Engineer, Analyst - I don't pretend to know all the answers. I do, however, ask some good questions.
Joined February 2021
- Tweets15.1K
- Following2.8K
- Followers4K
- Likes4.9K
Pinned Tweet
Organ Transplants - are COVID vaccines mandated? 🤔
✅ UK: no mandate (recommended)
❌ Alberta: YES - even after recovery from infection
UK gets the green check ✅ for informed consent.
@ABDanielleSmith
@AdrianaLaGrange
Officially no. organdonation.nhs.uk/get-inv…
Knowledge Acquisition retweeted
Everyone who enabled Fauci and his lies is as guilty as him because the evidence was there all along.
End the circus and start prosecuting people like Peter Marks and Deborah Birx who don’t have pardons.
Fauci is now pleading the fifth - in spite of a pardon which he claims he didn't need.
@BogochIsaac was a big fan of Dr. Fauci, regularly retweeting and sharing his 'wisdom'.
Isaac - have you changed your opinion about Fauci?
"Hopefully, as we get into the next year & we start doing things that are based fundamentally on evidence & data, there will be less of a push back by the people who seem to be pushing back on science"
-Dr. Anthony Fauci
Great interview by @NightShiftMD
bit.ly/2WbHuYS
"Based on the advice of my lawyer .... "
Wise words indeed. 🤦
nitter.cf/BogochIsaac/status/122…
1. Three scenarios on how the novel #coronavirus epidemic may play out.
But wise words from Dr. Anthony Fauci:
“The issue is, we don’t know. And any sort of prediction would be ill-advised”
buzzfeednews.com/article/dan…
Decades ago, Fauci once told the truth re natural immunity.
@BogochIsaac was among the first MD's in Canada to pretend that vax immunity was superior to recovery from infection. 🤣🤣🤣
Was the year 2004 the peak of medical science? 🤔
nitter.cf/covid_clarity/status/1…
Opposition MP's might highlight this.
This is a fantastic idea - not perfect, but pretty good.
In business, there is a saying, don't let perfection be the enemy of a pretty good solution.
Surveillance and Digital ID is awful - a stark contrast.
@jamiljivani
@Roman_Baber
I’ve been following the debate around Bill C-22, Bill C-34, and Bill C-36.
Together, they touch on lawful access to digital information, online safety for children, the social media ban for kids under 16, AI chatbots, privacy, and consumer data rights.
Parents (and most people) are right to be concerned about the harm smartphones and social media are doing to children.
But I worry we are moving too quickly toward the wrong architecture and using this as cover.
The bills here give the government significant new powers over digital life before we have properly debated what freedoms we should have.
I would rather consider something as blunt as prohibiting physical smartphones for children under 16, while allowing simple phones for calls and texts, than rush into legislation with such massive implications.
A physical smartphone ban for minors can be debated, tested, changed, or reversed. A surveillance architecture is much harder to unwind once it exists.
I am also concerned by how much of the real substance will be decided after Parliament votes.
We should not be giving unelected regulators broad discretion over privacy, speech, encryption, digital identity, private conversation, and what counts as harmful content.
Those choices should be made by legislature following real debate. This matters even more as AI becomes more powerful and governments begin using it.
It may be used tomorrow in ways we do not yet understand.
Before we redesign digital rights, Canadians deserve a much deeper debate:
1. Do citizens own their personal data?
2. Should they be compensated when others profit from it?
3. Do they have a right to strong encryption?
4. Do they have a right to conversations that remain truly private?
5. What protections should exist when AI systems can increasingly analyze, predict, and influence human behaviour?
6. Do we have the right to erasure? Or to opt out entirely?
7. How much burden should be placed on technology businesses to comply?
I don’t like many of the answers these bills offer. Hence, a simpler solution. Protect children directly, let them have simple phones for now.
Then take the time to get the rest right.
Our federal government is doing Canadians a disservice by rushing legislation this consequential without having serious public debate.
At the minimum, this one post highlights how much smarter Lombardi is than @fordnation - who can't seem to go a week without talking about alcohol.
nitter.cf/EricDLombardi/status/2…
I’ve been following the debate around Bill C-22, Bill C-34, and Bill C-36.
Together, they touch on lawful access to digital information, online safety for children, the social media ban for kids under 16, AI chatbots, privacy, and consumer data rights.
Parents (and most people) are right to be concerned about the harm smartphones and social media are doing to children.
But I worry we are moving too quickly toward the wrong architecture and using this as cover.
The bills here give the government significant new powers over digital life before we have properly debated what freedoms we should have.
I would rather consider something as blunt as prohibiting physical smartphones for children under 16, while allowing simple phones for calls and texts, than rush into legislation with such massive implications.
A physical smartphone ban for minors can be debated, tested, changed, or reversed. A surveillance architecture is much harder to unwind once it exists.
I am also concerned by how much of the real substance will be decided after Parliament votes.
We should not be giving unelected regulators broad discretion over privacy, speech, encryption, digital identity, private conversation, and what counts as harmful content.
Those choices should be made by legislature following real debate. This matters even more as AI becomes more powerful and governments begin using it.
It may be used tomorrow in ways we do not yet understand.
Before we redesign digital rights, Canadians deserve a much deeper debate:
1. Do citizens own their personal data?
2. Should they be compensated when others profit from it?
3. Do they have a right to strong encryption?
4. Do they have a right to conversations that remain truly private?
5. What protections should exist when AI systems can increasingly analyze, predict, and influence human behaviour?
6. Do we have the right to erasure? Or to opt out entirely?
7. How much burden should be placed on technology businesses to comply?
I don’t like many of the answers these bills offer. Hence, a simpler solution. Protect children directly, let them have simple phones for now.
