85.7% of Covid Deaths in Canada Were Among the Multi-Vaxed from Aug to Sept of 2022. Jabbing 85% of the Population Didn't Reduce Deaths

[Goddess]

35 minutes ago, Goddess said:

You don't know this.

The reason you don't know (besides that you do not WANT to know) about how widespread vax injuries and deaths are is because gov'ts censored and silenced this information to avoid "vaccine hesitancy".

They don't want you to know NOW, so you don't sue them.

High excess deaths, increased covid deaths  and insurance actuary reports of major increases in disability claims - show your claim of "small numbers" to be false.

 

[eyeball]

18 minutes ago, Goddess said:

The reason you don't know....

....is because gov'ts censored and silenced this information to avoid "vaccine hesitancy".

They don't want you to know...

Everything you say is contaminated with this bat-shit crazy lunacy for which you have no more evidence than people who peddle and subscribe to 9/11, chem-trail and UFO conspiracies.

Hopefully in the future we can just sidestep hesitancy altogether by combining vaccine and chem-trails into one program.

[Goddess]

16 hours ago, eyeball said:

Everything you say is contaminated with this bat-shit crazy lunacy for which you have no more evidence than people who peddle and subscribe to 9/11, chem-trail and UFO conspiracies.

Hopefully in the future we can just sidestep hesitancy altogether by combining vaccine and chem-trails into one program.

Oh FFS

It's even been in the MSM news how both Canada and the US gov'ts censored and hid information about vax injuries and used the pandemic to psy-op the public into compliance.

[Goddess]

Military leaders saw pandemic as opportunity to test propaganda techniques, report says | Ottawa Citizen

Coronavirus: how the UK government is using behavioural science (theconversation.com)

Military campaign to influence public opinion continued after defence chief shut it down | CBC News

COVID lockdown is world's biggest psychological experiment | World Economic Forum (weforum.org)

^^^ Psy-ops ^^^

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, Goddess said:

Military leaders saw pandemic as opportunity to test propaganda techniques, report says | Ottawa Citizen

Coronavirus: how the UK government is using behavioural science (theconversation.com)

Military campaign to influence public opinion continued after defence chief shut it down | CBC News

COVID lockdown is world's biggest psychological experiment | World Economic Forum (weforum.org)

^^^ Psy-ops ^^^

That poor little rat is backed into a corner now. 

[Goddess]

Like Dr. Byram Bridle of Guelph University, Prof. Patrick Provost has been fired from Universite Laval.

It simply won’t do to have professors of science speaking publicly on science, if the science on which they are speaking contains “malinformation,” meaning information inconvenient to vested interests.

He took umbrage at the fact that innocent children were suffering the risks and reaping none of the alleged rewards of the Pfizer and Moderna products in question. That these were dangerous products, he knew both scientifically and from personal experience.

It was okay for him to know that, but it was not okay for him to say that.

And what are those interests? They are, of course, financial interests. Grants from Pfizer or Moderna, for example, or from the government departments and agencies with whom these companies partner. They are at the same time political interests, then, for the university itself is increasingly a pawn of such partnerships, to which narrative-control is absolutely indispensable. 

Those vested interests don’t give a damn about science as such. It is “The Science” they care about, because that is the kind of science you can be told by narrative-spinners to follow.

And when you do follow it, so does your money. It flows to them. 

Letter to colleagues from Professor Provost

 

24-04-23

Professor Patrick Provost has been dismissed by Laval University because of his internal and public criticism of Covid-19 mRNA vaccines.

---

On the eve of the Pascal holiday, Thursday 28 March 2024, the Vice-Rector of Human Resources and Finance at Université Laval, André Darveau, informed me in writing of my dismissal. After an immaculate 35-year career in academic research in the biomedical field, including 22 years as a Professor in the Faculty of Medicine at Université Laval and as a Researcher at the CHU de Québec Research Centre.

I am probably the first professor to be dismissed in the exercise of his academic freedom since the Act respecting academic freedom in the university environment, which is supposed to protect it, came into force on 7 June 2022.

