Canada to follow USA down postal-ballot rabbit hole
By Kit Knightly | OffGuardian | May 13, 2021
The government of Canada is getting ready to amend its election laws to allow the counting of mail-in ballots after the polls have closed, and massively increase the country’s reliance on postal ballots.
According to a report from RebelNews.com, Canada is expecting to issue over 5 million postal votes during the upcoming election, an increase of over 5000% from the ~50,000 issued in the last election. They are also pushing Bill C-19 through parliament which would “temporarily” change election laws to, among other things, allow votes to be counted after polling day.
This was the same exact system that effectively allowed the most obviously rigged US election since 2000 to take place last November.
The covid “pandemic” maybe being used as the reason to change election laws, but it’s not the mechanism by which the votes themselves become much easier to fix. That title belongs to mail-in ballots.
Mail-in or postal ballots have long been the key to electoral fraud in the Western world, with experts warning for decades that they are incredibly vulnerable to fraud:
Vote by mail is more susceptible to corruption than voting at polling places [and] is amenable to manipulation by election officials.
Vote by Mail Doesn’t Deliver, Teresa James & Michael Slater
In fact, the last UK general election, which pre-dated the “pandemic” by a few weeks, was noteworthy for having a surprisingly lop-sided result, accompanied by an unexpected focus on postal ballots and obvious corruption and irregularities in the postal ballot system.
I wrote about this at length last year, when it became supremely obvious that the US election was going to be rigged using postal votes (spoiler alert: it was).
The same exact dynamic which was used to give Creepy Uncle Joe over 80 million votes in November is now being prepped in Canada.
Regional elections in the country have already been subject to weeks of delays and court battles thanks to the influx of postal voting.
This chaos mirrors exactly the fall-out of Biden’s “victory” in the US, and is obviously an important part of this new breed of “democracy”. Unreliable ballots, huge delays in reporting results all in the name of creating confusion and doubt and putting a final nail in the coffin of Western democracy.
“The new normal” for elections, if you will.
Canadian Doctors Are Being Censored
By Ethan Yang | AIER | May 13, 2021
On April 30th, 2021 the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario put out a highly controversial statement regarding what it considers to be Covid misinformation. The CPSO is a regional regulatory body empowered by statutory law to exercise licensing and disciplinary authority over the practice of medicine in Ontario. Think of it as the equivalent of a State Bar Association for American lawyers except for Canadian doctors. The statement from the CPSO goes as follows,
The College is aware and concerned about the increase of misinformation circulating on social media and other platforms regarding physicians who are publicly contradicting public health orders and recommendations. Physicians hold a unique position of trust with the public and have a professional responsibility to not communicate anti-vaccine, anti-masking, anti-distancing and anti-lockdown statements and/or promoting unsupported, unproven treatments for COVID-19. Physicians must not make comments or provide advice that encourages the public to act contrary to public health orders and recommendations. Physicians who put the public at risk may face an investigation by the CPSO and disciplinary action, when warranted. When offering opinions, physicians must be guided by the law, regulatory standards, and the code of ethics and professional conduct. The information shared must not be misleading or deceptive and must be supported by available evidence and science.
The CPSO justifies its statement with the following rationale,
“There have been isolated incidents of physicians using social media to spread blatant misinformation and undermine public health measures meant to protect all of us.”
This development is nothing short of horrifying. Although there are certainly concerns about the spread of falsehoods and conspiracy theories in the age of Covid-19, this sort of broad censorship of speech from practicing medical professionals is not only an ethical sham but anti-science. The practice of science is premised on the rigorous application of the scientific method which among other things requires falsifiability and debate. The move to silence doctors also flies in the face of liberal democracy – something that has been deteriorating around the world as both the public and private sector move to silence dissent.
The fact that the CPSO, a licensing body wielding the power of the state, has taken such an aggressive move to silence dissent even on lockdown policies is especially disturbing given that they are preventing doctors from voicing their expertise on such important matters. The Toronto Sun comments on the incident by writing,
“Right now, restrictions are severe in Canada. The public health orders concerning, for example, the closure of basketball courts and golf courses in Ontario have been widely condemned by many physicians.
Why should physicians not speak out against restrictions that they feel are harmful to the health of their patients?
“Despite undeniable suffering due to lockdowns, the CPSO wants Ontario doctors to stay quiet,” wrote Dr. Shawn Whatley, a former president of the Ontario Medical Association, in a guest column in the Sun.”
It Doesn’t Stop In Ontario
One may think that the policy adopted by the CPSO may be an extreme aberration unique to Ontario. According to the Toronto Star this practice is seeing more adoption, not less. It writes,
“Doctors in British Columbia are being warned they could face investigation or penalties from their regulatory body if they contradict public health orders or guidance about COVID-19.
The warning is contained in a joint statement from the College of Physicians and Surgeons of B.C. and the First Nations Health Authority.”
One doesn’t even need to have a strong opinion on this matter to understand that censoring doctors and mandating conformity to state policy is not only immoral but a direct attack on scientific freedom.
The Declaration of Canadian Physicians for Science and Truth
In response to the CPSO’s order, there has rightly been pushback from the Canadian medical community in the form of the Declaration of Canadian Physicians for Science and Truth. The Declaration’s website features a petition that has been signed by over 4,700 physicians and concerned citizens at the time of this writing.
The declaration lays out three basic complaints with the CPSO’s order.
- Denial of the Scientific Method itself:
- Violation of our Pledge to use Evidence-Based Medicine for our patients:
- Violation of Duty of Informed Consent
More elaboration and information can be found on the Declaration’s website.
Closing Thoughts
To paraphrase the great human rights activist and Soviet dissident Natan Sharansky, what it meant to be a loyal Soviet citizen was to say what you’re supposed to say, to read what you’re permitted to read, and to vote the way you’re supposed to vote, and to know it was all a lie.