Then take the time to get the rest right.
Our federal government is doing Canadians a disservice by rushing legislation this consequential without having serious public debate.
Knowledge Acquisition retweeted
I’ve been following the debate around Bill C-22, Bill C-34, and Bill C-36.
Together, they touch on lawful access to digital information, online safety for children, the social media ban for kids under 16, AI chatbots, privacy, and consumer data rights.
Parents (and most people) are right to be concerned about the harm smartphones and social media are doing to children.
But I worry we are moving too quickly toward the wrong architecture and using this as cover.
The bills here give the government significant new powers over digital life before we have properly debated what freedoms we should have.
I would rather consider something as blunt as prohibiting physical smartphones for children under 16, while allowing simple phones for calls and texts, than rush into legislation with such massive implications.
A physical smartphone ban for minors can be debated, tested, changed, or reversed. A surveillance architecture is much harder to unwind once it exists.
I am also concerned by how much of the real substance will be decided after Parliament votes.
We should not be giving unelected regulators broad discretion over privacy, speech, encryption, digital identity, private conversation, and what counts as harmful content.
Those choices should be made by legislature following real debate. This matters even more as AI becomes more powerful and governments begin using it.
It may be used tomorrow in ways we do not yet understand.
Before we redesign digital rights, Canadians deserve a much deeper debate:
1. Do citizens own their personal data?
2. Should they be compensated when others profit from it?
3. Do they have a right to strong encryption?
4. Do they have a right to conversations that remain truly private?
5. What protections should exist when AI systems can increasingly analyze, predict, and influence human behaviour?
6. Do we have the right to erasure? Or to opt out entirely?
7. How much burden should be placed on technology businesses to comply?
I don’t like many of the answers these bills offer. Hence, a simpler solution. Protect children directly, let them have simple phones for now.
Then take the time to get the rest right.
Our federal government is doing Canadians a disservice by rushing legislation this consequential without having serious public debate.
Knowledge Acquisition retweeted
Dan, thank you!
You have accomplished something incredibly important. By having the courage to share your story, you’ve helped give a voice to many others who have felt unseen, unheard, or forgotten. That takes real strength.
I was deeply moved by the screening and by the opportunity to hear your son’s story. The impact you’ve had goes far beyond a single event or a single day. You’ve helped start conversations that need to be had, and you’ve reminded people that behind every issue are real human beings with real stories.
Thank you for your perseverance, your courage, and your willingness to keep speaking up when it would have been easier not to.
And thank you for the voicemail Dean shared with me, it meant a great deal to me. I am honoured by the gesture and look forward to meeting you in person at some point.
Keep going, Dan. What you’ve done matters more than you know. ❤️
Now the government knows about Sean for sure.
@DeanAllisonMP attended the screening today in Niagara.
Thank you Dean.
I've accomplished something.
♥️💪😭
This clip is for you Seanerman.
One of your favs.
Should we limit access to spaces based on political status? 🤔
Perhaps a hard lockdown on those who who presume to lead a political party?
Is this ethical? 🤔
Legal? 🤔
After watching the virus spread like wildfire among the vaccinated, can you admit you got this one wrong?
This is - at best - status quo for getting things done in Florida.😂
Isn't the current governor DeSantis? 🤣
This quoted post is unavailable.
Are you trying to destroy your credibility?🤔
Today, I signed a targeted PREP Act declaration to support the development and deployment of medical countermeasures related to Andes virus, which can cause the deadly respiratory illness Hantavirus Pulmonary Syndrome.
This action helps remove barriers to research and response efforts while we continue monitoring the recent outbreak linked to the South Atlantic cruise ship. HHS is taking this situation seriously and will continue working to protect public health and support the safe development of potential treatments and countermeasures.
Sec. Kennedy’s Press office needs to do a whole lot better. They could have saved themselves a whole lot of negative press by stating just what this declaration is and isn’t. Why wasn’t it made clear that this PREP Act Declaration was limited in scope and focus to a specific antiviral drug ? Clarity from a communications office should be a no-brainer. Isn’t this what they are trained to do?
A press office operating in 2026 should understand that an unexplained declaration doesn’t stay unexplained; the vacuum gets filled, and it gets filled by whatever is most shareable.
Knowledge Acquisition retweeted
A claim went viral this week: that the new PREP Act declaration tied to the Andes hantavirus outbreak is secretly paving the way for a new mRNA vaccine.
I read the declaration. It does not mention vaccines. At all. What it actually does is narrower and more mundane than the meme suggests. Worth slowing down on this one.
Knowledge Acquisition retweeted
you never go full ding, and you never go full zeynep
If only the 'experts' could produce such a thread.
Highly recommended.
On hantavirus #ANDV #hantavirus
I think the Andes hantavirus data is being misread right now.
Claims are circulating that the evidence doesn’t seem to support.
I want to walk through them carefully.
Does this mean 'falsely' positive would have been more accurate? 🤔
The mildly positive American is now negative times two:
“An U.S. citizen and passenger of the MV Hondius who was originally reported by authorities to have tested “mildly positive” for the Andes strain of hantavirus has since tested negative for the disease twice, according to Spain’s health ministry, meaning no Americans are among the seven confirmed patients with the virus.”
forbes.com/sites/maryroeloff…