My training and my interventions

This decision follows a series of warnings and disciplinary sanctions which, at source, concern a single, sensitive, even explosive issue: my public and internal criticism of Covid-19 mRNA 'vaccines'. Trained as a biochemist, my research work has led me to develop expertise in RNA (over the last 20 years) and lipid nanoparticles (over the last 10 years), which are the two active ingredients in these new 'vaccines'. I am therefore in a position to understand and explain the concepts behind how these 'vaccines' work and, above all, to appreciate the risks they pose to human health. Pfizer's and Moderna's mRNA products are based on a completely new technology and are not "vaccines" - the definition of which was changed in September 2021 - in the traditional sense of the term as understood by the general public.

Being aware of the potential risks, known and unknown, associated with these new "vaccines", I could not remain silent on such important issues, where lives were at stake, particularly those of children. So I decided to go public with my deep and legitimate concerns, which have evolved over time and are based on recognized concepts, solid scientific evidence and reasoning. The main purpose of my statements was to inform and alert the public, my colleagues, my superiors, government experts, doctors and those elected to represent us in the Quebec National Assembly. In a factual, analytical, thoughtful, well-sourced and respectful manner, but insistent (in the absence of a response), I appealed to my interlocutors to reason, prudence, transparency, collaboration, dialogue (or contradictory debates) and respect for the precautionary principle, the rules of ethics, oaths (e.g. the Hippocratic Oath) and medical codes of ethics (e.g. the Nuremberg Code), always with the avowed aim of wanting to 'ensure the protection of the public'.

Why is it that only the public were open, receptive and interested in what I had to say, but that Vice-Rector André Darveau ultimately relieved me of my duties?

The disappearance of debates

Throughout my 35-year career in research, I have been in competition with my peers and I have worked hard to eventually make my mark as a professor and remain competitive in research. I have constantly been challenged, confronted, questioned, criticised and called upon to debate my work, my ideas and my opinions by my peers. Why haven't I been so in the last year or two, when I've made so many public appearances? Why have peers disappeared from adversarial public debate? Why do academics prefer to lodge complaints with Vice-Rector André Darveau's human resources department rather than put their (counter-)arguments to the public or to the main person concerned?

Obtaining nearly 6 million dollars in government funding since the start of my career, training 60 highly qualified people, publishing around a hundred articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals (cited in over 16,000 other articles), and the recognition of my research work with 3 Discovery of the Year awards will not have been enough to be recognised as a valid or credible interlocutor and to open dialogue with my colleagues, my hierarchical superiors or the authorities, nor to resist the steamroller of a political narrative imposed without debate. Is this narrative so weak that it must be protected from criticism at all costs? At the cost of the career of a full professor and established researcher?

What does it take to gain the ear of those in positions of authority in Quebec?

My dismissal comes at the end of a saga that began 27 months ago with a complaint from a professor who disagreed with my comments. Rather than respecting the principle of collegiality and the academic freedom of its professors, allowing reconciliation, facilitating dialogue or debate, or offering mediation, Vice-Rector André Darveau's human resources department quickly ruled the complaint admissible, antagonized the professors involved, prohibited all exchange and discussion, and transported the debate behind closed doors. Is this a way for the human resources department of a university institution to properly manage interactions, disagreements and personal or opinion-based conflicts between the university's 4,075 teaching staff, including 1,665 professors (1,285 members of the SPUL)?

Why hasn't Rector Sophie D'Amours' Université Laval encouraged its professors to express themselves freely, as she claims, and held debates within its walls or in the public arena, as Quebec society would have had a right to expect from the oldest French-language university in North America? Is this not the best way, in a spirit of openness and collegiality, to advance ideas, knowledge and, by extension, society?

The judicialization of opinions and science

The Vice-Rector of Human Resources and Finance at Université Laval has advocated the judicialization of opinions and science, and the prohibition of adversarial debates, whether public or scientific, throughout the last 27 months of the handling of my case, including the last 22 months under the direction of Vice-Rector Darveau, who took office in July 2022. With the help of lawyers, he applied a cumbersome administrative disciplinary process to deal with a total of eleven complaints (two of which were anonymous), all of which he deemed admissible. The first seven complaints led to four suspensions without pay for a total of six months, one week and one day. All are being challenged by way of grievance before the Labour Court.

Why was I never given the chance to meet, discuss, explain or debate with Vice-Rector Darveau, who has a background in microbiology (BSc), virology (MSc) and biochemistry (PhD), and is therefore in a position to understand my arguments and scientific reasoning?