It doesn’t take a background in medicine to know that the censorship of medical professionals during a pandemic is the last thing that should be happening. There is no better time for rigorous debate on the efficacy of public health measures than now with unprecedented and unproven lockdown policies being forced on populations worldwide.
Some may say that we can trust that freedom of speech will be restored and that censorship is necessary to expedite the end of the pandemic. This is abundantly flawed for two reasons. The first being the idea that Canadian doctors must conform to the vision of the state and not question it. This is not only a violation of their duty as medical practitioners and scientists but deeply crippling to a sound public health response. Finally, this move is fundamentally opposed to the values of liberal democracy which have now been jeopardized on a global scale. With the lights of an enlightened and modern civilization going out across the world, it would be fair to ask, will they ever be turned back on in our lifetime?
Ethan Yang joined AIER in 2020 as an Editorial Assistant and is a graduate of Trinity College. He received a BA in Political Science alongside a minor in Legal Studies and Formal Organizations.
He currently serves as Local Coordinator at Students for Liberty and the Director of the Mark Twain Center for the Study of Human Freedom at Trinity College.
Government’s ‘Online Safety’ Bill Will Limit Free Speech, Lead To Massive ‘State-backed Censorship’ Warn Watchdogs
“A frightening and historic attack on freedom of speech”

By Steve Watson | Summit News | May 13, 2021
Free speech activists in the UK have warned that new government legislation aimed at social media companies is set to decimate free speech and bring in ‘state-backed censorship’ on an unprecedented scale.
The ‘Online Safety’ Bill is being introduced with the justification of forcing big tech to be more accountable for ‘harmful’ content on their websites.
However, activists have noted that it will be used to remove any opinions and content that big tech or the state do not agree with, and could lead to more publishers being permanently banned from platforms.
The legislation gives the government Office of Communications the power to issue fines of up to £18million or 10 per cent of their annual global turnover if that is higher, and to completely block access to platforms.
Privacy campaign group Big Brother Watch has labelled the legislation “state-backed censorship and monitoring on a scale never seen before in a liberal democracy.”
Another activist group. The Free Speech Union noted that the draft legislation effectively brings media created content on social networks “within scope of a state regulator.”
Another group, The Adam Smith Institute labelled the move “a frightening and historic attack on freedom of speech.”
“The Government should not have the power to instruct private firms to remove legal speech in a free society,” commented Matthew Lesh of the Institute.
‘The scope of these proposals is practically limitless, encompassing everything from ‘trolling’ to ‘fraud’ and ‘misinformation’,” he added.
Lesh further warned that “The vagueness of the legislation means there will be nothing to stop Ofcom and a future government including any additional measures in future.”
Jim Killock, Executive Director of Open Rights Group also weighed in, urging that ‘Treating online speech as inherently dangerous and demanding that risks are eliminated under the threat of massive fines is only going to end up in over-reaction and content removal.”
The legislation is set to be reviewed by a joint committee of MPs, and then brought to Parliament.
The move is yet another example of government using the broad definition of ‘hate speech’ to put into place tools that can be used to silence dissent or opinions it does not want in the public realm.
The legislation was drafted and announced following a sustained campaign involving celebrities and sports personalities who demanded that big tech companies should be held more accountable for instances of racism and bullying on its platforms.
Zelensky targeting opposition leaders for ‘treason’ won’t help unity problems, could shatter Ukraine for good
By Paul Robinson | RT | May 13, 2021
In 2014, as bloody fighting raged in eastern Ukraine, businessman Viktor Medvedchuk darted back and forth across the contact line to negotiate the release of prisoners. Instead of gratitude, he now stands accused of high treason.
Medvedchuk is a serving MP and one of the leaders of the country’s largest opposition party, Opposition Platform – For Life (OPZZh), which primarily draws its support from Russophone residents of southern and eastern Ukraine. Using his connections and status in the community, he was able to strike deals that allowed numerous servicemen to return home from captivity.
However, since the start of the year, the government in Kiev has been putting the squeeze on both Medvedchuk and his political ally, Taras Kozak. In February, the state seized Medvedchuk’s property and banned him and his wife from doing business in Ukraine. Then, officials banned three Russian-language TV stations owned by Kozak. Now, as the situation worsens still further, the national prosecutor has announced that the two MPs will be charged with treason and the alleged plundering of national resources.
The 2014 Western-backed Maidan promised to bring democracy and good government to the country. The reality has proven to be entirely different – civil war; economic collapse; and a government that seems to grow increasingly undemocratic by the day.
Just two years ago, comedian Volodymyr Zelensky promised to reunite what was by then a badly divided nation. This appeal helped him to win an overwhelming majority in the presidential election. The political newcomer fared well in the south and east of the country where Russian-speaking Ukrainians were hopeful of an antidote to the nationalist mood that had swept Ukraine following the Maidan. They were further enthused by the fact that Zelensky himself came from the hard-scrabble Russophone city of Krivoy Rog.
Unfortunately for those supporters, however, Zelensky has proven unwilling, or unable, to follow through on his promises of unity. He has made no effort either to end the war in Donbass by making the concessions required in the 2015 Minsk agreement, nor to stop the process of linguistic Ukrainization by repealing authoritarian legislation that restricts the use of the Russian language in education, the media, and public spaces.
Unsurprisingly, the popularity of both Zelensky and his Servant of the People party have plummeted in recent months.
At least one opinion poll now shows Medvedchuk’s OPZZh party to be the most popular in Ukraine. Unable to bring peace to his country and losing political ground to his rivals, it seems that Zelensky has decided to solve his problems by physically suppressing the opposition.
The specific charges against Medvedchuk and Kozak are somewhat odd. The accusation of treason relates to a phone conversation between the two men in which it is alleged that the former revealed classified information to the latter regarding Ukrainian troop positions. Since both men are members of the Ukrainian parliament, it’s difficult to see how this constitutes treason. The prosecutor maintains that Medvedchuk intended for Kozak to pass the information onto Russian intelligence, but no evidence to support the claims has been provided.
