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.
I doubt very much the "journalists" who wrote much of the articles -- since much of the content is repeated in the other journals it indicates they were potentially assigned to distribute the notes and add their own embellishments to personalize the fact check. Otherwise I would expect that plagiarism would be a risk as they parroted the same messaging.
What this actually looks like is a limited holdout campaign written by what appears to be an intelligence psyop run through two actors:
Its allegations were tied to statements made by a “Dr. David Martin,” a financial analyst known for his prominent role in the latest edition of Plandemic, a widely viewed video packed with COVID disinformation.
In a recent interview on the Stew Peters Show, another far-right podcast in the U.S., Martin charged without evidence that Trudeau promoted vaccination not for health reasons but because sales of the vaccine that used Acuitas’s product would benefit that company and therefore the Canadian economy.
Stew Peters is often perceived to be an agent who works with intelligence groups to "hold out" intelligence assets to create "ahead of the curve" discreditable content so that it can be referred to by "creditable" sources to create a favourable negative PR event.
As a side note, Stew Peters for example was elevating Pat King a year before the trucker protest as a limited hold out for what was bad press on the fact that COVID had never been isolated without monkey kidney cells (Vero) which tainted the "artificial" isolation of COVID used to create the COVID designation. Fast forward a year and Pat King show up to discredit the trucker protest by blocking access to the airport in Ottawa and create the right conditions for the liberal government to get their intended result of calling for the emergency act. He was potentially activated, like all deep cover actors can be, to create conditions favorable to government overreach.
Intelligence teams working ahead of the curve often use tactics like these to create the inverse messaging needed by other agents to cover for potentially unfavorable facts.
So from that I would speculate some information unrelated to the "hold out" may or may not be true but it's mired in press cover by multiple left wing agent publications. Would the public have ever been exposed to these allegations and misinformed through the hold out actors were properly chastised at the front rather than just producing vague propaganda fact checks I wager the real truth the hold out covers up would have come out. Probably something to do with lipid nanoparticles potentially causing brain damage:
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.
I could care less about the company. What I find disturbing is the fact checks are appearing to be a coordinated PR campaign copy/paste job:
https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-trudeau-acuitas/fact-check-neither-justin-trudeau-nor-the-trudeau-foundation-have-shares-in-acuitas-therapeutics-idUSL1N2UT27X/
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2022/02/24/fact-check-trudeau-foundation-doesnt-own-40-acuitas-therapeutics/6877953001/
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/feb/22/instagram-posts/trudeau-foundation-does-not-own-stock-company-invo/
https://twitter.com/i/events/1495653280826814465
I doubt very much the "journalists" who wrote much of the articles -- since much of the content is repeated in the other journals it indicates they were potentially assigned to distribute the notes and add their own embellishments to personalize the fact check. Otherwise I would expect that plagiarism would be a risk as they parroted the same messaging.
What this actually looks like is a limited holdout campaign written by what appears to be an intelligence psyop run through two actors:
Stew Peters is often perceived to be an agent who works with intelligence groups to "hold out" intelligence assets to create "ahead of the curve" discreditable content so that it can be referred to by "creditable" sources to create a favourable negative PR event.
As a side note, Stew Peters for example was elevating Pat King a year before the trucker protest as a limited hold out for what was bad press on the fact that COVID had never been isolated without monkey kidney cells (Vero) which tainted the "artificial" isolation of COVID used to create the COVID designation. Fast forward a year and Pat King show up to discredit the trucker protest by blocking access to the airport in Ottawa and create the right conditions for the liberal government to get their intended result of calling for the emergency act. He was potentially activated, like all deep cover actors can be, to create conditions favorable to government overreach.
Intelligence teams working ahead of the curve often use tactics like these to create the inverse messaging needed by other agents to cover for potentially unfavorable facts.
So from that I would speculate some information unrelated to the "hold out" may or may not be true but it's mired in press cover by multiple left wing agent publications. Would the public have ever been exposed to these allegations and misinformed through the hold out actors were properly chastised at the front rather than just producing vague propaganda fact checks I wager the real truth the hold out covers up would have come out. Probably something to do with lipid nanoparticles potentially causing brain damage:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9322368/
My mind wonders who paid for all this PR. It is not free.
Probably taxpayers.