Why judicialize what we can and should be debating between academics?

A first suspension of 8 weeks without pay was imposed on 13 June 2022 following a complaint from a professor, followed by a second suspension of four months without pay on 23 January 2023 after a complaint from a citizen. The sixth complaint, which was to have led to my dismissal, was dropped on 14 February 2023, after Rector Sophie D'Amours received a letter from 280 colleagues supporting me, denouncing my treatment as "abusive" and asking that the disciplinary measures imposed on me be suspended.

Dismissal contested

The "culminating incident" that led to the dismissal was the lodging of (i) an anonymous complaint, the eighth, by a professor colleague for sharing, with colleagues in my department and my Research Axis, an e-mail with scientific content sent to the 125 Members of the National Assembly, and (ii) three complaints (including one anonymous), the ninth, tenth, and eleventh, among the 25,200 doctors in Quebec who received by post a letter intended to inform them more fully about the Covid-19 modified mRNA "vaccines". Following receipt of the letter, three other doctors, including one in public health, wrote to me for further information and clarification, which I was happy to provide.

With regard to the grounds for my dismissal, I would like to make it clear that there is no question of scientific fraud, fabrication, falsification or destruction of research data, plagiarism, republication, inappropriate attribution of authorship, failure to disclose a conflict of interest, misrepresentation, mismanagement or misappropriation of research funds, undermining the integrity of a scientific peer review process and the awarding of funding, breach of ethics, threats, verbal or physical abuse, sexual assault, or a proven breach of the Act.

The Syndicat des professeurs et professeures de l'Université Laval (SPUL) is contesting my dismissal by filing a grievance with the employer, which will be added to the grievances already before arbitrator Rosaire Houde of the Labour Tribunal.

My dismissal comes at a time when the sanctions on which Vice-Rector Darveau bases his decision are still being contested through grievances before arbitrator Rosaire Houde. The sanctions imposed on the professors remain on their files for a period of two years, which in this case covers the exceptional period of crisis at Covid-19. Does this explain, at least in part, the Vice-Rector's eagerness to dismiss me?

Without being able to be heard or even to discuss with the recipients of my correspondence, i.e. my fellow professors (who are experts in their field), my hierarchical superiors, government experts and elected members of the National Assembly who occupy positions of authority or decision-making. What then is the point of the relevant expertise that I have developed and the scientific knowledge that I have accumulated over the course of my career, thanks to the ongoing funding of my salary and research work by the government, if, when the time comes, I can't put it to the right people?

Why do they turn a deaf ear or refuse to hear my well-founded and reasonable arguments? Why are they trying to silence me, without discussion or debate, and destroy my career as a teacher-researcher? Why am I being prevented from using my expertise and knowledge to help protect the public who pay my salary? Why was I dismissed for wanting to protect the public?

More than nineteen of the twenty-seven scheduled hearing days have taken place so far since 22 March 2023. The next hearing days are scheduled for 29 and 30 April 2024, and 2 May 2024, followed by 28 May and 5 June 2024. Pleadings have already been scheduled for 20, 23 and 30 August 2024, and the arbitrator's decision on the first eight-week suspension without pay is expected towards the end of 2024 or early 2025, i.e. more than three years after the alleged offences. The arbitrator's decision will be decisive for the continuation of my professional career: a favourable ruling could mean the cancellation of the first suspension and influence the subsequent settlement of the other contested sanctions, which could pave the way for possible reinstatement. However, an unfavourable decision could put an end to my career as a research professor at Université Laval.

The professorial function

Academic freedom is the basis of the professorial function and what distinguishes it from other professions.

The repeated attacks, the relentlessness and, ultimately, the dismissal to which I have fallen victim at Université Laval, following internal or public communications aimed at ensuring the protection of the public, in particular children aged 5 to 11, from the imposition of an experimental 'vaccine', raise many questions about the exercise of academic freedom. Clearly, debates between professors, the right to speak publicly, academic freedom, the role of professors in public debate and the mission of the university are all at stake.

Can professors still claim academic freedom, which is the freedom to question and criticize society, government and even their own institution, without doctrinal, moral or ideological constraints or the risk of reprisals, always with the aim of protecting and improving the common good?

Will professors have to submit to conditional academic freedom under strict supervision?