The charge of plundering national resources is believed to relate to the activities of a Ukrainian company, New Projects, which owned the rights to exploit a gas field in the waters off Crimea. Following what the Ukrainians call the Russian “occupation” of Crimea in 2014, New Projects re-registered as a Russian company so that it could continue operating and maintain the flow of energy. This, it is said, amounts to an illegal transfer of Ukrainian property to the Russians. Unfortunately, the exact connection of Medvedchuk and Kozak to New Projects isn’t clear – the prosecutor could say no more than that it believed that the two men are in some way linked to it through intermediaries.
In any case, the New Projects story, including an accusation that Medvedchuk wrote to Russian President Vladimir Putin on the company’s behalf, are nothing new. Ukrainian journalists splashed the charges as far back as 2018. At that time, authorities did not consider it worthy of criminal charges. If their verdict has changed, it’s likely because taking action has become more convenient. In other words, the charges against Medvedchuk and Kozak are political in nature.
There are various possible explanations. One is that Zelensky is trying to eliminate a political threat by extra-judicial means. Another is that the charges originate not with the president but with hardline nationalist elements within the Ukrainian security establishment, and show up Zelensky’s lack of control of his own state apparatus. Russian pundits also speculate that the actions against Medvedchuk and Kozak may be a response to American pressure, although there is no clear paper trail to support this as yet.
Whatever the reason, the fact that the Ukrainian state has chosen to charge leading opposition politicians with high treason indicates a disturbing move in an anti-democratic direction. The 2011 arrest of former Ukrainian prime minister Yulia Timoshenko was repeatedly cited in the West as evidence of the dictatorial inclinations of then-Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovich, a close ally of Moscow. By contrast, nobody in authority in the West seems to be showing the slightest concern over the fate of Medvedchuk and Kozak, and continue to play along with Zelensky’s overtures to the US and EU.
This will only strengthen Russian suspicions that Western platitudes about liberty and democracy are devoid of meaning, and all that really concerns the West is that the the Ukrainian government be reliably anti-Russian.
Worse still, it is hard to see how the charges will help, rather than harm, the Ukrainian state. The violent overthrow of Viktor Yanukovich in February 2014 created a serious crisis of legitimacy in Ukraine. Part of the population accepted the results, but a significant part considered it an unconstitutional coup and thus regarded the post-Maidan regime as illegitimate. Many of the country’s problems, including the war in Donbass, derive from this crisis of legitimacy.
Resolving those issues requires the state to reassure and re-engage with disaffected elements of the population, especially in the breakaway regions of eastern Ukraine. If reunification is on the cards, citizens of Donetsk and Lugansk need to know Kiev is willing to listen to their concerns and respect their choices, which it has failed to do since 2014.
Arresting the leading elected representatives of those same people, on what many will consider to be trumped-up charges, can only have the effect of further alienating them from the national government, thus deepening the crisis of legitimacy. The charges against Medvedchuk and Kozak may suit Zelensky’s political purposes right now, but, in the long term, it is unlikely to leave a positive legacy.
Emails show US Justice Dept Threatened MIT researchers who refuted voter fraud claims in Bolivian election
RT | May 11, 2021
An email exchange in which a US Justice Department (DOJ) lawyer threatens to subpoena academics who refuted voter fraud allegations in Bolivia’s 2019 presidential election has been leaked, fueling speculation of US involvement.
Between October 2020 and January 2021, Angela George – a trial attorney at the DOJ’s Office of International Affairs – repeatedly mailed a group of analysts at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) to obtain their research – eventually threatening to compel them to do so, according to an email chain released by The Intercept news outlet.
In their study for the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR), MIT analysts Jack Williams and John Curiel refuted allegations of election-rigging by incumbent Bolivian President Evo Morales and his Movement Toward Socialism (MAS) party.
After Morales was voted back into power for a fourth term in the October 2019 election, opposition parties immediately leveled charges of voter fraud – which were amplified by an election audit conducted by the influential Washington-based regional cooperation body Organization of American States (OAS).
The Trump administration’s top diplomat for Latin America, Michael Kozak, weighed in and promised to “hold accountable anyone who undermines Bolivia’s democratic institutions.” After three weeks of unrest, the opposition installed Jeanine Áñez as president, in a coup.
The CEPR study, whose findings were published in February 2020, conducted a statistical analysis of the data and did not find “quantitative evidence” of irregularities as “claimed by the OAS” – and as had been reported by several major US publications, including the New York Times.
Following more protests and unrest, the Áñez government was forced to hold a new election, held on October 18, 2020. The first mail from Angela George came on October 15, just three days before the polls. In the initial email, the DOJ lawyer said the study data had been “formally requested” by the Bolivian government for a “criminal investigation” it had opened.
When in subsequent emails, Williams responded that the research had drawn on public information, George wrote, “I am simply trying to find out if the report… includes your research and is an authentic copy of the report that was produced” before raising the prospect of “a subpoena being served on you and the [MIT Election] lab” should it be required.
Speaking to The Intercept on condition of anonymity, a source familiar with the investigation said the “Justice Department inquiry frightened election researchers in the academic community and may have had a chilling effect on subsequent research.”
According to a former DOJ trial attorney who has also worked at the Department’s Office of International Affairs (OIA), the email exchange was “unusual.” That person, who also requested anonymity, noted that it signaled this was not a regular criminal investigation.
“This particular request is not your run-of-the-mill criminal investigation, so you can be fairly sure that it received very high-level exposure,” they said.
“Generally, OIA would enlist the FBI or other investigative agency to execute an incoming MLA (Mutual Legal Assistance) request such as a voluntary witness interview or inquiry like this one. It’s unusual for an OIA attorney to handle it,” the former trial attorney told the outlet.
