What I find most interesting are the articles and comments our local vaccination ambassador doesn't comment on. Those that they knowingly wish to ignore are the best sources of truth.
Lipid nanoparticles are a product of university of BC and Acuitas Therapeutics.
I love that the fact check says Trudeau isn't involved but then goes to say the shareholders are secret to protect their identity. That's some mental gymnastics.
TL:DR - The National Post says they've seen its central-securities register and there's no sign of any Trudeaus. What are the "mental gymnastics" you're talking about?
Your link says "A company official showed the National Post a copy of its central-securities register, a legally required document detailing ownership of the business. It indicates that most of the shares are controlled by the three founders and the rest by senior employees, board members and holding companies set up by employees for income-tax purposes. Acuitas asked that names of the shareholders not be published to protect them from attacks by anti-vaccine advocates."
When you say "I love that the fact check says Trudeau isn't involved but then goes to say the shareholders are secret to protect their identity." are you saying the National Post is lying when they claim "No, the Trudeau Foundation doesn't own a firm supplying Pfizer COVID vaccine"?
If so, got any proof, or is it just a personal opinion?
The mental gymnastics I meant is: if it's secret then how would they know if Trudeau, his foundation or any third party on his behalf was involved in any part of the business?
Unless they were privy to secret information which then is not secret.
It's not clear if they know and are keeping it secret or it's secret by some other process.
It says right in the article "A company official showed the National Post a copy of its central-securities register, a legally required document detailing ownership of the business. It indicates that most of the shares are controlled by the three founders and the rest by senior employees, board members and holding companies set up by employees for income-tax purposes. Acuitas asked that names of the shareholders not be published"
Great but it's not a secret so the use of the term is misleading. The correct term would be private since this information was shared widely with not just with CTV but others like Reuters as well. If they shared only with one third party it may be considered a secret, but widely sharing means they wished to keep it from certain people only like the public at large. That's not secret. There is no official secret designation attached.
Understand that the company like any other pharmaceutical companies shouldn't be secret. If you are using aa product widely there should be accountability. Hiding behind a conspiracy theory like some amorphous threat that doesn't exist allows them the shield the people and products without oversight.
Open and transparent is the best way to ensure the quality of products being put into most of the population of the world.
It's highly possible that an unscrupulous company could use an actor like this instagram poster to create a false claim to then allow them to hide behind the "some people say so we must hide" doctrine. Not saying this happened in this case but the public must be protected from this type of behaviour.
it's not a secret so the use of the term is misleading
They didn't use the term secret. You did.
not just with CTV but others like Reuters as well
It's a National Post article. No mention of CTV or Reuters.
there should be accountability
If they are willing to show the register of shareholders to a newspaper reporter then I doubt your lawyer would have any trouble seeing it if you had a beef with the company.
an actor like this instagram poster
What?
the public must be protected from this type of behaviour.
Like I said: if they are willing to show the register of shareholders to a newspaper reporter then I doubt your lawyer would have any trouble seeing it if you had a beef with the company.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6306759/
Searching for brain damage and lipid nanoparticles produces this nih article where they admit toxicity.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33182382/
Ethylene glycol causes brain damage and is used in lipids to bypass the blood brain barrier.
Not saying they are causing brain damage on purpose but they should know and inform people that it's an eventual outcome.
It's been well recorded for many years gene therapy and lipid nanoparticles cause brain damage.
What I find most interesting are the articles and comments our local vaccination ambassador doesn't comment on. Those that they knowingly wish to ignore are the best sources of truth.
Lipid nanoparticles are a product of university of BC and Acuitas Therapeutics.
https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/no-trudeau-foundation-doesnt-own-firm-supplying-pfizer-covid-vaccine
I love that the fact check says Trudeau isn't involved but then goes to say the shareholders are secret to protect their identity. That's some mental gymnastics.
Yep is a tired old tactic. "No true Scotsman..."
That source isn't valid because he's not pure enough. How religious.
TL:DR - The National Post says they've seen its central-securities register and there's no sign of any Trudeaus. What are the "mental gymnastics" you're talking about?
Your link says "A company official showed the National Post a copy of its central-securities register, a legally required document detailing ownership of the business. It indicates that most of the shares are controlled by the three founders and the rest by senior employees, board members and holding companies set up by employees for income-tax purposes. Acuitas asked that names of the shareholders not be published to protect them from attacks by anti-vaccine advocates."
When you say "I love that the fact check says Trudeau isn't involved but then goes to say the shareholders are secret to protect their identity." are you saying the National Post is lying when they claim "No, the Trudeau Foundation doesn't own a firm supplying Pfizer COVID vaccine"?
If so, got any proof, or is it just a personal opinion?
The mental gymnastics I meant is: if it's secret then how would they know if Trudeau, his foundation or any third party on his behalf was involved in any part of the business?
Unless they were privy to secret information which then is not secret.
It's not clear if they know and are keeping it secret or it's secret by some other process.
Maybe they could explain it better.
It says right in the article "A company official showed the National Post a copy of its central-securities register, a legally required document detailing ownership of the business. It indicates that most of the shares are controlled by the three founders and the rest by senior employees, board members and holding companies set up by employees for income-tax purposes. Acuitas asked that names of the shareholders not be published"
They know because they've seen the names.
Great but it's not a secret so the use of the term is misleading. The correct term would be private since this information was shared widely with not just with CTV but others like Reuters as well. If they shared only with one third party it may be considered a secret, but widely sharing means they wished to keep it from certain people only like the public at large. That's not secret. There is no official secret designation attached.
Understand that the company like any other pharmaceutical companies shouldn't be secret. If you are using aa product widely there should be accountability. Hiding behind a conspiracy theory like some amorphous threat that doesn't exist allows them the shield the people and products without oversight.
Open and transparent is the best way to ensure the quality of products being put into most of the population of the world.
It's highly possible that an unscrupulous company could use an actor like this instagram poster to create a false claim to then allow them to hide behind the "some people say so we must hide" doctrine. Not saying this happened in this case but the public must be protected from this type of behaviour.
They didn't use the term secret. You did.
It's a National Post article. No mention of CTV or Reuters.
If they are willing to show the register of shareholders to a newspaper reporter then I doubt your lawyer would have any trouble seeing it if you had a beef with the company.
What?
Like I said: if they are willing to show the register of shareholders to a newspaper reporter then I doubt your lawyer would have any trouble seeing it if you had a beef with the company.
lol