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.
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.
That goes to show how bad the forced injection mandates were. When folks say "no one forced you" then the answer is "why did people feel they needed to spend 10k to get a fake card then?" Was it some kind of fake force?
Your post reads like AI having an inability to reconcile complex thoughts.
Dismissing the NY Post, one of the oldest newspapers in the US is very telling. By not addressing the facts of the story but attacking the messenger you are producing propaganda.
By disconnecting the thread you are dismissing that the argument as a whole leads to a thesis outcome.
By sending tax money to blue states blue leaders are robbing the poor of red states through taxes to feed the rich of blue states. The rest of the links support the thesis that red states are systematically robbed by blue leaders to punish them. The book on how red states fail their constituents is to show how blue state propaganda is used to blame the victims of federal theft.
The overall argument regarding why red states are denied services to address poverty can lead to additional financial hardship leads to the article that discusses poverty as the primary source of child abuse claims.
In the end it's the fault of blue fed gov policies that end up causing excessive child abuse claims in red states because poverty is considered a form of neglect.
https://firstfocus.org/blog/poverty-and-child-neglect-what-we-know-and-what-we-need-to-do
By causing gas prices to rise it is an attack on the poor. The federal governments should address this inequity.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5308147/
The article said that the parents were deemed negligent for vaccine resistance.
https://www.propublica.org/article/some-constitutional-rights-dont-apply-in-child-welfare
You can have your children removed if deemed negligent.
https://money.com/covid-19-vaccination-rates-low-income/
https://nypost.com/2021/03/10/massive-1-9-trillion-bill-is-a-bailout-for-blue-states/
https://paa2011.populationassociation.org/papers/111705
Red states do not get public support from taxes that blue states do. This leads to all kinds of social issues and child poverty. Federally the blue run fed gov in the us abuses red states to ensure poverty. It's a form of get in line politics.
When you over tax gas and various systems it is mostly felt by the poor. The rich could care less. So federally adding a carbon tax makes the poor feel pain.
When federal policies cause the price of fuel to rise it's an attack on the poor. That affects everything from groceries to rent.
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.
If you have greater detail of what constitutes child abuse in this chart please supply it otherwise my conjecture is as valid as any other.
Red states by nature are often denied financial support that blue states are given because of political blowback. That's well known. This can lead to financial hardship which is often the cause of negligence cases.
The term vaccination was modified to align gene therapy and lipid nanoparticles to be considered a vaccine. Ergo now relevant to case law for vaccination and thus child custody cases align with those that are preceded and targeted to parents who don't vaccinate.
It's you who are trying to obfuscate and it's obvious you are attempting to redirect to align your cause.
I'm simply saying it you choose to reject a forced injection through coercion or mandates there is case law that supports the crown case to take your child.
What are you attempting to do? Fool people into believing that the medical system is not planning for this? Since it's the national institute for health tracking the cases it's obvious they are planning to enstate the practice at some point, otherwise why track?
And I don't think in law it matters if there are nine or seven cases. Nine were opened and seven judged. All you need is one for precedence.
The ambiguity article is to show the fact that case law can be muddy water and lead to conviction for unwarranted cases.
I think you are attempting to fool the general audience into believing that no one will take a child for vaccination resistance when it has been done before.
Why are you doing that? You seem panicked that I have the evidence of my statement possibly because it comes across as you are spreading misinformation.
Immigration rate greater than 1% yearly causes inflation because infrastructure fails to keep up with demand and as prices rise due to saturation of the market it accelerates.
The last ten years added 10% population growth and has collapsed the housing market to essentially a rental market in major cities.
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/91-215-x/2022001/sec1-eng.htm
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5308147/
There have been nine cases in this article where vaccination led to neglect jugdements.
Where there is ambiguity there is a threat to child custody.
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.
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.