 years ago by a freelance journalist supports the claim that presently "Global health institutions are compromised by multinationals" and that Canada's Chief Public Health Officer is "being controlled/ working for the controllers", well, go right ahead. As the song says: "you can't go to jail for what you're thinking".
Other people in these forums - the ones who want to be taken seriously - may take more convincing.
Fuck off, pedant.
Yeah, that's not proof either.
awww little guy wants to be spoonfed, cute
Social media is full of unsupported claims just like yours, and that's all that turns up when I search. I though maybe you had some relevant information. Sorry.
Yeah i'm quite far removed from the machinations of power of that world. I also realize that its natural to be skeptical of far-reaching claims. But follow the timeline and you'll see our federal health entities following CDC and WHO recommendations to the letter, with no questions nor misgivings. Forgive my causticity, its just annoying when you proffer an idea that feels logically connected and some tard (not you) says Sauce? Sauce? instead of doing their own digging and research. Like I wrote earlier, condensing hours of reading into a succinct post with links is far too much backtracking over something that by now has surely revealed itself as self-evident.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1801033/ heres a 15 year old article
Thanks for that. It's good to know that 15 years ago a drug company refused to donate $10,000 to the WHO because the only way they could do it might look like they were bypassing the WHO's donation guidelines.
It is undeniable that all industries promote their business interests, and some of the methods of some of the industries are not ethical. But if you think a question asked 15 years ago by a freelance journalist supports the claim that presently "Global health institutions are compromised by multinationals" and that Canada's Chief Public Health Officer is "being controlled/ working for the controllers", well, go right ahead. As the song says: "you can't go to jail for what you're thinking".
Other people in these forums - the ones who want to be taken seriously - may take more convincing.
Connect the dots yourself, chimp.
I repeat: "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."