A DOJ spokesperson declined to comment about the email exchanges, according to The Intercept.
Although Morales was in exile during the 2020 election, MAS won in a landslide. He has since returned. Áñez, who had dropped out of contention a month before the new election, is facing terrorism, sedition, and conspiracy charges.
Telegraph’s Global Security Correspondents Claim No Trade Off Between Lockdowns and the Economy
By Will Jones • Lockdown Sceptics • May 12, 2021
The Telegraph‘s Global Health Security correspondents Paul Nuki and Sarah Newey claimed this morning that there is “no trade off” between the economy and public health when it comes to COVID-19 and lockdowns.
Writing in the newspaper, the correspondents (whose coverage is partly funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation) write that the “‘health v economy’ trade-off” is “false” because “countries where the virus was swiftly contained – such as Vietnam – have seen less economic damage, plus far fewer deaths”.
This claim, based on one country, fails to acknowledge that the entire South East Asian region, regardless of the measures taken, has had a much milder experience of COVID-19 than some other parts of the world, particularly Europe and the Americas. Furthermore, while it may be true that Vietnam’s early border closures produced better outcomes (there is some evidence of this), that bird has well and truly flown for most of the world so the example of Vietnam is now irrelevant as far as this pandemic is concerned.
Perhaps, though, they have a future pandemic in mind. In fact, the peer-reviewed evidence is that lockdowns have no impact on the epidemic death toll (although it’s worth noting that Vietnam, which Nuki and Newey hold up as an example we should follow in future, has never imposed a full, country-wide lockdown). It’s also not clear how countries which close their borders to an endemic virus can ever hope to open them again – a problem Vietnam is currently experiencing. Vietnam is also not exactly an international global hub.
The article is part the Global Health Security team’s promotion of an agenda to give the World Health Organisation more funding and more power to declare pandemics faster and be more proactive in ensuring compliance amongst states with public health edicts. They note approvingly that the pandemic has “thrust health to the centre stage, and may be an opportunity to promote a ‘green and healthy recovery’”. They appear to like the idea of a fast-acting global government imposing lockdowns so we can all be like Vietnam and “contain” the virus quickly, supposedly without suffering economic damage despite the vast disruption to the global economy this would bring.
Nuki and Newey highlight the problem of “viral misinformation” as one of 13 “mistakes” made early in the pandemic, though they blame the internet and social media rather than the WHO, despite its part in promoting myths about the virus such as that it doesn’t spread between humans and it doesn’t spread via aerosols.
But are Nuki and Newey engaging in disseminating misinformation of their own, making the bizarre claim that public health containment strategies have no trade-off with the economy based on a single unrepresentative country? When the U.K. economy shrank by a record 9.9% in 2020, this claim is frankly ridiculous and such claims are at odds with the Telegraph’s overall coverage of the way different countries have managed the pandemic, which has been quite balanced. Should the paper really be allowing a team of journalists whose work is partly funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to use its platform to promote an agenda of enhanced global control in the name of public health?
Why are we being lied to about Covid? There’s no good reason
By Dr Mike Yeadon | Conservative Woman | May 10, 2021
Be in no doubt, among the reasons that voices and opinions like mine are never heard in the main media is extreme censorship more suited to China than a liberal democracy. Please allow me to illustrate with an example close to my heart why it is high time for us to change our response.
Ivermectin is one of the WHO’s ‘essential drugs’ which all countries should have access to. It’s very cheap as its patent has long expired; it’s one of the most-used drugs in world history; it’s extraordinarily safe; it is often life-saving against parasitic infections. It is also one of the best-established pharmaceutical treatments for Covid-19, showing benefit in every stage of the disease, in multiple independent clinical trials of varying quality. On January 3, 2021, Dr Tess Lawrie attempted to alert the Prime Minister to the potential of ivermectin. Her video here was pulled from YouTube within hours of posting, though it survives on Vimeo. The paper by the FLCCC group of US intensivists (whose survival rates for severe Covid-19 are best in class) that was the inspiration for Dr Lawrie’s work was accepted after extensive open peer review (including two career employees of the FDA) and ‘provisionally accepted’ by the ‘open science’ journal Frontiers in Pharmacology. The screenshot of the abstract tweeted by Clare Craig shown here attracted more than 100,000 views. Then, mysteriously, it was rejected and pulled by the Frontiers editor in chief. It is still here in cached form though the Ministry of Truth has been at work and placed it in a memory hole, so no trace survives on Frontiers’ own website.
Intended for a Special Issue on ‘repurposed drugs’ for Covid-19, various guest editors were so incensed at this behaviour that they resigned in protest. You can read their letter here. They concluded that ‘these unfortunate events constitute gross editorial misconduct by Frontiers.’ Fortunately this major paper is now published by the American Journal of Therapeutics and can be read in its final form here.
This nevertheless successfully delayed by nearly six months its circulation to leading public health bodies starting mid-November. A copy was sent to Sir Jeremy Farrar (boss of the Wellcome Trust and member of Sage) who passed it on to Professor Peter Horby (also on Sage), amongst others, on November 18, 2020. So the efficacy of ivermectin must be well known to the Government’s advisers, but they have done nothing about it. Likewise, the formal and rigorous meta-analysis performed by Dr Tess Lawrie’s team at the Evidence-Based Medicine Consultancy Ltd has been communicated to Matt Hancock, but without reply.
I am telling you about this, because all that governments, their scientific advisers, big pharma (here’s Merck, who originally developed & marketed it) and regulatory agencies will tell you is that ivermectin doesn’t work in Covid-19. They are lying. I am inviting any of them to sue me, but they won’t, for I would win easily.
If ivermectin was more widely used, there’d be no need for vaccines.