For the academic freedom guaranteed by the conventions and protected by the law to be truly exercised, it must be free of institutional constraints and take precedence over any arbitrary process aimed at restricting it, and not be subordinated or subject to them.

What use is a law, however carefully formulated, if it can be circumvented (e.g. by hijacking an administrative process) with impunity?

Are we witnessing institutions interfering in the academic freedom of their professors?

Are we witnessing a redefinition of the role of professors?

At the same time, since the freedom of university professors is the very foundation of the defense of public interests, in the face of the growing power of private interests, are we witnessing a redefinition of the way in which our free and democratic society functions?

How can we claim to live in a free and democratic society if professors are not free to express themselves or to criticize democratic institutions?

It is difficult to see how professors who censor themselves and remain in their ivory towers can serve the interests of the society they are supposed to serve.

The mission of universities and our society

I've worked at Université Laval, the leading French-language university in North America, and at the Centre de recherche du CHU de Québec-Université Laval, the largest French-language health research centre in North America, but these institutions have been incapable of allowing debate between its professors and researchers. Why is this?

Are we witnessing a redefinition of the mission of universities?

If adversarial debate is banned in our higher education institutions, where will it take place?

If teachers can no longer express themselves freely within their institution or in the public arena, who will be able to express themselves freely in society?

Are we witnessing the re-engineering of society, where we will no longer be able to freely express or debate our ideas or certain subjects, and where professors will censor themselves, rather than intervene in public debate or debate with their colleagues, in order to preserve their privileges?

If there is to be a re-engineering of society, would it not be wise for university professors to initiate and participate in public debates? Otherwise, what use are professors?

Why are professors who refuse or are incapable of engaging in dialogue or debate in a collegial spirit not summoned to explain themselves by Vice-Rector Darveau? Why do these professors remain employed by the university when they do not respect its values or mission?

Finally, there may be reason to wonder about possible conflicts or links of interest in the management of finance and human resources at Université Laval. These two departments were merged in July 2022 and placed under the leadership of a single person, Vice-Rector André Darveau. When Mr Darveau arrived, the Vice-Rector for Equity, Diversity and Inclusion and Human Resources (VREDIRH) was renamed Vice-Rector for Human Resources and Finance (VRRHF). Do Université Laval's financial backers have any influence on the management of teaching staff by the VRRHF?

Extract from the grievance contesting my dismissal

Statement of grievance: I contest the content, allegations, conclusions and decision set out in the letter of 28 March 2024 signed by André Darveau, Vice-Rector, Human Resources and Finance, in which he dismissed me.

I contest the termination of my employment relationship, which I denounce as having been made without just and sufficient cause, as well as the reasons and arguments submitted by the decision of 28 March 2024. This decision is illegal, unjust, unreasonable and abusive in the context of the events of the past several months and the Employer's relentlessness, conduct and actions towards me. I denounce the numerous and serious prejudices caused on a personal and professional level, in particular those targeting my research activities and the sustainability of my laboratory, the attack on my reputation, my integrity, my dignity, and my mental and physical health.

Claim: The professor asks the arbitrator

• annul the dismissal and reinstate my employment relationship without delay;

• order the Employer to reinstate me to my position;

• order the Employer to cease its relentless, unreasonable and abusive behaviour towards me...

---

I want to repeat one of the key questions he puts to us: “How can we claim to live in a free and democratic society if professors are not free to express themselves or to criticize democratic institutions?”

It is not clear any more that we can claim that. The firing of Patrick Provost by Laval, like the firing of Martin Kulldorff by Harvard, testifies to the capture of our institutions of higher learning by the aforementioned vested interests.

Edited Monday at 07:58 PM by Goddess

[CdnFox]

38 minutes ago, Goddess said:

I want to repeat one of the key questions he puts to us: “How can we claim to live in a free and democratic society if professors are not free to express themselves or to criticize democratic institutions?”

I'm sorry - was this SUPPOSED to be a free and democratic society? I kind of feel looking around that maybe it wasn't.

[WestCanMan]

Quote

Professor Patrick Provost has been dismissed by Laval University because of his internal and public criticism of Covid-19 mRNA vaccines.

