‘bird flu’ hoax update: lead agency still can’t provide/cite scientific evidence of ‘H5N1’ or contagion of symptoms

July 11, 2024 newsletter

Greetings and Best Wishes,

Background

You might like to skip this section if you have been following my newsletter in recent months.

My April 8, 2024 newsletter included:

Calvin Perrins and Michael O’Bernicia’s Notice of Conditional Acceptance for farmers being harassed by “government” agencies over the imaginary “H5N1” (Calvin tells me this tool has been very successful in the U.K.);
Official “H5N1” FOI responses from the CDC, Public Health Agency of Canada, Japan’s National Institute of Infectious Diseases, UK Animal and Plant Health Agency and the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, showing that they have zero scientific evidence re the existence of “H5N1”;
An official 2023 confession that the “experts” at Canadian Food Inspection Agency have zero scientific proof of the existence of any alleged “virus” that they claim has ever affected livestock in Canada;
Articles/videosexposing the “H5N1” scam,
Links to hundreds more “germ”-related FOI responses.

Dr. Sam Bailey’s video and notes of May 21st covered the leaked May 9th “H5N1” round table discussion wherein people acting as “public health experts” in Canada strategized on how to pull off the latest “virus” hoax.

My June 10 newsletter reported that on June 6, 2024 the folks at Canadian Food Inspection Agency said (pg 10) that they needed up to 30 more days to hunt for the following studies requested back on May 9th:

studies that scientifically prove/provide evidence of the existence of “H5N1”
studies that describe purification of particles that are alleged to be “H5N1” directly from bodily fluid/tissue/excrement of “hosts”
studies wherein the purported “genome” of this alleged “virus” was found intact (as opposed to fabricated ‘in silico’ aka a computer model)
studies that scientifically demonstrate contagion of the symptoms allegedly caused by said purported “virus”.

Update re Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA)

Keeping in mind that CFIA is the “lead agency” in Canada on the supposed “H5N1” health threat…

July 9, 2024:
Yashoda Maliah acting as Junior Analyst, Access to Information and Privacy emailed me a new letter “digitally signed by Joannis, Helene” and a “Release Package” (pgs 12-19). The letter reads:

“Enclosed, please find the documents pertaining to your request. Portions of the information have been exempted under section 68(a) of the Access to Information Act. A copy of this section is enclosed for your ease of reference.”

Here is the wording of section 68(a) at the time of my request:

“68 This Part does not apply to
(a) published material, other than material published under Part 2, or material available for purchase by the public”.

“Joannis, Helene” is implying that documents pertaining to my request are held by CFIA and were sent to me, but “portions” were “exempted” because the material is already published or available for purchase.

The “Release Package” is… 4 pages in total. Each “document” is 2 pages in length, comprised of:

a form listing the name of a journal, the title of a “Manuscript Draft”, a list of “Keywords”, a list of “Authors”, but no publication year or date, journal volume/issue, DOI (digital object identifier) or URL, i.e.:

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F3ebdb7f4-fd9d-44e0-aa79-55325070d74d_826x1075.png

and

a page saying that pages x to y are withheld pursuant to section 68(a), i.e. :

So the “Release Package” contains zero studies, zero sentences from any studies, and zero complete citations of any published studies.

Continuing from the CFIA response letter (pg 14):

“Please note the arlicles [sic] are available for purchase on BioRender. Cell Reports is an open-access journal where sustainable access to high-quality papers is supported by a fee. Further information about the journal and about publishing with us can be found here. Upon acceptance you will be offered a choice of two Creative Commons licenses as part of the publishing agreement that allow readers immediate access to the paper upon publication.” (bolding added)

The 3 bolded sentences above are a variation of content from the Cell Reports webpage that lists information for authors preparing manuscripts for submission and publication. The fact that they are included in the response letter despite being entirely irrelevant and inappropriate suggests to me that the entire response is the failed effort of some “AI” algorithm.

Regarding the purported studies and the reference to “BioRender”, below is an excerpt from my July 10 response to “Joannis, Helene” and Mark Holland who acts as “The Honourable Mark Holland” and “Minister of Health”, cc’d to Theresa Tam, Bonnie Henry, etc. (pgs 20/21):

“Thank you, however I won’t spend hours reading “BioRender’s” terms of service, or agree to them, let alone consider giving money to “BioRender” – especially when I don’t see any suggestion that the service provides access to journal articles and I can’t find any evidence that studies with the listed titles even exist, anywhere.

Neither of the titles are listed on Pubmed, Sci-Hub, google, Yandex or the website of the relevant journal. The almost empty “release package” indicates “Manuscript Draft” under each title. The response provides no information regarding purported publication dates, journal volume/issue, doi or url.

“Phylodynamics of the h5n1 outbreak in north america reveals emergence of reassortants with increased fitness” – this title returned no results, and the title suggests a meaningless analysis of computer-model “genomes” that have no demonstrated relationship to the real world or my request. (Virologists always fabricate their “genomes” in silico, based on arrangements of countless sequences – none of which were ever shown to come from a specific particle let alone a replication-competent illness-causing “virus”.)

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F696397f0-f369-4a94-8f50-38bc13893e21_1256x400.png

“MULTIPLE TRANSATLANTIC INCURSIONS OF HIGHLY PATHOGENIC AVIAN INFLUENZA CLADE 2.3.4.4B A(H5N5) VIRUS INTO NORTH AMERICA AND SPILLOVER TO MAMMALS” – this title also returned no results, and the title suggests another delusional analysis based on more of the same, for an imaginary “virus” (“H5N5”) that wasn’t even mentioned in my request.

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fcd5136b4-02b8-4153-a417-f0086f2cf7a1_1254x415.png

I will be publishing an article about this response, showing everyone that despite the media’s “H5N1” fear-mongering and the “public health” community conspiring to further demonize raw milk and cheese, invade privacy, frighten the public and implement “testing” to conjure up “cases”, the “lead agency” still can’t demonstrate that it holds even a shred of scientific evidence that “the virus” even exists or that symptoms are contagious (as with all other “virus” claims).

I invite Mark and all of the “experts” cc’d on this email to cite valid scientific evidence to back up their “virus” activities.

Silence will be interpreted as tacit admission that you are engaged in fraud, complicit in another hoax and not fit for “public service”.”

If anyone finds an actual published study with either of the following titles, I’d appreciate knowing about it… but won’t be holding my breath.

Phylodynamics of the H5N1 avian influenza outbreak in North America reveals the emergence of reassortants with increased fitness
Multiple transatlantic incursions of highly pathogenic avian influenza clade 2.3.4.4b A(H5N5) virus into North America and spillover to mammals.

(Note: this information has been sent to ~200 people who work for “the state”, lamestream media, etc. at Canada, Isle of Man, England and the U.S., so that they can’t claim later that they didn’t know.)

Background

Update re Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA)

Related Reading/Viewing