To date, despite the brains, expertise and stature of those scientists questioning the official Covid-19 narrative, as a group they quite patently have been ineffective. And this is unlikely to change while, as polite professionals, they won’t say: ‘This is corruption and they’re lying deliberately to scare the people.’ Furthermore, unwittingly, they have been playing the parts intended by those, including our own Government and their advisers, who control the global Covid narrative.
They judged correctly that we polite Brits wouldn’t accuse them of outright lying, even though they often do exactly that. Boris Johnson’s recent piece to camera, telling us that it was lockdown and not vaccination which reduced cases and deaths, is a case in point.
Yet it’s certain this isn’t true, and also certain he and his advisers know it isn’t true.
The government’s advisers are not fools. Some may be, but the upper echelons are very smart. They believe polite people won’t say ‘not only are you lying but you’re doing it in concert with other, non-democratic actors’, because that’s conspiracy theory stuff, right? Powerful people never use their influence to benefit their interests, do they? Hmm. The only thing that’s different is scale and the power their public positions give them. Other than that, they’re just another a bunch of grubby criminals, ripping off unsuspecting people.
Truth is our most powerful tool. And that truth is that we’re being lied to.
The truth also, however hard it is to believe it, is that there is unequivocal and clear evidence of planning and co-ordination. Not to face this fact is to have your head in the sand. Where it’s leading is easy to discern, once people are willing to lift their internal censoring and look objectively at the evidence.
First, though, the lies. It’s abundantly clear now that pretty much everything that the public has been told and continues to be told is between untrue and downright lies.
I offer as a shortlist that:
-PCR mass testing reasonably reliably distinguishes infected and infectious people from others;
-that masks reduce transmission of respiratory viruses;
-that transmission of infection in the absence of symptoms is an important contribution to epidemic spreading;
-that lockdowns as executed reduce hospitalisation and deaths;
-that no matter how small the remaining susceptible population and no matter that virtually no people who, if infected, might die remain unvaccinated, the position is perilous;
-that no pharmaceutical treatments are available;
-that variants are different enough to warrant border closures and require new vaccines;
-that the gene-based vaccines are safe and effective;
-that ‘vaccine passports’ will increase safety while having no material impacts on freedom of choice in a liberal democracy.
It is impossible to believe that intelligent, well-connected and well-briefed senior advisers to governments don’t know that almost all, if not all, of the above are simply not true.
It is not a matter of opinion in almost all cases. These statements, which have been explicitly stated and used in justification for the extraordinary interferences in the lives of citizens in democratic countries, are mostly demonstrably wrong, as defined by there being multiple well-conducted, peer-reviewed studies showing the contrary.
To continue with the pretence that there’s scientific uncertainty, and it’s therefore understandable that an adviser might offer nuanced advice, is wrong and misleading. This perhaps is where the mainstream media has been most culpable.
It is not reasonable to expect typical viewers and readers of speeches, articles and editorials – whether by scientist sceptics or by critical commentators – to appreciate that, when we point out that what’s happening doesn’t make sense, we mean ‘the executive is knowingly and deliberately harming the country and its citizens’. We are mostly not saying this, leaving it to the audience to sum up for themselves. But in my view the audience are reluctant to do this. They want to believe in government and perhaps above all they want a quiet life. To disbelieve is so much harder than to believe.
So in recent weeks I’ve made a clear decision no longer merely to point out what it is that governments and their advisers and spokespersons around the world are doing is wrong, scientifically unjustified and harmful, but to join the dots in an attempt to provide potential explanations of why they’re doing these things.
It is time for all Doubting Thomases to take a lead and state unambiguously that ‘government and its advisers are telling us things that are manifestly untrue and maintaining restrictive, damaging measures for which there’s no justification’. By not doing so they are playing into the hands of those who I firmly believe are engaged in a determined series of crimes against humanity.
Why do I say this? Simply because there is no benign interpretation of the acts of commission and omission consistently imposed upon us and no explanation of the statements which are flatly wrong other than an intention to deceive the population.
Looking around us now, we see that the prevalence of the virus in the community is effectively zero. Note that the authorities have never conceded and determined the operational false positive rate of PCR mass testing. Subtracting any reasonable estimate of oFPR and we observe no cases at all. This was true for months as indicated by the positive rate in lateral flow tests.
No variant of the virus differs by more than 0.3 per cent from the original sequence, and numerous academic immunologists have stated strongly that there is no possibility that booster/top-up/variant vaccines are required. Yet we get daily ‘fear porn’ on this topic. The European Parliament just voted through the basic outlines of a vaccine passport system. It’s a racing certainty that the UK will soon follow.
Mask regulations continue in force and many psychologists believe some people are so traumatised that they will continue to wear them indefinitely, even though they are useless.
The economy and currency may already be damaged beyond repair. Yet there’s another six weeks minimum until the last restrictions are scheduled to be lifted.
Almost no one is dying ‘with’ Covid-19 now, and the attribution methodology overestimates this anyway. Yet hospitals and primary health care remain far less accessible than they should be, inevitably resulting in causing or storing up avoidable non-Covid-19 deaths, to say nothing of the suffering and misery of the millions awaiting treatments for painful and worrying illnesses.
Most terrifyingly, it appears we will soon be required to possess VaxPass apps if we wish to continue to access our lives.
This system can run effectively only if everyone is vaccinated. This is a monstrous concept, because it is known that all four vaccines in use in Europe contain a fatal design flaw: they cause the fusogenic, pro coagulation spike protein to be expressed wherever the vaccine is taken up. In some people, especially those so young that they’re at no measurable risk of death if infected by the virus, vaccination results in their deaths from thromboembolic events. Permitting the inexpert population to walk into this trap is unconscionable: there will be thousands of further vaccine-induced deaths of young people.
I invite thoughtful people to ask that difficult question: ‘Why are they doing this?’