One of Canada's pre-eminent biological researchers/professors, with roughly 100 articles in peer-reviewed magazines to his credit, who's trained as a biochemist and who has worked with RNA and lipid nanoparticles for decades, can't talk about covid and vaccines, but CTV and CBC muppets can. As can our lowlife PM. Or anyone who's waving the pseudovax pom-poms for that matter.

He wasn't even given the courtesy of a meeting to defend himself before he was dismissed [presumably because he had the legal right to record such a discussion - that's just my own 2 bits], and every bit of this went down behind closed doors. The people who fired him "prohibited all exchange and discussion". 

That's the biggest travesty of "science" since Galileo was locked up for the rest of his life, just for speaking about heliocentrism.

Only problem with that article is that he's not called "Professor Patrick Provost" anymore, he's now Heretic Patrick Provost. Get it right. You don't want to get in Trudeau's bad books.

[Goddess]

Yesterday, the US Select Subcommittee on The Coronavirus Pandemic released a staff-level report recommending EcoHealth Alliance President Dr. Peter Daszak be formally debarred and criminally investigated as a result of his actions prior to, and during the COVID-19 pandemic. The report also exposes serious, systemic weaknesses at the NIH that enabled EcoHealth to fund dangerous gain-of-function research in Wuhan, China.

Evidence shows that Dr. Daszak was aware of this potentially dangerous research, yet he failed to inform the NIH.

When criminal activity is shown in this investigation it will uncover a web of intimidation, cover-up and collusion that will make Nuremberg look like OJ's playpen.

It's a start, but will there be justice or just more reports written?

2024.05.01-SSCP-Report_FINAL.pdf (house.gov)

 

 

[eyeball]

9 minutes ago, Goddess said:

It's a start, but will there be justice or just more reports written?

$10 says nothing will happen because...nothing happened.

[Goddess]

40 minutes ago, eyeball said:

$10 says nothing will happen because...nothing happened.

Yes.  "Nothing happened".

Nothing except Daszak creating SARS-Cov2 in the Wuhan lab, paid for by Fauci, then they both called the lab leak a "conspiracy theory", lied to Congress about the whole thing and raked in billions of dollars selling the "cure" for the virus they created.

This is you:

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, Goddess said:

Yesterday, the US Select Subcommittee on The Coronavirus Pandemic released a staff-level report recommending EcoHealth Alliance President Dr. Peter Daszak be formally debarred and criminally investigated as a result of his actions prior to, and during the COVID-19 pandemic. The report also exposes serious, systemic weaknesses at the NIH that enabled EcoHealth to fund dangerous gain-of-function research in Wuhan, China.

Evidence shows that Dr. Daszak was aware of this potentially dangerous research, yet he failed to inform the NIH.

He's the 'Kevin Clinesmith' of the NIH. The Bill Morneau. The fall guy. 

The guys at the top don't go down. Fauci is untouchable just like Comey, Trudeau, etc. But eventually when something's this rotten there has to be "one guy" who did it all, so that the system isn't affected. 

Just like Clinesmith, Daszak won't be disbarred and he won't spend a day in jail, but he has to accept all the blame. A judge will say: "He was a good guy, just trying to stay one step ahead of the next pandemic, and he made a mistake. He's not a criminal." (like Clinesmith lol)

There's a golden handshake waiting for him in a foreign account somewhere. He'll spend the rest of his life in a place no less luxurious than a gated Cayman island beachfront dream-home. 

Edited Thursday at 07:04 PM by WestCanMan

[WestCanMan]

38 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Yes.  "Nothing happened".

Nothing except Daszak creating SARS-Cov2 in the Wuhan lab, paid for by Fauci, then they both called the lab leak a "conspiracy theory", lied to Congress about the whole thing and raked in billions of dollars selling the "cure" for the virus they created.

This is you:

In other threads eyeball & co are SJW's, but regarding liberal/covid scandals, they're cultist-level deniers.

They make Sgt Schultz look like a star witness. 

[eyeball]

3 hours ago, Goddess said:

Nothing except Daszak creating SARS-Cov2 in the Wuhan lab, paid for by Fauci, then they both called the lab leak a "conspiracy theory", lied to Congress about the whole thing and raked in billions of dollars selling the "cure" for the virus they created.

If this were actually true goddess it would  justify the killing of government officials on general principles alone.