It is my deduction and conclusion that the only motivation that fits all the observations is the intention to ‘herd’ every citizen into a VaxPass system. This is a completely novel system. Never before have all individuals been represented in a single, interoperable database as a unique digital ID, accompanied by an editable health-related field. Whoever controls that database, and the algorithms which govern what it permits and denies, has literally totalitarian control of the entire population. There is no personal threshold crossing or transaction which doesn’t fall to those operating that system.
At the very least, the public deserves to be warned that this is coming. I do not expect conventional judicial processes to protect us in any way. Every institution has already failed the people of the UK.
Given that numerous government decisions (as instructed by Sage) have arguably already led to many avoidable deaths, I think it’s only reasonable to consider what the prize is that leads intelligent people to do the things they’ve done and continue to peddle.
The possible answers to this question are all bad. I cannot conceive of a situation where we will shortly be permitted to resume our normal lives. There is not the slightest hint of that in any case.
I have found it impossible to come up with a benign interpretation of the events. No one works as carefully and for so long as evidently has been done, across the world, only suddenly to stop. Why? I’ve asked hundreds of people and not a single one has (a) pointed out where my logic fails or (b) come up with a benign interpretation.
My own conviction is that the purpose is, at minimum, to establish a system of totalitarian control which will mean the extinguishing of liberal democracy.
It almost doesn’t matter what the next steps might be, but they could, for example, have been sold to numerous people as the only solution to ‘anthropogenic global warming’: the amount of resources we’ll be permitted to produce and consume will be set by some unseen controllers. It is possible they could go a step further than this, and see reducing population or depopulation as another route to solving the perceived problem of AGW.
Consider the elimination of the class of the inquiring journalist, the censorship of all mass media. The relentless smearing and exclusion of those who ask too many awkward questions. The astonishing waste of public money, which apparently the foreign exchange markets are unperturbed about. The destruction of SMEs which provide a third of all jobs and a substantial proportion of tax revenues. The relentless lying. The misinformation. The use of psychological operations to frighten and subdue. The utter disregard for those vaccinated with ‘vaccines’ that are way too unsafe for their role. The bending past illegality of the use of incorrect information to persuade pregnant women to get vaccinated. The numerous breaches of the Nuremberg Code, since no one is being explicitly told that these vaccines are experimental and so recipients are being unwittingly enrolled in an unprecedentedly large and unmonitored Phase 3 clinical trial. The announcement that, soon, our minor children are to be vaccinated.
Add in the ‘top-up vaccines’. They’re not vaccines. Whoever has been vaccinated has no need of further vaccination. Immunology is perhaps my strongest suit, so I am certain of this. Is it impossible that in those one billion vials which pharma has already told us its manufacturing, there is some gene sequence which will instigate one of a few dozen pathologies, with onset times ranging from near-immediate to a short number of years? I assure you, biotechnology has awesome power, and it can be used for good or ill.
I think I’ve made a decent case that what governments and their advisers have done easily amounts to conspiracy. The same ‘mistakes’ have been made everywhere. The same tricks and manipulation. Those who claim this is all coincidence are coincidence theorists.
I argue that unless this is pointed out to the public before any possible ‘vaccine passports’ system is established, we’ve all collectively failed to discharge our duties to be courageous, to take chances, to risk looking foolish: I am absolutely committed to continuing to speak out for as long as I have breath in my body.
Venezuela: Accusations of Meddling in Colombia Protests ‘Shameful’
Colombian state violence and human rights abuses have stoked the protests in which nearly 50 have died
By Paul Dobson | Venezuelanalysis | May 10, 2021
Mérida – Venezuelan authorities have dismissed accusations that they are intervening in on-going mass protests in neighboring Colombia.
Speaking on Friday from a Miami-based forum on Defense of Democracy in Latin America, Ecuador’s President Lenín Moreno claimed that “Our [Ecuador’s] and Colombia’s intelligence agencies have detected a gross intervention from the dictatorial and authoritarian regime of Nicolás Maduro [in the Colombian protests] (…) We call on Maduro to remove his bloody and corrupt hands from the democracy and stability of the Colombian people.”
The outgoing right-winger went on to describe the Venezuelan president as “the great instigator and financier of the violence in Colombia,” claiming that he had authorized public payments to pay for the “intervention.”
The evidence-free accusations were quickly echoed on social media by rightwing former Colombian Presidents Andrés Pastrana and Álvaro Uribe, with the latter writing that “They [the Maduro administration] are destroying Colombia, which has a future, in order to construct another Venezuela or Cuba, which do not.”
Following Moreno’s comments, Colombian Defense Minister Diego Molano claimed a “strong” Venezuelan participation in the protests, referencing the arrest and deportation of six Venezuelan citizens allegedly participating in the protests over 10 days ago. There are an estimated 1.7 million Venezuelans living in Colombia, many of which have denounced frequent xenophobic attacks against them.
While Colombian President Iván Duque is yet to comment on the alleged “intervention,” his government decided to take action against Argentina and Cuba over the weekend, accusing them of meddling and expelling a Cuban diplomat from the country.
Both Duque and Moreno recognize US-backed self-declared “Interim President” Juan Guaidó as Venezuela’s legitimate leader. They also belong to the Lima Group, a regional ad hoc organization of right governments which have previously made similar accusations of Venezuelan incitement, financing or involvement in mass protests across the region, including in Colombia (2019 and 2020), Ecuador (2020), Bolivia (2019), Chile (2019 and 2020) and the United States (2020), all of which were rebutted by Caracas.
In response to the latest claims, Venezuelan Foreign Minister Jorge Arreaza described the accusations as “shameful,” going on to say that the accusers were “underestimating their people.” He also quoted Spanish poet Antonio Machado, writing via Twitter that “Lies are the most destructive weapon used by fascism.”
For his part, Chavista number two Deputy Diosdado Cabello likewise downplayed the accusations, questioning Colombian intelligence capabilities. “They couldn’t even investigate Operation Gedeon – the failed maritime incursion which happened a year ago and was planned in Colombia – but they can conclude that we [supposedly] have people there. Get out of here!” he said.
Culture Minister Ernesto Villegas chimed in as well, pointing out the hypocrisy of the accusations in comparison to Duque’s 2019 call for Venezuelan soldiers to rebel against the Maduro government.
Colombia has been rocked by a wave of popular protests and strikes since April 28, with government sources claiming 27 people have died. Independent organizations have placed the figure as high as 47, with around 800 injured and more than 400 missing.
The protests were initially organized to oppose a fiscal reform which increased the poor’s tax burden. In efforts to quell the protests, Duque withdrew the reform last Sunday and Finance Minister Alberto Barrera resigned.
However, widespread police brutality, as well as accumulated grievances based around the state’s noncompliance with the 2016 Peace Agreement and other human rights violations have stoked the mass demonstrations. Despite ongoing dialogue, the protests have continued, with Duque authorizing state agencies to use “all necessary force” against them on Monday.
Reports of widespread state violence and human rights abuses have been denounced by a range of Venezuelan leftwing movements, including at a piquet outside the Colombian Consulate in Caracas on Friday.
The rally, which featured the Popular Revolutionary Alternative (APR) bloc and a number of other leftist forces, came in addition to a number of activities in solidarity with the Colombian people held across the country. Solidarity events also took place in a number of other Latin American cities, including Buenos Aires, Santiago and La Paz.
Venezuela and Colombia have had a tense relationship over past years, with diplomatic relations broken and borders closed in 2019. Recent border skirmishes have resulted in a number of deaths, with the Venezuelan government pointing to Colombian “irregular armed groups.” Additionally, Caracas has accused it neighbor’s government of backing regime change attempts, including the 2018 drone attack against Maduro, the 2019 attempted ‘humanitarian’ border incursion, the 2020 Operation Gedeon, and a 2021 foiled terrorist plot, amongst others.
Craig Murray Jailed for Eight Months for Contempt of Court Over Alex Salmond Trial
Sputnik – 11.05.2021
The High Court in Edinburgh has jailed former British diplomat-turned-whistleblower Craig Murray for eight months for contempt of court.
The charge related to Murray’s alleged “jigsaw” identification of the identities of protected witnesses in the trial of former Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond.
But Murray will remain free for three weeks while his lawyers submit an appeal against his conviction.
Sentencing Murray on Tuesday, 10 May, Lady Leeona Dorrian said his actions “strike at the heart of the fair administration of justice” and created a risk of people alleging sexual offences might not want to come forward in future.
Murray believed the prosecution of Salmond was politically motivated and he blogged extensively throughout the trial.
Salmond faced a raft of sex allegations but was acquitted by a jury of all of the charges against him.
The former SNP leader later accused his successor, Nicola Sturgeon, of influencing the prosecution against him and earlier this year he set up his own party, Alba, which ran in the Scottish Parliament elections last week but only won two percent of the vote. Salmond failed to get elected as an MSP.
Murray was charged with three offences:
· Publication of material that creates a “substantial risk” of prejudicing the jury in violation of the Contempt of Court Act 1981;
· Reporting on the exclusion of two jurors in violation of a court order “preventing publication of the details of the issues raised by the Advocate Depute on 23 March 2020” as they related to the jurors’ removal; and
· “Jigsaw identification” of alleged victims who testified against Salmond.
The allegation of jigsaw identification argued that Murray’s articles, individually or in conjunction with other articles and material that can be obtained via Google and social media, could indirectly result in a member of the public determining the identity of alleged victims in the Salmond case.
The Government argued in favour of a wide interpretation of jigsaw identification, meaning that a journalist might violate the law if a person with intimate knowledge of the case could piece together the identity of a protected witnesses. Murray’s lawyers argued that such an interpretation would be unfair and would violate the Article 10 rights of journalists and the public.
See also: The World Darkens a Little More: I May Have to Spend Some Time as a Political Prisoner
DECLARATION OF CANADIAN PHYSICIANS FOR SCIENCE AND TRUTH
The Declaration
We are a broad and diverse group of Canadian physicians from across Canada who are sending out this urgent declaration to the Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons of our various Provinces and Territories and to the Public at large, whom we serve.
On April 30, 2021, Ontario’s physician licensing body, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO), issued a statement forbidding physicians from questioning or debating any or all of the official measures imposed in response to COVID-19. 1
The CPSO then went on to threaten physicians with punishment – investigations and disciplinary action.
We regard this recent statement of the CPSO to be unethical, anti-science and deeply disturbing.
As physicians, our primary duty of care is not to the CPSO or any other authority, but to our patients.
When we became physicians, we pledged to put our patients first and that our ethical and professional duty is always first toward our patients. The CPSO statement orders us to violate our duty and pledge to our patients in the following ways:
1. Denial of the Scientific Method itself: The CPSO is ordering physicians to put aside the scientific method and to not debate the processes and conclusions of science.
We physicians know and continue to believe that throughout history, opposing views, vigorous debate and openness to new ideas have been the bedrock of scientific progress. Any major advance in science has been arrived at by practitioners vigorously questioning “official” narratives and following a different path in the pursuit of truth.
2. Violation of our Pledge to use Evidence-Based Medicine for our patients: By ordering us not to debate and not to question, the CPSO is also asking us to violate our pledge to our patients that we will always seek the best, evidence-based scientific methods for them and advocate vigorously on their behalf.