[Goddess]

43 minutes ago, eyeball said:

If this were actually true goddess it would  justify the killing of government officials on general principles alone.

What part of it isn't true?

From the Senate hearings in the US (verified by other US organizations), they know it came from the Wuhan lab, headed by Daszak, funded by Fauci, Fauci tried to downplay the lab leak thing (whether it was released on purpose or accidently is up for grabs), Fauci is on record lying to Congress about it and then he made millions on selling the genetic therapy injections.

He should be in jail.

[eyeball]

27 minutes ago, Goddess said:

What part of it isn't true?

The believability of it.

[Goddess]

2 minutes ago, eyeball said:

The believability of it.

You're adorable.

Tuskegee Experiments.

Medical experimentation on Jews during WW2.

Check out what Gates and Fauci have been doing in Africa.

Ring any bells?

[eyeball]

6 minutes ago, Goddess said:

You're adorable.

Tuskegee Experiments.

Medical experimentation on Jews during WW2.

Check out what Gates and Fauci have been doing in Africa.

Ring any bells?

Fauci made millions doing the things you said? Bwahahaha!

You're completely oblivious to why it's so impossible to take you seriously aren't you?

 

[CdnFox]

4 minutes ago, eyeball said:

 

You're completely oblivious to why it's so impossible to take you seriously aren't you?

 

LOL _ pot, meet kettle.

 

[WestCanMan]

2 hours ago, eyeball said:

If this were actually true goddess it would  justify the killing of government officials on general principles alone.

What part of it isn't true?

Don't you think that they modified the bat coronavirus to make it more transmissible among humans?

Fauci admitted to that when he was talking to Rand Paul in the senate. He just said that increasing the virus's transmissibility didn't constitute GoF.

Fauci also lied by omission when he said that covid came from the bat-human-pangolin trio, because that was just one of two distinct possibilities, with the unmentioned one being the far more likely of the two.

The MSM and social media (members of the "Trusted News Initiative") jumped right on board: MSM ignored the topic of the BSL4 lab and big tech banned people for talking about it.

That's all old news, and 100% verified. The only thing that's up for debate is whether or not Daszak/Fauci were compensated in any way, shape or form for their role in it all. Fauci also pimped the "vacccines" hard, and all of his promises about them have fallen by the wayside. He promised people an armoured Humvee and they got a skateboard with 3 wheels. 

If the vax was what Fauci said it was, no one would have been injured by the jab itself, and covid would have been over in late 2021. We all know what happened though, no need to re-hash 2022 because it doesn't have that much to with Fauci/Daszak.

[eyeball]

2 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

What part of it isn't true?

Everything that has to do with the evil conspiracy notions that undergird your perception of everything.  It's destroyed your ability to think straight.

If there was truly any irrefutable evidence of it ordinary people would be hanging bureaucrats and politicians from lampposts. But hey some of you people seem to think all it'll take to punish them is an X on a piece of paper so - what does ordinary people even mean anyway?

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

Everything that has to do with the evil conspiracy notions that undergird your perception of everything.  It's destroyed your ability to think straight.

If there was truly any irrefutable evidence of it ordinary people would be hanging bureaucrats and politicians from lampposts.

Dude trudeau got busted for actual crimes and you won't even help vote him out of office.  Nobody's hanging anyone.

[eyeball]

9 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Dude trudeau got busted for actual crimes

What was he charged with?

[Goddess]

16 hours ago, eyeball said:

Fauci made millions doing the things you said? Bwahahaha!

 

 

Ya, he did.  Are you really THAT uninformed?

Quote

You're completely oblivious to why it's so impossible to take you seriously aren't you?

I can't take you seriously at all.

If you think any of these people are doing what they're doing out of the goodness of their hearts, you're a fool.

[Goddess]

15 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

The only thing that's up for debate is whether or not Daszak/Fauci were compensated in any way, shape or form for their role in it all.

Fauci refused to divulge at the Senate hearings what his bonuses and raises were and apparently, he doesn't legally have to.  Sen. Rand Paul's point is that the laws should be changed so that the public can be made aware of where these people's loyalties lie.

Fauci owns large amounts of shares in Moderna.  He's also the head of the NIH, which owns the patent on the Moderna vax, so.......of course he gets a cut of all that.  He just refuses to reveal how much it is.