The CPSO statement orders physicians for example, not to discuss or communicate with the public about “lockdown” measures. Lockdown measures are the subject of lively debate by world-renown and widely respected experts and there are widely divergent views on this subject. The explicitly anti-lockdown Great Barrington Declaration – https://gbdeclaration.org – was written by experts from Harvard, Stanford and Oxford Universities and more than 40,000 physicians from all over the world have signed this declaration. Several international experts including Martin Kuldorf (Harvard), David Katz (Yale), Jay Bhattacharya (Stanford) and Sunetra Gupta (Oxford) continue to strongly oppose lockdowns.
The CPSO is ordering physicians to express only pro-lockdown views, or else face investigation and discipline. This tyrannical, anti-science CPSO directive is regarded by thousands of Canadian physicians and scientists as unsupported by science and as violating the first duty of care to our patients.
3. Violation of Duty of Informed Consent: The CPSO is also ordering physicians to violate the sacred duty of informed consent – which is the process by which the patient/public is fully informed of the risks, benefits and any alternatives to the treatment or intervention, before consent is given.
The Nuremberg Code, drafted in the aftermath of the atrocities perpetrated within the Nazi concentration camps – where horrific medical experiments were performed on inmates without consent – expressly forbids the imposition of any kind of intervention without informed consent.
In the case of the lockdown intervention for example, physicians have a fiduciary duty to point out to the public that lockdowns impose their own costs on society, including in greatly increased depression and suicide rates, delayed investigation and treatment of cancer (including delayed surgery, chemotherapy and radiation therapy), ballooning surgical waiting lists (with attendant greatly increased patient suffering) and increased rates of child and domestic abuse.
We physicians believe that with the CPSO statement of 30 April 2021, a watershed moment in the assault on free speech and scientific inquiry has been reached.
By ordering physicians to be silent and follow only one narrative, or else face discipline and censure, the CPSO is asking us to violate our conscience, our professional ethics, the Nuremberg code and the scientific pursuit of truth.
We will never comply and will always put our patients first.
The CPSO must immediately withdraw and rescind its statement of 30 April 2021.
We also give notice to other Canadian and international licensing authorities for physicians and allied professions that the stifling of scientific inquiry and any order to violate our conscience and professional pledge to our patients, itself may constitute a crime against humanity.
1 College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario Statement on Public Health Misinformation (4/30/21). https://twitter.com/cpso_ca/status/1388211577770348544
The College is aware and concerned about the increase of misinformation circulating on social media and other platforms regarding physicians who are publicly contradicting public health orders and recommendations. Physicians hold a unique position of trust with the public and have a professional responsibility to not communicate anti-vaccine, anti-masking, anti-distancing and anti-lockdown statements and/or promoting unsupported, unproven treatments for COVID-19. Physicians must not make comments or provide advice that encourages the public to act contrary to public health orders and recommendations. Physicians who put the public at risk may face an investigation by the CPSO and disciplinary action, when warranted. When offering opinions, physicians must be guided by the law, regulatory standards, and the code of ethics and professional conduct. The information shared must not be misleading or deceptive and must be supported by available evidence and science.
Signatures
- Anne Shannon
- Andrea Roy
- Adam Salt
- Alexandre Guay
- Andrea Zaretsky
- Andrew Mahon
- annkwist@rogers.com Kwist
- Antonio Coffa
- Deno Gettas
- Beata G
- Bernard de Souza
- Beth Lindhorst
- Karen Mackey
- Bruce McKay
- Ron Bublitz
- Carla Dancey
- Deb Mair
- ROBERT PAQUETTE
- Christine Pohanka
- Cindy Create
- Claire Gosselin
- Corinne Mackenzie
- Barbara & David Schmidt
- Judith Robinson
- Donna Cuomo
- Deborah Kay
- Julia McLaren
- Dwayne Vann
- Emma Sattar
- Dave Thompson
- Elizabeth Romanowska-Konsik
- Darlene Elias
- Elizabeth Balcar
- Erin Beckman
- Richard Caviedes
- Chris Filby
- Pat Brown
- Rachel Vlietstra
- Greg Schmalz
- Gerard Lamontagne
- Freya Godard
- Ken Roberson
- Blaine Goodine
- Grazyna Sanchez
- Mary Hale
- Anja Reich
- Silvia engels
- Helke Ferrie
- Vicki Samson
- Laura Peterson
- Michelle Greenwell
- Jackie Beninato
- Jake Hoheisel
- Jan Fiss
- Jeff Graham
- Jennifer LONERGAN
- Judy Symington
- Janine Jalbert
- Jordyn Kaye
- Jeremy McKee
- Julie Montpetit
- Kathleen Perry
- Kathy Braun
- Katia Rodrigues
- Keith Baxter
- Cheryl Leite
- Larissa Flanagan
- Laurie Fetherstonhaugh
- Lauren Annez
- Sharon Leonard
- Lorraine Struyk
- larry hachey
- Linda Winger
- Luciano Perna
- Madeleine Menard
- Marissa Secord
- Marlena Murray
- Marnee Stern
- Lori McKay
- Michael Germain
- Michele Mihalik
- Michelle Losier
- Marlee Moore
- Nancy Chown
- Nikki Pulla
- Norma Ford
- Nicoline Lentze
- Nigel Bell
- Melodie VanderWal
- Colleen Roberts
- Pamela Velos
- Rick Hayter
- Rochagné Kilian
- Dale & Roeli Lutz
- ronald beaulieu
- Sarah MacInnis
- Sarah Pollard
- Sara Pahlevan
- Sabina SARGEANT
- Stephanie Cheung
- Sebastian Rozdzynski
- Sherry Lee
- Jacinthe Phillips
- Sophie Hawkins
- Steve Foget
- Sue Timmermans
- sydney felker
- Taron Puri
- Christine Simpson
- Tibor Finesz
- Lara Doucette
- Thomas J Tassé
- Thomas Russell
- Erica Tratch
- Summer Hanes
- Uwe Grunert
- Valerie Debicki
- Vladikir Gagachev
- Verna Hutchinson
- Roger Baird
